Because then they have to have a trial exposing 1) confidential CIA material and 2) how shoddy CIA's security was to allow him to steal all the information. Plant the CP and he goes to jail without exposing the CIA.
Prequel toys still sold, in spite of Jar Jar. But walk into any toy store, or toy department, and go to the Star Wars aisle. The toys rot on the shelves. Come back in 6 months, and it's the exact same box still rotting on the shelves, because no one has bought it.
It's going to be interesting when it's time to pick the crew of the first man^H^H^Hhumaned mission to Mars and they aren't able to find enough lesbian Eskimo transmidgets to meet the diversity quotas.
I've always found the most interesting example of the "commit the crime on purpose to get the law in front of a court" case to be Plessy v Ferguson where everyone involved, the perpetrator, "victim," and arresting agent were all intent on having the law overturned. And failed:
In 1890, the state of Louisiana passed the Separate Car Act, which required separate accommodations for blacks and whites on railroads, including separate railway cars. Concerned, a group of prominent black, creole, and white New Orleans residents formed the Comité des Citoyens (Committee of Citizens) dedicated to repeal the law or fight its effect. They persuaded Homer Plessy, a man of mixed race, to participate in an orchestrated test case. Plessy was born a free man and was an "octoroon" (of seven-eighths European descent and one-eighth African descent). However, under Louisiana law, he was classified as black, and thus required to sit in the "colored" car.
On June 7, 1892, Plessy bought a first-class ticket at the Press Street Depot and boarded a "whites only" car of the East Louisiana Railroad in New Orleans, Louisiana, bound for Covington, Louisiana. The railroad company, which had opposed the law on the grounds that it would require the purchase of more railcars, had been previously informed of Plessy's racial lineage, and the intent to challenge the law. Additionally, the committee hired a private detective with arrest powers to detain Plessy, to ensure that he would be charged for violating the Separate Car Act, as opposed to a vagrancy or some other offense. After Plessy took a seat in the whites-only railway car, he was asked to vacate it, and sit instead in the blacks-only car. Plessy refused and was arrested immediately by the detective. As planned, the train was stopped, and Plessy was taken off the train at Press and Royal streets. Plessy was remanded for trial in Orleans Parish.
I guess, but the concern people have with UBI is "if you just permanently give people money, will they be motivated to do productive work or not?" What someone already employed does with an extra few hundred a month isn't particularly relevant.
I'd add that even people with real problems also say vacuous things, out of touch with reality. Go stand in line at Wendy's and listen to the people around you, and the conversations between the cooks in the back. You will hear lots of vacuous and inane things.
I don't know why someone would think SV would be in touch with reality. Intelligence doesn't solve cognitive biases.
Nobody's in touch with reality. And being surprised that someone else isn't in touch with reality is a pretty good sign you're far out of touch with reality yourself.
That was my take reading the news coverage. Pilot did a great job, but the media's all gushing because "but it's a girl!!!" Yes? And? Women can fly planes too. This wasn't a shock to any of the rest of us.
I'm pretty sure shoving someone away from you is still assault, regardless of whether it's an officer or not. One is unlikely to have the cops called on them for shoving, or be arrested for it, but it's still a crime. Don't go shoving people.
Also I'm suggesting that laws against non-violently resisting arrest persuade some people at the margins to avoid resisting in ways that might escalate to violence. And often enough across a population to result in more instances of violent arrest-resisting than if you had never decriminalized non-violent arrest-resisting.
Take someone who wouldn't attack a cop, but who would run from the cops. He currently doesn't because he doesn't want to get hit with a resisting arrest charge. Tell him "it's okay to run from cops now but no hitting!" and this creates more situations in which a chase turns into a struggle. e.g., he's running from a cop, tries to jump a fence, the cop grabs his leg, he kicks the cop in the face and now we've escalated non-violently resisting arrest into violently resisting arrest. None of this would have ever happened if he hadn't run in the first place.
So, my bet would be that if you take a jurisdiction and legalize non-violently resisting arrest (while still punishing violently resisting arrest) the result will be an increase in instances of violent arrest-resisting. But who knows? Run the experiment and find out.
Well I'd love to see a jurisdiction enact such a rule and then watch the consequences over a few years. My intuition says "more violent encounters with police" but who knows.
In other news, I bought a fork, and attempted to stab minorities in the eye with it. Nothing the fork manufacturer did prevented me from stabbing minorities in the eye with the fork they made. Therefore, the fork manufacturer needs to give me millions of dollars.
Like when Thomas Jefferson was banging his slaves? Like when JFK was banging sluts? Like when LBJ was showing everybody his dick? Like when Bill Clinton was using his intern as a humidor? "Dignity in the Office" has been the rare exception, not the rule.
