Not sure if your realize the irony of you attributing the behavior of Horvath to an entire gender, whilst mocking women who blame the action of some people on the entire patriarchy.
Neither are applicable in this situation. Theresa Preston-Werner was a women and she only wrote a civilized blog post explaining her innocence and thanking support. The female engineer interviewed in this article said she never experienced discrimination but didn't speak ill of Horvath or her coworkers. Horvath Tiwtter temper tantrum and stories embroiled in drama is her own undoing and responsibility, not the typical behavior of all females.
That issue is separate from this court decision. His fight was with whether they were allowed to stop his car, not the definition of Plain Sight, the validity of the "smell" evidence, or distrust in the police.
The officers stopped the car under reasonable suspicion of drunk driving. The anonymous call was enough to equate to an eyewitness observation of erradict driving, according to this ruling.
In a separate issue, upon pulling the truck over the officer could recognize a potent marijuana smell, which under the Plain View Doctrine (that includes smell) allowed them to search the truck.
and airing out personal and professional problems to the world, is the allowance of mob justice. Even though they found no wrongdoing or harassment after a legitimate investigation, it didn't matter; Preston and his wife had already undergone trial by media.
From the previous article where Horvath aired out her grievances with the company, I was disappointed to realize accusations of company-wide sexual harassment were misleading and that 95% of her problems were with Preston's wife. I don't know why that was a problem that needed to be dealt with publicly. It was dramatic.
I assume you don't know about the The 1938 German Weapons Act wherein "Jews were prohibited from possessing any dangerous weapons, including firearms. They were also forbidden from the manufacturing or dealing of firearms and ammunition".
Isn't the entire idea of the Bill of Rights to give inalienable rights to the people from the government regardless of prevailing ruling opinion? I'd find it hard to believe you if you told me the writers never believed there would be a more powerful weapon or a faster way to spread information, and therefore would not be in favor of allowing The People to own them.
I also believe that, since you think that "unrestricted weapons purchases" is a thing, you don't know about the National Firearms Act of 1934, the Gun Control Act of 1968, the Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 or understand the process of purchasing/owning a firearm.
it is treading into the realm where the risk of bad outcome from the disease is about the same as the risk of bad outcome from the cure.
I was listening to an interview with Andrew Wakefield about his discredited study, and he referenced other studies that replicated his research that came to the same conclusion. I set out to find them, but only found studies such as this and this
that found no direct causal links between the MMR vaccine and mental illness nor, as a population study, evidence that there was an increase in autism diagonosis after the introduction of the MMR vaccine to the
general population in 1971 or an increase of diagonosis after 18 months of age, when the vaccine is administered. I then found a website that cites 28 studies that defend Wakefield's research. However, each one only talks about the underdevelopment of immune systems in children with down syndrome and the dangers of this preexisting condition.
As it turns out, Wakefield was offered a chance to reconduct his research, but he denied it. Every dead end I've reached leads me to believe he made this up. And it's sad the influence that this type of fraud has on people. I understand that you're suspicious; if I were an adult before this study was discredited I would be too. But the burden of proof is on anti-vaxxers and they have none besides residual suspicion from this discredited study.
Vaccines make it so that having the measles is no longer a rite of passage. That alone outweighs the "bad outcome" of unfounded suspicion.
Interesting comment. However, I think it's detrimental to entertain "if" situations about her inane accusations, because it creates a hypothetical where she's right.
Let's just keep it at: There is no correlation or medical proof vaccines cause autism, and if you're willing to sacrifice your children because Jenny McCarthy told you so then good riddance to your blood line.
No, it seems the adjective "un-safe" was just an ad hoc addition to her anti-vaccination campaign after being proven wrong. She previously rallied against vaccinations in general because they were filled with "toxins".
14 states contribute a total of 2.4 mil
36 states need to contribute 7,.1 - 2.4 = 4.7 mil
(over 6 months)
At the beginning of March, the 36 states were reporting they had 2.6 mil, leaving (4.7 - 2.6 = 2.1 mil) that needed to sign up in one month
7 of 36 states are already reporting a total of 0.59 mil, which means the remaining 29 need:
4.7 - 0.59 = 4.1 mil total
OR
2.1 - 0.59 = 1.5 mil in (1) month
Not impossible, but based on any of the previous projections it's still a stretch:
-2.4 mil in (6) months per 14 states yielding: [(2.4/6)/14]*29 = 0.83 mil
-2.6 mil in (5) months per 36 states yielding: [(2.6/5)/36]*29 = 0.42 mil
-0.59 mil in (6) months per 7 states yielding: [(0.59/6)/7]*29 = 0.41 mil
"Aw, 500 bitcoins, I wanted a pizza." 500 bitcoins can buy many pizzas!
