> Simplistic edicts like yours will not suddenly fix everything.
And this is what you are missing....I never said they would suddenly fix everything. Simply that they would be a step in the right direction. I don't care if it fixes everything suddenly or it takes a long hard climb back up from the bottom.
It doesn't matter to me. We all deserve the pain it would cause for supporting the system we have now for so many decades. This terrible plight would simply be, what we brought on ourselves. Now the sooner we start, the sooner we can start climbing back out.
Quite simply, if our economy requires us to maintain a war machinje, then we should let it tank, because we don't deserve a good, first world, economy.
Personally, I think that is the bomb. It would be great to see that blow up, like semtex in Times Square delivering the wrath of God down upon the heads of the apostate and infidels.
Praise be to God and His prophet who has now shown us the way in these dark times; and let us hope that this knowledge engulfs washington, like a great fireball!
Yes...and? Sometimes people need to deal with hard times after decades of bad decisions and waste. We allowed this situation to happen, we supported it, we deserve the consequence of fixing it.
"Its going to suck for me" is not an excuse to continue doing the wrong thing and digging deeper and deeper. Simply put, tank manufactuers may not decide tomorow to make bicycles, but, if you don't cut them off, they will NEVER stop making tanks.
Mike Capuano is an interesting guy; and I am not just saying that because I met and hung out with his son at a wrestling tournament back in high school.
He was mayor of the city I grew up in, and I remember being totally pissed at the abuse of power when a porn video store opened up, he got is panties in a bunch and stationed a marked police cruiser in front of the place 24/7.
That left a sour taste in my mouth but, I later (after he moved up to federal office) saw him talking positively about civil liberties and emailed him. Not only did he reply, we had an actual email conversation, and he definitely did talk like someone who has some clue about and care for civil liberties.
At the time I had forgotten about the porn store incident, and wished I had thought to ask if his position had changed and how he justified that.
> These attacks would not have happened unless something was going on that they found > objectionable enough to kill over.
I think it more likely that these attacks would have been differently justified. That or these attacks would have been different attacks. The group is a militant group with a clearly larger agenda than opposing the UN.
That said, the best propaganda does have some truth to it. If there wasn't some sentiment already in this direction, then these attacks would be pointless. I am reminded of the talk of newspeak and the idea that big brother being good could be so ingrained in a language that to even say the opposite would seem, on its face, wrong. Just try to replace the UN with the Redcross or Doctors without Borders, and a lot less of us will be sitting here saying "well they have a point..."
Dr. Fred Mettler, the U.S. representative on the United Nations' Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation, was unfamiliar with the specifics of Crawford's plans but said it's unlikely such a device could work. Radiation can be narrowly beamed, as it is in some cancer treatments, but the accelerators require huge amounts of electricity, are not easily portable and any target would have to remain still for a long time.
"I don't know of any of these that you can use like a gun to aim at someone on the street," Mettler said.
Mobile unit, runs on batteries, would fit in a van. However....its only a mobile xray unit. Claims ~1900 exposures per charge. I doubt it is made to run in continuous output.... and still only going to be effective at a very short range.
Maybe if you parked a van along a route that your target walked several times a day, for multiple days.... and his path took him within a few feet of the side of the van....and the van.... its not a metal body is it? That's going to be a problem too. Not entirely impossible that a dangerous dose could be delivered, and by dangerous I mean like, increasing his chance of cancer and possibly thyroid or kidney issues in his old age sort of dangerous.
So two things:
1. He went to jewish groups, after going to the Klan:
Crawford also traveled to North Carolina in October to solicit money for the weapon from a ranking member of the Ku Klux Klan, who informed the FBI.
But Doesn't the Klan hate the Zionists? Huh? This guy is just playing the I hate muslims thing....ok, that works I guess. Still, a bit of a douche move to pitch it to the Klan and then adopt the "Enemies of Israel" spiel. Good salesmanship I guess.
2. This seems overly complex and expensive. Shit, at that point, why not just buy some laser diodes and have a hand portable device capable of blinding someone permenantly from a safe distance, and instantly? Oh.... wait... that would only cost a few hundred bucks.
So I am thinking the scam artists who were looking to take some people for some cash they couldn't rightly sue him for the return of, got caught up in a bigger con game where the FBI set them up to con us into thinking that we really need their protection.
I bet you if they didn't arrest them when they did, they would have driven off with the van and disappeared, gone back to the KKK and offered their services, and then shopped around for more suckers. If they finds out it doesn't expose film, they would have had some films made up and claimed its too dangerous to be nearby while it runs.
