No, not the slippery slope argument.
on
New Crypto-OS
·
· Score: 4
I wouldn't go with the slippery slope argument. It is too easy to turn around:
"We take away the governments means to see the criminals encrypted data, then we can take away their (lawful) means of breaking the lock to the drawer where they keep their kiddie porn, then we take away their right to interfere when they suspect a child is being molested, all for the sake of 'priiiiivacy'"
And don't go with that old "those who forsake a little privacy..." quote.
Privacy matters less to people than safety. Period.
You'll have to convince them that the sacrifice of privacy that goes with RIP et al actually makes them *less* safe. Get the picture into their head of a criminal (perhaps a child molestor) with access to the governments data files. Get them to think about a dishonest cop who knows *their* darkest secrets and is coming for *them* and their *children*.
Fight fear with fear.
But you're already assumed to be guilty. That's my objection. The cop doesn't have to prove that you broke the law, you have to prove that
you didn't.
Don't think so (unless you live in a fscked up jurisdiction) It is just that the cop probably has a laser gun that is approved by the law, designed to be evidence enough (together with the testimony of the cop) to get a conviction, should it go to court.
OK I exagerated about the bread and water stuff. And I don't think that the nice teory of flexible fines scales too well to reality. But admit that the theory is sound (granted that fines should serve as an effective deterrent)
Now speeding is one of the few crimes that actually are committed in a risk-calculated manner. "No cop in sight, step on it", "High-fine county. Take it slow"
Penalties as deterrents might actually work.
Re:Good thing Bill G has an ego or IE would rule
on
Netscape 6 Vs. 4.7x
·
· Score: 2
Nah, why bother.
If NS loses just a few more percent of the browser share (to IE or Mozilla or whatever) No Webdesigner will bother to make a special version for Netscape users. They will make pages, test them with IE and leave it at that.
NS/Mozilla/Opera/whatever-users will have three choises, accept being shut out from more and more sites, Get IE as a backup and start it up everytime a site doesn't display or surrender to the power of MSFT.
Soon only hard core geeks will use anything but IE. But as more and more services move exclusively to the web (and use IE only technology) even geeks will need IE.
Oops IE doesn't work with "alternative" systems. Too bad. Pehaps you'll better get a copy of Windows after all?
For starters I believe that in most places, you are free to take the matter of your speeding ticket to court if you want to. It will probably end by you paying the fine plus legal fees plus your wasted time, but if you truly have a case, feel free to try.
You are absolutely right about how expedients cannot be used for heavy penalties, but that's the point
A 25$ ticket would mean nothing to Bill Gates (He'd lose far more money by having the cop keeping him busy for five minutes), but would mean living on bread and water for a month for someone else.
So wether or not a 25$ fine is too heavy for an expidient depends on who's getting it.
There are real problems though.
Consider how fines might go into the county budget, that pays the cops. They would probably focus more on "Let's bust those in expensive cars" than "Let's bust those who endanger road safety"
Sure, but mails traceable after a specific court order is way better than run-time tracable mail.
"They" have always been able to listen in on us once they have their eyes on us. Unencrypted mail suddenly gave "them" the power to listen in on *everything* a priori suspicious or not.
Well altavista thought that the subdomain would be enough and learned the hard way that it wasn't.
In principal, I couldn't agree more.
playstation.sony.com is logical, it saves an url-typer the job of typing a redundant "www" (autocompletion will fix the url after a few letters) and it also gives the name "sony" some spotlight.
In practice, www.playstation.com draws more visitors than playstation.sony.com. Browsers expect that a user typing "playstation" might be looking for www.playstation.com/net/org and will try these if there is no local server called "playstation"
And as long as the "excesss" domain playstation.com gets more visitors than the alternative, don't expect sony to stop squatting.
What I liked about it was that the developers hadn't crippled the strain's ability to reproduce.
Genetically-engineered wheat is generally crippled, forcing farmers to buy new seed from the company year after
year.
But *if* this modified strain of rice should have some nasty side effect, it would be a really bad thing if it reproduced.
