Your shooter analogy fails to meet the most sophomoric application of logic, for he would surely have been tried and convicted.
That's quite a sad statement that you have to fundamentally change my hypothetical in order to mock it.
Just in case you missed it (cough), my entire point is that in some cases, a person who the general populace would think "surely would have been tried and convicted" isn't, because... graft, politics, looking out for your own, and so on. You know, sorta like the story in that article I linked to, which, unsurprisingly, you haven't addressed. Your resort instead to a spew of mindless, ad hominem rhetoric speaks for itself.
The presumption of innocence says nothing about actual innocence unless the legal system prosecutes everyone equally. The link I posted above is one of many examples of how it doesn't. Appealing to the presumption of innocence for someone (a) who the FBI investigated and concluded met all the elements required for a felony conviction, but (b) who the justice system has no inclination and/or political will to prosecute, is meaningless.
Again, the term "convicted criminal" is not redundant. Think about it: A dude (we'll call him "Al") walks out on the sidewalk, pulls a.45 from his pocket, and starts shooting people in front of an audience of about 100. But because Al has the police and the mayor in his pocket, he's not charged for anything at all, much less murder. Al most certainly isn't a convicted criminal , but he most certainly is a criminal .
If the network has enough bandwidth the marginal cost of allowing additional calls within the network is a good approximation of zero. There is an upper cap to the amount of bandwidth a single phone can use for voice calling so once the network exceeds that capability there really is no reason to bill by the minute anymore.
This is one of those statements that's tantalizingly close to right in theory, but badly wrong in the real world.
First, wireless providers don't design systems to have oodles of unused bandwidth sitting around at any given time -- that would force them to charge subscribers more for no perceived benefit. So for a real-world system that is running close to capacity, an extended burst of voice traffic caused by a bunch of people making long phone calls all at the same time because... free (think about how people used to modify their calling behavior to get inside a cell provider's "free nights and weekends" envelope), is just about the furthest thing from "a good approximation of zero" you can get.
Second, the net effect on other data traffic is much worse than the voice data's actual percentage of the bandwidth, because the networks give voice traffic a higher priority because of latency requirements.
The net result of all this is that the cost of the data plans will have to factor in the increase in voice traffic due to unmetered voice calls -- there is no free lunch. Not surprisingly, TFA tells us that's exactly how it already works in India:
The world's second most populous nation, India, already has some of the cheapest voice calling plans but data remains expensive for most subscribers.
I'll be curious how the data rates for this new service actually pan out if/when its billionaire owner stops effectively subsidizing them.
The summary gloms together several parts of a fairly complex story to make a soundbite that sounds outrageous on the surface but really isn't.
TL;DR: John Doe pointed to an academic paper saying that most BitTorrent user identification used a less reliable method rather than a more reliable method; Malibu's expert said he used the more reliable method and made it even more reliable by actually receiving bits of Malibu's content from John Doe's IP address; judge said, "nice try, John Doe, but since Malibu isn't using the method you presented the paper to cast doubt on, you've cast doubt on nothing."
1. John Doe argues that Malibu shouldn't be allowed to subpoena Verizon at all because the fact that his IP address was part of a torrent swarm isn't proof that John Doe was actually sharing Malibu's content. 2. John Doe presents as evidence a University of Washington paper that discusses two methods, one which the authors say is unreliable and allows spoofing of IP addresses (just connecting to the tracker and pulling the list of IP addresses associated with the torrent) and one which they say is more conclusive (directly connecting to a given IP address and exchanging data with its BitTorrent client). 3. Malibu's expert testified that he used the method the author of the papers said was more conclusive, and that directly connecting to John Doe's IP address and receiving pieces of one of Malibu's films proved that John Doe's IP address wasn't being spoofed [this was where he used the "not possible" language]. 4. The judge said: "Because Excipio employs the exact method that the University of Washington Paper recommends to identify copyright infringers, Defendant’s argument that “the common approach for identifying infringing users in the popular BitTorrent file sharing network is inconclusive” lacks merit."
It'll only take one false positive to introduce reasonable doubt. . . . Their attorneys should be able to easily push back on this; why haven't they?
