We already have it. They are called credit bureaus. They provide credit reports to anyone who pays for it. If you want to see how accurate it is pull one of your own.
The project examines evidence. It is not a project to free convicted criminals. It is there to see if the person was wrongly convicted. I think the interesting thing about this witness is that he is only reliable when he is saying what the prosecutors want him to say, otherwise it seems he lies.
I would agree that the system operates to prevent radical change. I would also say that preventing such change is built into the system design. Radical change that is your radical change is good from your viewpoint, but if the rules allow you(or your party)to do it they allow your opponent to do so also. You would then have a system that whiplashed back and forth between 2 poles. Since such changes tend to be of a more violent nature you have a lot of death and destruction. The current system we have in the US was an attempt to limit that by splitting the power between 2 different arms of government. The Supreme Court established its claim by a court decision(Martin vs. Malbury I think) so we have 3 separate power centers. This provides stability which I would say is the whole purpose of government. While it can be very annoying it seems to work.
No, they haven't. The whole there is no difference between the parties and everything is the same got us George Bush and the Iraq war. There are differences between the parties and how they run the government. If you want to hide behind the nothing I can do makes a difference fine, but that's what it is. You can go out and work on changes or you can talk about how everything is bad and nothing can be done. Personally, I prefer at least trying. That way even if I lose I can be satisified that at least I tried.
If you can copyright a lecture in such a way as to force students to destroy their notes, shouldn't producers of plays be able to use copyright to prevent critic reviews of their play? After all the critics notes are based on the preformance of the play.
So the argument is that the jurors will find the "facts" on the internet, but will be unable to tell if they are being told the "facts" in the court because they are "stupid". As for the OJ trial. The police lost control of the evidence. They did not show they kept it in there possession the entire time so they could not prove no tampering had been done. In a criminal trial the decision is supposed to be beyond a reasonable doubt. This is because we don't like executing innocent people. If you don't like jury trails you can always ask for a bench trail only.
I prefer government regulation over the idea of private enterprise because I have seen government regulations change, I have never seen a business change unless it was legally forced to.
The state shouldn't get production costs. If the state will not write the laws so its citizens can understand them they should be required to furnish materials to understand them at no cost. As an alternative they can provide free legal advice so people can understand the law. This material has already been paid for they call the payment taxes.
I read several papers that are outside of my physical community unless we know how community is defined you cannot say the newspapers are wrong. From the linked article it seems like they are using the population of the geographical boundries. The whole point of online is that it reaches beyond that. The newspapers could very well be right.
It is the attorney's job to make sure that the judge understands the case. That's the whole point of having expert witnesses. If one side presented metatags as important it is up to the other side to refute it. The judge and jury are only supposed to consider the evidence as presented.
Except in most cases this is not true. The ordinance allowing the cameras provides for an administrative hearing by a "judge" employed by the company. Who, I am sure does not take into account that if he finds too many people innocent he will not have a job. Second, if this is so wonderful for public safety why aren't the installing governments running it? What's next privitized police?(For any one who thinks this might be a good idea check out how well the parking meter sale in Chicago is going)
There was all that controversy over that Japanese fetish game so this may be a reaction to that. The Japanese hetai publishers blocked all links that were not from Japan right after that.
Unfortunately, the legislature has placed a limit on it. So many would argue that we have recognized that unlimited copyright is bad. The problem is that the limit is not tied to any result that can be quantified.
RSS
Twitter
Re: Re: Re: Re: (as jjmsan)
As opposed to you just accusing him of unspecified conduct anonymously
Re: John Poindexter (as jjmsan)
We already have it. They are called credit bureaus. They provide credit reports to anyone who pays for it. If you want to see how accurate it is pull one of your own.
Re: Re: British tabloids pay people all the time. (as jjmsan)
The project examines evidence. It is not a project to free convicted criminals. It is there to see if the person was wrongly convicted. I think the interesting thing about this witness is that he is only reliable when he is saying what the prosecutors want him to say, otherwise it seems he lies.
