The issue with bringing the combatants from Gitmo to US soil is not about them getting loose, it's about them getting extended constitutional rights because they are not in the custody of the Armed Forces anymore.
They will be given the right to stand trial, PUBLIC trial, where the reasons why they are being detained and how we know that information will be subject to the standard rules of evidence used in criminal court. Likely the evidence will not meet the requirements of our legal system and get thrown out, which will set them free. The military is NOT a law enforcing agency (except for the Coast Guard) and it is this way for a very good reason. They do not collect evidence legally when they are dealing with enemy combatants. They have the legal ability to capture, detain and kill combatants within the rules of war, which are totally different than the rules dealing with criminal prosecutions. And this is how it should be.
So, no, I'm not afraid of the guys in Club Gitmo as long as they are guarded 24/7, but if you let them go they are avowed to do us harm. If you bring them to US soil, you are likely letting them go, just as sure as if you dropped them off in front of their home and drove away.
I'm amazed at how many folks don't get this, that somehow think we can just stuff them into our federal prisons (with or without trials and convictions) and keep ourselves safe from them. That idea is stupid because I see an army of lawyers at the ready to plead their case and force their release starting just as on as they set foot on US soil. Heck, they've tried it already and they are in Cuba under military rules...
You are assuming that they are guilty - what if they're not?
The problem with Gitmo and the whole 'Be Afraid We Are Here to Protect You' system of politics that is winning in the US isn't the actual enemy combatants but those who get caught up in the terrorist witch-hunt who are innocent and yet have no recourse - and this doesn't apply only to foreigners, but to American citizens as well: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
At some point you have to stop being afraid of what, in all probability, cannot hurt you and start worrying about what you're supporting being used against you.
Someone who has been treated badly and been metaphorically kicked out the door does not write a follow up like this, which sounds more like a marketing blurb:
"I had outlined in the original post how excited I was at the prospect of owning a Tesla, especially the Model X and especially the configuration I ultimately ordered-the P90D in red with black leather seats and the Ludicrous Speed option."
That was my experience with a Samsung Galaxy S4. MicroSD slot became somewhat unreliable, which led to unreliable functioning of things like music, because I had my music on the SD card. Sadly, I had assumed this would be rock-solid when I bought the phone, so I went with minimum internal memory.
My replacement is a Nexus 6P with 128GB of internal storage. Much happier. Except for the part where I spent something like $739 or thereabouts for the 6P with Nexus Protect.:)
For me it hasn't been the slot, just the cards - and generally formatting them resolves the issue.
I refuse to pay that much for a phone just to get that RAM internal which is one reason I won't buy an iPhone.
why didn't any of these agencies say "So... we're going to pay you a huge pile of money... once... for this font."
Because spending large piles of money outside of their own pet interests is exactly what Republican's don't want to do; plus, being pro-business, it was in their interests to let some third-party company profit from this mandate. I also don't think it was a required mandate or a standard; if a jurisdiction didn't want to pay for Clearview, they could probably still use Highway Gothic. Clearview was just the other approved font.
FTFY
Republicans haven't done anything any better than other politicians when it comes to eradicating public debt.
And no I'm not a democrat. I dislike all politicians pretty much equally.
I disagree. Nexus devices are satisfactory but not exceptional. They lack essential features like SD Card slots and don't really feature any nifty "bits" to mess with, but are the only devices guaranteed over the long term to receive regular updates, and that alone makes them better. Everything else is, by far, less than satisfactory due to the emphasis of gimmicks or poorly implemented features while often neglecting or actively harming security.
The SD card is a double edged feature. Get filesystem corruption on the card and your phone starts behaving like a two year old on crack.
Anyone using Android with a micro SD card and who gets random freezes and reboots may want to try removing (or erasing) the SD card and see if that clears things up.
What bugs me is that the common voter should even have to consider supporting this person in lieu of a non-corrupt government. Is there not a single earnest populist left in Capitol Hill? A decent president would be quick to sign a pardon and put this to rest.
I think the President can pardon only at the federal level, not state.
Also, probably can't pardon someone for something they haven't yet been found guilty of.
But there's an even more basic error in your reasoning, namely the assumption that market swings are bad or that we should adopt policies to reduce them.
Were such swings being made by humans perhaps, but when automated trading algorithms panic sell there is no market reason behind to justify it.
Why is the EU allowing itself to be flooded with people with few or no skills that will need long term generational support if it cant even look after its own best and brightest?
Because the people running the EU (I'm looking at you, Angela Merkel) have decided the solution to low birth rates is the mass importation of people from other countries. It's cultural suicide. I think they've pretty much realized the whole thing was a bad idea, but where to go from here? The immigrants aren't leaving.
