Slashdot Mirror

McVeigh complained that the Army had implanted a microchip into his buttocks so that the government could keep track of him. [Ref 1]

Kind of a sore subject with me because I've been trying to highlight police abuse for about 25 years. Police imitating hollywood as I put it in the beginning. So -

You're kidding, right? ALL THE TIME. However white lives don't matter. Neither do black lives if you want to be honest about it. None of us citizens do.

To the point - Google
"white man shot by black officer"
Not that this is a racial thing or something white people get shot by police.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

Check out the graph on race.

This is what is killing us - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Police have taken this about 20 foot rule and if you're in that circle, they shoot you. Black, white, other, you're shot. I discussed the militarization of the police with a MD state policeman. Man was he hostile about it. Said things like that never happen. This was about a year ago. So I've told him recently - told you so. He was hostile again. Not his force... yet it still happened in Maryland and Baltimore has been crazy for a long time. Need more sheriff Taylor type policing. Less swat.

Oh and for anybody who wants to know how to lose weight, it's dead simple, just follow this formula

Grab a clue. If it were that simple, it would have happened already.

People don't give a shit about actual weight loss (except for jockeys, boxers, and astronauts), what they give a shit about is a return to lustworthy fitness and physical vitality.

Have you never seen a phrase in your life that encodes an underlying desire slightly different than a formal dictionary dissection? Sheesh. Get out of your mother's basement a live a little.

Why diets donâ(TM)t actually work, according to a researcher who has studied them for decades

And the third biological change, which I think people do sort of know about, is that there are metabolic changes. Your metabolism slows down. Your body uses calories in the most efficient way possible. Which sounds like a good thing, and would be good thing if you're starving to death.

My my my, how defense against starvation is so lustworthy, if your sluggish waif-booty so much as makes it onto the dance floor.

Sounds like the FBI is just continuing to implement Bush's program for protecting us from terrorists. On Sept 20th, 2001 he informed us that they hate our freedoms, especially our freedom of speech.

So it is only logical that if we eliminate freedom, the terrorists will no longer have a motive to attack us. Or even their neighbors halfway across the planet.

Ban r/India;
They're the most racist people on Earth;
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

Another public news source if you want. Italians Detail Lavish CIA Operation (June 26, 2005 )
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
'...and electronic records that enabled Italian investigators to retrace their movements in detail."
"... who reported that by piecing together records of those phones' electronic signals they were able to trace the route of the van as it headed"
The idea is that movement and time fills in the map at that human or car level per city street.
A person of interest walks in a park and sits down. A journalist spends 10 or 20 mins with them, the whistleblower is identified. Overlapping location, maps, logs and time stamps with the right software.
That mapping software was once nation state only but is now within a city or state or county budget per year.
The "to the second" is from the cell tower and a phone been in contact with the billing, location and availability to make or get a call per user quickly. All logged for a long time (months and months and .. longer).

We still are waiting on the "evidence" that it was China behind the OPM hack. I doubt we'll get anything clearer here.

Inspector general Patrick E. McFarland said that OPM’s Office of the Chief Information Officer, or OCIO, has “hindered and interfered with” his office’s oversight and “has created an environment of mistrust by providing my office with incorrect and/or misleading information.” http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

I see people saying this a lot but I've never seen any solid evidence that it's still true. In 2014 and so far in 2015 China has actually reduced its coal use by a significant amount. China coal use continues to fall precipitously. Maybe they're replacing older inefficient plants with newer ones or maybe they're not using so much for home heating, etc. but any drop in coal use by them is a good thing.

http://instituteforenergyresea...

http://www.reuters.com/article...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

http://www.climatecentral.org/...

It appears that DC razors only do one side of the face properly.

See the bits at the sides (well, one of them) that normally make it into a Fu Manchu/Charles Bronson jobbie

His looks an unfastened padlock, the twat.

Legislature? Obama doesn't need any stinking legislature. He's Emperor Lameduck! He rules by executive order!

Interesting fact: In 2014 the Supreme Court ruled that the Clean Air Act gives the EPA not only the authority to regulate CO2 emissions, but the responsibility to do so.

So you're right, Obama doesn't need the legislature to do this, because the legislature already gave him (or more precisely, gave the EPA) the power to do this back in 1970.