Re: Re: British tabloids pay people all the time. (as jjmsan)
Re: Re: Same people (as jjmsan)
I would agree that the system operates to prevent radical change. I would also say that preventing such change is built into the system design. Radical change that is your radical change is good from your viewpoint, but if the rules allow you(or your party)to do it they allow your opponent to do so also. You would then have a system that whiplashed back and forth between 2 poles. Since such changes tend to be of a more violent nature you have a lot of death and destruction. The current system we have in the US was an attempt to limit that by splitting the power between 2 different arms of government. The Supreme Court established its claim by a court decision(Martin vs. Malbury I think) so we have 3 separate power centers. This provides stability which I would say is the whole purpose of government. While it can be very annoying it seems to work.
Same people (as jjmsan)
No, they haven't. The whole there is no difference between the parties and everything is the same got us George Bush and the Iraq war. There are differences between the parties and how they run the government. If you want to hide behind the nothing I can do makes a difference fine, but that's what it is. You can go out and work on changes or you can talk about how everything is bad and nothing can be done. Personally, I prefer at least trying. That way even if I lose I can be satisified that at least I tried.
(as jjmsan)
If you can copyright a lecture in such a way as to force students to destroy their notes, shouldn't producers of plays be able to use copyright to prevent critic reviews of their play? After all the critics notes are based on the preformance of the play.
Re: Re: (as jjmsan)
Actually, he just recently filed a complaint against the president of the Florida Bar Association
Re: Re: Re: (as jjmsan)
I haven't seen those. Could you post a link?
Re: (as jjmsan)
You are out of date. Girls don't cry any more when bullied. They bloody the bully's nose.
(as jjmsan)
So the argument is that the jurors will find the "facts" on the internet, but will be unable to tell if they are being told the "facts" in the court because they are "stupid". As for the OJ trial. The police lost control of the evidence. They did not show they kept it in there possession the entire time so they could not prove no tampering had been done. In a criminal trial the decision is supposed to be beyond a reasonable doubt. This is because we don't like executing innocent people. If you don't like jury trails you can always ask for a bench trail only.
(as jjmsan)
I prefer government regulation over the idea of private enterprise because I have seen government regulations change, I have never seen a business change unless it was legally forced to.
(as jjmsan)
The state shouldn't get production costs. If the state will not write the laws so its citizens can understand them they should be required to furnish materials to understand them at no cost. As an alternative they can provide free legal advice so people can understand the law. This material has already been paid for they call the payment taxes.
Re: Re: (as jjmsan)
No because such loss would be an act of god which is generally excluded under most recovery formulas
(as jjmsan)
I read several papers that are outside of my physical community unless we know how community is defined you cannot say the newspapers are wrong. From the linked article it seems like they are using the population of the geographical boundries. The whole point of online is that it reaches beyond that. The newspapers could very well be right.
(as jjmsan)
It is the attorney's job to make sure that the judge understands the case. That's the whole point of having expert witnesses. If one side presented metatags as important it is up to the other side to refute it. The judge and jury are only supposed to consider the evidence as presented.
Re: Truth (as jjmsan)
Re: Re: Re: This discussion is demagogy in its best (as jjmsan)
Except in most cases this is not true. The ordinance allowing the cameras provides for an administrative hearing by a "judge" employed by the company. Who, I am sure does not take into account that if he finds too many people innocent he will not have a job. Second, if this is so wonderful for public safety why aren't the installing governments running it? What's next privitized police?(For any one who thinks this might be a good idea check out how well the parking meter sale in Chicago is going)
(as jjmsan)
There was all that controversy over that Japanese fetish game so this may be a reaction to that. The Japanese hetai publishers blocked all links that were not from Japan right after that.
Re: Acknolwedgement of a Limited Monopoly (as jjmsan)
Unfortunately, the legislature has placed a limit on it. So many would argue that we have recognized that unlimited copyright is bad. The problem is that the limit is not tied to any result that can be quantified.