We need to build 3 ships, we can call them ARKs. We convince some astronomers to tell them that there is an asteroid on its way, life is going to be wiped out, and we have to evacuate.
Of course, as our leaders, they will have to be sent out ahead, and the rest of us, will be right behind them. Of course, to make the deal nice, we need to make the ark big enough for them to bring their friends, personal assistants, telephone sanitizers, the whole shebang.
Launch them on a path out of the solar system, and track their progress for a few years as a long term test. Use the data to fine tune the other two craft for the moon expansion and mars missions.
Unfortunately, here in MA, it was ruled that they are an invasive and unwelcome species. These cameras however, I can't imagine them having an issue with, as long as nobody tries to raise them in self defence.
For personal stuff, or things I intend to share haphazardly or widely, I go git all the way. Git is great for when I need to work disconnected and still keep revisions. Its simple, its fast, its easy to make a quick repo, so quick sometimes I make one for things I wouldn't otherwise, because even if it never gets used again, the overhead of turning a directory into a git repo is trivial.
That said, there are times when i have other requirements. Things that are going to need to be tracked long term, be shared with a defined group in a specific environment, times when even if I leave forever, someone else is going to need to be able to see what I did and maintain it all... for this I use subversion.
For example, lets say I have to muck with apache configs. I can go to/etc/apache and make it a git repo; check everything in as is, then work. Nice and safe and no thinking about whether I will want one repo for all machines with apache that I administer or any of that, its in place, its quick, its low overhead.
Then later, if I find multiple apache instances that i want under control, I can make them all different branches of one repo easily, or... I can wait till I have time to really think about how I want to setup a central repo, and pull everything into that when I am ready, without getting in the way of the changes I need to make right now.
So... both really, depending on both the long and short term requirements and who I need to work with in what mode.
> How is Alice worse off for telling that she was on the drive, > compared to remaining silent?
Sorry for the very very late reply.
The reason given (you can find other comments where people posted links or the name of the video I was refering to), was that the testimony makes her look like she has something to hide.
Sure her mother confirms she was there, but her mother is directly related to her and a close relation. Not as credible as the person who doesn't know her well and presumably has no reason to implicate her.
So now they have testimony by one person saying she was there, who has no reason to lie (and indeed, isn't lieing, she is just wrong) saying she is there, and a police officer testifying that she contracdicted this but had no proof.
This can much more easily be interpreted as "she is hiding something and lied to the police" than if she refused to talk from the start (which can't be used against her*)
* Some restrictions apply, apparently void where you do not explicitly state that you are invoking your right to remain silent; See recent supreme court decisions for details.
> Given how late to the game plastics are, it is fairly impressive how fast > they've moved.
Fast? Meh what is fast?
A while back in discussion of life and how likely or unlikely it is to evolve, I thought about the size of the earth vs the size of a biological molecule or a cell.... you can think of the world, after a fashion, as a massively parallel lab, every square inch has so many particles and there are so many square inches, that can each have their own distribution of particles.... its massively parallel. Whether its chemical or biological, its parallel and its massive scale compared to what it needs to produce..And putting the new substance in water, where the particles move in the densities that they can... its a perfect recipe for speeding the process up, not just change but, in terms of exposure to as many things as possible.
Even with plastics being so new, there are so many organisms, producing so many different substances that it seems unlikely to me that a few of them don't already have pieces that fit the new puzzle. It doesn't even have to be a single organism.
> If you do not trust them, then that is your problem of socialization. > And, if you have a problem with socialization, you do not present yourself as someone that the > rest of society need to support.
And if you buy this line of BS, I have a bridge for sale in Manhatten at rock bottom prices, you will make a killing.
Seriously, if you trust secret government actions, based on secret policies, under the supervision of secret courts, which make secret interpretations of the law, then you have a terrible grasp of history. Power gets abused, period.
The entire point of the constitution was to put limits on government, serious limits. This sort of action is entirely beyond the pale. Its not like this is our first rodeo. Every time the government gets any sort of power that it has any ability to exercise in secret, it gets abused. If that doesn't happen here then it would be the exception.
Al queda, whatever it does, is not a serious existential threat. They are, at best, a criminal group, and should be treated as such. I am far more afraid of policies that allow the government to work in secret.
Governments making secret rules and compiling databases on everyone are FAR more dangerous to our security than ANY external group. Secret rules, and secret courts are a gross insult to everything this country CLAIMS to stand for. What protects us from overuse of this information? What protects us from its misuse?
Policies change over time. They always change. We didn't get FISA courts because some academic dreamed up a potential problem, we got them because people in the government, in positions of power, grossly misused them. They cannot be trusted.
Openness....complete openness is true national security, because its security from the people in power, the biggest threat.
Ok i am sitting down.... please.... I would LOVE to hear your description of how this is relevant to the discussion. Do you propose that 9/11 was the result of the public having too much information about surveillance? Was there an exposed secret court opinion or wrongfully exposed document the root cause of 9/11?
Please, educate us, you clearly know something we don't.
> Isn't there some pretty big rule in the bible about not killing, or have you justified that away in your > world of irrationality?
As an atheist, I don't give two shits what is in the bible but, you seem to be conflating the immorality of killing a human being outside of self defence with ownership and production of tools which are, quite rarely used for such things.
This would be kind of like confusing buying/making/owning a hammer with building a house. I own lots of hammers, never built a house though.
That is, unless you are concerned about the senseless slaughter of paper targets; which even the bible doesn't seem to have any rules about their treatment.
....and who is it that ships prisoners to them? Who is it that profits directly from the kickback....er I mean "Campaign contributions" that they make? The government is in bed with these private prisons or else they would never exist in the first place.
It is little more than a tube built to suck money out of the government, a wealth redistribution plan which takes state money from the variety of people and businesses and distributes it to the private prison industry, who pay their politicians in return.
Incidentally, drug testing is exactly the same. Look at Florida and how much they spent on drug testing people on welfare... what did it net them? The program reduced payments by under 100k, but spent around 70 million, paying off the governors own drug testing company (oh wait no, his wife owned it, sorry, didn't mean to imply there was any corruption....)
The private prison industry is just part of the real problem: That the government is run like little more than a scam to steal money.
I also like talking with people who actually pay attention. The comment was about the idea that people who are not harming anyone should be left alone. So why don't you read the comments before trying to make someone out to be off topic.
The very fact that "controlled substance" is in our vocabulary is proof that the idea of people who are not harming anyone should be left alone has long since been abandoned.
Heats up you say? Kills sperm AND sperm generating cells you say?
So lets recap, acid reflux damage over and over increases cancer risk. There is evidence this is a contributing factor for smokers.
Doing small amounts of damage in the testicles over and over.... where could the harm be there? I suspect they have not found anything that's going to make it to clinical trials.
Somebody better tell this to the government because they seem to have tossed this idea out the window as soon as they realized there was money in building building prisons. I knew a guy who was jailed for years over a package of flowers that he was receiving in the mail.
Not only that....but a really crafty prosecutor would realize that the person giving out the password intended for this to happen and colluded to make it happen, meaning.... its time for conspiracy charges!
Well, how many statements have you heard from Bradley Manning? I haven't heard any, maybe he got to make one. Point is, once he is in custody, his chance to influence the story is done for several years at least.
Comming out on his own terms means he has some time to get his face and name out with the leak rather than just be attached to it after his arrest where all his future mesia contact will be tightly controlled.
Of course, their celebrity lawyer Claes BorgstrÃm was questioned as to how the women themselves could be essentially contradicting the legal characterisation of Swedish prosecutors; a crime of non-consent by consent. BorgstrÃmâ(TM)s answer is emblematic of how divorced from reality this matter is. âoeThey (the women) are not juristsâ.
Makes sense.... I am not qualified to give legal opinion. A question of what law you broke is a matter of interpretation of the law, which I am not qualified to do, I am not a jurist!
Its not about truth telling. In the example everyone actually told the "truth" or, at the very least, what they believed to actually be the truth at the time that they spoke it.
If someone walks by my office that looks like one of my coworkers but isn't, and my boss comes by and says "Have you seen so and so" and I say "Yes I saw him walk by about 10 minutes ago", am I not telling what I believe to be true? Its certainly not a lie. Its incorrect, but its honest mistake not misdirection.
This isn't to say misdirection doesn't happen. Maybe Carol didn't see Alice, maybe she knew she didn't see Alice and she lied. Maybe, but, her intention is actually not really relevant, only the fact that her statement and Alice's don't match up, and she is believed to have no reason to lie, whereas Alice might.
Thank you, thought all real credit should go to the Law Professor in the video which now several people have posted the name of or links to...as it was indeed the one I was thinking of. I don't remember if he used "Alice and Bob" names but, I believe I got all relevant parts.
