I think you're mixing up two things here. One is whether or not Congress authorizing the use of military force in a foreign country is a declaration of war (Yes, it is. See my comment above, the Constitution, and various case law examples). The other is the definition of "time of war" according to the UCMJ, or other relevant laws.
I highly doubt (and a bit of research into use of the term during Courts Martial reinforces this) that if you abandon your post at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, while the US military is fighting a war halfway around the world, that anyone is going to consider it "desertion during a time of war". Even if there was a war on at the time.
Insurance is another good example. If a pipe bursts in your house, the insurance company isn't going to tell you, "Sorry, Congress just passed the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, and we don't cover damage during a time of war." The inverse is also true, damage could be sustained through an act of war (like a terrorist attack), without there being a declaration of war in place at the time.
So, using the legal definition of a "time of war" as a litmus test for whether or not the country had declared war makes no sense.
This is one of those nonsense things people say that simply isn't true.
A declaration of war is an act of Congress. People like to throw around the word "formal" as if that means something, i.e. that it doesn't count somehow if the act doesn't say "declaration of war" or a variation thereof. The Constitution mentions no specific form that the legislation must take, it simply says "Congress shall have the power to [...] declare war".
Since WWII, there have been Congressional acts passed for the Vietnam War, the Gulf War, and the Iraq War, to name a few.
No really.. I've never received a prompt to upgrade Windows 10. I looked at Windows Update and I'm up-to-date, there are optional updates but none of them mention Windows10.
So you have 10 batches of 100 widgets each. You do 100% testing on the first batch, and find 50 failures. Now, the question is what you can predict about the failure rates of the other 9 batches?
If the rate of failure is a normal distribution with a mean of 1/2, then you would expect around 450-550 failures total, with a 95% certainty. However, if the rate of failure is a decaying exponential, for example, then the first batch would have a much higher failure rate than subsequent batches, and you would not be able to make the same prediction. That's what I'm getting at.
PS: I realized as I wrote this out that it's different from the example given by hey! that I originally replied to. His example was 100 randomly selected from all 1000 widgets, not 100% testing of the first 100. My sampling method is essentially biased. However, this is often what's done in production; you start with a very high (maybe 100%) testing rate until your failure rate is below some threshold, and then select random samples to test at a much lower frequency.
Because the judge didn't say it's a stupid joke he said he didn't understand it.
Well, we don't know everything that he said, because the article stops that particular branch of dialog with that statement. I mean, did they just sit in silence after that? The statement, "That doesn't make any sense." can be interpreted in a few different ways, it doesn't necessarily mean "I don't understand the subject matter.", it could just as easily mean "I don't understand why they would do that."
Sure it can. I'm not talking about the number of possible outcomes in a given test (like you said, binary: pass and fail). What I'm talking about is the number of actual outcomes over many tests (how many failed in a given sample): 50 in the first 100, 35 in the second 100, 60 in the third, etc.
Also, TFA talks about this sound-byte quote, but what bearing is it really going to have on the case? What was said afterward? Did the judge simply shrug it off as a stupid joke and move on? My guess is probably, but of course that doesn't fit the narrative TFA is trying to get across.
We should have mechanisms to fix their judgement when they err on the side of being too lenient./quote.
No, we shouldn't. This is why our legal system is innocent until proven guilty, and why we have double jeopardy laws. It is specifically designed to err on the side of too lenient.
Similar thing in Islam, only the conditions are even less strict. Forget it's Ramadan and eat something? No problem, just fast the rest of the day. Accidentally eat something that had pork in it? Meh, don't worry about it.
the cell signal is causing the radio receiver circuit to heterodyne
Is that why? With older cell phones I remember many times hearing speakers (not connected to radios; tv speakers, computer speakers, etc.) make distinctive beeping noises. It sounded like someone was sending a telegram. Specifically, this was when someone nearby was about to receive a text message.
I always assumed it was just the speaker coils picking up some of the signal, causing spurious noise.
Not saying you're wrong, necessarily, but to the GP's point, there is added complexity to the system. While you say that the second key doesn't affect your key working, it does if you need the car and your spouse happens to be using it. Also, there's a second set of keys to keep track of, which could be lost or stolen and subsequently used to steal the car. So redundancy has added a new failure mode and increased the likelihood of an existing one.
Slashdot Mirror
I think you're mixing up two things here. One is whether or not Congress authorizing the use of military force in a foreign country is a declaration of war (Yes, it is. See my comment above, the Constitution, and various case law examples). The other is the definition of "time of war" according to the UCMJ, or other relevant laws.
I highly doubt (and a bit of research into use of the term during Courts Martial reinforces this) that if you abandon your post at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, while the US military is fighting a war halfway around the world, that anyone is going to consider it "desertion during a time of war". Even if there was a war on at the time.
Insurance is another good example. If a pipe bursts in your house, the insurance company isn't going to tell you, "Sorry, Congress just passed the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, and we don't cover damage during a time of war." The inverse is also true, damage could be sustained through an act of war (like a terrorist attack), without there being a declaration of war in place at the time.
