Absolutely. Something like liver function or grip strength, that can be measured, is one thing, but degree of pain or discomfort is absolutely a product of your mental state. Even grip strength is a function of your mental state, when you get right down to it.
Also - even if homeopathy WERE no better than placebos, then there are times when placebos are better than nothing. Little kid falls down and goes boom-boom. He comes running to Mommy, who kisses his boo-boo and tells him it's all better. Nothing but a placebo, but it transforms the little guy from a snotty nosed, sniveling little mess, into Superman. Superman goes running off to save the earth again. Placebos have their place.
As for homeopathy - if it makes the patient feel good, it has value. The ancient Greeks knew that much of your health derives from your mind.
Exactly. The big question in pharmacology is, if placebos are the baseline for drug effectiveness, why aren't we prescribing placebos? (of course, we undoubtedly are, but not on purpose). it can't be because they have side effects.
The first, ummm, say two-third's of David Brin's Existence is a mix of short stories (altered a bit since their publication) and a new framework that ties it all together. It works pretty well.
The last third takes place many years after the intrigues of the first part, using a subset of the initial large cast. It is threaded around an updated version of a very old story, "Lungfish," which is arguably the keystone.
My own existence is nothing but a bunch of short stories sharing some of the main characters. Doesn't cohere well.
But the stuff we want to put in Earth orbit is typically very high tech. How do you get from raw ore to microchips, solar panels, and high grade optics, without bringing it down to Earth surface first ? A microchip factory on Earth already costs billions of dollars, so the idea that anybody could afford to build one on the moon is just ludicrous.
Yeah but the kind of stuff they do in the station might be better on the moon. maybe the physical degradation will be less (on human physiology). probably be easier to assemble large interplanetary structures from subassemblies in lunar gravity than zero g.
Seems like the only resource worth bringing down from the Moon would be one that just don't hardly exist down here...but if you were planning a long-term presence there, getting resources locally could be a lot cheaper than hauling them up.
Even so, the startup costs would be pretty intimidating.
You might think it's safe to say that, but it's completely wrong.
The number of guns in private hands in the US has doubled since the early 1990s. Yet the number of deaths (accidental or criminal) has plummeted, and the number of shootings (accidental or criminal) has plummeted as well. We have safer guns, and better gun education.
The number of accidental deaths hasn't plummeted, it's stayed pretty constant, down a small fraction. https://cbssanfran.files.wordp...
Clinton printed over 50,000 pages of e-mails, which were then shipped to the State Department. It would have been less work for her to send those e-mails electronically. What was her purpose in doing that extra work?
Printed texts take more time to search, and they do not contain all the internal meta-data. Perhaps too she just wanted to show her middle finger to the people who asked for her e-mails.
This is honorable behavior?
She's a lawyer. She knows she's under constant attack. Yes, this is honorable.
Just to bring in another polarizing topic, I'd venture the same folks who think her making it harder to generate groundless attacks on her emails (whether or not there are grounds for attack is another question) are the same folks who think it's smart to keep a loaded handgun handy to defend against groundless attacks on their household.
In a two-party race, the correct play for both teams is to slam up against each other right on the centerline of public sentiment, sort of obviously. The losing play is to mistake where the center of public sentiment may lie. By the same token, to get the nomination, a candidate has to play towards the center of the party's position, at least that of the nominating voters.
What a mess.
You couldn't have described the fucked up state of American politics and government any more succinctly if you tried.
So, let's talk about sending a letter to the opposing party during international treaty negotiations informing them that, essentially, if your party is elected you're not going to abide by the treaty anyway.
Oh, I know, not as important as emailghazi.
I got a message form the IRS the other day requesting all my financial info, bank accounts, etc. It came from a server in Nigeria, I guess probably some IRS employee's personal server.
She is on record saying she didn't like email because it could be audited. Since that recording she apparently figured out that she could self host.
That is almost certainly why she was doing it.
And added to that, many members of the government are being encouraged to use text messages instead of emails etc because they can't be audited.
There is a concerted effort throughout government to communicate in manners that cannot be audited.
All of which is against the spirit of the law regardless of whether it is against the letter of the law.
Its the fucking IRS issue all over again. They said they didn't have her emails or they were destroyed. Turns out that the IRS emails were actually backed up the whole time and the IT department that had them had received no queries for them at any time. Revealing that the IRS in fact never looked for them.
Its just deceit deceit deceit.
