They are being absurd. It's hard to see anybody at burning man using phones or internet devices for drug purchases and sales. You have 70,000 people in a signal-free desert, with the occasional wifi point. People are walking around in bright colors and costumes and interacting in real life.
Nevada treats the drug use that is there as a chance to extort recreational drug users from out-of-state. Basically (for most drug offenses) they catch a lot of nonviolent out-of-state offenders and offer the choice between a serious criminal conviction with a very low fine and a tiny conviction (maybe even a civil offense) if they pay a much larger fine.
Let's say it all together: Acquittal doesn't mean that the accuser lied. Just like in the vast majority of cases, rape is incredibly hard to prove. If they felt there was evidence that she lied, rather than insufficient evidence to prove "guilt beyond a reasonable doubt", then they would be trying her for making false charges - which, computer used or not, is usually a felony.
Regardless, I won't consider justice "blind" until "she consented to the sex" is treated by the same legal standard as a robbery defendant's claim "he consented to give me the money" - as an affirmative defense / defense theory.
Rape is easy to prove. If a woman or man is raped get themselves to a hospital for a rape kit. Then file charges and the police can obtain a warrant for DNA sample from the alleged rapist. No match? No charges filed and no record allowed. Any false reports filed should result in a criminal record for the liar.
Actually, NO. You are completely wrong. A huge portion of rape is date rape. In order to prove rape you don't just have to show DNA. There also has to be a lack of consent.
You also have the problem of mixed-messages, where without a clear standard of "what is necessary to show consent" it is *very* common to have two people have sex together where one thinks it's rape and the other doesn't. This is usually because a woman might feel like she already has said no by some protest which seems equivocal to a guy and he doesn't realize it's her saying no. If you aren't *clear*, then the result can very easily be rape according to her but not according to him.
As a friend often tells me, before the Civil War people would say "the United States are", and since the war they say "the United States is".
I suspect that's because of the Union/Northern Propaganda. Part of any war is figuring out the narrative to use to sell the war to your people, both the people fighting and the people undergoing hardship at home. While that's always been true on some level, it's been particularly important since the use of the longbow in 1415 at the battle of Agincourt. (Because at that point wealth and a small number of people was no longer sufficient to win a war--mass infantry and therefore control of public sentiment became necessary to field an army.)
We have been swinging the other way for some time now, because of automation, and democracy will become much less useful to the preservation of the state over time. I'll be surprised if it survives the next Millennium. We've been raised to like it, and it has a lot going for it, but it's too inefficient in its current form probably anywhere in the world.
In any event, today's common claim is that the Civil War was a fight "to preserve the Union," and while I don't see a contemporary reference to that propaganda in a quick google search, if that was part of the narrative then the shift to "The United States Is" was inevitable, and probably started as part of that campaign.
is going to be massive, and it's going to be stupid. There will be calls for the government to issue a stop to all AV operations, much in the same way that the FAA made the unprecedented order to ground 4,000-plus planes across the nation after 9/11.
That wasn't a stupid decision. It was a reversible order to prevent any immediate further terrorist attack that might be planned until they could get a handle on the situation and figure out who we were at war with and what to do in terms of airline security. While we ultimately made really stupid decisions about airline security, it was the right call. If you remember the mood of the general public on 9/11, we would all have considered it profoundly stupid to let most commercial airlines fly right after that, at least without better precautions than were standard. They had just flown an airplane into the Pentagon and another had crashed on its way toward the Capitol or White House. We had thousands of planes in the air we were trying to keep track of and only a few military jets ready to intercept.
If you sell counterfeit Gucci bags out of your house, and you happen to have a gun in the house, then you have "used a gun in the commission of a crime", and you are now a felon.
The Supreme Court overturned that, for most values of "using a firearm" that don't actually mean "using a firearm." It overturned all 9 circuit courts a few years back when they interpreted "using" a gun in the commission of a crime too broadly. They found it about as ridiculous as you do.
I'd be interested in the citation on that.
Bailey v. United States, 516 U.S. 137 (1995)
(Although Congress undid SCOTUS's correction to some degree.)
Legally no, he is no longer an alleged rapist. As such a newspaper would never print that he is an alleged rapist since they know that they would lose a libel case.
Same reason why OJ was not called an alleged murder in the press after being a quite.
There is no legal definition of "an alleged rapist."
A newspaper doesn't decide what's legal, although they can be risk-averse. Libel is more of an issue because you don't have the guilty conviction, but he would still have to show he was not an alleged rapist in order to win a libel case.
If you sell counterfeit Gucci bags out of your house, and you happen to have a gun in the house, then you have "used a gun in the commission of a crime", and you are now a felon.