Why shouldn't roads, especially limited access roads, pay for themselves 100% from gas taxes and other user fees instead of less than half [uspirg.org]?
Because then poorer people wouldn't be able to use them - i.e. to get to work.
Why shouldn't roads, especially limited access roads, pay for themselves 100% from gas taxes and other user fees instead of less than half [uspirg.org]?
Because then poorer people wouldn't be able to use them - i.e. to get to work.
Don't the poor take the bus?
You're suggesting that there is sufficient public transport for people to get around reasonably efficiently which, outside of the centers of the big cities, has not at all been my experience in the US.
"Why shouldn't roads, especially limited access roads, pay for themselves 100% from gas taxes and other user fees instead of less than half [uspirg.org]?" Because then poorer people wouldn't be able to use them - i.e. to get to work.
"why should truckers continue to be heavily subsidized for the massive damage they cause to our roads" Where I live (France) there are higher use taxes on trucks than on cars (there are actually catagories for motorcycles, campers, etc. as well). I think that the heavier the vehicle, the more they should pay.
The short answer to all your questions is because big oil families are very powerful in politics and so roads and bridges get direct and indirect subsidies to keep that fuel flowing.
Trains lose money, so they require a lot of government subsidies. This grid will (supposedly) save money, so it should require no subsidies. There is no reason for the government to "fund" it. If private investors are not willing to pay for it, then that is a sure sign that it is not going to generate an acceptable ROI, and shouldn't be built.
Just because something is not profitable does not mean it shouldn't be built. Trains are one you've already mentioned, roads another, schools, etc.
I am now reminding you that child porn is a serious felony. Are you saying I'm an accessory to your possession of child porn?
The USC accessory statute requires three things for a person to be an accessory: Knowledge of the criminal conduct. Encouraging or assisting the conduct. Mens rea (guilty intent)
I don't have knowledge that you've done anything illegal. The Lupe case I cited reminds us that I still wouldn't know if I had seen you in possession of -questionable- material.
Reminding someone that it is a serious felony is DISCOURAGING the conduct, precisely the opposite of what defines am accessory.
Mens rea is perhaps best illustrated by an example. It was unlawful in a certain state to have sex with a teenager under a certain age (16, I think) - even if both parties were the same age. A doctor prescribed birth to a fifteen year old. Ruling: although the doctor knew that his action would facilitate unlawful activity, his intent was to protect the patient from unwanted pregnancy. No guilty intent, therefore he was not an accessory. Although some criminal acts don't require mens rea, accessory always does.
By telling them you are: 1) You demonstrate that you are aware of their criminal conduct in that you would not be warning them if you had not seen something worth warning them about. It's just not the kind of thing you tell random customers for no good reason. 2) Assisting them in that you are telling them to be more careful not to get caught (it can be seen this way regardless of your intent) 3) Guilty intent will be assumed based on (2); it will be for you to prove otherwise (regardless of who the burden of proof should be on)
So yes, you are setting yourself up as an accessory if you tell them.
Even if I'm wrong you're going to (a) spend a lot of time trying to prove yourself innocent and (b) end up with a stigma that you're going to have trouble getting rid of.
I would really like to believe that Democrats are just as stupid as Republicans. I don't see any reason why there would be a monopoly on stupid. And I certainly have seen lots of stupid democrats individually, And yet, my unscientific impression is that whenever something truly idiotic tries to become law there a preponderace of republicans backing it. How can this possibly occur? Same is true with the presidential race.
What is the mechanism that causes this lack of collective filtration for logic in one party but not the other.
Or am I mistaken? does the internet selectively bring me stories of republican idiocy and remove the democratic party stunts? If so this would explain a lot of why people are so angry and polarized these days.
I'm not talking about subjective disagreement. it's okay for people to disagree on some things. But legislating science? surely reasonable people in both parties would recognize the pattern here.
Slashdot Mirror
The issue with bringing the combatants from Gitmo to US soil is not about them getting loose, it's about them getting extended constitutional rights because they are not in the custody of the Armed Forces anymore.
They will be given the right to stand trial, PUBLIC trial, where the reasons why they are being detained and how we know that information will be subject to the standard rules of evidence used in criminal court. Likely the evidence will not meet the requirements of our legal system and get thrown out, which will set them free. The military is NOT a law enforcing agency (except for the Coast Guard) and it is this way for a very good reason. They do not collect evidence legally when they are dealing with enemy combatants. They have the legal ability to capture, detain and kill combatants within the rules of war, which are totally different than the rules dealing with criminal prosecutions. And this is how it should be.
So, no, I'm not afraid of the guys in Club Gitmo as long as they are guarded 24/7, but if you let them go they are avowed to do us harm. If you bring them to US soil, you are likely letting them go, just as sure as if you dropped them off in front of their home and drove away.
