Its the term the people who did this would use if it happened to them.... funny calling it a campaign when, by their own definitions, it was an attack. Shit, if they did similar, it might even be trumped up as an act of war.
That sounds exactly like what I would expect from this government, without regard to who is in office. Oh you did something stupid for personal gain? No harm no foul.....but if you are an idealist, that scares them.
The last thing they want is to be held accountable, and this is a clear indication of that.
You know its always a little of collumn A and a little of collumn B with such things. I am certain some people think they are using them medicinally, and there are always going to be a few people out there claiming the treatment they offer is medicinal and "removes toxins" (I still find it odd there are people who don't realize the word "toxin" is a red flag in most contexts)
OTOH I know people who have played with this from more the BDSM side, they definitely exist but, don't tend to feel much need to pretend its medical...tho maybe some use that excuse around people who they feel would react better to thinking they are stupid than know what they do in their bedroom. Again....a little A, a little B.....
See, and that is the problem right there. Its so easy to see the problems, and you are right. The prison and military industrial complexes, as well as several others, are a huge problem but.... and this is a Ron Jeremy hairy ass but.... there is no way anything remotely as simple as "Term Limits" is going to fix shit.
You think the big industries can't find bodies to fill seats on a more regular basis?
The bigger problem, really, is fundamentally flawed structure that isn't scaling well, especially since entire industries have grown up around exploiting its weaknesses for profit in one way or another. It is a a deep house made of many many cards.
Take the disasterous war on drugs and particularly pot. When it was made illegal, it wasn't actually even considered a serious drug of abuse. Hell, I have read the congressional records on the first marijuana law which included this exchange "Mr Speaker, what is marijuana?" "I don't know, some narcotic".
Some of the most vocal proponents of the law were people who worked for the FBN, the precursor of the DEA... the people who had just seen prohibition die and were scared for their jobs. It was essentially a coalition of federal workers worried about their jobs and a few industrialists who stood to profit. The AMA even sent a doctor to the Senate hearings to advise against passing the bill!
Now, some 80 years later, how many people have been arrested? How many shot? How many houses and cars repossessed? There are more marijuana smokers than the next 3 major illicit drugs...combined. How many police officers, how many probation officers, how many prison gaurds, drug testing lab technitions.....all have jobs because we arrest and charge adults for smoking a plant.
Its disgusting but, as high as the ideals of this system are, it is incapable of dealing with them. Its incapable of stopping the spending of billions upon billions on military projects we don't need for adversaries we don't have.....because these are diseases eat at the very fabric of the system.
Shit, the DEA openly claims "Parallel Construction" is a legal tactic for "protecting sources" when the reality is, the source they are protecting is the mass surveillance that the people likely wouldn't approve of if they knew...and it works because the system has exhausted its defenses against uncontrolled growth. The loopholes are found....
If a the Police can guide a constructed evidence trail to the courts, then, there is no such thing as a poisonous tree anymore. Their entire answer to mass surveillance is now "anything we don't tell you about is ok".
This system is nearly entirely ownend by tumors of its own creation. Its not any one of these, its all of these. Its the Prison system often enlarged to create jobs and win votes or for private profit, which results in gaurds unions who then lobby for strict laws.... its the military contractors who farm out work to multiple districts to make every project political suicide to kill.... its just so many special interests with so many perverse alignments that its like the patient has lived so long he is more tumor than man.
First, I didn't make the original comment, so much for your assumptions.
Secondly, I am well aware of that, and your comment is a perfect example of exactly what I am talking about. The original poster used the appropriate phrase in spoken conversation, an idiomatic expression which is well understood and even common. He clearly understood what he was talking about.
Now you, without even bothering to see who said what, actually claim that spelling has shit to do with understanding?
I read the original comment, it was pretty fucking clear to me.
However, and really this is the point. Noticing a grammatical or spelling error is nothing worth being a jackass about, and it certainly gives you nothing to be condescending about. You just performed a task at the level of a word processor....good job, you want a fucking gold star for being the smart kid?
You want to disagree or poke fun at someone's thoughts, hey, I have no quarrel with you, hell, troll em good. However, if all you have is picking on someone for a poor turn of phrase, I just want you to know, you aren't bringing much to the table to be smug about. You just performed a task at the level of a cheap word processor. Good job, you mad nobody gives you gold stars for spelling anymore?