And for those that will reflexively say this is just a republican thing... it isn't. This is fucking bullshit regardless of what party is doing it. Stop being such shills and realize that if you accept this then the republicans are going to start doing it. And then MAYBE you might grasp why this is unacceptable.
Text messages can't be audited? (serious question, not rhetorical). I take this to mean the telcos don't store them; they could if they wanted to I guess? Couldn't NSA or somebody tap into them and store them? (Just wondering, -->I AM INNOCENT OF ANY AND ALL CRIMES, DON'T BOTHER STARTING A FOLDER ON ME, INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES----)
"It still remains unclear about just how appropriate Clinton's system was."
The most ridiculous part of the summary. Except for the whole "convenience" pseudo-argument. At best this excuse suggests that Clinton is willing to prioritize personal convenience over transparency and accountability, which is probably not a great look for someone who is expected to announce a presidential campaign in the near future.
The transparency argument is kind of silly, given the doings of the NSA in the past few years. Everything is apparently transparent.
The Presidential and Federal Records Act Amendments of 2014 became law on November 26, 2014. Clinton's final day as secretary was February 1, 2013.
So? How does that excuse her from existing federal regulations? Section 1236.22 of the 2009 NARA regulation clearly says, "Agencies that allow employees to send and receive official electronic mail messages using a system not operated by the agency must ensure that Federal records sent or received on such systems are preserved in the appropriate agency recordkeeping system."
She went out of her way to avoid that requirement. She made no provision to have her official emails mirrored over to State's mandated archives. Nor did she lift a finger to do so when she left office. That violates both the letter and the spirit of that crystal clear legal requirement. And when investigators in congress and other FOIA requesters finally understood why her stonewalling was so effective (there WERE no records at State for them to request, because she prevented that from happening!), she did what... pass along the data to be reviewed? No. She used employees of her family enterprise to print out 55,000 pages of email for them to have to manually wade through (another stalling tactic), and she and only she knows the criteria used to separate those from the 30,000+ messages she says she deleted before hand. Anyone who buys her laughable narrative on this topic is a fool or (more likely, since nobody's that dumb) one of her shills.
How does manually sending her official emails over to State archives not satisfy the letter of " ensure that Federal records sent or received on such systems are preserved in the appropriate agency recordkeeping system."?
We're not talking intent to comply, obviously, we're talking meeting the letter of the law with plausible deniability as interpreted by a very sharp lawyer. Yes, obfuscation is the whole point, as finding something, anything, to attack over, no matter how false, in the hope that some shit will stick is the game of her opposition. She saw her husband impeached because of a ruling of contempt of court over "failure to cooperate" by providing details about an admitted blow job between two consenting adults which was nevertheless supposed to be evidence of a pattern of harassment, in a lawsuit about sexual harassment which was tossed out of court as groundless, which was somehow part of an investigation into the ethics of a real estate deal involving not him, actually, but his wife's law firm, which was admittedly not illegal (and lost the firm money) years ago when he was a governor, which was billed as the crime of the century which would bring the republic to its knees.
Why in the world would she adopt a defensive posture, eh?
A moral dilemma is when you're trying to figure out whether to kill one person to save three, not when you are trying to figure out where to store your email. That's an IT decision. Just because the right thing to do is clear to you in the abstract doesn't mean it would even be clear to you in practice. How would you feel about carrying two phones? How would you feel about having your private email on a government server? When you read science fiction, does the character with the smart phone carry two of them so that she can have access to her secure stuff and her regular stuff? Hell no.
So yeah, of course we can armchair quarterback it, but let's not pretend it's not political.
who the hell doesn't carry two phones these days? anybody handling any kind of medical data does, for one, because of HIPAA. And we don't have staffers walking around with us carrying tons of stuff. bad excuse.
as I said above, clearly a choice to give the Benghaziacs one complaint rather than 60,000 as they subpoena everybody who ever received an email to discuss it under oath.
I'm generally a Clinton supporter, and I'm really unhappy with the email thing. But it is the same as has been done before and will be done again.
Not to worry though, I'm sure that we'll have EVEN MORE investigations into this than we had into Benghazi, with the exact same results.
I think that's the point; it's beyond likelihood this was just an oversight. She (or her team) obviously decided it's better to just give the dogs one big bone to chew on than let them launch a congressional investigation into every single email she ever sent.
As you say, I'm generally proHillary; not happy about this on an absolute basis; but as a political move, I think it was well played.
