Amanda Knox-America vs. Italy-Right or Wrong?

Well by now the verdict is out. Guilty. 26 years in prison.

 

The global media has aimed this case on her, so that is where my comments and opinions will focus. Mind you all my comments her are my own and all are pure opinion with little or no fact behind it. I do not care, as simply I doubt that people read this. So it's more of a place for me to put my thoughts down. If you do read this and disagree then fine, you're allowed.

 

There is one underlying problem with this case.

 

1. An American citizen being tried with foreign laws.
   
   1. There is only one way to have a fair and impartial jury or judicial system when it comes to nationality trials like this.
      
      1. There must be an international tribunal to oversee such trials. All members of said trial, including jurors need to be secluded from the media as well as family to prevent contamination of opinion.
         
2. Only pre-approved media would have access to the courts deliberations.
   
   1. The reason behind this is that it would at least stem the flow of media bias.
      
      1. Yes, people believe everywhere that there is no bias in their system, and that the media portrays only what the truth is. Hogwash. If the media were so self-righteous then they would dig for the truth themselves and not just accept the scraps from the table.
         
3. The judge, the jury, the prosecutors, and the defense would come from all nationalities.
   
   1. Some might see that as a conflict of opinion, but when people are put out of their normal routine, they act differently.
      
      1. For example, if Osama bin Laden were indeed captured, he would be tried and defended by someone different than his nationality. Let's say that he might have an American defending him. Or in the case of Amanda Knox, have a native of Africa defend her.
         
4. When it comes to evidence, research and forensics.
   
   1. Joint nationality as well, true that the originating country would have had first go at the scene, but the moment that any prime suspect from a different nationality becomes prime focus, the originating country takes second seat.
      
      1. By having different nationalities working together you get the non-bias that is needed to protect against international conflict. Not to mention when different people work together for a common goal understanding and cooperation ensues.
         

 

I'm not saying that any of this would be easy, but when it comes to a case or any case of this magnitude where a whole nation is put on trial, and then it needs to happen.

 

I've been reading several articles today, about the Amanda Knox trial and the verdict. I have also read from many opinion boards as well. There is a clearly defined split. Those who thinks she is innocent and that the Italian courts are wrong, and those that think she is guilt and that the family of Knox are bullies and that the American court systems are wrong.

There in is the problem. When you become a citizen of a country, then you are agreeing to abide by their laws and their decisions. However, if you a visitor or transfer student, as is the case with Knox, then you are a citizen of another country and do not, or rather should not agree to be tried by the countries laws. This does not mean that a visitor can run amuck, but there needs to be an impartial judicial system in place, or you can never have a FAIR trial.

I can already here the questions aimed at America and how it has "detained" people of interest when it comes to terrorism. To put my opinion here, I do not believe that people should ever be detained without cause, but I do believe that if there is question, then there should also be a fast track for them to be tried or evidence brought against them. I do not think that Americas system is the best when it comes to litigation, but I also do not think that other countries have it right either. It all becomes a matter of opinion, and that is why I propose an international tribunal.

 

Good Laughs will ensue, but you must read through them all!

Ever Wonder Why??? ......................