Dunno. My feelings towards GMO crop is like my feelings towards an unknown binary.
It might do wonderful things, but I don't want to test it on a system that I need for a living, computer or biotope.
The bible teaches people to "Love thy Neighbour" That means, among other things, you must teach them about your beliefs, lest they die. God-fearing people look down on others because they want them to get saved like they have. No doubts, just worry for the soul of the OTHER person.
Nice point. But the bible sais a lot of things. Like Do onto others what you want them to do onto you.
Would you want that neighbour to declare you a hethen or heretic, since you do not share his beliefs?
Now some would read that as "OK If I was my neighbour (that sinful creature of Satan) *I* would want to be saved, Yeah that's it! Bring out the bibles!"
I would read it as "OK I don't want my neighbour to try to convert me, so I won't preach to him, unless he wants me to"
Your interpretation means that you cannot really love someone of a different faith (like, lets see,... a samaritan?)
Oh well. It's nothing to worry abaout. Just my soul...
Oh come on!
You can h4x0r a site with a Linux machine, but most people wouldn't. Or if they used Linux it would be more intresting what application they ran *under* Linux. If you want an analogy, try L0phtcrack or something similar, OK?
Besides, that is not what I was talking about.
Fact is that an mp3 file on a non-official site probably *is* illegal. (ripping your CD: OK publishing the files: Nono) The ISP will recieve some heat every time some copyright holder checks, and *will* get really tired of checking the accounts.
This is not equal to someone getting prosecuted for using/distributing Linux/L0pht/mp3z this is a sysadmin that has had it with the hassle of distinguishing legal and illegal mp3's and consequently bans them all. (or in your case, someone who suffered some script kiddie attacks from Linux users and as a result shuts anyone !Windows out, if that was possible)
That is not what the poster said.
He said that "We shouldn't have to put up with people deleting things from
our web sites, but then, bands shouldn't have to put up with people copying their art around the internet to avoid paying for somethig they want."
Your mp3's may be legal. If they are your own work, there is no problem. If they are ripped from your own CD's they are indeed legal (unless you believe the RIAA) but putting them on a web site is not.
However there *are* tons of illegally distributed mp3z out there. No ISP wants to become the home of the warez d00dz. If they want to play by the rules, they will do something. A script that deletes anything that ends in.mp3 might not be an elegant solution, but it is simple and cheap.
This guy picked the wrong ISP. Bad for him, bad for them.
More and more ISP's will rather run a clumsy rm mp3 script or charge extra for manual control than trust you. Bad for them, bad for us.
Oh nice bait, lemme have a bite... Not because of you (+1 Troll) but because of those who really think like that.
What a perfect example of the kind of secular thinking that has led Western culture down the road to decadence and immorality.
A road traveled by so many great civilizations before. The road signs are not "Godlessness" but "Success, beware"
Rather than embracing over two thousand years of our cultural heritage,...
If two thousand year old theories are better than current ideas, then I guess pre-christian religions must be even better?
...you're perfectly willing to accept revisionist lies that claim that Christianity is some kind of "myth" rather than being the undoubted Truth of a kind that doesn't exist nowadays.
Funny, replying to someone calling christianity a myth by calling it the *undoubted* truth. Apparently at least someone has doubts... Actually a few billion people have.
The Truth is that the Bible teaches us of our place in the Universe and how to live our life in a decent, moral manner, so that all mankind will better itself and rise up to Heaven when they die. But oh no, you'd rather accept concepts like "moral relativism", an excuse for atheists to do what they want without fear of consequence
The bible has some nice ideas about how to live in a moral manner. Ideas that followers of most religions as well as atheists would agree upon. But why the emphasis? If the bible is correct, why should the God fearing worry? They are on the right side. The only reason to look down on the less God-fearing would be if you had your doubts about wether your moral behavoiur will pay off and you don't want others to have the benefits of a less godly life.
Unfortunately, science has said nothing, and indeed can say nothing, about the ultimate Truth of creation.
Fortuately, neither can the bible.
The only truth is: We don't know.
You make me sick.
