Okay, put up or shut up. Name one person who negligently got small amounts of classified data where it shouldn't be and faced serious criminal prosecution. The most I've seen was a misdemeanor charge that was dropped.
The sailor deliberately took pictures of the submarine. This isn't negligence. This was a deliberate action, and presumably known to be illegal at the time.
I don't know what the law says exactly, but I do know how the cases are usually handled. Deliberately put classified material where it doesn't belong and you get seriously prosecuted. Do that negligently and you aren't.
In the cases I've looked at, Politifact provides explanations of why they rule the way they do, and you can examine them and check on them if you like. This isn't the same as being unbiased, but the difference in truthfulness they record between Clinton and Trump can't be explained by any sort of subtle bias that would stand up to examination.
You're still not getting it. It's not the cost of the ID (although that is a further barrier in some cases). It's the difficulty in getting it. Declaring that the voter ID must be free doesn't imply that there will be offices in easy-to-get-to places that are open outside normal work hours.
In all the cases I am aware of, voter ID in the US has been set up as a way of disenfranchising people, and if the Republicans are capable of getting voter ID through they're capable of tailoring voter ID requirements to favor groups that normally vote Republican.
If you don't want black people to be coddled as you say, then stop coddling them with "you can't do it without white people's help" attitude.
How about "you can't do it against the opposition of rich white unscrupulous people"? Voter ID laws are normally meant to make it artificially hard for some people to vote.
Yeah, the post you're replying to had some mistakes.
For "minority", read "poor". Poor people tend to vote Democrat a lot, and blacks are disproportionately poor (for reasons I'm declaring out of scope here).
I drive to work daily, and have a job that easily supports that rather expensive commute. My wife and I own a house. We're well above average in income and net worth, and so I've got a valid ID and other ways of establishing who I am. There was a time when I didn't drive, because I could get to work and back on public transport (can't do that with this job). I really did not have acceptable government ID. The closest I had was my student ID from the U of Minnesota, and that's not something a poor person would be likely to have. I think it's very reasonable to expect poor people to lack acceptable ID in much larger numbers.
The fact that voter ID laws have come with proposals to make it hard to get valid IDs if you live in a black neighborhood is pretty well established. I'm not claiming anyone's being racist here, but blacks vote Democrat in very large numbers, and hence Republicans want to discriminate against them.
You say that Hispanics in this country illegally can get ID, and that may well be true in many places. It isn't true in all, and it isn't likely to be true in a state that's using voter ID laws against blacks (as a proxy for Democrats). Where voter ID is used to keep blacks from voting, it's safe to think that it won't be easy to get an ID.
So, the Democrats want to avoid a practice that typically hinders blacks from voting, which may be due to a lack of racism or a more practical concern that they'd lose votes. There's nothing racist about that.
What's so important about voter ID? There's plenty of ways to illegally influence elections, and having individual people vote multiple times seems like a very inefficient way to do it. There are other ways, such as making it difficult to be eligible to vote, or sending out blanket lists of possible felons, or providing insufficient polling opportunities to poor and/or black neighborhoods. Voter ID doesn't stop any of these. It stops people from going from precinct to precinct, claiming to be different registered voters at each polling place, and given reasonable polling place observers that's a fairly dangerous way to cast extra votes.
And this is out of the ordinary in what way? International politics tends to be uglier even than party politics. Also, we didn't have that much influence in Syria, and a lot of unforeseen things happened, not all of which were our fault.
We simply don't know what would have happened in such a volatile area of the world if we'd done something else. I'm not saying this was the right decision, but I really can't say it was the wrong one.
The Iraq war was not about WMD. That was an excuse.
If it was about WMD, then either the known facts would have justified it or Bush would not have launched the invasion. There would have been no need to distort what was known the way Bush and Cheney did. Get a copy of Powell's book "It Worked For Me". For this purpose, I suggest the audiobook read by Powell. Near the end, he discusses the situation in which he gave his speech supporting going to war, why he did it, and the disgust in his voice is unmistakable. It's not surprising that anyone in Congress would have supported the invasion, since they did not know what was going on and had some justification in believing the Bush/Cheney line.
What we found in Iraq was remnants of programs from earlier, not any actual threats.
Someone who obviously and blatantly disregards one law will do so with others.