"Explain how" Bitcoins can be exchanged for limited goods and services!
"Woo hoo!"
But those assumptions are a subset what if of a what if. My point is that her initial premise is flawed altogether when she dismisses Satoshi as a pseudonym because it's too "distinctive". But there does exist your possibility that despite the author describing both Satoshi's as "obsessively private" that he did use his real name AND that she had gotten the correct Satoshi, having only looked through the naturalized US citizen database AND that he makes no attempt to hide himself, faking his death or otherwise.
As for the job thing, I can hear it too
"There's this guy that people claimed invented Bitcoin who wants a job here"
"Really, the virtual currency best known for black market drug trades, laundering, and vanishing money? Please, send him in"
"Okay but wait a few reporters followed him here"
"Oh that none of this sounds like a liability at all. Let us wait for him to finish"
Of course, there is also the chance "Satoshi Nakamoto" is a pseudonym, but that raises the question why someone who wishes to remain anonymous would choose such a distinctive name.
But not the question why someone who wished to remain anonymous would chose his own name.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course, out in the real world, women are frequently massively toxic and destructive in their team behaviour.
The tech is available and cheap Maybe you should pitch it to your local police station.
Of course, out in the real world, women are frequently massively toxic and destructive in their team behaviour
Not sure if your realize the irony of you attributing the behavior of Horvath to an entire gender, whilst mocking women who blame the action of some people on the entire patriarchy.
Neither are applicable in this situation. Theresa Preston-Werner was a women and she only wrote a civilized blog post explaining her innocence and thanking support. The female engineer interviewed in this article said she never experienced discrimination but didn't speak ill of Horvath or her coworkers. Horvath Tiwtter temper tantrum and stories embroiled in drama is her own undoing and responsibility, not the typical behavior of all females.
That issue is separate from this court decision. His fight was with whether they were allowed to stop his car, not the definition of Plain Sight, the validity of the "smell" evidence, or distrust in the police.
The ruling doesn't include "search", it only OK's stopping/pulling over.
The "search" is a separate issue backed by the Plain View Doctrine.
It's like peeling a letigous onion.
The officers stopped the car under reasonable suspicion of drunk driving. The anonymous call was enough to equate to an eyewitness observation of erradict driving, according to this ruling.
In a separate issue, upon pulling the truck over the officer could recognize a potent marijuana smell, which under the Plain View Doctrine (that includes smell) allowed them to search the truck.
Do you work for GitHub or know anything beyond what they posted?
I guess that explains this picture
and airing out personal and professional problems to the world, is the allowance of mob justice. Even though they found no wrongdoing or harassment after a legitimate investigation, it didn't matter; Preston and his wife had already undergone trial by media.
From the previous article where Horvath aired out her grievances with the company, I was disappointed to realize accusations of company-wide sexual harassment were misleading and that 95% of her problems were with Preston's wife. I don't know why that was a problem that needed to be dealt with publicly. It was dramatic.
It's crazy like how people don't just pick "liberal" or "conservative" and then mindlessly agree with prevailing opinion of that clan.
ohters also had available to them.
I assume you don't know about the The 1938 German Weapons Act wherein "Jews were prohibited from possessing any dangerous weapons, including firearms. They were also forbidden from the manufacturing or dealing of firearms and ammunition".
Isn't the entire idea of the Bill of Rights to give inalienable rights to the people from the government regardless of prevailing ruling opinion? I'd find it hard to believe you if you told me the writers never believed there would be a more powerful weapon or a faster way to spread information, and therefore would not be in favor of allowing The People to own them.
I also believe that, since you think that "unrestricted weapons purchases" is a thing, you don't know about the National Firearms Act of 1934, the Gun Control Act of 1968, the Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 or understand the process of purchasing/owning a firearm.
it is treading into the realm where the risk of bad outcome from the disease is about the same as the risk of bad outcome from the cure.
