That's all very well and you would be entirely within your rights. However, some people believe that freedom of expression is more important than someones hurt feelings. Sometimes they express this belief by hosting material on their servers not because they agree with what is being expressed but because they believe in the right of the author to express it.
at some point you have to learn to put proper blame where it is properly due
Have to? this statement is contradicted by the available evidence. Evidence to date suggests that "AmazingRuss" is perfectly capable of never learning anything of the sort.
Well yeah, but bible thumpers and skinheads have agency, what with being white and all. Those witless brown folks lack the ability to make or to be held responsible for choices.
bureaucracy. A citizen reported something so the bureau must generate a report showing how they responded to the citizens concern. Apparently "We ignored it because what the citizen reported was perfectly innocuous" doesn't fly with the powers that be.
Police officers investigate citizen reports of perfectly lawful conduct all the time. Go to youtube and search for "open carry" and you will find police officers insisting that because there was a report of something that is perfectly legal (carrying a firearm openly, lawful in many us states) they have no option but to investigate and file a report about their investigation. Yeah, the FBI should have been "like whatever", completely agree. Unfortunately, that's not how law enforcement bureaucracy works.
Do the cops who break the law in order to collect evidence get prosecuted for the crimes they commit? There are two ways to deal with the problem of police officers showing contempt for the law while collecting evidence: 1. you use the evidence and prosecute the cop or 2. you toss the evidence out as tainted by the methods used to obtain it. To be honest, I'd prefer 1 but consider 2 to be more reliable in the face of official reluctance to prosecute their own.
I begin to see why there's a strategic reserve of the stuff.
Re:Black man and White man Match in Database
on
The Case Against DNA
·
· Score: 1
That's a result of the birthday paradox. In a one person to one person comparison, the chance of having the same birthdate is 1 in 365. If you compare each of 23 people to each of the others, the chance of matching the birthdates is 1 in 2 and the chance rises to 99% at 57 individuals (see birthday problem wiki). The same issue means that even with arbitrarily low rates of false positives, if your database is large enough, the chances of samples from two different individuals matching improve drastically.
If harassing someone because they're wearing a T shirt that mocks them seems to TSA agents as "only doing their job", they need some serious retraining. Or better yet, some serious firing. Out of a cannon by preference but from their job will do in a pinch
As a professional motorist, Taxi drivers terrify me. While I imagine there are many (many) perfectly safe and professional taxi drivers, the ones I remember (yeah the responsible ones don't get noticed so much) are far more reckless and irresponsible than any other driver I've ever seen on busy city streets, with the sole exception of the guy in a late model luxury car who came within centimeters of mowing down a blind man who was legally using a pedestrian crossing.
Better than a guy who blew through a red light at which two vehicles were already stopped and came within centimeters of a pedestrian at highway speed isn't much of a recommendation
Of course, the time I got nailed by a car, that was a taxi. Maybe I'm biased.
"What, I'm a hypocrite because I think Palin is an idiot and Obama isn't?
As Palin and Obamas relative idiocy hasn't come up yet, I can't imagine why you'd draw that conclusion. If you're going to condemn Republicans on the basis of a lack of executive experience, it comes across as hypocritical to whimper, whine and carry on like it's the end of the world when Republicans point out that prior to his election, Obama suffered from the same lack of experience.
This is nonsense. If I have a conversation with someone, the government has no right to a transcript of that discussion regardless of whether that discussion takes place in my home, a cafe, a public street or on an internet forum. The government cannot bug my home without a court order and the internet should be no different. The government already has the ability to search through the publicly accessible areas of the internet for information about my activities and this is analogous to law enforcement "watching and patrolling". What you are proposing is analogous to allowing police to randomly search peoples homes because a lot of our actions, interactions and transactions are conducted in our homes.
As a parent, the responsibility to protect your children is yours not mine. If you find the internet to be so hazardous that you are unable to properly protect them, don't allow them to use it. Easy.
Yes. Because they will never ever ever be used for nefarious purposes to the detriment of the innocent. I trust you, mr policeman! You wear the maaaaagic badge that makes everything alright.
Fair enough. I did say that the chances with a sympathetic defendant are "much better" rather than say or imply that it is a slam dunk. I suppose I was less careful on the "punishing the wicked" side of things.
Good luck when the SWAT team bursts through your door, shoots your dog and holds you in handcuffs in the back of a police cruiser in full view of your neighbors for six hours or more while the cops tear your home, car and possessions to shreds. When they don't find anything it will be body cavity search time; you wont _believe_ the size of the hands on the nurse assigned to perform the search.
At the end of which, having found nothing incriminating, they'll let you go back to your home saying "hey, no harm, no foul, right?" sniggering all the while.
Slashdot Mirror
Speech that offends someone is the only speech that needs protection. No one wants to stop the other kind.