If the legislature doesn't like what the EPA is doing, they can of course pass new legislation limiting what the EPA can do. Assuming the legislature is still capable of passing anything, of course.

You are giving a single data point. Perhaps you should provide a data point further in the past to at least give a slope to your assertion? Here let me help. The effective tax rate on the top 1% has been falling since 1995 while for everyone else it is at a historic low. However it is important to keep in mind that the percent of wealth owned by that 1% has increased dramatically: the ratio of 50th to 99th wealth has gone from 0.024 in 1995 to 0.01 in 2013. In particular the 50% wealth level has DROPPED while the 99% wealth level has almost doubled.

Well, how else should the propaganda artists fallaciously link climate change with the eating of meat? They want us all to be eating insects someday, after all. Of course, by 'all' they mean us commoners. I am sure the wealthy elite ruling class will still have their steak, regardless of party and regardless of country.

Last century, we tried the national socialist we're-better-than-everyone-else tact to cajole people into slavery. Now we're going for the self-loathing, guilt tripping INTERnational socialism that replaces educated, intelligent, successful and free societies with masses of uneducated, easily indoctrinated, socially dependent, easily enslaved immigrants! Hurrah Comrades! Now eat your mealworms and like it. Those who resist must check their privilege.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
http://www.nature.com/scitable...
http://www.newsweek.com/why-en...
etc ad nauseum

All 31 of them (in the past 15 years)

Well according to this, the theory kinda fall flat. US would do it in a heartbeat and it's all fair game really:

“This is espionage,” said Michael Hayden, a retired Air Force general and former head of the CIA and the National Security Agency, of the OPM hacks. “I don’t blame the Chinese for this at all. If I [as head of the NSA] could have done it, I would have done it in a heartbeat. And I would have not been required to call downtown, either” to seek White House permission.

The reason why the government is sending mixed signal is probably what you mention, if the Chinese really do it, why would they be so obvious in showing the source of attack is from China?

Considering that the US average vaccination rate is equal to or below that of the places where the illegal immigrants are coming from, you're wrong.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

Well the US government already subsidizes cotton producers in Brazil so why not.

The FCC can't strike down a state law. They can argue in court against it or work towards its repeal. They aren't that powerful.

I'm going to have to leave this now, but as a parting shot: The Washington post explicitly says that the FCC does indeed have the power to "preemt" state law (direct quote). (As I understand it without having to go via a court, though I assume that the state can sue the FCC if they want to appeal the decision).

Is this a mischaracterisation of the actual legal process?

They can't deny a permit based on the content of the speech.

Here's an excellent analysis and explanation by Eugene Volokh.

They don't have to buy the country, just the government. And all that's required to do that is merely to spend enough to influence a sufficient number of the 535 legislators who make its laws.

The same dynamic works at the state and local levels.

All corporations allocate a certain amount to lobby/invest in government. Those investments typically have a very high rate of return. Another more in-depth analysis is here.

This AG is already (in)famous for his use of obviously flawed forensic testimony to convict innocent people - even in death penalty cases.

Even if the Blumenthal emails meet the subpoena requirements, we don't know if the State Department has them or not.

You are forgetting that it wasn't the State Department that turned over the Blumenthal emails... it was Blumenthal.

How do we know this? The State Department said so!

So much for turning over all documents...

I think you only read the opening paragraph, which like any story about someone accused of a crime involves them pleading their innocence... however the article gets far worse the more it goes on for Hillary:

In a joint statement, the two inspectors general who made the referral said that it was "a security referral made for counterintelligence purposes." But, they added, they found that a sample of 40 of Clinton's emails from Clinton's server contained four with classified information that should "never have been transmitted via an unclassified personal system."

Clinton said in March that "I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email. There is no classified material."

Mishandling of classified information is a rather serious crime... just act David Petraeus.

Being totally ineffective at stopping mentally disturbed individuals to fence jump into the WH's lawn.

The president was on the other side of the building boarding a helicopter and in no danger. The fence jumper was in view of at least one agent at all times. He was stopped long before he encountered any non-security personnel. Their other option was to shoot him when he jumped the fence and then the headline would have been "Secret Service Murders Mentally Ill Veteran". Yes, he should not have gotten into the building but he was stopped soon after. The layered security worked.

Letting armed ex felons ride the same elevator with the POTUS.