Well yeah, we obviously will, since every email sent has a recipient; and if every email she sent went through her insecure server, then all anybody has to do is produce a classified email she sent them. (suitably redacted).
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,[a] against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized".
On the other hand, post somewhere that you don't think torture is justified even in the proverbial ticking bomb case, and see what Americans really think of the civil rights of anybody except themselves.
There is, in fact, evidence that your concerns are well founded. I wish I had a reference for it but the research demonstrated an uncomfortable likelihood that a search against a large pool of DNA profiles would nearly inevitably return several false matches.
And that was before considering that few DNA samples are perfect in the first place.
A lot of people would have a lot less confidence in DNA matches if they knew that really only a tiny sampling of the DNA's characteristics are spot checked for a match. They definitely do not match them up codon by codon like many people imagine.
deja vu all over again
"Latent print examiners have long claimed that fingerprint identification
is "infallible." 1' The claim is widely believed by the general public, as
evidenced by the publicity generated by the Mayfield and Cowans cases,
with newspaper headlines like "Despite Its Reputation, Fingerprint
Evidence Isn't Really Infallible.' 12 Curiously, the claim even appears to
survive exposed cases of error, which would seem to puncture the claim of
infallibility.'" Such cases have been known since as early as 1920 and have
not disturbed the myth of infallibility.' 4 Today, latent print examiners
continue to defend the claim of infallibility, even in the wake of the
Mayfield case.' 5 For example, Agent Massey commented in a story on the
Mayfield case, "I'll preach fingerprints till I die. They're infallible. 16
Another examiner declared, in a discussion of the Mayfield case,
"Fingerprints are absolute and infallible."' 17
http://scholarlycommons.law.no...
"The rhetoric of infallibility proved helpful in establishing the admissibility of forensic DNA tests and persuading judges and jurors of its epistemic authority.7 It has also played an important role in the promotion of government DNA databases. Innocent people have nothing to fear from databases, promoters claim. Because the tests are infallible, the risk of a false incrimination must necessarily be nil. One indication of the success and influence of the rhetoric of infallibility is that, until quite recently, concerns about false incriminations played almost no role in debates about database expansion. The infallibility of DNA tests has, for most purposes, become an accepted fact-one of the shared assumptions underlying the policy debate.
In this article, I will argue that this shared assumption is wrong. Although generally quite reliable (particularly in comparison with other forms of evidence often used in criminal trials), DNA tests are not now and have never been infallible. Errors in DNA testing occur regularly. DNA evidence has caused false incriminations and false convictions, and will continue to do so. Although DNA tests incriminate the correct person in the great majority of cases, the risk of false incrimination is high enough to deserve serious consideration in debates about expansion of DNA databases. The risk of false incrimination is borne primarily by individuals whose profiles are included in government databases (and perhaps by their relatives). Because there are racial, ethnic and class disparities in the composition of databases, the risk of false incrimination will fall disproportionately on members of the included groups.8,9" http://www.councilforresponsib...
Ah yes, the classic "one crime deserves another" argument.
No, it is the classic "one crime deserves citizens who provide reasonable assistance to pursue justice." If I find a murdered body while jogging, I am probably going to be one of the initial suspects. I will be questioned by officers, and possibly even called back to the precinct if they have further questions. This would absolutely inconvenience me, but I would be a real jackass if I put up a stink about it. Someone was just murdered, which would be a much bigger problem than me losing a couple afternoons.
Yeah, you will be one of the initial suspects. and once the cops get it into your head that you're the culprit, it doesn't get erased easily. after that they're searching for evidence to convict you, not to exonerate you.
What makes things difficult, is that the people who are wrong don't know they're wrong.
No, that's not the difficult part. That's just a given.
The difficult part is trying to control something you have no control over.
Once you're willing to ignore that "destructive" blogger. And once you're willing to accept that you won't be able to change that person's mind, everything will be infinitely easier for you.
at some point, it's easier just to quit yourself than purge the deadwood. you can't fight entropy.
Slashdot Mirror
Absolutely. Something like liver function or grip strength, that can be measured, is one thing, but degree of pain or discomfort is absolutely a product of your mental state. Even grip strength is a function of your mental state, when you get right down to it.
There is that to consider.
Also - even if homeopathy WERE no better than placebos, then there are times when placebos are better than nothing. Little kid falls down and goes boom-boom. He comes running to Mommy, who kisses his boo-boo and tells him it's all better. Nothing but a placebo, but it transforms the little guy from a snotty nosed, sniveling little mess, into Superman. Superman goes running off to save the earth again. Placebos have their place.
