Obviously the state should count all of the coin-toss delegates and split them between the tied candidates. They can't do that retroactively for this election but should change the rules for the next one.
Odd, changing the counting rules retroactively is an option when the democratic establishment dislikes the "winner".
Appears debatable. He seems to me to have been acquited. What you're describing appear to be a contempt of court citation which led to a five-year suspension of his Arkansas law license, which had certain other ramifications.
His contempt of court charge was for lying to a judge while under oath which was also what he was impeached for. He accepted a plea. He lost his law license. He was not acquitted in a legal venue, in a courtroom. What 'acquittal' he had was in a political venue, the Senate, where the issue is more about removal from office than deciding guilt or innocence. So there was no 'acquittal' in an innocence sense, just a lack of interest in removal from office, again, a political thing not a legal thing.
The impeachment (and subsequent acquittal) of her husband was clearly part of a smear campaign. It is of no interest to anyone but Bill's wife into whose mouth he puts his cock.
(1) The impeachment was over lying to a judge in court while under oath. That it always illegal. It doesn't matter the topic.
(2) He was not acquitted. As part of the plea bargain he agreed to various terms including the surrendering of his license to practice law.
INTRODUCED BY
Assembly Member Bonta
JANUARY 24, 2013
An act relating to weapons.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
AB 174, as introduced, Bonta. Weapons: grandfather clauses.
Existing law prohibits the possession of various weapons. Under existing law, certain of these bans exempted from their scope weapons that were possessed prior to the ban, if prescribed conditions met, are authorized.
This bill would declare the intent of the Legislature to subsequently amend this bill to include provisions that would end all of those exemptions.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: no. State-mandated local program: no.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Under current law, certain banned weapons are permitted under various "grandfathering in" clauses. It is the intent of the
Legislature to subsequently amend this measure to include provisions that would end all of those exemptions.
Mandatory smart guns.
"{New Jersey] Assembly Bill No. 700, is a law that makes the sale of handguns "illegal" unless it is a smart gun that "can only be fired by an authorized or recognized user" and would take effect three years after the technology is available for retail purposes." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Remote Disabling.
"TriggerSmart has also patented and developed Wide Area Control ( WAC) where weapons can be remotely enabled and disabled using various wireless protocols. Safe zones can be created around schools and airports so that only authorised guns can operate in the designated area. Alternatively, when authorized guns leave the authorised area they can be tracked and disabled outside the safe zone." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Political willingness to confiscate legally registered firearms.
California’s Assault Weapons ban of 1989 allowed those who owned covered firearms the opportunity to register those firearms and keep them. Registration involved fingerprinting and background checks. This ban also outlawed use of these firearms for hunting, and target shooting in many formerly legal venues. California Bill 2013 AB 174 would revoke these registrations and render these firearms illegal. AB 174 would force current owners to render their formerly legal and registered firearms inoperable, surrender them or remove them from California.
"Existing law prohibits the possession of various weapons. Under
existing law, certain of these bans exempted from their scope weapons
that were possessed prior to the ban, if prescribed conditions met,
are authorized.
This bill would declare the intent of the Legislature to
subsequently amend this bill to include provisions that would end all
of those exemptions." http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/...
Do you really think it much of a leap for politicians who would revoke registrations for fingerprinted and background checked owners, registration for rifles that were arbitrarily limited in terms of where they could be used (no hunting, only certain shooting ranges/sites),... to think smart guns should be default disabled until entering approved firing ranges?
I want the rifle used by Marines and the sidearm used by Marines. If those are "smart guns" then that's cool.
Yeah, USMC, the organization that teaches recruits that their KBAR with zero electronics and zero moving parts is their most reliable weapon.:-)
FWIW, in Europe a smart assault rifle is being researched. One of the features, the ability to remotely disable it. Its features like this that get some politicians really interested in smart gun research.
The problem is that if the police can disable your gun then so can a government bureaucrat. A bureaucrat enforcing a political decision that no civilian should have a firearm.
The backlash goes beyond mandating smart guns. There is also the backlash against research because one of the research topics exciting some in the anti-gun crowd is the ability to remotely disable a gun.