Thing is, I suspect you are right on the first part but thats the thing...its insignificant to the point. Just because online comments are a crapshoot....offline ones are too btw... doesn't say anything about any individual one and....frankly....
Ive known some otherwise intelligent people who don't speak well or have trouble speaking/typing. Its simply bigotry to read someone words and focus only on how they speak while ignoring their message. This whole "you don't speak exactly to my standards so fuck your opinion" really doesn't deserve to be acceptable.
Is that really all you have for a response? Were you aware that nobody commenting on syntax or grammar has EVER contributed anything of use to any conversation that wasn't a conversation ABOUT syntax or grammar?
Case in point.... Should we take you seriously when your entire response is "you didn't spell a word right"? No rebuttal? No claim that these statements are not true? Nothing but an attack on the intelligence of the poster based on....a single fucking word.
Its funny how this was always the standard accusation, and now that there are more and more cameras everywhere, we are actually starting to see cases where cops get caught actually planting evidence. Gee, maybe we shouldn't have dismissed these claims? Or maybe we should never have made simple posession of something that can easily be concealed a crime?
of course reply to myself.... this article doesn't give many numbers....one with the numbers is far more damaging to this use of dogs....numbers from the same study posted here (http://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2011/02/animal_behaviour )
"of 144 searches, only 21 were clean (no alerts)"
How can you possibly look at that and say a dog is anything but a prop when used in this manner?
basic method was simple, they setup a course with NO drugs or explosives. They told handlers there were several test stations. Some had meat (a test for the dog) some had nothing.
You can see the results.... almost every walkthrough had hits. When there was an indicator to the handler that there should be a hit in an area, the false positive rate went up, but it was ridiculously high already.
Dogs have an amazing sense of smell, but that doesn't mean you can read their minds.
However dogs are nearly useless in this scenario. Its been shown that in a case where there is suspicion dogs "hit" nearly 100% of the time even in controlled situations where its known there is nothing for them to hit on. Dogs are only useful if the handler has no particular suspiscion or, in tracking. In these kinds of stops they are really just props.
which is funny because it seems they clearly have not actually reviewed the use of the dogs themselves because, in this instance, they are less scientifically sound than a polygraph.
Dogs have a great sense of smell but even better sense of what their pack leader wants from them. They play clever hans even better than they smell and its been shown over and over that dogs are useless in the case that there is..... ANY SUSPICION AT ALL.
Quite simply, the moment an officer decided he should use the dog, the dog "smelling something" is almost a foregone conclusion, even in the absence of any actual substance to smell. This has been shown quite readily by simply putting dogs and their handlers through courses with no smell, but several visual indicators for handlers, they found that the vast majority of the time dogs had a "hit" even when the rate should have been a flat 0. When there was an indication to the trainer....they hit WAY more often.
Dogs are only useful in manhunts and at checkpoints where searches are ubiquitous and there is no reason to suspect any individual.
Whenever there is ANY suspiscion, the dog is JUST A PROP.
Assuming he can afford his own lawyer and is willing to fight it despite being offered a slap on the wrist, loss of property, and a leash on his freedoms or risk 10 years in prison.
If he insists on a trial he can expect a long and expensive road where they drains him until he pleads guilty no matter what
> There are only so many multi-spectral selfies you would ever want to have
No way, selfies are awesome, they should fix the sensors back at the craft and put the communications on a movable platform.... and call it the Tourist.
Common sense is just bullshit you invoke when you want to discount someone else's opinion, as a phrase it has no other purpose.
I mean your not wrong except in the assumption that "Crime" is a thing or "Conspirators" are. Neither are all created equal. This sort of pie in the sky analsys is fine for a hypothetical but in real situations there are always trade offs.
Quite simply there are many criminal enterprises that one cannot do alone or, the benefits of having help far outweigh the risks. This case here is a PRIME example. He could only pull it off alone if everything goes perfectly, which it clearly didn't if they even went to the level of investigation of getting the store video (unless that is SOP? I don't know, my wife's family had a store with lotto but apparently nobody hit that big so she doesn't know)
Any individual crime just has too many factors to make such blanket statements about, especially when there are different kinds of crime that different people have different attitudes towards to begin with. Its just not that cut and dry.