You make me laugh. Gee, that *makes* you a better person!
When I described the IBM PC as non open I was thinking about the BIOS. I know they did go after Compaq, who had an excellent defence, but my guess is that they would have kept trying if they hadn't been struck by a cluestick called "increased profit".
We all know Microsoft struck pure gold with DOS.
All their successful software follows a distinct pattern. First sell it at a loss or bundle it with another product so you get a lot of users. Then sell it at a price no commercial software shop can match without the MS user base. Monopolic? You bet! The catch is that every *single* user gains from using MS software, while users as a *collective* would benefit from choise.
As for Netscape, I must admit that I worked for a compny that provded me with payed-for Netscape at that time. I do recall that the free version lacked some features, but alas I never compared them.
Fire in the Valley is definitely on my reading list.
It really doesn't matter to a sheep if Microsoft has greener grass because they grow it well or because they torch their neighbors fields.
What *does* matter to the sheep is that the other sheep are in the MS field. Sheep like company. Wolves like lonely sheep.
At one time computer hardware was very expensive and computer software was free.
On which planet? Hardware was expensive. Software was something that you wrote yourself (expensive if you place any value on your own time) or bought taylor made (even more expensive)
Yes, there was *some* freeware. Not much. Not very good (by todays standards)
Along came the IBM PC. *Not* an open standard. A proprietary standard, where the owner didn't go after the clones. We got software that was cheaper than the taylor made variety. Yes, MS made a huge amount of dollars on it. They still sold software that was *cheaper* than the alternative.
In fact they sold it so cheap that there was no use competing with them unless you had a kickass product that could be sold to a few companies for a shitload of cash, or *gave* your stuff away.
That was what drove all competitors out of the business. *Cheap* MS products. You may call them overpriced (and in some sense be correct) but they still sold for a price noone could match and make a profit.
Along comes the web. MS screws up and almost misses the train. Netscape gets cocky and thinks that they can start selling their browser instead of giving it away. At the same time MS starts shipping IE with every Windows copy. IE starts out as an inferior (but free and preinstalled) alternative, but soon enough it is as good as NS. Netscape gives up and starts to give the browser away again. People *still* keep migrating to IE. People download IE, not NS.
People may be sheep, but they graze in the MS fields because the grass is greener there.
And MS don't want to slaugter them. They are content with their wool. Better profit in wool you see. Keeps the sheep happy.
This is bad news for the sheep farming neighbors, but what can they do?
If you want to fight the MS monopoly, grow greener grass.
Last time I checked some statistics, the various variants of Windows ran 95% of the browsers, Mac 4% and "Others" one single percent. Thats Linux, Solaris, BSD etc combined!
This means that unless you are specifically targeting the slashdot crowd, you have no reason to care wether your pages work outside the Windows/Mac world.
Most clueful webfolks stay away from the plugins anyway, since they add more maintenance cost to your site then they are worth. Nobody cares wether that single percent can view the site or not. If they can, its a bonus, if not: their problem.
Oh the real litmus test is not wether you can see a naked woman. It is wether you can see a naked man.
Isn't it fascinating how a mainstream (even if not rated for kids) movie may show breasts or frontal pictures of naked women (Think "The devils advocate" or "Eyes wide shut") while only a hardcore porn movie will display a dick?
Well what do I know, I'm just a silly swede. Here the comedy "Tillsammans" that featured (non-erect) penises as well as their feminine counterparts, got a "eleven years old, or seven with adult company"-rating. Wonder what that rating would be in the US?
I can actually see one good reason.
The first.exe checks your local settings, OS version and directories, determines what plugins you have and so on. Then it goes after what ever must be updated, saving you from downloading more bloat than "neccesary"
In a perfect world, there would also be a "download the whole setup" option for those of us who know our settings. (This is targeted at AOLers after all) There would also be no suspicion of what the 500K install reports back...
In a perfect world, on the other hand, a lot of things would be better.
When it comes to deciding wether or not a person is guilty, sending him to a lifetime in prison (possible a lifetime drastically shortened by a lethal injection) you have to be picky.