Its not just a reliability issue. One of the reasons the anti-gun folks are interested in smart guns and smart gun research is that one of those research topics is how to remotely disable a smart gun. Even so the legitimate user can not operate it. Its not even that hard to imagine the anti-gun crowd eventually wanting the default state of a smart gun to be disabled, only allowing it to enable when at a licensed gun range.
Actually that is not a joke. The ability to remotely disable a firearm, even preventing a "legitimate" user from operating it, is something currently being researched.
You really are naive to think this isn't a climb-down. They DO want the statistics. The minutae of how they are collected is a separate matter, and this is why she clarified her statement, because idiots like you would claim that this meant they didn't want to change the need for better data from police departments on police shootings.
Vital is not the same as "we're not going to start requiring this."
It was given in both of your previous quotations that they wanted more statistics, that they are *asking for*, and explicitly in their words not dictating, greater participation from local law enforcement agencies. But what is plainly false is your claim that they are saying they are moving from a voluntary system to a mandatory system. There is no such evidence. They said they do not want to dictate to departments and they seem to be standing by that position.
The only thing being walked back is the characterization of information regarding an officer involved shooting as minutiae.
So much for your reading comprehension. The FBI backtracked on their "we want to keep the system voluntary" statement. Because that process is f*cked up.
Lynch said last week that her department did not want to dictate to every local department how they should handle the minutiae of record-keeping. She subsequently clarified her statements, insisting that information on police shootings was “vital”.
She had stepped in a huge pile of dogsh*t and realized it.
Sorry, the reading comprehension failure is yours. No where in your quote are they backtracking on voluntary. By saying the info is vital she is encouraging more participation in this voluntary system. She is backtracking on her use of the word "minutiae" which suggests the info in not vital.
James Comey tells crime summit that ‘it’s ridiculous’ Guardian and Washington Post have more information on civilians’ deaths at hands of US police than FBI
Thank you, you prove my point again. The media merely has more data.
But both the accuracy of the figures and any trends emerging from them have been called into question because of the voluntary reporting system.
Again, thank you for proving my point: that the controversy is over the amount of data. And thank you for confirming my suspicion, you merely repeat what some other nameless person unfamiliar with statistics had said. Note that the FBI disputes such a claim through their desire to keep the system voluntary, more on this below.
The justice department and the FBI have resisted calls for a mandatory reporting system, calling for more data on fatal police shootings but keeping the voluntary reporting system.
As I said, it has not been shown that the voluntary system is inherently flawed. The fact that its a departmental decision, all or nothing, rather than an incident by incident decision, may keep the data submitted representational.
Everyone is saying that the FBI figures arec rap and that it's due to a systemic process problem.
Your own quotes demonstrate you have a reading comprehension problem. The FBI only said the media has more data. The FBI has not said voluntary reporting is inherently flawed, they want to keep the system voluntary.
I choose to believe the FBI, not some random guy on the internet.
It might help if you knew what the FBI actually said, as opposed to your erroneous interpretation of what they said. More likely your second hand offering of someone else's erroneous interpretation.
Plus there is the pesky little detail of me not asking you to take my word, rather go read a Statistics 101 textbook for yourself so that your can understand the erroneous nature of the interpretation yourself.
And you choose to refuse to consider that you may be wrong, despite having NO proof of being right, just argumentum ad nauseum.
Actually I always consider that, but your claims of bad FBI data and good The Counted data are premature and unsubstantiated by any evidence you presented. Not to mention some of your info being erroneous and contradicted by your own sources.
I haven't seen ANY proof that you have any knowledge of statistics. Prove it! In other words, put up or shut up (not that it would prove anything - it's a logical fallacy - specifically the argument from authority. The same one that for centuries had people believing that men had more teeth than women because Aristotle said so).
Yet another reading comprehension failure on your part. I never said to take my word on these underpinning of statistics (a small but representative sample of a large population) and various cautions regarding data collection (more data is not necessarily better data, voluntarily submitted data where different demographics have different willingness to participate -- i.e. unrepresentative data, etc). I often told you to consult a Statistics textbook. You are frankly likeminded to climate change deniers, you have your political interpretation of things and scientific and mathematical knowledge that conflicts is denied. Once again, go find a Statistics 101 textbook.