Assume Trump raw dogged porn stars ten years ago. Now what? Impeach? What exactly do you want to happen over this?
Oh no Trump called fat women and fat and banged sluts. Who the hell cares?
Tax records
No one cares.
Treatment of immigrants
Illegal immigrants and their anchor babies who should all be catapulted across the border.
Cops murdering black people
I think you mean "law enforcement officers defending themselves from thugs."
Gun control and NRA campaign donations
The whole "NRA money boogyman" thing is bizarre. You think if the NRA vanished everybody would be like "well, time to shred the 2nd amendment and give up our guns!' If NARAL dissolved, would pro-choice people suddenly want to ban abortions?
Transgender ban in the military
The military needs fit, sane-ish soldiers to kill people and break things. If you have flat feet, you don't get in. Trannies have a serious medical condition. Either it's a physical thing where their body is fucked up and has an extra (or missing) penis, requiring surgery to correct, or they're fucked in the head and think they're the wrong sex. Either way, they shouldn't be in the military. Also, almost half of them commit suicide. Maybe giving them guns is a bad idea..?
Adultery and illegal campaign contributions to cover it up
lol no one cares about your phoney moral preening.
No, AniMojo's objection was about CA harvesting of the data of your friends. Yet you sign up for Obama's stuff and he takes your friends' data. It's the same thing.
Every time an individual volunteers to help out – for instance by offering to host a fundraising party for the president – he or she will be asked to log onto the re-election website with their Facebook credentials. That in turn will engage Facebook Connect, the digital interface that shares a user's personal information with a third party.
Consciously or otherwise, the individual volunteer will be injecting all the information they store publicly on their Facebook page – home location, date of birth, interests and, crucially, network of friends – directly into the central Obama database.
"If you log in with Facebook, now the campaign has connected you with all your relationships," a digital campaign organiser who has worked on behalf of Obama says.
The only thing I can see that CA did differently than the Obama campaign is that they (allegedly) told FB it was for "research" but in fact used it for commercial purposes. So if you're mad at CA for violating FB's TOS and want to make sure Zuck gets his cheddar, then okay, that's fair. But if it's all just "conservative politicians are using social media to target political advertisements is evil!" then it's just more partisan selective outrage.
The significance of the fusion of Facebook and voter file data is hard to overemphasise. "This is the Moneyball moment for politics," says Sam Graham-Felsen, Obama's chief blogger in 2008. "If you can figure out how to leverage the power of friendship, that opens up incredible possibilities."
Obama does it: "We're leveraging the power of friendship!"
Trump does it: "Insidious fascist psychological warfare!!"
This maybe? I don't really see the difference between CA getting your data because you're friends with someone who took a survey and Obama getting your data because you're friends with someone who signed up for their campaign. At the end of the day, the political campaigns have your data because of stuff people you maybe know did, but you sure didn't give Obama or CA your info.
Every time an individual volunteers to help out – for instance by offering to host a fundraising party for the president – he or she will be asked to log onto the re-election website with their Facebook credentials. That in turn will engage Facebook Connect, the digital interface that shares a user's personal information with a third party.
Consciously or otherwise, the individual volunteer will be injecting all the information they store publicly on their Facebook page – home location, date of birth, interests and, crucially, network of friends – directly into the central Obama database.
"If you log in with Facebook, now the campaign has connected you with all your relationships," a digital campaign organiser who has worked on behalf of Obama says.
"And built models to exploit we knew about them and target their inner demons!" Sounds so scary. But when Obama did it it was all amazing friendship technology!!
Every time an individual volunteers to help out – for instance by offering to host a fundraising party for the president – he or she will be asked to log onto the re-election website with their Facebook credentials. That in turn will engage Facebook Connect, the digital interface that shares a user's personal information with a third party.
Consciously or otherwise, the individual volunteer will be injecting all the information they store publicly on their Facebook page – home location, date of birth, interests and, crucially, network of friends – directly into the central Obama database.
"If you log in with Facebook, now the campaign has connected you with all your relationships," a digital campaign organiser who has worked on behalf of Obama says.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, the summary is wrong. Boba Fett was introduced in the Holiday Special, and returned in Empire.
So there's hope it's fake? Has netcraft confirmed it?
Because then they have to have a trial exposing 1) confidential CIA material and 2) how shoddy CIA's security was to allow him to steal all the information. Plant the CP and he goes to jail without exposing the CIA.
Have you played Breath of the Wild yet? Phenomenal game. Good games do still exist.
Prequel toys still sold, in spite of Jar Jar. But walk into any toy store, or toy department, and go to the Star Wars aisle. The toys rot on the shelves. Come back in 6 months, and it's the exact same box still rotting on the shelves, because no one has bought it.