Yes conspirators roll all the time, and people confess often without meaning to as well. However that just isn't the whole story. One man can't line dance so it doesn't really matter whether he wants to have partners or not.
All that said.... again not all situations are equal. I don't think its SOP to get the store video footage which means they already suspected tampering. If they already suspected tampering, they likely already suspected him of being the tamperer. Most criminals are not operating under a microscope so much as above the telescopes.....its an entirely different game at that point, and a game with a serious disadvantage, especially when your microscopist has hundreds of millions of reasons to wait for you to show up.
> Your odds of being caught for the commission of a crime are significantly higher than your odds of ending up in a > plane crash. I'm not certain why you're trying to equate them or argue this point with me.
I never claimed otherwise. However they are the same in one detail.... the remorse of those after the fact has no bearing whatsoever on the odds of it happening. I am the one perplexed at why you brought it up.
> The words "trusted" and "co-conspirator" are mutually exclusive.
I see why you think that, and I understand why you would come to that conclusion. I don't agree that others would or do necessarily come to the same conclusion.
Their comfort has no bearing on the analysis. The vast majority of planes take off and land without incident, but that is of little comfort to the survivors of plane crashes. The magnitude of their sorrow does not have any implication for airline safety.
Non-zero yes but, there are many many more investigations than arrests. Just because a crime is suspected doesn't mean that the investigation will catch anyone. Even in this case, they clearly had suspicion when they went and sought out the video of who bought the ticket.... but if it wasn't him and the ticket was presented for redemption by the person who bought the ticket who had no easy connection to him (this would be very tricky.... need to find someone without a cell phone probably....homeless?)
Thats the thing, it seems to me that the video is the real cincher. Once you see him on the video, its done, its obvious, that is the string which ties everything into a nice package. Without that, you have more suspects and less answers.
Generally, yes, once you are caught and being questioned, you are usually pretty boned....hell even innocent people sometimes do better with a guilty plea than taking a chance in court. However, if you can avoid them being so sure who did it, that is a whole different story.
> Needless to say, of course, this is all highly illegal, and would constitute criminal conspiracy in addition to > whatever other laws are broken, so I'm not suggesting anyone do this - merely red teaming the scenario.
Sure but so is defrauding the lotto anyway so, once you decided to go down that path, you may as well go for the gold, nobody is going to give you credit for half measures, you are either going to prison or getting away, there is no in between on a case like this.
Its an odd calculous, to consider the risk vs protection factors of having accomplices, honestly, im not too sure how to it really works out in the end but, its pretty obvious to me that this was a situation that called for one.
I am familiar with prisoner's dilemma but not this rather radical and non-sensical interpretation of it which seems to hardly be a prediction worth reporting when its so clear that criminal conspiracies are able to align the interests of their members. While its true they may do so with varrying degrees of effectiveness and sometimes it doesn't work indefinitely but, any notion that they can't be aligned is tantamount to claiming you just proved gravity doesn't work, you can claim it all you want but I expect to remain firmly on the ground anyway.
Not entirely, if you can trust that his interests and yours are aligned then you can generally trust him. Actually, I was reading some interesting articles on Rockefellar and the railroads recently, where they came up with an ingenious price fixing scheme where Rockefellar was a colluding customer whose interests were aligned with the conspirators.
Basically price fixing often has a loophole.....rebates. Colluding companies can still compete by offering secret rebates to customers, thus reducing the effective rate while appearing to honor the collusion agreement.
Enter the colluding customer. Rockefellar was in a uinique position as he owned several companies and nobody really knew what all companies he owned and didn't. He was given what were called "Drawbacks", that is rebates for every barrel of oil which shipped, whether he was the customer or not! This allowed him to ship under any name and still get his rebate without admitting which companies were his.
In this way, colluding entities were prevented from defecting by aligning incentives to create a kind of trust.
Slashdot Mirror
Its the term the people who did this would use if it happened to them.... funny calling it a campaign when, by their own definitions, it was an attack. Shit, if they did similar, it might even be trumped up as an act of war.
He did send a serious message.... misappropriation and corruption at the highest levels will most certainly be tolerated.
