But many Slashdot commentors second guess police (and really, everybody), and I can tell you there is no sound legal advice or police procedures advice that can be found on Slashdot. So, get off your horse.
The signal to noise ratio is unreasonably low, and anybody who takes Slashdot advice without consulting legal council is an idiot. That said, there is plenty of "sound legal advice [and] police procedures advice that can be found on Slashdot". Need a mounting block?
Don't forget the financial waste and abuse. If the system ran efficiently, we'd still need to cut some things to begin recovering, but the concessions could be far fewer. We really need to stop buying things on credit (bonds). Were CA like a car, we'd get 5 mpg or less. It's pathetic.
When California declares bankruptcy, everyone will wish it was a mere mortgage meltdown!
Instant runoff, et al, aren't about favoring third parties, only about allowing them to thrive, unfettered by strategic voting. (OK, unrestrained by the absolute worst of strategic voting. To be clear, I'm a proponent of the Smith Criterion.)
If you're like me and From California, it doesn't matter who you vote for until you get such a large percentage voting for the third party that they might actually become viable.
A viable third party in California? I'll believe it when I see it! If such a magic unicorn came into existence, I'd give ten to one odds that they'd be more liberal than democrats and just as beholden to special interests. (To be fair, both parties are destroying the state.)
The idea of Wikileaks (i.e. the ability to anonymously expose government secrets) is valid and needs to survive. Currently Wikileaks is the only working instance of that idea. We cannot kill it simply because it is a bad implementation. In the years to come, there may be others and one of them may work better.
The incentive for a better one might not exist while there is a de-facto standard.
Oh geez. And here I thought California was soft.
(It could be a lack of clarity in the write-up)
Jurors must decide if the lawyer "deliberately and consciously" used his shotgun, provoking the police to shoot. [Not whether his actions could reasonably be interpreted that way during a time of crisis?]
The jury, which is expected to go out on Wednesday, was asked to answer several questions...
Was "sufficient weight" given to the fact that Mr Saunders, who was drunk at the time, was a vulnerable person?
Article includes a picture of Mr Saunders holding said shotgun while leaning out the window.
(No, I don't know more about the story. First I've heard about it.)
Of course, we're small, so we also call the customer on the phone number(s) on their account.
You mean you're considerate and rational. Technically, there's nothing keeping the big players from doing the same thing. (besides being inconsiderate and irrational)
In my view of viewing things terrorism is merely a symptom of far deeper underlying problems with government and society and with international affairs.
That much is true. The underlying problem may or may not exist in the country that is being targeted. It may have once existed, and later generations are feeling the echos. It almost certainly exists in some form in the nation producing terrorists.
(I don't know about terrorism in India, specifically. I suspect it ultimately stems from the separation from Pakistan in the '40s.)
In my opinion, that is not the problem with statistics, that is the problem with reality. Statistics are just the way to quantify that, so that we may still make somewhat informed decision.
???
Are you trying to reference quantum mechanics or transcendentalism (or other philosophy)? I must admit, you have me a bit confused.
Either a particular genetic sample came from a specific suspect, or it did not. The actual truth is rather binary in this regards. It is all, or nothing. It is merely unknown, not part one and part the other. This is where statistics struggles, or rather, where we struggle to appropriately understand and apply statistics.
So statistics (meaning math, not numbers) are actually a solution to your problem.
Oh, and what problem would that be? I thought that you were going to say that reality was the problem, and not the math. What problem have you identified as solved?
Tongue-in-cheek aside, the real problem with statistics is that it only deals in probabilities. As such, It can never describe something conclusive. It can only tell you something is probable. (or very, very probable) It can never identify an answer/solution/event as certain. Thus, it can never tell you the absolute truth. It can only give you the most probable occurrence.
Therefore, somewhere in the evaluation of court evidence, one must decide what probability constitutes "beyond a reasonable doubt". That's a very fuzzy line, and should be drawn by the jurors, nobody else. Additionally, if I were ever on a jury, I'd want to know exactly how those numbers were reached.
From the article:
"There are some labs that are just reporting that they think it's a match- in their opinion," says Butler. "That's a problem, because the jury says: 'Oh, it's DNA? It matches? Guilty.'"
You could do that, yes. You could also save most of your money by buying a slightly more expensive networking printer. It depends on what else you want the server to do for you.
I guess you didn't hear about the Patriot Act or even lesser what happened when South Park showed Mohammad this year?
Adjusting to market conditions in order to maintain the monetary value of your "expression" is not really the same as being subjected to government censorship.
The producers of South Park made their own choices.
Responding to market conditions? Really? Their market welcomed the original. The censored version is a response to the media oligopoly that we've built. That isn't quite "the same as being subjected to government censorship", but it is effectively very similar.
(Not a post about Islam. Only about modern media. Stay cool please.)
