Nope, the Soviets. After WW2 they found all the abandoned Enigma machines, realised how advanced they were and decided to use them themselves. It's one of the reasons it took so long for Turing's work to be declassified.
... How is that any worse than the other study? A study designed to identify the cause is certainly better than one that is ripe for confirmation bias with a correlation = causation conclusion.
Although the law he was prosecuted under was wrong. He would've lost his security clearance even if he hadn't. He had an incredibly high level of security clearance and he would've been a top target for Soviet agents. Given the public perception of homosexual behaviour at the time, it would've made him easy prey for blackmailing (I believe having an affair could get your clearance revoked too).
The Soviets were using Enigma for their codes (they didn't know it was broken and it was better than what they were using), The secret services couldn't afford any risks. As much as the paranoia destroyed the lives of good people, it was done in the belief it would save far more lives.
Nope, if they don't notice and you don't expressly tell them, you'd still be bound by it, it'd basically be an implied contract (I think there's a more specific term for this situation though).
If this wasn't the case anyone could pull off crap like "in my signature I deliberately spelt my name wrong so the contract was invalid".
Unless you got the HR guy to initial the sections crossed out, the courts are pretty unlikely to side with you in the case of a dispute. If you didn't even inform the HR guy that you'd modified the contract... expect a very unhappy judge (and very happy lawyers on your employer's side).
Discuss contract terms all you want with your potential employer but if you try to trick them or attempt a sleight of hand... At best you're invalidating the contract (something which will favour your employers greatly). at worst you're committing fraud.
So because the water in the tank wasn't contaminated, they know it was poison?
Afghanistan isn't especially well known for it's hygiene standards. The symptoms of headaches, Nausea and vomiting match up pretty well with salmonella or e-coli poisoning. It's obviously in a public official best interests to blame evil terrorists rather than lax health standards. Put your water jugs in a messy kitchen where meat it prepared, it could easily be contaminated.
Please tell me there's more to this report than that PDF. It's hopelessly light on details and is full of weasel words, it talks about concerns without an indication of how well founded they were. There are no real figures, no expert opinions, citations or anything. There isn't even much indication of how they arrived at their grades.
If I wrote an essay the way this report is written I'd have got a fail.
In the UK stop signs are only used when joining or crossing a road with limited view (so you couldn't realistically get a clear view if you kept going). Never understood the US' hatred of roundabouts, they're safer and quicker than 4 way intersections. They simply high speed collisions near impossible.
If you go up to a stop/give way sign at a fairly high speed and brake heavily at the last second, you're an arsehole. What people do that fail to realise is that they make people on the road they're joining or turning into nervous as hell. They've no idea if you're a late braker or if you're going to pull out in front of them and potentially cause an accident.
If he did drive his car as in that graph, I'd hate to be a passenger in his car with those g-forces. Heck even if he took twice as long to slow as in those graphs it would be pretty unpleasant if he did that every time he stopped. Besides which most cars can only manage ~-0.8gs and that's being done by professional drivers in ideal conditions with no regard for tire life. I suspect if you stretched out the graph for a more realistic acceleration of -0.5gs it wouldn't look more damning than supporting of his argument.
I always find it amusing that a lot of people use the "even if they're not guilty themselves, they associate with people who may be!" argument to justify their cop hate.
When you use the same type of reasoning dictators use to justify ethnic cleansing or the oppression of minorities, it's probably a sign that an argument you're making isn't as smart as you thought it was...
I find it rather suspicious the 4 misdemeanours weren't named in that article wheras the dropped felony was. Use of ellipsis in quotes also raises alarm bells. I suspect there's a bit more to that than the articles are saying.
They acted in a way they believed the law specified. It took 5 years of lawyers and judges wrangling for it to be conclusively decided that the law didn't specify that and the arrest was wrongful.
If it took people who have been studying law most of their lives that long to decide, what chance does a police officer, with a comparatively small legal knowledge and a few minutes under pressure to make his mind up, have to get to the right decision? It would be more than a bit harsh to brand cops criminals when they were forced to make a decision that was beyond their capability.
Watching the people outside was cringe-worthy. All except about three of them were told to remain absolutely still for the trick (so their head movement wouldn't give it away) and three of them were allowed to acteout a 'shocked' reaction. A lot of work to try and disguise what isn't really that great of a trick.
That one gets a bit fuzzy because it's the method David Copperfield used to make the statue of liberty disappear but he also did it with a real audience on location.
