champu

They convicted him of what they felt they could be sure he was guilty of which may (and hopefully will, imo) cumulatively result in a life sentence. They neither convicted nor acquitted him of that on which they could not agree regarding his guilt. As was already mentioned, he'll go to jail and be retried in some fashion for the homicide. So... what are your thoughts on your own question in the thread title?

Thanks Mother Jones for making the headline of that article about guns... Here's the report and press release more or less on their own if anyone is interested. This is the tale of people who grew their athletic careers to become NFL football players but stopped learning anything academically sometime early in elementary school. They bully people over female family members and for being asian, black, homosexual, and even for flying R/C helicopters and owning guns.

If they're going to pretend that the pretend gun is a threat they should pretend to know how to handle a firearm and not point the pretend barrel at their face.

Insofar as I replied to both of you in a similar fashion I see the parallel you're trying to draw, I just don't think the "Oh yeah? Hypocrite!" approach is very productive. Plus, comparing concerns about actions across centuries with concerns about actions across continents has some other problems, especially if you want to address them. Time machines don't exist. The internet and international flights do.

So is he, and that's the particularly scary part of his thought process.

...and now you're projecting the relatively static state of society Europe and much of the Pacific Rim enjoys today on the 1940s. It's absurd to hold someone to answer for events that occurred 70 years ago against the standards we strive for today before you'll consider acknowledging complaints and grievances about events that are ongoing today. What do you want him to say? "Yeah, if we were currently carpet bombing and nuking cities right now I'd bite my tongue."

Do you think it would be possible to arrive, today, at the same theory of creation without having been exposed to the writings or teachings of the bible? Do you think it would be possible to arrive, today, at the same theory of evolution without having been exposed to to the writings or teachings of Darwin et al? That's the difference between creation theory and evolution theory.

You're projecting the relatively static state of society we enjoy in the west on the middle east. You have to think in terms of rates as opposed to absolute quantities, and then remember to consider nature vs nurture. Talk is cheap.

California has a ban on "assault weapons", magazines that hold over ten rounds, and "unsafe" handguns. The supposed wish list of gun control advocates when it comes to restricting what anyone can own. (as distinct from the discussion of who is allowed to own any type of firearm.) So state politicians are happy right? Of course they're not happy. They endlessly continue to try and expand the scope of the "assault weapon" definition, expand the definition of a magazine that holds over ten rounds*, and expand the definition of what an "unsafe" handgun is. It's not that they really don't know the difference between form and function, it's just their way of going after everything they can get away with. Their idea of compromise is "We get half of what we want now, the other half next year, and the year after that we'll think of some more stuff and push for that too." *not making this up, there was a bill last year here that was trying to ban magazines that appeared to be able to hold more than 10 rounds, even if they couldn't.

Abandoned property is fair game in pretty much every jurisdiction. If it weren't, how could law enforcement ever use that exception to fourth amendment protections? That's my take on it too, I just stated it very weakly. The parenthetical comment was just to say I'm not sure there aren't some corner cases where this would be a crime. I can't think of any examples though. I agree with you here, and my three cases were meant to represent, respectively, actively breaking security (stolen credentials, exploiting a zero day vulnerability, etc.), taking advantage of lax security (using known broken software, wi-fi with no VPN, password is '12345', etc.), and simply accessing published files (even if they were published by mistake.) As I said, I think the battle is between how much behavior to include in each of the last two categories.

Just as a side note (it doesn't really speak to your point), and FWIW, let's not forget that in many jurisdictions merely looking at, and especially downloading, child porn obtained via openly-accessible internet sites is a criminal offense. Is the criminal offense downloading the material though or possession of the material regardless of where you got it from? Just having leaked documents like in this story is not necessarily a crime, particularly if you've not previously entered into any kind of NDA that covers them. If you break into a building and take documents that's obviously a chargeable offense. If you walk into a building uninvited, and sneak into an office area by following people, grabbing doors before they close, generally abusing crap security practices, and take documents that's still probably still the same chargeable offense. If the entity inside the building just throws unshredded copies of the documents in a recycle bin and puts it out on the curb and you reach into the bin and take them, then I'm not sure you've done anything illegal (my wild guess would be this varies by jurisdiction.) The question, in my opinion, is to which of the above is "directory diving," or going through publicly accessible but unadvertised unlinked content, analogous.

Posting contemptible or idiotic things in the comments section of news stories or videos is probably the most interesting personal interaction a lot of people who do that kind of thing get, remember that.

Ah, you're correct. I'm lumping compound, complex, and begging together. That's a demerit.