As I remember the second part of the video started with a rebuttal by a police officer which started out to the effect of "Everything he said is correct".
Slashdot Mirror
> Simplistic edicts like yours will not suddenly fix everything.
And this is what you are missing....I never said they would suddenly fix everything. Simply that they would be a step in the right direction. I don't care if it fixes everything suddenly or it takes a long hard climb back up from the bottom.
It doesn't matter to me. We all deserve the pain it would cause for supporting the system we have now for so many decades. This terrible plight would simply be, what we brought on ourselves. Now the sooner we start, the sooner we can start climbing back out.
Quite simply, if our economy requires us to maintain a war machinje, then we should let it tank, because we don't deserve a good, first world, economy.
Have you seen this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v4z09el30f8
Personally, I think that is the bomb. It would be great to see that blow up, like semtex in Times Square delivering the wrath of God down upon the heads of the apostate and infidels.
Praise be to God and His prophet who has now shown us the way in these dark times; and let us hope that this knowledge engulfs washington, like a great fireball!
Yes...and? Sometimes people need to deal with hard times after decades of bad decisions and waste. We allowed this situation to happen, we supported it, we deserve the consequence of fixing it.
"Its going to suck for me" is not an excuse to continue doing the wrong thing and digging deeper and deeper. Simply put, tank manufactuers may not decide tomorow to make bicycles, but, if you don't cut them off, they will NEVER stop making tanks.
Mike Capuano is an interesting guy; and I am not just saying that because I met and hung out with his son at a wrestling tournament back in high school.
He was mayor of the city I grew up in, and I remember being totally pissed at the abuse of power when a porn video store opened up, he got is panties in a bunch and stationed a marked police cruiser in front of the place 24/7.
That left a sour taste in my mouth but, I later (after he moved up to federal office) saw him talking positively about civil liberties and emailed him. Not only did he reply, we had an actual email conversation, and he definitely did talk like someone who has some clue about and care for civil liberties.
At the time I had forgotten about the porn store incident, and wished I had thought to ask if his position had changed and how he justified that.
> These attacks would not have happened unless something was going on that they found
> objectionable enough to kill over.
I think it more likely that these attacks would have been differently justified. That or these attacks would have been different attacks. The group is a militant group with a clearly larger agenda than opposing the UN.
That said, the best propaganda does have some truth to it. If there wasn't some sentiment already in this direction, then these attacks would be pointless. I am reminded of the talk of newspeak and the idea that big brother being good could be so ingrained in a language that to even say the opposite would seem, on its face, wrong. Just try to replace the UN with the Redcross or Doctors without Borders, and a lot less of us will be sitting here saying "well they have a point..."
http://www.labx.com/v2/adsearch/detail3.cfm?adnumb=491358#MoreDesc
Mobile unit, runs on batteries, would fit in a van. However....its only a mobile xray unit. Claims ~1900 exposures per charge. I doubt it is made to run in continuous output.... and still only going to be effective at a very short range.
Maybe if you parked a van along a route that your target walked several times a day, for multiple days.... and his path took him within a few feet of the side of the van....and the van.... its not a metal body is it? That's going to be a problem too. Not entirely impossible that a dangerous dose could be delivered, and by dangerous I mean like, increasing his chance of cancer and possibly thyroid or kidney issues in his old age sort of dangerous.
So two things:
1. He went to jewish groups, after going to the Klan:
But Doesn't the Klan hate the Zionists? Huh? This guy is just playing the I hate muslims thing....ok, that works I guess. Still, a bit of a douche move to pitch it to the Klan and then adopt the "Enemies of Israel" spiel. Good salesmanship I guess.
2. This seems overly complex and expensive. Shit, at that point, why not just buy some laser diodes and have a hand portable device capable of blinding someone permenantly from a safe distance, and instantly? Oh.... wait... that would only cost a few hundred bucks.
So I am thinking the scam artists who were looking to take some people for some cash they couldn't rightly sue him for the return of, got caught up in a bigger con game where the FBI set them up to con us into thinking that we really need their protection.
I bet you if they didn't arrest them when they did, they would have driven off with the van and disappeared, gone back to the KKK and offered their services, and then shopped around for more suckers. If they finds out it doesn't expose film, they would have had some films made up and claimed its too dangerous to be nearby while it runs.
I like it....ok here is the plan.
We need to build 3 ships, we can call them ARKs. We convince some astronomers to tell them that there is an asteroid on its way, life is going to be wiped out, and we have to evacuate.
