"Plausible Deniability" only matters when you're guilty, or when you are railroaded. There's been no accusation of railroading here. "alleged human trafficker" usually means "human trafficker." Which means "slave trader."
And human traffickers are just about the lowest form of life known to man. It is often about a thousand times worse even than the *production* of child pornography, if it is possible to compare things that bad on a moral level. The production of child pornography only happens to a child once. When a child is sold into slavery, that slavery is ongoing.
Not really. Citations just show to you that I am not doing so; that doesn't mean I am doing so.
Google for it. For example, there was a big article in rolling stone that was well done on the wiretapping of US Citizen as part of the war on terror. To be fair, the system had been designed to carefully avoid this, so the members of NSA who *designed* it cared about rights, but then it was retasked. There are some great observations in there, however, about the what-we-can-get-away-with/lack-of-oversight mentality. And the person who responded to the problem was prosecuted, basically for being a whistleblower.
Not really. The NSA has a lot of power to blackmail, and we know that they have no scruples about violating the Constitution left and right, but there's a non-subtle difference between violating the Fourth Amendment and destroying a company.
So even assuming there is data big enough and black enough to destroy Google out there--not a point I'd concede--even then, I'd be hesitant to say the NSA is destroying them or would destroy them absent actual evidence. Frankly, if they got caught taking down a multibillion dollar American company, they would face a real risk of being defunded or decapitated (i.e. leadership replacement). Congress listens to multibillion dollar companies.
I want to be able to (1) be an organ donor (2) who the hospital doesn't know is an organ donor until AFTER they decide they can't save me, and even then maybe it's another hospital that knows instead, and (3) only let my organs go to people who aren't assholes. Well, not the wrong kind of assholes, anyway. They can be quite rude, but they can't be mean.
"Virii" and "Priii" is what people like to type when they want to appear smart (using the Latin plural). The rest of us just type viruses and Priuses.
Sort of an amateur way of appearing smart, since people often keep using the plural nominative regardless of the position in the English sentence. But as with many things, the smarter one shows oneself to be by application of knowledge, the less others are able to understand. Hence it would not make much sense to see ten Prios.
Yes, you're correct, my bad. Although for a first-order approximation, it doesn't matter, because people today generally aren't dealing with nondeterministic machines. The distinction probably doesn't matter unless you're writing a paper about it or the world changes radically.
It refers to the complexity of a computing problem being significant enough that it cannot be guaranteed to be solved in polynomial time.
So doing an operation on a two digit number is easy, but as the number of digits goes up, and you try to do the same operation on the bigger numbers, it gets harder at a rate which is greater than polynomial with the size of the input.
It's a little more complex than that, but that's basically it.
Look, guys, you can't take someone else's work and put your name to it like you created it! You can't understand WHY what you did was way out of bounds? How could someone so dumbb ever pass a college entrance exam?
Actually, half the time that's plagiarism, which isn't the same thing as copyright violation. The other half it's not plagiarism because it's done with permission, which still isn't the same thing as copyright violation but is usually also not copyright violation. Plagiarism has to do with credit. Copyright has to do with the right to copy.
For example, judicial opinions are usually written by clerks, but the credit goes to the judges. If that were done without permission, it would be copyright violation. (At least in any other field in the world--judicial opinions may be a special case.) It would also be plagiarism.
One guy I know had his stuff used by a major network. They got his permission to use it, I'm sure he did a blanket rights agreement, and they pretended a bunch of stuff was their work. That was morally plagiarism but legally probably fine.
One article I know was submitted to an academic journal with the same material as another already published article--even the graph. That was plagiarism and copyright violation.
Discussion of the law *must* include those whom it affects. When people file lawsuits, one of the concepts is that the person filing must have standing. Wikipedia: "In the United States, the current doctrine is that a person cannot bring a suit challenging the constitutionality of a law unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that the plaintiff is (or will imminently be) harmed by the law."
That's Article III standing. It applies to courts, not Congress.
Having people who are clearly biased and acting on their own self-interest are not the type of people that should be used to inform decisions regarding the law.
Actually, this is how pluralism works. People bring evidence and arguments and support to positions that are in their self-interest for financial, politicial, or moral reasons and try to convince their elected officials why they are right.
