Factually wrong. Sovereign currency issuers such as the United States and Great Britain, but not US states or Eurozone countries, give away new money. They may or may not "sterilize" (their word) the injections of specie by either taxing or borrowing an equal amount of money away from the the private sector.
I wouldn't worry about that here. In Oakland the police don't respond to calls directly. If there's blood on the pavement, they might send someone in a couple of hours. They have even admitted it officially, announcing that they would only respond to in-progress, violent crimes.
My whole research experience has been of large, noisy data which is processed with approximation algorithms for NP-Hard problems, so perhaps I am making too broad generalizations about the problems faced by most computer scientists. The hype is still inane given, say, the three decades-long efforts to characterize all protein structures.
And it's true that there are more, more open data repositories than previously, and many fields of science have adopted submission to central, public repositories as a normal expectation for research work.
As for updating solutions to large problems, I believe that sometimes it is possible to store data in an intermediate form so that a final analysis can be repeated cheaply, while other times updates must be handled with a statistical sampling approach and still other times they are simply impossible. It can certainly be troublesome. Protein structure alignments are good example of the latter category I think.
I figured that's what you meant - but I was confused because my list included using Tanya to C4 civilian buildings. There is a mission where a spy hides in a series of civilian houses, and you have to keep blowing them up to flush him out. Civilians occupy the buildings and try to flee before / when they are destroyed, but they are considered hostile by the unit AI so you almost always kill most of them in a variety of ways.
I don't know about genocide as such...but flame troops, flame towers and Tesla coils are surely illegal internationally. Not to mention tactical nukes, using Tanya to C4 civilian buildings, flattening people with tanks, demolishing bridges, etc. On the other hand, why should the same international laws exist in Sci Fi alternate histories? In the RA timeline, WW2 never takes place so the UN is never formed and international law doesn't evolve nearly as much. The US isn't even helping Europe defend against Stalin's invasion.
I just got back in to RA1, and it's without a doubt one of the best RTS games ever made. It was released as freeware and there's an unofficial release with compatibility, resolution and internet play patches for current Windows - you can download it from redalert1.com. The RA archive has it too, but I'm not sure theirs has the resolution and network patches.
Not even those, since none of those games actually features "armed conflict" (they specifically mean wars) as such - just run-of-the-mill violent criminals.
I do wonder what games they think have integrated the "rules of armed conflict," though. I mean, maybe you can get kicked for friendly fire or collateral damage / civilian casualties, but what games punish the player for picking up a shotgun (banned by Geneva Convention IIRC)?
Talking to the police in order to secure my freedom inherently depends on an expectation of fair dealing by the police. That is why your argument against silence relies on an assertion that, as a matter of fact, institutional racism, sexism and homophobia do not exist, since if they do there can be no expectation of fair dealing.
If you really do need evidence to the contrary, then know that even in San Francisco, police arrested blacks for marijuana possession over four times as frequently as other races (past tense because SFPD recently stopped booking misdemeanor marijuana charges), even though they are a small minority in the city and use rates are higher among whites. In other Bay Area counties the problem is even more severe.
I've said from the beginning that I think people ought to be free to say to the police or the courts, "I didn't commit the murder, but it's none of your business where I was."
Thanks to the 5th Amendment, this right is guaranteed at the highest level of US law.
if you have lied to the police about your whereabouts to cover up your sexual orientation (instead of just saying "It's none of your business where I was"), it's not obvious to me why you deserve protection in that case
Persecuting someone in this case is the mark of an extreme authoritarian impulse. Everything you say is predicated on the assumption that the police and prosecutors are all entirely honorable at all times, and that the political decrees we call law must be followed to their letter at all times or result in loss of right, as a matter of moral force. That is why those of us who have actually dealt with the law - and not just as an inheritor of privilege - are so repulsed by your assertions that someone who lies to protect themselves, in this case perhaps literally from a lynching, is not "deserving of protection."
I've said from the beginning that I think people ought to be free to say to the police or the courts, "I didn't commit the murder, but it's none of your business where I was."
