That can certainly be part of it, but it's much more. IV injection violates the integrity of the body itself, which is a really powerful psychological issue for anyone, at any age, but especially children.
It's one thing if you agree to it, if you do agree that you need it, it's another entirely when it is a matter of adults who are larger and more powerful deciding to do it and giving you no choice.
"Business documents vary wildly, from leaflets to brochures to memos to spreadsheets to banners."
Very true. And probably neither a word processor nor a layout and printsetting program is really the best way to do some of these "documents" which have little in common with higher level documents other than needing to be sent to a printer at some point. I remember there once being specialized little programs that just did 1-2 page specialty prints like that, trifold brochures, advertising posters, and the like.
It would also be quite possible for TeX to be applied to the problem to solve it properly if I understand correctly, but it never happens. Why? Simple. The organizations that tend to need a lot of this done are the same ones that never invest in their infrastructure until they absolutely have to. That sort of organization just isnt going to be far thinking enough to hire a real professional to sit down and solve the problem for them properly, they just dont do things like that. They manage by reaction and will only delegate resources at the minimum to solve the problem of the moment - and continue to do so every time it comes back up for months, years, decades.. if they manage to stay in business that long.
"That's hardly how any business document in existence is written"
That's true, and there are two main reasons for it.
One is that the writers, often but not always, simply are not good writers. They lack the basic skills needed to do a good job here, regardless of the tools to be used. There isnt much we can do about that one. But it's the smaller portion.
The larger is all the people that do have the basic intelligence and ability to write decent documents, but their abilities are stunted and deformed by their involuntary exposure to Word. Long term, there is still hope for those people if they can get away from Word.
I'll admit I havent touched it in years but Wikipedia indicates it's been kept up to date, and other than being locked into MSWin (obviously given the Office item that's a given) what's wrong with it?
"I would say that changing the cop's mind from thinking that you're guilty to thinking that you're innocent, is certainly "helping you". That's true even if the cop's initial state of mind (that you were guilty) might not have been enough for him to make an arrest."
The unstated assumption is that this same change of mind would not have occurred had the person been less talkative. But there is absolutely no reason to believe this is true! You appear to be assuming that the cops will simply railroad you, regardless of the evidence, if you lawyer up, but all evidence I am aware of says you are dead wrong on that in most cases, and worse yet, if you have the bad luck to have that kind of cop interrogating you that is precisely the situation where getting a lawyer before you say anything is MOST, not least critical.
Again, all officer Bruch's statements substantiate is that there is a small chance that talking might not hurt you, not that it can ever help you. He explicitly agreed that it could not.
"Here, although Wolf argues that production of the videotape will incriminate him, he fails to explain how."
That seems like a particularly obnoxious test, since explaining how it might incriminate him would surely be no less likely to incriminate him than simply testifying. Had the fight been focused on the fifth instead of having apparently been thrown in almost as an afterthought, that sort of reasoning might have been over-ruled. But again, that reasoning itself seems superfluous fluff tacked on after the meat of the reasoning - which was that they were seeking the videotape itself, not his testimony.
Both of those points I believe would be arguable and possibly reversed on appeal had that been the thrust of the defenses argument from the beginning. They chose to press the first amendment and fourth amendment in preference, and I can understand why - since a fifth amendment filing could have been mooted by extending immunity and the gentleman probably would not have regarded that as a satisfactory outcome - he didnt want to produce the videotape at all.
I've seen them, and they dont say what you are trying to twist them into saying.
"You're going to lose [in the police interrogation room], unless you're purely innocent. On the other side of it, I don't want to put anyone who's innocent in jail. I try not to bring anyone in to the interview room who's innocent. And there are a couple that I have let walk away because they were innocent."