If people not biased and acting in their own self-interest are the ones determining policy or giving input into it, you wind up with a very paternalist state that has no input from the people whose freedoms are affected by government policies before those policies are made.
Sandra Fluke's arguments were weak at best, giving anecdotal evidence of the importance of birth control pills for medical reasons other than pregnancy prevention. She gave an example of a woman who had a clear medical need for these pills, yet then extended this to include all uses of contraception. There are many women (my girlfriend included) who are 100% pro-contraception, yet believe that you should pay for your own sex life.
She is not asking others to pay for her sex; she is asking that the health insurance she pays for include birth control.
The reason for the extension--aside from being pro-contraception, if we adopt that terminology--is that the difficulty in convincing an insurance carrier to cover contraception for non-contraception purposes when they don't cover it for contraceptive purposes creates a practical barrier to getting contraception for non-contraceptive reasons.
The first is that the "story" Fluke wanted to tell was a personal anecdote (hardly fit material for a discussion, unless you are attempting an emotional appeal... which again, is not exactly what we want our laws to be based one).
Of course personal anecdotes are fit material for discussion when you are trying to determine the effect of a policy. A policy-maker should consider the worst part of a policy. Here, a girl had a cyst the size of a tennis ball form on her ovary because of the former policy, needed surgery and lost the ovary, and went into early menopause--all because an insurance policy *that was supposed to cover* birth conrol for non-contraceptive purposes regularly makes it almost impossible for people to get that birth control. Ms. Fluke was there to share that story and other stories. The men were religious people (e.g. priests) there to testify about their faith. Neither one is particularly scientific, but a policy maker should listen to both.
In addition, Ms. Fluke shared some polling data collected on an affected campus.
Second, they put the fact that she was a minority in the headline (as if that was the issue) when clearly at least one of the witnesses was already black (so, not the actual issue).
There have been over seven thousand stories about this. You are saying there is a problem with one headline? And even if the differences were as you say, it could easily be explained because (1) she was trying to testify for the minority party in the House, and the minority party had no other witnesses, or (2) she was the only woman to testify in the morning, and being black doesn't make one a woman.
And finally, since when was a student at a university considered an expert witness on anything like this? Seriously. A professor, sure. A random person they happened to find in a university with a (no doubt) heart wrenching story?
A professor is not necessarily an expert, nor is a student necessarily a non-expert. Here, you're talking about a student who has a passion on a subject, who has researched it extensively, and who has had many stories shared with her by people who have been affected by it. That makes her an expert, especially compared to Congress, which has just taken up the issue and does not have anywhere near the same level of experience with it.
I'm sorry, but she doesn't actually have any standing to testify.
Um, no. One needs standing in order to bring a lawsuit. One does not need standing in order to testify before Congress.
I can demonstrate that with an easy (ridiculous) example: have a white person testify that black people beat him up, at a hearing to pass a law to throw all black people in jail. Does that testimony offer any credible reason to pass the law? No, and neither does Fluke's.
I fail to see how having a black person testify to that would make the law any more legitimate. Your analogy fails because you chose a law which necessarily would note be open for debate. How about a law prohibiting the sale of condoms without a prescription? Should women be able to testify who were forced to have abortions because of the law?
Actually, Issa wants the government to not be involved in the bedroom: i.e. not to have the government fund their contraceptives, or, rather, to force religious organizations to provide them (which contradicts religious principles).
It's just not that simple. The religious organization needs to set the Cost of Attendance, which is the amount students can borrow. The CoA covers insurance purchased through the University. That insurance does not include contraceptive coverage, and discriminates against people who try to use contraceptive drugs for other medical needs. The University already provides contraceptive coverage to its employees. This is not a question of forcing the university or taxpayer to provide contraceptive coverage; it is a case of stopping the University from preventing students from getting contraception coverage by the manner in which it arranges financial aid and insurance coverage.
I know, hindsight bias, but it doesn't seem as bad as the summary makes it sound. Why couldn't you make an axle square to fit into the wheel in the middle, and just add a few more sides on either side, e.g. octagonal at the sides? It wouldn't be perfect, but it would be an improvement.
I'm not an American, but I understand the the FCC has overarching authority over Spectrum Regulation.