As a magic fan, it's incredibly annoying seeing so many street magicians using camera tricks. The whole point of street magicians is that you're not in a studio, you've limited avenues for preparation and you don't have control over your environment.
I blame people like David Blaine for popularising camera tricks, his 'hovering' trick is the worst. The actual trick is to position your feet in a way where the heel of the other foot blocks people's view of you standing on tiptoes on the other foot, giving the impression you're hovering a few inches off the ground. Neat trick but not impressive and it's very obvious what's happening when it's on camera. Knowing this, David then some point afterwards let himself lifted by a crane, got some actors to wear the same clothes as the people who were in the earlier trick and shot himself being lifted over their shoulders (wire was then CG'ed out). He spliced that footage with the people's reaction from the real trick and it gave the impression he genuinely performed an illusion where he hovered several metres off the ground in front of some random people.
Rule of thumb: if a street magician has any cuts in footage, something is up; there's only a single camera and he only gets one stab at a trick with a set of people, he shouldn't need to ever cut. Also, most "how did he know my birthday and get it in that passing bus?" trick almost always involved them having an interview when the camera isn't rolling or them having filled out a questionnaire beforehand.
Watched a youtube video of him doing a street magician style trick involving an umbrella. Was pretty obvious that it was a setup given that the woman just happened to have a plain bright red umbrella on what looked to be a warm sunny day. When a magician resorts to using tricks like I just can't enjoy the illusion. If you're going to use actors, off-camera interviews/questionnaires (so you can get info needed for 'psychic' tricks), you may as well go the whole hog and fake every aspect (you could even put in some CGI explosions) .
I would rather see a simple trick done very well than a complex, impressive seeming trick where an unknown amount is has been completely faked (well, technically as it's an illusion it's all fake but I'm sure you know what I mean). One of my favourite tricks is a simple slight of hand: Paul Daniel's Chop Cup.
Sales for the Lumia 800 are very strong in the UK from what I gather. The fact it's gone from only being sold by 2-3 providers to being sold by just about every phone shop certainly seems to indicate it's a big seller. According to this sales of the Lumia 800 alone were enough to push Windows 7 phone past Symbian in terms of market share.
The 610 will probably be a big seller too, low end budget phone (unlike Android, Windows works well on low end handsets).
Indeed, I would be interested to know how many people had a cursory glance at the phone book, didn't know who to call and decided to hand it into a lost and found.
Then there's the issue of phones running out of power. With these things having to keep phoning home I'd imagine the battery wouldn't last more than a day.
That has nothing to do with the benefit of a rape victim avoiding the need to recount how she was raped in front of a few hundred strangers then to be cross examined about it which was the point I made.
It may be a 'flawed process' but it's a hell of a lot better than the outcomes of cases being decided on the whim of somebody who ignores all the facts presented to him in a court in favour of his own views.
The point of the jury isn't to pass judgement on the person or the law. It's to pass judgement on the case through the facts brought up in court. Justice should be blind, not just when it comes to your views of the defendant but when it comes to all views and predjudices you may hold.
So you're just going to keep ignoring the most significant benefit, the actual benefit used by lawmakers across the world to justify plea deals, that I brought up in my original post?
The post I replied specifically referred to society losing out if the accused is either innocent or victim. You're the one that's only talking about the one situation.
If a guilty person pleads guilty, everyone involved in the case, the victims, the courts and the criminal himself benefits. Yes plea deals go wrong when innocent people wrongly take them but try as you might, you cannot pretend that plea deals have no benefits.
Jury nullification undermines the legal process and is not a good thing in any way.
You can get all romantic about the thought of saving some young guy from jail for drugs possession but would you find it so noble if a Klan member got away with murdering an innocent African American youth by his all white jury? How about an innocent man who clearly didn't commit murder being found guilty because he was gay and the jury thought homosexuals were sinful and he deserved to be punished anyway?
Laws are put into place by people elected by millions of voters. A single (or even a sizable minority) person in a Jury undermining this because of his personal, political views is democratic and goes against the whole principle of justice being blind. This is why any judge (and lawyers for both sides) worth their salt, are on the lookout for people looking to attempt jury nullification and if you lie to them in order to try it out... Enjoy being found in contempt (or worse).
Slashdot Mirror
Nope, the Soviets. After WW2 they found all the abandoned Enigma machines, realised how advanced they were and decided to use them themselves. It's one of the reasons it took so long for Turing's work to be declassified.