That's all very well and you would be entirely within your rights. However, some people believe that freedom of expression is more important than someones hurt feelings. Sometimes they express this belief by hosting material on their servers not because they agree with what is being expressed but because they believe in the right of the author to express it.
at some point you have to learn to put proper blame where it is properly due
Have to? this statement is contradicted by the available evidence. Evidence to date suggests that "AmazingRuss" is perfectly capable of never learning anything of the sort.
Well yeah, but bible thumpers and skinheads have agency, what with being white and all. Those witless brown folks lack the ability to make or to be held responsible for choices.
It is the word after all.
bureaucracy. A citizen reported something so the bureau must generate a report showing how they responded to the citizens concern. Apparently "We ignored it because what the citizen reported was perfectly innocuous" doesn't fly with the powers that be.
Police officers investigate citizen reports of perfectly lawful conduct all the time. Go to youtube and search for "open carry" and you will find police officers insisting that because there was a report of something that is perfectly legal (carrying a firearm openly, lawful in many us states) they have no option but to investigate and file a report about their investigation. Yeah, the FBI should have been "like whatever", completely agree. Unfortunately, that's not how law enforcement bureaucracy works.
Smoke you!
Do the cops who break the law in order to collect evidence get prosecuted for the crimes they commit? There are two ways to deal with the problem of police officers showing contempt for the law while collecting evidence: 1. you use the evidence and prosecute the cop or 2. you toss the evidence out as tainted by the methods used to obtain it. To be honest, I'd prefer 1 but consider 2 to be more reliable in the face of official reluctance to prosecute their own.
I begin to see why there's a strategic reserve of the stuff.
That's a result of the birthday paradox. In a one person to one person comparison, the chance of having the same birthdate is 1 in 365. If you compare each of 23 people to each of the others, the chance of matching the birthdates is 1 in 2 and the chance rises to 99% at 57 individuals (see birthday problem wiki). The same issue means that even with arbitrarily low rates of false positives, if your database is large enough, the chances of samples from two different individuals matching improve drastically.
whew! What a relief. For a moment there I was worried. ;)
If harassing someone because they're wearing a T shirt that mocks them seems to TSA agents as "only doing their job", they need some serious retraining. Or better yet, some serious firing. Out of a cannon by preference but from their job will do in a pinch
That's what you call progress? And here I thought I knew what that word meant. Oh well, no day on which you learn something new is a complete waste
As a professional motorist, Taxi drivers terrify me. While I imagine there are many (many) perfectly safe and professional taxi drivers, the ones I remember (yeah the responsible ones don't get noticed so much) are far more reckless and irresponsible than any other driver I've ever seen on busy city streets, with the sole exception of the guy in a late model luxury car who came within centimeters of mowing down a blind man who was legally using a pedestrian crossing.
Better than a guy who blew through a red light at which two vehicles were already stopped and came within centimeters of a pedestrian at highway speed isn't much of a recommendation
Of course, the time I got nailed by a car, that was a taxi. Maybe I'm biased.
As Palin and Obamas relative idiocy hasn't come up yet, I can't imagine why you'd draw that conclusion. If you're going to condemn Republicans on the basis of a lack of executive experience, it comes across as hypocritical to whimper, whine and carry on like it's the end of the world when Republicans point out that prior to his election, Obama suffered from the same lack of experience.
There's nothing nasty about facts. Hypocrisy on the other hand...
This is nonsense. If I have a conversation with someone, the government has no right to a transcript of that discussion regardless of whether that discussion takes place in my home, a cafe, a public street or on an internet forum. The government cannot bug my home without a court order and the internet should be no different. The government already has the ability to search through the publicly accessible areas of the internet for information about my activities and this is analogous to law enforcement "watching and patrolling". What you are proposing is analogous to allowing police to randomly search peoples homes because a lot of our actions, interactions and transactions are conducted in our homes.
As a parent, the responsibility to protect your children is yours not mine. If you find the internet to be so hazardous that you are unable to properly protect them, don't allow them to use it. Easy.
Cold. Day. In. Hell.
If only there were a law that enabled us to refuse to answer a government officials questions
Yes. Because they will never ever ever be used for nefarious purposes to the detriment of the innocent. I trust you, mr policeman! You wear the maaaaagic badge that makes everything alright.
Theoretically true. In practice... not so much.
Fair enough. I did say that the chances with a sympathetic defendant are "much better" rather than say or imply that it is a slam dunk. I suppose I was less careful on the "punishing the wicked" side of things.
Good luck when the SWAT team bursts through your door, shoots your dog and holds you in handcuffs in the back of a police cruiser in full view of your neighbors for six hours or more while the cops tear your home, car and possessions to shreds. When they don't find anything it will be body cavity search time; you wont _believe_ the size of the hands on the nurse assigned to perform the search.
At the end of which, having found nothing incriminating, they'll let you go back to your home saying "hey, no harm, no foul, right?" sniggering all the while.
Ron Paul