I'm amazed at how many folks don't get this, that somehow think we can just stuff them into our federal prisons (with or without trials and convictions) and keep ourselves safe from them. That idea is stupid because I see an army of lawyers at the ready to plead their case and force their release starting just as on as they set foot on US soil. Heck, they've tried it already and they are in Cuba under military rules...
You are assuming that they are guilty - what if they're not?
The problem with Gitmo and the whole 'Be Afraid We Are Here to Protect You' system of politics that is winning in the US isn't the actual enemy combatants but those who get caught up in the terrorist witch-hunt who are innocent and yet have no recourse - and this doesn't apply only to foreigners, but to American citizens as well:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
At some point you have to stop being afraid of what, in all probability, cannot hurt you and start worrying about what you're supporting being used against you.
Someone who has been treated badly and been metaphorically kicked out the door does not write a follow up like this, which sounds more like a marketing blurb:
"I had outlined in the original post how excited I was at the prospect of owning a Tesla, especially the Model X and especially the configuration I ultimately ordered-the P90D in red with black leather seats and the Ludicrous Speed option."
Raises doubts for me for the whole story.
That was my experience with a Samsung Galaxy S4. MicroSD slot became somewhat unreliable, which led to unreliable functioning of things like music, because I had my music on the SD card. Sadly, I had assumed this would be rock-solid when I bought the phone, so I went with minimum internal memory.
My replacement is a Nexus 6P with 128GB of internal storage. Much happier. Except for the part where I spent something like $739 or thereabouts for the 6P with Nexus Protect. :)
For me it hasn't been the slot, just the cards - and generally formatting them resolves the issue.
I refuse to pay that much for a phone just to get that RAM internal which is one reason I won't buy an iPhone.
Thanks for the explanation -
why didn't any of these agencies say "So ... we're going to pay you a huge pile of money ... once ... for this font."
Because spending large piles of money outside of their own pet interests is exactly what Republican's don't want to do; plus, being pro-business, it was in their interests to let some third-party company profit from this mandate. I also don't think it was a required mandate or a standard; if a jurisdiction didn't want to pay for Clearview, they could probably still use Highway Gothic. Clearview was just the other approved font.
FTFY
Republicans haven't done anything any better than other politicians when it comes to eradicating public debt.
And no I'm not a democrat. I dislike all politicians pretty much equally.
Open Source highway gothic font created by Red Hat.
http://overpassfont.org/
Problem solved.
Another link: http://www.fontsquirrel.com/fo...
They don't want the problem solved. They want excuses to replace signs everywhere periodically to keep the grease flowing.
I disagree. Nexus devices are satisfactory but not exceptional. They lack essential features like SD Card slots and don't really feature any nifty "bits" to mess with, but are the only devices guaranteed over the long term to receive regular updates, and that alone makes them better. Everything else is, by far, less than satisfactory due to the emphasis of gimmicks or poorly implemented features while often neglecting or actively harming security.
The SD card is a double edged feature. Get filesystem corruption on the card and your phone starts behaving like a two year old on crack.
Anyone using Android with a micro SD card and who gets random freezes and reboots may want to try removing (or erasing) the SD card and see if that clears things up.
Why does DirectX have such a hold on gamers?
Is there nothing out there strong enough to compete and let people get off of windows?
Although I have a number of legitimate copies of Win7, I much prefer my pirated copy that disables all updates.
Yeah, yeah, security/viruses. IDGAF when it's been a decade since I've gotten one and I back everything up. Don't download or browse sketchy shit.
Like dodgy copies of the OS maybe?
I think the President can pardon only at the federal level, not state.
Also, probably can't pardon someone for something they haven't yet been found guilty of.
Guess you weren't paying attention when G.Ford gave RMN a full pardon for all possible misdeeds.
"The pardon power of the President extends only to offenses recognizable under federal law."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
How will ISPs help enforce copyright laws if they don't know who is using your router?
Presumably there's still a username / password login so that only customers of that ISP can use the service.
What bugs me is that the common voter should even have to consider supporting this person in lieu of a non-corrupt government. Is there not a single earnest populist left in Capitol Hill? A decent president would be quick to sign a pardon and put this to rest.
I think the President can pardon only at the federal level, not state.
Also, probably can't pardon someone for something they haven't yet been found guilty of.
"2) quit because you really do value the ethics and not just pay lip service to them, and then 3) blow the whistle to the newspaper."
Once you quit you have no credibility with the newspaper as then you are just a disgruntled ex-employee.
>
But there's an even more basic error in your reasoning, namely the assumption that market swings are bad or that we should adopt policies to reduce them.
