|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On July 13 2016 01:51 zeo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2016 01:44 Plansix wrote:On July 13 2016 01:40 amazingxkcd wrote:
Im curious, why would there be statues for legality of letting people see classified information without clearance? That shouldnt be a hard question to answer. Because it depends on the facts. Was it an accident? How did they gain access? Did the person who provided access believe the person had clearance? And so on. If you ask most good attorneys questions like "If this happens, is it illegal?", they will respond requesting more information. Because almost all cases are fact driven, rather than a math equation. Is murder illegal? Is rape illegal? Is stealing from a bank illegal? Is driving 200km/h in a 50km/h zone illegal? If your answer to these questions is to repetadly say 'I dont know, I need more information. In some cases bla bla' you are dodging.
Yes - But only after a jury rules that the killing was a murder based on the facts of the case
Yes - But only after a jury/judge decides that the sexual act was rape based on the facts of the case
Depends - What did you take and where did you take it from?
Depends - Why are you speeding?
|
On July 13 2016 01:53 farvacola wrote:
I love the faux outrage from folks who pay no attention to congressional hearings save for when someone they dislike is being grilled. Question and answer sessions like the one Lynch is in now happen all the damn time lol.
I won't even lie. I wanted to watch it to see a politician squirming like a worm.
Missed it though. 
edit:
Sidenote, i'd like to see an example of "subjective math". First time i've ever heard that.
|
On July 13 2016 01:54 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2016 01:53 farvacola wrote:
I love the faux outrage from folks who pay no attention to congressional hearings save for when someone they dislike is being grilled. Question and answer sessions like the one Lynch is in now happen all the damn time lol. I won't even lie. I wanted to watch it to see a politician squirming like a worm. Missed it though.
You can watch any earlier point in the youtube stream 
It's so much better than television in that respect.
|
On July 12 2016 13:46 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2016 13:41 LegalLord wrote: Two police officers fatally shot a knife-waving man Monday during a confrontation on a street in Sacramento, California, authorities said.
The shooting occurred after witnesses called police to report that a man was waving a knife over his head and showing "very threatening, erratic behavior," police spokesman Sgt. Bryce Heinlein said.
One witness told police the man had a gun in his waistband, Heinlein said.
The man threw an object at a police vehicle and was seen reaching for his waistband as if he was trying to retrieve a weapon, the Sacramento Police Department said in a statement.
It also said the man later raised a knife over his head while charging one officer who locked himself in his patrol car to escape injury.
Two more officers arrived and eventually shot the man when he turned toward them with the knife, Heinlein said. A news release said officers fired "multiple" shots.
Officers later found a folding knife but no gun, he said.
"He was non-compliant throughout the whole ordeal," refusing repeated commands to drop the weapon, Heinlein said. "I'm not sure if he came at the officers ... but he turned toward the officers in a threatening manner and at that point the officers fired."
The man was shot on a sidewalk while the two officers were close to him, said Officer Matthew McPhail, another police spokesman.
"It sounds like a couple of paces. I don't have an exact foot measurement," McPhail said.
The man was not immediately identified. Police described him as black and in his 50s or 60s.
The shooting came amid high tensions nationwide over recent police shootings of black men in Minnesota and Louisiana, and the slaying of five Dallas police officers during a Black Lives Matter rally last week. Source I don't understand why a elephant tranquilizer isn't an option. We have some really intense sedatives. If you can hide in your car, you can tranquilize. Am I missing something? I must be.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tranquillizer_gun#Military_and_police_use
"Tranquillizer darts are not generally included in military or police less-than-lethal arsenals because no drug is yet known that would be quickly and reliably effective on humans without the risks of side effects or an overdose. This means that effective use requires an estimate of the weight of the target to be able to determine how many darts (if any) can be used. Shooting too few would result in partial effects only, while too many can kill the target. According to James Butts, Santa Monica, CA Chief of Police, "Tranquilizing agents don't affect everyone uniformly. Therefore you cannot predict whether or not you have a sufficient dose to tranquilize the individual. Second, any tranquillizer will take time to enter the bloodstream and sedate the individual. If someone is advancing on you with a deadly weapon or a threatening object, there's no way a tranquillizer would take effect in the two to three seconds it would take someone to seriously injure you."
