Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Hulk hogan could code too (Score 1) 578

by Kijori (#46732895) Attached to: Michael Bloomberg: You Can't Teach a Coal Miner To Code

I'm not sure that I see your point. He didn't say it was literally impossible - he said that the threshold for getting the jobs was very high.

Imagine two people who need to walk to the job centre to get a job. One has to climb over a series of low hurdles to get there; the other has to climb a series of 10ft walls.

You would be completely correct to say of the second person "those are all challenges, but not ones that can't be overcome. Can you honestly say that second person has worked hard and trained to climb walls all their lives?". Completely correct - but also completely missing the point.

Comment: Re:Freedom of Speech? (Score 1) 328

by Kijori (#46669921) Attached to: Federal Bill Would Criminalize Revenge Porn Websites

That is irrelevant. The government is supposed to follow the constitution. Following random crap that doesn't have anything to do with it is a sign of a broken system and makes the constitution useless. But then again, with the TSA, the NSA surveillance, constitution-free zones, free speech zones, unfettered border searches, etc., we already know our system is broken.

I would say that it's the sign of a "broken" constitution - or at least one that isn't really sufficiently well drafted.

The reason for the Courts looking at historical evidence is that the constitution isn't drafted in sufficiently precise terms to enforce it on its own. Look at the text of the First Amendment for an example - read literally it would seem to mean that Congress could not prohibit human sacrifice, if that were necessary for the free exercise of a religion, and could not prohibit false advertising, which would be free speech; but that seems an unlikely intention and an undesirable result.

In an ideal world I think you would agree on the exact rights that you want to give constitutional protection - and their precise extent - and enshrine those in a new constitution. In practice, of course, that's impossible because so many different groups use the wiggle room to their advantage to try to permit, or prohibit, their cause of choice.

Comment: Re: Ridiculous. (Score 1) 914

All that the GP's statement requires is that you don't punish any more than is required for deterrence.

That would mean conducting research into the severity of punishment required to deter the commission of different crimes - and if you found that (for example) imprisoning people for over two years doesn't increase the deterrence effect, the sentence would never be over two years unless either rehabilitation or public protection required it.

Comment: Re:Summary Terrible (Score 1) 519

by Kijori (#46430553) Attached to: Massachusetts Court Says 'Upskirt' Photos Are Legal

Legality is simply the inverse of illegality.

If something is "legal" that does not mean that you have a right to do it which cannot be abridged. The legislature can ban things that are legal. You are thinking of things to which you have a constitutionally protected right, which are a subset of the set of things that are legal.

(Source: I'm a lawyer)

Comment: Re:Makes a kind of sense (Score 1) 519

by Kijori (#46430481) Attached to: Massachusetts Court Says 'Upskirt' Photos Are Legal

This seems a bit odd to me - I understand you to say that you either have an expectation of complete privacy or no expectation of privacy. Why is it not correct to say that a woman in a short skirt accepts the risk that a strong breeze might lift it up, but not the risk that someone might put a camera in their shoe and use it to peer up her skirt?

This is not, by the way, the logic used by the court, which was not based on expectations of privacy. The Court found that a statute that refers to people who are "partially nude" does not include people wearing skirts that are "bypassed" using a camera.

Comment: Re:serves them right (Score 1) 387

by Kijori (#46389651) Attached to: Girl's Facebook Post Costs Her Dad $80,000

Putting my lawyer's hat on, I think that this is pretty unlikely. It's generally the case that if you provide for liquidated damages (which just means an upfront statement of the damages in the contract - here, the $80k) then you can't then sue for more if the damage proves to be more serious than you anticipated.

Comment: Re: or stop hiding... (Score 1) 377

by Kijori (#46307393) Attached to: Assange's Lawyers: Follow Swedish Law, Interrogate Him In the UK

That's not an answer, because it doesn't tell me what you mean by "the legal process". Unless you explain how you think the legal process uses evidence I can't know what you mean.

If you are serious, all you need to do is write down what your logical process is. If you don't, well, it's very convenient that every time you're challenged on evidence or logic there's a reason that you can't answer the question.

Comment: Re: or stop hiding... (Score 1) 377

by Kijori (#46307215) Attached to: Assange's Lawyers: Follow Swedish Law, Interrogate Him In the UK

As I said before, I'm not asking about the legal process. I'm asking about the logical process by which you personally are using the facts from the extradition hearing to determine that Assange is innocent.

I continue to believe that you are deliberately avoiding the question because you have no answer.

Comment: Re: or stop hiding... (Score 1) 377

by Kijori (#46306909) Attached to: Assange's Lawyers: Follow Swedish Law, Interrogate Him In the UK

I'm not asking what the legal process is; I'm asking what your chain of logic is that allows you to determine whether someone is guilty based on the evidence at an extradition hearing, where guilt wasn't in issue.

