Let me preface what I'm going to say with this, that's a lot of jibber jabber you just wrote and to be quite honest I'm not sure what all your logical wraglings are all about. That said, you either don't understand what it is I am saying (and doubly so with my quoted text), or if you don't believe that a jury should have the right and duty to vote their conscience, then just say so.

Anyway, to address your points...

"The only possible ambiguity in your post was your use of the word "just", which I took to mean "per conscience" or "per common sense" (rather than "per the letter of the law", as the two are not in perfect intersection for all values of conscience)."

You are correct in your assumption.

"Put simply, there are only two ways that a juror can vote - by letter of law, or by individual conscience. And your quoted definition of Jury Nullification only agrees with what I'm saying, **which is that the jury can be biased and are fallible.**"

Huh? I'm not sure I really understand your simply put statement. Are you implying, by your choise of the words "biased and fallible", that anyone who votes their conscience, rather then the letter of the law, is performing their duty as a jurer in some negative and therefore unacceptable fashion?

"In your above post, you state that the jury exist to provide conscience."

Yes, in that it is my belief that the machine of the state REQUIRES the counter balance of human intuition.

"In your above post, you state that the jury exist to provide conscience. That logically demands that the jury's decision is unquestioned and infallible, because there's no way to verify someone's conscience beyond their word. It's absurd to say "your verdict is wrong because it's not what you really feel" (why on earth would you vote against yourself, and how on earth could someone prove it even if you did?). But it's not absurd to say "your verdict is wrong because it contradicts law or fact" (which is what Jury Nullification is)." ...and this is where you loose me. I mean WTF are you talking about?

"... I'm really not sure where you see the contradiction. Jury nullification is the striking down of a jury's vote because it disregards legal process..."

Actually that's not at all what Jury Nullification means but who am I to argue with your preconceived notions.

Thanks for playing.

Um...

"Jury nullification occurs when a jury in a criminal case acquits a defendant despite the weight of evidence against him or her. [1] Widely, it is any rendering of a verdict by a trial jury which acquits a criminal defendant despite that defendant's violation of the letter of the law--that is, of an official rule, and especially a legislative enactment. Jury nullification need not disagree with the instructions by the judge--which concerns what the law (common or otherwise) is--but it may rule contrary to an instruction that the jury is required to apply the "law" to the defendant in light of the establishment of certain facts." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification)

Either you misunderstood what I was saying or you totally have a misunderstanding of Jury Nullification.

Anyway... something about "hell in a handbasket".

The whole point of having a jury of your peers is such that they CAN vote against what the law might state if they believe that it is not ultimately just. *sigh*

Shadowbane had a good run and there are still those of us that would log into it if it was still running. There's an attempt to back engineer the game's server at http://www.shadowbaneemulator.com/ .

I'd love another sandbox fantasy game to come on that market that works as well as world of warcraft but all those I've tried since them have lacked the "flow" that blizzard put into their game to keep me coming back.

That would be my point. It's impossible for them to test upgrade on a mission critical system because they don't even have a testing environment to make sure the entire thing doesn't crash after the upgrade. You'd think they would invest in one considering that every time they do an upgrade, teh system crashes and it doesn't come back up for a week as they try and figure out what went wrong. ./sigh

...have you actually seen the so called "software" that hospitals are running their businesses with? I'm lucky if our software doesn't crash, lag, not save records, etc while I'm trying to do my work. And don't even get me started on our "administrator", who routinely doesn't even bother to test whether or not an upgrade is going to work on the test server, if they even had a test server (which they don't).

If you want a nutral poitn of view, how about "You shouldn't be editing an article who subject matter happens to be a personal friend of yours, period."

You say this as if it was a bad thing.

In other words lawyers need to keep them selves busy to justify the paycheck every week.

not yet it doesn't... but it will! ;)

Your right, companies should be allowed to sell their services at a price they want... The problem with telcos and cable companies is that we, the people (ie the government) grant these companies monopolies and allow them, and even subsidize them with tax payer money, to set up their infrastructure on our property. The telcos and cable companies do NOT own the land that they set their cables, poles, and underground pipe upon. That land is ours and we grant them right of way to use it for their business because it is in our best interest to do so. You see, just because we grant them this right of way does not mean that we no longer have a say. In fact, it is part of the deal that they are granted this monopoly because it is ultimately beneficial for us that they do so and that they have to follow the rules we set down for them if they wish to do business on our property. Simply speaking, that if they choose to do business in our communities, and we grant them right of way to lay down their lines on our property (which gives them an advantage over their competetors) that they might have to allow others to piggy back upon those right of way lines and have competition. Ultimately we let them have right of way for our own benefit. When this relationship no longer is a benefit to us, the rightful owners of the land on which they have set up their business, we have the right to not "renew their lease" if they don't wish to follow whatever new rules we set out for them. In turn, they can remove their infrastructure (cable/phone lines) from our property and take their business elsewhere.

So you see, all this is, ultimately, is two sides of a business relationship. If they do not like the rules we set out for their use of our property, they have every right to pack up and move on to greener pastures. If however, they wish to continue doing business with us, they can make the lower bid and get our business.

What I'm hoping for is wifi technology that will decentralize internet access and get rid of all these land lines that are cluttering my view. I've already discontinued cable service (I can get "TV" from online sources like hulu, iTuneMusic Store, Netflix, etc and/or buy DVDs) I don't really need cable TV programming. I get phone service from my mobile. The only line I have yet to escape is DSL which I will gladly replace with whatever wifi service becomes available in my area. Hell if it was economically feasible, I'd detach from the electric grid as well. ;)

Who's the one who said that making the most money was the qualification for being the best and brightest? IMO all you need to make a shitton of money is willingness to screw over your fellow man and a singular drive to gather as much for yourself as you possibly can while making sure nobody else can do the same. In essence, greed, and at the expense of everything else. Neither brains nor brawn are necessary.

only if they are playing music not covered by independent contract... Stations that only play Creative Commons licensed music, for example, are still in the clear according to the SE rep I talked to on the phone today.

Oh and I forgot to mention that according to the representative, music that is licensed using Creative Commons for such things, will not be collected upon so long as the internet radio station reporting their playlists do not include those CC tracks as collectable.

So according to their rep, Artist do not have to participate with Soundexchange involuntarily if they make reasonable assurances that those that do play their music in their streams do not report them as payable to SE.