If you are talking about this you should know a few points.
1. While he had been arrested he was not convicted.
2. We do not know what the arrest was for. It could have been something non-violent.
3. He was a security guard for the CDC where the POTUS was visiting. He had therefore gone through the security screening of at least the CDC.
4. He only came to the attention of the Secret Service because he would not stop photographing the POTUS when asked.
This guy was in no way a threat

BTW, one can not be an ex-felon unless pardoned.

First, Wente is the least believable so-called journalist at the G&M. I ignore her articles out of hand because she's usually so wrong that the articles are hard to read without getting angry.

But published in the Washington Post yesterday is similar information about US hives: http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

The conclusion? Beekeepers are working hard to keep hives alive and keep populations up. Their livelihood is at stake here, after all.

Interestingly, I think this might serve as a long-term selection for more robust bees. Bees that are just strong enough to survive under ideal circumstances probably will, since the beekeepers will be trying to make sure that the conditions are right for their bees to last to another season. If a hive collapses, they buy a queen and replace the hive. (This is my hypothesis; it isn't backed by anything other than my intuition.)

So while we're probably having a massive impact on honeybee survival, it probably swings both ways.

The REAL issue is how populations of non-cultivated bees are doing. Bumblebees and all the other sorts of bees that we don't use to commercially produce honey or pollinate farms are also important, even if no human is directly making a dollar from the bees' work.

We don't actually know that she got sent the hard questions.

Perhaps Slashdot could use a new Director of Talent? I hear a pretty good one just went on the market after her former employer slashed and burned any remaining semblance of their credibility...

We spend about 834 billion a year on government healthcare subsidies.

Actually, plenty of people do want to cut that budget, but can't for ideological reasons.

The US spends just over 17% of GDP on health care, which is a figure only exceeded by Tuvalu. Most developed countries (e.g. most of Europe, Australia, New Zealand, Japan) the figure is around 9-10% of GDP. Even France spends less than 12%.

So, yes, you could cut that figure by a third simply by building a real public health system.

For every dollar in premiums you pay your insurance company, they spend 15-20 cents in administrative costs and profits. (You can see that if you read an insurance company annual report on their web site. The "loss ratio," usually 80-85%, is the money they pass on to the doctor or hospital.)

Then your doctor gets 80 cents. He has to spend another 20 cents in administrative costs to deal with the insurance company. (Compared to less than 5 cents on Medicare.)

So if you just cut out the insurance companies, you'd save 35% right there. Other big expenses here are the cost of drugs, hospital services, and doctor services.

I don't know if Obamacare has helped or will help in any significant way. Given that the AMA supported it, probably not.

There was a good story in the Washington Post, based on a Netroots Nation meeting, which gave a reasonably good brief explanation of how Obamacare got here and why it will fail.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
Liberal activists see Bernie Sanders as champion for causes failed by Obama
By David Weigel
July 20, 2015

Basically, Obama and the advisers he picked decided that the only way to pass a health care bill was to give the Republicans and the corporations everything they wanted. They struck a deal with the insurance companies, the drug companies, the hospitals, the doctors' organizations, etc. to give them everything they wanted. So you have to buy your Obamacare through a private insurer, instead of having the choice of a public option.

The problem with Obamacare is that the premiums and copayments are enormous. A single person making $27,000 a year would have to pay one month's income a year for the premiums. Then (depending on the plan) the insurance wouldn't kick in until she spent $2,000 or $3,000. Then she might have to pay 20% or 40% of the costs, until she reached the maximum, which is $8,000. It benefits somebody who has more than $8,000 a year of medical expenses.

In other words, you wind up paying twice as much as they do in Canada. And in this country, the burden falls most heavily on the lower middle class. It's a regressive tax.

While it is not a vendor's responsibility to control what a buyer does with the acquired product

Anti 2nd-Amendment zealots would disagree.

And, although the above lists mere tort-claims, there are movements afoot towards criminal liabilities for gun-sellers as well. For the Greater Good.

If you look at the graphic you can see they made an effort and then failed miserably at reality. They compared students with employees at companies. For starters that sounds reasonable to not demand they try to reduce required qualifications for minorities.