Of course, as our leaders, they will have to be sent out ahead, and the rest of us, will be right behind them. Of course, to make the deal nice, we need to make the ark big enough for them to bring their friends, personal assistants, telephone sanitizers, the whole shebang.
Launch them on a path out of the solar system, and track their progress for a few years as a long term test. Use the data to fine tune the other two craft for the moon expansion and mars missions.
Unfortunately, here in MA, it was ruled that they are an invasive and unwelcome species. These cameras however, I can't imagine them having an issue with, as long as nobody tries to raise them in self defence.
For personal stuff, or things I intend to share haphazardly or widely, I go git all the way. Git is great for when I need to work disconnected and still keep revisions. Its simple, its fast, its easy to make a quick repo, so quick sometimes I make one for things I wouldn't otherwise, because even if it never gets used again, the overhead of turning a directory into a git repo is trivial.
That said, there are times when i have other requirements. Things that are going to need to be tracked long term, be shared with a defined group in a specific environment, times when even if I leave forever, someone else is going to need to be able to see what I did and maintain it all... for this I use subversion.
For example, lets say I have to muck with apache configs. I can go to /etc/apache and make it a git repo; check everything in as is, then work. Nice and safe and no thinking about whether I will want one repo for all machines with apache that I administer or any of that, its in place, its quick, its low overhead.
Then later, if I find multiple apache instances that i want under control, I can make them all different branches of one repo easily, or... I can wait till I have time to really think about how I want to setup a central repo, and pull everything into that when I am ready, without getting in the way of the changes I need to make right now.
So... both really, depending on both the long and short term requirements and who I need to work with in what mode.
> How is Alice worse off for telling that she was on the drive,
> compared to remaining silent?
Sorry for the very very late reply.
The reason given (you can find other comments where people posted links or the name of the video I was refering to), was that the testimony makes her look like she has something to hide.
Sure her mother confirms she was there, but her mother is directly related to her and a close relation. Not as credible as the person who doesn't know her well and presumably has no reason to implicate her.
So now they have testimony by one person saying she was there, who has no reason to lie (and indeed, isn't lieing, she is just wrong) saying she is there, and a police officer testifying that she contracdicted this but had no proof.
This can much more easily be interpreted as "she is hiding something and lied to the police" than if she refused to talk from the start (which can't be used against her*)
* Some restrictions apply, apparently void where you do not explicitly state that you are invoking your right to remain silent; See recent supreme court decisions for details.
> Given how late to the game plastics are, it is fairly impressive how fast
> they've moved.
Fast? Meh what is fast?
A while back in discussion of life and how likely or unlikely it is to evolve, I thought about the size of the earth vs the size of a biological molecule or a cell.... you can think of the world, after a fashion, as a massively parallel lab, every square inch has so many particles and there are so many square inches, that can each have their own distribution of particles.... its massively parallel. Whether its chemical or biological, its parallel and its massive scale compared to what it needs to produce. .And putting the new substance in water, where the particles move in the densities that they can... its a perfect recipe for speeding the process up, not just change but, in terms of exposure to as many things as possible.
Even with plastics being so new, there are so many organisms, producing so many different substances that it seems unlikely to me that a few of them don't already have pieces that fit the new puzzle. It doesn't even have to be a single organism.
> If you do not trust them, then that is your problem of socialization.
> And, if you have a problem with socialization, you do not present yourself as someone that the
> rest of society need to support.
And if you buy this line of BS, I have a bridge for sale in Manhatten at rock bottom prices, you will make a killing.
Seriously, if you trust secret government actions, based on secret policies, under the supervision of secret courts, which make secret interpretations of the law, then you have a terrible grasp of history. Power gets abused, period.
The entire point of the constitution was to put limits on government, serious limits. This sort of action is entirely beyond the pale. Its not like this is our first rodeo. Every time the government gets any sort of power that it has any ability to exercise in secret, it gets abused. If that doesn't happen here then it would be the exception.
Al queda, whatever it does, is not a serious existential threat. They are, at best, a criminal group, and should be treated as such. I am far more afraid of policies that allow the government to work in secret.
Governments making secret rules and compiling databases on everyone are FAR more dangerous to our security than ANY external group. Secret rules, and secret courts are a gross insult to everything this country CLAIMS to stand for. What protects us from overuse of this information? What protects us from its misuse?