He's a scumbag politician. Politicians are meant to be reviled, limited, and controlled.
Douglas Adams -
"It is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it... anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job."
"Only six people in the Galaxy knew that the job of the Galactic President was not to wield power but to attract attention away from it."
[Uncalled for attack against Obama family and the very few good politicians redacted]
Only sheep "like" the people who seek to control their lives.
No. Only sheep like the people chosen for them to control their lives. The distinction is important.
(If you make more, you should take more home. I really don't care if the relationship isn't linear. I don't think it should be, to be honest.)
The real question is: What is wealthy?
The problem is that not all income is the same. Take small business owners, for example. Most are sole-proprietorships. Many are barely scraping by, but land in a wealthy tax bracket. Now THAT is not fair.
(Yes, I realize there are other organizational structures. They too have their problems. Many of them are also tax related.)
Addendum: If you don't like "the indefinite holding of suspects" taken from a war zone, How do you feel about American citizens right here at home who go years without a trial? Some for non-violent crimes?
Being charged doesn't change the fact that they're incarcerated. "Incarcerated for years" and "presumed innocent" just don't go well together.
Doesn't support the indefinite holding of suspects without charge in internment camps. One measure of a society is how you treat undesirables, and Guantanamo bay is an indelible stain on the Bush/Cheney years.
There is a world of difference between being a criminal suspect and a prisoner of war. I realize liberal ideology gets in the way of that distinction, but it is an important, pragmatic, and legal one.
The real stain is how a few of them were treated. Gitmo would never have been an issue if it wasn't for the "enhanced interrogation" that some of them received. The close-gitmo crowd has always been way off base.
(And yes, innocent bystanders can become prisoners of war too. War is ugly. Get over it.)
Slashdot Mirror
But many Slashdot commentors second guess police (and really, everybody), and I can tell you there is no sound legal advice or police procedures advice that can be found on Slashdot. So, get off your horse.
The signal to noise ratio is unreasonably low, and anybody who takes Slashdot advice without consulting legal council is an idiot. That said, there is plenty of "sound legal advice [and] police procedures advice that can be found on Slashdot". Need a mounting block?
Don't forget the financial waste and abuse. If the system ran efficiently, we'd still need to cut some things to begin recovering, but the concessions could be far fewer. We really need to stop buying things on credit (bonds). Were CA like a car, we'd get 5 mpg or less. It's pathetic.
When California declares bankruptcy, everyone will wish it was a mere mortgage meltdown!
You mean: to stop favoring the duopoly.
Instant runoff, et al, aren't about favoring third parties, only about allowing them to thrive, unfettered by strategic voting. (OK, unrestrained by the absolute worst of strategic voting. To be clear, I'm a proponent of the Smith Criterion.)
If you're like me and From California, it doesn't matter who you vote for until you get such a large percentage voting for the third party that they might actually become viable.
A viable third party in California? I'll believe it when I see it! If such a magic unicorn came into existence, I'd give ten to one odds that they'd be more liberal than democrats and just as beholden to special interests. (To be fair, both parties are destroying the state.)
The idea of Wikileaks (i.e. the ability to anonymously expose government secrets) is valid and needs to survive. Currently Wikileaks is the only working instance of that idea. We cannot kill it simply because it is a bad implementation. In the years to come, there may be others and one of them may work better.
The incentive for a better one might not exist while there is a de-facto standard.
Give me one fucking valid reason why you need your troops anywhere outside your own territory murdering people.
Do you mean right now, or ever?
Pacifism only works if everyone is a pacifist.
Oh geez. And here I thought California was soft.
(It could be a lack of clarity in the write-up)
Jurors must decide if the lawyer "deliberately and consciously" used his shotgun, provoking the police to shoot. [Not whether his actions could reasonably be interpreted that way during a time of crisis?]
The jury, which is expected to go out on Wednesday, was asked to answer several questions ...
Was "sufficient weight" given to the fact that Mr Saunders, who was drunk at the time, was a vulnerable person?
Article includes a picture of Mr Saunders holding said shotgun while leaning out the window.
(No, I don't know more about the story. First I've heard about it.)
Very true. It's specifically true for Comcast, and has been for years.
Ever try Adipos? It appears to be an easier and more hygienic (if equally unsettling) way to deal with that extra fat.
Of course, we're small, so we also call the customer on the phone number(s) on their account.
You mean you're considerate and rational. Technically, there's nothing keeping the big players from doing the same thing. (besides being inconsiderate and irrational)
Sorry, but that does rather look like spam.
In my view of viewing things terrorism is merely a symptom of far deeper underlying problems with government and society and with international affairs.
That much is true. The underlying problem may or may not exist in the country that is being targeted. It may have once existed, and later generations are feeling the echos. It almost certainly exists in some form in the nation producing terrorists.
(I don't know about terrorism in India, specifically. I suspect it ultimately stems from the separation from Pakistan in the '40s.)