Were such swings being made by humans perhaps, but when automated trading algorithms panic sell there is no market reason behind to justify it.
Because the people running the EU (I'm looking at you, Angela Merkel) have decided the solution to low birth rates is the mass importation of people from other countries. It's cultural suicide. I think they've pretty much realized the whole thing was a bad idea, but where to go from here? The immigrants aren't leaving.
Sweden is sending some 80,000 back:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programme...
Don't the poor take the bus?
Incidentally bus services are also subsidized
Don't the poor take the bus?
You're suggesting that there is sufficient public transport for people to get around reasonably efficiently which, outside of the centers of the big cities, has not at all been my experience in the US.
"Why shouldn't roads, especially limited access roads, pay for themselves 100% from gas taxes and other user fees instead of less than half [uspirg.org]?"
Because then poorer people wouldn't be able to use them - i.e. to get to work.
"why should truckers continue to be heavily subsidized for the massive damage they cause to our roads"
Where I live (France) there are higher use taxes on trucks than on cars (there are actually catagories for motorcycles, campers, etc. as well). I think that the heavier the vehicle, the more they should pay.
The short answer to all your questions is because big oil families are very powerful in politics and so roads and bridges get direct and indirect subsidies to keep that fuel flowing.
"Uber would have walked away from the case and thrown the driver under the bus (which they've already done at least once)"
Not that I doubt you, but references?
Or trains. (Forgot about them.)
Trains lose money, so they require a lot of government subsidies. This grid will (supposedly) save money, so it should require no subsidies. There is no reason for the government to "fund" it. If private investors are not willing to pay for it, then that is a sure sign that it is not going to generate an acceptable ROI, and shouldn't be built.
Just because something is not profitable does not mean it shouldn't be built. Trains are one you've already mentioned, roads another, schools, etc.
The existing grid is failing so why not replace it with something more efficient?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
http://www.scientificamerican....
"Marvin Minsky, Pioneer In Artificial Intelligence, Dies at 88"
Or so you think...maybe he lives on in a matrix somewhere :-)
Yes I figured it out thanks - I forgot to close my italics after one word so we'll call it even.
I am now reminding you that child porn is a serious felony.
Are you saying I'm an accessory to your possession of child porn?
The USC accessory statute requires three things for a person to be an accessory:
Knowledge of the criminal conduct.
Encouraging or assisting the conduct.
Mens rea (guilty intent)
I don't have knowledge that you've done anything illegal. The Lupe case I cited reminds us that I still wouldn't know if I had seen you in possession of -questionable- material.
Reminding someone that it is a serious felony is DISCOURAGING the conduct, precisely the opposite of what defines am accessory.
Mens rea is perhaps best illustrated by an example. It was unlawful in a certain state to have sex with a teenager under a certain age (16, I think) - even if both parties were the same age. A doctor prescribed birth to a fifteen year old. Ruling: although the doctor knew that his action would facilitate unlawful activity, his intent was to protect the patient from unwanted pregnancy. No guilty intent, therefore he was not an accessory. Although some criminal acts don't require mens rea, accessory always does.
By telling them you are:
1) You demonstrate that you are aware of their criminal conduct in that you would not be warning them if you had not seen something worth warning them about. It's just not the kind of thing you tell random customers for no good reason.
2) Assisting them in that you are telling them to be more careful not to get caught (it can be seen this way regardless of your intent)
3) Guilty intent will be assumed based on (2); it will be for you to prove otherwise (regardless of who the burden of proof should be on)
So yes, you are setting yourself up as an accessory if you tell them.
Even if I'm wrong you're going to (a) spend a lot of time trying to prove yourself innocent and (b) end up with a stigma that you're going to have trouble getting rid of.
I would really like to believe that Democrats are just as stupid as Republicans. I don't see any reason why there would be a monopoly on stupid. And I certainly have seen lots of stupid democrats individually, And yet, my unscientific impression is that whenever something truly idiotic tries to become law there a preponderace of republicans backing it. How can this possibly occur? Same is true with the presidential race.
What is the mechanism that causes this lack of collective filtration for logic in one party but not the other.
Or am I mistaken? does the internet selectively bring me stories of republican idiocy and remove the democratic party stunts? If so this would explain a lot of why people are so angry and polarized these days.
I'm not talking about subjective disagreement. it's okay for people to disagree on some things. But legislating science? surely reasonable people in both parties would recognize the pattern here.
Republicans get a lot of the religious right vote. It's scary:
http://edition.cnn.com/interac...
"The rate you pay is still based on your risk."
If driverless cars never have accidents and all cars are driverless cars that risk becomes zero thus the rate you pay would be...zero.
Of course universal adoption of driverless cars is even further away than useable driverless cars themselves but eventually it may/will/could happen.