Probably because their attorneys are... well, you know, attorneys, and thus they know that the burden of proof in a civil case isn't beyond a reasonable doubt. It's generally preponderance of the evidence, which means at least 50.0000001% likely.
This has nothing to do with Pokemon Go -- the dude wasn't even playing at the time. This is about someone in the car focusing on something other than driving. We don't have big screaming headlines like "14,328th confirmed death involving food" after someone takes their eyes off the road while fishing for the last fry in the bottom of the bag. ObMarkTwain:
“Well, ther’ ain’t no sense in it. A body might stump his toe, and take pison, and fall down the well, and break his neck, and bust his brains out, and somebody come along and ask what killed him, and some numskull up and say, ’Why, he stumped his TOE.’ Would ther’ be any sense in that? NO."
everyone who works for the government is incompetent, and business is *always* competent, and libertidiots are *sure* of this
How about: Governmental bureaucracies generally reward tenure over competence, and competitive businesses generally reward competence over tenure (for businesses where competition is reduced or eliminated through cozying up to governmental bureaucracies, all bets are off). Only those desperate to continue sucking off the governmental tit or otherwise sticking their heads in the sand pretend to doubt this.
AND our tax dollars are not only being spent to pay me, but also my direct manager, and his manager, and so on up
You can't honestly believe that governmental bureaucracies aren't filled with endless layers of middle management. Do those get paid out of the Magic Money Tree(TM)?
Oh, wow. Dude. You can throw out incoherent insults. Everything else you said must be right 'n' stuff.
That being the case, here's what you should do immediately if not sooner: Design it yourself, sell hundreds of thousands, and retire a billionaire by age 17. I'll be looking for the Kickstarter project for a 128-axis motion controller any day now. LOLOLOLOL
Is it credible that she - who appears to have been rather incompetent with her email server - has managed to eradicate only the really bad bits out of how many emails and documents?
Who said she eradicated only the really bad bits? There almost certainly are a lot of benign work-related emails that were deleted as well.
And why does it surprise you the results were scrubbed clean? Her people had over two years after the first FOIA request to go through them before she finally released them. And you don't exactly have to be a rocket scientist to make extra sure you didn't miss any by searching for all the standardized classification tags, terms like "Clinton Foundation," and a shortlist of no-no email addresses, now do you?
Looked it up: "adj: of or relating to a crime. Syn: unlawful, illegal, illicit, lawless, felonious, delinquent, fraudulent, actionable, culpable." I suspect that's exactly what the OP (and most non-trolls) think "criminal" means.
There's a very straightforward explanation here, by a career federal prosecutor. Spoiler:
There is no way of getting around this: According to Director James Comey (disclosure: a former colleague and longtime friend of mine), Hillary Clinton checked every box required for a felony violation of Section 793(f) of the federal penal code (Title 18): With lawful access to highly classified information she acted with gross negligence in removing and causing it to be removed it from its proper place of custody, and she transmitted it and caused it to be transmitted to others not authorized to have it, in patent violation of her trust.
And that's just taking Comey's story at face value and ignoring any less charitable explanations (as well as any of the more recent revelations since he made his statement).
Because of course those are the only two choices -- "some blinking moving light can" or some massively overengineered boondoggle that has zero real-world applications.
128 motors asynchronously; with position feed back for each. 1024 16-bit input asynchronous sensors. Maybe, just maybe, the H1B's at Intel should learn to start eating red meat.
Maybe, just maybe, they want to sell more than 3 of them?
Good grief, bro. You know what I find even more ironic? Your unhealthy obsession with trying to prove me wrong is over an opinion I expressed about a completely hypothetical scenario. Ever notice how the OP didn't respond to my very polite request for support that there's actually a widespread requirement for cabbies to be CPR certified? That smelled like bullshit from the beginning, and apparently it is.
Your DNR straw man you keep trying to shove down my throat is bullshit as well. You sound like a really smart guy, so I'm sure you can reason through (and probably write a book-length post about) the difference between a population of people who have chosen to get CPR certified and/or have chosen to work in helping professions, and a population of people who largely just want to drive a car and could give a shit less about CPR but have been forced to take it by box-checking bureaucrats. If you've actually been through first responder training, you should well understand that people who don't know and/or don't care about what they're doing can actually leave you worse off.