If you make a mistake, you executed an innocent guy, while the real murderer is still around. Not a good thing to do.
The law says "Be a nitpick" ("beyond any reasonable doubt" and "innocent until proven guilty" in lawyerese) Why? Because no (democratic) society can afford to have the integrity of their legal process questioned.
If a state criminal system is to work, it must fulfil two criterias:
1) People must believe that the system finds the perp, or at least, that the official system does the job better than they can do themselves. Failure to comply with this criteria leads to vigilantism.
2) People must believe that innocent people have nothing to fear from the police. It is bad enough for the police to work against real criminals. the last thing they need is more of the "better not get involved", "the cops are the enemy" mentality.
In court, there is (should be) no such thing as "how the world works". There are only (should only be) a number of hypothetical ways it might. If the hypothesis "This guy did it" is so likely that it is beyond reasonable doubt the truth: Convict. If not: Acquit.
The principle is that it is (much) worse to convict an innocent man than to acquit a guilty. If you have a problem with that principle, start a lynchmob.
"he might have had a heart attack as the knife plunged" is just silly. *reasonable* doubt not hypothetical doubt.
Eye witness testimony is not 100% secure. Several witnesses is getting close enough. Witnesses backed up with facts is the best.
If you believe everything you see, never watch a magician.
That thing is two hundred years old. Don't you think its time to join the 21:th century?
Perhaps you should reinstate some slave labour too? And why not return to the witch burning days?
OK I'm calmed down now. It is just that I'm so tired of the notion that "It is in the CONSTITUTION so in can never be wrong" It sounds a bit too much like "It is in the BIBLE so it can never be wrong"
Suppose you see me standing over a dead body with a knife in my hand. Would there be any doubt in your mind at the time that I was the killer?
Course not. That is the obvious conclusion.
But I might just have arrived, seen the body and (foolishly) picked up the knife. *I* would probably have believed that you was the killer. Probably I'd get scared and make a run for it further strenghtening your belief that I did it.
Any doubt at the time? No! Reasonable doubt to an impartial observer? Hell Yes!
In your exam case, you had the opportunity to double check at the time making sure you made no mistake.
"...and over time it became clear that she was allowing him to see her paper since no matter
how much they shifted in their seats, this fact of their behavior remained a fact."
That is what made you a good eye witness in this case. A murder witness would not have the chance (or guts) to double check his or her first impression. Was there any blood on my hands or clothes? Yes there must have been, your honor, he had just killed someone with a knife hadn't he?
Under the law, *any* civilized law, you dont kill someone cause you *think* they murdered someone (actually I'm against the death penalty even then, but that is beside the point) If you merely *think* someone is guilty, there are tons or reasonable doubt. And just pray you wont be the guy who happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time someday.
Slashdot Mirror
"We take away the governments means to see the criminals encrypted data, then we can take away their (lawful) means of breaking the lock to the drawer where they keep their kiddie porn, then we take away their right to interfere when they suspect a child is being molested, all for the sake of 'priiiiivacy'"
And don't go with that old "those who forsake a little privacy..." quote.
Privacy matters less to people than safety. Period.
You'll have to convince them that the sacrifice of privacy that goes with RIP et al actually makes them *less* safe. Get the picture into their head of a criminal (perhaps a child molestor) with access to the governments data files. Get them to think about a dishonest cop who knows *their* darkest secrets and is coming for *them* and their *children*.
Fight fear with fear.
Hey, why not skip regular typing and only do copy-paste instead? At least for the sensitive pieces...
Don't think so (unless you live in a fscked up jurisdiction) It is just that the cop probably has a laser gun that is approved by the law, designed to be evidence enough (together with the testimony of the cop) to get a conviction, should it go to court.
OK I exagerated about the bread and water stuff. And I don't think that the nice teory of flexible fines scales too well to reality. But admit that the theory is sound (granted that fines should serve as an effective deterrent)
Now speeding is one of the few crimes that actually are committed in a risk-calculated manner. "No cop in sight, step on it", "High-fine county. Take it slow"
Penalties as deterrents might actually work.