Which would explain the waves of violent crime caused by Pirate Bay users, right? Lots of people on Slashdot are openly contemptuous of copyright law, so they must be dangerous, right?
People think of laws in different categories. Someone with multiple terabytes of illegally downloaded stuff isn't particularly more likely to be a murderer. Someone who violates zoning laws is not particularly likely to be a burglar.
First, we're always going to have some level of corruption going on, and we have to deal with that. Saying that Party A has some level of corruption is pretty useless, without having some idea of what a minimum achievable level would be, and comparing Party A and Party B is useful in judging that. Context is everything.
Second, if Party A was corrupt and Party B wasn't, we'd have a fairly easy problem to address. If both are corrupt to some extent, we've got a much harder problem that can't be addressed simply by voting for the good party and not the bad one.
In this case, someone is pointing out unsavory things in Party A, and it's very easy for people to think those things don't happen in other parties. Large-scale politics is a dirty business of necessity, dirtier than people like to think.
You're making some very strong claims there and offering no support. If we can make self-driving vehicles that are at least as safe as the average driver (they'll do some things better and some worse), there will be a LOT of pressure on lawmakers to make them legal. We're seeing some scattered changed in the law currently.
My last IQ test was on a scale with 100 as mean and standard deviation of 15, so "most people have the same level of intelligence" translates to "about two-thirds of the population is between 85 and 115", which doesn't seem to be the same thing.
By "no legal relevance", I mean not relevant to the laws that the defendent is alleged to have broken. I agree that there have been deliberately unfair trials and abuses of the rules of evidence, etc., but the government would not need to do this to convict Snowden. Snowden violated the law in a major way, and there's plenty of evidence to support that. Given a perfectly fair trial, Snowden would be convicted on felony charges.
This is why I maintain that a pardon is the way to go, rather than screwing with trials to have them return the wrong verdicts.
The whole deal was about sex, until Clinton lied under oath, and the media kept on about the sex (sex sells, after all). As far as I can tell, the Jones suit should have been dismissed early on, and bringing Lewinski in was the equivalent of slut-shaming a woman as opposed to providing evidence. I know more or less what Jones claimed, and it didn't amount to a violation of the law. I consider that the trial proved that Clinton can be a real jerk, but that's not in fact illegal.
Sexual harassment laws forbade basing any employment decisions (hiring, getting promotions or raises, getting fired or demoted, etc.) on sexual favors, which Jones did not claim happened. They also forbade a sexually hostile work environment, which is another thing Jones didn't claim.
From what I've seen, the intelligence services are tools that the Bush administration misused to justify invading Iraq. They were pressed to come up with results Cheney liked, and Cheney misused what he got from them. Just because something can be misused doesn't mean it's corrupt or can't be useful.
If you take a look at the two parties, they differ on a lot of issues, including health care, abortion, equal rights for people with nonstandard sexuality, social programs, and the role of government in the US. They agree on many issues, including some I disagree with, but that's how it's going to be with the two-party system our election processes implicitly mandate. The court system (and the Federal courts in particular are pretty independent) pays attention to the Constitution, although as before I don't agree with all their rulings.
The US is a reasonably functional democracy, far from perfect, but far from being a dictatorship.
It's a matter of how likely it is that checking a reference is worth my time. One maintaining that the EM drive people are testing is a reactionless drive isn't. One maintaining that dark matter is WIMPs of a certain sort might well be.
In this case, I've seen case after case of global warming denialists libeling scientists and quibbling about minor details as if that invalidates the whole thing that I've come to expect everything called opposition to be pointless denialism, in much the same way that I take accusations against Clintons to be overblown and likely unfounded.
I looked at the first cite you gave, the blogspot.ca one. It shows graphs, but they cover two cities only, which is a very small part of the world. The GHCN site does give a quick explanation of how the adjustments are made, but it looks algorithmic rather than by hand, and so the individual adjustments are not going to be explained in detail. The proper check would seem to be to compare these raw vs. adjusted graphs with surrounding areas, and those are not provided. Since the GHCN does provide a reference to how adjustments are done, it would seem desirable to either address the method or do the calculations to verify that the adjustments are in fact what are claimed, and look into the detailed history of the stations. Instead, the blog makes a common-sense guess as to how the adjustments should be made, and assumes that adjustments to the contrary must be wrong. (In all of this, I've assumed that the blog author is being honest, but it would take a sizable effort to check this, and from experience a lot of people arguing against AGW lie.)
