Usually people are talking about arithmetic. You can't do arithmetic without knowing what you are doing. For that stuff you are better off just being a human calculator.
Or maybe we need to start emphasizing actual valuable skills and achievements like math and disparaging clowns chasing pointless pursuits with no purpose like their "social image."
The term is mostly applied to men who want actual equality and not a perpetual pretend state of correcting a female disadvantage despite reality in which females actually have all the advantage.
But it is also never too late to come back from the dark side. It wouldn't be easy to bring the empire into the light along with you. However slim the chance you can take all this at face value. Being skeptical is definitely understandable but enough people need to be open to the possibility for there to be one. If you don't leave people a chance their only option will be to own and embrace the villainous character you've created for them.
I believe he is referring accurately to the people of Jewish descent who control of the federal reserve. The banks they control in turn control fiat currency. Of course, not everyone in those groups is actually Jewish but it may well be true that they hold a controlling position.
Ultimately we knew to start with these assumptions because positive gravity obviously does work and we achieve at least some form of localized stability for a reasonable measure of time. Either the same be assumed of negative mass or we can assume it is so unstable as to not impact the stability of other systems or it may well be that it has been a factor all along and we've accounted for it with constants or other small adjustments in the formulas across many other measurements causing them to give functional results but for logically incorrect reasons.
"You took it as evidence of guilt. That's what suspicious means."
No, it isn't. "causing a feeling that something is wrong or that someone is behaving wrongly : causing suspicion"
Evidence is something you (hopefully) seek to prove guilt when you have a suspicion.
"That is, you assumed that evidence of innocence is evidence of guilt."
False. Further, you are now claiming to be a higher authority than myself on my own intention. Impressive.
"Exactly what do you suppose happens if a defendant is required to prove innocence but evidence of innocence is taken to be evidence of guilt?"
That is precisely why the burden of proof is on the accuser and not the accused and legal systems such as found in China are innately unjust. Further, your binary logic contains yet another flaw. Not having an alibi isn't evidence of guilt either. It's simply a lack of evidence, a zero. If you start out with a suspicion someone is guilty and they have no alibi you still have only your suspicion, no matter how much investigating into their innocence you do failing to find evidence of it you still have no evidence.
The purpose of an alibi is to attempt to rule out a suspect, it doesn't provide evidence of guilt whether you have one or lack one. If during investigation one person you interview is suspiciously over prepared to be investigated it might cause you to suspect them. Just as interviewing five people and having no variation in their stories might cause you to suspect they collaborated and memorized a story. Actual memories of events tend to be faulty and disagree on small points, rehearsed stories tend to be identical. To use an analogy, it is like look at a natural formation vs looking at one which is man-made.
And they should be careful about calling that data scraping unauthorized systems access due to misleading users about what data they'd collect. That sets a precedent that solidly applies to Facebook.
"just because someone "thinks" your guilty of something"
I would imagine everyone has, outside a court room you don't normally have to have evidence. You top doing business with someone because you don't trust them. You dump someone if you think they are cheating. Whether or not you hold out for proof is up to the individual and so is what you accept as having met the burden. For the most part the same is true at work, you can employer can toss you because your boss subjectively thinks you smell funny or any other reason.
"Because there is no sign of this "other evidence" other than in your authority adoring, vacuous mind."
So your assertion is what? They loaded up the student directory and had the computer pick a name at random? Then they ran through the several processes most schools have in place and appeals and ultimately expelled her without any basis whatsoever?
"I do hope you get totally screwed over the same way by dodgy, inconclusive evidence some day"
Ah, make up your mind. Is it evidence you find dodgy and inconclusive or is there no evidence? Look, the burden for a courtroom is beyond a reasonable doubt. Hence, they acquitted OJ. Any thinking human knew he was guilty but the case was successful enough that the legal burden wasn't met. Civil court on the other hand awarded damages because of a lower standard of proof.
The burden on a school is much much lower and the crimes are much more plentiful. They only have so many resources to spend on investigations and ultimately they don't have to have proof to end their relationship with you, they have the right to end it at will. That is fair, you have the same right. She didn't pay for a degree, she paid for an education to be presented (whether she took advantage of it or not), she got one and now they don't want to take more of her money and educate her further. That is their right.
No I claimed it is suspicious not evidence. You pretended that all evidence is conclusive and complete because otherwise there is no catch-22.
You are also inventing a false binary scenario. There is no valid binary at play here. There can be circumstances where having an alibi is suspicious and circumstances where it is not and similarly there are reasons it is understandable to not have an alibi.