...why the sun lightens our hair, but darkens our skin? ...why women can't
put on mascara with their mouth closed?
...why you don't ever see the headline "Psychic Wins Lottery"?
...why "abbreviated" is such a long word?
...why doctors call what they do "practice"?
...why you have to click on "Start" to stop Windows 98?
...why lemon juice is made with artificial flavor, while dishwashing liquid is made with real lemons?
...why the man who invests all your money is called a broker?
...why there isn't mouse-flavored cat food?
...who tastes dog food when it has a "new & improved" flavor?
...why Noah didn't swat those two mosquitoes?
...why they sterilize the needle for lethal injections?
...why they don't make the whole plane out of the material used for the indestructible black box ?
...why sheep don't shrink when it rains?
...why they are called apartments when they are all stuck together?
...if con is the opposite of pro, is Congress the opposite of progress?
...why they call the airport "the terminal" if flying is so safe?
AND...
In case you need further proof that the human race is doomed because of stupidity, here are some actual label instructions on consumer goods.
On a Sears hairdryer: Do not use while sleeping. (darn, and that's the only time I have to work on my hair).
On a bag of Fritos: You could be a winner! No purchase necessary. Details inside. (the shoplifter special?)
On a bar of Dial soap: "Directions: Use like regular soap." (and that would
be how???....)
On some Swanson frozen dinners: "Serving suggestion: Defrost." (but, it's "just" a suggestion).
On Tesco's Tiramisu dessert (printed on bottom): "Do not turn upside own." (well...duh, a bit late, huh)!
On Marks & Spencer Bread Pudding: "Product will be hot after heating." (...and you thought????.....)
On packaging for a Rowenta iron: "Do not iron clothes on body." (but wouldn't this save me more time?)
On Boot's Children Cough Medicine: "Do not drive a car or operate machinery after taking this medication." (We could do a lot to reduce the rate of construction accidents if we could just get those 5-year-olds with head-colds off those forklifts.)
On Nytol Sleep Aid: "Warning: May cause drowsiness." (and...I'm taking this because???....)
On most brands of Christmas lights: "For indoor or outdoor use only." (as opposed to...what?)
On a Japanese food processor: "Not to be used for the other use." (now, somebody out there, help me on this. I'm a bit curious.)
On Sunsbury's peanuts: "Warning: contains nuts." (talk about a news flash!)
On an American Airlines packet of nuts: "Instructions: Open packet, eat nuts." (Step 3: maybe, uh.....fly Delta?)
I don't blame the company. I blame the parents for this one:On a child's superman costume: "Wearing of this garment does not enable you to fly."
On a Swedish chainsaw: "Do not attempt to stop chain with your hands or genitals." (...was there a lot of this happening somewhere?)

The world in Chaos

So here we are, on the verge of hitting the historical 2010. Many films and books have made this year something special. Hell, one movie is even named 2010, though the book is better.
So what's my point?

Simple, we as a human society have come to a point where we have given in to Corporations. We have allowed corporations to decide what we want and if there is a hint of disagreement on the consumers part then the corporations squelch us with lawsuits and years of litigation.
One thing I would like to make clear is that in the term Corporation I also include government, and by government I include every legitimate and illegitimate bodies.

Let's face it, who made the decision in the U.S. to bail out failing companies? The government.
Who has filed lawsuit after lawsuit against other corporations, thus wasting more time on mundane crap that will not affect humanity in any long term serious way? The government.

Now of course there are those out there that say, "Well hey, you voted them in. It's your fault that they did these things." This is indeed partly true. However in the case of the U.S. government bailing out car companies and others I would like to add, that I never gave my permission to have them spend my hard earned tax dollars to pay for stupidity. I don't see how I gave the government the right to make sure that CEO's got their room full of money. Also, since when did I vote in a government that would make these types of decisions, considering that we're not talking about a few million here and there, we're talking billions, without seeking a popular vote?
I'm also aghast at the E.U. for constantly filing lawsuits against one corporation in particular; Microsoft. It's bad enough that there are cases in our own country that have become so befuddled with idiocy that the truth has been buried. Claims get thrown back and forth about monopolistic behaviour, the big guy squashing the little guy, or they stole our idea and though it's value is only worth a few thousand grand, we want millions. It makes me very damned mad that our governments waste time on this crap. There's much more they could spend that time and effort on that would improve life.
Again, however I must play my own devil's advocate and say, "Well, if government didn't step in and stop this type of behavior then there would be a Monopoly and then eventually the consumer would be screwed without proper representation." Fine, we do want to preempt such actions, but why not wait until there is a problem? Since most nations have a good portion of their society based on capitalism then eventually, if the consumers aren't afraid of getting stuck in a rut, the consumers will decide the outcome. But when government keep sucking the consumer dry with more and more taxes, only to give those taxes to the corporations that we now longer wish to fund, well then our choice has been squelched by the thing that was supposed to protect it.

