Surely the police can't open mail sitting in my mailbox but which I have not yet had the chance to open?
The implication is that it isn't quite that bad, but it is close. It's suggesting that if the Post Office made a copy of your mail (for redundancy should their carrier catch fire) once it is on your doorstep, that copy is no longer protected. It's asinine.
Email is a post card. Anyone can read it along the route. Anyone can choose to use that information. The government can request the information anywhere along the route.
If you write a death threat on a postcard, your mail carrier may report that information to the authorities.
So how the hell do you seal that post card in an envelope that is trivial to open. Mail envelopes CAN be opened by ANYBODY (Even the carrier if they wanted to) That doesn't mean it is legal to do something just because you can. Email should be the same way.
You can't just say encryption, because encryption is not trival to open like an envelope, I'd have to ensure that EVERYONE I ever wanted to send an email to has a special bit of equipment (software) that has been setup. Could you imagine if the only way your mail was secure was if you had to encase it in a metal envelope that was welded shut?
Just because someone COULD read the message doesn't mean that it shouldn't be protected and treated as if the person just passes it along. This concept of 'sufficient' measures to ensure privacy is getting insane.
Good to know that you would sacrifice the lives of thousands of people to relieve the discomfort of one. I sincerely hope all your family and friends die in terrorist attacks that could have been prevented.
You sincerely hope terrorism happens? What is wrong with you?
2) As we don't know the information extracted, we can not answer that question 3) Unknown because of the above
Wrong. It is very easy to attribute a thwarted attempt to actionable intelligence. You also know if information extracted was relevant since it is possible to evaluate the circumstances in detail after the fact.
To claim otherwise would be to suggest that any claims of thwarted attempts are unprovable, and therefore meaningless.
Newsflash: torture doesn't prevent and hasn't prevented any terrorist attacks since 9/11.
Moreover, torture only weakens image of USA in the world, probably provoking MORE attacks
Even if it did, that is not a justification for the use of torture. In fact, we(The United States) has explicitly stated that there is no justification for torture under any circumstances. Even the mythical 'ticking bomb' of television and movie fame is not a justification.
What torture? Fucking pansy. Smash a testicle with a hammer and when the victim regains consciousness tell him what he needs to do to keep the other one. OH NOES! WE DIDN'T GET A PRAYER RUG IN THE PATTERN WE DEMANDED. Guantanamo exists because our soldiers were prevented from correctly disposing of the enemy in the field.
Guantanamo exists because we lacked the backbone to follow the standards that we claim to uphold.
Fair enough, I do know a few presidents (1) who would sit down on the floor of Air Force 1 with a CSO to discuss issues though.
I never got the chance to meet with Obama though, so I can't comment on that. However, none of the staff members have been particularly tech savvy. Almost no one in government is.
The first ones in 15 billion years, over the entirety of the universe? Not bloody likely.
So, how unlikely is it? Just looking at our only data (life on Earth) It took us several Billion years just to reach a stage where we could actually produce RF emanations.
How many Billion years did it take before there was even an area in the Universe that wasn't effectivelly sitting next to hundreds of other high-output stars, supernova, plasma jets, quasars, or other 'area clearing' things. It took a while for the universe to cool to a state where solar systems could form and have a reasonable expectation of stability for a period long enough to generate life.
So we know it took a few billion years for the Universe to reach a state where life could theoretically begin to develop, and we know it probably would take a few billion years for life to become sufficiently complex to a point where we could feel comfortable stating that if it were to develop intelligence, it might survive long enough to reach an RF emitting stage.
As a result, we only have a narrow window in which it was possible for life to have developed BEFORE us. And then it would have to have developed intelligence (not a guarantee) and survived long enough to reach a technological equivalence to us, if it ever would. Intelligence is no guarantee of technological advancement, especially if it develops in a typically solitary species (The Mountain Lion, even if it became intelligent,
Until we start to seriously exploit the electromagnetic spectrum and the power levels start to rise again. How about wireless power transmission, continent wide wireless internet with enough bandwidth to give every client a full HD video feed, radar for everything which moves and online negotiation between vehicles, just for starters.
I don't think our global peak emitted power will drop for long.