Here's what I think the position is: I think you're avoiding the question because you know that you can't come up with a logical answer, just like you refused to provide a link to the Swedish court case because you know it doesn't exist, and you refused to identify your evidence because you didn't have any. If I'm wrong, all you have to do is type in your solid logical chain and press submit.

Comment: Re: or stop hiding... (Score 1) 377

by Kijori (#46305897) Attached to: Assange's Lawyers: Follow Swedish Law, Interrogate Him In the UK

There needs to be a case that satisfies the requirements for an extradition order. Those requirements do not include proving Assange is guilty, or likely to be guilty, or providing one single word of evidence proving his guilt.

If you don't like my ABCD provide your own chain of reasoning.

Comment: Re: or stop hiding... (Score 1) 377

by Kijori (#46305717) Attached to: Assange's Lawyers: Follow Swedish Law, Interrogate Him In the UK

OK, so help me out:

A. There is a hearing at which the prosecutor does not need to provide evidence of guilt.
B. At the hearing the prosecutor does not provide evidence of guilt.
C. ??
D. Assange is not guilty.

Are you saying (i) that there is no need for C, D just follows logically from A and B; or (ii) there is a need for a C - in which case what goes there?

Comment: Re: or stop hiding... (Score 1) 377

by Kijori (#46305385) Attached to: Assange's Lawyers: Follow Swedish Law, Interrogate Him In the UK

I'm afraid I don't quite follow.

You accept that the extradition hearing was not trying to determine whether or not Assange was guilty. The prosecutor needed to prove that the European arrest warrant was valid, but didn't need to prove that Assange was guilty. The prosecutor provided evidence to show the arrest warrant was valid, but didn't provide evidence to prove that Arrange was guilty.

What's the significant of the prosecutor not providing evidence for something that they didn't need to provide evidence for?

Comment: Re: or stop hiding... (Score 1) 377

by Kijori (#46302127) Attached to: Assange's Lawyers: Follow Swedish Law, Interrogate Him In the UK

Right, I think we've got to the position that I thought we might be in to start with. The only public case that you were basing all this on is the extradition hearing - the hearing in which the Court expressly stated that it was not judging Assange's guilt; in which there was literally no consideration of the evidence in relation to one of the allegations, and only cursory consideration in relation to the others; and in which the Swedish prosecutor didn't even appear.

I suppose if you want to come to a settled judgement on that basis, that's your prerogative. I suspect that it's too big of a gap for us to come to agreement; and in any case the legal system, like me, considers it only to have been a preliminary hearing.

Comment: Re: or stop hiding... (Score 1) 377

by Kijori (#46298975) Attached to: Assange's Lawyers: Follow Swedish Law, Interrogate Him In the UK

Every little bit of information that has been leaked about this case has been reproduced on a thousand websites. If a case had been presented there would be innumerable translations and commentaries - it would be easy to find. A cynic would say that the reason you're refusing to give the link is that you know it doesn't exist.

To respond to your specific comments:

The case had to be presented in order to get an extradition order. Yes, there is an extradition order which is why he can't leave the embassy.

I know that there was an extradition hearing (judgment text). However, as I explained before, the case did not have to be presented at that hearing, and was not presented at that hearing. The Court reviewed a very small amount of material to ensure that the formal requirements of the Framework Decision were met - that's all. If you're basing a conclusion about Assange's innocence or guilt on that judgment you're building a tower without any foundations.

There are absolutely allegations which have a case filed in courts. See above.

My use of the phrase "criminal case" was not an accident. My point is that there are no filings that form part of the process by which Assange's guilt or innocence are assessed. You refer me to the English extradition hearing, but that hearing did not (and could not) make any judgement about his guilt.

Swedish courts don't operate like the USSR, but you need to do enough translation to find the case. If you search Slashdot there have been links posted to translated documents in the past (over a year ago?).

I still can't find this case that's open for inspection. The Swedish prosecutor has a chronology which doesn't refer to any charges having been filed. Justice for Assange has a list of available documents that doesn't include any Swedish case, and states that "no charges have been filed". If you know of this publicly available case, post it! I would love to read it! But nobody else - including the prosecutor and campaigners - seems to have any idea that it exists.

If you want knowledge, go get it! A bit of research will go a long way. To translate and find year(s) old sources requires more energy than I'm willing to give up. I gave a few hints for how to search out the case which is sufficient to get you started. Your choice is to either gain knowledge or argue from ignorance. Hopefully you choose the former, but the later is unfortunately more common.

The reason that I ask you to post a link to the case that you refer to isn't that I'm lazy and want you to do the work - it's that I think that we are at cross purposes, and you are referring to something that I don't recognise as being a case that's sufficient to judge Assange's innocence or guilt. If you will just post the source that you're relying on we can get to the bottom of it quickly.

What is worth doing is worth the trouble of asking somebody to do.

Working...