jcd11235

I should have registered with the username cheesegrater. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

I don't need to. A FBI agent involved with the investigation already presented his probable cause to a federal judge, and that judge signed off on the search warrant. That is the law working as designed. The onus is yours to show that the judge erred in approving the warrant. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Isn't that how Motorola started out? Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Yes, which appears to have been the case, among other violations. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

It's interesting that you should choose to examine only a single paragraph of the section to which I referred, instead of the entire section. Other paragraphs, such as c and e, seem more relevant. The application for a search warrant doesn't specify a particular paragraph of the section being violated. Application § 793 Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Rosen's (alleged) actions do appear to be a violation of 18 USC § 793. Referring to him as a co-conspirator, for the purpose of the investigation, seems to accurately describe his actions under § 793. That he was a reporter working on a story means he probably won't be prosecuted for a crime, according to the legal reasoning presented in the ACS blog post linked to upthread. Rosen's status as reporter should make him effectively immune from prosecution for his actions, not from investigation. A balance between national security and freedom of the press has to be found when the two interests are opposed. A thorough investigation helps strike that balance in each individual case. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

What charges have been brought against the reporter? The silence is deafening. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

What charges have been brought against the reporter? Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

If the reporter had passively received the classified information, then a thorough investigation into that reporter's communications and whereabouts would probably not be justified. In this case, the reporter did not receive the information passively. In this case, the reporter was concerned in the commission of the crime being investigated. Given that the motive to incite the crime was to write about an issue that might "meaningfully contribute to public debate," (to quote the American Constitution Society blog post linked to upthread), the reporter should be immune from prosecution, but there's no reason to refrain from fully investigating the crime just because one of the parties is a reporter. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

That's true to some extent, but no two individuals in a risk pool are ever exactly the same risk. I'm not sure whether or not states provide funds for the federal program according to their individual risk or not. I suspect that they do, at least to some extent. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

It's not goofy at all. It's the basic insurance model. Losses are pooled and risk is significantly reduced, without any significant increase in cost. It's no different from your insurance premiums being used to pay the benefit for other insurance customers when they experience a covered loss, and their premiums being used to pay your benefit when you experience a loss. If the individual states self-insured, they would have to maintain MUCH larger cash reserves, which, in all likelihood, would translate to higher taxes (with no economic benefit from those taxes, since the additional revenues would have to be stockpiled instead of pumped back into the economy). It's not a shell game; it's basic risk management. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

The leak of classified information absolutely should have been investigated. The reporter(s) who obtained the information should absolutely not be charged with a crime. Fortunately, it appears that's exactly how the matter was handled. The leak was investigated, identifying the leaker, and the reporter was not charged with a crime. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

That is incorrect. Even with an accurate model, we expect some observations to fall outside of our prediction interval. Those observations do not invalidate the model. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Comparing CCW holders to the general population is a meaningless comparison. The CCW application process weeds out many people who are statistically more likely to commit crimes. If we want to know if legally carrying a gun makes one more or less likely to commit a crime, we have to compare CCW holders who carry regularly with people who would qualify for CCW if they applied, but don't apply. We can't learn anything useful about the effect of legally carrying a gun if both groups being studied don't go through the same vetting process. The lower crime rate for CCW holders might indicate that legally carrying makes one less likely to commit crime, or it might mean carrying a gun has no effect, but the application process effectively vets future criminals. It is even possible and plausible that carrying a gun makes one a little more likely to commit crime, but the application process works well enough that its effect is greater than the effect of carrying a gun. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

That is incorrect. Predictive models are not expected to correctly predict future observations 100 percent of the time. Increasing confidence levels for prediction intervals results in wider intervals, decreasing the overall usefulness of the models. A weatherman could say, with 100 percent confidence, that the high temperature tomorrow will be between -460º and 9941º F. He would be guaranteed to be correct, but his prediction would be completely useless. He might only be 90 percent confident that the high temperature will be between 75º and 85º F. (Note: I'm not a meteorologist, so I don't know the actual width of a 90 percent confidence prediction interval provided by current weather models.) While the smaller prediction interval is expected to cover the actual high temperature only nine out of ten times, it is a far more useful prediction. If we monitored the weatherman's predictions (at the 90 percent confidence level) over an extended period of time and found that the intervals only covered the observed values 60 percent of the time, we would be justified questioning the accuracy of his model. A model that provides the expected proportion of accurate predictions is not wrong. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

When was the last time one of those three made a video and involved their religion as a reason or excuse to do murder people in cold blood? Does the name Anders Behring Breivik ring a bell, or were his terrorist acts less tragic, since he didn't take video? Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. I'm interested in how the judicial branch has interpreted this amendment over the years. With just the text, reasonable arguments could be made either way about the legality of the door to door search. What constitutes an unreasonable search? How is it different from a reasonable search, which the amendment's text could be said to imply is allowed? Is the government actually forbidden from warrantless searches of homes, or is the government simply forbidden from using evidence from such searches in the prosecution (and perhaps investigation) of the citizen whose home was searched? Even if the searches were of the unreasonable type, do the affected residents have any avenue of recourse if they are not charged with any crimes based on evidence and information obtained from that search? In what ways can the government be punished for executing warrantless unreasonable searches? As much as I'd like to be outraged by the actions of the police, I've been around long enough to understand that the SCOTUS (and the rest of the judicial branch) usually have a more nuanced interpretation of the Constitution than what a layman has. At this point, I'm not convinced either way about the legality of the door to door search. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Will the courts view the searches as unreasonable, assuming there was no evidence collected of any crimes residents may have been committing behind closed doors? Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