As for homeopathy - if it makes the patient feel good, it has value. The ancient Greeks knew that much of your health derives from your mind.
Exactly. The big question in pharmacology is, if placebos are the baseline for drug effectiveness, why aren't we prescribing placebos? (of course, we undoubtedly are, but not on purpose). it can't be because they have side effects.
The first, ummm, say two-third's of David Brin's Existence is a mix of short stories (altered a bit since their publication) and a new framework that ties it all together. It works pretty well.
The last third takes place many years after the intrigues of the first part, using a subset of the initial large cast. It is threaded around an updated version of a very old story, "Lungfish," which is arguably the keystone.
My own existence is nothing but a bunch of short stories sharing some of the main characters. Doesn't cohere well.
"If I have seen further than some, it is because I have stood upon the shoulders of 4 elephants standing on the back of a turtle."
But the stuff we want to put in Earth orbit is typically very high tech. How do you get from raw ore to microchips, solar panels, and high grade optics, without bringing it down to Earth surface first ? A microchip factory on Earth already costs billions of dollars, so the idea that anybody could afford to build one on the moon is just ludicrous.
Yeah but the kind of stuff they do in the station might be better on the moon. maybe the physical degradation will be less (on human physiology). probably be easier to assemble large interplanetary structures from subassemblies in lunar gravity than zero g.
Seems like the only resource worth bringing down from the Moon would be one that just don't hardly exist down here...but if you were planning a long-term presence there, getting resources locally could be a lot cheaper than hauling them up.
Even so, the startup costs would be pretty intimidating.
They could ship vacuum down.
You might think it's safe to say that, but it's completely wrong.
The number of guns in private hands in the US has doubled since the early 1990s. Yet the number of deaths (accidental or criminal) has plummeted, and the number of shootings (accidental or criminal) has plummeted as well. We have safer guns, and better gun education.
The number of accidental deaths hasn't plummeted, it's stayed pretty constant, down a small fraction. https://cbssanfran.files.wordp...
done read the weapon shops of isher too many times.
"Rules are for other people. Nothing happened. Why is the vast Right Wing Conspiracy so worked up over this?"
Well, you should definitely start a congressional investigation then. emailbenghaziwhitewatergate.
Clinton printed over 50,000 pages of e-mails, which were then shipped to the State Department. It would have been less work for her to send those e-mails electronically. What was her purpose in doing that extra work? Printed texts take more time to search, and they do not contain all the internal meta-data. Perhaps too she just wanted to show her middle finger to the people who asked for her e-mails. This is honorable behavior?
She's a lawyer. She knows she's under constant attack. Yes, this is honorable.
Just to bring in another polarizing topic, I'd venture the same folks who think her making it harder to generate groundless attacks on her emails (whether or not there are grounds for attack is another question) are the same folks who think it's smart to keep a loaded handgun handy to defend against groundless attacks on their household.
In a two-party race, the correct play for both teams is to slam up against each other right on the centerline of public sentiment, sort of obviously. The losing play is to mistake where the center of public sentiment may lie. By the same token, to get the nomination, a candidate has to play towards the center of the party's position, at least that of the nominating voters. What a mess.
it will begin the death-rattle of the Democratic party. Progressives see through her like a dirty window.
Yeah, progressives will flock to Jeb Bush now.
You couldn't have described the fucked up state of American politics and government any more succinctly if you tried.
So, let's talk about sending a letter to the opposing party during international treaty negotiations informing them that, essentially, if your party is elected you're not going to abide by the treaty anyway.
Oh, I know, not as important as emailghazi.
I got a message form the IRS the other day requesting all my financial info, bank accounts, etc. It came from a server in Nigeria, I guess probably some IRS employee's personal server.
She is on record saying she didn't like email because it could be audited. Since that recording she apparently figured out that she could self host.
That is almost certainly why she was doing it.
And added to that, many members of the government are being encouraged to use text messages instead of emails etc because they can't be audited.
There is a concerted effort throughout government to communicate in manners that cannot be audited.
All of which is against the spirit of the law regardless of whether it is against the letter of the law.
Its the fucking IRS issue all over again. They said they didn't have her emails or they were destroyed. Turns out that the IRS emails were actually backed up the whole time and the IT department that had them had received no queries for them at any time. Revealing that the IRS in fact never looked for them.