Even your continent wide wireless will likely involve transmitters of very low power. Just a lot of transmitters, and most of those transmitters will be have their maximum power projected in an arc of greater than 180. (If you looked at a cross section, most of the power would be projected from 181 degrees to 359 degrees in order to focus the power towards the people using it on the ground)
As a result, the RF waves being generated would be highly attenuated even before they reached space. They would be transmitted, absorbed by the air along the path, vegetation, ground, and further attenuated as they passed through the atmosphere of the planet. How strong would they be then? (I'd guess a minimum of 30% absorbtion from the atmosphere alone) We are also moving away from broadcast style transmission and focusing more and more on LOS style transmissions. Many of todays satellites don't broadcast isometrically, and often contain many 'beams' which cover a specific geographic location. As a result, less power is needed.
Then consider the issue with frequency allocations. You can't just pump more power into a frequency band and reach more devices, at least, not without stepping on adjacent or harmonic frequencies. While advances in technology help to reduce these side effects, we are probably going to see a lot more advance in directed RF rather than increased RF power.
I have no doubt that our emissions may increase as a sort of aggregate measure in total power, but I would still expect to see a general decrease in lost or wasted energy that escapes into open space.
Caveat: I've touched on RF in my work, but not even close to the levels as someone who is a true RF engineer. My terminology may be off (And if it needs corrections, I welcome it) However I believe the general concepts regarding an increase in directed RF as opposed to broadcast RF and increased attenuation for higher frequencies are sound.
The Fermi Paradox is the mother of all hedge bets... it's unlikely that it will ever be proved "wrong" but in a universe of infinite probabilities, must ultimately be false.
If the Fermi Paradox is the mother of all hedge bets, then what you just said is the father of hedge bets.
And afterall, somewhere in an infinite number of infinite probabilities, I'm right.
So you're telling me you wouldn't cash a huge cheque if the government handed it to you on a silver fucking platter? Fuck off you git.
No, I wouldn't. In fact I believe I have the ethical obligation to ensure that the product of my work is not used for unethical purposes.
That's the ethical side of things, now for the business side of things.
If I sold a product which I advertised could do X, and the government came in and purchased huge numbers of my product with the intention to do Y and I knew it could not do Y, I would NOT sell it to the government. Why? Because when it reaches the media that the government gave my company $n Billion dollars to do Y, and my product failed to do Y, my business is the one that will be hurt as future customers avoid me, and future investors see me as a black sheep when it comes to acquiring new contracts.
I HAVE argued with the government on multiple occasions when they were attempting to do something not possible, or trying to do it with the wrong equipment. That is VERY different than selling the government more than they need. (10HP engines when 5HP engines will do in generators as opposed to selling the government 5HP engines to run a tank)
To solve this "problem" we have courts. Judges deal with these sorts of marginal cases every day. It's not a big problem.
In theory, no, it is not a big problem. Except for 95% of the population who cannot afford adequate legal representation. Even then, it seems odd that something that is not a big problem costs so god damned much.
Everyone has pictures of their child in various amounts of clothing. From just after birth as they were sitting on the scale to the ubiquitous bath photos which always seem to turn up 'thanks' to vigilant 1-hr photo employees.
As a result, nearly everyone is at risk of an economically life ending court trial in which there is no guarantee of vindication. With the legal fees of even a short trial easily going into the tens of thousands of dollars as you are pitted against the LIMITLESS resources of the government, even if you win, you lose.
Sorry, but judicial oversight, at least in court systems like those of the US, is simply no longer a valid protection.
Honest personal opinion: If Obama gets ACTA passed, but -actually- fixes health care, I'm voting for him again.
Obviously, the two do not go hand in hand, and I'm making no statement as to the likelyhood of him actually fixing health care. If he passes ACTA, but not health care, I will be voting for someeone else and will publicly apologize for voting for him the first time. However, if saving political capital on this one means it can be spent on something that is a much bigger deal to me, then I don't at all regret voting for him.
Would you consider healthcare to be 'fixed' if the Bill currently before congress is passed? Trust me, I'd love to see issues such as Healthcare fixed (even if it does come to a government option) I have no love for insurance companies and dislike the concept of insurance, but I'm not seeing much in this Bill which will fix much of anything.
Fixing Healthcare is something that we won't know has been done or working until far beyond the date which this Bill is passed, and the 2012 elections are already concluded.
Yeah, that's why the government has stuck it to personal-injury lawyers and reformed medical malpractice laws. Oh wait, it didn't?
The AMA has a whole grocery list of issues which it lobbies for. The personal-injury lawyer? They have one thing that they want, and that is for nothing to change.
So when the AMA comes forward with a list of 10 items and 1-9 gets rubber stamped, but on number 10, the trial lawyers say "Hey, those 9 items are great, but could you just not act on number 10 for a bit?" Are you saying that the AMA has really 'lost'?