They proposed multiple incidents. With each one the raw probability of an innocent person having an alibi goes down without some consistent factor (each one occurs during the same scheduled series of appointments or lunch break, etc).
Do you keep the receipts and keep them on you at all times? Do you have that ready for instant recall? Yes, there are things in the world that timestamp us at places, but you can have twelve of those on a day for which you are accused of a crime and still not have an alibi.
Most people don't even have a ready answer for where they were at a random time THAT day let alone proof unless there was something special happening. They have to think a minute because most people are thinking about where they are and what they need to do not looking backwards.
When the police ask you about your whereabouts at 3am when someone was murdered the answer is almost always in home in bed with no credible alibi (anyone in bed with you is always a poor alibi).
Also things like mass transit receipts only mean you paid, you can step right off before they actually leave. They also tend to be slow. There is time buy a ticket for a destination somewhere 45min to an hour away, maybe take a picture with an accomplice, leave your phone with them, step off and go hack some grades, and then drive there to meet your friend and take some more pictures. None of that even requires simply editing the photos/metadata which of course you can easily do.
Is there anyone who doesn't root a phone if they didn't buy a rooted one? I haven't tinkered with it for awhile, you used to be able to edit the maps timeline with the actual app if you downloaded it.
You can definitely spoof the gps. Either the old fashioned way by going to a location and turning it off or giving someone else your phone or there are ways to actually generate fake data. I had bots catching pokemon in central park while I watched tv at my home in dallas.
You can also definitely adjust photos as she did here: https://support.google.com/photos/answer/6153599?co=GENIE.Platform%3DAndroid&hl=en-GB
The term is definitely intended to mislead. The target offers no privacy in the sense that people are concerned with facebook violating. It's just more private in the sense your spouse is less likely to catch you cheating.
"I've been on the university side of this discussion and I call bullshit. Expulsion is no swift matter, and a claim like this most definitely will have gone through multiple levels of escalation over months."
Not only that but by and large that process is merely an internal effort to be as fair as possible. She almost certainly agreed to terms that let the university expel her at their discretion. Period. Unless she is claiming they discriminated against her on the basis of some legally protected class (race, gender, etc) I can't this being a very strong case in court.
Just because nothing stops her from suing and she has damages doesn't mean she actually has a valid case.
What case? This is a school not a courtroom. She will have agreed to their code of conduct and disciplinary policy as part of admissions and their policy almost certainly gives them the ability to expel students at their discretion.
"The punishment for academic dishonesty is pretty clear. Once you level these sorts of charges at somebody, the only possibilities are that the college doesn't find enough evidence for expulsion, fails you on one course or expulsion. And in cases where it's more than one course, it's going to be expulsion."
Right, reaching that determination takes time even if the outcome is predetermined.
" as there seems to be more than enough evidence to support her position."
Not really, an alleged hacker accused of penetrating the secure systems in the school presented digital files which can be modified by anyone with technical capabilities and a bunch of kids who would almost certainly lie for her. That isn't exactly overwhelming.
"Wait, are you really arguing "If she can prove she is innocent, she's guilty?" "
No, I am not and did not. The fact that yet another person feels the need to beat down that strawman is very sad.
"If so... what the fuck are you smoking?"
A story can be too consistent. Evidence too overwhelming. That isn't evidence of guilt, it could be a fluke of chance. But it is suspicious because innocent people do not normally have a mountain of evidence supporting them. Life is messy. Life is more like Bernie Sanders in the embarrassing position that his wife isn't actually keeping on the tax paperwork on hand that we are all "supposed" to have. Most people don't. That is the whole reason we have an innocent until proven guilty system. Also, police know innocent people do not normally have ready made alibis (especially for time home alone or with a lover which is effectively no alibi) which is the idea is fed to fiction so much. Every crook will have an alibi. It suggests they need to look more closely and not move on to the next suspect.
There are a lot of things fed into fiction to trip people up for the police. The idea the police need you to stay on the line to trace you, the idea you'll be entitled to a phone call, the idea that the actual details of your interaction with an officer will "let you go" even though you have no way to prove it, the idea that deals are honored or the police can't lie or entrap you. CSI is all about reinforcing the idea that all sorts of things will get you busted that in practice the police have neither the time nor the funds to test for outside a few very high profile cases.
"Carry a cellphone and chances are you can account for most of your movements during a typical day. If you use credit cards then you have another nearly unimpeachable set of data points to track your whereabouts at specific times."
In what way are those "unimpeachable"? You can edit your location data, run a gps spoofer, turn off the damn phone, park your car somewhere and leave it in the glove box. Short of paying at a government office, bar, airport, or making a very large purchase nobody checks a CC vs ID. My little brother has a different last name and a radically different skin color and I sent him into stores with my card all the time. The same with my wife. Hell, you can use credit cards in machines without any human interaction at all.