That sounds exactly like what I would expect from this government, without regard to who is in office. Oh you did something stupid for personal gain? No harm no foul.....but if you are an idealist, that scares them.
The last thing they want is to be held accountable, and this is a clear indication of that.
You know its always a little of collumn A and a little of collumn B with such things. I am certain some people think they are using them medicinally, and there are always going to be a few people out there claiming the treatment they offer is medicinal and "removes toxins" (I still find it odd there are people who don't realize the word "toxin" is a red flag in most contexts)
OTOH I know people who have played with this from more the BDSM side, they definitely exist but, don't tend to feel much need to pretend its medical...tho maybe some use that excuse around people who they feel would react better to thinking they are stupid than know what they do in their bedroom. Again....a little A, a little B.....
See, and that is the problem right there. Its so easy to see the problems, and you are right. The prison and military industrial complexes, as well as several others, are a huge problem but.... and this is a Ron Jeremy hairy ass but.... there is no way anything remotely as simple as "Term Limits" is going to fix shit.
You think the big industries can't find bodies to fill seats on a more regular basis?
The bigger problem, really, is fundamentally flawed structure that isn't scaling well, especially since entire industries have grown up around exploiting its weaknesses for profit in one way or another. It is a a deep house made of many many cards.
Take the disasterous war on drugs and particularly pot. When it was made illegal, it wasn't actually even considered a serious drug of abuse. Hell, I have read the congressional records on the first marijuana law which included this exchange "Mr Speaker, what is marijuana?" "I don't know, some narcotic".
Some of the most vocal proponents of the law were people who worked for the FBN, the precursor of the DEA... the people who had just seen prohibition die and were scared for their jobs. It was essentially a coalition of federal workers worried about their jobs and a few industrialists who stood to profit. The AMA even sent a doctor to the Senate hearings to advise against passing the bill!
Now, some 80 years later, how many people have been arrested? How many shot? How many houses and cars repossessed? There are more marijuana smokers than the next 3 major illicit drugs...combined. How many police officers, how many probation officers, how many prison gaurds, drug testing lab technitions.....all have jobs because we arrest and charge adults for smoking a plant.
Its disgusting but, as high as the ideals of this system are, it is incapable of dealing with them. Its incapable of stopping the spending of billions upon billions on military projects we don't need for adversaries we don't have.....because these are diseases eat at the very fabric of the system.
Shit, the DEA openly claims "Parallel Construction" is a legal tactic for "protecting sources" when the reality is, the source they are protecting is the mass surveillance that the people likely wouldn't approve of if they knew...and it works because the system has exhausted its defenses against uncontrolled growth. The loopholes are found....
If a the Police can guide a constructed evidence trail to the courts, then, there is no such thing as a poisonous tree anymore. Their entire answer to mass surveillance is now "anything we don't tell you about is ok".
This system is nearly entirely ownend by tumors of its own creation. Its not any one of these, its all of these. Its the Prison system often enlarged to create jobs and win votes or for private profit, which results in gaurds unions who then lobby for strict laws.... its the military contractors who farm out work to multiple districts to make every project political suicide to kill.... its just so many special interests with so many perverse alignments that its like the patient has lived so long he is more tumor than man.
First, I didn't make the original comment, so much for your assumptions.
Secondly, I am well aware of that, and your comment is a perfect example of exactly what I am talking about. The original poster used the appropriate phrase in spoken conversation, an idiomatic expression which is well understood and even common. He clearly understood what he was talking about.
Now you, without even bothering to see who said what, actually claim that spelling has shit to do with understanding?
I read the original comment, it was pretty fucking clear to me.
However, and really this is the point. Noticing a grammatical or spelling error is nothing worth being a jackass about, and it certainly gives you nothing to be condescending about. You just performed a task at the level of a word processor....good job, you want a fucking gold star for being the smart kid?
You want to disagree or poke fun at someone's thoughts, hey, I have no quarrel with you, hell, troll em good. However, if all you have is picking on someone for a poor turn of phrase, I just want you to know, you aren't bringing much to the table to be smug about. You just performed a task at the level of a cheap word processor. Good job, you mad nobody gives you gold stars for spelling anymore?