The AMA has worked hard to insulate Doctors from some necessary reforms and made it a VERY protected profession. The barrier for entry to be a Doctor is VERY high (monetarily), and the AMA likes it that way.
One of the reasons that medical care is so expensive is that pretty much all of the decision responsibility has been removed from the individual and transferred to medical professionals. It's an issue that has many causes, so I don't lay it explicitly at the AMA's feet, but they do have a tremendous amount of influence in Government.
Afterall, how many politicians would survive an election if they were able to be labeled as 'Disregarding the warnings of the AMA'?
Can you in any way deny that President Obama is more tech-savvy than any President prior? Do you think Bush II was more tech-savvy than Obama? Clinton? Bush I? I very much doubt it.
We have had Presidents who held engineering degrees and Carter joined the damned Navy Nuclear program when it was just starting.
Does 'tech' to you only mean hiring a staff-member to manage your twitter and Facebook feeds? I could hire a world class pathologist to advise me, but that doesn't make me 'medical-savvy'. Obama hired a good PR firm. They might be tech-savvy, but he certainly has not shown us any signs that he holds any particular insight.
Seriously? Why would you decide against it? What's the downside?
That's a good question, but just because it is unlikely, or we can not immediately find a downside, that doesn't mean that you shouldn't have the option.
The key point you seem to have missed is that lightsabers are largely ineffective in the hands of rubes. Some background training, force ability, etc. are the prerequisite.
Seriously, did you not get that from the movies?
I didn't. It seemed like there was only a single character in 6 movies who wasn't a jedi and touched a lightsaber. Considering how much melee combat IS involved in the movies (vibroblades, etc) It did not make sense that they wouldn't be used.
Hell, even having one as some sort of emergency cutting device seemed like it would be pretty damned useful in a lot of circumstances. That the technology that powered lightsabres wasn't used in a wide variety of applications was a glaring omission.
If you put 1000 humans out in the wilderness, naked and without any tools, you'd soon see how advanced we are as a lifeform.
Indeed we would. Notice how you didn't pick a 'wilderness'. Did you mean to say Savannah, Rainforest, Alpine, Coastal, Arid, Temperate Forest wilderness? Because there is a good chance that 1000 people would quickly adapt to their situation as long as it wasn't immediately lethal to unprotected bodies (Arctic, Desert, etc). I can virtually guarantee that if you dropped ME off in the middle of temperate forest right now (since temperatures are now within the bounds for the risks of death by exposure) I'd have a 75% chance of surviving a full year. That's me, alone, and without any tools.
Give me 1000 other people, 200 of which are in good health and able to labor, I'd think that within 1 year you would see that a good portion survived, and within 20 years, a population increase.
For these scenarios, you really need to pull out all the stops if you want to go full bore with your anti-humanism. State that their thumbs must be removed, and they aren't allowed to think too hard.
You might as well conduct a test on the survivability of the African Lion by dumping a pride of them 5 miles off the coast of Honduras. (A test, which ironically, naked toolless humans would have a non-zero chance of surviving)
Unless again, you consider reality. Reality includes Jailbroken iPhones, which at last count (sometime early last year) was around 3-4 MILLION devices (ad tracking agencies help verify those numbers, but that number is from the founder of Cydia).
And I taped my iphone to my car so it now drives me to work!
I tell you what. Meet me at the county courthouse. You bring your lawyer, I bring my pick of the Harvard Law (not Nesson obviously. Maybe Dershowitz). First guy who's lawyer calls for his momma owes the other a case of beer.
I'd take you up on that.
Just wondering though, wouldn't an appeal to authority be one of the first things that Harvard Law warns you about when preparing a debate? Of course, the experienced trial lawyer might also be aware that a jury is easily swayed by someone who appears authoritative, even though they may know nothing of the subject.
But in general, I'd be wary of relying on name and tradition to always trump alternate experience.
Slashdot Mirror
Which is where this is going wrong.
Surely the police can't open mail sitting in my mailbox but which I have not yet had the chance to open?
The implication is that it isn't quite that bad, but it is close. It's suggesting that if the Post Office made a copy of your mail (for redundancy should their carrier catch fire) once it is on your doorstep, that copy is no longer protected. It's asinine.
Email is a post card. Anyone can read it along the route. Anyone can choose to use that information. The government can request the information anywhere along the route.