If NS loses just a few more percent of the browser share (to IE or Mozilla or whatever) No Webdesigner will bother to make a special version for Netscape users. They will make pages, test them with IE and leave it at that.
NS/Mozilla/Opera/whatever-users will have three choises, accept being shut out from more and more sites, Get IE as a backup and start it up everytime a site doesn't display or surrender to the power of MSFT.
Soon only hard core geeks will use anything but IE. But as more and more services move exclusively to the web (and use IE only technology) even geeks will need IE.
Oops IE doesn't work with "alternative" systems. Too bad. Pehaps you'll better get a copy of Windows after all?
You are absolutely right about how expedients cannot be used for heavy penalties, but that's the point
A 25$ ticket would mean nothing to Bill Gates (He'd lose far more money by having the cop keeping him busy for five minutes), but would mean living on bread and water for a month for someone else.
So wether or not a 25$ fine is too heavy for an expidient depends on who's getting it.
There are real problems though.
Consider how fines might go into the county budget, that pays the cops. They would probably focus more on "Let's bust those in expensive cars" than "Let's bust those who endanger road safety"
Sex and nudity -> Censored in the US OK in europe.
Crappy movies, OK everywhere :-(
"They" have always been able to listen in on us once they have their eyes on us. Unencrypted mail suddenly gave "them" the power to listen in on *everything* a priori suspicious or not.
Now I'm european and I really liked the movie. Could you tell me how butchered your "regular" version was? (I assume it is the US version)
Which organizations are most worthy / worth puting money towards their projects.
* Hemos
* CmdrTaco
* CowboyNeal
Send all donations to : 64.28.67.48
In principal, I couldn't agree more.
playstation.sony.com is logical, it saves an url-typer the job of typing a redundant "www" (autocompletion will fix the url after a few letters) and it also gives the name "sony" some spotlight.
In practice, www.playstation.com draws more visitors than playstation.sony.com. Browsers expect that a user typing "playstation" might be looking for www.playstation.com/net/org and will try these if there is no local server called "playstation"
And as long as the "excesss" domain playstation.com gets more visitors than the alternative, don't expect sony to stop squatting.
But *if* this modified strain of rice should have some nasty side effect, it would be a really bad thing if it reproduced.
Dunno. My feelings towards GMO crop is like my feelings towards an unknown binary.
It might do wonderful things, but I don't want to test it on a system that I need for a living, computer or biotope.
Nice point. But the bible sais a lot of things. Like Do onto others what you want them to do onto you.
Would you want that neighbour to declare you a hethen or heretic, since you do not share his beliefs?
Now some would read that as "OK If I was my neighbour (that sinful creature of Satan) *I* would want to be saved, Yeah that's it! Bring out the bibles!"
I would read it as "OK I don't want my neighbour to try to convert me, so I won't preach to him, unless he wants me to"
Your interpretation means that you cannot really love someone of a different faith (like, lets see,... a samaritan?)
Oh well. It's nothing to worry abaout. Just my soul...
"May He who is without .sig throw the first exception"
You can h4x0r a site with a Linux machine, but most people wouldn't. Or if they used Linux it would be more intresting what application they ran *under* Linux. If you want an analogy, try L0phtcrack or something similar, OK?
Besides, that is not what I was talking about.
Fact is that an mp3 file on a non-official site probably *is* illegal. (ripping your CD: OK publishing the files: Nono) The ISP will recieve some heat every time some copyright holder checks, and *will* get really tired of checking the accounts.
This is not equal to someone getting prosecuted for using/distributing Linux/L0pht/mp3z this is a sysadmin that has had it with the hassle of distinguishing legal and illegal mp3's and consequently bans them all. (or in your case, someone who suffered some script kiddie attacks from Linux users and as a result shuts anyone !Windows out, if that was possible)
That is not what the poster said.
He said that "We shouldn't have to put up with people deleting things from our web sites, but then, bands shouldn't have to put up with people copying their art around the internet to avoid paying for somethig they want."
