Yep, that's pretty much what 99.7% of people can contribute to this discussion(maybe 95% of slashdotters specifically, but still).
You can kinda go "Yay open source operating system that creates a bit of systemic competitive pressure to keep updating other open source operating systems through some really bizarre application of economics towards a system built around entirely free exchange"
Sure, but I'm not the original researchers, and I'm not in a position to do any sort of more detailed analyses of the available data. I was just asserting that the methods had a theoretical soundness that "4.1%" wasn't just a guess like the poster flinging absurd assertions wanted it to be.
I don't even begin to deny the abuse of power that represents. But unfortunately, when Lewinsky refused to press the case, all they could do was blow up the scandal on technicalities.
It's because half-measures are all that's constitutional to enforce, thus you can't actually contain the problem at a societal level, so people grasp at straws for limiting abuse of firearms.
Yeah, tell that to both William Jefferson Clinton and Andrew Jackson, who were brought up on charges during their presidency(even if in the former case it was a pathetic blow-up of an adultery scandal).
Oh, and Richard Nixon, who had to be pardoned by his stool pigeon replacement.
The difference between taking a video with a drone and posting it on youtube, and a reporter taking a video and showing in a news report is essentially zero.
Ah, that's a nice argument but you're dealing with the proportionality problem. If there's a group that will be exonerated falsely, they'll be coming as a fraction from that 4.1%, and if there's a group that is failed to be exonerated ever, they're coming from the remaining 95.9% of those executed. And a small fraction of the latter rapidly outpaces a large fraction of the former.
Okay, took some digging on the proceedings of the national academy of sciences.
Essentially they applied comparative statistical methods on exoneration rates of those on death row(but not yet executed), those not on death row, and found that while the latter mapped to a Poisson distribution for exoneration occurrences, the former fell off sharply at the time of execution(but until then fitting the same model).
They then extrapolated that curve forward past the point of execution, concluding that if they had been continuing to fight for exoneration 4.1% would have gotten it. This includes the very small dataset of those who actually were exonerated after death. They call those conclusion a conservative estimate because it's entirely possible that exoneration rates don't actually cover the full set of unjustly punished.
Yeah, as much as I dislike the death penalty, deprivation of rights from criminals is part of Locke's philosophy which is foundational to the US system of governance.
Slashdot Mirror
Why do we not like scripts? Honest question.
No, they weren't but their logic doesn't hold up in the modern era. I hold that it was a constitutional mistake(and not even the biggest one).
Yep, that's pretty much what 99.7% of people can contribute to this discussion(maybe 95% of slashdotters specifically, but still).
You can kinda go "Yay open source operating system that creates a bit of systemic competitive pressure to keep updating other open source operating systems through some really bizarre application of economics towards a system built around entirely free exchange"
It gets real abstract.
Sure, but I'm not the original researchers, and I'm not in a position to do any sort of more detailed analyses of the available data. I was just asserting that the methods had a theoretical soundness that "4.1%" wasn't just a guess like the poster flinging absurd assertions wanted it to be.
I don't even begin to deny the abuse of power that represents. But unfortunately, when Lewinsky refused to press the case, all they could do was blow up the scandal on technicalities.
Honestly, while it seemed like you were agreeing with me, the words you used came together in a way I'd characterize, subjectively, as crazy.
Selling guns is an infringement of rights to guns? That's just crazy.
I hereby acknowledge my incorrect usage of the term. Swap in "shill" instead?
So... the turnabout is gun owners publishing the addresses... of ... a gun owner?
I don't think you know what "turnabout" means.(they eat their own because of paranoia)
It's because half-measures are all that's constitutional to enforce, thus you can't actually contain the problem at a societal level, so people grasp at straws for limiting abuse of firearms.
There's no denying that proximity to power affords substantial unwarranted protection, but that isn't equivalent to immunity.
Also, for the more historically inclined: I confused Jackson(a douchebag who committed genocide) with Johnson(a guy who didn't obey congress)
Yeah, tell that to both William Jefferson Clinton and Andrew Jackson, who were brought up on charges during their presidency(even if in the former case it was a pathetic blow-up of an adultery scandal).
Oh, and Richard Nixon, who had to be pardoned by his stool pigeon replacement.
The difference between taking a video with a drone and posting it on youtube, and a reporter taking a video and showing in a news report is essentially zero.
Mir was 20 years ago. And Russian.
Actually, with Moscow in particular, it falls even more into the "retarded" category than "evil".
Ah, that's a nice argument but you're dealing with the proportionality problem. If there's a group that will be exonerated falsely, they'll be coming as a fraction from that 4.1%, and if there's a group that is failed to be exonerated ever, they're coming from the remaining 95.9% of those executed. And a small fraction of the latter rapidly outpaces a large fraction of the former.
You're saying you're dealing with a genuine mental illness with torture. Great. Nice job.
"true justice"
By which you mean killing a person. Because reasons.
Okay, took some digging on the proceedings of the national academy of sciences.
Essentially they applied comparative statistical methods on exoneration rates of those on death row(but not yet executed), those not on death row, and found that while the latter mapped to a Poisson distribution for exoneration occurrences, the former fell off sharply at the time of execution(but until then fitting the same model).
They then extrapolated that curve forward past the point of execution, concluding that if they had been continuing to fight for exoneration 4.1% would have gotten it. This includes the very small dataset of those who actually were exonerated after death. They call those conclusion a conservative estimate because it's entirely possible that exoneration rates don't actually cover the full set of unjustly punished.
For me, like every other truly annoying thing, it's the fans.
Based on [error:missing data] highly considered philosophical treatise?
"probably *wild assertion*"
Sounds like you've only ever heard the word out-loud.
It's spelled "macabre", which is different enough that spellcheck couldn't help you.
On the other hand "showing those people how wrong they are" isn't a valid justification for the pragmatic result of more suffering.
Yeah, as much as I dislike the death penalty, deprivation of rights from criminals is part of Locke's philosophy which is foundational to the US system of governance.