This right is guaranteed at the highest level of US law by the 5th Amendment itself.
it's not obvious to me why you deserve protection in that case
Because persecuting someone for such a harmless, legitimate lie - one which is potentially insulating against a literal lynching - is the mark of an insane authoritarian impulse with no regard for proportionality or reasonableness. Everything you say is predicated on the assumption of an ideal world in which the police and prosecution are always honorable, and meeting the political decrees known as law with anything other than literal compliance at all times automatically implies loss of right.
Of course, the very one you just used - in asserting that the 5th Amendment doesn't change the outcome, you assumed 1) that coercion of confessions is explicitly banned (and reasonably defined) and 2) that the putative ban is likely to be enforced and 3) that the putative ban additionally prohibits the use of confessions already obtained by confession. Some of our rights are predicated on "nature," some merely on common law precedents. The 5th Amendment embodies one borne more from game theory and political realism. It is one that is critical to the protection of innocent people, as well as those guilty of minor crimes in the context of a draconian police state.
If you want an additional scenario, here's one, which gets to the heart of the matter without some extenuating circumstances pertaining to an investigation or particular primary crime:
At some point, I lie to the police about whereabouts, associates or other matters in order to hide my sexual orientation. Lying to the police ("false statements") is a crime in many if not most US jurisdictions. Later, in court, I take the 5th in order to avoid incriminating myself for commission of those statements (and likely revealing the secret to an even wider audience - though perhaps a less violent).
Unfortunately, I give it all away when I start making out with a portrait of George Mason on my way out the court house.
That's interesting...do you know what British courts have ruled at that point, once you simply assert that as it's common knowledge "that one should fetch an attorney before answering questions" you had done just that?
In other words, your position is predicated on the assertion that the police will treat you fairly a preponderance of the time - such a preponderance in fact, that this putative fairness should be relied on even given the high level of risk involved.
It is a common assertion among those born to privilege in America - but one which betrays profound ignorance.
You missed the point. Evidence rules explicitly prohibit the use of anything you have told the police on your own behalf. Therefore talking to the police can at best do no harm, and at worst do much harm.
Your own example is a stellar argument in favor of deincentivizing coerced confessions. As to specific scenarios, you have defined "specific" to mean any hypothetical example if uttered by you, but only actual historical events if uttered by another.
The number one reason not to talk to the police has nothing to do with the Fifth Amendment. It's that while "anything you say can be used against you" nothing you say can be used for your benefit in court. No matter how much the police officer may wish to testify that information you gave him leads him to believe you are innocent, he is expressly prohibited from doing so.
The random example has no meaning - obviously serendipity is unpredictable by nature. Yet, it is actually the case that many - if not most - of our major advances have come through that channel. It's not a value judgement, just a statement of fact based on the history of science and engineering. Targeted research programs have been successful too, but the really powerful new ideas seem to arise from necessity created in the context of other goals. Especially when you consider that targeted programs are actually far more common than the sky-high, goal-oriented projects of which you disapprove, but are disproportionately responsible for new knowledge and technology.
Maybe it would be better if we could always anticipate fruitful avenues of research out of the blue, but it just isn't the usual way humans stumble upon truly great technologies.
Also: bacterial flagellum. The other crazy thing about this case is that at super high viscosity and ultra low inertia (e.g. a cell in water) you can't use regular swimming motions to move around. Turns out you have to have a motion which is not invariant under time reversal in order to actually generate thrust. The flagellum meets this criterion because the spiral / helical motion has a handedness (chirality) which is swapped under time reversal.
Slashdot Mirror
Factually wrong. Sovereign currency issuers such as the United States and Great Britain, but not US states or Eurozone countries, give away new money. They may or may not "sterilize" (their word) the injections of specie by either taxing or borrowing an equal amount of money away from the the private sector.
I wouldn't worry about that here. In Oakland the police don't respond to calls directly. If there's blood on the pavement, they might send someone in a couple of hours. They have even admitted it officially, announcing that they would only respond to in-progress, violent crimes.
