I'll lightly disagree with the drive to procreate not being rational, if only because one can take the perspective of the individual, and one can take the perspective of the species - from a species point of view, procreation is definitely rational.
That all being said, I think part of the larger picture is that, whether driven primarily by biology, one can argue being a mother is a free(ish) choice. We "rational" folks pooh-pooh it as something we should scare people out of, but what if, making different assumptions about the world, it's actually a rational and conscious choice on the part of the woman?
Well, sure, but what trend would you calculate for global average temperature since the 1800s? It certainly isn't exponential...perhaps it's logarithmic, or even better, maybe the trend is strictly stochastic, and any observed warming is simply natural variation.
The bottom line is this, I suppose - the attribution problem is thorny, and claims of attribution today with our large scale measurement networks are tricky enough, much less going back 200 years through dubious and uncertain proxies to make any sort of claim of definitive attribution.
The problem is the trend, starting from the early 1800s, is actually quite steady, even though population growth (and co2 emissions) has grown exponentially.
Regardless of coal, wood, or livestock, humanity's global CO2 emissions in the 1800s was minor compared to the 1900s (and more particularly, 1950 on).
If indeed, you want to assert that 1830s level CO2 emissions triggered global warming, and somehow the earth decided to treat 1950s level CO2 emissions differently and warm *less*, I suppose you could try and point to the logarithmic rate of CO2 effect on temperature...but that, of course means that even if CO2 emissions by 2130 are much greater than today, we'll see the same, mild warming we saw beginning in the 1800s.
...even before humans had any significant CO2 output.
Good to know. I'm sure someone out there will find some magical particle humans were emitting in the 1800s at a certain level that didn't scale with the massive growth in population of humanity.
Well, given the option of "force twitter.com (aka twitterleft.com) to allow freedom of speech", or "create an alternative twitterright.com to capture the users censored by twitterleft.com", I'll assert the second one is less burdensome.
That all being said, it could just be time for twitter to die, and some free speech alternative to rise up.
Why don't SJWs get any consequences for their hate speech on twitter?
It's hard to portray SJWs as oppressed, when twitter explicitly avoids imposing any consequences on them.
That being said, I've got no problem acknowledging twitter's right to abuse its own terms of service selectively - but their free speech has consequences too, and I'll call them out for censorship and bias:)
Mod parent up. Regardless if you're an SJW, or a homosexual conservative, twitter has obviously created a double standard, and the problem isn't with what direction they've chosen (mobs from SJWs okay, mobs of conservatives not okay), but the fact that they chose a direction at all. The arbitrary nature of their actions should be a wakeup call to *anyone*, because tomorrow, it could be you.
What they should do is create "twitterleft.com" and "twitterright.com", and capture both audiences in their own spaces. Instead, they've at the very least disenchanted the people they censor plus a fair number of those who they don't censor but still care about censorship.
Just because she may be exonerated under 18 U.S. Code 793 (a) and (b), doesn't mean she didn't violate (f).
Understand each of those sections is separate - they aren't all "anded" together.
Again:
(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer— Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
tl;dr - Whoever...through gross negligence permits [stuff]...to be removed from its proper place of custody...shall be fined...or imprisoned.
She asked people to send classified documents to her - that makes her culpable.
Any classified documents sent to an unsecured private server are by definition delivered in violation of trust, and by negligence.
As for the law, congress makes it, the executive enforces it. Asserting that you'll ignore the plain reading of the law in the name of "discretion" is an unconstitutional usurpation of the legislature. If the law needs to be changed, the president can propose new legislation, or could even offer blanket pardons if he wished - simply letting Hillary off the hook for what was plainly illegal sets a poor standard for our leaders.
At the end of the day, we should insist that cops are more careful with their guns than civilians, and government leaders should be more careful with their classified documents than their subordinates. If there is going to be a differential standard, it should be one that imposes more severe penalties on our leaders.
I understand discretion - but if anything, we should hold our government leaders to a higher level of accountability.
Letting Johnny get off with a warning after his first shoplifting attempt, or sending Judy on her way after she's caught speeding with a warning, is discretion.
But if Johnny is a Congressman, or Judy is the president's daughter, you simply cannot afford to let them off the hook without damaging the perception of fairness. When the rich and powerful get away with something that we regularly impose upon the poor and weak, even if occasionally we let the poor and weak get by with just a warning, we destroy the sense of justice in the community.
She consciously refused a state.gov email account.
She voluntarily setup a private email server.
Even a technologically illiterate grandma, when told by her sysadmins at the state department that what she was doing was wrong, makes is clear that it was likely to cause foreseeable harm.
tl;dr - a technophobic grandma doesn't know enough to ask for a private server, she just takes the state department blackberry and lives with whatever email it's configured with.
knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location
Okay, so she's guilty under that as well:)
You can't setup a private server "unknowingly", she can't possibly claim the private server was an "authorized location", and she had every intent to retain those documents there by mere fact of ordering it set up.