In that sense, local Police or other State organizations would be acting illegally if they interrupted communication without FCC aproval.
Presumably the FCC want to test the right of State organizations to be able do this.
It gets more complicated than that. There is a law prohibiting willful or malicious interference with radio communications, for example, and there's a whole debate about whether it should apply in this kind of circumstance (it was passed in response to threats to the public safety from interference in police communications). There are also common carrier laws requiring the FCC to be contacted if someone is going to discontinue common carrier service--but the FCC has generally exempted mobile services from that law, which they are allowed to do under another law. The entire FCC licensing regime was passed, in part, in response to difficulties in communication caused by signal interference during the sinking of the Titanic--interference that was widely believed to have cost lives. If you shut down cell service, you're often shutting down 911. And that's all before you get to the First Amendment issues.
Correction, prohibition has fueled on awful lot of violent crime.
Not necessarily exclusively. When you legalize a good that people will break laws to get the money to pay for, you may cause more crime than you prevent.
That 67 vs 58 unfriending figure should have been controlled according to the average number of friends for each of the sexes. I suspect they wouldn't be equal. Even as a separate category average friends for each of the sexes would be interesting to know. Meh. Maybe they just didn't want to deal with classifying transvestites.
I bet it's evened out by women being more likely to approve a friend they don't really want in the first place and then defriending them later.
If the neighboring connections use your connection more than you use theirs it is weakening your connection.
No, not necessarily. A use may be relatively costless to me, but the fact that I am a node that generates new connections may increase my value to others, for example.
But is your encryption key really protecting the testimonial contents of your mind? Or the physical evidence on your computer? One can definitely argue this issue either way, legitimately.
Slashdot Mirror
If your jobs is forcing overtime chances are you are going to get laid off soon as either it will be outsourced to somewhere cheaper or automated.
So, for example, doctors and lawyers?
"Plausible Deniability" only matters when you're guilty, or when you are railroaded. There's been no accusation of railroading here. "alleged human trafficker" usually means "human trafficker." Which means "slave trader."
And human traffickers are just about the lowest form of life known to man. It is often about a thousand times worse even than the *production* of child pornography, if it is possible to compare things that bad on a moral level. The production of child pornography only happens to a child once. When a child is sold into slavery, that slavery is ongoing.
Not really. Citations just show to you that I am not doing so; that doesn't mean I am doing so.
Google for it. For example, there was a big article in rolling stone that was well done on the wiretapping of US Citizen as part of the war on terror. To be fair, the system had been designed to carefully avoid this, so the members of NSA who *designed* it cared about rights, but then it was retasked. There are some great observations in there, however, about the what-we-can-get-away-with/lack-of-oversight mentality. And the person who responded to the problem was prosecuted, basically for being a whistleblower.
Not really. The NSA has a lot of power to blackmail, and we know that they have no scruples about violating the Constitution left and right, but there's a non-subtle difference between violating the Fourth Amendment and destroying a company.
So even assuming there is data big enough and black enough to destroy Google out there--not a point I'd concede--even then, I'd be hesitant to say the NSA is destroying them or would destroy them absent actual evidence. Frankly, if they got caught taking down a multibillion dollar American company, they would face a real risk of being defunded or decapitated (i.e. leadership replacement). Congress listens to multibillion dollar companies.
I want to be able to (1) be an organ donor (2) who the hospital doesn't know is an organ donor until AFTER they decide they can't save me, and even then maybe it's another hospital that knows instead, and (3) only let my organs go to people who aren't assholes. Well, not the wrong kind of assholes, anyway. They can be quite rude, but they can't be mean.
I think it was a joke. He said "nuclear wessel." It's probably a Russian invention.
"Virii" and "Priii" is what people like to type when they want to appear smart (using the Latin plural). The rest of us just type viruses and Priuses.
Sort of an amateur way of appearing smart, since people often keep using the plural nominative regardless of the position in the English sentence. But as with many things, the smarter one shows oneself to be by application of knowledge, the less others are able to understand. Hence it would not make much sense to see ten Prios.
Yes, you're correct, my bad. Although for a first-order approximation, it doesn't matter, because people today generally aren't dealing with nondeterministic machines. The distinction probably doesn't matter unless you're writing a paper about it or the world changes radically.