The Supreme Court overturned that, for most values of "using a firearm" that don't actually mean "using a firearm." It overturned all 9 circuit courts a few years back when they interpreted "using" a gun in the commission of a crime too broadly. They found it about as ridiculous as you do.
He's not an "alleged rapist" anymore, fucktard submitter. He was acquitted.
Wrong, on two counts.
First, the person who claims he raped her is still alleging he is a rapist. The state is prohibited from bringing new charges against him, although it clearly could have gotten him on statutory rape charges.
Second, a failure to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is not a finding of innocence. A defendant who is found not guilty is not necessarily innocent--he may even likely be guilty. It's just that there is at least some "reasonable" doubt about whether he's guilty.
The victim still alleges he's guilty, and an acquittal has nothing to do with making someone no longer an alleged criminal.
I feel like this is a common deal between various western countries and the NSA. At least, this isn't the first time I've heard of it being made, although I don't recall the context in which I've heard of it in the past.
One of the few cool pieces of tech I've seen in a car lately is the backup camera, because it's directly applicable to the task of driving. The rest of this is just stuff nobody cares about
Yes, the backup camera is amazingly useful in a lot of scenarios. Probably the best new car tech since they added blinker lights to the mirrors.
Automatic parking would be an advantage in some environments and utterly useless in others. Lots of people almost never need to parallel park.
Basic sciences generally tend be taught wrong--it's too much learning by rote exercise, almost no exploratory learning. It turns out real science isn't that hard, and you could have kids doing real experiements pretty much from the time they start learning. The way they teach it makes it much less interesting and fun.
Funny how I've never seen an XBox in anyone's living room that doesn't work for Microsoft. I live in Bellevue, WA, home to much of Microsoft and not far from their headquarters in Redmond, and I have never seen a non-Microsoft employee with an XBox. Microsoft is failing at their plan.
14 million xbox ones sold, 100K MSFT employees, they're clearly in some living rooms.
Yes, absolutely. I remember watching two brothers with serious schooling and psych problems figure out how to sail a small boat on their own. It was amazingly good for them and the kind of learning and experience that you would *never* get in a structured setting.
It should be the kid's choice what he does with his time, but the parent should be making some strong suggestions, basically get the kid in the habit of going to almost every group activity once and see what they like...
In 12 years, it is not hard to prepare enough to do well on the SAT/ACT. They don't even cover calculus. Get that out of the way in a few hours, then spend the rest of the time on more interesting things.
Getting into a good college isn't about testing--good testing is a necessary condition, not a sufficient one. You need to show that you are going to contribute to the community. You need to have lots of extracurriculars and serious leadership in some of them--and ideally in some volunteer group not connected to the school. Serious leadership and success in one is more impressive than having fifty groups with no leadership or success, but the basic idea is if the kid is curious and really applies himself at everything he does, he has a really great chance of getting in to a good school.
That includes grades and test scores, but they're not enough.
And better, if a kid does that then they learn *how*, and that gives them a richer life going forward.
Why do you think Microsoft spent billions of dollars to develop its gaming platform? Control of the living room and of the house is a huge deal. Google has made major inroads in the area by its purchase of NEST and this is an extension of that. In thirty years they want to be the company running every home's electronics.
A good program will work for teaching math on the computer. There's a lot of bad educational software out there, but I remember learning algebra on a PCJr as a kid long before we ever got to it in school.
Flash? You mean the Fucking Large-Ass Security Hole?
No, Flash Gordon, obviously. Amazon will stop supporting Flash Gordon. They've been outed as evil by the New York Times, so there's no longer a need to save the Universe from Ming the Merciless.
No, it doesn't work like that at all, at least in California. Much of the math is taught on-line and self-paced. Solving problems with the computer is actually encouraged, and the programming classes are often integrated with the math curriculum.
Let me guess: You actually don't have kids, you have no idea what the public schools are teaching, or how they teach it, and everything you know about "Common Core", you learned from Donald Trump. Right?
What you describe is so radically different than what we grew up with and than what I've heard described by non-California parents that it is difficult to believe it is the norm rather than you happening to live in a neighborhood with a very good school. It sounds like your public schools have basically gone Montessori.
How useful is K-12 Computer Science in terms of getting kids to go into the major? It's a huge unstated assumption that it is important to have people do CS in high school.
There are some courses where you really need a high school background to take a college course--math and music theory are the only two that really come to mind as "we assume you already know how to do some stuff and don't offer an intro class for people with no training in this subject."
Slashdot Mirror
They are being absurd. It's hard to see anybody at burning man using phones or internet devices for drug purchases and sales. You have 70,000 people in a signal-free desert, with the occasional wifi point. People are walking around in bright colors and costumes and interacting in real life.