My whole research experience has been of large, noisy data which is processed with approximation algorithms for NP-Hard problems, so perhaps I am making too broad generalizations about the problems faced by most computer scientists. The hype is still inane given, say, the three decades-long efforts to characterize all protein structures.
And it's true that there are more, more open data repositories than previously, and many fields of science have adopted submission to central, public repositories as a normal expectation for research work.
As for updating solutions to large problems, I believe that sometimes it is possible to store data in an intermediate form so that a final analysis can be repeated cheaply, while other times updates must be handled with a statistical sampling approach and still other times they are simply impossible. It can certainly be troublesome. Protein structure alignments are good example of the latter category I think.
What is Big Data? They say it is when your problem grows faster than your resources.
Yet, since the 70's we have the concept of NP-Hard: again your problem grows faster than your resources. We have always had "Big Data."
I figured that's what you meant - but I was confused because my list included using Tanya to C4 civilian buildings. There is a mission where a spy hides in a series of civilian houses, and you have to keep blowing them up to flush him out. Civilians occupy the buildings and try to flee before / when they are destroyed, but they are considered hostile by the unit AI so you almost always kill most of them in a variety of ways.
...because Tanya is a "volunteer," albeit a "professional" one.
I don't know about genocide as such...but flame troops, flame towers and Tesla coils are surely illegal internationally. Not to mention tactical nukes, using Tanya to C4 civilian buildings, flattening people with tanks, demolishing bridges, etc. On the other hand, why should the same international laws exist in Sci Fi alternate histories? In the RA timeline, WW2 never takes place so the UN is never formed and international law doesn't evolve nearly as much. The US isn't even helping Europe defend against Stalin's invasion.
I just got back in to RA1, and it's without a doubt one of the best RTS games ever made. It was released as freeware and there's an unofficial release with compatibility, resolution and internet play patches for current Windows - you can download it from redalert1.com. The RA archive has it too, but I'm not sure theirs has the resolution and network patches.
Not even those, since none of those games actually features "armed conflict" (they specifically mean wars) as such - just run-of-the-mill violent criminals.
I do wonder what games they think have integrated the "rules of armed conflict," though. I mean, maybe you can get kicked for friendly fire or collateral damage / civilian casualties, but what games punish the player for picking up a shotgun (banned by Geneva Convention IIRC)?
Talking to the police in order to secure my freedom inherently depends on an expectation of fair dealing by the police. That is why your argument against silence relies on an assertion that, as a matter of fact, institutional racism, sexism and homophobia do not exist, since if they do there can be no expectation of fair dealing.
If you really do need evidence to the contrary, then know that even in San Francisco, police arrested blacks for marijuana possession over four times as frequently as other races (past tense because SFPD recently stopped booking misdemeanor marijuana charges), even though they are a small minority in the city and use rates are higher among whites. In other Bay Area counties the problem is even more severe.
Oops, though I deleted this one by accident. The second one is better anyway.
I've said from the beginning that I think people ought to be free to say to the police or the courts, "I didn't commit the murder, but it's none of your business where I was."
Thanks to the 5th Amendment, this right is guaranteed at the highest level of US law.
if you have lied to the police about your whereabouts to cover up your sexual orientation (instead of just saying "It's none of your business where I was"), it's not obvious to me why you deserve protection in that case
Persecuting someone in this case is the mark of an extreme authoritarian impulse. Everything you say is predicated on the assumption that the police and prosecutors are all entirely honorable at all times, and that the political decrees we call law must be followed to their letter at all times or result in loss of right, as a matter of moral force. That is why those of us who have actually dealt with the law - and not just as an inheritor of privilege - are so repulsed by your assertions that someone who lies to protect themselves, in this case perhaps literally from a lynching, is not "deserving of protection."
I've said from the beginning that I think people ought to be free to say to the police or the courts, "I didn't commit the murder, but it's none of your business where I was."