... How is that any worse than the other study? A study designed to identify the cause is certainly better than one that is ripe for confirmation bias with a correlation = causation conclusion.
Although the law he was prosecuted under was wrong. He would've lost his security clearance even if he hadn't. He had an incredibly high level of security clearance and he would've been a top target for Soviet agents. Given the public perception of homosexual behaviour at the time, it would've made him easy prey for blackmailing (I believe having an affair could get your clearance revoked too).
The Soviets were using Enigma for their codes (they didn't know it was broken and it was better than what they were using), The secret services couldn't afford any risks. As much as the paranoia destroyed the lives of good people, it was done in the belief it would save far more lives.
Nope, if they don't notice and you don't expressly tell them, you'd still be bound by it, it'd basically be an implied contract (I think there's a more specific term for this situation though).
If this wasn't the case anyone could pull off crap like "in my signature I deliberately spelt my name wrong so the contract was invalid".
Unless you got the HR guy to initial the sections crossed out, the courts are pretty unlikely to side with you in the case of a dispute. If you didn't even inform the HR guy that you'd modified the contract... expect a very unhappy judge (and very happy lawyers on your employer's side).
Discuss contract terms all you want with your potential employer but if you try to trick them or attempt a sleight of hand... At best you're invalidating the contract (something which will favour your employers greatly). at worst you're committing fraud.
So because the water in the tank wasn't contaminated, they know it was poison?
Afghanistan isn't especially well known for it's hygiene standards. The symptoms of headaches, Nausea and vomiting match up pretty well with salmonella or e-coli poisoning. It's obviously in a public official best interests to blame evil terrorists rather than lax health standards. Put your water jugs in a messy kitchen where meat it prepared, it could easily be contaminated.
Please tell me there's more to this report than that PDF. It's hopelessly light on details and is full of weasel words, it talks about concerns without an indication of how well founded they were. There are no real figures, no expert opinions, citations or anything. There isn't even much indication of how they arrived at their grades.
If I wrote an essay the way this report is written I'd have got a fail.
In the UK stop signs are only used when joining or crossing a road with limited view (so you couldn't realistically get a clear view if you kept going). Never understood the US' hatred of roundabouts, they're safer and quicker than 4 way intersections. They simply high speed collisions near impossible.
If you go up to a stop/give way sign at a fairly high speed and brake heavily at the last second, you're an arsehole. What people do that fail to realise is that they make people on the road they're joining or turning into nervous as hell. They've no idea if you're a late braker or if you're going to pull out in front of them and potentially cause an accident.
If he did drive his car as in that graph, I'd hate to be a passenger in his car with those g-forces. Heck even if he took twice as long to slow as in those graphs it would be pretty unpleasant if he did that every time he stopped. Besides which most cars can only manage ~-0.8gs and that's being done by professional drivers in ideal conditions with no regard for tire life. I suspect if you stretched out the graph for a more realistic acceleration of -0.5gs it wouldn't look more damning than supporting of his argument.
I always find it amusing that a lot of people use the "even if they're not guilty themselves, they associate with people who may be!" argument to justify their cop hate.
When you use the same type of reasoning dictators use to justify ethnic cleansing or the oppression of minorities, it's probably a sign that an argument you're making isn't as smart as you thought it was...
I find it rather suspicious the 4 misdemeanours weren't named in that article wheras the dropped felony was. Use of ellipsis in quotes also raises alarm bells. I suspect there's a bit more to that than the articles are saying.
They acted in a way they believed the law specified. It took 5 years of lawyers and judges wrangling for it to be conclusively decided that the law didn't specify that and the arrest was wrongful.
If it took people who have been studying law most of their lives that long to decide, what chance does a police officer, with a comparatively small legal knowledge and a few minutes under pressure to make his mind up, have to get to the right decision? It would be more than a bit harsh to brand cops criminals when they were forced to make a decision that was beyond their capability.
Watching the people outside was cringe-worthy. All except about three of them were told to remain absolutely still for the trick (so their head movement wouldn't give it away) and three of them were allowed to acteout a 'shocked' reaction. A lot of work to try and disguise what isn't really that great of a trick.
That one gets a bit fuzzy because it's the method David Copperfield used to make the statue of liberty disappear but he also did it with a real audience on location.