But then they fail in two ways, first it appears that their numbers are all recent. They ignore the fact that the racial composition has changed over time and the primary differences you can see are mostly lag in the system. The second issue is that they compare US universities (only US permanent residents) with companies that hire people form outside. Currently we are seeing an influx of Chinese and Indian workers being employed by companies. You can see this that in some cases it's even double in comparison to the student composition. This influx results in a bias that reduces all numbers, including white. It also ignores the fact that many Asian, especially Chinese will study in the US on a student visa (not counted in study) and then start working at a company in the US on a working visa (counted).

You might read this lady's story - http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

That woman has come much closer to passing the test than either you or me. She should know what she is talking about, right?

The rest of the women are unlikely to be shrinking violets - look for their stories too.

Agree or disagree with them, you have to admit that allowing males to take the test a second time, but not permitting females a retry was odd. Why was that? The policy wasn't changed until the policy was exposed to the public light.

I mostly agree with you there. But, there ARE some women who meet qualifications. The US Marine Corps has not yet had a woman who passed the physical for combat officers - but a handful have come pretty damned close. That handful are almost certainly better soldiers than I could be. In all my life, I've not had the upper body strength and stamina to pass that course.

You know, and I know, that it is a rare women who has greater upper body strength and stamina than a healthy man - but why should we hold those rare women back? Let them do whatever they are good at.

As you've noted - most men won't qualify for the U.S. Marines. But that's a false standard and it presupposes that because someone can, they would wish to (I note that qualifying as a Marine doesn't mean you automagically qualify as a Ranger, no disrespect to Marines).

There are SpecOp units with women. Russia's 5th Spetsnaz, France's 11th Parachute Brigade, 13th Parachute Dragoon Reg., Israel's Sayeret Matkal. SpecOp Reconn units like Britains SRR, South Koreas 707th, and that's a far from complete list of units with much higher physical and psychological selection criteria than general infantry (and my military experience is 15 years out of date, more elite units have allowed women since then).
There are also women who have passed the physicals for SpecOp groups that don't admit, officially at least, women e.g. COM1. Same physical selection criteria as SAS (they trained them originally), you want a small group that can pose as sheep herders for a short term and perform surgical strikes - send the SAS. When you want a hammer you send COM1 (don't let the apparent part-time nature fool you - qualifying for the SAS doesn't qualify you for COM1, the reverse is possible). You want a group that can operate individually for long periods under authentic deep cover - you select from COM1 - and yet most Marines would not pass the physical (by design, like Ranger selection). The US probably has their own small and quiet equivalent (or has had).

Ranger physical selection tests is as hard as that for Australian COM1, COM2, SAS, and the British SAS. So far 3 women have made it to the climb stage of the US Ranger selection. A tiny percentage of general US infantry would make it that far, and very few Marines.

While less women may achieve a standard set to exclude most male physiques - dead is dead, and even child combatants of either gender can do that. I'm told that the Russians would have lost to the Germans if not for women (see WWII pictures of those large, heavy, hirsute, tattooed, pipe smoking tank crews), so perhaps coldfjords, um, somewhat biased views, only appear true for the general average of the USA.

I think you are ignoring reality in order to press whatever ideology you want to be true.

With the exception of the democrat in California who was running guns and creating his own little market niche by championing and passing gun control laws, almost all prominent gun control advocates do in fact have armed security around them the majority of time they are in public. They do no arm themselves unless you consider hiring armed thugs or having armed police provided by the state to be arming yourself.

BTW, intelligence does enter into it. How else do you compensate for or explain the "I won't arm myself but pay others to arm themselves for me while actively trying to stop others from protecting their families" mentality and pretending it somehow makes them better than everyone else.

Ah yes. Newsbusters understands neither science nor probability, and misrepresented the statements of scientists in order to imply that the scientists are most likely wrong...news at 11:30.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

So what’s up with this 38 percent figure, and does it really undermine the idea that 2014 was the hottest year on record?

The figure comes from slide 5 of the PowerPoint presentation mentioned above, where NASA scientists noted that there was a 38 percent chance that 2014 was the hottest year, but only a 23 percent chance that the honor goes to the next contender, 2010, and a 17 percent chance that it goes to 2005.

The same slide shows that NOAA’s scientists were even more confident in the 2014 record, ranking it as having a 48 percent probability, compared with only an 18 percent chance for 2010 and a 13 percent chance for 2005.

According to a NASA spokesman, the PowerPoint containing this slide went online at the same time that the 2014 temperature record itself was announced. So it may not have been as prominent as the press releases from the agencies, but it was available.