Also:
"On impact with the animal, the momentum of a steel ball at the rear of the dart pushes the syringe plunger and injects the dose of barbiturate or other drug into the animal. The drug causes the target to become sleepy and suddenly become unconscious within 45 minutes. Because of the power of the drugs, the handlers then have to move quickly to secure the animal for transport, monitor its vital signs, protect its eyes and ears, and then inject antidotes when needed. Many large animals are acutely sensitive to stress and can easily die without careful treatment; in order to counter stress in targeted animals, the gun is quiet, and there is usually a valve on the gun to control the dart velocity."
elephant tranquilizer would be rapidly fatal. I also agree that the drug interaction issue is very serious; a lot of drugs have major interactions, and a lot of the people you might want to use tranq on are on an unknown mix of drugs. whereas with animals, you can be highly confident they aren't on any.
|
On July 13 2016 01:54 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2016 01:53 farvacola wrote:
I love the faux outrage from folks who pay no attention to congressional hearings save for when someone they dislike is being grilled. Question and answer sessions like the one Lynch is in now happen all the damn time lol. I won't even lie. I wanted to watch it to see a politician squirming like a worm. Missed it though. edit: Sidenote, i'd like to see an example of "subjective math". First time i've ever heard that.
Yes, I would too. I posted that on the bottom of the last page, don't know if Plansix saw it.
|
On July 13 2016 01:53 TheLordofAwesome wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2016 01:51 Plansix wrote:On July 13 2016 01:48 IgnE wrote:On July 13 2016 01:44 Plansix wrote:On July 13 2016 01:40 amazingxkcd wrote:
Im curious, why would there be statues for legality of letting people see classified information without clearance? That shouldnt be a hard question to answer. Because it depends on the facts. Was it an accident? How did they gain access? Did the person who provided access believe the person had clearance? And so on. If you ask most good attorneys questions like "If this happens, is it illegal?", they will respond requesting more information. Because almost all cases are fact driven, rather than a math equation. are math equations not fact driven? Law is not math. You don't throw a bunch of "facts" into an statute and get a verdict out the other side. Judges and juries decide rulings, not some order of operations. And if you get deep into math, it gets pretty subjective. I gave up on posting in this thread, but I have to ask about what you mean by this..... Please give an example of what you are talking about.
Have you not heard of theoretical mathematics? If you have infinite apples and infinite oranges in the same place, how many objects do you have?
|
|
|
On July 13 2016 01:56 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2016 01:53 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On July 13 2016 01:51 Plansix wrote:On July 13 2016 01:48 IgnE wrote:On July 13 2016 01:44 Plansix wrote:On July 13 2016 01:40 amazingxkcd wrote:
Im curious, why would there be statues for legality of letting people see classified information without clearance? That shouldnt be a hard question to answer. Because it depends on the facts. Was it an accident? How did they gain access? Did the person who provided access believe the person had clearance? And so on. If you ask most good attorneys questions like "If this happens, is it illegal?", they will respond requesting more information. Because almost all cases are fact driven, rather than a math equation. are math equations not fact driven? Law is not math. You don't throw a bunch of "facts" into an statute and get a verdict out the other side. Judges and juries decide rulings, not some order of operations. And if you get deep into math, it gets pretty subjective. I gave up on posting in this thread, but I have to ask about what you mean by this..... Please give an example of what you are talking about. Have you not heard of theoretical mathematics? If you have infinite apples and infinite oranges in the same place, how many objects do you have?
An infinite number of objects. I have studied theoretical mathematics, and I have found a brutal level of rigor is required. Given a particular set of axioms, you must prove that a desired result can be obtained. You don't just simply state random things are true, based on how you feel today.
|
What point is this supposed to prove?
|
On July 13 2016 01:53 farvacola wrote:
I love the faux outrage from folks who pay no attention to congressional hearings save for when someone they dislike is being grilled. Question and answer sessions like the one Lynch is in now happen all the damn time lol.
So angry that someone isn't answer questions that the congress member knows they will not answer.
|
On July 13 2016 01:56 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2016 01:53 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On July 13 2016 01:51 Plansix wrote:On July 13 2016 01:48 IgnE wrote:On July 13 2016 01:44 Plansix wrote:On July 13 2016 01:40 amazingxkcd wrote:
Im curious, why would there be statues for legality of letting people see classified information without clearance? That shouldnt be a hard question to answer. Because it depends on the facts. Was it an accident? How did they gain access? Did the person who provided access believe the person had clearance? And so on. If you ask most good attorneys questions like "If this happens, is it illegal?", they will respond requesting more information. Because almost all cases are fact driven, rather than a math equation. are math equations not fact driven? Law is not math. You don't throw a bunch of "facts" into an statute and get a verdict out the other side. Judges and juries decide rulings, not some order of operations. And if you get deep into math, it gets pretty subjective. I gave up on posting in this thread, but I have to ask about what you mean by this..... Please give an example of what you are talking about. Have you not heard of theoretical mathematics? If you have infinite apples and infinite oranges in the same place, how many objects do you have?