So, it notes two interesting anomalies, one of which is counterintuitive, and asks for explanations that cannot be provided without considering the adjustment method and larger data sets as a whole. The sidebar makes claims that appear really dubious to me, since it isn't clear to me that the medieval warming period was a global phenomenon, and the decrease in Arctic sea ice is pretty drastic.
Unfortunately, there are people who are sexually turned on by children, and some of them are evil. This led to child pornography being a hot issue, and it unfortunately included child nudity as part of the reaction. The picture is legal under the CP laws I've looked at, but different places have different CP definitions, and they aren't all intelligent.
The safest thing for something like Facebook to do is to disallow child nudity under any circumstances. Sad but true.
Mainstream news, which included TV stations, radio stations, newspapers, and magazines, generally adhered to a sort of shared worldview, which included different views within limits. There were other publications that roughly corresponded to modern bloggers, and were considered about as reliable. I remember reading one, doubting what it said, and wondering how I could possibly verify what it said. They were useless for getting non-mainstream views to large numbers of people. In other words, news was generally in a totally walled environment controlled by corporations, and the only way to get something widely known was to have the backing of one or more of those corporations.
I figure I have a normal on-grid life, and so they're not likely to notice if I do something different, as long as it doesn't involve bringing my phone or credit cards.
Odd. I've kept iPhones longer than two years, and have decided not to upgrade to the latest iOS they'd let me upgrade to. I wasn't nagged at all. I think there was a selection that meant something like "I'm not going to upgrade, so shut up about it", but I don't remember the details.
They still sell the 6S Plus, probably cheaper than last month.
Slashdot Mirror
Okay, put up or shut up. Name one person who negligently got small amounts of classified data where it shouldn't be and faced serious criminal prosecution. The most I've seen was a misdemeanor charge that was dropped.
The sailor deliberately took pictures of the submarine. This isn't negligence. This was a deliberate action, and presumably known to be illegal at the time.
I don't know what the law says exactly, but I do know how the cases are usually handled. Deliberately put classified material where it doesn't belong and you get seriously prosecuted. Do that negligently and you aren't.
In the cases I've looked at, Politifact provides explanations of why they rule the way they do, and you can examine them and check on them if you like. This isn't the same as being unbiased, but the difference in truthfulness they record between Clinton and Trump can't be explained by any sort of subtle bias that would stand up to examination.
You're still not getting it. It's not the cost of the ID (although that is a further barrier in some cases). It's the difficulty in getting it. Declaring that the voter ID must be free doesn't imply that there will be offices in easy-to-get-to places that are open outside normal work hours.
In all the cases I am aware of, voter ID in the US has been set up as a way of disenfranchising people, and if the Republicans are capable of getting voter ID through they're capable of tailoring voter ID requirements to favor groups that normally vote Republican.
How about "you can't do it against the opposition of rich white unscrupulous people"? Voter ID laws are normally meant to make it artificially hard for some people to vote.
Yeah, the post you're replying to had some mistakes.
For "minority", read "poor". Poor people tend to vote Democrat a lot, and blacks are disproportionately poor (for reasons I'm declaring out of scope here).
I drive to work daily, and have a job that easily supports that rather expensive commute. My wife and I own a house. We're well above average in income and net worth, and so I've got a valid ID and other ways of establishing who I am. There was a time when I didn't drive, because I could get to work and back on public transport (can't do that with this job). I really did not have acceptable government ID. The closest I had was my student ID from the U of Minnesota, and that's not something a poor person would be likely to have. I think it's very reasonable to expect poor people to lack acceptable ID in much larger numbers.
The fact that voter ID laws have come with proposals to make it hard to get valid IDs if you live in a black neighborhood is pretty well established. I'm not claiming anyone's being racist here, but blacks vote Democrat in very large numbers, and hence Republicans want to discriminate against them.
You say that Hispanics in this country illegally can get ID, and that may well be true in many places. It isn't true in all, and it isn't likely to be true in a state that's using voter ID laws against blacks (as a proxy for Democrats). Where voter ID is used to keep blacks from voting, it's safe to think that it won't be easy to get an ID.