So you ask, why they hell am I even writing this thing? It looks like I bitch and moan about what is going on and I am not willing to make a change. Quite the contrary, I'm willing to make a change, but the change I would like to make is only mirrored by a few. Most people have succumbed to being directed and told what is best for them. Sounds like Logan's Run.
A good example of this is Apple and their plethora of apps that they provide for the iPhone and iPod touch. When people think about it, who is supposed to decide what works and what doesn't?
The consumer should, but they don't. At least not when it comes to Apple.
Think about this. Apple has rejected an app called Google Voice. It's an app that would allow the consumer to make calls at a reduced cost, more than likely lower than that of the cellular provider, and you can even setup a number for your Google Voice account that redirects call to that number to any other number you provide (mind you that the number you provide needs to be authorized- So no toilet jokes allowed). So far it seems pretty straight forward right?
Wrong. Apple rejected this app and now it's in litigation to decide if they were acting fair. How long it stays in litigation is unknown, but if Apple has their way then it will be a long assed time.
However, to make things even more interesting, an App for both the iPhone and iPod touch has just been released for Vonage.
Most people have heard about Vonage and their extremely low call prices. Well now you can use it from your iPhone or if you could figure out how to attach a microphone to the iPod Touch, then you can use it where-ever you have a WiFi connection.
It seems to me that the Google Voice app wasn't at all rejected by AT&T like some think, or else why couldn't they use Google Voice when they have a WiFi connection, something that AT&T has no control over?
Well here we see where a corporation decides to flex its muscles and force the consumers to accept their choice. I say if we are indeed a society of litigation, then where's the lawsuits against Apple? After all this behavior is no different from what Microsoft has been accused and has been proven of doing?
Should we just sit back and say, well I like the product sooo much that I will just deal with it? Hell NO!
We little itty bitty people, called consumers and voters, have such a big voice that when used can deafen the world. However, we can only use it when we combine our forces and stop working against each other. Mind you that our voice doesn't necessarily mean speaking or yelling literally. That will get us somewhere, but slowly. People will recognize what we have to say and then respond with delaying tactics and the like. We need to speak to corporations in a much more direct nature, one that corporations know all too well. Our voice should be money.
If we decide not to spend our money, or decide that our tax dollars are not going where they would benefit our growth into prosperity then we need to start withdrawing our funding of these corporations.
Now I've been rambling on and it's mainly for my release of pressure over the injustices that I see, but if there is just one person that is affected by my opinion to better their lives or those around by making their voice count then I feel better.
I would also like to add that I am not talking about Anarchy here. No overthrowing the current government and replacing it with nothing. That's a bad thing. I'm talking about where you don't see someone you think has society's best interests at heart on the ballot, then write in "None of the above.", I'm talking about when you feel a corporation is stiffing your choice on what you want, then don't spend your money their.
It's truly sad this current age we live in. We're surrounded by magnificent technologies that have the potential to improve our lives and unite us in a common goal, but we're too damned cowered into a position of acceptance that we may not know how to speak up.

Our Constitution begin used against ourselves

Well if you have been following my posts you will notice that my comments are purely my own opinion and I write what's on top of my head.
The topics I write about are things that really make me mad, or disappointed, or things that make absolutely no common sense. Unfortunately it would seem that common sense is something that this Country and the rest of the world is missing a great deal of.
To quote a page from Thomas Paine's "Common Sense", a pamphlet of which I highly recommend reading, "A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defense of custom."

So how do I tie that in with what I am writing? Simple really. The latest buzz on the Internet is about a women from Minnesota who file shared nearly 1702 tracks, but only 24 were targeted. Now, I think that we all know that downloading copyrighted material is indeed against the law and know all about pirating. However, this is where common sense has flown the coop.
Jammie Thomas, who happens to be a 31 year mother, had been tried for a copyright infringement case back in 2007 and was charged with a total of $222,000 in fines. She appealed and now it's 2 years later and the fines were multiplied by nearly 8.5% for total of 1.92 million dollars.
Say What?
So for a case that targeted only 24 songs, she is being charged $80000. Yeah that's FIVE zeros.
Now I know that she may have been found guilty of infringement and should be punished, but for a total of $80000 a song?!?