And on top of that, your downright creepy contention that CPR certification somehow gives you the right to just wait for someone who is actively denying consent to pass out, and then do whatever the fuck you want to them anyway, just further proves that we should not be manufacturing mass plausible deniability (er, I mean, requiring mass certification) for arbitrary groups of people.
It's clear by now that you're one of those "last word" trolls, so knock yourself out.
I see you were very careful not to quote or allude to the very first words from my post: "To each their own." Hopefully your sarcastic little rant about my own personal preferences made you feel better, morally superior, or whatever it is that keeps you ticking. In any case, I find your response rather ironic in the context of the broader discussion about what decisions government should universally make for people (you know, the part you flatly ignored). Happy trails, friend.
To each their own -- hopefully the cabbie cartels where you live also mandate face shields. I think I'd rather everyone just stick with their core competency and have the driver (who is already presumably rolling down the road with me in the car) reroute to someone who does life-saving measures for a living and has the proper equipment. Particularly given the questionable effectiveness of CPR in the first place.
But on a higher level, there seems to me to be a lot of airspace between preferring that someone to be around that is certified for CPR and the government mandating that people providing a service to you are certified for CPR. That same principle would seem to require, for example, all employees of retail stores to be CPR certified just in case you have a heart attack while shopping. And then why not require everyone to have an AED on hand too, just in case? Huge slippery slope.
I could count on the fingers of one hand the number of cabbies I've had who I would want to perform CPR on me. Probably still could after an amputation or two. This seems like no great loss.
But in any event, I've looked around a bit and see no suggestion at all of a widespread CPR requirement for cab drivers. Have a source?
Hate? Nah. But I do tend to feel pity for people with such reduced capacity that they (a) can't or don't know how to make a cogent argument and thus just mindlessly cheer for "their team," and (b) dissolve into incomprehensible, name-calling rants when asked a basic question about their mindless cheering.
Just to put the rattle back on the high chair one last time:
1. I said nothing whatsoever about Trump.
2. You said something about Hillary.
3. I asked you to justify what you said.
4. You melted down.
See, this isn't particularly difficult if you're being even vaguely intellectually honest. The very premise of your inflammatory question is false, and it's up to you to show otherwise. To wit:
she is clearly well qualified to be president and the Donald is clearly fundamentally not qualified
To which multiple people very politely asked, "how is she clearly well qualified?"
And to which you first replied with vacuous rhetoric, then, when that was pointed out, simply pounded the table.
It's clear that you can offer no objective, measurable data points to justify why Hillary is even vaguely qualified, much less well qualified, to be president. This is not surprising.
However, her greatest and most obvious accomplishment was cleaning up a small part of the international mess left behind by Dubya and the big dick Cheney.
That's a bit vague, isn't it? What actual tangible acts and outcomes are you referring to?
The first wind turbines were installed in Denmark 25 years ago, and are still operational. So they last at least 25 years.
Putting aside the fact that the plural^W singular of anecdote does not suddenly become data just because... green, your very own link shows that "last" is a meaningless term in a vacuum:
In 2016, DONG Energy considered shutting down the wind farm, as it is well past its design life and had become uneconomical.
Ahh, so when your argument is demonstrated to be false
You must have a very creative definition of the word "demonstrated" -- or did you perhaps mean to say "semi-incoherently argued without a shred of support"? I'm happy to engage with facts and evidence -- not so much with conclusory conspiracy theories.
And as far as ad hominem goes, you might consider that your own "amazingly well thought out reply" [cough] labeled me "gullible" and accused me of "attempting to spread opinions based on ignorance." Apparently you're one of those special little snowflakes that can freely dish it out but can't take it.
My friend, you clearly have a well-established opinion about all this, so I'll not waste any more of my time trying to persuade you otherwise. But my answer -- which is both legally and factually accurate whether or not it fits your ill-informed worldview -- stands. Now run down to Wally World and stock up before China confiscates all the tin foil.
Slashdot Mirror
If you don't pay your taxes, there doesn't need to be a judge or trial to collect those back taxes
So if some politicians whip up the mob into enough of a frenzy by claiming you've done something wrong, no due process for you. Got it.
Your shooter analogy fails to meet the most sophomoric application of logic, for he would surely have been tried and convicted.