As for 18 U.S. Code 793 (f), " through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody " - the proper place of custody was secure government networks, not her private servers.
through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody
Comey proved that. She was extremely careless (gross negligence), and she removed classified data from its proper place of custody (secure networks) and placed it on her private server.
This is beyond a reasonable doubt.
If you assert that Hillary actually ordered the building of a private server, then she's actually guilty of more - that proves intent:)
Comey notes that *anyone* on those classified email chains showed gross negligence by including a private server email for hillary - I wonder if one of those people on those classified chains has the initials "BHO"...
(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer— Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
She flatly violated a statute that only requires gross negligence (aka, "extreme carelessness"), but Comey dodged and said he wouldn't recommend prosecution because he could not prove intent - even though intent is not required by the statute.
Now, you can argue 18 U.S. Code 793 (a), which requires intent, could not be prosecuted, but 18 U.S. Code 793 (f) clearly was violated.
Hillary is a criminal who the FBI declined to recommend prosecution for.
"proper place of custody" isn't "my private email server open to the internet":) You might argue that classified documents *created* on her server weren't "removed from its proper place of custody", but any classified docs *sent* to her server were obviously removed from the proper place of custody (secure government networks).
Again, actual intent, or actual harm isn't required to violate 18 U.S. Code 793 (f).
I think there's a strong case that setting up a private server in the first place demonstrates "intent" since that clearly cannot happen by accident, but even putting that aside, Hillary should be on the hook for a 10 year stint in the pokey.
The real kicker here, though, is that as Comey stated, anyone on those classified email chains should have known that the private server address was improper, and showed gross negligence in continuing correspondence with Hillary on her private server. My bet is that one of those people who also violated 18 U.S. Code 793 (f) has the initials "BHO":)
Slashdot Mirror
I'll lightly disagree with the drive to procreate not being rational, if only because one can take the perspective of the individual, and one can take the perspective of the species - from a species point of view, procreation is definitely rational.
That all being said, I think part of the larger picture is that, whether driven primarily by biology, one can argue being a mother is a free(ish) choice. We "rational" folks pooh-pooh it as something we should scare people out of, but what if, making different assumptions about the world, it's actually a rational and conscious choice on the part of the woman?
Well, sure, but what trend would you calculate for global average temperature since the 1800s? It certainly isn't exponential...perhaps it's logarithmic, or even better, maybe the trend is strictly stochastic, and any observed warming is simply natural variation.
The bottom line is this, I suppose - the attribution problem is thorny, and claims of attribution today with our large scale measurement networks are tricky enough, much less going back 200 years through dubious and uncertain proxies to make any sort of claim of definitive attribution.
tl;dr - the error bars here are all encompassing
Mann is arguing with settled science!!??
But, but, what about 97% *consensus*???
Black is white. Up is down. Cold is warm. I don't know what to think anymore! :)
The problem is the trend, starting from the early 1800s, is actually quite steady, even though population growth (and co2 emissions) has grown exponentially.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/pl...
https://ourworldindata.org/wp-...
This smells like the thorny attribution problem.
Regardless of coal, wood, or livestock, humanity's global CO2 emissions in the 1800s was minor compared to the 1900s (and more particularly, 1950 on).
If indeed, you want to assert that 1830s level CO2 emissions triggered global warming, and somehow the earth decided to treat 1950s level CO2 emissions differently and warm *less*, I suppose you could try and point to the logarithmic rate of CO2 effect on temperature...but that, of course means that even if CO2 emissions by 2130 are much greater than today, we'll see the same, mild warming we saw beginning in the 1800s.
...even before humans had any significant CO2 output.
Good to know. I'm sure someone out there will find some magical particle humans were emitting in the 1800s at a certain level that didn't scale with the massive growth in population of humanity.
Well, given the option of "force twitter.com (aka twitterleft.com) to allow freedom of speech", or "create an alternative twitterright.com to capture the users censored by twitterleft.com", I'll assert the second one is less burdensome.
That all being said, it could just be time for twitter to die, and some free speech alternative to rise up.
But somehow a gay conservative giving a bad movie review rose above that low bar? :)
Why don't SJWs get any consequences for their hate speech on twitter?
It's hard to portray SJWs as oppressed, when twitter explicitly avoids imposing any consequences on them.
That being said, I've got no problem acknowledging twitter's right to abuse its own terms of service selectively - but their free speech has consequences too, and I'll call them out for censorship and bias :)
Ah, MM, you're in good company:
https://www.splcenter.org/hate...
Anyhoo, just not sure how SJWs can complain they're oppressed when they're the ones with the hand on the ban hammer :)
https://twitter.com/Lesdoggg/s...
Why hasn't this user been banned for inciting harassment?
Name a single white slave in America before the civil war.
