You don't understand, and most people don't.

In Texas, 99.5% of all cases are resolved by plea bargain. Its all for the same reason, and innocence or guilt doesn't factor in: The prosecutor will offer a deal that you'd be a fool to reject unless you were certain you could win your trial.

If you happen to be poor, and in the right area, the court might be one that appoints public defenders without any fuss (that isn't a good assumption to make, though) or maybe you've got lucky and the area you are in has an actual public defenders office, in which each attorney is assigned a mere 200 cases at a time.

Its easy to say he was stupid for not taking the plea bargain, but innocent people take these plea bargains too, for the same reasons - felony record and probation or 5 years in prison? Sure you can win? Want to take the gamble?

Not my site, but one of a few that really covers this subject: http://gritsforbreakfast.blogspot.com/

I'd like one. Bellegante at gmail

There are very few areas of this country where you can live without a car. You can make laws that say people can't drive, but they'll do it anyway. What you DO accomplish is that you criminalize a large portion of the population, while expanding and taxing the underclass. If you'd like proof this is the case look well.. anywhere in the US. Uninsured drivers are illegal in most places.. but they drive. 10% of Texans have active warrants for arrests , mostly for unpaid traffic fines. Not legal to drive. I'm all for responsibility, but if you expect people to lay down and die because they broke laws before.. its just not going to happen. http://gritsforbreakfast.blogspot.com/2007/07/more-than-10-of-texans-currently-wanted.html

While it's true that it's appropriate to view them skeptically, I'd ask if you've taken the time to look at and understand the newer reactor designs, or if you've simply dismissed them outright because your bias says they must also be dangerous?

Uhm, how about make good films?

An important detail is missing here: Scientists don't say those things! The media does. Scientists say "Based on our recent observations/experiments, there may be a correlation with this reading and proof of x." The media follows with "Science proves x beyond a doubt! Panic!"

I wonder what environmental impacts this has, and if they will prevent these things from going into real use?

No free speech in the UK, I get that (though I strongly disagree with it!), but why not offer asylum? Don't we believe in the right to free speech ourselves? Isn't this a perfect example of a situation in which we should, when someone comes to us who is being prosecuted for a crime that we do not consider to be a crime?

Unless I'm willing to just shred the books, of course. Cut em up, scan the pages individually, a lot less overhead than a 3d scanner.

I'd have to pay to recover my ammunition, of course..

But seriously, you're comparing not getting perpetual compensation for something you wrote to invading your personal space? You could conceivably have your written song copied and distributed worldwide without even knowing about it. It's not a personal matter at all - you can't own words or ideas. That's why we call it copyright. It's a legal construct we invented specifically because actual ownership was an impossibility.

That said, they could simply work out a deal with the band (or bands) they sell the music to. 10% sounds good. Sure, without copyright, other bands could play and the writer wouldn't be compensated, but the original band will always do the best. If you need examples of this, look at the copyright situation in china. copies and (illegal) derivative work exist; the original makes the most money, the others, less.