Nevada treats the drug use that is there as a chance to extort recreational drug users from out-of-state. Basically (for most drug offenses) they catch a lot of nonviolent out-of-state offenders and offer the choice between a serious criminal conviction with a very low fine and a tiny conviction (maybe even a civil offense) if they pay a much larger fine.
Let's say it all together: Acquittal doesn't mean that the accuser lied. Just like in the vast majority of cases, rape is incredibly hard to prove. If they felt there was evidence that she lied, rather than insufficient evidence to prove "guilt beyond a reasonable doubt", then they would be trying her for making false charges - which, computer used or not, is usually a felony.
Regardless, I won't consider justice "blind" until "she consented to the sex" is treated by the same legal standard as a robbery defendant's claim "he consented to give me the money" - as an affirmative defense / defense theory.
Rape is easy to prove. If a woman or man is raped get themselves to a hospital for a rape kit. Then file charges and the police can obtain a warrant for DNA sample from the alleged rapist. No match? No charges filed and no record allowed. Any false reports filed should result in a criminal record for the liar.
Actually, NO. You are completely wrong. A huge portion of rape is date rape. In order to prove rape you don't just have to show DNA. There also has to be a lack of consent.
You also have the problem of mixed-messages, where without a clear standard of "what is necessary to show consent" it is *very* common to have two people have sex together where one thinks it's rape and the other doesn't. This is usually because a woman might feel like she already has said no by some protest which seems equivocal to a guy and he doesn't realize it's her saying no. If you aren't *clear*, then the result can very easily be rape according to her but not according to him.
As a friend often tells me, before the Civil War people would say "the United States are", and since the war they say "the United States is".
I suspect that's because of the Union/Northern Propaganda. Part of any war is figuring out the narrative to use to sell the war to your people, both the people fighting and the people undergoing hardship at home. While that's always been true on some level, it's been particularly important since the use of the longbow in 1415 at the battle of Agincourt. (Because at that point wealth and a small number of people was no longer sufficient to win a war--mass infantry and therefore control of public sentiment became necessary to field an army.)
We have been swinging the other way for some time now, because of automation, and democracy will become much less useful to the preservation of the state over time. I'll be surprised if it survives the next Millennium. We've been raised to like it, and it has a lot going for it, but it's too inefficient in its current form probably anywhere in the world.
In any event, today's common claim is that the Civil War was a fight "to preserve the Union," and while I don't see a contemporary reference to that propaganda in a quick google search, if that was part of the narrative then the shift to "The United States Is" was inevitable, and probably started as part of that campaign.
is going to be massive, and it's going to be stupid. There will be calls for the government to issue a stop to all AV operations, much in the same way that the FAA made the unprecedented order to ground 4,000-plus planes across the nation after 9/11.
That wasn't a stupid decision. It was a reversible order to prevent any immediate further terrorist attack that might be planned until they could get a handle on the situation and figure out who we were at war with and what to do in terms of airline security. While we ultimately made really stupid decisions about airline security, it was the right call. If you remember the mood of the general public on 9/11, we would all have considered it profoundly stupid to let most commercial airlines fly right after that, at least without better precautions than were standard. They had just flown an airplane into the Pentagon and another had crashed on its way toward the Capitol or White House. We had thousands of planes in the air we were trying to keep track of and only a few military jets ready to intercept.
If you sell counterfeit Gucci bags out of your house, and you happen to have a gun in the house, then you have "used a gun in the commission of a crime", and you are now a felon.
The Supreme Court overturned that, for most values of "using a firearm" that don't actually mean "using a firearm." It overturned all 9 circuit courts a few years back when they interpreted "using" a gun in the commission of a crime too broadly. They found it about as ridiculous as you do.
I'd be interested in the citation on that.
Bailey v. United States, 516 U.S. 137 (1995)
(Although Congress undid SCOTUS's correction to some degree.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Thx.
Possibly--I may have overstated the case on the statutory rape; I've only read the secondhand accounts.
Legally no, he is no longer an alleged rapist. As such a newspaper would never print that he is an alleged rapist since they know that they would lose a libel case.
Same reason why OJ was not called an alleged murder in the press after being a quite.
There is no legal definition of "an alleged rapist."
A newspaper doesn't decide what's legal, although they can be risk-averse. Libel is more of an issue because you don't have the guilty conviction, but he would still have to show he was not an alleged rapist in order to win a libel case.
You are wrong.
E.g. https://www.google.com/search?...
If you sell counterfeit Gucci bags out of your house, and you happen to have a gun in the house, then you have "used a gun in the commission of a crime", and you are now a felon.
The Supreme Court overturned that, for most values of "using a firearm" that don't actually mean "using a firearm." It overturned all 9 circuit courts a few years back when they interpreted "using" a gun in the commission of a crime too broadly. They found it about as ridiculous as you do.
