Things That Annoy You

[ironbite]

I KEEL YOU ALL!

[RavynousHunter]

HOW THE FUCK HARD IS IT TO CLEAR A DOUBLY-LINKED GOD DAMNED LIST?!  I keep getting segfaults no matter WHAT I do, and I'm about to god damned kill someone!

[Askold]

My NEW computer crashed repeatedly before it had managed to start up properly.

This is an issue that comes and goes but hasn't been this bad before. Now it has run or 3 minutes in row and I wonder if the worst has passed.

[RavynousHunter]

Do you have multiple RAM sticks installed?  If so, try running the system with just one of them at a time; one might be faulty.  We had a similar problem when we first built our desktop: frequent blue screens and general cockups til we read that it might be RAM-related and, whaddya know, it was.

Also, went to Barnes and Noble, today.  Unlike the Books-A-Million that's also nearby, they had nothing Pusheen.  I am disappoint.

[Vypernight]

I find it funny that the US has made defending the country voluntary, but has forcible jury duty.  Because fuck me if I want to pass this semester, I guess.  God damned barbarism.

There's no exception for being a student? Jeez.

Granted, I'll probably never have to serve on a jury, since all I'll say is that I have an M.Sc. in Math, and the Crown attorney will say, "Thanks but no thanks."

Twice when I was in college, I got hit with jury duty.  Both times I sent them a copy of my schedule, and both times, it was accepted.  If you're in college, they shouldn't be able to force you to go to jury duty, especially if you're paying for the classes.

[The_Queen]

I find it funny that the US has made defending the country voluntary, but has forcible jury duty.  Because fuck me if I want to pass this semester, I guess.  God damned barbarism.

As a law-person, I am obligated to tell you that "jury duty" is one of the most foundational aspects of due process that every American citizen should take pride in contributing to.

[RavynousHunter]

When it interferes with critical aspects of my life (if I want to get a proper job in my field, I NEED a fuckin degree), it and anything else that does so can go straight down the shitter.  Besides, I prefer to take pride in my own, willing accomplishments.  Taking pride in things that are forced upon you is just dumb.

(I realize you were likely being tongue-in-cheek, but I've found more than a few folks who honestly felt that way.)

[The_Queen]

When it interferes with critical aspects of my life (if I want to get a proper job in my field, I NEED a fuckin degree), it and anything else that does so can go straight down the shitter.  Besides, I prefer to take pride in my own, willing accomplishments.  Taking pride in things that are forced upon you is just dumb.

(I realize you were likely being tongue-in-cheek, but I've found more than a few folks who honestly felt that way.)

I'm happy that I have changed your mind on the subject. Being open to new points of view and evolving your opinions to comport with new arguments and ideas is the true sign of intelligence.

[Skybison]

Actually serious question Queen because you know about law stuff.  I know a guy on another site who argues that regular juries should be replaced by ones run by trained professionals who's job is to sit on juries because regular people are too easily confused and manipulated by skilled lawyers to ignore evidence because they don't have a strong enough understanding of forensic science, law and critical thinking.  He came off rather convincing, especially after I watched that TV show about the OJ Simpson case.  But I didn't completely buy it because he's a fanatical anarcho-capitialist who I know to be a giant Dunning-Kruger about nearly every topic I know much about (ie Climate Change, History).

So is he being a Dunning-Kruger about this?  Is there some reason that's actually terrible or could that work?

[RavynousHunter]

I have heard (granted, this is not confirmed in any way, shape, or form) that it has to do with lay people being more...neutral, or something along those lines.  As well as that whole "beyond a reasonable doubt" thing.  Though, honestly, I can't say I disagree with him.  Lay people are far too easily convinced by skilled turns of phrase and whatever bullshit they see on TV crime dramas.  Honestly, one should probably be given some kind of competency test before being allowed to serve on a jury to weed out people that think CSI represents actual forensic work.

[Sleepy]

I don't agree with the notion of "professional juries." Such a thing instantly introduces bias into the case, because you would have people entering that profession with a number of ulterior motives. They would also be subject to basing any of their opinions off of past cases they'd taken part in, which is completely unfair to the defendant. A random selection of citizens makes for a far more just trial. Besides, when serving on a jury, you're asked a number of questions beforehand to ensure you're fully capable of making any decisions that may lie ahead, and that you understand what is being asked of you in providing your judgment on the case.

[Lana Reverse]

Actually serious question Queen because you know about law stuff.  I know a guy on another site who argues that regular juries should be replaced by ones run by trained professionals who's job is to sit on juries because regular people are too easily confused and manipulated by skilled lawyers to ignore evidence because they don't have a strong enough understanding of forensic science, law and critical thinking.  He came off rather convincing, especially after I watched that TV show about the OJ Simpson case.  But I didn't completely buy it because he's a fanatical anarcho-capitialist who I know to be a giant Dunning-Kruger about nearly every topic I know much about (ie Climate Change, History).

So is he being a Dunning-Kruger about this?  Is there some reason that's actually terrible or could that work?

You sure they're an ancap? Because that sounds more like something a technocrat would suggest. At least to me.

[pyro]

First, if there's juries, then it's not anarchy. You've got a pretty big government by the time courts come into play.

Second, what's the difference between a "professional jury" and a "trial by judge?" Either way, the verdict is coming from a law professional.

[Askold]

For the record: Finland has professional juries.

Or more accurately, a court is made up from "Judges" and "Lay Judges" (although the term could also be translated as "jury member") and the composition changes depending on whether it is a low court or high court and few other factors. So commonly the court that decides your case could have one speaker and two lay judges deciding your case but if you appeal to a higher court then there might even be more than one judge and several lay judges deciding the case.


It's been years since we went through this in school and I can't seem to find a simple composition explanation on the net. Also, everyone has a different title but the point remains that judges and juries are trained professionals who are chosen for the job by a board of trained professionals. Not exactly a "jury of peers" like in Finland but I personally think that the benefits of having professionals who know the laws and tricks of the court overweights any benefits from having random people on the jury.

[Skybison]

First, if there's juries, then it's not anarchy. You've got a pretty big government by the time courts come into play.

The way his idea works, as I understand it, is there's no government at all.  Instead courthouses and police forces are for-profit private companies that can use any legal code they want and compete with each other on the free market, with juries being paid employees.  Then customers  can pick whichever company provides the best laws, and no-one has to follow laws they don't agree with.

Now you might be wondering "Wouldn't companies just rule in favor of whoever payed them the most?  Wouldn't poor people be unable to afford legal protection?  Wouldn't that make the law impossible to enforce since a rapist could refuse to go to any court that wasn't run by MRAs?  Wouldn't the competing police forces/courts inevitably clash with each other and cause a civil war, the winner would be a new government?"  The answer to these questions is "NO, BECAUSE IT JUST WOULDN'T SHUT UP!"

Yeah I think that's nonsense, but I can see the argument for a Finland system.  Are Finnish courts unfair to defendants or have more ulterior motives then other courts do?