"This appears to contradict Professor Duane, who said repeatedly that even if you're innocent, "it CANNOT help" to talk to the police, and that "you CANNOT talk to the police out of arresting you""
No, it doesnt. Nothing in what Officer Bruch said indicates that these people did themselves any good whatsoever by talking to him. You are ASSUMING that if they had not talked, they would have been arrested, and that makes no sense at all. A 'couple' - a very small percentage of the total here - were let go - but those same people would have been let go had they refused to talk as well. So even for that tiny percentage, there is nothing here that says that talking helped them at all, the best you can say is that they managed to talk without hanging themselves.
You would have to work hard to find a less applicable case. Wolf never cited or argued the fourth amendment. He tried and failed with a *first amendment* argument, not one based on the fourth. And despite 'losing' there he never actually testified anyway.
Theoretically an innocent witness can be forced to testify. However given the modern legal framework it may be argued that such a thing does not exist, and certainly it would be difficult to prove and cannot simply be assumed. There is no way any layman in a courtroom today could really be certain their answer could not possibly incriminate them - which leaves a perfect rationale to simply cite the 5th whenever questioned about anything whatsoever.
If you are truly not the target then there is no reason for the court not to grant you immunity.
Of course if you ever get in that situation for real you want to ask your lawyer for advice, not me. But I would certainly hold the above position like a rock until and unless my lawyer gave me a reason to do otherwise.
"Libya as a country is a colonial age construct with borders drawn with a ruler. In reality, it's a tribal area with approximately 150 various tribes who are largely autonomous and often hate each other."
And the same can be said of most countries, if not all. It's hardly unique to Libya. Governments still exist.
The fact is the US served as the air force for the rebels to enable them to set up a democratic government and now the same US just knocked it around like the proverbial stepchild, in full view of their nation. Spin that however you want it, I dont think you can escape the conclusion that there had to be some very poor decision making involved in at least one end of the sequence, if not both.
If Microsoft builds enough they might wind up going real cheap here in another year or two. If there are free drivers the things might be worth picking up then.
I have to say this is one of your better posts. Very nice work threading the fallacy so nicely.
The guy is unlikely to be 'innocent' but that doesnt mean he shouldnt be given a fair trial and every chance to show himself so if he is.
Nor have I seen anything to suggest that his capture was anywhere near important enough to offset the hostility this sort of action generates. It was a 15 year old crime, why couldnt it wait another 2 or 3 years? Keep a long eye on him but dont say anything to anyone, let him think he was forgotten, take a tourist flight to a jurisdiction that would happily extradict him and never make it out of the airport. All legal and beyond reproach.
Instead the young and fragile democratic Libya for which our armed forces and taxpayers served as midwife is reeling from instability after being put in about the worst position any government can be, thoroughly embarrassed, shown to be impotent to enforce any kind of law and order quite dramatically.
The unfortunate fact is that the only power in Syria capable of containing Al Qaeda at this point is Assad's government. The much-touted moderates have minimal operational capabilities and little support inside the country. The Al Qaeda affiliates between themselves and their local allies have the lions share of the opposition military. The Kurds are still skating delicately to get as much autonomy as possible out of the deal, but ultimately they will choose Assad over Al Qaeda, and they are the only significant force not already engaged. If the moderate opposition are smart they will cut their own deal with Assad and unite the entire country against Al Qaeda before it's too late.
In this context, all the western 'support' for the syrian moderates has been worth no more, possibly less, than a kind word and a kiss on the cheek.
Because some politician who was thinking more about campaigning for the next job instead of performing the current one said 'Assad must go.'
We could go on and fill in some later details, 'red lines' and such rot, but it really all traces back to that one misstep. Which just couldnt possibly have been retracted because that would have embarrassed the person in question, better to kill a few million furriners than to embarass someone important don't you know?
" They recall the famous quote "you can't run a coal mine without a machine gun" coming from the sort of environment you are advocating."
No, they dont. They remember it coming from a very different environment. You can keep asserting black is white and night is day all you want, you're spitting into the wind.