So, the Democrats want to avoid a practice that typically hinders blacks from voting, which may be due to a lack of racism or a more practical concern that they'd lose votes. There's nothing racist about that.
What's so important about voter ID? There's plenty of ways to illegally influence elections, and having individual people vote multiple times seems like a very inefficient way to do it. There are other ways, such as making it difficult to be eligible to vote, or sending out blanket lists of possible felons, or providing insufficient polling opportunities to poor and/or black neighborhoods. Voter ID doesn't stop any of these. It stops people from going from precinct to precinct, claiming to be different registered voters at each polling place, and given reasonable polling place observers that's a fairly dangerous way to cast extra votes.
Actually, I think a bunch of religious fanatics are responsible for ISIS.
And this is out of the ordinary in what way? International politics tends to be uglier even than party politics. Also, we didn't have that much influence in Syria, and a lot of unforeseen things happened, not all of which were our fault.
We simply don't know what would have happened in such a volatile area of the world if we'd done something else. I'm not saying this was the right decision, but I really can't say it was the wrong one.
The Iraq war was not about WMD. That was an excuse.
If it was about WMD, then either the known facts would have justified it or Bush would not have launched the invasion. There would have been no need to distort what was known the way Bush and Cheney did. Get a copy of Powell's book "It Worked For Me". For this purpose, I suggest the audiobook read by Powell. Near the end, he discusses the situation in which he gave his speech supporting going to war, why he did it, and the disgust in his voice is unmistakable. It's not surprising that anyone in Congress would have supported the invasion, since they did not know what was going on and had some justification in believing the Bush/Cheney line.
What we found in Iraq was remnants of programs from earlier, not any actual threats.
Which would explain the waves of violent crime caused by Pirate Bay users, right? Lots of people on Slashdot are openly contemptuous of copyright law, so they must be dangerous, right?
People think of laws in different categories. Someone with multiple terabytes of illegally downloaded stuff isn't particularly more likely to be a murderer. Someone who violates zoning laws is not particularly likely to be a burglar.
There's some things to consider.
First, we're always going to have some level of corruption going on, and we have to deal with that. Saying that Party A has some level of corruption is pretty useless, without having some idea of what a minimum achievable level would be, and comparing Party A and Party B is useful in judging that. Context is everything.
Second, if Party A was corrupt and Party B wasn't, we'd have a fairly easy problem to address. If both are corrupt to some extent, we've got a much harder problem that can't be addressed simply by voting for the good party and not the bad one.
In this case, someone is pointing out unsavory things in Party A, and it's very easy for people to think those things don't happen in other parties. Large-scale politics is a dirty business of necessity, dirtier than people like to think.
You're making some very strong claims there and offering no support. If we can make self-driving vehicles that are at least as safe as the average driver (they'll do some things better and some worse), there will be a LOT of pressure on lawmakers to make them legal. We're seeing some scattered changed in the law currently.
Not needed where I work. We have software that creates gcode for CNC mills to do the job of a tool and die maker. We have a few machinists still.
"Tool and Die Maker" was traditionally a highly skilled and lucrative job.
My last IQ test was on a scale with 100 as mean and standard deviation of 15, so "most people have the same level of intelligence" translates to "about two-thirds of the population is between 85 and 115", which doesn't seem to be the same thing.
Style and ease of use are at least partly subjective, and techies tend to have different perceptions of them than most of the population.
By "no legal relevance", I mean not relevant to the laws that the defendent is alleged to have broken. I agree that there have been deliberately unfair trials and abuses of the rules of evidence, etc., but the government would not need to do this to convict Snowden. Snowden violated the law in a major way, and there's plenty of evidence to support that. Given a perfectly fair trial, Snowden would be convicted on felony charges.
This is why I maintain that a pardon is the way to go, rather than screwing with trials to have them return the wrong verdicts.
The whole deal was about sex, until Clinton lied under oath, and the media kept on about the sex (sex sells, after all). As far as I can tell, the Jones suit should have been dismissed early on, and bringing Lewinski in was the equivalent of slut-shaming a woman as opposed to providing evidence. I know more or less what Jones claimed, and it didn't amount to a violation of the law. I consider that the trial proved that Clinton can be a real jerk, but that's not in fact illegal.