If you write a death threat on a postcard, your mail carrier may report that information to the authorities.
So how the hell do you seal that post card in an envelope that is trivial to open. Mail envelopes CAN be opened by ANYBODY (Even the carrier if they wanted to) That doesn't mean it is legal to do something just because you can. Email should be the same way.
You can't just say encryption, because encryption is not trival to open like an envelope, I'd have to ensure that EVERYONE I ever wanted to send an email to has a special bit of equipment (software) that has been setup. Could you imagine if the only way your mail was secure was if you had to encase it in a metal envelope that was welded shut?
Just because someone COULD read the message doesn't mean that it shouldn't be protected and treated as if the person just passes it along. This concept of 'sufficient' measures to ensure privacy is getting insane.
Good to know that you would sacrifice the lives of thousands of people to relieve the discomfort of one. I sincerely hope all your family and friends die in terrorist attacks that could have been prevented.
You sincerely hope terrorism happens? What is wrong with you?
2) As we don't know the information extracted, we can not answer that question
3) Unknown because of the above
Wrong. It is very easy to attribute a thwarted attempt to actionable intelligence. You also know if information extracted was relevant since it is possible to evaluate the circumstances in detail after the fact.
To claim otherwise would be to suggest that any claims of thwarted attempts are unprovable, and therefore meaningless.
Newsflash: torture doesn't prevent and hasn't prevented any terrorist attacks since 9/11.
Moreover, torture only weakens image of USA in the world, probably provoking MORE attacks
Even if it did, that is not a justification for the use of torture. In fact, we(The United States) has explicitly stated that there is no justification for torture under any circumstances. Even the mythical 'ticking bomb' of television and movie fame is not a justification.
What torture? Fucking pansy. Smash a testicle with a hammer and when the victim regains consciousness tell him what he needs to do to keep the other one. OH NOES! WE DIDN'T GET A PRAYER RUG IN THE PATTERN WE DEMANDED. Guantanamo exists because our soldiers were prevented from correctly disposing of the enemy in the field.
Guantanamo exists because we lacked the backbone to follow the standards that we claim to uphold.
It's up to the perpetrators of the claim to prove themselves.
And it is up to you to bring this debate to the perpetrators of the claim, and not use 'Them' as a strawman when debating other people and issues.
Fair enough, I do know a few presidents (1) who would sit down on the floor of Air Force 1 with a CSO to discuss issues though.
I never got the chance to meet with Obama though, so I can't comment on that. However, none of the staff members have been particularly tech savvy. Almost no one in government is.
The first ones in 15 billion years, over the entirety of the universe? Not bloody likely.
So, how unlikely is it? Just looking at our only data (life on Earth) It took us several Billion years just to reach a stage where we could actually produce RF emanations.
How many Billion years did it take before there was even an area in the Universe that wasn't effectivelly sitting next to hundreds of other high-output stars, supernova, plasma jets, quasars, or other 'area clearing' things. It took a while for the universe to cool to a state where solar systems could form and have a reasonable expectation of stability for a period long enough to generate life.
So we know it took a few billion years for the Universe to reach a state where life could theoretically begin to develop, and we know it probably would take a few billion years for life to become sufficiently complex to a point where we could feel comfortable stating that if it were to develop intelligence, it might survive long enough to reach an RF emitting stage.
As a result, we only have a narrow window in which it was possible for life to have developed BEFORE us. And then it would have to have developed intelligence (not a guarantee) and survived long enough to reach a technological equivalence to us, if it ever would. Intelligence is no guarantee of technological advancement, especially if it develops in a typically solitary species (The Mountain Lion, even if it became intelligent,
That we are the first, is not impossible.
Until we start to seriously exploit the electromagnetic spectrum and the power levels start to rise again. How about wireless power transmission, continent wide wireless internet with enough bandwidth to give every client a full HD video feed, radar for everything which moves and online negotiation between vehicles, just for starters.
I don't think our global peak emitted power will drop for long.
Even your continent wide wireless will likely involve transmitters of very low power. Just a lot of transmitters, and most of those transmitters will be have their maximum power projected in an arc of greater than 180. (If you looked at a cross section, most of the power would be projected from 181 degrees to 359 degrees in order to focus the power towards the people using it on the ground)
As a result, the RF waves being generated would be highly attenuated even before they reached space. They would be transmitted, absorbed by the air along the path, vegetation, ground, and further attenuated as they passed through the atmosphere of the planet. How strong would they be then? (I'd guess a minimum of 30% absorbtion from the atmosphere alone) We are also moving away from broadcast style transmission and focusing more and more on LOS style transmissions. Many of todays satellites don't broadcast isometrically, and often contain many 'beams' which cover a specific geographic location. As a result, less power is needed.
