Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:Personally... (Score 2) 558

You would think so. Each side (prosecution and defense) get to dismiss jurors. Generally, the lawyers like to have complete control of everything in the case - they want to define what (for example) 'rape trauma syndrome' means according to their expert witness so that it better fits their case.

Having a juror with prior knowledge of a relevant subject will probably be to the detriment of at least one side of the case, so those types of people are regularly dismissed.

Comment Re:Essential (Score 1) 715

I understand that Credit Cards can be nice. Nice to make large purchases now. Nice to cover the gap until payday when your bank account is empty. Nice for a lot of things. But people will be fine if their CC doesn't work for a day or two. There are other resources available to put food on the table, etc.

I think my original point still stands though. If your credit card not working for a couple days has a significant affect on your life (i.e. your ability to provide for your family), then YES you are too dependent on credit cards. If you NEED a credit card to put food on the table, you're already in the red - using a credit card will just put you further into the red. Credit card companies surely deserve some, but not 100% of the blame for that situation.

Comment Re:Idiots! (Score 2, Insightful) 715

It would do a lot of people well to not have such a close dependence on credit cards. And for that, they are not innocent. We're all guilty for empowering these organizations so much and allowing them to become so essential to our lives that we can't do without them. Sounds like an addiction to me if your life can't "run smoothly" without them for a day or two.

Comment Re:Anonymous releases are possible (Score 1) 333

Now that people seem to've gotten the idea of how leaking of information can work in the "information century" with almost no risk to them...

That alone is probably the biggest reason they're going to such great lengths to demonize and make an example of Julian Assange and (especially) Bradley Manning. If they can convict either for a serious enough charge, it will cause quite a few people to think twice before leaking documents via Wikileaks, or any other similar website. It's less about what they did, and more about what others might do.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Spock, did you see the looks on their faces?" "Yes, Captain, a sort of vacant contentment."

Working...