The counted actually went on the ground and investigated - you know,...
Yes, they investigated the tips they received. This does not change the fact that some demographics are more interested and other demographics are less interested in participating in the project.
... a whole bunch of cases that the FBI had no record of.
Again, a greater quantity does not imply a better quality. Statics 101 stuff. If tips are demographically skewed then garbage in garbage out.
Read the articles and you'll find whole counties that engage in white-washing police murders and never report them to the state, never mind to the FBI. It is known that the FBI data is skewed from self-selection.
No, I have read many articles. The reason for the lack of reporting is that its not required, that the FBI system is designed for crime statistics and officers justifiably using deadly force are not considered crimes. Such motivations are unrelated to any demographic of the shooting victims. It has not been shown that there is a lack of reporting designed to hide incidents involving any particular demographic. There is currently no evidence that the FBI data is skewed demographically, just that the FBI data is far from complete.
Argue all you want, but you're still wrong.
When you can manage Statistics 101 concepts I'll take your opinion more seriously.
Good quality data - you mean the stuff the FBI doesn't have because polic departments self-select not to report the majority of cases? You're full of it if you don't think that is GIGO.
"Garbage" is an unrepresentative sample, not a smaller sample. All we know is that the FBI has a smaller sample. Regarding The Counted there are possible representative sample problems due to being tip based, different communities/demographics participating at greater levels and skewing the data. It is not known that the FBI data is bad nor if The Counted data is good.
Regarding tip based, from The Counted's website: "Contributions of any information that may improve the quality of our data will be greatly welcomed as we work from a dearth of available information toward better accountability. Please contact us to pass on tips, links and multimedia as well as new information on existing cases already recorded."
Note they self describe what they know as a "dearth of information" and need community tips.
... that teachers apparently feel they are required to report obvious spelling errors and that the police feel they are worth investigating...
How is it an obvious spelling error rather than motivated by a kid seeing things around the house he associates with terrorism? How might a 10 year old describe a house of one of the Paris attackers where an AK-47 may have been seen, or the San Bernardino attackers were a pipe bomb may have been seen? In our society the police are the trained investigators of possible criminal acts, not teachers.
Shouldn't searching the family laptop require some kind of check
You assume the owner did not grant permission. The police can ask, the owner can say yes.
I really doubt the probability of unfortunate spelling errors being reported to the police is the same for a nice 99% white school in rural Hampshire as for a 99% Muslim school in Birmingham.
If he were an Irish kid the family would have been investigated, especially in years where the IRA was actively attacking people.
Do we really think that terrorists call themselves terrorists at home and in front of their kids?
Its not merely whether the parents utter the word "terrorist". Its also whether the kid sees items *he* associates with terrorism in his mind. What might a child who saw the AK-47 in the house of a Paris attacker think? What might a child who say the pipe bombs in the house of the San Bernardino attackers think?
One does not know what put the word "terrorist" into the kid's mind. One has to investigate. And who in our society are trained investigators for possible criminal acts? He was **interviewed** at home the next day and a laptop examined?
If it were an Irish family the same thing would have occurred.
Uh, no, and no. Seriously, borrow a Statistics 101 book, good quality data is what stats is all about, not quantity of data. They have a phrase about data that lacks quality, is skewed away from being representational of the population: "garbage in, garbage out".
That isn't how twin studies usually work. In this case, one twin decided to smoke marijuana, while the other did not.
I doubt that. One twin got caught and claimed the stash was entirely theirs. The other twin said, yeah, thats not mine. Later when alone they both lit up.
Using exactly the same logic, just because Apple uses a manufacturer's service does not mean Apple approves of every aspect of the manufacturer's supply chain.
Except it is not the same logic. Apple has WAY more power over their suppliers than I have over Apple.
You assume that Apple knew of this failure to comply with its contracts and did nothing.
And to continue with the comparison, Amnesty International has the power to buy products and services that are abuse free just like Apple has that power.
Slashdot Mirror
Obviously the state should count all of the coin-toss delegates and split them between the tied candidates. They can't do that retroactively for this election but should change the rules for the next one.
Odd, changing the counting rules retroactively is an option when the democratic establishment dislikes the "winner".