The slide was also discussed in the press briefing when the news of the new record was released. In the briefing, NOAA’s Thomas Karl, director of the National Climatic Data Center, noted:

Certainly there are uncertainties in putting all this together, all these datasets. But after considering the uncertainties, we have calculated the probability that 2014, versus other years that were relatively warm, were actually the warmest year on record. And the way you can interpret these data tables is, for the NOAA data, 2014 is two and a half times more likely than the second warmest year on record, 2010, to actually be the warmest on record, after consideration of all the data uncertainties that we take into account. And for the NASA data, that number is on the order of about one and a half times more likely than the second warmest year on their records, which again, is 2010. So clearly, 2014 in both our records were the warmest, and there’s a fair bit of confidence that that is indeed the case, even considering data uncertainties.

Karl further noted that the Japan Meteorological Agency had also found 2014 to be the hottest year on record.

In light of all of this, is there anything wrong with NASA and NOAA declaring 2014 a record? To the contrary, it’s hard to see how there could be.

If anything, in criticizing NASA, and holding forth the 38 percent figure as though it somehow undermines the analysis, climate “skeptics” are simply exaggerating scientific uncertainty — which always exists and can never be fully dispelled — and letting it undermine what we actually know.

A better scientific way of assessing evidence, in contrast, is to take uncertainty into account — which NASA and NOAA clearly did — but then go with the conclusion that is supported by the weight of existing evidence. And from Karl’s words above, you can clearly see that the weight of the evidence, supported by both NASA’s and NOAA’s analyses, shows that the most reasonable conclusion is that 2014 is the hottest year on record.

Indeed, NASA’s Gavin Schmidt, who heads up the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (which did the temperature analysis from its records, dubbed “GISTEMP”) and also participated in the press briefing above, has written a blog post to explain all of this further. Here’s what he notes:

In both analyses, the values for 2014 are the warmest, but are statistically close to that of 2010 and 2005. In NOAA analysis, 2014 is a record by about 0.04C, while the difference in the GISTEMP record was 0.0

As far back as 1977 there were concerns that the AMA and LCME were intentionally restricting the supply of doctors ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/... ). Which went nowhere.

>For the record. the Civil War was not about one side fighting for the right to own black people under the banner of a "white power" flag, either.

That's complete bullshit, that's been spread way too widely but utterly fails to match the facts.

1) The confederates were NOT fighting for states' rights, exactly the opposite in fact, they wanted to get RID of states' rights. 3 of the declarations of secession state that a fundamental reason for their secession was their anger at states like Maine for refusing to return runaway slaves or allow slave transit. In other words - they opposed the right of Maine and New York to NOT support the slave trade.
2) The confederacy was formed by a declaration which all the confederate states had to sign - much like the US was originally formed by the declaration of independence. The very FIRST article in that declaration bound all the member states to a promise to never, under any circumstances, now or in the future, ban slavery or inhibit it in any way.
3) The various declarations of secession ALL discussed slavery at length and repeatedly stated that the single most important reason for the secession was that the abolitionists in northern states threatened what they saw as the proper and natural state of the world: one where whites could own blacks as slaves.
4) Non-slave owning whites in the South did NOT in fact support the war or the secessions - that vast majority very vocally and visibly opposed it. So severe was the opposition that on multiple occasions General Lee had to threaten to burn towns to the ground before they would allow him to feed his horses or buy food for his soldiers there ! In Tennessee this happened twice !
The real heroes of the South are those citizens, who supported abolition - who despised the slave owning minority (a ruling class that tended to mistreat poorer whites pretty badly as well) and actively opposed the war to the extent that the confederate army had to threaten their lives just to buy supplies !

In fact, there isn't a single official contemporary document by any of the Southern states governments, the confederate government or any of their leaders or generals that does not repeatedly say that the war is about preserving the right to own slaves.
EVERY claim to the contrary appeared AFTER the war, in a desperate attempt to white-wash the history of why that war happened.

Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

Explain to me why you're not interested in investigating or reforming the legal practices that lead to false convictions but are only interested in the frankly trite repetition of talking points that do nothing to address underlying problems?

That is what you're doing.

That isn't an ad hominem. If your dick is inside a sheep... I am not laying out an ad hominem by calling you a sheep fucker. That's a description of what is happening.