A vast majority of terrorists do not deserve the appellation of "freedom fighter".
Intentional targeting of innocent civilians is inherently at odds with freedom.
And a range of 620 miles? Isn't that about the distance between Iran and Israel? How sweet of them.
(This "coincidence" is the surest sign to me that it doesn't have nearly the claimed range.)
The political system in the U.S. is extremely corrupt.
Very true, but not nearly as corrupt as many other countries around the world (Middle East, Africa, Asia, etc...).
We cannot accept the corruption that we have, but I wouldn't trade it for theirs.
(Just asking for perspective)
In my opinion, that is not the problem with statistics, that is the problem with reality. Statistics are just the way to quantify that, so that we may still make somewhat informed decision.
???
Are you trying to reference quantum mechanics or transcendentalism (or other philosophy)? I must admit, you have me a bit confused.
Either a particular genetic sample came from a specific suspect, or it did not. The actual truth is rather binary in this regards. It is all, or nothing. It is merely unknown, not part one and part the other. This is where statistics struggles, or rather, where we struggle to appropriately understand and apply statistics.
So statistics (meaning math, not numbers) are actually a solution to your problem.
Oh, and what problem would that be? I thought that you were going to say that reality was the problem, and not the math. What problem have you identified as solved?
You can prove anything with statistics.
Also 99.9% of all statistics are made up.
Tongue-in-cheek aside, the real problem with statistics is that it only deals in probabilities. As such, It can never describe something conclusive. It can only tell you something is probable. (or very, very probable) It can never identify an answer/solution/event as certain. Thus, it can never tell you the absolute truth. It can only give you the most probable occurrence.
Therefore, somewhere in the evaluation of court evidence, one must decide what probability constitutes "beyond a reasonable doubt". That's a very fuzzy line, and should be drawn by the jurors, nobody else. Additionally, if I were ever on a jury, I'd want to know exactly how those numbers were reached.
From the article:
"There are some labs that are just reporting that they think it's a match- in their opinion," says Butler. "That's a problem, because the jury says: 'Oh, it's DNA? It matches? Guilty.'"
You could do that, yes. You could also save most of your money by buying a slightly more expensive networking printer. It depends on what else you want the server to do for you.
I guess you didn't hear about the Patriot Act or even lesser what happened when South Park showed Mohammad this year?
Adjusting to market conditions in order to maintain the monetary value of your "expression" is not really the same as being subjected to government censorship.
The producers of South Park made their own choices.
Responding to market conditions? Really? Their market welcomed the original. The censored version is a response to the media oligopoly that we've built. That isn't quite "the same as being subjected to government censorship", but it is effectively very similar.
(Not a post about Islam. Only about modern media. Stay cool please.)
He's a scumbag politician. Politicians are meant to be reviled, limited, and controlled.
Douglas Adams -
"It is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it... anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job."
"Only six people in the Galaxy knew that the job of the Galactic President was not to wield power but to attract attention away from it."
[Uncalled for attack against Obama family and the very few good politicians redacted]
Only sheep "like" the people who seek to control their lives.
No. Only sheep like the people chosen for them to control their lives. The distinction is important.
(If you make more, you should take more home. I really don't care if the relationship isn't linear. I don't think it should be, to be honest.)
The real question is: What is wealthy?
The problem is that not all income is the same. Take small business owners, for example. Most are sole-proprietorships. Many are barely scraping by, but land in a wealthy tax bracket. Now THAT is not fair.
(Yes, I realize there are other organizational structures. They too have their problems. Many of them are also tax related.)
Addendum: If you don't like "the indefinite holding of suspects" taken from a war zone, How do you feel about American citizens right here at home who go years without a trial? Some for non-violent crimes?
Being charged doesn't change the fact that they're incarcerated. "Incarcerated for years" and "presumed innocent" just don't go well together.
Doesn't support the indefinite holding of suspects without charge in internment camps. One measure of a society is how you treat undesirables, and Guantanamo bay is an indelible stain on the Bush/Cheney years.
There is a world of difference between being a criminal suspect and a prisoner of war. I realize liberal ideology gets in the way of that distinction, but it is an important, pragmatic, and legal one.
The real stain is how a few of them were treated. Gitmo would never have been an issue if it wasn't for the "enhanced interrogation" that some of them received. The close-gitmo crowd has always been way off base.
(And yes, innocent bystanders can become prisoners of war too. War is ugly. Get over it.)
Or is his sin that he is impolite?
How about accessory to murder? I consider that a sin.
(That said, somebody closely associated with wikileaks messed up -- big time. It might not have been Mr. Assange personally.)
It could be because there is no one single proper way to write the date.
I personally prefer the yyyy-mm-dd format myself. That makes the most sense to me.
There is no single accepted way to write a date, but there is a standard. Congratulations. You seem to be following it.