Its just deceit deceit deceit.
And for those that will reflexively say this is just a republican thing... it isn't. This is fucking bullshit regardless of what party is doing it. Stop being such shills and realize that if you accept this then the republicans are going to start doing it. And then MAYBE you might grasp why this is unacceptable.
Text messages can't be audited? (serious question, not rhetorical). I take this to mean the telcos don't store them; they could if they wanted to I guess? Couldn't NSA or somebody tap into them and store them? (Just wondering, -->I AM INNOCENT OF ANY AND ALL CRIMES, DON'T BOTHER STARTING A FOLDER ON ME, INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES----)
"It still remains unclear about just how appropriate Clinton's system was."
The most ridiculous part of the summary. Except for the whole "convenience" pseudo-argument. At best this excuse suggests that Clinton is willing to prioritize personal convenience over transparency and accountability, which is probably not a great look for someone who is expected to announce a presidential campaign in the near future.
The transparency argument is kind of silly, given the doings of the NSA in the past few years. Everything is apparently transparent.
The Presidential and Federal Records Act Amendments of 2014 became law on November 26, 2014. Clinton's final day as secretary was February 1, 2013.
So? How does that excuse her from existing federal regulations? Section 1236.22 of the 2009 NARA regulation clearly says, "Agencies that allow employees to send and receive official electronic mail messages using a system not operated by the agency must ensure that Federal records sent or received on such systems are preserved in the appropriate agency recordkeeping system." She went out of her way to avoid that requirement. She made no provision to have her official emails mirrored over to State's mandated archives. Nor did she lift a finger to do so when she left office. That violates both the letter and the spirit of that crystal clear legal requirement. And when investigators in congress and other FOIA requesters finally understood why her stonewalling was so effective (there WERE no records at State for them to request, because she prevented that from happening!), she did what ... pass along the data to be reviewed? No. She used employees of her family enterprise to print out 55,000 pages of email for them to have to manually wade through (another stalling tactic), and she and only she knows the criteria used to separate those from the 30,000+ messages she says she deleted before hand. Anyone who buys her laughable narrative on this topic is a fool or (more likely, since nobody's that dumb) one of her shills.
How does manually sending her official emails over to State archives not satisfy the letter of " ensure that Federal records sent or received on such systems are preserved in the appropriate agency recordkeeping system."?
We're not talking intent to comply, obviously, we're talking meeting the letter of the law with plausible deniability as interpreted by a very sharp lawyer. Yes, obfuscation is the whole point, as finding something, anything, to attack over, no matter how false, in the hope that some shit will stick is the game of her opposition.
She saw her husband impeached because of a ruling of contempt of court over "failure to cooperate" by providing details about an admitted blow job between two consenting adults which was nevertheless supposed to be evidence of a pattern of harassment, in a lawsuit about sexual harassment which was tossed out of court as groundless, which was somehow part of an investigation into the ethics of a real estate deal involving not him, actually, but his wife's law firm, which was admittedly not illegal (and lost the firm money) years ago when he was a governor, which was billed as the crime of the century which would bring the republic to its knees.
Why in the world would she adopt a defensive posture, eh?
Laws are for the little people, not them.
They believe, and act, as though they are above the law. Lying, perjury, obstruction of justice.
There's no dilemma if you feel that laws simply don't apply to you...
Yeah, it wasn't a law, though, but keep the faith.
A moral dilemma is when you're trying to figure out whether to kill one person to save three, not when you are trying to figure out where to store your email. That's an IT decision. Just because the right thing to do is clear to you in the abstract doesn't mean it would even be clear to you in practice. How would you feel about carrying two phones? How would you feel about having your private email on a government server? When you read science fiction, does the character with the smart phone carry two of them so that she can have access to her secure stuff and her regular stuff? Hell no.
So yeah, of course we can armchair quarterback it, but let's not pretend it's not political.
who the hell doesn't carry two phones these days? anybody handling any kind of medical data does, for one, because of HIPAA. And we don't have staffers walking around with us carrying tons of stuff. bad excuse. as I said above, clearly a choice to give the Benghaziacs one complaint rather than 60,000 as they subpoena everybody who ever received an email to discuss it under oath.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B... , though in that case the email was hosted by the Republican National Committee.
I'm generally a Clinton supporter, and I'm really unhappy with the email thing. But it is the same as has been done before and will be done again.
Not to worry though, I'm sure that we'll have EVEN MORE investigations into this than we had into Benghazi, with the exact same results.