As a magic fan, it's incredibly annoying seeing so many street magicians using camera tricks. The whole point of street magicians is that you're not in a studio, you've limited avenues for preparation and you don't have control over your environment.
I blame people like David Blaine for popularising camera tricks, his 'hovering' trick is the worst. The actual trick is to position your feet in a way where the heel of the other foot blocks people's view of you standing on tiptoes on the other foot, giving the impression you're hovering a few inches off the ground. Neat trick but not impressive and it's very obvious what's happening when it's on camera. Knowing this, David then some point afterwards let himself lifted by a crane, got some actors to wear the same clothes as the people who were in the earlier trick and shot himself being lifted over their shoulders (wire was then CG'ed out). He spliced that footage with the people's reaction from the real trick and it gave the impression he genuinely performed an illusion where he hovered several metres off the ground in front of some random people.
Rule of thumb: if a street magician has any cuts in footage, something is up; there's only a single camera and he only gets one stab at a trick with a set of people, he shouldn't need to ever cut. Also, most "how did he know my birthday and get it in that passing bus?" trick almost always involved them having an interview when the camera isn't rolling or them having filled out a questionnaire beforehand.
Watched a youtube video of him doing a street magician style trick involving an umbrella. Was pretty obvious that it was a setup given that the woman just happened to have a plain bright red umbrella on what looked to be a warm sunny day. When a magician resorts to using tricks like I just can't enjoy the illusion. If you're going to use actors, off-camera interviews/questionnaires (so you can get info needed for 'psychic' tricks), you may as well go the whole hog and fake every aspect (you could even put in some CGI explosions) .
I would rather see a simple trick done very well than a complex, impressive seeming trick where an unknown amount is has been completely faked (well, technically as it's an illusion it's all fake but I'm sure you know what I mean). One of my favourite tricks is a simple slight of hand: Paul Daniel's Chop Cup.
Sales for the Lumia 800 are very strong in the UK from what I gather. The fact it's gone from only being sold by 2-3 providers to being sold by just about every phone shop certainly seems to indicate it's a big seller. According to this sales of the Lumia 800 alone were enough to push Windows 7 phone past Symbian in terms of market share.
The 610 will probably be a big seller too, low end budget phone (unlike Android, Windows works well on low end handsets).
Indeed, I would be interested to know how many people had a cursory glance at the phone book, didn't know who to call and decided to hand it into a lost and found.
Then there's the issue of phones running out of power. With these things having to keep phoning home I'd imagine the battery wouldn't last more than a day.
That has nothing to do with the benefit of a rape victim avoiding the need to recount how she was raped in front of a few hundred strangers then to be cross examined about it which was the point I made.
Who decides if it's a victimless crime if not the jury? Perhaps someone in the jury sees a klan member killing a black man as being victimless BS.
Jury Nullification still looking noble to you?
It may be a 'flawed process' but it's a hell of a lot better than the outcomes of cases being decided on the whim of somebody who ignores all the facts presented to him in a court in favour of his own views.
The point of the jury isn't to pass judgement on the person or the law. It's to pass judgement on the case through the facts brought up in court. Justice should be blind, not just when it comes to your views of the defendant but when it comes to all views and predjudices you may hold.
So you're just going to keep ignoring the most significant benefit, the actual benefit used by lawmakers across the world to justify plea deals, that I brought up in my original post?
The post I replied specifically referred to society losing out if the accused is either innocent or victim. You're the one that's only talking about the one situation.
If a guilty person pleads guilty, everyone involved in the case, the victims, the courts and the criminal himself benefits. Yes plea deals go wrong when innocent people wrongly take them but try as you might, you cannot pretend that plea deals have no benefits.
It's pretty common for family members to get called as witnesses, especially when crimes involve children.
Jury nullification undermines the legal process and is not a good thing in any way.
You can get all romantic about the thought of saving some young guy from jail for drugs possession but would you find it so noble if a Klan member got away with murdering an innocent African American youth by his all white jury? How about an innocent man who clearly didn't commit murder being found guilty because he was gay and the jury thought homosexuals were sinful and he deserved to be punished anyway?
Laws are put into place by people elected by millions of voters. A single (or even a sizable minority) person in a Jury undermining this because of his personal, political views is democratic and goes against the whole principle of justice being blind. This is why any judge (and lawyers for both sides) worth their salt, are on the lookout for people looking to attempt jury nullification and if you lie to them in order to try it out... Enjoy being found in contempt (or worse).