conflating not wanting to do a business deal for religious reasons with being permitted to murder people is the sort of association a complete fucking moron makes.
You just made that association.
Ergo... you are a complete fucking moron.
Good day.
Who said they were using violence?
Failing to stop your multi-thousand-pound vehicle as you drive at a military checkpoint is telegraphing violent intent. At least, that's how the guards have to treat it. Driving a suicide car bomb at/through checkpoints is a well established tactic, and has produced a no-compromises protocol in response. When you give off all the signs of violent intent, there's really no way to just let them carry on and decide later if they were a threat. It's not video game with a retry button the guards can push after they've been blown to pieces.
I took it to mean that the perps were white. If they were brown then it would have been a terrorist case.
No, you're getting your media memes all wrong. If they were brown, it would have been, by default and without any need for further analysis, another case of police brutality blah blah blah. Please get your coverage spin in sync with contemporary standards. There are people who make a living off of faux racial outrage, and if you don't help their hype, they're going to have to find other work.
Example: "It needs fixed" vs. "It seems fixed"
A poor choice of things to compare.
"It needs to be fixed" can read like "It needs to be changed from its current state to a new state, in which is has been fixed." What it needs is something that, once done, will put the act of fixing it in the past tense. "It needs some fixing, so that it will then be fixed." If you're going with the shorter "It needs to be fixed," the "to be" needs to be there if you're going to used that future-sense changed state of "fixed." Or, one should just use: "It needs fixing," where "fixing," a gerund, acts like any other noun that would serve as the object of the sentence.
"It seems fixed," on the other hand, is a completely different construction. There is no assertion of the need for an action (like needing TO BE fixed). It's an observation about its current state (it's in the state of already having been fixed). The "seems" casts mild doubt on the quality of the assertion, but that's just modifying the word "fixed" in this case, which is acting as an adjective (the thing is fast, the thing is light weight, the thing is expensive, the thing is fixed). Think of saying, "It looks blue." Normal usage is rarely, "It looks to be blue," any more than it is, "It seems to be fixed." You could replace "seems" with "feels," knowing that you'd also be far more likely to say, "It's no longer wobbly. It feels fixed," than you would "It feels to be fixed."
So, are you one of those grammatical hypocrites
No, it seems I'm not.
Inquiring minds want to know.
No, an inquiring mind would have thought it through before trotting that one out.
So why can't we trace ransomware transactions? They are always in BTC.
Who says they cannot be traced? The problem we have with ransomware is that it usually involves an area of the world where the authorities don't care so even if you trace it, nothing will be done.
Do we even want a society where everyone has the exact same amount of money?
The only way to make everybody equally rich/poor is to just take everything away from everybody and make us all wards of the state. We tried that a few times in history, it's not a pretty outcome. Besides, there is always those capitalist types that end up holding more than their fair share of the wealth for one reason or another...
The link is between nutrition and brain development, and considering the odds of poor nutrition is higher in poorer families than in wealthier families, the conclusion does not seem bad at all. Nothing says that all families that live in poverty will have children with developmental problems, but it does argue you're much more likely to see the phenomenon in such families.
I can't imagine why anyone would see this as controversial.
EXACTLY...
For instance, there is a whole generation in North Korea where starvation was common during the second Kim's reign and they show marked problems with mental development if they where malnourished during specific phases of their development. They will NEVER recover, nor will they reach their potential but the real tragedy is that this will affect their children too. So you loose not one but two generations. (According to the documentary I remember watching once.)
I mean these guys evidence/affidavids would have been shquashed and unidminssible if this came out during/before the trial. Now this is corruption at its best. Les see if we can find out if the prosecutors knew about this dring the trial.
The REAL question is did the defense know. If the defense knew, there isn't much else to be said but "see you at the big house DPR".
If the prosecutors knew, you can BET the defense would know as it is misconduct to withhold evidence from the defense. Literally NOTHING is really left to chance at a trial. Everybody KNOWS what the evidence is or isn't, where it came from, how it was collected and who did the collecting. So if the prosecutors knew but didn't tell the defense, they are going to loose their license and likely go to jail.
The facts seem to indicate that this was discovered AFTER the trial. Which tells me TWO things (at least). ONE, they are still following the evidence and there are other charges which are pending, or at least they have strong reason to believe they can bring others up on charges. TWO, they switched investigation teams for some reason, which indicates that somebody caught something suspicious with these two and it was serous enough to investigate further even given the risk that they might have to retry the original case.
Seems the process works..
I didn't trivialize anything.
You're pushing a strawman and I'm tired of indulging your deceit.
We're done.
Internal affairs investigators, oversight committees, shift managers, prosecutors, defense attorneys... there are just about as many people watching the watchmen as there are watchmen themselves.
These days, even more than that. Seems everybody has a camera phone now and many whip them out and start taking video of anything they see out of the ordinary. Then there are all the dash cams, body cams and such that are literally an unblinking eye on the police. Not to mention of all the crazy eye witnesses who are more than willing to recount their version of any event you might be interested in...
No where in any of your posts did you once support the point that I don't know anything about psychology. You just SAY I don't.
that is as valid as me saying you're a rhinoceros over and over and over again.
You're too fucking stupid to have this discussion. You were repeatedly challenged to answer a very simple question and you've refused to do it because you know I'll rip your argument apart if you so much as dare to make a falsifiable argument.
Your admission of weakness is noted.
Fuck off.
I actually do know how AC works. You chose to not use your fake name on the site because you're a weasel or too lazy to log on.
Pretty darn hard to trace, and very usable as alternative currency.
Said the two investigators just before they got perpwalked in handcuffs..
People cannot be serious. BTC is very traceable, it's in the blooming design. What do people think the block chains are for? They are a complete history of the coin. Yea, you might need a map of what wallet matches with what person, but once you can tie someone to a transaction, the mapping becomes obvious for the rest of that wallet's coins. After that it's a game of connect the dots by going back though all the publicly known block chains... It's a blooming PUBLIC transaction log, easy to trace, publicly published to the miners every time a coin changes hands. It's like a bank published every transaction processed every day by account number. Yea you might not know who is account # 2011025, but you know they transferred $1 Million to that offshore account.... Eventually you can figure out who that is.
As to your request for citation that we are told all the time about how hard it is for women to be in stem... you must be fucking kidding me:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W...
There is even a fucking wikipedia article. Don't waste my time asking for citations that the sun is hot. It is annoying.
As to unconscious bias, there is a theory for anything. Psychology itself is one of the weakest sciences and unconscious bias is a weak theory in quasi science. You're half way into astrology with that garbage.
As to you being able to associate one small study with everything, no you can't. Everyone knows that. Its basic to statistical science.
As to what goes on in magic karmashock land, wages tend to change rapidly after hire. There is an orientation phase where new workers are tested and trained. And after that they tend to get wage bumps.
My personal income tends to go up between 20 and 50 percent within the first few months on a new job. So yeah. that happens.
As to rigorous auditing... I WAS DOING THE FUCKING AUDITING. How can you apply MY auditing to anything I'm not auditing? What I required was that I be ABLE to audit them. You are of course very welcome to audit any statistics I offer. And I am perfectly willing to only show you stats that you can audit. But the auditing and standards must be enforced by YOU just as my standards are enforced by ME.
Now, do you want the statistics or should I not bother because we both know my stats are valid?
Because you know my stats are valid. You know it and I know you know it. But if you'd like me to cite them anyway, I'm happy to do that.
Are you having fun yet?