Sorry, your cell phone only checks in so often, your only make so many purchases on so many days. Neither of those is going to prove you didn't toss a phone in your girlfriends bag and cut across campus or even set up a system to let you remote control using your phone from the location you are proving you are at.
"Where did that idea or claim come from?"
I don't recall claiming it was a quote. These were timestamps on photos supposedly taken historically, meaning, already ready to go.
My god, you are reading a site that showed research indicating you can relatively easily turn a hard disk drive into a microphone using sensors and some waveform manipulation but the idea someone who is savvy and inclined enough to bypass university security could spoof gps and photo metadata/timestamps is crazy?
Strawman. At no point did I say anything a reasonable person could conclude indicated someone should be convicted solely on the basis on whether they do or don't have an alibi.
Maybe, maybe not anymore than Google location or Pokemon Go does. But this isn't facebook, it is just some student and a school with typical shenanigans that happens every day. Why it is on here like actual news is beyond me?
In any case, as a rule no sane person would trust digital records handed to them by the person they suspected bypassed all their security as evidence of innocence. Facebook location information? Snape a picture with a friend, all of whom will lie to a school at college age. Toss your phone in a bush or your friends backpack. Return and collect later. Or turn off location and gps and turn them back on after you return. Or kick on airplane mode. Swap the sim. Or use googles own editor to modify your location data. Timestamps on the photos? Modify them with any editor. Metadata? Same. Go above and beyond, figure out where you supposedly went with your friend, take pictures in advance, modify the metadata and timestamps, while you are doing your black op have a gps spoofer running through your alleged evening and automate posts.
Seriously, if you are actually doing something wrong and trying to establish a bogus trail it isn't especially hard. Hell people fake out all this crap all the time just to get away with cheating on partners.
Slashdot Mirror
That isn't because they don't know how, it is because they are too lazy to actually work it out and too out of practice to quickly calculate it.
I'm going to go out on a limb here but I suppose it doesn't create anxiety because this is regarding anxiety in girls in the uk and italy, not the us.
Usually people are talking about arithmetic. You can't do arithmetic without knowing what you are doing. For that stuff you are better off just being a human calculator.
Arithmetic is not more than just arithmetic.
Or maybe we need to start emphasizing actual valuable skills and achievements like math and disparaging clowns chasing pointless pursuits with no purpose like their "social image."
The world seems to disagree with you.
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=incel
The term is mostly applied to men who want actual equality and not a perpetual pretend state of correcting a female disadvantage despite reality in which females actually have all the advantage.
Mod up, it is a valid concern.
But it is also never too late to come back from the dark side. It wouldn't be easy to bring the empire into the light along with you. However slim the chance you can take all this at face value. Being skeptical is definitely understandable but enough people need to be open to the possibility for there to be one. If you don't leave people a chance their only option will be to own and embrace the villainous character you've created for them.
I believe he is referring accurately to the people of Jewish descent who control of the federal reserve. The banks they control in turn control fiat currency. Of course, not everyone in those groups is actually Jewish but it may well be true that they hold a controlling position.
Ultimately we knew to start with these assumptions because positive gravity obviously does work and we achieve at least some form of localized stability for a reasonable measure of time. Either the same be assumed of negative mass or we can assume it is so unstable as to not impact the stability of other systems or it may well be that it has been a factor all along and we've accounted for it with constants or other small adjustments in the formulas across many other measurements causing them to give functional results but for logically incorrect reasons.
.
"You took it as evidence of guilt. That's what suspicious means."
No, it isn't. "causing a feeling that something is wrong or that someone is behaving wrongly : causing suspicion"
Evidence is something you (hopefully) seek to prove guilt when you have a suspicion.
"That is, you assumed that evidence of innocence is evidence of guilt."
False. Further, you are now claiming to be a higher authority than myself on my own intention. Impressive.
"Exactly what do you suppose happens if a defendant is required to prove innocence but evidence of innocence is taken to be evidence of guilt?"
That is precisely why the burden of proof is on the accuser and not the accused and legal systems such as found in China are innately unjust. Further, your binary logic contains yet another flaw. Not having an alibi isn't evidence of guilt either. It's simply a lack of evidence, a zero. If you start out with a suspicion someone is guilty and they have no alibi you still have only your suspicion, no matter how much investigating into their innocence you do failing to find evidence of it you still have no evidence.