Then consider the issue with frequency allocations. You can't just pump more power into a frequency band and reach more devices, at least, not without stepping on adjacent or harmonic frequencies. While advances in technology help to reduce these side effects, we are probably going to see a lot more advance in directed RF rather than increased RF power.
I have no doubt that our emissions may increase as a sort of aggregate measure in total power, but I would still expect to see a general decrease in lost or wasted energy that escapes into open space.
Caveat: I've touched on RF in my work, but not even close to the levels as someone who is a true RF engineer. My terminology may be off (And if it needs corrections, I welcome it) However I believe the general concepts regarding an increase in directed RF as opposed to broadcast RF and increased attenuation for higher frequencies are sound.
The Fermi Paradox is the mother of all hedge bets ... it's unlikely that it will ever be proved "wrong" but in a universe of infinite probabilities, must ultimately be false.
If the Fermi Paradox is the mother of all hedge bets, then what you just said is the father of hedge bets.
And afterall, somewhere in an infinite number of infinite probabilities, I'm right.
So you're telling me you wouldn't cash a huge cheque if the government handed it to you on a silver fucking platter? Fuck off you git.
No, I wouldn't. In fact I believe I have the ethical obligation to ensure that the product of my work is not used for unethical purposes.
That's the ethical side of things, now for the business side of things.
If I sold a product which I advertised could do X, and the government came in and purchased huge numbers of my product with the intention to do Y and I knew it could not do Y, I would NOT sell it to the government. Why? Because when it reaches the media that the government gave my company $n Billion dollars to do Y, and my product failed to do Y, my business is the one that will be hurt as future customers avoid me, and future investors see me as a black sheep when it comes to acquiring new contracts.
I HAVE argued with the government on multiple occasions when they were attempting to do something not possible, or trying to do it with the wrong equipment. That is VERY different than selling the government more than they need. (10HP engines when 5HP engines will do in generators as opposed to selling the government 5HP engines to run a tank)
To solve this "problem" we have courts. Judges deal with these sorts of marginal cases every day. It's not a big problem.
In theory, no, it is not a big problem. Except for 95% of the population who cannot afford adequate legal representation. Even then, it seems odd that something that is not a big problem costs so god damned much.
Everyone has pictures of their child in various amounts of clothing. From just after birth as they were sitting on the scale to the ubiquitous bath photos which always seem to turn up 'thanks' to vigilant 1-hr photo employees.
As a result, nearly everyone is at risk of an economically life ending court trial in which there is no guarantee of vindication. With the legal fees of even a short trial easily going into the tens of thousands of dollars as you are pitted against the LIMITLESS resources of the government, even if you win, you lose.
Sorry, but judicial oversight, at least in court systems like those of the US, is simply no longer a valid protection.
Honest personal opinion: If Obama gets ACTA passed, but -actually- fixes health care, I'm voting for him again.
Obviously, the two do not go hand in hand, and I'm making no statement as to the likelyhood of him actually fixing health care. If he passes ACTA, but not health care, I will be voting for someeone else and will publicly apologize for voting for him the first time. However, if saving political capital on this one means it can be spent on something that is a much bigger deal to me, then I don't at all regret voting for him.
Would you consider healthcare to be 'fixed' if the Bill currently before congress is passed? Trust me, I'd love to see issues such as Healthcare fixed (even if it does come to a government option) I have no love for insurance companies and dislike the concept of insurance, but I'm not seeing much in this Bill which will fix much of anything.
Fixing Healthcare is something that we won't know has been done or working until far beyond the date which this Bill is passed, and the 2012 elections are already concluded.
The AMA?
Yeah, that's why the government has stuck it to personal-injury lawyers and reformed medical malpractice laws. Oh wait, it didn't?
The AMA has a whole grocery list of issues which it lobbies for. The personal-injury lawyer? They have one thing that they want, and that is for nothing to change.
So when the AMA comes forward with a list of 10 items and 1-9 gets rubber stamped, but on number 10, the trial lawyers say "Hey, those 9 items are great, but could you just not act on number 10 for a bit?" Are you saying that the AMA has really 'lost'?
The AMA has worked hard to insulate Doctors from some necessary reforms and made it a VERY protected profession. The barrier for entry to be a Doctor is VERY high (monetarily), and the AMA likes it that way.