I looked at your argument and noted what you were doing. Then cited you for doing it. That's not ad hominem.

Ad hominem is "you're wrong because you're stupid" or "you're wrong because you're a sheep fucker".

What I said was "You seem to be doing X which undermines the intent of your argument for Y."

I also pointed out that the underlying problem with Y is that there are issues with X. I pointed out that removing Y does not address X and that if you could fix X then Y would naturally be fixed as well.

So I ask again, why are you fixated on the death penality issue and not on general miscarrages of justice?

Maybe this will help... lets look at a specific case. I'll do all the research for you.

First thing I found on wikipedia since 2010:
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.or...

So apparently his defense do a good enough job of questioning evidence at the trial.

Whether the guy is actually innocent or not is... somewhat murky here. Was he convicted on trumped up evidence? Possibly... also possibly he got off on a technicality.

Next citation:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

Clearly we have a case of improper interrogations leading to a questionable confession. We could reform that quite easily.

http://www.local10.com/news/No...

This one involves video evidence of the execution style killing of three bound people. The other person on the video is still on death row since it is less controversal that he did it. That said, why it is controversal that the other man is or is not this other fellow is not obvious to me.

For one thing we should be seeing secondary evidence such as blood or powder residue or something. I know that is something of a CSI answer but this is the 21st century and I'd like to see that.

The details are not obvious here. I'd have to look into this case more. It is possible that he got off on a technicality or just retried his case until the jury found him innocent. I don't know.

One thing I'm starting to suspect is that many of the over turned convictions are themselves in error. I wouldn't say that in all or even most of them but I've seen two now that don't sound right.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.or...

So there are issues with rewarding informants and disclosing the context of state evidence.

See how fucking easy this is?

We just go through all these and instead of focusing on the execution, we focus on what actually went wrong. Its far more productive and much more interesting.

NEXT CASE:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

Alright, this one has another defense lawyer that is apparently incompetent. So this is something you can bring to the law schools and the bar associations and say "hey, the quality of lawyers you're sending into the system has to be improved in this context."

And beyond that we have a witness that lied... and some more nonsense from the prosecutors fucking with the ev

Explain to me why you're not interested in investigating or reforming the legal practices that lead to false convictions but are only interested in the frankly trite repetition of talking points that do nothing to address underlying problems?

That is what you're doing.

That isn't an ad hominem. If your dick is inside a sheep... I am not laying out an ad hominem by calling you a sheep fucker. That's a description of what is happening.

I looked at your argument and noted what you were doing. Then cited you for doing it. That's not ad hominem.

Ad hominem is "you're wrong because you're stupid" or "you're wrong because you're a sheep fucker".

What I said was "You seem to be doing X which undermines the intent of your argument for Y."

I also pointed out that the underlying problem with Y is that there are issues with X. I pointed out that removing Y does not address X and that if you could fix X then Y would naturally be fixed as well.

So I ask again, why are you fixated on the death penality issue and not on general miscarrages of justice?

Maybe this will help... lets look at a specific case. I'll do all the research for you.

First thing I found on wikipedia since 2010:
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.or...

So apparently his defense do a good enough job of questioning evidence at the trial.

Whether the guy is actually innocent or not is... somewhat murky here. Was he convicted on trumped up evidence? Possibly... also possibly he got off on a technicality.

Next citation:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

Clearly we have a case of improper interrogations leading to a questionable confession. We could reform that quite easily.

http://www.local10.com/news/No...

This one involves video evidence of the execution style killing of three bound people. The other person on the video is still on death row since it is less controversal that he did it. That said, why it is controversal that the other man is or is not this other fellow is not obvious to me.

For one thing we should be seeing secondary evidence such as blood or powder residue or something. I know that is something of a CSI answer but this is the 21st century and I'd like to see that.

The details are not obvious here. I'd have to look into this case more. It is possible that he got off on a technicality or just retried his case until the jury found him innocent. I don't know.

One thing I'm starting to suspect is that many of the over turned convictions are themselves in error. I wouldn't say that in all or even most of them but I've seen two now that don't sound right.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.or...

So there are issues with rewarding informants and disclosing the context of state evidence.

See how fucking easy this is?

We just go through all these and instead of focusing on the execution, we focus on what actually went wrong. Its far more productive and much more interesting.