These guys did just that.
It's going to be interesting when it's time to pick the crew of the first man^H^H^Hhumaned mission to Mars and they aren't able to find enough lesbian Eskimo transmidgets to meet the diversity quotas.
Wait, what? You're saying the lottery, slot machines, and sports betting are all not gambling? What the hell is gambling then?
I think your method of gambling is a reasonable way to avoid losing more than you can afford at gambling, but it's definitely gambling.
Just download a new car.
I've always found the most interesting example of the "commit the crime on purpose to get the law in front of a court" case to be Plessy v Ferguson where everyone involved, the perpetrator, "victim," and arresting agent were all intent on having the law overturned. And failed:
In 1890, the state of Louisiana passed the Separate Car Act, which required separate accommodations for blacks and whites on railroads, including separate railway cars. Concerned, a group of prominent black, creole, and white New Orleans residents formed the Comité des Citoyens (Committee of Citizens) dedicated to repeal the law or fight its effect. They persuaded Homer Plessy, a man of mixed race, to participate in an orchestrated test case. Plessy was born a free man and was an "octoroon" (of seven-eighths European descent and one-eighth African descent). However, under Louisiana law, he was classified as black, and thus required to sit in the "colored" car.
On June 7, 1892, Plessy bought a first-class ticket at the Press Street Depot and boarded a "whites only" car of the East Louisiana Railroad in New Orleans, Louisiana, bound for Covington, Louisiana. The railroad company, which had opposed the law on the grounds that it would require the purchase of more railcars, had been previously informed of Plessy's racial lineage, and the intent to challenge the law. Additionally, the committee hired a private detective with arrest powers to detain Plessy, to ensure that he would be charged for violating the Separate Car Act, as opposed to a vagrancy or some other offense. After Plessy took a seat in the whites-only railway car, he was asked to vacate it, and sit instead in the blacks-only car. Plessy refused and was arrested immediately by the detective. As planned, the train was stopped, and Plessy was taken off the train at Press and Royal streets. Plessy was remanded for trial in Orleans Parish.
I guess, but the concern people have with UBI is "if you just permanently give people money, will they be motivated to do productive work or not?" What someone already employed does with an extra few hundred a month isn't particularly relevant.
Would this experiment not answer that question?
I'd add that even people with real problems also say vacuous things, out of touch with reality. Go stand in line at Wendy's and listen to the people around you, and the conversations between the cooks in the back. You will hear lots of vacuous and inane things.
I don't know why someone would think SV would be in touch with reality. Intelligence doesn't solve cognitive biases.
Nobody's in touch with reality. And being surprised that someone else isn't in touch with reality is a pretty good sign you're far out of touch with reality yourself.
That was my take reading the news coverage. Pilot did a great job, but the media's all gushing because "but it's a girl!!!" Yes? And? Women can fly planes too. This wasn't a shock to any of the rest of us.
I'm pretty sure shoving someone away from you is still assault, regardless of whether it's an officer or not. One is unlikely to have the cops called on them for shoving, or be arrested for it, but it's still a crime. Don't go shoving people.
Also I'm suggesting that laws against non-violently resisting arrest persuade some people at the margins to avoid resisting in ways that might escalate to violence. And often enough across a population to result in more instances of violent arrest-resisting than if you had never decriminalized non-violent arrest-resisting.
Take someone who wouldn't attack a cop, but who would run from the cops. He currently doesn't because he doesn't want to get hit with a resisting arrest charge. Tell him "it's okay to run from cops now but no hitting!" and this creates more situations in which a chase turns into a struggle. e.g., he's running from a cop, tries to jump a fence, the cop grabs his leg, he kicks the cop in the face and now we've escalated non-violently resisting arrest into violently resisting arrest. None of this would have ever happened if he hadn't run in the first place.
So, my bet would be that if you take a jurisdiction and legalize non-violently resisting arrest (while still punishing violently resisting arrest) the result will be an increase in instances of violent arrest-resisting. But who knows? Run the experiment and find out.
Well I'd love to see a jurisdiction enact such a rule and then watch the consequences over a few years. My intuition says "more violent encounters with police" but who knows.
Won't that just result in more people resisting arrest, creating a danger to the officer or the community (and probably the suspect)?
In other news, I bought a fork, and attempted to stab minorities in the eye with it. Nothing the fork manufacturer did prevented me from stabbing minorities in the eye with the fork they made. Therefore, the fork manufacturer needs to give me millions of dollars.
Okay. Consider the office disgraced and degraded. Can we move on now?
Like when Thomas Jefferson was banging his slaves? Like when JFK was banging sluts? Like when LBJ was showing everybody his dick? Like when Bill Clinton was using his intern as a humidor? "Dignity in the Office" has been the rare exception, not the rule.