The purpose of an alibi is to attempt to rule out a suspect, it doesn't provide evidence of guilt whether you have one or lack one. If during investigation one person you interview is suspiciously over prepared to be investigated it might cause you to suspect them. Just as interviewing five people and having no variation in their stories might cause you to suspect they collaborated and memorized a story. Actual memories of events tend to be faulty and disagree on small points, rehearsed stories tend to be identical. To use an analogy, it is like look at a natural formation vs looking at one which is man-made.
And they should be careful about calling that data scraping unauthorized systems access due to misleading users about what data they'd collect. That sets a precedent that solidly applies to Facebook.
"just because someone "thinks" your guilty of something"
I would imagine everyone has, outside a court room you don't normally have to have evidence. You top doing business with someone because you don't trust them. You dump someone if you think they are cheating. Whether or not you hold out for proof is up to the individual and so is what you accept as having met the burden. For the most part the same is true at work, you can employer can toss you because your boss subjectively thinks you smell funny or any other reason.
"Because there is no sign of this "other evidence" other than in your authority adoring, vacuous mind."
So your assertion is what? They loaded up the student directory and had the computer pick a name at random? Then they ran through the several processes most schools have in place and appeals and ultimately expelled her without any basis whatsoever?
"I do hope you get totally screwed over the same way by dodgy, inconclusive evidence some day"
Ah, make up your mind. Is it evidence you find dodgy and inconclusive or is there no evidence? Look, the burden for a courtroom is beyond a reasonable doubt. Hence, they acquitted OJ. Any thinking human knew he was guilty but the case was successful enough that the legal burden wasn't met. Civil court on the other hand awarded damages because of a lower standard of proof.
The burden on a school is much much lower and the crimes are much more plentiful. They only have so many resources to spend on investigations and ultimately they don't have to have proof to end their relationship with you, they have the right to end it at will. That is fair, you have the same right. She didn't pay for a degree, she paid for an education to be presented (whether she took advantage of it or not), she got one and now they don't want to take more of her money and educate her further. That is their right.
No I claimed it is suspicious not evidence. You pretended that all evidence is conclusive and complete because otherwise there is no catch-22.
You are also inventing a false binary scenario. There is no valid binary at play here. There can be circumstances where having an alibi is suspicious and circumstances where it is not and similarly there are reasons it is understandable to not have an alibi.
They proposed multiple incidents. With each one the raw probability of an innocent person having an alibi goes down without some consistent factor (each one occurs during the same scheduled series of appointments or lunch break, etc).
Do you keep the receipts and keep them on you at all times? Do you have that ready for instant recall? Yes, there are things in the world that timestamp us at places, but you can have twelve of those on a day for which you are accused of a crime and still not have an alibi.
Most people don't even have a ready answer for where they were at a random time THAT day let alone proof unless there was something special happening. They have to think a minute because most people are thinking about where they are and what they need to do not looking backwards.
When the police ask you about your whereabouts at 3am when someone was murdered the answer is almost always in home in bed with no credible alibi (anyone in bed with you is always a poor alibi).
Also things like mass transit receipts only mean you paid, you can step right off before they actually leave. They also tend to be slow. There is time buy a ticket for a destination somewhere 45min to an hour away, maybe take a picture with an accomplice, leave your phone with them, step off and go hack some grades, and then drive there to meet your friend and take some more pictures. None of that even requires simply editing the photos/metadata which of course you can easily do.
Is there anyone who doesn't root a phone if they didn't buy a rooted one? I haven't tinkered with it for awhile, you used to be able to edit the maps timeline with the actual app if you downloaded it.
You can definitely spoof the gps. Either the old fashioned way by going to a location and turning it off or giving someone else your phone or there are ways to actually generate fake data. I had bots catching pokemon in central park while I watched tv at my home in dallas.
You can also definitely adjust photos as she did here: https://support.google.com/photos/answer/6153599?co=GENIE.Platform%3DAndroid&hl=en-GB
"because if we had, we would not have had a healthy social human society,"
Huh? That's what we had before social media. Social media is not healthy social activity, it is anti-social activity.
"privacy-focused communications platform."
The term is definitely intended to mislead. The target offers no privacy in the sense that people are concerned with facebook violating. It's just more private in the sense your spouse is less likely to catch you cheating.
"I've been on the university side of this discussion and I call bullshit. Expulsion is no swift matter, and a claim like this most definitely will have gone through multiple levels of escalation over months."
Not only that but by and large that process is merely an internal effort to be as fair as possible. She almost certainly agreed to terms that let the university expel her at their discretion. Period. Unless she is claiming they discriminated against her on the basis of some legally protected class (race, gender, etc) I can't this being a very strong case in court.
