So, did anyone RTFA? Did they go and take a look at Mr. Settles web site and notice what he does for a leaving? Well, he helps people deploy broadband setups! And one of his big draws is helping people through the grant process.

Hmm....could his criticism be tied to the fact that this is going to make his job of "influence peddling" a bit more difficult?

There is a strong tradition in the US of volunteers stepping up and doing as good, if not better, job as the so called Pros. Of course these "amateurs" (literally those who do it because of love or passion, check your Greek) are scorned by the "professionals" (literally those who do it solely for money, check you Greek again). And for good reason: the amateurs usually ask awkward questions.

Now, Mr. Settles throws up juries as a strawman to attack this setup. Well, if criminal and civil juries worked the way they did at the founding of our country, or the way Grand Juries do now in many locales, I say, "Sign me up." But if you want to treat me like a mushroom, I this thinking person says, "No thank you!"

Unfortunately, this misunderstands the purpose of an appeal.

An appeal is about matters of law and its application. A question for an appeal was appropriate representation.

An appeal is not about matters of fact. The assumption of a higher court is that the lower court got the facts right.

If a fact doesn't get on the record at the initial trial, it cannot be considered without significant work on appeal.

This is why it has been fairly hard to get people freed who DNA evidence clearly exonerate, and why it has often fallen to pardons or clemency actions to free them.

Actually, you position here does not reflect the history of juries under the Common Law System or in American History.

The current system of 12 people who are spoon fed everything is a relatively recent innovation (i.e. within the 2nd half of the last century).

Previously, juries were active participants, not dumb bunnies sitting on a bench. They asked questions. They engaged in debate. It was quite different. And I would argue better.

Oh, and that great bug-a-boo of the modern age, Jury Nullification? Well, that was an expected part of the package.

Juries made findings of not just fact, but of law. They decided if a law was constitutional or not.

But, the Legal Professionals don't like that and have over time used what were clear problems - juries convicting on prejudice - to emasculate the jury system in this country.

It really is interesting to me to see folks here on /. defending a system that has as its foundation the assumption that people need to be protected from information, which might inflame their passions, so we, the people who know better, will control what they can see and here.

If you have set in on a trial before, you will have clearly seen that the information that gets included and excluded is quite often not due to its inflammatory or prejudicial nature, but rather just because how the judge felt that day.

If you want more background on how the jury system has been perverted in this country, read Akhil Reed Amar's America's Constitution: A Biography http://www.amazon.com/Americas-Constitution-Akhil-Reed-Amar/dp/1400062624 or The Bill of Rights http://www.amazon.com/Bill-Rights-Creation-Reconstruction/dp/0300082770/ref=pd_sim_b_1.

People just don't get it.

The value add is the reporter, paid by AP (they are called Stringers), who is gathering this news.

As Heinlein told us in "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress", TANSTAFL: There Ain't No Such Thing As a Free Lunch!

While you are building your great Web 2.0 service, funded using AdSense from Google, based on AP content, AP is getting zero for its contribution to the mix.

While the AP - and others - shouldn't be charging for a headline or to quote, but if you are carrying their content, you need to pay.

The title says it all!