"Not polynomial."
It refers to the complexity of a computing problem being significant enough that it cannot be guaranteed to be solved in polynomial time.
So doing an operation on a two digit number is easy, but as the number of digits goes up, and you try to do the same operation on the bigger numbers, it gets harder at a rate which is greater than polynomial with the size of the input.
It's a little more complex than that, but that's basically it.
Look, guys, you can't take someone else's work and put your name to it like you created it! You can't understand WHY what you did was way out of bounds? How could someone so dumbb ever pass a college entrance exam?
Actually, half the time that's plagiarism, which isn't the same thing as copyright violation. The other half it's not plagiarism because it's done with permission, which still isn't the same thing as copyright violation but is usually also not copyright violation. Plagiarism has to do with credit. Copyright has to do with the right to copy.
For example, judicial opinions are usually written by clerks, but the credit goes to the judges. If that were done without permission, it would be copyright violation. (At least in any other field in the world--judicial opinions may be a special case.) It would also be plagiarism.
One guy I know had his stuff used by a major network. They got his permission to use it, I'm sure he did a blanket rights agreement, and they pretended a bunch of stuff was their work. That was morally plagiarism but legally probably fine.
One article I know was submitted to an academic journal with the same material as another already published article--even the graph. That was plagiarism and copyright violation.
Discussion of the law *must* include those whom it affects. When people file lawsuits, one of the concepts is that the person filing must have standing. Wikipedia: "In the United States, the current doctrine is that a person cannot bring a suit challenging the constitutionality of a law unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that the plaintiff is (or will imminently be) harmed by the law."
That's Article III standing. It applies to courts, not Congress.
Having people who are clearly biased and acting on their own self-interest are not the type of people that should be used to inform decisions regarding the law.
Actually, this is how pluralism works. People bring evidence and arguments and support to positions that are in their self-interest for financial, politicial, or moral reasons and try to convince their elected officials why they are right.
If people not biased and acting in their own self-interest are the ones determining policy or giving input into it, you wind up with a very paternalist state that has no input from the people whose freedoms are affected by government policies before those policies are made.
Sandra Fluke's arguments were weak at best, giving anecdotal evidence of the importance of birth control pills for medical reasons other than pregnancy prevention. She gave an example of a woman who had a clear medical need for these pills, yet then extended this to include all uses of contraception. There are many women (my girlfriend included) who are 100% pro-contraception, yet believe that you should pay for your own sex life.
She is not asking others to pay for her sex; she is asking that the health insurance she pays for include birth control.
The reason for the extension--aside from being pro-contraception, if we adopt that terminology--is that the difficulty in convincing an insurance carrier to cover contraception for non-contraception purposes when they don't cover it for contraceptive purposes creates a practical barrier to getting contraception for non-contraceptive reasons.
The first is that the "story" Fluke wanted to tell was a personal anecdote (hardly fit material for a discussion, unless you are attempting an emotional appeal... which again, is not exactly what we want our laws to be based one).
Of course personal anecdotes are fit material for discussion when you are trying to determine the effect of a policy. A policy-maker should consider the worst part of a policy. Here, a girl had a cyst the size of a tennis ball form on her ovary because of the former policy, needed surgery and lost the ovary, and went into early menopause--all because an insurance policy *that was supposed to cover* birth conrol for non-contraceptive purposes regularly makes it almost impossible for people to get that birth control. Ms. Fluke was there to share that story and other stories. The men were religious people (e.g. priests) there to testify about their faith. Neither one is particularly scientific, but a policy maker should listen to both.
In addition, Ms. Fluke shared some polling data collected on an affected campus.
Second, they put the fact that she was a minority in the headline (as if that was the issue) when clearly at least one of the witnesses was already black (so, not the actual issue).
There have been over seven thousand stories about this. You are saying there is a problem with one headline? And even if the differences were as you say, it could easily be explained because (1) she was trying to testify for the minority party in the House, and the minority party had no other witnesses, or (2) she was the only woman to testify in the morning, and being black doesn't make one a woman.
And finally, since when was a student at a university considered an expert witness on anything like this? Seriously. A professor, sure. A random person they happened to find in a university with a (no doubt) heart wrenching story?