Policies change over time. They always change. We didn't get FISA courts because some academic dreamed up a potential problem, we got them because people in the government, in positions of power, grossly misused them. They cannot be trusted.
Openness....complete openness is true national security, because its security from the people in power, the biggest threat.
Ok i am sitting down.... please.... I would LOVE to hear your description of how this is relevant to the discussion. Do you propose that 9/11 was the result of the public having too much information about surveillance? Was there an exposed secret court opinion or wrongfully exposed document the root cause of 9/11?
Please, educate us, you clearly know something we don't.
> Isn't there some pretty big rule in the bible about not killing, or have you justified that away in your
> world of irrationality?
As an atheist, I don't give two shits what is in the bible but, you seem to be conflating the immorality of killing a human being outside of self defence with ownership and production of tools which are, quite rarely used for such things.
This would be kind of like confusing buying/making/owning a hammer with building a house. I own lots of hammers, never built a house though.
That is, unless you are concerned about the senseless slaughter of paper targets; which even the bible doesn't seem to have any rules about their treatment.
....and who is it that ships prisoners to them? Who is it that profits directly from the kickback....er I mean "Campaign contributions" that they make? The government is in bed with these private prisons or else they would never exist in the first place.
It is little more than a tube built to suck money out of the government, a wealth redistribution plan which takes state money from the variety of people and businesses and distributes it to the private prison industry, who pay their politicians in return.
Incidentally, drug testing is exactly the same. Look at Florida and how much they spent on drug testing people on welfare... what did it net them? The program reduced payments by under 100k, but spent around 70 million, paying off the governors own drug testing company (oh wait no, his wife owned it, sorry, didn't mean to imply there was any corruption....)
The private prison industry is just part of the real problem: That the government is run like little more than a scam to steal money.
I also like talking with people who actually pay attention. The comment was about the idea that people who are not harming anyone should be left alone. So why don't you read the comments before trying to make someone out to be off topic.
The very fact that "controlled substance" is in our vocabulary is proof that the idea of people who are not harming anyone should be left alone has long since been abandoned.
Nice try.
Nope, cannabis flowers; but dried flowers none the less.
Heats up you say? Kills sperm AND sperm generating cells you say?
So lets recap, acid reflux damage over and over increases cancer risk. There is evidence this is a contributing factor for smokers.
Doing small amounts of damage in the testicles over and over.... where could the harm be there? I suspect they have not found anything that's going to make it to clinical trials.
Somebody better tell this to the government because they seem to have tossed this idea out the window as soon as they realized there was money in building building prisons. I knew a guy who was jailed for years over a package of flowers that he was receiving in the mail.
Not only that....but a really crafty prosecutor would realize that the person giving out the password intended for this to happen and colluded to make it happen, meaning.... its time for conspiracy charges!
Well, how many statements have you heard from Bradley Manning? I haven't heard any, maybe he got to make one. Point is, once he is in custody, his chance to influence the story is done for several years at least.
Comming out on his own terms means he has some time to get his face and name out with the leak rather than just be attached to it after his arrest where all his future mesia contact will be tightly controlled.
Objection! Question is asking the defendant to render a legal opinion which she is not qualified to do.
This isn't even something I made up: http://www.crikey.com.au/2010/12/02/when-it-comes-to-assange-r-pe-case-the-swedes-are-making-it-up-as-they-go-along/
Makes sense.... I am not qualified to give legal opinion. A question of what law you broke is a matter of interpretation of the law, which I am not qualified to do, I am not a jurist!
Huh?
Its not about truth telling. In the example everyone actually told the "truth" or, at the very least, what they believed to actually be the truth at the time that they spoke it.
If someone walks by my office that looks like one of my coworkers but isn't, and my boss comes by and says "Have you seen so and so" and I say "Yes I saw him walk by about 10 minutes ago", am I not telling what I believe to be true? Its certainly not a lie. Its incorrect, but its honest mistake not misdirection.
This isn't to say misdirection doesn't happen. Maybe Carol didn't see Alice, maybe she knew she didn't see Alice and she lied. Maybe, but, her intention is actually not really relevant, only the fact that her statement and Alice's don't match up, and she is believed to have no reason to lie, whereas Alice might.
Thank you, thought all real credit should go to the Law Professor in the video which now several people have posted the name of or links to...as it was indeed the one I was thinking of. I don't remember if he used "Alice and Bob" names but, I believe I got all relevant parts.
As I remember the second part of the video started with a rebuttal by a police officer which started out to the effect of "Everything he said is correct".