I was listening to an interview with Andrew Wakefield about his discredited study, and he referenced other studies that replicated his research that came to the same conclusion. I set out to find them, but only found studies such as this and this that found no direct causal links between the MMR vaccine and mental illness nor, as a population study, evidence that there was an increase in autism diagonosis after the introduction of the MMR vaccine to the general population in 1971 or an increase of diagonosis after 18 months of age, when the vaccine is administered. I then found a website that cites 28 studies that defend Wakefield's research. However, each one only talks about the underdevelopment of immune systems in children with down syndrome and the dangers of this preexisting condition.
As it turns out, Wakefield was offered a chance to reconduct his research, but he denied it. Every dead end I've reached leads me to believe he made this up. And it's sad the influence that this type of fraud has on people. I understand that you're suspicious; if I were an adult before this study was discredited I would be too. But the burden of proof is on anti-vaxxers and they have none besides residual suspicion from this discredited study.
Vaccines make it so that having the measles is no longer a rite of passage. That alone outweighs the "bad outcome" of unfounded suspicion.
Interesting comment. However, I think it's detrimental to entertain "if" situations about her inane accusations, because it creates a hypothetical where she's right.
Let's just keep it at: There is no correlation or medical proof vaccines cause autism, and if you're willing to sacrifice your children because Jenny McCarthy told you so then good riddance to your blood line.
No, it seems the adjective "un-safe" was just an ad hoc addition to her anti-vaccination campaign after being proven wrong. She previously rallied against vaccinations in general because they were filled with "toxins".
So I don't want to be that person, but based on the race and age group that commits the most crimes, you could probably guess the correlation between crime and demographic...
From the article, it goes something like this:
14 states contribute a total of 2.4 mil
36 states need to contribute 7,.1 - 2.4 = 4.7 mil
(over 6 months)
At the beginning of March, the 36 states were reporting they had 2.6 mil, leaving (4.7 - 2.6 = 2.1 mil) that needed to sign up in one month
7 of 36 states are already reporting a total of 0.59 mil, which means the remaining 29 need:
4.7 - 0.59 = 4.1 mil total
OR
2.1 - 0.59 = 1.5 mil in (1) month
Not impossible, but based on any of the previous projections it's still a stretch:
-2.4 mil in (6) months per 14 states yielding: [(2.4/6)/14]*29 = 0.83 mil
-2.6 mil in (5) months per 36 states yielding: [(2.6/5)/36]*29 = 0.42 mil
-0.59 mil in (6) months per 7 states yielding: [(0.59/6)/7]*29 = 0.41 mil
It's amazing what you can accomplish when you enact a federal mandate, monthly fines, spend $500 million, and keep pushing back the deadline!
The medium matters; news is T.V. Remember George Zimmerman supposedly saying "coon"?
Just...let the one-issue voters have their vote, OK?
It seems possibly Onion-esque though.
Posting mainly because our signatures quote the same figure.
From a previous post:
"Aw, 500 bitcoins, I wanted a pizza."
500 bitcoins can buy many pizzas!
"Explain how"
Bitcoins can be exchanged for limited goods and services!
"Woo hoo!"
While it's seems convenient and sketchy to magically find money after it was stolen, is it possible that MtGox is just that incompetent?
But those assumptions are a subset what if of a what if. My point is that her initial premise is flawed altogether when she dismisses Satoshi as a pseudonym because it's too "distinctive". But there does exist your possibility that despite the author describing both Satoshi's as "obsessively private" that he did use his real name AND that she had gotten the correct Satoshi, having only looked through the naturalized US citizen database AND that he makes no attempt to hide himself, faking his death or otherwise.
As for the job thing, I can hear it too
"There's this guy that people claimed invented Bitcoin who wants a job here"
"Really, the virtual currency best known for black market drug trades, laundering, and vanishing money? Please, send him in"
"Okay but wait a few reporters followed him here"
"Oh that none of this sounds like a liability at all. Let us wait for him to finish"
Of course, there is also the chance "Satoshi Nakamoto" is a pseudonym, but that raises the question why someone who wishes to remain anonymous would choose such a distinctive name.
But not the question why someone who wished to remain anonymous would chose his own name.