Sexual harassment laws forbade basing any employment decisions (hiring, getting promotions or raises, getting fired or demoted, etc.) on sexual favors, which Jones did not claim happened. They also forbade a sexually hostile work environment, which is another thing Jones didn't claim.
From what I've seen, the intelligence services are tools that the Bush administration misused to justify invading Iraq. They were pressed to come up with results Cheney liked, and Cheney misused what he got from them. Just because something can be misused doesn't mean it's corrupt or can't be useful.
If you take a look at the two parties, they differ on a lot of issues, including health care, abortion, equal rights for people with nonstandard sexuality, social programs, and the role of government in the US. They agree on many issues, including some I disagree with, but that's how it's going to be with the two-party system our election processes implicitly mandate. The court system (and the Federal courts in particular are pretty independent) pays attention to the Constitution, although as before I don't agree with all their rulings.
The US is a reasonably functional democracy, far from perfect, but far from being a dictatorship.
It's a matter of how likely it is that checking a reference is worth my time. One maintaining that the EM drive people are testing is a reactionless drive isn't. One maintaining that dark matter is WIMPs of a certain sort might well be.
In this case, I've seen case after case of global warming denialists libeling scientists and quibbling about minor details as if that invalidates the whole thing that I've come to expect everything called opposition to be pointless denialism, in much the same way that I take accusations against Clintons to be overblown and likely unfounded.
I looked at the first cite you gave, the blogspot.ca one. It shows graphs, but they cover two cities only, which is a very small part of the world. The GHCN site does give a quick explanation of how the adjustments are made, but it looks algorithmic rather than by hand, and so the individual adjustments are not going to be explained in detail. The proper check would seem to be to compare these raw vs. adjusted graphs with surrounding areas, and those are not provided. Since the GHCN does provide a reference to how adjustments are done, it would seem desirable to either address the method or do the calculations to verify that the adjustments are in fact what are claimed, and look into the detailed history of the stations. Instead, the blog makes a common-sense guess as to how the adjustments should be made, and assumes that adjustments to the contrary must be wrong. (In all of this, I've assumed that the blog author is being honest, but it would take a sizable effort to check this, and from experience a lot of people arguing against AGW lie.)
So, it notes two interesting anomalies, one of which is counterintuitive, and asks for explanations that cannot be provided without considering the adjustment method and larger data sets as a whole. The sidebar makes claims that appear really dubious to me, since it isn't clear to me that the medieval warming period was a global phenomenon, and the decrease in Arctic sea ice is pretty drastic.
So, I'm not impressed by this.
Are you sure the law in all major jurisdictions Facebook operates in doesn't define child pornography in a way that includes this photograph?
Clearly, it isn't CP by any reasonable definition. Not all legal definitions are reasonable.
Unfortunately, there are people who are sexually turned on by children, and some of them are evil. This led to child pornography being a hot issue, and it unfortunately included child nudity as part of the reaction. The picture is legal under the CP laws I've looked at, but different places have different CP definitions, and they aren't all intelligent.
The safest thing for something like Facebook to do is to disallow child nudity under any circumstances. Sad but true.
That's not how things worked back then, sonny.
Mainstream news, which included TV stations, radio stations, newspapers, and magazines, generally adhered to a sort of shared worldview, which included different views within limits. There were other publications that roughly corresponded to modern bloggers, and were considered about as reliable. I remember reading one, doubting what it said, and wondering how I could possibly verify what it said. They were useless for getting non-mainstream views to large numbers of people. In other words, news was generally in a totally walled environment controlled by corporations, and the only way to get something widely known was to have the backing of one or more of those corporations.
I figure I have a normal on-grid life, and so they're not likely to notice if I do something different, as long as it doesn't involve bringing my phone or credit cards.
That's why I tend not to upgrade my phones' OS as far as it will go.
Odd. I've kept iPhones longer than two years, and have decided not to upgrade to the latest iOS they'd let me upgrade to. I wasn't nagged at all. I think there was a selection that meant something like "I'm not going to upgrade, so shut up about it", but I don't remember the details.
They still sell the 6S Plus, probably cheaper than last month.