The theory was that we wanted humans, not robots. Both have advantages and disadvantages. If you want to use humans, you have to use members of Homo Sapiens as they are. That means that judges will go easier on people who aren't deliberately annoying them. You want judges to be unaffected by such, use robots.

If somebody who didn't do anything bad is suspected of breaking the law, that somebody will have to be investigated, and is well advised to defend himself or herself. Since you're trying to establish good or bad here rather than legal or illegal, you need to do a lot of investigation and consideration, and get the facts nailed down to make a good decision. That's going to occupy the defendant for some time.

I'm not a russophobe, and I didn't say "oh god, RUSSIANS!". What I said is that I was familiar with a historical example of one country occupying another and holding a plebiscite and winning by an unexpectedly large margin. You're not going to change that by going "oh, wow, RUSSIANS!".

Some of us are actually absurd enough to study history.

Strong enough so that Putin felt forced to keep troops in the street and conduct a plebiscite with no way to vote for the status quo, apparently.

You will notice that unadorned 1s are also unable to make up integers. You used a unary minus and a binary plus sign to make zero. I demonstrated how to derive integers from zero; to do that, I have to have some rules of derivation. Basic set theory is as fundamental as it gets.

As far as the description of the theories, I read the blasted link you posted. If you want people to think you have actual theories, post links to them, or at least do some SEO so Google can point people to them.

Your more recent link was to something that had a handy link to a web page describing the speed of light, and that made it perfectly clear that you are a crackpot, even without considering the tone of the writing.

You listed some things not known about light. We know why gravity bends light. We know why the speed of light is lower in different materials. You ask how we know that, if we traveled at the speed of light, photons would appear to come towards us at the speed of light. If we traveled at the speed of light we actually wouldn't notice anything. In short, you're ignorant of some fairly basic physics.

In order for a theory to be accepted, it needs to deal with the things we already know. It either needs to agree with accepted theory, or show why that theory is wrong. You clearly don't know enough of what we already know to do either.

Thing is, while you get hold of that third party whose application broke because they were dumb, top management still wants the invoices that application produces to go out on time. A sysadmin should keep things running, not screw the systems up and blame somebody else.

This wasn't a technical problem. This was an organizational problem. He was complying with a policy he'd argued against and couldn't get changed. Had he not complied with the policy, he would be leaving himself open to disciplinary action, if, say, a vice-chancellor had gotten annoyed at him, or somebody involved making the policy had resented him for being correct.

Very simply, the only solution he could offer was getting the University Senate to change the rules. Alternatively, he could have delayed any new pages until the policy could be changed, but that apparently wasn't satisfactory.

Organizations that get too deep into mandatory policies get into problems, and there's no way for a sysadmin to stop it.

Nope. However, the IRS is perfectly capable of correcting you if you enter the wrong numbers. I entered the wrong numbers once for interest and dividends (got them confused), and the IRS caught it. Then, when I explained my mistake, they sent me another polite letter informing me that they'd determined I was correct and owed no more than I'd paid, and how to appeal the decision if I wanted to.

The appropriate phone company will know who's supposed to be able to deactivate the phone.

BTW, an iPhone, once "bricked", can be unbricked by somebody with access to the right Apple account, which would include the owner.

Another problem with the comparison is that the average closed-source project is four times as big as the average open-source project. I'd expect defect density to go up with size of codebase. (Of course, this may not be an issue with what Coverity detects, but if so that emphasized that Coverity doesn't find all the important defects.)

While I generally agree with you, it makes it important to treat the judge with respect. A calm judge can make intelligent and reasonable decisions. It's a lot harder to do that for somebody who has just been ignoring or mocking the legal process.

So what do you suggest? If somebody did something apparently illegal, but claims good reason for doing it, the courts aren't just going to say "Okay, you say you had a good reason and you look trustworthy". They're going to have to investigate. To work at all efficiently, the courts have to abide by procedures. If you want the judge to handhold people's hands in general, we're going to have to put a lot more money into the court system. This means that the alleged lawbreaker is going to have to do things on the court's schedule, and is going to have to know what sort of arguments to make. I suspect this gets into what you mean by harassment.

Also, saying that the courts should be about justice rather than legality is a dangerous way to go. Laws both restrict and protect you, but they're written down. It would be better to have the courts about legality with an eye to justice. If the courts are given discretion to dispense justice sometimes, they will do so to somebody who makes a clear argument of injustice and is otherwise cooperative. LavaBit was in contempt because they demonstrated contempt for the legal system.

That's for civil cases, mostly. A criminal defendant does have more or less competent representation, and if the representation was inadequate through no fault of the defendant, that's a legitimate reason to appeal.

That, I think, is why some criminal prosecutors (take the description as you will) bring up a big list of trumped-up charges and ask for a plea bargain: to avoid a trial.

His job as Supreme Court justice was to interpret the law and defend the Constitution. As a private citizen, he's entitled to any opinion he likes, stupid or not. He'd only have been remiss in his job if he'd interpreted the Constitution the way he wanted it written. Got evidence for that? (I honestly don't know.)