Seems Bill isn't the only Clinton that can get some head when in need.
Appears debatable. He seems to me to have been acquited. What you're describing appear to be a contempt of court citation which led to a five-year suspension of his Arkansas law license, which had certain other ramifications.
His contempt of court charge was for lying to a judge while under oath which was also what he was impeached for. He accepted a plea. He lost his law license. He was not acquitted in a legal venue, in a courtroom. What 'acquittal' he had was in a political venue, the Senate, where the issue is more about removal from office than deciding guilt or innocence. So there was no 'acquittal' in an innocence sense, just a lack of interest in removal from office, again, a political thing not a legal thing.
The impeachment (and subsequent acquittal) of her husband was clearly part of a smear campaign. It is of no interest to anyone but Bill's wife into whose mouth he puts his cock.
(1) The impeachment was over lying to a judge in court while under oath. That it always illegal. It doesn't matter the topic.
(2) He was not acquitted. As part of the plea bargain he agreed to various terms including the surrendering of his license to practice law.
BILL NUMBER: AB 174 INTRODUCED
BILL TEXT
INTRODUCED BY
Assembly Member Bonta
JANUARY 24, 2013
An act relating to weapons.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
AB 174, as introduced, Bonta. Weapons: grandfather clauses.
Existing law prohibits the possession of various weapons. Under existing law, certain of these bans exempted from their scope weapons that were possessed prior to the ban, if prescribed conditions met, are authorized.
This bill would declare the intent of the Legislature to subsequently amend this bill to include provisions that would end all of those exemptions.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: no. State-mandated local program: no.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Under current law, certain banned weapons are permitted under various "grandfathering in" clauses. It is the intent of the Legislature to subsequently amend this measure to include provisions that would end all of those exemptions.
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/...
Can you provide ANY evidence of this ? Any ...
Mandatory smart guns.
... to think smart guns should be default disabled until entering approved firing ranges?
"{New Jersey] Assembly Bill No. 700, is a law that makes the sale of handguns "illegal" unless it is a smart gun that "can only be fired by an authorized or recognized user" and would take effect three years after the technology is available for retail purposes."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Remote Disabling.
"TriggerSmart has also patented and developed Wide Area Control ( WAC) where weapons can be remotely enabled and disabled using various wireless protocols. Safe zones can be created around schools and airports so that only authorised guns can operate in the designated area. Alternatively, when authorized guns leave the authorised area they can be tracked and disabled outside the safe zone."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Political willingness to confiscate legally registered firearms.
California’s Assault Weapons ban of 1989 allowed those who owned covered firearms the opportunity to register those firearms and keep them. Registration involved fingerprinting and background checks. This ban also outlawed use of these firearms for hunting, and target shooting in many formerly legal venues. California Bill 2013 AB 174 would revoke these registrations and render these firearms illegal. AB 174 would force current owners to render their formerly legal and registered firearms inoperable, surrender them or remove them from California.
"Existing law prohibits the possession of various weapons. Under existing law, certain of these bans exempted from their scope weapons that were possessed prior to the ban, if prescribed conditions met, are authorized. This bill would declare the intent of the Legislature to subsequently amend this bill to include provisions that would end all of those exemptions."
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/...
Do you really think it much of a leap for politicians who would revoke registrations for fingerprinted and background checked owners, registration for rifles that were arbitrarily limited in terms of where they could be used (no hunting, only certain shooting ranges/sites),
I want the rifle used by Marines and the sidearm used by Marines. If those are "smart guns" then that's cool.
Yeah, USMC, the organization that teaches recruits that their KBAR with zero electronics and zero moving parts is their most reliable weapon. :-)
FWIW, in Europe a smart assault rifle is being researched. One of the features, the ability to remotely disable it. Its features like this that get some politicians really interested in smart gun research.
The problem is that if the police can disable your gun then so can a government bureaucrat. A bureaucrat enforcing a political decision that no civilian should have a firearm.
The backlash goes beyond mandating smart guns. There is also the backlash against research because one of the research topics exciting some in the anti-gun crowd is the ability to remotely disable a gun.