A professor is not necessarily an expert, nor is a student necessarily a non-expert. Here, you're talking about a student who has a passion on a subject, who has researched it extensively, and who has had many stories shared with her by people who have been affected by it. That makes her an expert, especially compared to Congress, which has just taken up the issue and does not have anywhere near the same level of experience with it.
I'm sorry, but she doesn't actually have any standing to testify.
Um, no. One needs standing in order to bring a lawsuit. One does not need standing in order to testify before Congress.
I can demonstrate that with an easy (ridiculous) example: have a white person testify that black people beat him up, at a hearing to pass a law to throw all black people in jail. Does that testimony offer any credible reason to pass the law? No, and neither does Fluke's.
I fail to see how having a black person testify to that would make the law any more legitimate. Your analogy fails because you chose a law which necessarily would note be open for debate. How about a law prohibiting the sale of condoms without a prescription? Should women be able to testify who were forced to have abortions because of the law?
Actually, Issa wants the government to not be involved in the bedroom: i.e. not to have the government fund their contraceptives, or, rather, to force religious organizations to provide them (which contradicts religious principles).
It's just not that simple. The religious organization needs to set the Cost of Attendance, which is the amount students can borrow. The CoA covers insurance purchased through the University. That insurance does not include contraceptive coverage, and discriminates against people who try to use contraceptive drugs for other medical needs. The University already provides contraceptive coverage to its employees. This is not a question of forcing the university or taxpayer to provide contraceptive coverage; it is a case of stopping the University from preventing students from getting contraception coverage by the manner in which it arranges financial aid and insurance coverage.
What is the softwood lumber issue, and why would bending over be problematic if wood is soft?
This is how Bush v. Gore should have been decided.
I know, hindsight bias, but it doesn't seem as bad as the summary makes it sound. Why couldn't you make an axle square to fit into the wheel in the middle, and just add a few more sides on either side, e.g. octagonal at the sides? It wouldn't be perfect, but it would be an improvement.
The government owns the airwaves, but it also has rules on the reasons for which it can take away access to them once granted.
I'm not an American, but I understand the the FCC has overarching authority over Spectrum Regulation.
In that sense, local Police or other State organizations would be acting illegally if they interrupted communication without FCC aproval.
Presumably the FCC want to test the right of State organizations to be able do this.
It gets more complicated than that. There is a law prohibiting willful or malicious interference with radio communications, for example, and there's a whole debate about whether it should apply in this kind of circumstance (it was passed in response to threats to the public safety from interference in police communications). There are also common carrier laws requiring the FCC to be contacted if someone is going to discontinue common carrier service--but the FCC has generally exempted mobile services from that law, which they are allowed to do under another law. The entire FCC licensing regime was passed, in part, in response to difficulties in communication caused by signal interference during the sinking of the Titanic--interference that was widely believed to have cost lives. If you shut down cell service, you're often shutting down 911. And that's all before you get to the First Amendment issues.
Schenck is no longer good law.
But the example is still almost certainly good law. (I.e. the state can likely still prohibit shouting "fire" in a crowded movie theater.)
I tried that with the girls in high school -- it never worked.
Who has jurisdiction to hear the appeal, the mother or the best friend?
Correction, prohibition has fueled on awful lot of violent crime.
Not necessarily exclusively. When you legalize a good that people will break laws to get the money to pay for, you may cause more crime than you prevent.
That 67 vs 58 unfriending figure should have been controlled according to the average number of friends for each of the sexes. I suspect they wouldn't be equal. Even as a separate category average friends for each of the sexes would be interesting to know. Meh. Maybe they just didn't want to deal with classifying transvestites.
I bet it's evened out by women being more likely to approve a friend they don't really want in the first place and then defriending them later.
If the neighboring connections use your connection more than you use theirs it is weakening your connection.
No, not necessarily. A use may be relatively costless to me, but the fact that I am a node that generates new connections may increase my value to others, for example.
I would pay to see a Schrodinger's cat fight. So suspenseful!
The over/under varies based on whether the cats are entangled.
Like horse-racing.
But is your encryption key really protecting the testimonial contents of your mind? Or the physical evidence on your computer? One can definitely argue this issue either way, legitimately.