There's very few people who even make that amount in span of four years, but assuming she could make $80000 in four years and didn't make any other payments on anything...including necessities such as rent, electricity, FOOD, KIDS... It would take her 96 years to pay it off.

Take some time to think that over. 96 years. In less time than that our world went from riding in horse and buggies to landing a man on the moon.
Can our society have evolved at such a rapid pace that we have forgotten common sense? Is it possible that in the day and age of instant satisfaction, that things that we knew were wrong have been overlooked and now have become such a common occurrence as to make it right?

This case definitely shows how twisted our courts have become. I use the term twisted, because I cannot definitively say corrupt, though I would highly suggest that term.
The fight over any form of produced media has become so convoluted that the courts have become agreeable to the whims of the media moguls. By moguls I am referring to recording companies, movie companies, and even book companies. These are the ones that stand to loose profit by having their products spread out into the ether that is the Internet. Since they have no way to stop a person from going to the store and buying a DVD or CD and then taking the songs or movies from that media and making it available for sharing to others from their own computers, they have sought to make examples out of those that they can catch doing it.

Problem is that by doing so, only angers those who already do it, and creates doubt in those who don't understand it, and righteous vigilance for those who have never done it and feel that those who have should be punished to the fullest extent possible.

Yet here we are, looking at this poor woman and her fate of 96 years of lining the pockets of....Who?

Either way, the war is on. The problem is the war on whom? Those who download against those who don't? How do you prove that someone has downloaded something that they do not already own?

I will end this one by saying that yeah, I too have downloaded songs and movies, and other material. Though here's where I want you to think. What if I already owned some of those works that I downloaded and couldn't find my originals for some reason? What would you think if that by downloading something that I went out and purchased it because I thought it was so good that I wanted a "Legal" copy of it, would that make the download still "illegal" since I purchased the right to play it how I wished? Then again, what would you think if I had some form of media that I have had for years and was starting to fade and generally become unusable? Do I then have to go back to the store and purchase it again? I though I already purchased the rights to use that media, why do I have to buy it again?
You can see that just in these questions alone that the courts have gone too far with this sentencing. It's just common sense.

Thanks for the support

So I've been paying attention to the recent suit against MS and other such changes to how the interwebz is being controlled. Some seriouz crazy business goin on out there in the real world, though I hazard a guess that most of the politicians don't live in the same world as you or I.

Anyways, I just read an article this morning about Apple's recent pot shots they took at Windows at the WWDC09.
Now, I really don't care which OS a person uses, after it's their damned choice. What I do have a problem with is when a company gets on one band wagon and stays there, and as a pitiful side effect breeds blind fools that will follow that company to the end of the circuit board.
That's exactly what Apple has been doing these last few years. Instead of actually talking about their products abilities, well I should say mostly, the majority of their advertising is based on a bash windows system. If people think that Windows is failing or is seriously dangerous for people to use and not secure, then they will come and buy from us.
I understand that this is a free market society and I encourage that, people's choice will decide the outcome, always had and always will.
Apple does indeed have some fantastic products that are leaders in their market niche, however when it what said that Win7 is just another version of Vista and that "still has to deal with DLLs, the registry, disk defragmenter, and so on"...I find that highly distateful to users in general. Most users don't even know that those items even exist, much less know what they are.
The comment about it being another version of Vista is also ridiculous, after with Apple working on Snow Leopard, their next release, isn't that just another verison of Leopard?

The bashing of products really needs to cease, on both sides. I say sides since the leaders here are MS and Apple. Though a good majority of Linux users also bash MS.
The only way that a product will improve is when there is a demand for it, or if there is competition. Now for these companies, competition is rated in revenue, or as we lamens call it. Paychecks.

If you want them to improve it, then don't buy it. If the company truly cares about innovation and improving technology, then they will improve upon their product or create a new one to bring back a consumer base.

Anyways, I've digressed. I just wanted to say a thank you to all the Mac Users out there that have had it with the way that Apple has been treating Windows and appreciate it that even if for just a moment you say that this calling of names has gone too far and there needs to be a break.

A day of thought

Shout out to all who'll read this though this is just for me to vent...

