Though the practice is not uniform, many (most?) U.S. states require that, if a death sentence is to be imposed, that it be imposed by a jury. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/us-supreme-court-ring-v-arizona But I agree that this is mostly irrelevant to your point.
Read your own definition more carefully: "not deviating from a norm, rule, or principle." This is not just a statistical definition; it's not coincidence that each of those terms has a normative meaning:
Norms are things you should follow (or at least things people think you should follow): "a required standard; a level to be complied with or reached." Same with rules: "one of a set of explicit or understood regulations or principles governing conduct within a particular activity or sphere." Same with principles: "morally correct behavior and attitudes."
If the word "normal" were only a statistical statement, I would (maybe) agree with you. But it isn't -- in exactly the way disclosed by that definition -- and we all know it. When a person is told that she isn't "normal" most people feel the sting (though sometimes, hopefully, the sting is masked or outweighed by pride). It is a statistical word loaded with cultural baggage. (Or perhaps the other way around.)
"Cisgendered" is a funny word. I get it. I would feel goofy writing it, let alone speaking it out loud. But it seems to me that the right thing to do is to suck it up and feel goofy when the stakes are another person's dignity.
Well, the forensic pathologist that actually testified at the trial aid the opposite. So there's that.
Go for it. I'm happy to pay. Are you?
True. But if you agree that emitting CO2 is a bad thing -- a bad thing that may be thought of as a cost -- and that the regulation more or less accurately captures that cost, (I appreciate that these are a lot of assumptions, but they're necessary to isolate the issue that we're talking about) then all the regulation does is to capture a previously external cost as an internal economic one. The plants that go out of business in this environment will be the ones that the regulations reveal to have been a net consumer, not a producer, of value all along. I wouldn't lose much sleep about that.
Uhh...ok. Obviously the subway is, at least in some places, below sea level. I'm happy to agree with you on that much. But I don't see where your other links say that any particular area is below sea level. Yes, of course, much of it is CLOSE to sea level, but close != below. And what do storm surges have to do with whether something is below sea level?
Do you have any evidence to share that most (all? any?) of the flooded areas were actually below sea level? I've just done a little Googling and I am able to find none.
She is entitled to tell the truth. Period. If he tried to rape her, then she has a perfect right to tell the world about it. She knows the truth, no matter what the evidence is. It's up to us to weigh the evidence and determine whether we believe her. Whether she wanted to press charges is totally irrelevant -- people decide not to pursue these cases for all sort of reasons (particularly when it happened far from home, for God's sake).
Of course, if she's lying, that is another matter entirely. But everything I've seen and heard, about both this situation and this world, makes me believe her.
But there is a separate US-Hong Kong extradition treaty. Yeah. Hong Kong is weird. http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/71600.pdf
Did I say otherwise?
You mean like elevated temperatures, arid conditions, or being underwater?
Yeah. The problem is that, to the extent that DOJ reacts quickly to the emergence of new technologies (and it does) then it has the ability to shape perceptions of what is and is not private through proclamations like this.
If DOJ (and, to be fair, certain private actors) had treated email like private papers in the first place, different expectations might have evolved, no?
No, leave the suicides in. 90% of people who attempt suicide by firearm die on their first attempt. People who attempt suicide by other means almost always fail (most try yo use drugs; 97% survive). And after a failed attempt, only a small minority of people attempt again. So, no. If those 20,000 people didn't have access to firearms, the very large majority may have tried to kill themselves by another means, would have failed, never tried again )or tried and failed again), and be alive today.
Yeah, could be. Although I think the main thing to be outraged about is that there could be direct liability for this kind of behavior. Conspiracy liability just adds to the crazy.
What part of the law are you looking at?
Conspiracy is not "just talking about." You have to make an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy. It's a tricky area of law (and one I don't much care for) and some statements, under some circumstances, might constitute overt acts, but it's safe to say that "just talking about breaking the terms of service" isn't enough, without more. And in this respect CFAA is really no different from any other law. Of course, if the law is bad, conspiracy liability for breaking it is even worse. But throwing around a lot of half truths about conspiracy liability really won't shed much light on anything, I don't think.