That's quite a sad statement that you have to fundamentally change my hypothetical in order to mock it.
Just in case you missed it (cough), my entire point is that in some cases, a person who the general populace would think "surely would have been tried and convicted" isn't, because... graft, politics, looking out for your own, and so on. You know, sorta like the story in that article I linked to, which, unsurprisingly, you haven't addressed. Your resort instead to a spew of mindless, ad hominem rhetoric speaks for itself.
The presumption of innocence says nothing about actual innocence unless the legal system prosecutes everyone equally. The link I posted above is one of many examples of how it doesn't. Appealing to the presumption of innocence for someone (a) who the FBI investigated and concluded met all the elements required for a felony conviction, but (b) who the justice system has no inclination and/or political will to prosecute, is meaningless.
Again, the term "convicted criminal" is not redundant. Think about it: A dude (we'll call him "Al") walks out on the sidewalk, pulls a .45 from his pocket, and starts shooting people in front of an audience of about 100. But because Al has the police and the mayor in his pocket, he's not charged for anything at all, much less murder. Al most certainly isn't a convicted criminal , but he most certainly is a criminal .
Deliver evidence of a successful prosecution
That's an irrelevant strawman given that OP said "criminal," not "convicted criminal." You can read a fine example of that distinction here.
Google Chrome Begins Warns Users
Come on, manishs, I know it's after beer thirty on a holiday weekend, but good grief -- this would take about 30 seconds to fix.
If the network has enough bandwidth the marginal cost of allowing additional calls within the network is a good approximation of zero. There is an upper cap to the amount of bandwidth a single phone can use for voice calling so once the network exceeds that capability there really is no reason to bill by the minute anymore.
This is one of those statements that's tantalizingly close to right in theory, but badly wrong in the real world.
First, wireless providers don't design systems to have oodles of unused bandwidth sitting around at any given time -- that would force them to charge subscribers more for no perceived benefit. So for a real-world system that is running close to capacity, an extended burst of voice traffic caused by a bunch of people making long phone calls all at the same time because... free (think about how people used to modify their calling behavior to get inside a cell provider's "free nights and weekends" envelope), is just about the furthest thing from "a good approximation of zero" you can get.
Second, the net effect on other data traffic is much worse than the voice data's actual percentage of the bandwidth, because the networks give voice traffic a higher priority because of latency requirements.
The net result of all this is that the cost of the data plans will have to factor in the increase in voice traffic due to unmetered voice calls -- there is no free lunch. Not surprisingly, TFA tells us that's exactly how it already works in India:
The world's second most populous nation, India, already has some of the cheapest voice calling plans but data remains expensive for most subscribers.
I'll be curious how the data rates for this new service actually pan out if/when its billionaire owner stops effectively subsidizing them.
The summary gloms together several parts of a fairly complex story to make a soundbite that sounds outrageous on the surface but really isn't.
TL;DR: John Doe pointed to an academic paper saying that most BitTorrent user identification used a less reliable method rather than a more reliable method; Malibu's expert said he used the more reliable method and made it even more reliable by actually receiving bits of Malibu's content from John Doe's IP address; judge said, "nice try, John Doe, but since Malibu isn't using the method you presented the paper to cast doubt on, you've cast doubt on nothing."
1. John Doe argues that Malibu shouldn't be allowed to subpoena Verizon at all because the fact that his IP address was part of a torrent swarm isn't proof that John Doe was actually sharing Malibu's content.
2. John Doe presents as evidence a University of Washington paper that discusses two methods, one which the authors say is unreliable and allows spoofing of IP addresses (just connecting to the tracker and pulling the list of IP addresses associated with the torrent) and one which they say is more conclusive (directly connecting to a given IP address and exchanging data with its BitTorrent client).
3. Malibu's expert testified that he used the method the author of the papers said was more conclusive, and that directly connecting to John Doe's IP address and receiving pieces of one of Malibu's films proved that John Doe's IP address wasn't being spoofed [this was where he used the "not possible" language].
4. The judge said: "Because Excipio employs the exact method that the University of Washington Paper recommends to identify copyright infringers, Defendant’s argument that “the common approach for identifying infringing users in the popular BitTorrent file sharing network is inconclusive” lacks merit."