Its not just a reliability issue. One of the reasons the anti-gun folks are interested in smart guns and smart gun research is that one of those research topics is how to remotely disable a smart gun. Even so the legitimate user can not operate it. Its not even that hard to imagine the anti-gun crowd eventually wanting the default state of a smart gun to be disabled, only allowing it to enable when at a licensed gun range.
Who would NOT be in favour of a "childproof" gun?
And what is wrong with the current methods, say including a $10 cable padlock in the box at the factory? Childproofing is a solved problem.
Actually that is not a joke. The ability to remotely disable a firearm, even preventing a "legitimate" user from operating it, is something currently being researched.
You really are naive to think this isn't a climb-down. They DO want the statistics. The minutae of how they are collected is a separate matter, and this is why she clarified her statement, because idiots like you would claim that this meant they didn't want to change the need for better data from police departments on police shootings.
Vital is not the same as "we're not going to start requiring this."
It was given in both of your previous quotations that they wanted more statistics, that they are *asking for*, and explicitly in their words not dictating, greater participation from local law enforcement agencies. But what is plainly false is your claim that they are saying they are moving from a voluntary system to a mandatory system. There is no such evidence. They said they do not want to dictate to departments and they seem to be standing by that position.
The only thing being walked back is the characterization of information regarding an officer involved shooting as minutiae.
So much for your reading comprehension. The FBI backtracked on their "we want to keep the system voluntary" statement. Because that process is f*cked up.
Lynch said last week that her department did not want to dictate to every local department how they should handle the minutiae of record-keeping. She subsequently clarified her statements, insisting that information on police shootings was “vital”.
She had stepped in a huge pile of dogsh*t and realized it.
Sorry, the reading comprehension failure is yours. No where in your quote are they backtracking on voluntary. By saying the info is vital she is encouraging more participation in this voluntary system. She is backtracking on her use of the word "minutiae" which suggests the info in not vital.
Making accusations that can be easily disproved
James Comey tells crime summit that ‘it’s ridiculous’ Guardian and Washington Post have more information on civilians’ deaths at hands of US police than FBI
Thank you, you prove my point again. The media merely has more data.
But both the accuracy of the figures and any trends emerging from them have been called into question because of the voluntary reporting system.
Again, thank you for proving my point: that the controversy is over the amount of data. And thank you for confirming my suspicion, you merely repeat what some other nameless person unfamiliar with statistics had said. Note that the FBI disputes such a claim through their desire to keep the system voluntary, more on this below.
The justice department and the FBI have resisted calls for a mandatory reporting system, calling for more data on fatal police shootings but keeping the voluntary reporting system.
As I said, it has not been shown that the voluntary system is inherently flawed. The fact that its a departmental decision, all or nothing, rather than an incident by incident decision, may keep the data submitted representational.
Everyone is saying that the FBI figures arec rap and that it's due to a systemic process problem.
Your own quotes demonstrate you have a reading comprehension problem. The FBI only said the media has more data. The FBI has not said voluntary reporting is inherently flawed, they want to keep the system voluntary.
I choose to believe the FBI, not some random guy on the internet.
It might help if you knew what the FBI actually said, as opposed to your erroneous interpretation of what they said. More likely your second hand offering of someone else's erroneous interpretation.
Plus there is the pesky little detail of me not asking you to take my word, rather go read a Statistics 101 textbook for yourself so that your can understand the erroneous nature of the interpretation yourself.
And you choose to refuse to consider that you may be wrong, despite having NO proof of being right, just argumentum ad nauseum.
Actually I always consider that, but your claims of bad FBI data and good The Counted data are premature and unsubstantiated by any evidence you presented. Not to mention some of your info being erroneous and contradicted by your own sources.
I haven't seen ANY proof that you have any knowledge of statistics. Prove it! In other words, put up or shut up (not that it would prove anything - it's a logical fallacy - specifically the argument from authority. The same one that for centuries had people believing that men had more teeth than women because Aristotle said so).
Yet another reading comprehension failure on your part. I never said to take my word on these underpinning of statistics (a small but representative sample of a large population) and various cautions regarding data collection (more data is not necessarily better data, voluntarily submitted data where different demographics have different willingness to participate -- i.e. unrepresentative data, etc). I often told you to consult a Statistics textbook. You are frankly likeminded to climate change deniers, you have your political interpretation of things and scientific and mathematical knowledge that conflicts is denied. Once again, go find a Statistics 101 textbook.