He's not an "alleged rapist" anymore, fucktard submitter. He was acquitted.
Wrong, on two counts.
First, the person who claims he raped her is still alleging he is a rapist. The state is prohibited from bringing new charges against him, although it clearly could have gotten him on statutory rape charges.
Second, a failure to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is not a finding of innocence. A defendant who is found not guilty is not necessarily innocent--he may even likely be guilty. It's just that there is at least some "reasonable" doubt about whether he's guilty.
The victim still alleges he's guilty, and an acquittal has nothing to do with making someone no longer an alleged criminal.
Isn't 15 underage? Why isn't it just plain statutory rape?
It was statutory rape. They sued for regular rape hoping to send him to jail for longer.
I feel like this is a common deal between various western countries and the NSA. At least, this isn't the first time I've heard of it being made, although I don't recall the context in which I've heard of it in the past.
One of the few cool pieces of tech I've seen in a car lately is the backup camera, because it's directly applicable to the task of driving. The rest of this is just stuff nobody cares about
Yes, the backup camera is amazingly useful in a lot of scenarios. Probably the best new car tech since they added blinker lights to the mirrors.
Automatic parking would be an advantage in some environments and utterly useless in others. Lots of people almost never need to parallel park.
If you're a newbie in a field you may feel the need to use a jargony title to get noticed by editors. If you're a big name it may not matter.
Basic sciences generally tend be taught wrong--it's too much learning by rote exercise, almost no exploratory learning. It turns out real science isn't that hard, and you could have kids doing real experiements pretty much from the time they start learning. The way they teach it makes it much less interesting and fun.
> billions...Control of the living room
Funny how I've never seen an XBox in anyone's living room that doesn't work for Microsoft. I live in Bellevue, WA, home to much of Microsoft and not far from their headquarters in Redmond, and I have never seen a non-Microsoft employee with an XBox. Microsoft is failing at their plan.
14 million xbox ones sold, 100K MSFT employees, they're clearly in some living rooms.
Yes, absolutely. I remember watching two brothers with serious schooling and psych problems figure out how to sail a small boat on their own. It was amazingly good for them and the kind of learning and experience that you would *never* get in a structured setting.
It should be the kid's choice what he does with his time, but the parent should be making some strong suggestions, basically get the kid in the habit of going to almost every group activity once and see what they like...
In 12 years, it is not hard to prepare enough to do well on the SAT/ACT. They don't even cover calculus. Get that out of the way in a few hours, then spend the rest of the time on more interesting things.
Getting into a good college isn't about testing--good testing is a necessary condition, not a sufficient one. You need to show that you are going to contribute to the community. You need to have lots of extracurriculars and serious leadership in some of them--and ideally in some volunteer group not connected to the school. Serious leadership and success in one is more impressive than having fifty groups with no leadership or success, but the basic idea is if the kid is curious and really applies himself at everything he does, he has a really great chance of getting in to a good school.
That includes grades and test scores, but they're not enough.
And better, if a kid does that then they learn *how*, and that gives them a richer life going forward.
Control the living room.
Why do you think Microsoft spent billions of dollars to develop its gaming platform? Control of the living room and of the house is a huge deal. Google has made major inroads in the area by its purchase of NEST and this is an extension of that. In thirty years they want to be the company running every home's electronics.
A good program will work for teaching math on the computer. There's a lot of bad educational software out there, but I remember learning algebra on a PCJr as a kid long before we ever got to it in school.
Flash? You mean the Fucking Large-Ass Security Hole?
No, Flash Gordon, obviously. Amazon will stop supporting Flash Gordon. They've been outed as evil by the New York Times, so there's no longer a need to save the Universe from Ming the Merciless.
No, it doesn't work like that at all, at least in California. Much of the math is taught on-line and self-paced. Solving problems with the computer is actually encouraged, and the programming classes are often integrated with the math curriculum.
Let me guess: You actually don't have kids, you have no idea what the public schools are teaching, or how they teach it, and everything you know about "Common Core", you learned from Donald Trump. Right?
What you describe is so radically different than what we grew up with and than what I've heard described by non-California parents that it is difficult to believe it is the norm rather than you happening to live in a neighborhood with a very good school. It sounds like your public schools have basically gone Montessori.
How useful is K-12 Computer Science in terms of getting kids to go into the major? It's a huge unstated assumption that it is important to have people do CS in high school.
There are some courses where you really need a high school background to take a college course--math and music theory are the only two that really come to mind as "we assume you already know how to do some stuff and don't offer an intro class for people with no training in this subject."
Whoever they are I hope they get the highest metal available. It sounds like they stopped what could have been an extremely bad attack.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...