Name a single SJW who has been banned from Twitter.
Exactly who is being oppressed again?
Mod parent up. Regardless if you're an SJW, or a homosexual conservative, twitter has obviously created a double standard, and the problem isn't with what direction they've chosen (mobs from SJWs okay, mobs of conservatives not okay), but the fact that they chose a direction at all. The arbitrary nature of their actions should be a wakeup call to *anyone*, because tomorrow, it could be you.
What they should do is create "twitterleft.com" and "twitterright.com", and capture both audiences in their own spaces. Instead, they've at the very least disenchanted the people they censor plus a fair number of those who they don't censor but still care about censorship.
Just because she may be exonerated under 18 U.S. Code 793 (a) and (b), doesn't mean she didn't violate (f).
Understand each of those sections is separate - they aren't all "anded" together.
Again:
tl;dr - Whoever...through gross negligence permits [stuff]...to be removed from its proper place of custody...shall be fined...or imprisoned.
She asked people to send classified documents to her - that makes her culpable.
Any classified documents sent to an unsecured private server are by definition delivered in violation of trust, and by negligence.
As for the law, congress makes it, the executive enforces it. Asserting that you'll ignore the plain reading of the law in the name of "discretion" is an unconstitutional usurpation of the legislature. If the law needs to be changed, the president can propose new legislation, or could even offer blanket pardons if he wished - simply letting Hillary off the hook for what was plainly illegal sets a poor standard for our leaders.
At the end of the day, we should insist that cops are more careful with their guns than civilians, and government leaders should be more careful with their classified documents than their subordinates. If there is going to be a differential standard, it should be one that imposes more severe penalties on our leaders.
I understand discretion - but if anything, we should hold our government leaders to a higher level of accountability.
Letting Johnny get off with a warning after his first shoplifting attempt, or sending Judy on her way after she's caught speeding with a warning, is discretion.
But if Johnny is a Congressman, or Judy is the president's daughter, you simply cannot afford to let them off the hook without damaging the perception of fairness. When the rich and powerful get away with something that we regularly impose upon the poor and weak, even if occasionally we let the poor and weak get by with just a warning, we destroy the sense of justice in the community.
She consciously refused a state.gov email account.
She voluntarily setup a private email server.
Even a technologically illiterate grandma, when told by her sysadmins at the state department that what she was doing was wrong, makes is clear that it was likely to cause foreseeable harm.
tl;dr - a technophobic grandma doesn't know enough to ask for a private server, she just takes the state department blackberry and lives with whatever email it's configured with.
Okay, so she's guilty under that as well :)
You can't setup a private server "unknowingly", she can't possibly claim the private server was an "authorized location", and she had every intent to retain those documents there by mere fact of ordering it set up.
As for 18 U.S. Code 793 (f), " through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody " - the proper place of custody was secure government networks, not her private servers.
"extreme carelessness" == "gross negligence"
They're literally synonyms in legal dictionaries.
"extremely careless" == "gross negligence"
They're literally synonyms in legal dictionaries.
Hillary is an unprosecuted criminal, pure and simple.
Comey proved that. She was extremely careless (gross negligence), and she removed classified data from its proper place of custody (secure networks) and placed it on her private server.
This is beyond a reasonable doubt.
If you assert that Hillary actually ordered the building of a private server, then she's actually guilty of more - that proves intent :)
That's not lying, that's just being extremely careless with the truth :)
Mod parent up.
Comey notes that *anyone* on those classified email chains showed gross negligence by including a private server email for hillary - I wonder if one of those people on those classified chains has the initials "BHO"...
18 U.S. Code 793 (f)
https://www.law.cornell.edu/us...
She flatly violated a statute that only requires gross negligence (aka, "extreme carelessness"), but Comey dodged and said he wouldn't recommend prosecution because he could not prove intent - even though intent is not required by the statute.
Now, you can argue 18 U.S. Code 793 (a), which requires intent, could not be prosecuted, but 18 U.S. Code 793 (f) clearly was violated.
Hillary is a criminal who the FBI declined to recommend prosecution for.
"proper place of custody" isn't "my private email server open to the internet" :) You might argue that classified documents *created* on her server weren't "removed from its proper place of custody", but any classified docs *sent* to her server were obviously removed from the proper place of custody (secure government networks).
Again, actual intent, or actual harm isn't required to violate 18 U.S. Code 793 (f).
I think there's a strong case that setting up a private server in the first place demonstrates "intent" since that clearly cannot happen by accident, but even putting that aside, Hillary should be on the hook for a 10 year stint in the pokey.
The real kicker here, though, is that as Comey stated, anyone on those classified email chains should have known that the private server address was improper, and showed gross negligence in continuing correspondence with Hillary on her private server. My bet is that one of those people who also violated 18 U.S. Code 793 (f) has the initials "BHO" :)