Just because nothing stops her from suing and she has damages doesn't mean she actually has a valid case.
What case? This is a school not a courtroom. She will have agreed to their code of conduct and disciplinary policy as part of admissions and their policy almost certainly gives them the ability to expel students at their discretion.
"When she did bring up evidence in her defense then they dismissed it as something she likely doctored."
Which is quite plausible given that what she presented is easily doctored alongside the corroboration of young friends.
"The punishment for academic dishonesty is pretty clear. Once you level these sorts of charges at somebody, the only possibilities are that the college doesn't find enough evidence for expulsion, fails you on one course or expulsion. And in cases where it's more than one course, it's going to be expulsion."
Right, reaching that determination takes time even if the outcome is predetermined.
" as there seems to be more than enough evidence to support her position."
Not really, an alleged hacker accused of penetrating the secure systems in the school presented digital files which can be modified by anyone with technical capabilities and a bunch of kids who would almost certainly lie for her. That isn't exactly overwhelming.
"Wait, are you really arguing "If she can prove she is innocent, she's guilty?" "
No, I am not and did not. The fact that yet another person feels the need to beat down that strawman is very sad.
"If so ... what the fuck are you smoking?"
A story can be too consistent. Evidence too overwhelming. That isn't evidence of guilt, it could be a fluke of chance. But it is suspicious because innocent people do not normally have a mountain of evidence supporting them. Life is messy. Life is more like Bernie Sanders in the embarrassing position that his wife isn't actually keeping on the tax paperwork on hand that we are all "supposed" to have. Most people don't. That is the whole reason we have an innocent until proven guilty system. Also, police know innocent people do not normally have ready made alibis (especially for time home alone or with a lover which is effectively no alibi) which is the idea is fed to fiction so much. Every crook will have an alibi. It suggests they need to look more closely and not move on to the next suspect.
There are a lot of things fed into fiction to trip people up for the police. The idea the police need you to stay on the line to trace you, the idea you'll be entitled to a phone call, the idea that the actual details of your interaction with an officer will "let you go" even though you have no way to prove it, the idea that deals are honored or the police can't lie or entrap you. CSI is all about reinforcing the idea that all sorts of things will get you busted that in practice the police have neither the time nor the funds to test for outside a few very high profile cases.
"Carry a cellphone and chances are you can account for most of your movements during a typical day. If you use credit cards then you have another nearly unimpeachable set of data points to track your whereabouts at specific times."
In what way are those "unimpeachable"? You can edit your location data, run a gps spoofer, turn off the damn phone, park your car somewhere and leave it in the glove box. Short of paying at a government office, bar, airport, or making a very large purchase nobody checks a CC vs ID. My little brother has a different last name and a radically different skin color and I sent him into stores with my card all the time. The same with my wife. Hell, you can use credit cards in machines without any human interaction at all.
Sorry, your cell phone only checks in so often, your only make so many purchases on so many days. Neither of those is going to prove you didn't toss a phone in your girlfriends bag and cut across campus or even set up a system to let you remote control using your phone from the location you are proving you are at.
"Where did that idea or claim come from?"
I don't recall claiming it was a quote. These were timestamps on photos supposedly taken historically, meaning, already ready to go.
My god, you are reading a site that showed research indicating you can relatively easily turn a hard disk drive into a microphone using sensors and some waveform manipulation but the idea someone who is savvy and inclined enough to bypass university security could spoof gps and photo metadata/timestamps is crazy?
Strawman. At no point did I say anything a reasonable person could conclude indicated someone should be convicted solely on the basis on whether they do or don't have an alibi.
Maybe, maybe not anymore than Google location or Pokemon Go does. But this isn't facebook, it is just some student and a school with typical shenanigans that happens every day. Why it is on here like actual news is beyond me?
In any case, as a rule no sane person would trust digital records handed to them by the person they suspected bypassed all their security as evidence of innocence. Facebook location information? Snape a picture with a friend, all of whom will lie to a school at college age. Toss your phone in a bush or your friends backpack. Return and collect later. Or turn off location and gps and turn them back on after you return. Or kick on airplane mode. Swap the sim. Or use googles own editor to modify your location data. Timestamps on the photos? Modify them with any editor. Metadata? Same. Go above and beyond, figure out where you supposedly went with your friend, take pictures in advance, modify the metadata and timestamps, while you are doing your black op have a gps spoofer running through your alleged evening and automate posts.
Seriously, if you are actually doing something wrong and trying to establish a bogus trail it isn't especially hard. Hell people fake out all this crap all the time just to get away with cheating on partners.