This "round-Earth" theory is just a conspiracy to keep people from trying to sail far enough to find the island with the Fountain of Youth, which gets its power from excretions from the resident sand-leaches. The whole thing is funded by the medical-industrial-complex and administered by Liberal Trial Lawyers. And anybody who gets too close is executed by Soros and the Bilderberg Council.

The reason for the anti-petroleum movement is that the oil production is connected to subterranean sand-leach breeding. If they can cap all the oil wells, man-made and natural, then they can cut off the sand-leach reproductive cycle by preventing their oil-fish larva from emerging as butterflies for the migration to the Fountain where they transform into sand-leaches. Then the Fountain will die and dry up, and the Doctors will have complete control over humanity by rationing life-maintaining "treatments."

You'd need a specific scenario that contains an actual situation of such a conflict, which would then have to be analyzed in its own context.

There is not going to be a rule-of-thumb for deciding scientific disputes in advance. It will take independent parties to attempt to reproduce the work using the different formulas and analyzing the results. And then the dispute can be peer reviewed.

Your attempt to solve disputes in advance without knowing the details suggests you have dubious motives, or a lack of exposure to basic science.

Nobody cares about their opinions. In many cases, even they themselves don't value their own "opinions" on science. It is a basic misunderstanding of scientific thought that when they talk about consensus they're talking about consensus of personal opinion. No, they're talking about consensus about what is well-proven and probably correct, or close.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that 97% of hard scientists in other fields will also defer to the specialists in the field being discussed.

*waves hands* "slippery slope"... and if you slide down (any supposedly slippery slope) you end up at *LIST OF HORRIBLES*. I'll agree at least there is something sloppy here. ;)

The result is still un-useful nonsense.

The presumption is that where you valued the information enough to lock it in a safe and not write down the password, that you have a good enough memory that you anticipated being able to remember it. Where you didn't presume to remember it, you would write it down somewhere, or provide for some other means to access it.

It isn't foolproof, you could eventually forget; but you could also "remember" after a few weeks in the can, too. Outside of brain damage or illness, you don't "forget" very much; even things that are hard to recall will probably pop back into your head once in awhile.

The court assumes you know your own ability to remember and that both protecting and accessing your secrets is important to you. If you have some sort of mental health problem, then that presumption isn't valid and you'll have basic protections against these inferences.

That is a totally different issue, because if they plant evidence on your computer, they don't need encryption for that. And if they're going to "go there" they can just plant some drugs on you if for some reason they don't have the technical skill to get it onto your computer, or if you have encryption.

Wrong, wrong, wrong, and wrong.

Leaving aside that this is UK news and the UK doesn't have the 5th Amendment, protection from being forced to testify against yourself is not based on this ideology you assume it is where your memory would be protected. You misunderstand the entire reason for the right. The reason for the right is because of the long history of forced confessions. History teaches that when the police interrogate them long enough and hard enough they can get them to "confess" to almost anything; even heinous crimes carrying the death penalty. This can be achieved without traditional torture, with just hard questioning and lack of sleep. Because of the physical power the police hold over a person who has been arrested, this is a pervasive problem in places without these protections, including historical England.

But the 5th Amendment doesn't protect physical facts, and it doesn't protect your memory; it protects you from testifying about your memory. If your memory could be read by doctors using a harmless mind-reading machine, that would be allowed, because it would be physical evidence, not testimony that might have been compelled.

Another problem with compelled testimony is where they attempt to accuse a person of lying in their claim of innocence, even before it is established that they are guilty. Prosecutors are very good at that; finding some innocent detail you remember wrong, or perceived differently than witnesses, and then using that to "prove" you're lying. And your denial contains lies, that is almost the same as a confession in the hands of a skilled prosecutor.

Another example of what can be compelled is the location of a key to safe, or the combination to a safe; assuming the police have a warrant, no physical evidence is protected by the 5th Amendment, including things like the location of a key. The safe is physical evidence, not testimony. And the location of the key is an objective physical fact that is not prone to the type of abuse that a compelled confession is.

And you would send a judge to freakin' prison over your lack of understanding of the very rights you claim to value, yet somehow know nothing about. You even then somehow manage to work in a false accusation of terrorism. There is nothing basic about your ass-hattery; you're a first class champion ass-hat!

All workers get paid, since when is being an unpaid volunteer (read: independently wealthy) a requirement for assisting the US? Or anybody?

As far as him getting paid by America goes, Germany has an data-sharing pact with us and he was collecting data for them just by sharing it with us. I'm not sure how they can accuse somebody else of them spying on themselves, or how they can claim it is spying.

Are you claiming to have also received the refunds that they're accused of not giving to other people, or does your example simply not touch on the accused behavior at all?

"Your honor, I was in the same city at the same, and nobody was robbing me. So nobody could have been getting robbed by the accused!"

Do you really not understand the difference between being the person they're accused of ripping off, and being one of the other customers that wasn't ripped off? There is nothing in the accusations claiming they did it to every single customer.

But their own internal documents have them naming and shaming the companies with ______ 40%+ ______ refund rates. And then instead of cutting off those scammers, they kept them in their program, and just increased their own percent of the take! They're not accused of initiating the cramming, they're accused of being complicit in trying to hide it, and in billing users for things their own internal documents had identified as cramming scams. For years. And right in the PDF linked is screenshots showing that they hide it multiple screens in, and mislabel it. And their contract buries the terms. So there is not even informed consent that a 3rd party is involved. It isn't listed as a 3rd party on any bill. The glossary of terms on the bills leave out the term they use to describe 3rd parties, so even if you're looking up their terms you don't find it.

And according to the accusations, prepaid customers WERE NOT NOTIFIED. If you're claiming to have been a PREPAID customer and got the refund, then you already know you weren't informed and had to notice the amount of money missing and call and ask about it just to be told. From your other posts I think you're simply NOT a prepaid customer, but month-to-month. So you're just not understanding the accusations as they apply to the different categories of victims.

It is actually truly funny that accuse me of not comprehending you. It is almost as if you didn't comprehend me! I understood you, now keep parsing until you understand me. ROFLCOPTER

If you read the PDF you'll find screenshots of the bills right in the complaint, and they refute your astroturf.

If you read the complaint, in addition to returning money they're also seeking force the alteration of the contracts to prevent the behavior in the future, and a broad injunction from further violations.

Knowing that the fine won't mean much doesn't tell you anything about the effort to stop the behavior.

According to the allegations, pre-paid customers aren't notified at all, the money just disappears from the account and no refunds are possible.

According to the screenshots including in the court filing (the linked PDF in the summary) people with online bills had to click "Use charges" twice before getting any itemized list, and that list was still bundled with other t-mobile charges, so even then you would never see a list of the 3rd party charges with a total. And on that 3rd screen they are just "Premium services."

Also in the accusations is that prepaid customers were charged these $9.99/month amounts without ever being billed or notified.

And:

Defendant’s own internal documents demonstrate that consumers were complaining in increasing numbers about unauthorized charges from at least early 2012. These documents state that there had been an increase in complaints, explain that consumers “do not know what the charges are or why they are being billed for them,” and note several third-party merchants that Defendant’s employees had identified as being the subject of many complaints. Despite knowing about these complaints of unauthorized charges, Defendant did not take sufficient steps to determine whether other consumers actually authorized the charges for Third-Party Subscriptions purportedly offered by the problematic third-party merchants.

So they have them red-handed with their own documents having discovered this problem, and then continued to assist in ripping off customers. They didn't turn a blind eye, they saw and then looked away. But they were caught looking. And increasing their own percent take on those accounts!

There is more and more. The allegations get very specific.