It'll only take one false positive to introduce reasonable doubt. . . . Their attorneys should be able to easily push back on this; why haven't they?
Probably because their attorneys are... well, you know, attorneys, and thus they know that the burden of proof in a civil case isn't beyond a reasonable doubt. It's generally preponderance of the evidence, which means at least 50.0000001% likely.
This has nothing to do with Pokemon Go -- the dude wasn't even playing at the time. This is about someone in the car focusing on something other than driving. We don't have big screaming headlines like "14,328th confirmed death involving food" after someone takes their eyes off the road while fishing for the last fry in the bottom of the bag. ObMarkTwain:
“Well, ther’ ain’t no sense in it. A body might stump his toe, and take pison, and fall down the well, and break his neck, and bust his brains out, and somebody come along and ask what killed him, and some numskull up and say, ’Why, he stumped his TOE.’ Would ther’ be any sense in that? NO."
everyone who works for the government is incompetent, and business is *always* competent, and libertidiots are *sure* of this
How about: Governmental bureaucracies generally reward tenure over competence, and competitive businesses generally reward competence over tenure (for businesses where competition is reduced or eliminated through cozying up to governmental bureaucracies, all bets are off). Only those desperate to continue sucking off the governmental tit or otherwise sticking their heads in the sand pretend to doubt this.
AND our tax dollars are not only being spent to pay me, but also my direct manager, and his manager, and so on up
You can't honestly believe that governmental bureaucracies aren't filled with endless layers of middle management. Do those get paid out of the Magic Money Tree(TM)?
Oh, wow. Dude. You can throw out incoherent insults. Everything else you said must be right 'n' stuff.
That being the case, here's what you should do immediately if not sooner: Design it yourself, sell hundreds of thousands, and retire a billionaire by age 17. I'll be looking for the Kickstarter project for a 128-axis motion controller any day now. LOLOLOLOL
Is it credible that she - who appears to have been rather incompetent with her email server - has managed to eradicate only the really bad bits out of how many emails and documents?
Who said she eradicated only the really bad bits? There almost certainly are a lot of benign work-related emails that were deleted as well.
And why does it surprise you the results were scrubbed clean? Her people had over two years after the first FOIA request to go through them before she finally released them. And you don't exactly have to be a rocket scientist to make extra sure you didn't miss any by searching for all the standardized classification tags, terms like "Clinton Foundation," and a shortlist of no-no email addresses, now do you?
Looked it up: "adj: of or relating to a crime. Syn: unlawful, illegal, illicit, lawless, felonious, delinquent, fraudulent, actionable, culpable." I suspect that's exactly what the OP (and most non-trolls) think "criminal" means.
There's a very straightforward explanation here, by a career federal prosecutor. Spoiler:
There is no way of getting around this: According to Director James Comey (disclosure: a former colleague and longtime friend of mine), Hillary Clinton checked every box required for a felony violation of Section 793(f) of the federal penal code (Title 18) : With lawful access to highly classified information she acted with gross negligence in removing and causing it to be removed it from its proper place of custody, and she transmitted it and caused it to be transmitted to others not authorized to have it, in patent violation of her trust.
And that's just taking Comey's story at face value and ignoring any less charitable explanations (as well as any of the more recent revelations since he made his statement).
Because of course those are the only two choices -- "some blinking moving light can" or some massively overengineered boondoggle that has zero real-world applications.
128 motors asynchronously; with position feed back for each. 1024 16-bit input asynchronous sensors. Maybe, just maybe, the H1B's at Intel should learn to start eating red meat.
Maybe, just maybe, they want to sell more than 3 of them?
Good grief, bro. You know what I find even more ironic? Your unhealthy obsession with trying to prove me wrong is over an opinion I expressed about a completely hypothetical scenario. Ever notice how the OP didn't respond to my very polite request for support that there's actually a widespread requirement for cabbies to be CPR certified? That smelled like bullshit from the beginning, and apparently it is.
Your DNR straw man you keep trying to shove down my throat is bullshit as well. You sound like a really smart guy, so I'm sure you can reason through (and probably write a book-length post about) the difference between a population of people who have chosen to get CPR certified and/or have chosen to work in helping professions, and a population of people who largely just want to drive a car and could give a shit less about CPR but have been forced to take it by box-checking bureaucrats. If you've actually been through first responder training, you should well understand that people who don't know and/or don't care about what they're doing can actually leave you worse off.