Your mp3's may be legal. If they are your own work, there is no problem. If they are ripped from your own CD's they are indeed legal (unless you believe the RIAA) but putting them on a web site is not.
However there *are* tons of illegally distributed mp3z out there. No ISP wants to become the home of the warez d00dz. If they want to play by the rules, they will do something. A script that deletes anything that ends in .mp3 might not be an elegant solution, but it is simple and cheap.
This guy picked the wrong ISP. Bad for him, bad for them.
More and more ISP's will rather run a clumsy rm mp3 script or charge extra for manual control than trust you. Bad for them, bad for us.
What a perfect example of the kind of secular thinking that has led Western culture down the road to decadence and immorality.
A road traveled by so many great civilizations before. The road signs are not "Godlessness" but "Success, beware"
Rather than embracing over two thousand years of our cultural heritage,...
If two thousand year old theories are better than current ideas, then I guess pre-christian religions must be even better?
Funny, replying to someone calling christianity a myth by calling it the *undoubted* truth. Apparently at least someone has doubts... Actually a few billion people have.
The Truth is that the Bible teaches us of our place in the Universe and how to live our life in a decent, moral manner, so that all mankind will better itself and rise up to Heaven when they die. But oh no, you'd rather accept concepts like "moral relativism", an excuse for atheists to do what they want without fear of consequence
The bible has some nice ideas about how to live in a moral manner. Ideas that followers of most religions as well as atheists would agree upon. But why the emphasis? If the bible is correct, why should the God fearing worry? They are on the right side. The only reason to look down on the less God-fearing would be if you had your doubts about wether your moral behavoiur will pay off and you don't want others to have the benefits of a less godly life.
Unfortunately, science has said nothing, and indeed can say nothing, about the ultimate Truth of creation.
Fortuately, neither can the bible.
The only truth is: We don't know.
You make me sick.
You make me laugh. Gee, that *makes* you a better person!
We all know Microsoft struck pure gold with DOS.
All their successful software follows a distinct pattern. First sell it at a loss or bundle it with another product so you get a lot of users. Then sell it at a price no commercial software shop can match without the MS user base. Monopolic? You bet! The catch is that every *single* user gains from using MS software, while users as a *collective* would benefit from choise.
As for Netscape, I must admit that I worked for a compny that provded me with payed-for Netscape at that time. I do recall that the free version lacked some features, but alas I never compared them.
Fire in the Valley is definitely on my reading list.
It really doesn't matter to a sheep if Microsoft has greener grass because they grow it well or because they torch their neighbors fields.
What *does* matter to the sheep is that the other sheep are in the MS field. Sheep like company. Wolves like lonely sheep.
Luckily we are not all sheep.
On which planet? Hardware was expensive. Software was something that you wrote yourself (expensive if you place any value on your own time) or bought taylor made (even more expensive)
Yes, there was *some* freeware. Not much. Not very good (by todays standards)
Along came the IBM PC. *Not* an open standard. A proprietary standard, where the owner didn't go after the clones. We got software that was cheaper than the taylor made variety. Yes, MS made a huge amount of dollars on it. They still sold software that was *cheaper* than the alternative.
In fact they sold it so cheap that there was no use competing with them unless you had a kickass product that could be sold to a few companies for a shitload of cash, or *gave* your stuff away.
That was what drove all competitors out of the business. *Cheap* MS products. You may call them overpriced (and in some sense be correct) but they still sold for a price noone could match and make a profit.
Along comes the web. MS screws up and almost misses the train. Netscape gets cocky and thinks that they can start selling their browser instead of giving it away. At the same time MS starts shipping IE with every Windows copy. IE starts out as an inferior (but free and preinstalled) alternative, but soon enough it is as good as NS. Netscape gives up and starts to give the browser away again. People *still* keep migrating to IE. People download IE, not NS.
People may be sheep, but they graze in the MS fields because the grass is greener there.
And MS don't want to slaugter them. They are content with their wool. Better profit in wool you see. Keeps the sheep happy.
This is bad news for the sheep farming neighbors, but what can they do?
If you want to fight the MS monopoly, grow greener grass.