NEXT CASE:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

Alright, this one has another defense lawyer that is apparently incompetent. So this is something you can bring to the law schools and the bar associations and say "hey, the quality of lawyers you're sending into the system has to be improved in this context."

And beyond that we have a witness that lied... and some more nonsense from the prosecutors fucking with the ev

Manufacturing jobs have dropped every year since robots were introduced while productivity has risen.
http://cdn.theatlanticcities.c...
http://www.technologyreview.co...

They've been replaced with terrible low paying service jobs.
Wages have been stagnant for 80% of those who have jobs since shortly after robots were introduced. Robots are not the only cause- but they sure didn't help.

While the unemployment rate is finally tightening up some- that's because so many have completely left the work force. Participation of working age citizens age 16 to 67 has dropped continuously for the last 14 years.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

Who paid for this article? The robot manufacturing companies?

That's a myth. #5 on
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

#4 is the one I'm more interested in though. There HAVE been many anti-gun laws, including during colonial times.

This specific one isn't mentioned in that article, but I did see the author of a book called "The Second Amendment: A Biography" on Charlie Rose a while ago (it was from a late 2014 episode I think).. There were laws AGAINST having loaded guns in the house in the late 1700s.

The most dangerous thing that could come out of that part of the world is a united empire run by religious fanatics or whose government is influenced enough by fanaticism that it looks away while people within the empire use its resources to cause inflame hatred and commit terrorism. Allowing ISIS to gain control of Iraq and Syria would be less dangerous to America than allowing Iran to gain control of Iraq and Syria because in the first case you have two nations who balance each other instead of one much larger nation trying to unify itself behind a shared hatred.

Iran is already making war against America both directly and by proxy. https://www.washingtonpost.com... http://www.wsj.com/articles/ir... http://www.nationalreview.com/... Does this deal do anything to end that state of war? Does this deal do anything to prevent Iran from gaining domination in Iraq and Syria? Or does it just prevent America and allies from stopping them?

If you're going to comment at least understand the arguments before throwing accusations out there. The majority of cab drivers are already independent contractors who lease the right to operate a cab from the medallion owner who in most cases is a large corporation or a billionaire who has never set foot in the front seat of a cab. The jobs aren't being lost they are simply transitioning from Yellow Cab to Uber where they can make up to 200% more annually. And if you think a drunk pays attention to the cost of a cab ride rather than say...just telling himself I'm sober enough to drive your loony. This is all about control. Uber is disrupting the monopoly city governments have set up with a select group of individuals. Medallions are more precious than gold or real estate but if drivers continue to defect the medallions become worthless. Hilary wants to keep her contributors who own medallions happy.

If you're going to comment at least understand the arguments before throwing accusations out there. The majority of cab drivers are already independent contractors who lease the right to operate a cab from the medallion owner who in most cases is a large corporation or a billionaire who has never set foot in the front seat of a cab. The jobs aren't being lost they are simply transitioning from Yellow Cab to Uber where they can make up to 200% more annually. And if you think a drunk pays attention to the cost of a cab ride rather than say...just telling himself I'm sober enough to drive your loony. This is all about control. Uber is disrupting the monopoly city governments have set up with a select group of individuals. Medallions are more precious than gold or real estate but if drivers continue to defect the medallions become worthless. Hilary wants to keep her contributors who own medallions happy.

The attempted limits on encryption are of a kind with (unconstitutional) attempts to restrict citizens from keeping and bearing weapons.

The very same loving, caring, and benevolent government, that provides our children with "free" public schools, is also the one with a Federal Department of Education having its own SWAT team.

Other examples abound. You can not claim consistency in your thoughts, if you approve of one, but not the other...

Spending big, failing bigger

even though [climate change deniers on Fox and in congress are] not scientists, to use some of their words

"I'm not a scientist" is the new defensive crouch of deniers.

Stephen Colbert had a great piece about it awhile ago. The linked video is almost 5 minutes long, but worth the time to watch.

Really?

Really

Really?

Really

Those kids are probably wondering why you can't follow a simple schedule. Their employer told them to work 9 to 5, so that's what they're going to do unless they're told otherwise.

These are people who are supposed to be professional. Professional peopla are paid to get a job finished, not to be working for the clock. They are not constrained to 8 to 5 like the non-exempt people

It isn't always their first job,

Every person I gave as an example was working at their first job.

and while you may be divorced from the experience of working hourly, these days you stay after you're supposed to leave and your manager yells at you for chewing up the labor budget.