Assume Trump raw dogged porn stars ten years ago. Now what? Impeach? What exactly do you want to happen over this?
Sexual assault claims / treatment of women
Oh no Trump called fat women and fat and banged sluts. Who the hell cares?
Tax records
No one cares.
Treatment of immigrants
Illegal immigrants and their anchor babies who should all be catapulted across the border.
Cops murdering black people
I think you mean "law enforcement officers defending themselves from thugs."
Gun control and NRA campaign donations
The whole "NRA money boogyman" thing is bizarre. You think if the NRA vanished everybody would be like "well, time to shred the 2nd amendment and give up our guns!' If NARAL dissolved, would pro-choice people suddenly want to ban abortions?
Transgender ban in the military
The military needs fit, sane-ish soldiers to kill people and break things. If you have flat feet, you don't get in. Trannies have a serious medical condition. Either it's a physical thing where their body is fucked up and has an extra (or missing) penis, requiring surgery to correct, or they're fucked in the head and think they're the wrong sex. Either way, they shouldn't be in the military. Also, almost half of them commit suicide. Maybe giving them guns is a bad idea..?
Adultery and illegal campaign contributions to cover it up
lol no one cares about your phoney moral preening.
No, AniMojo's objection was about CA harvesting of the data of your friends. Yet you sign up for Obama's stuff and he takes your friends' data. It's the same thing.
But in the ToS that no-one read it said it would grab your private data AND the private data of your friends.
That last bit is definitely illegal.
That's just part of FaceBook's API. Is FaceBook's API that allows a user to grant access to their friends list illegal?
You can't agree to give up personal data on behalf of your friends.
Here's what the Obama campaign did in 2012:
Every time an individual volunteers to help out – for instance by offering to host a fundraising party for the president – he or she will be asked to log onto the re-election website with their Facebook credentials. That in turn will engage Facebook Connect, the digital interface that shares a user's personal information with a third party.
Consciously or otherwise, the individual volunteer will be injecting all the information they store publicly on their Facebook page – home location, date of birth, interests and, crucially, network of friends – directly into the central Obama database.
"If you log in with Facebook, now the campaign has connected you with all your relationships," a digital campaign organiser who has worked on behalf of Obama says.
The only thing I can see that CA did differently than the Obama campaign is that they (allegedly) told FB it was for "research" but in fact used it for commercial purposes. So if you're mad at CA for violating FB's TOS and want to make sure Zuck gets his cheddar, then okay, that's fair. But if it's all just "conservative politicians are using social media to target political advertisements is evil!" then it's just more partisan selective outrage.
The significance of the fusion of Facebook and voter file data is hard to overemphasise. "This is the Moneyball moment for politics," says Sam Graham-Felsen, Obama's chief blogger in 2008. "If you can figure out how to leverage the power of friendship, that opens up incredible possibilities."
Obama does it: "We're leveraging the power of friendship!"
Trump does it: "Insidious fascist psychological warfare!!"
El oh el.
What's a "per capita?"
This maybe? I don't really see the difference between CA getting your data because you're friends with someone who took a survey and Obama getting your data because you're friends with someone who signed up for their campaign. At the end of the day, the political campaigns have your data because of stuff people you maybe know did, but you sure didn't give Obama or CA your info.
It does seem CA got the data through violating FaceBook's TOS, but as far as harvesting your friends and targeting ads...that's what FaceBook does. And political ads are no different, and Obama did the same thing in 2012 and it was lauded as breaking new ground in political engagement.
Every time an individual volunteers to help out – for instance by offering to host a fundraising party for the president – he or she will be asked to log onto the re-election website with their Facebook credentials. That in turn will engage Facebook Connect, the digital interface that shares a user's personal information with a third party.
Consciously or otherwise, the individual volunteer will be injecting all the information they store publicly on their Facebook page – home location, date of birth, interests and, crucially, network of friends – directly into the central Obama database.
"If you log in with Facebook, now the campaign has connected you with all your relationships," a digital campaign organiser who has worked on behalf of Obama says.
"And built models to exploit we knew about them and target their inner demons!" Sounds so scary. But when Obama did it it was all amazing friendship technology!!
Every time an individual volunteers to help out – for instance by offering to host a fundraising party for the president – he or she will be asked to log onto the re-election website with their Facebook credentials. That in turn will engage Facebook Connect, the digital interface that shares a user's personal information with a third party.
Consciously or otherwise, the individual volunteer will be injecting all the information they store publicly on their Facebook page – home location, date of birth, interests and, crucially, network of friends – directly into the central Obama database.
"If you log in with Facebook, now the campaign has connected you with all your relationships," a digital campaign organiser who has worked on behalf of Obama says.