I do know of some games that run Punkbuster as a service. I used to go to the trouble of writing batch files to start the service, start the game, and kill the services after I was done playing.
I tried it when it first went free. I discovered some background process that ran even when the game didn't, that put me off. I don't believe it was malicious, but I don't run games that bog the system down when not playing. I don't know if it still does that or not.
So someone finally won a case in court. Whoop-tee-do!
It won't matter in the slightest. Current government is not going to abide by any punishment or change the law so it no longer happens. Obama and the current congress are in it as deep as Bush was.
The fairness in the jury system is NOT what one particular juror has researched or not, rather the collective knowledge [factual or otherwise] of all of them, and the diversity of that knowledge base. Whatever "facts" one particular juror may happen to see is largely nullified since he/she is one of a group.
As this post points out one of the liabilities of letting a lone [legally well informed] judge decide a case can be, he may have read something that will bias his opinion if he is legally 'on the fence'.
What if they asked, "Who disagrees with you and why?" Can a juror request an opposing opinion of testimony if one is not offered by the opposing council?
"I think that is what Mike is referring to, not judgment by the court of opinion.
If that is what Mike is arguing, he's not making it very clear."
Why should he need to? I have never seen Mike post ANYTHING implicating internet [mob] opinion should rule in legality. He does that for issues with an economic vs. legal clash, his point being, 'it's an uphill battle that's likely not winnable'.
Actually, the intent of the jury system is for the jury to use the evidence presented, and their entire life experience. That was the original intent.
Of course, if it's a medical case, the lawyer with the weaker argument would dis-allow any juror with a medical background from getting past the selection process.
That's how the system is rigged. As more people believe it is rigged they will obtain information on their own, irregardless of the court's instruction. They figure they won't get caught, and they're doing their public duty by being informed in order to make an informed judgment.
Yes, the weight of the more compelling testimony discredits the lesser one. In essence, it is ignored since it didn't help the case. That is what was meant.
"If a jury has a question about medical terminology, that can be answered."
Seems to me the issue is the type of question that the jury can ask.
If a juror happens to have foreknowledge that a particular person's testimony is widely disputed, it would then by OK for a juror to ask the person to clarify why so many disagree with them? On the other hand, if they get that knowledge after the trial has started, it's somehow not as valid?
I can see where it's good to avoid outside opinion on a particular case. But that not the same as looking up widely accepted facts on the subject matter. In the medical example, a juror looking something up in a medical textbook should not invalidate his/her opinion as a juror.
I think that is what Mike is referring to, not judgment by the court of opinion.
If they didn't ignore at least one 'expert' opinion, any jury would be hung. Each doctor claims their side is right, even if both disagree. If I have 2 alleged experts, one is agreed with by many in the same field, one not at all, which one is mostly likely right? {At least for the burden of proof in civil law.}
I disagree with that interpretation. A reformat can confound video fingerprinting technology. Content of a shorter duration, or in the background may be legitimate fair use as previously ruled by the courts. To insist that one take down covers all variants of a piece of content places undo burden on the intermediate party that was never intended. If content owners wish to protect their interests and have benefit of law, they should do their own investigative work. It is more practical for each content owner to police their own material, then to have Google police for them all. If the mega-corporations don't like it, maybe they shouldn't be buying up every small content creator that competes with them. If their portfolios are too large to track, that's a problem they made for themselves.
On the post: Results From Dungeons & Dragons Online Going Free: Revenue Up 500%
Re: Re: Free with a catch
On the post: Tiffany Learns, Yet Again, That eBay Is Not Responsible For Users Selling Counterfeit Items
This could be good
On the post: Results From Dungeons & Dragons Online Going Free: Revenue Up 500%
Free with a catch
On the post: Court Says President Bush Violated Wiretapping Laws With Warrantless Wiretap
It doesn't amount to anything
It won't matter in the slightest. Current government is not going to abide by any punishment or change the law so it no longer happens. Obama and the current congress are in it as deep as Bush was.
On the post: Judges Allowed To Use Google To 'Confirm Intuition' In Cases
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
As this post points out one of the liabilities of letting a lone [legally well informed] judge decide a case can be, he may have read something that will bias his opinion if he is legally 'on the fence'.
On the post: Judges Allowed To Use Google To 'Confirm Intuition' In Cases
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Judges Allowed To Use Google To 'Confirm Intuition' In Cases
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If that is what Mike is arguing, he's not making it very clear."
Why should he need to? I have never seen Mike post ANYTHING implicating internet [mob] opinion should rule in legality. He does that for issues with an economic vs. legal clash, his point being, 'it's an uphill battle that's likely not winnable'.
On the post: Judges Allowed To Use Google To 'Confirm Intuition' In Cases
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Of course, if it's a medical case, the lawyer with the weaker argument would dis-allow any juror with a medical background from getting past the selection process.
That's how the system is rigged. As more people believe it is rigged they will obtain information on their own, irregardless of the court's instruction. They figure they won't get caught, and they're doing their public duty by being informed in order to make an informed judgment.
Not like it all you want.
On the post: Judges Allowed To Use Google To 'Confirm Intuition' In Cases
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Judges Allowed To Use Google To 'Confirm Intuition' In Cases
Re: Re: Re:
Seems to me the issue is the type of question that the jury can ask.
If a juror happens to have foreknowledge that a particular person's testimony is widely disputed, it would then by OK for a juror to ask the person to clarify why so many disagree with them? On the other hand, if they get that knowledge after the trial has started, it's somehow not as valid?
I can see where it's good to avoid outside opinion on a particular case. But that not the same as looking up widely accepted facts on the subject matter. In the medical example, a juror looking something up in a medical textbook should not invalidate his/her opinion as a juror.
I think that is what Mike is referring to, not judgment by the court of opinion.
On the post: Judges Allowed To Use Google To 'Confirm Intuition' In Cases
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Judges Allowed To Use Google To 'Confirm Intuition' In Cases
Re:
The argument has been made that no juror needs to do research. But what if they want to anyway? That's the issue.
On the post: Viacom's Real Intent? To Pretend The DMCA Requires Filtering
Re:
On the post: Nestle Discovers The Streisand Effect... But Only After Making Things Worse And Worse... And Worse
Turned me off of Greenpeace
On the post: Despite Plenty Of Warning EA Still Decides To Follow Ubisoft Down The Wrong Path With DRM
Re: Re: You keep whining about the DRM ...
Next >>