Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - evensgrey

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 95
The Podcast / Re: Podcast for 15 July 2018
« on: July 16, 2018, 10:20:16 AM »
I think I have a solution for the Democrats mangling the investigative proceedings.

§1505. Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees

Whoever, with intent to avoid, evade, prevent, or obstruct compliance, in whole or in part, with any civil investigative demand duly and properly made under the Antitrust Civil Process Act, willfully withholds, misrepresents, removes from any place, conceals, covers up, destroys, mutilates, alters, or by other means falsifies any documentary material, answers to written interrogatories, or oral testimony, which is the subject of such demand; or attempts to do so or solicits another to do so; or

Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication influences, obstructs, or impedes or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede the due and proper administration of the law under which any pending proceeding is being had before any department or agency of the United States, or the due and proper exercise of the power of inquiry under which any inquiry or investigation is being had by either House, or any committee of either House or any joint committee of the Congress—

Shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both.

The penalties available are important, because they mean that this qualifies as a felony under the normal rules used to identify a felony in US Federal law, which means that the limited immunity to arrest of Members of Congress during sessions does not apply.  It would be entirely proper for the Attorney General to initiate a criminal investigation into the actions of those Members who improperly abused the system to attempt to block the committee from questioning the witness.  It would also be entirely appropriate for the Committee on Ethics to investigate their behavior, which has the potential to lead to penalties up to expulsion from their Seats.

The Podcast / Re: Podcast for 10 June 2018
« on: June 15, 2018, 06:45:22 PM »
It's how appellate courts work. If you have something blatantly biased like this Commission using different criteria for the gay marriage cake as for the anti-gay cakes, you deal with that most serious issue first. Then you only deal with larger issues if dealing with the more serious issue didn't remedy the situation, which in this case it did.

This is also why so many rulings "kick back" the case to lower courts. After dealing with the serious issue, there's still a controversy that requires arguments that haven't been presented, so they're basically told to try again.

The Supreme Court does not (and should not) have the ability to just decide the big issues at their own whim.

And that is why this ruling is narrow:  It deals with the procedural unfairness the appellate was subjected to, but not the higher issues about wether the entire process is permissible in the first place, because it didn't have to.

I really don't see how you misunderstood the usage of the word 'narrow' in the first place.

The Podcast / Re: Podcast for 10 June 2018
« on: June 12, 2018, 09:05:31 AM »
So, what would an un-narrow ruling have looked like?

As the articles state, it would have dealt with broader issues, such as the 1st Amendment freedom of speech (or silence) and freedom of worship (or non-worship) issues that claiming that someone is entitled to a (transient, in this case) work of art that carries a specific message from a specific artist who does not want to create a work of art with that message because he believes it to contradict the tenants of his religion.  As it is, this is about the fairly narrow 5th Amendment matter of were his views on the message he was being asked to convey treated in the same manner as the views of any other artist being asked to convey the message of a prospective client which the artist does not believe in personally (which they were not, which is the basis of the ruling as I understand it).

Appellate courts generally seem to like making narrow rulings on the basis of procedural protections to end cases like this, probably because it means they don't have to think about the bigger questions, like whether it is permissible for the state to require speech that the speaker is, in fact, personally opposed to.  (Living in Canada, I have to deal with the fact that I am under a legal system that explicitly refuses to accept that a thing is done freely only if one is also free to NOT do it, such as I only associate freely with a person if I am also free to NOT associate with that person.  Here, we're going through a spasm of insanity from our idiot Prime Minister who thinks he can put you in jail for not using random nonsense instead of correct words because he just doesn't like the correct words.)

The Podcast / Re: Podcast for 10 June 2018
« on: June 11, 2018, 10:18:58 AM »
You appear to have misunderstood the usage of the word 'narrow' in other coverage.  The coverage I read (including the article you link to) specifically states that the subject matter ruled on was narrow, not that the decision was made narrowly.

The Podcast / Re: Podcast for 3 June 2018
« on: June 04, 2018, 09:51:08 AM »
Not only does every academic journal have their own official style rules (the primary purpose of which is to ensure everyone formats their articles the same way, maximizing clarity and comparability), you can even get many of them as packages for the TeX typesetting system (pretty much the only workable way of writing papers in any math-heavy subject, like math, physics, chemistry, or computer science, for those rare journals that don't make it a formal requirement).

This is a film made in 1969 by Oak Ridge National Laboratory about the Molten Salt Reactor Experiment, one of the first experimental reactors for testing components of a full thorium reactor fuel cycle.


Well, that's really something, isn't it?

