IIRC, "strict liability" is a civil law concept. For example, if I make maps for navigation purposes, and I make a mistake on the map, and it causes a crash, I'm civilly liable, and it doesn't matter why the map was wrong. It doesn't mean I automatically go to prison, which is criminal law.

They tend to like not spending money on transportation, but may not be able to avoid having to drive. Poor people have to live in places with cheap housing of some sort, which may not be convenient to jobs, and US mass transit usually sucks.

I don't think you have the incentives straight.

You're a police officer. Your fellow police officer, Fred, does a wrongful arrest with violence and such. The victim sues.

You have a chance to "lose" the dashcam recordings. If you do so, the odds better that the suit fails and your pension fund is a little safer. If you do the right thing, and hand over the recordings, then your pension will suffer.

It will provide an incentive to try to get Fred to follow the law, but it provides a direct incentive to deny the victim justice.

Only restitution?

First, what's proper restitution for being compelled to post something on a Facebook post? I don't think I'd accept $20K to allow somebody else to put something I disliked on my Facebook account, myself.

Second, the guy had to spend money and time to get the suit going, and had no certainty of getting anything. Offering restitution only (and then only when winning) means that it's most likely the best move to just let the police do whatever to you without recourse. This isn't what we want to happen.

There's a lot of loudmouth Christians who complain loudly about being persecuted for their religion, also. Typically, this is because they can't enforce their particular morals on others, or because they can't use my tax money for their own religion. I'm more sympathetic with the men's rights movement, because there are some legitimate grievances there.

They may not have explicit policies, but they can crack down when there's any hint of women getting involved. A while back, a baseball team tried drafting a woman, not being serious about it, and was slapped down.

What HTTP does is ask the server for a web page. The server can then do whatever with the request, the most common reaction being to supply it. This means there's no copyright considerations, trademarks, or other terms of use. In real life, if you're a copyright holder I can ask you for a copy of the material, and you can give it to me or not, as you please (in my experience, offering money makes people more willing to give me copyrighted stuff).

If a retail store is open, I have implicit permission to walk in and look at things all I like. If a server is accepting HTTP requests, I can presumably look at things there. If the server has some restrictions on HTTP requests it responds to, that's cool, but most don't.

There is no good micropayment system, and there isn't going to be, because people really don't like micropayments. This means that, to access a pay site, I'm going to have to do a minimum of a $1 credit card transaction. For a site I like and spend time on, this isn't a problem for me, but it will effectively prevent me from poking at the site for a few minutes. It will flat-out stop people without credit cards, or who can't be spending random dollars while surfing.

Mac OSX implements Unix-style file locking, which separate the file itself from the file name better. This seems like a really good idea to me, but then Unix seems like my native language.

Really? In my experience, when I'm feeling annoyed at a half-second delay in responding to my commands, I'm running Windows 7. It may be smooth like butter for some purposes, but doing what I want when I want it doesn't seem to be one.

Are those battery lives actually comparable? A while ago, I was reading reviews that expressed surprise that Apple's battery life claims turned out to be generally accurate or even conservative, in contrast to the rest of the industry.

MacOS was technically about as advanced as Windows 3, but it usually managed to be better than Windows in other ways for most of its life.

In one chapter, Brooks discusses the bad effects of having too many people making architectural decisions. It appears to be the decision he most regrets.

And thus race matters in social settings, which is pretty much what we stay in for most or all of our lives.

Private businesses in practice discrmiinate against protected classes, and have HR and legal departments coming up with reasons why it isn't really illegal discrimination.