As noted, these were professionals, and in the exempt category.

That kind of shit sticks with you, especially when your parents failed to initiate you in unspoken rules of the working world like "We're going to tell you to work 9 to 5 but really, your ass belongs to us 24/7 and you should be happy we don't just chain you to the fucking desk."

You have their attitude down pat. Congratulations.

And don't pretend that only millennials do dumb shit like skip out ten minutes early when they've got time-sensitive shit left to do, or push their workload off on their co-workers so they can dick around on Facebook all day.

I pretend nothing. I do have to say, you only get a few chances to diss the director. maybe two. He shows up at his meeting without his materials, and he's embarrassed in front of his peers. You want to be on facebook all day? Probably a nice room in the basement, and have all the time in the world. Pay sucks though

I know it's fun and easy to take shots at "millennials" or "boomers" but let's face it: most people are just shitheads.

All I can tell you is that of the millennials we hired, only two ever worked out. They have unrealistic expectations, and expect people to serve them. The older folks get their work done on time. The Gen X-ers we hired got theirs done on time, except for a few..

But yeah every age group has a few slackers. It's just that at least in my experience, with the other groups it's an occasional thing finding a slacker. With the Millenials, it's a job strategy.

This helicoptering parent, and unfinished adults is not a hypothetical thing. Colleges have been trying to fix the problem. The children have been trying to involve their parents in every decision, and the parents have been interjecting themselves into situations that a normal adult can easily decide. But they won''t allow it, and you can probably keep a child as a child until their 40's if you try hard enough

And the great irony is that I do not find these kids at fault. But their parents need kept away from them so they can grow up. But what happens if you dare t broach the subject? Your accused of pucking on the kids. I'm not. I'm standing up for them. Sometimes making a child grow up when she or he is physically an adult seems mean, but how mean is it compared to crazy parens being so nice, so protective, and badly screwing the kids up?

Having a problem with a room mate? Call mommy or daddy! They'll call the college president and fix that meanine in your room:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

http://www.law.uh.edu/ihelg/mo...

Here, Mommy calls to make certain the workplace is correct for her precious, the alarm bells go off, and the job offer is withdrawn.:

oh really? http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

The example I used was salt.

"There really is nothing to show that salt is bad for you."

Increased salt intake is generally believed to be bad for you in the scientific community.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

There is one area of consensus: Both sides agree that eating too much salt, especially for people with high blood pressure, can be dangerous.

The critical disagreement concerns how to define “too much.”

Very low level of salt consumption is bad -- and so is very high. And the amounts in many canned foods are very high for single entrees (example already provided).

I came here to post popehat. My legal blog recommendations:
* Popehat insightful/snarky legal commentary from someone who used to be a federal prosecutor and is now in private practice.
* Lowering the Bar: hilarious legal humor. Recent topics: Hulk Hogan, Donald Trump, drone law, argle-bargle.
*Papers, Please: Lots of TSA and similar topics. Their MO is to file expansive FOIA requests to intelligence and law enforcement agencies, then write stridently about how they were rejected.
* Jetsetting Terrorist: trials and tribulations of somebody erroneously on the do not fly list. (not updated often)
* Taking Sense Away: blog written by TSA employee (no longer updated, but fun to read the archives).
* SCOTUSblog: blow-by-blow news of goings-on at the supreme court. super nerdy.
* Supreme Court Haiku: summaries of supreme court decisions, in haiku form.
* Volokh Conspiracy: insightful pieces on constitutional law and similar topics. primarily conservative, primarily written by law profs.

wow, with all these things in my feedly, it's amazing I get any work done!

A few of the "expert" ones I frequent:

Economics/Social Science:
Econlong
Marginal Revolution
The Money Illusion
Overcoming Bias
Bronte Capital - More short selling fund/capital management than economics

Law
Volokh Conspiracy (Now tied into the Washington Post)

Writing/Fantasy/SF
According to Hoyt
Mad Genius Club
Come Let Us Reason Together (more politics than writing)

What's wrong with listening to a third of the citizens?

He'd do it now if he wanted to. With everything else he has gotten away with, what is this in the scheme of things.

The problem is exactly what NotDrWho stated. This president hates whistleblowers (at least that call out stuff done when he was president) with a passion.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...