You are citing areas that combine arbitrary "regulations" with a severe lack of the sort of common law that I am talking about, as an example of what I am talking about? You are completely upside down and backwards. Talk to elderly people? Yes, you should. My grandfather is dead now or he would be well over the century mark, and his ghost is at my shoulder laughing at you right now.
"The major difference is that the cache from the SSHD is persistent while your RAM isn't. For your OS to buffer a certain file it still needs to read it a first time from the disk. E.g. when starting up or rebooting this helps you nothing at all. The SSHD (might) have said file in cache and hence can serve it much faster."
That's what I have been saying over and over. This will give you persistence which should mean a faster boot, but is of little or no utility outside of that, when compared to the alternatives.
"I'm not sure how you come to the conclusion that your system cache "knows a lot more about access patterns and files than the on-drive logic can possibly gather."."
Because the OS actually knows which blocks are assigned to which files, what type of files they are, etc. The disk only knows what the OS wants stored in which logical address. The disk simply doesnt have access to the information that's needed to do truly intelligent caching.
"Given the way HD's work these days the OS knows nothing about what is actually happening on the disk. Do you really believe that the block-addressing used by the OS is actually related to how the data is spread out on the disk ?"
Of course not. But the disk simply translates one coordinate system to another, it does not (and should not!) implement the filesystem or have any high level information about the contents of the drive.
"That's correct - it's "might makes right" which is the obvious outcome of your suggestion."
My suggestion was application of criminal and civil law. How that equates to "might makes right" is a sheer mystery. You appear to have some sort of mental difficulty.
I really think the governments case is particularly weak here. Any decent typist could get that thing in twice and run a compare in well under an hour, with a coffee break included. Wouldnt it have been cheaper and more cost effective to simply do that instead of going back to court at that point? Or was there another agenda the were pursuing?
Slashdot Mirror
"But again, what was the alternative?" Bob Barr.
That can certainly be part of it, but it's much more. IV injection violates the integrity of the body itself, which is a really powerful psychological issue for anyone, at any age, but especially children.
It's one thing if you agree to it, if you do agree that you need it, it's another entirely when it is a matter of adults who are larger and more powerful deciding to do it and giving you no choice.
"Business documents vary wildly, from leaflets to brochures to memos to spreadsheets to banners."
Very true. And probably neither a word processor nor a layout and printsetting program is really the best way to do some of these "documents" which have little in common with higher level documents other than needing to be sent to a printer at some point. I remember there once being specialized little programs that just did 1-2 page specialty prints like that, trifold brochures, advertising posters, and the like.
It would also be quite possible for TeX to be applied to the problem to solve it properly if I understand correctly, but it never happens. Why? Simple. The organizations that tend to need a lot of this done are the same ones that never invest in their infrastructure until they absolutely have to. That sort of organization just isnt going to be far thinking enough to hire a real professional to sit down and solve the problem for them properly, they just dont do things like that. They manage by reaction and will only delegate resources at the minimum to solve the problem of the moment - and continue to do so every time it comes back up for months, years, decades.. if they manage to stay in business that long.
And that is how we all got saddled with Word.
Next time try to pay attention.
Because it was pretty obvious Obama was going to be awful, all you had to do was read the full story instead of just the headline each time.
"That's hardly how any business document in existence is written"
That's true, and there are two main reasons for it.
One is that the writers, often but not always, simply are not good writers. They lack the basic skills needed to do a good job here, regardless of the tools to be used. There isnt much we can do about that one. But it's the smaller portion.
The larger is all the people that do have the basic intelligence and ability to write decent documents, but their abilities are stunted and deformed by their involuntary exposure to Word. Long term, there is still hope for those people if they can get away from Word.
I'll admit I havent touched it in years but Wikipedia indicates it's been kept up to date, and other than being locked into MSWin (obviously given the Office item that's a given) what's wrong with it?