Thing is, I suspect you are right on the first part but thats the thing...its insignificant to the point. Just because online comments are a crapshoot....offline ones are too btw... doesn't say anything about any individual one and....frankly....
Ive known some otherwise intelligent people who don't speak well or have trouble speaking/typing. Its simply bigotry to read someone words and focus only on how they speak while ignoring their message. This whole "you don't speak exactly to my standards so fuck your opinion" really doesn't deserve to be acceptable.
Is that really all you have for a response? Were you aware that nobody commenting on syntax or grammar has EVER contributed anything of use to any conversation that wasn't a conversation ABOUT syntax or grammar?
Case in point.... Should we take you seriously when your entire response is "you didn't spell a word right"?
No rebuttal? No claim that these statements are not true? Nothing but an attack on the intelligence of the poster based on....a single fucking word.
ungood refs unplaces; update fullwise.
Its funny how this was always the standard accusation, and now that there are more and more cameras everywhere, we are actually starting to see cases where cops get caught actually planting evidence. Gee, maybe we shouldn't have dismissed these claims? Or maybe we should never have made simple posession of something that can easily be concealed a crime?
of course reply to myself.... this article doesn't give many numbers....one with the numbers is far more damaging to this use of dogs....numbers from the same study posted here (http://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2011/02/animal_behaviour )
"of 144 searches, only 21 were clean (no alerts)"
How can you possibly look at that and say a dog is anything but a prop when used in this manner?
Sure: http://www.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu/w...
basic method was simple, they setup a course with NO drugs or explosives. They told handlers there were several test stations. Some had meat (a test for the dog) some had nothing.
You can see the results.... almost every walkthrough had hits. When there was an indicator to the handler that there should be a hit in an area, the false positive rate went up, but it was ridiculously high already.
Dogs have an amazing sense of smell, but that doesn't mean you can read their minds.
However dogs are nearly useless in this scenario. Its been shown that in a case where there is suspicion dogs "hit" nearly 100% of the time even in controlled situations where its known there is nothing for them to hit on. Dogs are only useful if the handler has no particular suspiscion or, in tracking. In these kinds of stops they are really just props.
which is funny because it seems they clearly have not actually reviewed the use of the dogs themselves because, in this instance, they are less scientifically sound than a polygraph.
Dogs have a great sense of smell but even better sense of what their pack leader wants from them. They play clever hans even better than they smell and its been shown over and over that dogs are useless in the case that there is..... ANY SUSPICION AT ALL.
Quite simply, the moment an officer decided he should use the dog, the dog "smelling something" is almost a foregone conclusion, even in the absence of any actual substance to smell. This has been shown quite readily by simply putting dogs and their handlers through courses with no smell, but several visual indicators for handlers, they found that the vast majority of the time dogs had a "hit" even when the rate should have been a flat 0. When there was an indication to the trainer....they hit WAY more often.
Dogs are only useful in manhunts and at checkpoints where searches are ubiquitous and there is no reason to suspect any individual.
Whenever there is ANY suspiscion, the dog is JUST A PROP.
Finally.... Lasers doing cool shit! Que the song about it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Assuming he can afford his own lawyer and is willing to fight it despite being offered a slap on the wrist, loss of property, and a leash on his freedoms or risk 10 years in prison.
If he insists on a trial he can expect a long and expensive road where they drains him until he pleads guilty no matter what
> There are only so many multi-spectral selfies you would ever want to have
No way, selfies are awesome, they should fix the sensors back at the craft and put the communications on a movable platform.... and call it the Tourist.
Common sense is just bullshit you invoke when you want to discount someone else's opinion, as a phrase it has no other purpose.
I mean your not wrong except in the assumption that "Crime" is a thing or "Conspirators" are. Neither are all created equal. This sort of pie in the sky analsys is fine for a hypothetical but in real situations there are always trade offs.
Quite simply there are many criminal enterprises that one cannot do alone or, the benefits of having help far outweigh the risks. This case here is a PRIME example. He could only pull it off alone if everything goes perfectly, which it clearly didn't if they even went to the level of investigation of getting the store video (unless that is SOP? I don't know, my wife's family had a store with lotto but apparently nobody hit that big so she doesn't know)
Any individual crime just has too many factors to make such blanket statements about, especially when there are different kinds of crime that different people have different attitudes towards to begin with. Its just not that cut and dry.
