How do they know who is a US citizen and who isn't?
The fourth amendment protects all people, not just citizens:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Minority parties need to get at least 7% of the ‘first preference’ vote and be able to agree to an ‘exchange of preferences’* with other minority parties to have a chance at a seat in the Senate.
Re:A Jesuit Pope -- this could be very interesting
on
New Pope Selected
·
· Score: 1
your original question asked the OP to test God as an hypothesis, which you recognize is absurd.
Yes, that is the Socratic method.
God is an axiom, exactly like the idea that science can work at all.
"Like a sniper using bollocks for ammunition.."
You can collect evidence supporting them, but not disproving them.
You clearly do not understand what "evidence" means. If some possible observations would support a hypothesis then alternative possible observations would cause it to be rejected. As the god hypothesis is constructed to avoid the latter possibility, it also cannot be supported by any observation.
Re:A Jesuit Pope -- this could be very interesting
on
New Pope Selected
·
· Score: 1
Ah, the old "solipsism, therefore anything goes" argument.
Do you realize that science relies on logic, logic relies on sets of axioms, and axioms can't be disproved by empirical evidence, only by inconsistencies in the formal system?
its perfectly ok to compel him to be a witness against his twin.
No. Anyone may take the fifth if there is the possibility they may implicate themselves, rightly or wrongly, even if called as a witness against someone else.
And the innocent person lacks such a right even in the US.
wait. what? here is the fifth:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
He said legitimate offspring of Henry VIII, not his third nephews four times removed born over the brush.
You fail reading comprehension.
MightyMartian's entire comment was about Henry VII's claim and the "irony that after Henry VII, the Tudor line just withered away". But the Tudor line didn't "wither away". In fact all monarchs since Henry VII are descended from him.
Henry VIII is not even relevant.
Of course the ultimate irony is that after Henry VII, the Tudor line just withered away and Henry VIII had no legitimate grandchildren, and thus the crown got passed on to the Stuarts.
James I was the great-great-grandchild of Henry VII.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd be alright with it if they also treated the Bill of Rights like the Prime Directive.
You'd like the Bill of Rights to be violated with impunity?
The big difference here is, these three hypothetical people will not be facing a three-year sentence.
how about twenty years?
conduct which is likely to or capable of facilitating terrorism
like, say, building roads?
our big existential threat is terrorism
terrorism is not an existential threat.
Pick up a feather.
You don't even need to pick it up: It is a "strict-liability" law, meaning that there is no requirement for law enforcement agencies to prove "intent" to violate the law. That is, if you are found in possession of a protected species or its parts or products, you are automatically in violation of the law.
How do they know who is a US citizen and who isn't?
The fourth amendment protects all people, not just citizens:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
As Glenn Greenwald explains, "persons" and "citizens" have entirely different meanings in the Constitution.
Well it wasn't "Woosh".
Don't be a tease. What was the shortest?
Minority parties need to get at least 7% of the ‘first preference’ vote and be able to agree to an ‘exchange of preferences’* with other minority parties to have a chance at a seat in the Senate.
the quota for the election of each senator in each Australian state in a full Senate election is 7.69%, while in a normal half-Senate election the quota is 14.28%.
Strong, Valiant Korean 11G network
FTFY.
your original question asked the OP to test God as an hypothesis, which you recognize is absurd.
Yes, that is the Socratic method.
God is an axiom, exactly like the idea that science can work at all.
"Like a sniper using bollocks for ammunition.."
You can collect evidence supporting them, but not disproving them.
You clearly do not understand what "evidence" means. If some possible observations would support a hypothesis then alternative possible observations would cause it to be rejected. As the god hypothesis is constructed to avoid the latter possibility, it also cannot be supported by any observation.
Solipsism
Ah, the old "solipsism, therefore anything goes" argument.
Do you realize that science relies on logic, logic relies on sets of axioms, and axioms can't be disproved by empirical evidence, only by inconsistencies in the formal system?
So I resist the urge to ask Storm whether knowledge is so loose-weave of a morning when deciding whether to leave her apartment by the front door or a window on the second floor.
The existence of $DEITY$ can't be proven nor disproven by empiric data, because it's a logically consistent system.
Why, yes, god is not testable..
How would you disprove that the COBE prediction is proof of the Will of God?
.. and, in particular, god is not falsifiable.
FYI I'm an atheist, but in my day I did my duty learning a bit about philosophy of science.
Good for you. Next time go beyond the first chapter in the book.
The same way you tested the hypothesis that empirical methods can discover regular, universal laws; and with equivalent results.
The error bars are too small to be displayed by a computer screen, but were included to demonstrate the impressive accuracy of the data.
It's your move.
We start from the definition of God being the creator of the universe.
How did you test that hypothesis?
And a grant of immunity from prosecution for conspiracy would eliminate that privilege, no?
No. Any person may take the fifth at any time in any place if they fear their answers may implicate them in any crime at all. The Court has emphasized that one of the Fifth Amendment's basic functions is to protect innocent persons who might otherwise be ensnared by ambiguous circumstances.
one twin, regardless of actual guilt, can be compelled to testify about the other twin.
you're still wrong
You only have the right to remain silent regarding your own crimes.
To the contrary, the Court has emphasized that one of the Fifth Amendment's basic functions is to protect innocent persons who might otherwise be ensnared by ambiguous circumstances.
its perfectly ok to compel him to be a witness against his twin.
No. Anyone may take the fifth if there is the possibility they may implicate themselves, rightly or wrongly, even if called as a witness against someone else.
And the innocent person lacks such a right even in the US.
wait. what? here is the fifth:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
It's very annoying to at least some of us.
This.
He said legitimate offspring of Henry VIII, not his third nephews four times removed born over the brush.
You fail reading comprehension. MightyMartian's entire comment was about Henry VII's claim and the "irony that after Henry VII, the Tudor line just withered away". But the Tudor line didn't "wither away". In fact all monarchs since Henry VII are descended from him. Henry VIII is not even relevant.
The Tudor line didn't "wither away". The Stuart monarchs were descendants of Henry Tudor, you imbecile.
Of course the ultimate irony is that after Henry VII, the Tudor line just withered away and Henry VIII had no legitimate grandchildren, and thus the crown got passed on to the Stuarts.
James I was the great-great-grandchild of Henry VII.
in the case of banks, they have all your money
no, bankrupt banks don't have all my money.
so if they fail, all your money is gone
bank deposits are guaranteed by the government.
What are the repercussions or ramifications of you writing back
this