I think that's the point; it's beyond likelihood this was just an oversight. She (or her team) obviously decided it's better to just give the dogs one big bone to chew on than let them launch a congressional investigation into every single email she ever sent. As you say, I'm generally proHillary; not happy about this on an absolute basis; but as a political move, I think it was well played.
Note that if Hilary knowingly used...
We will never know now, will we?
Well yeah, we obviously will, since every email sent has a recipient; and if every email she sent went through her insecure server, then all anybody has to do is produce a classified email she sent them. (suitably redacted).
Forth amendment?
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,[a] against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized".
On the other hand, post somewhere that you don't think torture is justified even in the proverbial ticking bomb case, and see what Americans really think of the civil rights of anybody except themselves.
There is, in fact, evidence that your concerns are well founded. I wish I had a reference for it but the research demonstrated an uncomfortable likelihood that a search against a large pool of DNA profiles would nearly inevitably return several false matches.
And that was before considering that few DNA samples are perfect in the first place.
A lot of people would have a lot less confidence in DNA matches if they knew that really only a tiny sampling of the DNA's characteristics are spot checked for a match. They definitely do not match them up codon by codon like many people imagine.
deja vu all over again
"Latent print examiners have long claimed that fingerprint identification is "infallible." 1' The claim is widely believed by the general public, as evidenced by the publicity generated by the Mayfield and Cowans cases, with newspaper headlines like "Despite Its Reputation, Fingerprint Evidence Isn't Really Infallible.' 12 Curiously, the claim even appears to survive exposed cases of error, which would seem to puncture the claim of infallibility.'" Such cases have been known since as early as 1920 and have not disturbed the myth of infallibility.' 4 Today, latent print examiners continue to defend the claim of infallibility, even in the wake of the Mayfield case.' 5 For example, Agent Massey commented in a story on the Mayfield case, "I'll preach fingerprints till I die. They're infallible. 16 Another examiner declared, in a discussion of the Mayfield case, "Fingerprints are absolute and infallible."' 17 http://scholarlycommons.law.no...
"The rhetoric of infallibility proved helpful in establishing the admissibility of forensic DNA tests and persuading judges and jurors of its epistemic authority.7 It has also played an important role in the promotion of government DNA databases. Innocent people have nothing to fear from databases, promoters claim. Because the tests are infallible, the risk of a false incrimination must necessarily be nil. One indication of the success and influence of the rhetoric of infallibility is that, until quite recently, concerns about false incriminations played almost no role in debates about database expansion. The infallibility of DNA tests has, for most purposes, become an accepted fact-one of the shared assumptions underlying the policy debate.
In this article, I will argue that this shared assumption is wrong. Although generally quite reliable (particularly in comparison with other forms of evidence often used in criminal trials), DNA tests are not now and have never been infallible. Errors in DNA testing occur regularly. DNA evidence has caused false incriminations and false convictions, and will continue to do so. Although DNA tests incriminate the correct person in the great majority of cases, the risk of false incrimination is high enough to deserve serious consideration in debates about expansion of DNA databases. The risk of false incrimination is borne primarily by individuals whose profiles are included in government databases (and perhaps by their relatives). Because there are racial, ethnic and class disparities in the composition of databases, the risk of false incrimination will fall disproportionately on members of the included groups.8,9" http://www.councilforresponsib...
http://darwin.bio.uci.edu/~mue...
Ah yes, the classic "one crime deserves another" argument.
No, it is the classic "one crime deserves citizens who provide reasonable assistance to pursue justice." If I find a murdered body while jogging, I am probably going to be one of the initial suspects. I will be questioned by officers, and possibly even called back to the precinct if they have further questions. This would absolutely inconvenience me, but I would be a real jackass if I put up a stink about it. Someone was just murdered, which would be a much bigger problem than me losing a couple afternoons.
Yeah, you will be one of the initial suspects. and once the cops get it into your head that you're the culprit, it doesn't get erased easily. after that they're searching for evidence to convict you, not to exonerate you.
What makes things difficult, is that the people who are wrong don't know they're wrong.
No, that's not the difficult part. That's just a given.
The difficult part is trying to control something you have no control over.
Once you're willing to ignore that "destructive" blogger. And once you're willing to accept that you won't be able to change that person's mind, everything will be infinitely easier for you.
at some point, it's easier just to quit yourself than purge the deadwood. you can't fight entropy.