After questioning, the FBI determined that such links weren't credible. Perhaps the FBI were wrong, or perhaps being questioned about non-existent links is what pushed the older brother over the edge. From what I've seen and read, I can't easily reject the possibility that the older brother pressured the younger brother to support his cause. No one has had anything but good things to say about the younger brother, at least before the marathon bombing. While no one seems to have vilified the older brother, the descriptions of his character have not been so glowing. Nineteen is still a pretty impressionable age, especially when it comes to an older brother that one might look up to. (To be clear, that doesn't justify the younger brother's participation.) To address the OP's question, I would argue that terrorists are all typically criminals, and should be treated as such. To treat them as anything else serves to legitimize their actions and motives. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

I say there's a declining trend. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

That wouldn't be a very wise way of obtaining national data. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

"The trouble with quotes on the Internet is that you never know if they are correctly attributed." -Winston Churchill. I actually remember that Einstein quote from a biography I did on him almost 30 years ago. (well, I didn't recall the exact words. google helped with that) The other one I've only seen online, and have no idea who really said it. Irregardless, didn't you know that 87.2% of all internet statistics are made up on the spot? yes... I put "irregardless" in there to troll someone... anyone actually From WikiQuote.org: Two things are infinite: the universe and the human stupidity. As discussed in this entry from The Quote Investigator, the earliest published attribution of a similar quote to Einstein seems to have been in Gestalt therapist Frederick S. Perls' 1969 book Gestalt Theory Verbatim, where he wrote on p. 33: "As Albert Einstein once said to me: 'Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity.' But what is much more widespread than the actual stupidity is the playing stupid, turning off your ear, not listening, not seeing." Perls also offered another variant in his 1972 book In and Out the Garbage Pail, where he mentioned a meeting with Einstein and on p. 52 quoted him saying: "Two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I am not yet completely sure about the universe." However, Perls had given yet another variant of this quote in an earlier book, Ego, Hunger, and Aggression: a Revision of Freud’s Theory and Method (originally published 1942, although the Quote Investigator only checked that the quote appeared in the 1947 edition), where he attributed it not to Einstein but to a "great astronomer", writing: "As modern times promote hasty eating to a large extent, it is not surprising to learn that a great astronomer said: 'Two things are infinite, as far as we know – the universe and human stupidity.' Today we know that this statement is not quite correct. Einstein has proved that the universe is limited." So, the later attributions in 1969 and 1972 may have been a case of faulty memory, or of intentionally trying to increase the authority of the quote by attributing it to Einstein. The quote itself may be a variant of a similar quote attributed even earlier to the philosopher Ernest Renan, found for example in The Public: Volume 18 from 1915, which says on p. 1126: "He quotes the saying of Renan: it isn't the stars that give him an idea of infinity; it is man's stupidity." Renan was French so this is presumably intended as a translation, but different sources give different versions of the supposed original French quote, such as "La bêtise humaine est la seule chose qui donne une idée de l'infini" (found for example in Réflexions sur la vie, 1895-1898 by Remy de Gourmont from 1903, p. 103, along with several other early sources as seen in this search) and "Ce n'est pas l'immensité de la vôute étoilée qui peut donner le plus complétement l'ideé de l'infini, mais bien la bêtise humaine!" (found in Broad views, Volume 2 from 1904, p. 465). Since these variants have not been found in Renan's own writings, they may represent false attributions as well. They may also be variants of an even older saying; for example, the 1880 book Des vers by Guy de Maupassant includes on p. 9 a quote from a letter by Gustave Flaubert where Flaubert writes "Cependant, qui sait? La terre a des limites, mais la bêtise humaine est infinie!" which translates to "But who knows? The earth has its boundaries, but human stupidity is infinite!" Similarly the 1887 book Melanges by Jules-Paul Tardivel includes on p. 273 a piece said to have been written in 1880 in which he writes "Aujourd'hui je sais qu'il n'y a pas de limites à la bêtise humaine, qu'elle est infinie" which translates to "today I know that there is no limit to human stupidity, it is infinite." I'm not picking on you. In my experience, any quote attributed to Ben Franklin, Lincoln, Einstein, or George Carlin is more likely than not misattributed, so I tend to look them up to see. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

"The trouble with quotes on the Internet is that you never know if they are correctly attributed." -Winston Churchill. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

That's certainly a possibility, though such a small (relatively speaking) population is exceedingly unlikely to affect the results enough that an increasing trend would become a decreasing trend. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Texas has a law that will cause criminal charges to be brought against a gun owner whose firearm was not "reasonably secured" and is taken by and fired by a minor. (resulting in injury) It's a very specific statement of one responsibility, but it is there. That sounds like a step in the right direction, though I don't necessarily like how it's limited to use by a minor. If an adult accesses a firearm because it isn't "reasonably secured," and subsequently uses that firearm in a crime, the legal owner should not be without blame. I get that. That said, I'm pretty sure I'd receive a more thorough mathematics education at MIT or Cambridge than I'm receiving at my local state university, but I'm equally confident that I understand mathematics better than most anyone without a math degree from anywhere. I don't see how raising the minimum standards can hurt. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!