I just had a double tooth extraction 2 days ago, damn my wisdom teeth, and I am now having phantom pains. I really don't see why the human body even has wisdom teeth, what the hell are they good for except making the lives of people who don't have dental insurance a nightmare.
I'm on a tight budget, like most people these days I reckon, so when it comes to insurance I usually sulk away. I figure if I ain't broken or bleedin to death then I'm fine. Hopefully there will be some serious medical reform coming soon, not some frontal facade to trick people into believing something different.

There's another thing that I have been thinking about today that doesn't have anything to do with my personal hygiene or health care. I've been giving some thought to the current anti-trust case that the European Commission has against Microsoft. Now before I go any further with my thoughts I just want to say that if you are a fanatic with no open mind then please redirect yourselves now.
Just a little background: The EC has filed anti-trust suits against Microsoft several years ago because MS was bundling Windows Media Player with Windows, and they believed that it was monopolistic and stifling other competitors.
So back to current events. Now the European Commission is filing suit against MS once more, except this time it's about Internet Explorer. It is their belief that with bundling I.E. with the Windows OS that it is giving MS an unfair advantage and once again becoming a monopoly and stifling competitors. This recent suit came about after a complaint from the Norwegian company Opera.

Now here's my stance. Do I believe that MS should open some of it's source so that other companies can provide workable alternatives to MS's own programs? Yes, to a degree. The Windows OS is a major player in the OS world, and thus should be allowed it's privacy. If you open too much source then you will have fanatics chomping at the bit to introduce more worms and viruses to cause nothing more than mere chaos. Then again you will also have those who would wish to introduce hidden loggers into your OS so that they can efficiently steal your credentials and thus your life. This is why a closed source can be a good thing, it provides security. To those who would point out that Ubuntu, or any Linux based OS is secure, I would say not entirely. It's just that why would you bother with just a handful of people that use these OS's when you can design something that would effect millions.

Also, when it comes to browsers, I hate to say it, but Opera just ain't what it used to be. There are only four main Browsers right now duking it out.
1. Internet Explorer: Provided by Microsoft
2. FireFox: Provided by Mozilla
3. Safari: Provided by Apple
4. Chrome: Provided by Google

If you look at Browser leadership, Opera is a dying breed. Yes, it's true that I.E. holds a majority over the other browsers, and yes that's because it is bundled with Windows. However, the gap between browsers is closing. That's because people who actually care about what they use are making pro-active choice of which browser they want to use.

I personally have used all of the above browsers including Opera at one point. My personal favorite is Chrome, though I am not using it at the moment because there are a few features that cannot be implemented just yet and those features are key points for me. So for the time being I use I.E. 8.

Now MS has offered to unbundle I.E. from it's near release of Windows 7 from the European Release, however, the EC isn't happy with this and they want to go further. They would have MS actually come with other browsers bundled with Windows so that users could choose which they would want to use.
Are you kidding me??? Since when does forcing a company to not only offer, but advertise a competitors program become a fair advantage to all? This recent stance from the EC is nothing more than a "Because I said so" routine and smells rather peculiar with the fact that the regulation against Windows Media Player has come to an end, at least with a constant review against MS, as well as the complaint from a rather low key browser company.
The sad thing is that other companies are jumping on this bandwagon, including Google and FireFox, as well as Safari if I recall correctly. More like buzzards to a corpse, though I highly doubt that MS is a corpse, or will be any time in the near Future.

If companies truly feel that Microsoft is a monopoly then I suggest that they develop a program that has appeal for all. Either that or get off their asses and actually do some real work to improve their product instead of passing of the crap that they say is competitive.

EC's case does nothing more that stifle a Free Market society, a place where the consumer decides the outcome of businesses and products. Where is the case against other companies and OS's to force them to abide by the same rules as Microsoft?

Since my ranting a raving is coming to an end, I just want to say, that if you don't like what you are seeing with the way Government is handling things....Then get out there and bitch, vote, write letters, form petitions, do anything that can get your voice and choice heard. If you choose to sit idly back and let Government make your choices for you and essentially let them live your life, then I say that you have no rights and no voice that SHOULD be heard.

well that's all i can type for now, me poor wittle fingers is bleeding lol