I will accept your observations. I have seen this behavior in many tech shops. There can be resistance to hiring people with a background/methodology very different from your own. Given that, do you think, or have you experienced, that judges who have spent time on both sides do a better job? Would you give a candidate (elected or appointed) more weight because of this, or are there too many other factors for this to be a consideration?
I am confident that a nearly equal number of defense attorneys are guilty of the same offenses. While I agree that some attorneys go to far, both sides need a qualified proponent for the system to work. The prosecutor needs to represent the interest of the community, and the defense to represent the interests of the accused. A more interesting requirement would be to elect judges who have experience on both sides of criminal cases.
For a short time I though Blockbuster had a winning angle when the introduced the DVD-by-mail. As I recall, you could get movies by mail, then return them to the store for a free (or discounted?) rental. I think they missed an opportunity when they limited the number of times in a month you could do this. I think it was only once or twice. In hindsight, they would have still lost once streaming became common, eliminating the time delay of renting by mail. Like you said, they saw changes to the industry coming, but tried to hold on to the old ways that made them what they were.
I agree. Being able to browse for clothing and home goods is still important. There is still no online replacement for being able to carry a pair of pants over to match them to a shirt. As much as I hate shopping for curtains and bed sheets, it is much easier to walk through the department, and see what catches your eye. Yes, online retailers have liberal return policies, but I think for many people, it is more of a pain to buy five items, to compare an contrast their color at home, then mail back the four you don't want.
Aren't all states/countries sovereign only in their borders? In the US, the people of the states decided that they would cede some of their sovereign powers to a central government. This avoids some of the problems seen in the European Union, where individual states retained more (almost all) sovereignty. I will admit that it is a subtle point, but an important one if you wish to understand the inner workings of our federal system, and why people can get excited over states rights when you discuss topics such as gay marriage.
The Constitution limits the sovereignty of the states, but does not take it away completely. A state may not enter into a treaty with a foreign power, but they have complete autonomy with how they issue a building permit, or prosecute a murder case. So they may not be sovereign states from the perspective of the UN, but they have a great deal of sovereign power independent of the US Federal Government. If you look at it from a States' rights perspective, the Civil War was fought over how much autonomy the States had, specifically with respect to slavery.
I am a bit split on negotiating. In my experience dealers seem to bundle the options on their cars so that the most desirable options come with a lot of extra, unrelated junk. So the DVD system only comes in models with leather seats. Or the hands free calling is only available with high performance tire/wheels. Yes I can talk them down 10%, but we are starting 20% higher than I expected. If I could choose only the options I want, and save the time/hassle of "let me talk to my manager", that could be a win in my book.
The Girl Scouts of the USA were founded by Juliette Gordon Low in 1912. Also, I am not sure that they can't be considered non-competing entities. The BSA has a co-ed Venturing program.
When the BSA changed is policy in May with respect to gay scouts, several groups began to organize Boy Scout-like programs (sans the gays). Several of these groups initially tried to use a form of the word "scout" in their name, or the trademarked Fleur-de-li as part of their logo. I think it is safe to assume that the BSA has stepped up enforcement of its trademarks and copyrights, in an effort to keep these groups from building on their name.
Except the reporter, you highlight all the common exceptions to the usual compulsory testimony rules. I feel lawyers are obvious, you need to be candid with them to provide a proper defense. For counselors/doctors, I think we want people to seek medical attention, rather than fear prosecution for a crime. In some cases this could prevent crime; consider the person who wants help for their compulsive shoplifting. I am not sure of all the arguments for priests/clergy. In my view, they are extensions of your deity. By seeking their advice, in the view of some, you are asking your god for help. Like doctors, this could serve to prevent, or compel someone who might not otherwise confess their crime, to "cleanse" their soul.
Because society has decided that the risk of government abuse of compulsory testimony by the accused is greater than the benefit. As for the third-party witness, what is the risk to them, compared to the benefit to society? In the first case, there is a risk that someone could be compelled to falsely indite themselves. In the second, society has the benefit of knowing the perspective of the witness, and the judge/jury have this information so that they can make an informed decision. The writers of the Constitution were not concerned with being fair, as much as limiting the power of government.
It is not an abuse of government power to compel testimony against yourself. The Fifth Amendment raises the bar for the government, to prosecute its case with more than just a confession or any help from the accused. In Ohio v Reiner, the Supreme Court says, "a witness may have a reasonable fear of prosecution and yet be innocent of any wrongdoing. The privilege serves to protect the innocent who otherwise might be ensnared by ambiguous circumstances." So if a 3rd party witness has a reasonable fear of prosecution, they can, and should invoke their rights. Otherwise, they must bring their information out, so the public can decide if the accused is guilty of a crime. I prefer Franklin's thinking on this matter, "it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer". The 5th amendment is not about making anything fair. It is about making absolutely sure that the right person is convicted.
Suppose the defense was able to produce an alibi witness. Should that person be allowed to refuse to testify? The Fifth Amendment is there to prevent the government from abusing its powers, by compelling you participate in your own prosecution. But if any witness is allowed to refuse testimony, for no good reason, then how would justice be done?
As I recall, the mirror size for Hubble was limited so that it could fit into the Space Shuttle payload bay. Since then, newer rockets have been developed that can lift heavier and bulkier objects into space.
I have found that tags (even auto-generated) really don't work well for image search. Sure you could apply the tag for a "car" every time you detect one, but what if you are only interested in red cars, or race cars, or trucks? Tags begin to fail quickly when you move beyond broad categories of objects. My understanding is that Google image search uses the text in the associated web page to figure out what is in the image. Other work in this area uses a group of similar images to build a model that is used to find similar features in your target data.