By that logic anyone who won a lottery jackpot must be cheating.
By that logic anyone who won a lottery jackpot must be cheating.
The odds of winning the Powerball jackpot is 1 in 292,201,338. The odds of 6 coin flips coming up as chosen is 1 in 64. There are seven orders of magnitude between the odds.
You need to learn a little probability.
The probability of a coin being flipped and coming up with a chosen side is 50%. Each subsequent flip has the same chance. When you calculate the probability for a chain of events you multiply the probabilities together. Therefore the probability that six coins were tossed and they all came up with Hillary's choice is 0.5^6 = 1.6%.
It does not need to be the same side coming up every time. It just needs to be the side where Hillary wins. The odds are the same.
Low probability things do happen.
It is a 1 in 64 chance of it happening. The odds are not all that bad.
For somone who supposidly knows how to debate you sure don't understand the principle of ad hominem.
Right now, there's no trust that the police are doing good.
There is the major flaw in your argument. It may be an opinion held by others but you have no proof that it is the majority. You are stating your opinion and not the opinion of everyone. I personally believe that the police are doing good almost all of the time.
They've clearly violated that trust, many times over, and have done so in galling and more egregious ways.
More flaws in your argument. First is when you use "they". All police are not the same. Yes there are some bad cops but the vast majority are good cops. Almost the only time when we see reports about the police is when one of them do something bad. That is call selection bias. If all wee see are bad cops then we might consider all cops bad even when that is not true.
We also need to remember that it is better that ten guilty men go free than for one innocent man to spend even a minute in jail.
I completely disagree with this. As a consequence of the imperfection of man we also must accept that courts can make mistakes. Innocent people will go to jail and we need to do as much as we can to minimize that. Letting ten murders go free to keep one person out of jail for a week is not valid.
In the end the secure channels are being monitored by good cops and sometimes those good cops will report the bad cops.
Maybe as a compromise you would like to pay for an independent party to monitor the secure channels so we can have both security and transparency.
I was able to learn what the source of a series of explosions near my house was without having to call 911
This statement shows poor thought processes. Calling 911 to get information about an event is a missus of 911. 911 is for calling when you need assisance and is not an information line. If you don't need immediate help don't call 911.
I've had a police-capable radio in my car for many years, and I can count on the fingers of no hands the number of times it has allowed me to know ahead of time where the state police have set up radar on the interstate
Not what I am talking about. The issue is suspects getting away because they can avoid police by knowing where the police are. If it happens once a year it isa justification for encrypting year round.
Most agencies these days have digital data systems for communicating private stuff
Which means that there are some agencies who do not use digital systems and need encrypted communications.
Not encrypting avoids the issues of key management and the inability of neighboring agencies to assist directly just beause they are not "keyed" properly.
True but that issue has been worked out long ago. If improperly keyed neighbours need to communicate directly they just switch to an unencrypted channel. The few times this happens does not make encryption useless.
Lets say the police are chasing armed robbery suspects. Don't you think that keeping the conversation about movements and roadblocks secret might help in catching the suspects?
Then there is just the privacy of police talking abut private citizens. Do we really need to know every car that the police pull over?
The police should not be involved unless a warrant has been issued.
Warrants have been issued. Thay are called Capias Pro-fine warrants.
All of this sounds like a sci-fi horror story.
Because what you describe is sci-fi. Here are the things that you forget.
1. The debt is a public debt. It is a debt die to court costs. So at worst they are public debt collectors.
2. The police do not have a "license to kill". Unless in fear of their own life or the lives of others even police can not use deadly force.
3. Anyone delinquent for paying court costs can be arrested. All the company does is identify them.
This has another possible outcome. The fines just get larger to cover all the processing. Do you even understand why there are civil fines? They are there to remind people when they do socially unacceptable things by giving them a slap on the wrist. Without these reminders there would be a lot more problems with society.
One thing I noted from the description was that the 25% goes to Vigilant, pure profit for them.
It is not pure profit as Vigilant pays for the following.
1. The scanners in the police cars.
2. The servers to handle the database and the queries.
3. The data entry and administration of the database
4. The dispute process for transactions.
but it's my understanding that in many cases they can't pay, not that they don't want to.
They should have gone to court and dealt with the issue. There are many programs to reduce fines for low income offenders.
Given the disparity between fees and jail, I wouldn't be surprised if the county ends up seeing this system cost more in jail and processing expenses than it gains in fines being paid.
It is at least as possible that the word will get around about this process and many more fines will be paid when people realize that they can be found much more easily.
You make a lot of statements but don't back them up. How might it extend use of fossil fuels?
The main problem with solar and wind power is that they are both dependent on the weather. Too little or too much wind and wind turbines don't work. Storms and winter at higher latitudes decrease solar output. The idea is to be able to move electricity much further than practical today and even out those variations.
If people think that HVDC lines has anything to to with whether or not climate change exists then they have the problem.
You missed the point. The idea is to move electricity that has been generated with 0 carbon emission, wind and solar, to places where it is needed. Even if 25% of the electricity is wasted in transmission there would be no increase in carbon emissions.
The second point is that they propose HVDC lines would would lose much less electricity.
One of the problems with the "solution" is that HVDC does not step up/down voltage or convert into AC efficiently. Another is the cost of building an HVDC grid and grafting it into the existing AC grid. It will not be cheap.
"The following is not for the weak of heart or Fundamentalists." -- Dave Barry