Way too sensitive. I think their guest, Dergarabedian's, analysis was on the right track. The reason the villain is the head of a corporation is because heads of corporation wield power, and villains that don't wield power make for crappy plots. It's difficult to write a character that is evil, incompetent, and interesting all at once.

That's sounds interesting, but I'm having trouble wrapping my mind around it. Anyone have a few easy examples? "Begging the question" just means you start a discussion/argument/debate with some statement or question that assumes an answer to an unasked question. This assumed answer generally plays a key role in what you are eventually trying to prove. A classic example is the loaded question, "Are you still beating your wife?" This inquiry begs the question, "Have you beaten your wife?" If the answer to this skipped over or "begged" question is "no" then the question about whether you continue to do so isn't even valid. Often people use the term to just mean "brings up another question" when they want to sound accusatory or intellectual, but that's silly. There's nothing wrong with making a statement that invites further questions in the conversation, that's how conversations work. It's the original definition where you've skipped a question that is the logical fallacy. /edited to add: a plain example in this context would be a question like, "Aren't you worried God will be mad at you for not believing in Him?"

It's actually the most accurate sign you could put up. Not only does it make clear no firearms are allowed there, it also indicates that drawings of firearms are not welcome, makes clear that pantomime of a gun with your hand will get you suspended, and lays plain that which is not an acceptable shape into which you may chew a pop tart.

Having read thousands of police reports in my career, and seeing the way most cops spell, I'd probably wonder who the hell would blackmail a white canary. It's not hard to find dirt on a white canary.

Now, I'm wondering how many Americans have retirement accounts and how much is held in them. At some point, this becomes an easy sell to those who did not save. If they are in the large majority, it's easy to see people with retirement accounts cast in the same light as the 'rich' are now. Food for thought. I can see the mailed notice now... There is a projected shortfall of 23% of the scheduled social security payments. In order to cover this shortfall and ensure you are able to receive all the benefits you are owed, 401(k) balances are being automatically rolled over into the Social Security system. Don't worry, no action is necessary on your part.

As long as you spend one entire day each week a hungover disaster where you don't leave the immediate vicinity of a toilet and curse at any one or thing that exceeds 40 dB SPL then you're not an alcoholic because you won't have had a drink that day.

Why skip the 3rd? If the government sent a bunch of soldiers to move into my house, I think I'd want to move out. The Third Amendment is actually pretty weak sauce in terms of the protections it provides from government as a whole to be honest. Congress can put soldiers/state actors in your house without repealing the Third Amendment first. There's a lot of chicken and egg going on in the bill of rights, but I still think 4-8 are more important than either 1 or 2. Think about it, the First Amendment prevents laws from being written. Without 4-8 the government doesn't need laws.

That was my initial reaction to the question, and why I said I thought it was an interesting thought experiment. It's basically the same thing as asking "What, besides or despite inertia, keeps you living in the US?"

It's definitely an interesting thought experiment. I'm going to intentionally skip the first two amendments, because speakers corner has enough threads about those. I think a formal repeal of any of the 4th through 8th or 14th amendments would be a good time to start shopping for a new home. Without those it doesn't even really matter what any other laws say. Getting away from the "removing what's there" theme... I think the establishment of a single-payor retirement system (think: eminent domain declared over 401(k)s, IRAs, etc.) would make me want to leave.

-is a time machine to go back and stop that program before it started. Just because it is crashing and burning on a geologic time scale compared to political attention spans does not mean it is not crashing and burning. I'm just glad this myRA thing is optional so I can completely ignore it.

I'd like to elaborate on this point a bit because I think it's important beyond just this particular topic. There's a way of thinking that needs recognizing. You have to remember that there is one alleged problem and one known problem in this story. The alleged problem is that there is racial profiling going on, which may very well be the case. The known problem is that there are groups that exist for the promotion of black people that are concerned that there is racial profiling going on. These groups of people made 12 recommendations to address these concerns. What you cannot do is allow these recommendations to rescope the issue into twelve seperate problems that are uniquely addressed by these twelve recommendations, all deserving their own consideration, and all demanding their own alternatives. In other words, the simple fact that the word "black" shows up in police alerts frequently is in no uncertain terms not a problem in and of itself and thusly there is no need to address that directly as an issue.

Acording to the article the letter gave 12 recommendations, so the idea in the headline plus eleven others. Two others mentioned in the article are requiring officers to attend diversity training, and attaching a link on crime alerts to the U’s no-tolerance policy on racial profiling. Those two ain't half bad. The other nine aren't discussed in the article. So how about this as an alternative... Instead of implementing all the recommendations, discard the stupid ones like the one in the headline and implement the more reasoned ones. How's that?