Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 12 Nov 2006 13:05 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > I haven't been able to describe this in English ASCII yet. What is your first language btw ? Graham
From: T Wake on 12 Nov 2006 13:13 "Ben Newsam" <ben.newsam(a)ukonline.co.uk> wrote in message news:eghel21umi202n5ohm1kngi4v4s0g838k3(a)4ax.com... > On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 11:07:13 -0000, "T Wake" > <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > >>A law changed to arrest and prosecute a single person would be wrong and I >>suspect this is not the case here. The combination of public opinion about >>trials in which "assumed guilty" persons were let off was the main driving >>force (at least overtly) for this reform. >> >>> As I understand it there has to be either an admission of guilt, as in >>> the Dunlop case, or compelling new evidence. DNA evidence would count >>> as new in many cases of course. I don't have a problem with that. If >>> someone is guilty and can be proved to be, then they should be >>> prosecuted. >> >>The pre-assumption here becomes the person is guilty. This is what I have >>a >>problem with. English law presumes innocence. To declare new evidence >>"compelling enough" pre-judges the case and cant help but have an impact >>on >>the jury. > > No, I don't agree. The presumption of innocence is a bit of an > artificial (but necessary) construction to protect the potentially > innocent. There has to be at least enough assumption of guilt to start > a prosecution, or there woud be no point prosecuting at all. If, after > an acquittal, new evidence comes to light pointing prima facie to > guilt of the previoulsy acquitted party, then I have no problem with a > new case being started. > Ok, I am not explaining myself very well here and heading myself into a corner. You are quite correct with the status of presumed innocence, prosecuting authorities will eventually get to the stage where they feel the evidence is sufficient to deem the person guilty, at which point the trial begins. The trial still must take place with the assumption that the person is innocent unless the prosecution can make a strong enough case - anything else pretty much makes the trial pointless. You could argue that once there is enough assumption of guilt for a trial, the person _must_ be guilty. At the moment this seems unlikely to happen in general trials but it tends to be the case in high profile or celebrity trials. The issue I have with the double jeopardy is that once an "authority figure" (which sadly doesn't have to be especially versed in trial law) judges the evidence overwhelming enough for a re-trial, this is very likely to create jury bias. This is where (IMHO of course) the problem with the change appears. It could be argued that it doesn't really matter as the overwhelming evidence pretty much implies the person _is_ guilty but this is still pre-judging the case.
From: Eeyore on 12 Nov 2006 13:16 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > John Fields <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: > >Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > >>That roast Iraqi baby in your oven's ready for eating. > > > >--- > >Wow! > > > >Seems you've latched onto a subject you really like! > > John, this is another example of that odd behavior I've > been mentioning once in a while. Muslims teach their > young that that non-Muslims are baby eaters. And now > we see somebody using the same approach to prove > that there is no danger. LOL ! Graham
From: Eeyore on 12 Nov 2006 13:22 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: > > > <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > > >>I would argue that anybody who is still making minimum wage after any time > >>at all in a job, isn't productive and doesn't deserve to be rewarded. > > > >There are some who are working at the limit of their ability. These > >people still deserve enough of a wage to live on. I have, indirectly, > >employed such a person in the past. He showed up for work on time and > >remained for the required time, but instructions to him needed to be made > >without subordinate clauses because he could not parse them. He is never > >going to get promoted into management no matter how hard he works. > > The grocers hire people who think this way. They are their best > workers. Now why do you assume that these types have to be > paid only minimum wage and never get performance raises? Wow ! That's socialist talk ! Did you realise that ? Graham
From: Ken Smith on 12 Nov 2006 13:30
In article <g1eal2dosisofr40ccnm98kcgi8pbtiar0(a)4ax.com>, JoeBloe <joebloe(a)nosuchplace.org> wrote: >On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 05:22:55 +0000 (UTC), kensmith(a)green.rahul.net >(Ken Smith) Gave us: > >>In article <1ac67$4554024d$4fe76f5$27303(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, >>unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >>>Ken Smith wrote: >>> >>>> In article <f4p7l21a400mq09lf26tcq86s8gkv3q479(a)4ax.com>, >>>> JoeBloe <joebloe(a)nosuchplace.org> wrote: >>>> [....] >>>> >>>>> Name a foreign part in the M1 Abrams. >>>> >>>> >>>> Q401 >>>> >>>> That was easy. >>>> >>>> >>>Silliness, goofy behavior, excitability, inappropriate >>>humor ... the first signs of bipolar disorder. >> >>Yes, I think you may be right. You should see a doctor, I hear that have >>drugs for it these days. >> >>BTW: Those in the sci.electronics.design group will have understood the >>joke more thoroughly than others. For those: Q401 would be a transistor >>and it is very unlikely that there are no transistors in the M1 that are >>made outside the country. >> > > A transistor is a discreet component. A complete circuit card >assembly would be more like "a part". No, you made a suggestion that is just simply wrong and now you are trying to change the meanings of words to save your argument. > Everyone knows that chips and such are made in other lands. It seems that you forgot for a while there. > That >doesn't make them not ours however. Once you buy them, they are yours. If you are trying to say that the M1 tank doesn't have any stolen parts in it, I will agree, but that doesn't make what you suggested correct. > Even Western Digital has its products made and assembled elsewhere, >but it is still an American company. .... and this has nothing to do with what you said, unless you are now trying to claim that you meant that all the ICs were from american companies. Is that what you now claim? If so do you have any proof of this? I have never seen a weapons spec. that said I could not have any ICs from foreign companies in the produced units. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge |