Skype webcam america to argenti
It's searchable, and apparently popular because when a police officer or anyone annoying tries to get away with something illegal, one can just open the app and look up the law regarding whatever is being disputed. ) world, more often than not, factors like who you know, who just likes you, who you bribe, how you get through the bureaucracy -- are much more important than what the law theoretically says. Here's how: the government purposely passes endless contradictory laws thus ensuring you are always breaking the law, just to survive.I'm being euphemistic: a difference between developed and undeveloped countries can be seen in how much the letter or the spirit of the law actually matters. As INC magazine pointed out, the tax rate on businesses goes up to 108% of your profit. (A business can't pay 108% of its money in taxes and still survive! Therefore, you live in a state of somehow doing something illegal. If the government doesn't like you, they find the illegal thing you're doing (that you have to do, just to survive, since the laws are contradictory and unreasonable, like that 108%), and then punish you for "breaking" the law.Imagine both sides of lawyers and the judge all having access to a system like this - cases could be resolved a lot faster and time spent building defense/prosecution would be a significantly smaller.Implemented right, this could somewhat level the playing field and allow poorer people have access to some sort of legal advice, which today they would not be able to afford.I'm going to bury this post and ask you all not to post more of them.Only one account (whoishiring) is allowed to make regular feature posts that we don't kill as duplicates. Experiments are worth trying, but this one has gone on for a month now and I don't think it has cleared the bar .The same can be applied to divorce, patents, property etc.My idea was to use an Erlang map reduce system to help fan out the queries which are dispatched to an underlying Prolog knowledge base (Erlang supports something like Channels/Ports).
The threads seem to have gotten less interesting as they've become more regular. It seems to me that the ability to merge threads (either automatically or through moderator action) would benefit this, and the problem of multiple posts on the same subject in general.
As I've tried to explain, if there isn't a clear 'yes' then the default answer should be 'no'.
I wonder if there's a different path to getting the valuable part of it?
Kick start the first Idea Sunday of May.(PLEASE upvote if you like this post to be seen by more people, as someone in the previous Idea Sunday mentioned the post with less points than number of comments will be penalized in ranking.
Thanks.)Ok, when people start racing to post these at midnight, and beg for upvotes, this experiment has jumped the shark.
The general goal of giving lawyers a formula for inputting a case with a certain grammar and format and getting a useful output of laws and precedence seems amazingly useful.