The counted actually went on the ground and investigated - you know, ...
Yes, they investigated the tips they received. This does not change the fact that some demographics are more interested and other demographics are less interested in participating in the project.
... a whole bunch of cases that the FBI had no record of.
Again, a greater quantity does not imply a better quality. Statics 101 stuff. If tips are demographically skewed then garbage in garbage out.
Read the articles and you'll find whole counties that engage in white-washing police murders and never report them to the state, never mind to the FBI. It is known that the FBI data is skewed from self-selection.
No, I have read many articles. The reason for the lack of reporting is that its not required, that the FBI system is designed for crime statistics and officers justifiably using deadly force are not considered crimes. Such motivations are unrelated to any demographic of the shooting victims. It has not been shown that there is a lack of reporting designed to hide incidents involving any particular demographic. There is currently no evidence that the FBI data is skewed demographically, just that the FBI data is far from complete.
Argue all you want, but you're still wrong.
When you can manage Statistics 101 concepts I'll take your opinion more seriously.
Good quality data - you mean the stuff the FBI doesn't have because polic departments self-select not to report the majority of cases? You're full of it if you don't think that is GIGO.
"Garbage" is an unrepresentative sample, not a smaller sample. All we know is that the FBI has a smaller sample. Regarding The Counted there are possible representative sample problems due to being tip based, different communities/demographics participating at greater levels and skewing the data. It is not known that the FBI data is bad nor if The Counted data is good.
Regarding tip based, from The Counted's website: "Contributions of any information that may improve the quality of our data will be greatly welcomed as we work from a dearth of available information toward better accountability. Please contact us to pass on tips, links and multimedia as well as new information on existing cases already recorded."
Note they self describe what they know as a "dearth of information" and need community tips.
... that teachers apparently feel they are required to report obvious spelling errors and that the police feel they are worth investigating ...
How is it an obvious spelling error rather than motivated by a kid seeing things around the house he associates with terrorism? How might a 10 year old describe a house of one of the Paris attackers where an AK-47 may have been seen, or the San Bernardino attackers were a pipe bomb may have been seen? In our society the police are the trained investigators of possible criminal acts, not teachers.
Shouldn't searching the family laptop require some kind of check
You assume the owner did not grant permission. The police can ask, the owner can say yes.
I really doubt the probability of unfortunate spelling errors being reported to the police is the same for a nice 99% white school in rural Hampshire as for a 99% Muslim school in Birmingham.
If he were an Irish kid the family would have been investigated, especially in years where the IRA was actively attacking people.
Do we really think that terrorists call themselves terrorists at home and in front of their kids?
Its not merely whether the parents utter the word "terrorist". Its also whether the kid sees items *he* associates with terrorism in his mind. What might a child who saw the AK-47 in the house of a Paris attacker think? What might a child who say the pipe bombs in the house of the San Bernardino attackers think?
One does not know what put the word "terrorist" into the kid's mind. One has to investigate. And who in our society are trained investigators for possible criminal acts? He was **interviewed** at home the next day and a laptop examined?
If it were an Irish family the same thing would have occurred.
Data is part of stats. You fail.
Uh, no, and no. Seriously, borrow a Statistics 101 book, good quality data is what stats is all about, not quantity of data. They have a phrase about data that lacks quality, is skewed away from being representational of the population: "garbage in, garbage out".
That isn't how twin studies usually work. In this case, one twin decided to smoke marijuana, while the other did not.
I doubt that. One twin got caught and claimed the stash was entirely theirs. The other twin said, yeah, thats not mine. Later when alone they both lit up.
Using exactly the same logic, just because Apple uses a manufacturer's service does not mean Apple approves of every aspect of the manufacturer's supply chain.
Except it is not the same logic. Apple has WAY more power over their suppliers than I have over Apple.
You assume that Apple knew of this failure to comply with its contracts and did nothing.
And to continue with the comparison, Amnesty International has the power to buy products and services that are abuse free just like Apple has that power.