One of the reasons that medical care is so expensive is that pretty much all of the decision responsibility has been removed from the individual and transferred to medical professionals. It's an issue that has many causes, so I don't lay it explicitly at the AMA's feet, but they do have a tremendous amount of influence in Government.
Afterall, how many politicians would survive an election if they were able to be labeled as 'Disregarding the warnings of the AMA'?
Can you in any way deny that President Obama is more tech-savvy than any President prior? Do you think Bush II was more tech-savvy than Obama? Clinton? Bush I? I very much doubt it.
We have had Presidents who held engineering degrees and Carter joined the damned Navy Nuclear program when it was just starting.
Does 'tech' to you only mean hiring a staff-member to manage your twitter and Facebook feeds? I could hire a world class pathologist to advise me, but that doesn't make me 'medical-savvy'. Obama hired a good PR firm. They might be tech-savvy, but he certainly has not shown us any signs that he holds any particular insight.
Over here we just call them Drug Lords, you crazy americans with your russian words..
With a latin root no less. ;)
Seriously? Why would you decide against it? What's the downside?
That's a good question, but just because it is unlikely, or we can not immediately find a downside, that doesn't mean that you shouldn't have the option.
The key point you seem to have missed is that lightsabers are largely ineffective in the hands of rubes. Some background training, force ability, etc. are the prerequisite.
Seriously, did you not get that from the movies?
I didn't. It seemed like there was only a single character in 6 movies who wasn't a jedi and touched a lightsaber. Considering how much melee combat IS involved in the movies (vibroblades, etc) It did not make sense that they wouldn't be used.
Hell, even having one as some sort of emergency cutting device seemed like it would be pretty damned useful in a lot of circumstances. That the technology that powered lightsabres wasn't used in a wide variety of applications was a glaring omission.
If you put 1000 humans out in the wilderness, naked and without any tools, you'd soon see how advanced we are as a lifeform.
Indeed we would. Notice how you didn't pick a 'wilderness'. Did you mean to say Savannah, Rainforest, Alpine, Coastal, Arid, Temperate Forest wilderness? Because there is a good chance that 1000 people would quickly adapt to their situation as long as it wasn't immediately lethal to unprotected bodies (Arctic, Desert, etc). I can virtually guarantee that if you dropped ME off in the middle of temperate forest right now (since temperatures are now within the bounds for the risks of death by exposure) I'd have a 75% chance of surviving a full year. That's me, alone, and without any tools.
Give me 1000 other people, 200 of which are in good health and able to labor, I'd think that within 1 year you would see that a good portion survived, and within 20 years, a population increase.
For these scenarios, you really need to pull out all the stops if you want to go full bore with your anti-humanism. State that their thumbs must be removed, and they aren't allowed to think too hard.
You might as well conduct a test on the survivability of the African Lion by dumping a pride of them 5 miles off the coast of Honduras. (A test, which ironically, naked toolless humans would have a non-zero chance of surviving)
You're a rather silly person to assume they have a "butt."
So what you are saying, is that 'thing' that happend to me all those years ago was just the alien's way of shaking hands?
A computer game these days seems to consist of some newly colored uniforms, some new league fixtures, and another 80 dollars for Madden 2011.
So it's turtles all the way down? There was no 'original' game?
Unless again, you consider reality. Reality includes Jailbroken iPhones, which at last count (sometime early last year) was around 3-4 MILLION devices (ad tracking agencies help verify those numbers, but that number is from the founder of Cydia).
And I taped my iphone to my car so it now drives me to work!
Isn't that, um, a libel?
IANAL etc
Opinion is not generally held to be defamation. Key words include "Must have" which is a logical deduction based on an unsaid inquiry.
Why would he have done so poorly?
He 'must have' been paid off because...
There is a big difference between stating:
"He was paid off."
"He must have been paid off."
I tell you what. Meet me at the county courthouse. You bring your lawyer, I bring my pick of the Harvard Law (not Nesson obviously. Maybe Dershowitz). First guy who's lawyer calls for his momma owes the other a case of beer.
I'd take you up on that.
Just wondering though, wouldn't an appeal to authority be one of the first things that Harvard Law warns you about when preparing a debate? Of course, the experienced trial lawyer might also be aware that a jury is easily swayed by someone who appears authoritative, even though they may know nothing of the subject.
But in general, I'd be wary of relying on name and tradition to always trump alternate experience.