Last time I checked some statistics, the various variants of Windows ran 95% of the browsers, Mac 4% and "Others" one single percent. Thats Linux, Solaris, BSD etc combined!
This means that unless you are specifically targeting the slashdot crowd, you have no reason to care wether your pages work outside the Windows/Mac world.
Most clueful webfolks stay away from the plugins anyway, since they add more maintenance cost to your site then they are worth. Nobody cares wether that single percent can view the site or not. If they can, its a bonus, if not: their problem.
Isn't it fascinating how a mainstream (even if not rated for kids) movie may show breasts or frontal pictures of naked women (Think "The devils advocate" or "Eyes wide shut") while only a hardcore porn movie will display a dick?
Well what do I know, I'm just a silly swede. Here the comedy "Tillsammans" that featured (non-erect) penises as well as their feminine counterparts, got a "eleven years old, or seven with adult company"-rating. Wonder what that rating would be in the US?
-1 foot/year vs 3 cm/year ;-)
Well, NASA never figured out those SIImperial conversions either
The first
In a perfect world, there would also be a "download the whole setup" option for those of us who know our settings. (This is targeted at AOLers after all) There would also be no suspicion of what the 500K install reports back...
In a perfect world, on the other hand, a lot of things would be better.
If you make a mistake, you executed an innocent guy, while the real murderer is still around. Not a good thing to do.
The law says "Be a nitpick" ("beyond any reasonable doubt" and "innocent until proven guilty" in lawyerese) Why? Because no (democratic) society can afford to have the integrity of their legal process questioned.
If a state criminal system is to work, it must fulfil two criterias:
1) People must believe that the system finds the perp, or at least, that the official system does the job better than they can do themselves. Failure to comply with this criteria leads to vigilantism.
2) People must believe that innocent people have nothing to fear from the police. It is bad enough for the police to work against real criminals. the last thing they need is more of the "better not get involved", "the cops are the enemy" mentality.
In court, there is (should be) no such thing as "how the world works". There are only (should only be) a number of hypothetical ways it might. If the hypothesis "This guy did it" is so likely that it is beyond reasonable doubt the truth: Convict. If not: Acquit.
The principle is that it is (much) worse to convict an innocent man than to acquit a guilty. If you have a problem with that principle, start a lynchmob.
"he might have had a heart attack as the knife plunged" is just silly. *reasonable* doubt not hypothetical doubt.
Eye witness testimony is not 100% secure. Several witnesses is getting close enough. Witnesses backed up with facts is the best.
If you believe everything you see, never watch a magician.
Screw your sacred constitution!
That thing is two hundred years old. Don't you think its time to join the 21:th century?
Perhaps you should reinstate some slave labour too? And why not return to the witch burning days?
OK I'm calmed down now. It is just that I'm so tired of the notion that "It is in the CONSTITUTION so in can never be wrong" It sounds a bit too much like "It is in the BIBLE so it can never be wrong"
Suppose you see me standing over a dead body with a knife in my hand. Would there be any doubt in your mind at the time that I was the killer?
Course not. That is the obvious conclusion.
But I might just have arrived, seen the body and (foolishly) picked up the knife. *I* would probably have believed that you was the killer. Probably I'd get scared and make a run for it further strenghtening your belief that I did it.
Any doubt at the time? No! Reasonable doubt to an impartial observer? Hell Yes!
In your exam case, you had the opportunity to double check at the time making sure you made no mistake.
"...and over time it became clear that she was allowing him to see her paper since no matter how much they shifted in their seats, this fact of their behavior remained a fact."
That is what made you a good eye witness in this case. A murder witness would not have the chance (or guts) to double check his or her first impression. Was there any blood on my hands or clothes? Yes there must have been, your honor, he had just killed someone with a knife hadn't he?
Under the law, *any* civilized law, you dont kill someone cause you *think* they murdered someone (actually I'm against the death penalty even then, but that is beside the point) If you merely *think* someone is guilty, there are tons or reasonable doubt. And just pray you wont be the guy who happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time someday.