"I would say that changing the cop's mind from thinking that you're guilty to thinking that you're innocent, is certainly "helping you". That's true even if the cop's initial state of mind (that you were guilty) might not have been enough for him to make an arrest."
The unstated assumption is that this same change of mind would not have occurred had the person been less talkative. But there is absolutely no reason to believe this is true! You appear to be assuming that the cops will simply railroad you, regardless of the evidence, if you lawyer up, but all evidence I am aware of says you are dead wrong on that in most cases, and worse yet, if you have the bad luck to have that kind of cop interrogating you that is precisely the situation where getting a lawyer before you say anything is MOST, not least critical.
Again, all officer Bruch's statements substantiate is that there is a small chance that talking might not hurt you, not that it can ever help you. He explicitly agreed that it could not.
"Here, although Wolf argues that production of the videotape will incriminate him, he fails to explain how."
That seems like a particularly obnoxious test, since explaining how it might incriminate him would surely be no less likely to incriminate him than simply testifying. Had the fight been focused on the fifth instead of having apparently been thrown in almost as an afterthought, that sort of reasoning might have been over-ruled. But again, that reasoning itself seems superfluous fluff tacked on after the meat of the reasoning - which was that they were seeking the videotape itself, not his testimony.
Both of those points I believe would be arguable and possibly reversed on appeal had that been the thrust of the defenses argument from the beginning. They chose to press the first amendment and fourth amendment in preference, and I can understand why - since a fifth amendment filing could have been mooted by extending immunity and the gentleman probably would not have regarded that as a satisfactory outcome - he didnt want to produce the videotape at all.
I see you dont take constructive criticism well.
It was a good post except for that one scorching neon error, chin up.
Yet more proof that web developers in general are nowhere near mature enough to be allowed the use of javascript.
I've seen them, and they dont say what you are trying to twist them into saying.
"This appears to contradict Professor Duane, who said repeatedly that even if you're innocent, "it CANNOT help" to talk to the police, and that "you CANNOT talk to the police out of arresting you""
No, it doesnt. Nothing in what Officer Bruch said indicates that these people did themselves any good whatsoever by talking to him. You are ASSUMING that if they had not talked, they would have been arrested, and that makes no sense at all. A 'couple' - a very small percentage of the total here - were let go - but those same people would have been let go had they refused to talk as well. So even for that tiny percentage, there is nothing here that says that talking helped them at all, the best you can say is that they managed to talk without hanging themselves.
You would have to work hard to find a less applicable case. Wolf never cited or argued the fourth amendment. He tried and failed with a *first amendment* argument, not one based on the fourth. And despite 'losing' there he never actually testified anyway.
Officer Bruch said no such thing.
Theoretically an innocent witness can be forced to testify. However given the modern legal framework it may be argued that such a thing does not exist, and certainly it would be difficult to prove and cannot simply be assumed. There is no way any layman in a courtroom today could really be certain their answer could not possibly incriminate them - which leaves a perfect rationale to simply cite the 5th whenever questioned about anything whatsoever.
If you are truly not the target then there is no reason for the court not to grant you immunity.
Of course if you ever get in that situation for real you want to ask your lawyer for advice, not me. But I would certainly hold the above position like a rock until and unless my lawyer gave me a reason to do otherwise.
"Libya as a country is a colonial age construct with borders drawn with a ruler. In reality, it's a tribal area with approximately 150 various tribes who are largely autonomous and often hate each other."
And the same can be said of most countries, if not all. It's hardly unique to Libya. Governments still exist.
The fact is the US served as the air force for the rebels to enable them to set up a democratic government and now the same US just knocked it around like the proverbial stepchild, in full view of their nation. Spin that however you want it, I dont think you can escape the conclusion that there had to be some very poor decision making involved in at least one end of the sequence, if not both.
How well documented is the hardware?
If Microsoft builds enough they might wind up going real cheap here in another year or two. If there are free drivers the things might be worth picking up then.