And on top of that, your downright creepy contention that CPR certification somehow gives you the right to just wait for someone who is actively denying consent to pass out, and then do whatever the fuck you want to them anyway, just further proves that we should not be manufacturing mass plausible deniability (er, I mean, requiring mass certification) for arbitrary groups of people.
It's clear by now that you're one of those "last word" trolls, so knock yourself out.
I see you were very careful not to quote or allude to the very first words from my post: "To each their own." Hopefully your sarcastic little rant about my own personal preferences made you feel better, morally superior, or whatever it is that keeps you ticking. In any case, I find your response rather ironic in the context of the broader discussion about what decisions government should universally make for people (you know, the part you flatly ignored). Happy trails, friend.
To each their own -- hopefully the cabbie cartels where you live also mandate face shields. I think I'd rather everyone just stick with their core competency and have the driver (who is already presumably rolling down the road with me in the car) reroute to someone who does life-saving measures for a living and has the proper equipment. Particularly given the questionable effectiveness of CPR in the first place.
But on a higher level, there seems to me to be a lot of airspace between preferring that someone to be around that is certified for CPR and the government mandating that people providing a service to you are certified for CPR. That same principle would seem to require, for example, all employees of retail stores to be CPR certified just in case you have a heart attack while shopping. And then why not require everyone to have an AED on hand too, just in case? Huge slippery slope.
Mandatory CPR
I could count on the fingers of one hand the number of cabbies I've had who I would want to perform CPR on me. Probably still could after an amputation or two. This seems like no great loss.
But in any event, I've looked around a bit and see no suggestion at all of a widespread CPR requirement for cab drivers. Have a source?
Hate? Nah. But I do tend to feel pity for people with such reduced capacity that they (a) can't or don't know how to make a cogent argument and thus just mindlessly cheer for "their team," and (b) dissolve into incomprehensible, name-calling rants when asked a basic question about their mindless cheering.
Just to put the rattle back on the high chair one last time:
1. I said nothing whatsoever about Trump.
2. You said something about Hillary.
3. I asked you to justify what you said.
4. You melted down.
Buh bye, lil' troll. It's been real.
See, this isn't particularly difficult if you're being even vaguely intellectually honest. The very premise of your inflammatory question is false, and it's up to you to show otherwise. To wit:
she is clearly well qualified to be president and the Donald is clearly fundamentally not qualified
To which multiple people very politely asked, "how is she clearly well qualified?"
And to which you first replied with vacuous rhetoric, then, when that was pointed out, simply pounded the table.
It's clear that you can offer no objective, measurable data points to justify why Hillary is even vaguely qualified, much less well qualified, to be president. This is not surprising.
However, her greatest and most obvious accomplishment was cleaning up a small part of the international mess left behind by Dubya and the big dick Cheney.
That's a bit vague, isn't it? What actual tangible acts and outcomes are you referring to?
The first wind turbines were installed in Denmark 25 years ago, and are still operational. So they last at least 25 years.
Putting aside the fact that the plural^W singular of anecdote does not suddenly become data just because... green, your very own link shows that "last" is a meaningless term in a vacuum:
In 2016, DONG Energy considered shutting down the wind farm, as it is well past its design life and had become uneconomical.
Ahh, so when your argument is demonstrated to be false
You must have a very creative definition of the word "demonstrated" -- or did you perhaps mean to say "semi-incoherently argued without a shred of support"? I'm happy to engage with facts and evidence -- not so much with conclusory conspiracy theories.
And as far as ad hominem goes, you might consider that your own "amazingly well thought out reply" [cough] labeled me "gullible" and accused me of "attempting to spread opinions based on ignorance." Apparently you're one of those special little snowflakes that can freely dish it out but can't take it.
My friend, you clearly have a well-established opinion about all this, so I'll not waste any more of my time trying to persuade you otherwise. But my answer -- which is both legally and factually accurate whether or not it fits your ill-informed worldview -- stands. Now run down to Wally World and stock up before China confiscates all the tin foil.