Does Achiles and the tortoise tought experiment also aply here?
Also why isn't the answer that you have infinite objects? :/ I cant see any other reasoning to why you wouldnt have infinite objects.
|
On July 13 2016 02:00 TheLordofAwesome wrote:What point is this supposed to prove?
idk i guess i misinterpreted subjectivity
yea as long as you define ur axioms well math shouldnt be subjective lol plansix is reaching
|
On July 13 2016 01:51 zeo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2016 01:44 Plansix wrote:On July 13 2016 01:40 amazingxkcd wrote:
Im curious, why would there be statues for legality of letting people see classified information without clearance? That shouldnt be a hard question to answer. Because it depends on the facts. Was it an accident? How did they gain access? Did the person who provided access believe the person had clearance? And so on. If you ask most good attorneys questions like "If this happens, is it illegal?", they will respond requesting more information. Because almost all cases are fact driven, rather than a math equation. Is murder illegal? Is rape illegal? Is stealing from a bank illegal? Is driving 200km/h in a 50km/h zone illegal? If your answer to these questions is to repetadly say 'I dont know, I need more information. In some cases bla bla' you are dodging. Edit: Law says it is illegal, you go from there. How can you work on a case and not know weather the crime is illegal or not.
Here's the problem. The types of questions that are being asked are great for annihilating the credibility of someone. However, they don't do anything when used in a vacuum. Lynch isn't on trial. She has nothing at stake here, really. All that she needs to do is avoid admitting something that gets her into real trouble. This is a really low bar that should be easy for her, as a prosecutor, to clear.
|
It's a bit like arguing that physics are subjective. Because quantum theories and uncertainties.
But it actually made me chuckle a bit that plansix had to run into someone who actually studied the very thing he's citing to prove his point.
Can't really argue with that. ^^
|
Just take the axiom of choice. Even in modern publications a huge number of mathematicians refuses to accept it as an axiom.
And the consequences are insanely far reaching, once you look deeper into the theory, because seemingly trivial and obvious stuff is requiring it.
|
Wait, so what is this hearing about? What the fuck does a Supreme Court ruling have to do with this?
|
On July 13 2016 02:03 mahrgell wrote:
Just take the axiom of choice. Even in modern publications a huge number of mathematicians refuses to accept it as an axiom.
And the consequences are insanely far reaching, once you look deeper into the theory, because seemingly trivial and obvious stuff is requiring it.
Although originally controversial, the axiom of choice is now used without reservation by most mathematicians,[2] and it is included in the standard form of axiomatic set theory, Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory with the axiom of choice (ZFC). One motivation for this use is that a number of generally accepted mathematical results, such as Tychonoff's theorem, require the axiom of choice for their proofs. Contemporary set theorists also study axioms that are not compatible with the axiom of choice, such as the axiom of determinacy. The axiom of choice is avoided in some varieties of constructive mathematics, although there are varieties of constructive mathematics in which the axiom of choice is embraced.
is wikipedia lying to me here? cuz it sounds like u either choose to use it or you dont and nobody's claiming to have objective superiority; just sounds like a lot of mathematicians find it more useful to use it as an axiom than to use competing axioms
|
Hearings like this end up being about whatever it is the people asking the questions want it to be about.
|
On July 13 2016 02:03 m4ini wrote:
It's a bit like arguing that physics are subjective. Because quantum theories and uncertainties.
But it actually made me chuckle a bit that plansix had to run into someone who actually studied the very thing he's citing to prove his point.
Can't really argue with that. ^^
I will admit to being a total novice on the subject and pretty bad at it. If high level mathematics is in no way subjective, I will admit to being complete wrong. It was explained to be different by some folks getting PHDs, but we were also pretty drunk and they could be idiots.
But “Facts” in law and “Facts” in math do not have the same meaning.
|
On July 13 2016 02:05 LegalLord wrote:
Wait, so what is this hearing about? What the fuck does a Supreme Court ruling have to do with this?
This hearing is about Republicans being salty that Hillary has not been indicted.
Just another witch hunt like Benghazi, hopefully this one won't drag on for quite so long.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