This right is guaranteed at the highest level of US law by the 5th Amendment itself.
it's not obvious to me why you deserve protection in that case
Because persecuting someone for such a harmless, legitimate lie - one which is potentially insulating against a literal lynching - is the mark of an insane authoritarian impulse with no regard for proportionality or reasonableness. Everything you say is predicated on the assumption of an ideal world in which the police and prosecution are always honorable, and meeting the political decrees known as law with anything other than literal compliance at all times automatically implies loss of right.
Of course, the very one you just used - in asserting that the 5th Amendment doesn't change the outcome, you assumed 1) that coercion of confessions is explicitly banned (and reasonably defined) and 2) that the putative ban is likely to be enforced and 3) that the putative ban additionally prohibits the use of confessions already obtained by confession. Some of our rights are predicated on "nature," some merely on common law precedents. The 5th Amendment embodies one borne more from game theory and political realism. It is one that is critical to the protection of innocent people, as well as those guilty of minor crimes in the context of a draconian police state.
If you want an additional scenario, here's one, which gets to the heart of the matter without some extenuating circumstances pertaining to an investigation or particular primary crime:
At some point, I lie to the police about whereabouts, associates or other matters in order to hide my sexual orientation. Lying to the police ("false statements") is a crime in many if not most US jurisdictions. Later, in court, I take the 5th in order to avoid incriminating myself for commission of those statements (and likely revealing the secret to an even wider audience - though perhaps a less violent).
Unfortunately, I give it all away when I start making out with a portrait of George Mason on my way out the court house.
Thanks for the clarification!
That's interesting...do you know what British courts have ruled at that point, once you simply assert that as it's common knowledge "that one should fetch an attorney before answering questions" you had done just that?
In other words, your position is predicated on the assertion that the police will treat you fairly a preponderance of the time - such a preponderance in fact, that this putative fairness should be relied on even given the high level of risk involved.
It is a common assertion among those born to privilege in America - but one which betrays profound ignorance.
You missed the point. Evidence rules explicitly prohibit the use of anything you have told the police on your own behalf. Therefore talking to the police can at best do no harm, and at worst do much harm.
Your own example is a stellar argument in favor of deincentivizing coerced confessions. As to specific scenarios, you have defined "specific" to mean any hypothetical example if uttered by you, but only actual historical events if uttered by another.
Good work.
The number one reason not to talk to the police has nothing to do with the Fifth Amendment. It's that while "anything you say can be used against you" nothing you say can be used for your benefit in court. No matter how much the police officer may wish to testify that information you gave him leads him to believe you are innocent, he is expressly prohibited from doing so.
The random example has no meaning - obviously serendipity is unpredictable by nature. Yet, it is actually the case that many - if not most - of our major advances have come through that channel. It's not a value judgement, just a statement of fact based on the history of science and engineering. Targeted research programs have been successful too, but the really powerful new ideas seem to arise from necessity created in the context of other goals. Especially when you consider that targeted programs are actually far more common than the sky-high, goal-oriented projects of which you disapprove, but are disproportionately responsible for new knowledge and technology.
Maybe it would be better if we could always anticipate fruitful avenues of research out of the blue, but it just isn't the usual way humans stumble upon truly great technologies.
That's an assertion, which is not well supported in history of science.
Why are close life support, vital signs monitoring, light weight materials technology, computational course plotting, etc., etc. stupid?
That there is a technological dividend to space exploration is simple a fact of 20th century history.
Yes, I was wrong about that.
But I imagine they'll still call it contempt of court for disobeying the FISC order.
Also: bacterial flagellum. The other crazy thing about this case is that at super high viscosity and ultra low inertia (e.g. a cell in water) you can't use regular swimming motions to move around. Turns out you have to have a motion which is not invariant under time reversal in order to actually generate thrust. The flagellum meets this criterion because the spiral / helical motion has a handedness (chirality) which is swapped under time reversal.
They're just not going to call it "treason" in a court of law, though some politicians might throw the word around in non-legal contexts.
They'll call it unlawful disclosure of classified information, or whatever terms the relevant statutes actually use.