Yes conspirators roll all the time, and people confess often without meaning to as well. However that just isn't the whole story. One man can't line dance so it doesn't really matter whether he wants to have partners or not.
All that said.... again not all situations are equal. I don't think its SOP to get the store video footage which means they already suspected tampering. If they already suspected tampering, they likely already suspected him of being the tamperer. Most criminals are not operating under a microscope so much as above the telescopes.....its an entirely different game at that point, and a game with a serious disadvantage, especially when your microscopist has hundreds of millions of reasons to wait for you to show up.
> Your odds of being caught for the commission of a crime are significantly higher than your odds of ending up in a
> plane crash. I'm not certain why you're trying to equate them or argue this point with me.
I never claimed otherwise. However they are the same in one detail.... the remorse of those after the fact has no bearing whatsoever on the odds of it happening. I am the one perplexed at why you brought it up.
> The words "trusted" and "co-conspirator" are mutually exclusive.
I see why you think that, and I understand why you would come to that conclusion. I don't agree that others would or do necessarily come to the same conclusion.
Glad I looked this one up, for some reason I really feel like this quote should be Kay.
"Yes there was a mundane detail"
"It's not a mundane detail, Michael!"
"Don't talk to me about my business Kay!"
Office space works even better for this one though....given the competency of the criminal minds involved.
Their comfort has no bearing on the analysis. The vast majority of planes take off and land without incident, but that is of little comfort to the survivors of plane crashes. The magnitude of their sorrow does not have any implication for airline safety.
Non-zero yes but, there are many many more investigations than arrests. Just because a crime is suspected doesn't mean that the investigation will catch anyone. Even in this case, they clearly had suspicion when they went and sought out the video of who bought the ticket.... but if it wasn't him and the ticket was presented for redemption by the person who bought the ticket who had no easy connection to him (this would be very tricky.... need to find someone without a cell phone probably....homeless?)
Thats the thing, it seems to me that the video is the real cincher. Once you see him on the video, its done, its obvious, that is the string which ties everything into a nice package. Without that, you have more suspects and less answers.
Generally, yes, once you are caught and being questioned, you are usually pretty boned....hell even innocent people sometimes do better with a guilty plea than taking a chance in court. However, if you can avoid them being so sure who did it, that is a whole different story.
> Needless to say, of course, this is all highly illegal, and would constitute criminal conspiracy in addition to
> whatever other laws are broken, so I'm not suggesting anyone do this - merely red teaming the scenario.
Sure but so is defrauding the lotto anyway so, once you decided to go down that path, you may as well go for the gold, nobody is going to give you credit for half measures, you are either going to prison or getting away, there is no in between on a case like this.
Its an odd calculous, to consider the risk vs protection factors of having accomplices, honestly, im not too sure how to it really works out in the end but, its pretty obvious to me that this was a situation that called for one.
I am familiar with prisoner's dilemma but not this rather radical and non-sensical interpretation of it which seems to hardly be a prediction worth reporting when its so clear that criminal conspiracies are able to align the interests of their members. While its true they may do so with varrying degrees of effectiveness and sometimes it doesn't work indefinitely but, any notion that they can't be aligned is tantamount to claiming you just proved gravity doesn't work, you can claim it all you want but I expect to remain firmly on the ground anyway.
Not entirely, if you can trust that his interests and yours are aligned then you can generally trust him. Actually, I was reading some interesting articles on Rockefellar and the railroads recently, where they came up with an ingenious price fixing scheme where Rockefellar was a colluding customer whose interests were aligned with the conspirators.
Basically price fixing often has a loophole.....rebates. Colluding companies can still compete by offering secret rebates to customers, thus reducing the effective rate while appearing to honor the collusion agreement.
Enter the colluding customer. Rockefellar was in a uinique position as he owned several companies and nobody really knew what all companies he owned and didn't. He was given what were called "Drawbacks", that is rebates for every barrel of oil which shipped, whether he was the customer or not! This allowed him to ship under any name and still get his rebate without admitting which companies were his.
In this way, colluding entities were prevented from defecting by aligning incentives to create a kind of trust.