Louis Rossmann has a video where he and an auto mechanic friend of his comment on this situation

and his friend explains that removing the broken screws is actually a fairly straightforward (although somewhat tedious and exacting) task with the right tools and techniques, which Apple Stores clearly don't have, given what they did to the mount.

The Podcast / Re: Podcast for 20 May 2018
« on: May 21, 2018, 01:07:43 PM »
At least the guy in Springfield didn't end up going through what Guy Paul Morin did here in Canada between 1985 and 1995.  He spent those years fighting to clear his name (including a year and a half spent in the general population in a maximum security prison) from charges he had raped and murdered a nine year old neighbor because...the police thought it was 'weird' that he did things that included playing the clarinet.  And saxophone.  And having been a good student.  And had a steady (if slightly unusual) job in a furniture factory.

One good thing that came out of his was the group that formed to try and get his wrongful conviction reversed turned into The Association In Defense Of The Wrongfully Convicted, which has helped numerous wrongfully convicted persons clear themselves.  There was also an inquiry, which came out with over a hundred recommendations for how to avoid repetitions.

The Podcast / Re: Podcast for 13 May 2018
« on: May 15, 2018, 10:53:38 PM »
All that does is increase the chances of a false positive. With the tiny amount of true positives they have, they'll waste FAR more resources checking out the dead ends. And again, we have no way of knowing the rate of false negatives.

From a Bayesian standpoint, being pegged by this system means you're more likely to be an innocent than someone they're looking for. The more hay you add, the more hay gets detected as needles, even if you do manage to put the odd needle in while you're doing it.

Actually, assuming those 19 million are actually people they're looking for, at that level the odds are swinging back in favor of real detections.  That slice ALONE is about 30% of the UK's population.  Once you're looking for everyone, there's no such thing as a false positive.  Of course, it also means you don't get to follow up on anything, either.

The Podcast / Re: Podcast for 13 May 2018
« on: May 14, 2018, 01:09:27 PM »
I think you're haystack analogy doesn't quite work like that.  The UK police are trying to find specific needles in a needlestack.  Given that they are planning on putting 19 million MORE faces into the database to be looked for, they will have a substantial percentage of the population of the UK in the system.  Given the vagaries of appearance and recognition, there are bound to be several people whom human strangers would be hard pressed to quickly differentiate between given photo references (and we're pretty good at telling each other apart, certainly better than most image recognition systems are going to be), never mind if the computers can tell them apart by whatever criteria they're using.

General Discussion / Sargon needs some help
« on: May 04, 2018, 04:54:35 PM »
Sargon miscalculated a bit financially with all his recent travels (apparently his travel was paid for by someone else, but not all the sundries that go along with travel) and he's not got the money to continue defending the law suit.  Here's his gofundme for it:

He's doing extremely well on this, he asked for £40,000 and has well over £50,000 in 9 hours as of this writing, so he should be fine for now, but some extra cushion in these things is never a bad thing.

General Discussion / Re: Fav quotes
« on: May 02, 2018, 04:36:16 PM »
A most excellent speech by Sargon yesterday:

It is interesting that I can hardly tell the difference between the messages Sargon and Stephan are putting out these days.

General Discussion / Re: Fav quotes
« on: May 02, 2018, 04:34:02 PM »
That looks different to the one we used, but it DEFINITELY had an effect. Cows did NOT like it. And it was MUCH more annoying to them than being poked with a stick.

Also, if they can be shocked by an electric fence (and they CAN), why wouldn't a cattle prod work?

Sheep apparently are rather a different matter.  They're notorious for ignoring electric fencing (unless recently shorn) due to their wool being an excellent insulator.  (Notice the type of shirt Big Clive is wearing in the video is conventionally made of wool.)

General Discussion / Re: Fav quotes
« on: April 28, 2018, 08:30:26 PM »
Unlike my previous drunken rant on SCP-3999, this is SCP-3900, which is really, REALLY funny (and, I suppose, could be considered frightening if you look at it the right way, theoretically the SCP foundation is a horror site):

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

General Discussion / Re: WTF
« on: April 22, 2018, 03:34:57 PM »
If SCP has been discussed elsewhere on this forum then all I can do is apologize for a redundant post.  So yeah sometimes you just gotta go to SCP Explained.

SCP-3999 doesn't need explanation, it needs deletion.  It's not difficult, it's STUPID.  This isn't an example of any sort of complex and clever writing, it's the prose equivalent of word salad.

Internally, this isn't the result of a contained SCP, but the only way for the documentation to be almost entirely corruption (to the extent half of it is a corrupted copy of a different SCP's documentation) is for the SCP to be contained and gotten access to it's documentation.

This is actually a great deal like the horrendous editing of The Difference Engine that left a third of the book filled with similar random nonsense.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 95