I have to say this is one of your better posts. Very nice work threading the fallacy so nicely.
The guy is unlikely to be 'innocent' but that doesnt mean he shouldnt be given a fair trial and every chance to show himself so if he is.
Nor have I seen anything to suggest that his capture was anywhere near important enough to offset the hostility this sort of action generates. It was a 15 year old crime, why couldnt it wait another 2 or 3 years? Keep a long eye on him but dont say anything to anyone, let him think he was forgotten, take a tourist flight to a jurisdiction that would happily extradict him and never make it out of the airport. All legal and beyond reproach.
Instead the young and fragile democratic Libya for which our armed forces and taxpayers served as midwife is reeling from instability after being put in about the worst position any government can be, thoroughly embarrassed, shown to be impotent to enforce any kind of law and order quite dramatically.
The unfortunate fact is that the only power in Syria capable of containing Al Qaeda at this point is Assad's government. The much-touted moderates have minimal operational capabilities and little support inside the country. The Al Qaeda affiliates between themselves and their local allies have the lions share of the opposition military. The Kurds are still skating delicately to get as much autonomy as possible out of the deal, but ultimately they will choose Assad over Al Qaeda, and they are the only significant force not already engaged. If the moderate opposition are smart they will cut their own deal with Assad and unite the entire country against Al Qaeda before it's too late.
In this context, all the western 'support' for the syrian moderates has been worth no more, possibly less, than a kind word and a kiss on the cheek.
Because some politician who was thinking more about campaigning for the next job instead of performing the current one said 'Assad must go.'
We could go on and fill in some later details, 'red lines' and such rot, but it really all traces back to that one misstep. Which just couldnt possibly have been retracted because that would have embarrassed the person in question, better to kill a few million furriners than to embarass someone important don't you know?
" They recall the famous quote "you can't run a coal mine without a machine gun" coming from the sort of environment you are advocating."
No, they dont. They remember it coming from a very different environment. You can keep asserting black is white and night is day all you want, you're spitting into the wind.
You are citing areas that combine arbitrary "regulations" with a severe lack of the sort of common law that I am talking about, as an example of what I am talking about? You are completely upside down and backwards. Talk to elderly people? Yes, you should. My grandfather is dead now or he would be well over the century mark, and his ghost is at my shoulder laughing at you right now.
"The major difference is that the cache from the SSHD is persistent while your RAM isn't. For your OS to buffer a certain file it still needs to read it a first time from the disk. E.g. when starting up or rebooting this helps you nothing at all. The SSHD (might) have said file in cache and hence can serve it much faster."
That's what I have been saying over and over. This will give you persistence which should mean a faster boot, but is of little or no utility outside of that, when compared to the alternatives.
"I'm not sure how you come to the conclusion that your system cache "knows a lot more about access patterns and files than the on-drive logic can possibly gather."."
Because the OS actually knows which blocks are assigned to which files, what type of files they are, etc. The disk only knows what the OS wants stored in which logical address. The disk simply doesnt have access to the information that's needed to do truly intelligent caching.
"Given the way HD's work these days the OS knows nothing about what is actually happening on the disk. Do you really believe that the block-addressing used by the OS is actually related to how the data is spread out on the disk ?"
Of course not. But the disk simply translates one coordinate system to another, it does not (and should not!) implement the filesystem or have any high level information about the contents of the drive.
The advantage the richer man holds in a common law court is significantly less than in a situation of regulatory capture.
"That's correct - it's "might makes right" which is the obvious outcome of your suggestion."
My suggestion was application of criminal and civil law. How that equates to "might makes right" is a sheer mystery. You appear to have some sort of mental difficulty.
I really think the governments case is particularly weak here. Any decent typist could get that thing in twice and run a compare in well under an hour, with a coffee break included. Wouldnt it have been cheaper and more cost effective to simply do that instead of going back to court at that point? Or was there another agenda the were pursuing?