So, using the legal definition of a "time of war" as a litmus test for whether or not the country had declared war makes no sense.
The US hasn't declared war since WWII.
This is one of those nonsense things people say that simply isn't true.
A declaration of war is an act of Congress. People like to throw around the word "formal" as if that means something, i.e. that it doesn't count somehow if the act doesn't say "declaration of war" or a variation thereof. The Constitution mentions no specific form that the legislation must take, it simply says "Congress shall have the power to [...] declare war".
Since WWII, there have been Congressional acts passed for the Vietnam War, the Gulf War, and the Iraq War, to name a few.
No really.. I've never received a prompt to upgrade Windows 10. I looked at Windows Update and I'm up-to-date, there are optional updates but none of them mention Windows10.
I feel left out. :(
Tonight at 11.
Sounds like Ginsberg's theorem on the Laws of Thermodynamics:
1st Law: You can't win.
2nd Law: You can't break even.
3rd Law: You can't quit the game.
So you're saying:
* Clever puns are not allowed?
Nope, I'm not.
The intelligent must pander to the whims of the stupid?
Funny, that's what I feel like I'm doing now... No, I didn't say that either.
Get off your high horse already.
Oh, the irony... Tell you what, let's joust; you on your horse, and me on my gnu. En garde!
So you have 10 batches of 100 widgets each. You do 100% testing on the first batch, and find 50 failures. Now, the question is what you can predict about the failure rates of the other 9 batches?
If the rate of failure is a normal distribution with a mean of 1/2, then you would expect around 450-550 failures total, with a 95% certainty. However, if the rate of failure is a decaying exponential, for example, then the first batch would have a much higher failure rate than subsequent batches, and you would not be able to make the same prediction. That's what I'm getting at.
PS: I realized as I wrote this out that it's different from the example given by hey! that I originally replied to. His example was 100 randomly selected from all 1000 widgets, not 100% testing of the first 100. My sampling method is essentially biased. However, this is often what's done in production; you start with a very high (maybe 100%) testing rate until your failure rate is below some threshold, and then select random samples to test at a much lower frequency.
Because the judge didn't say it's a stupid joke he said he didn't understand it.
Well, we don't know everything that he said, because the article stops that particular branch of dialog with that statement. I mean, did they just sit in silence after that? The statement, "That doesn't make any sense." can be interpreted in a few different ways, it doesn't necessarily mean "I don't understand the subject matter.", it could just as easily mean "I don't understand why they would do that."
Sure it can. I'm not talking about the number of possible outcomes in a given test (like you said, binary: pass and fail). What I'm talking about is the number of actual outcomes over many tests (how many failed in a given sample): 50 in the first 100, 35 in the second 100, 60 in the third, etc.
Also, TFA talks about this sound-byte quote, but what bearing is it really going to have on the case? What was said afterward? Did the judge simply shrug it off as a stupid joke and move on? My guess is probably, but of course that doesn't fit the narrative TFA is trying to get across.
summer humans
Oh, my sweet summer child...
you can by 95% certain that the number of defective widgets in the bin is between 450 and 550
I'm not a statistician by any means, but isn't that assuming a normal distribution?
Honestly, I think we made our beds, and now we're being forced to sleep in them.
ANY site that discusses politics has this happen to it IMMEDIATELY.
Really? I've never seen it happen here, and we discuss politics all the fucking time. In fact, That mountain is clearly a mole hill.
We should have mechanisms to fix their judgement when they err on the side of being too lenient./quote.
No, we shouldn't. This is why our legal system is innocent until proven guilty, and why we have double jeopardy laws. It is specifically designed to err on the side of too lenient.
Similar thing in Islam, only the conditions are even less strict. Forget it's Ramadan and eat something? No problem, just fast the rest of the day. Accidentally eat something that had pork in it? Meh, don't worry about it.
police spending too much time chasing after bootleggers
You're delusional if you think that was the only problem caused by prohibition.
they are a shrinking demographic
Probably a direct effect of not spending much time around women.
the cell signal is causing the radio receiver circuit to heterodyne
Is that why? With older cell phones I remember many times hearing speakers (not connected to radios; tv speakers, computer speakers, etc.) make distinctive beeping noises. It sounded like someone was sending a telegram. Specifically, this was when someone nearby was about to receive a text message.
I always assumed it was just the speaker coils picking up some of the signal, causing spurious noise.
Pinky
Narf!
The middle east caught fire in 2003, when we lit the fucking match ourselves.
Citation 3. [uber.com]
What?
Really? So what's the score now?
Bing: 1, Google: 434203234232368037061
Whatever happened to selling a product people want to buy without government aid?
You mean like houses? Oil and gas? Agriculture? Pharmaceuticals?
Not saying you're wrong, necessarily, but to the GP's point, there is added complexity to the system. While you say that the second key doesn't affect your key working, it does if you need the car and your spouse happens to be using it. Also, there's a second set of keys to keep track of, which could be lost or stolen and subsequently used to steal the car. So redundancy has added a new failure mode and increased the likelihood of an existing one.