No, that's the control to turn the pumps on. That's why it's not called a buttoff.
No, that's the control to turn the pumps on. That's why it's not called a buttoff.
Except that the red button is specifically designed to shut everything down, including the backups. If you press it and nothing happens, THEN there's a problem.
This was nothing like critical emergency. Had the backups not kicked in, the water temperature would have slowly risen untill someon thought to themselves, "the water seems pretty hot, why is it so hot?" and then turned the pumps back on.
TV/Monitor? Any other non-touchscreen application? Cellphones where replacing the glass doesn't mean replacing the entire display too?
When that evaluation is forever and shared with pretty much everyone but the evaluatee.
How can a flawed metric bring struggling students to the surface? Particularly struggling students that the teacher couldn't already identify as struggling?
What detrimental effects will it have when it mis-identifies an adequate student as struggling? How about if it mis-identifies the reason the student is struggling?
One (of many) problems is that once we have a metric, we tend to treat the metric itself as above reproach. We aren't very good at realizing that the metric itself is deficient. Instead, we tend to either make the metric self-fulfilling or heap on a bunch more metrics until the collection is sufficiently complex to defy further analysis. Then we declare the analyst wrong and the metrics unassailable.
Actually, the burden of proof is on those who maintain that it CAN be. Until that evidence is presented, we work under the assumption that it cannot be.
For your example, what makes you so sure jd2112 wasn't just in a hurry or unmotivated to proof read carefully for a quick
Where would James Joyce fall on your spectrum? How would he stack up against the editor for Reader's Digest's Humor in Uniform section?
No, it isn't. I just don't have my dial set and locked on alarmist.
So let's decrease the risk even more. No more air travel unless it can be documented as essential. We wouldn't want any risk, now would we?
They already have all of that under the current rules, only moreso. I'll bet they would love to skip all that speech about turning everything off and then having to sweep the plane for anyone who ignored them and the ensuing argument about it when they find someone.
With a rule change, they can skip all that most of the time. In the few cases where they can't, there is a greater chance of compliance since they will be asking due to actual interference rather than just because. Even if there is still non-compliance, that will be no worse than it is under the current rules.
Nobody I know was thrilled that Iraq invaded Kuwait, but that was a dispute between those two parties. Many were behind the coalition efforts to free Kuwait. A few objected to the cost and a few felt we should stay the hell out of it.
Many more objected to GWB's attack on Iraq without actual provocation. Some on moral grounds, many on financial grounds. We sure could have found a better way to spend those trillions and I have yet to see how anyone but military contractors, Halliburton and GWB's ego have benefited.
Many weren't thrilled about North Vietnam either, but were quite opposed to the U.S. getting itself involved in that quagmire. They didn't protest here over North Vietnam because until the U.S. stepped in it (in every sense of the phrase), the U.S. government hadn't done anything wrong. Why do you see that as somehow inappropriate?
Nor has the natural gas bill dropped.
let me guess, there is still expensive gas in the pipeline. It takes time to get all that gas all the way here from the Middle E ur, erm, from Kansas! Yeah, that's the ticket, we had to wait for a twister!
Remember, if the cop is talking to you in the interview room, he believes you are guilty. It doesn't matter if you are or not, he believes you are. He doesn't want to drag an innocent person into that room and he doesn't want an innocent person to be prosecuted, but he does NOT believe any of that matters there because he believes you are guilty.
Because he believes you are guilty, anything you say will be filtered through confirmation bias. Anything he says in court will be filtered by the prosecutor, during and to an extent BEFORE the trial.
Now, on to the 3 people names. Start w/ Martha Stewart. You say yourself that that one is questionable. You have your doubts. What does doubt mean in criminal cases again? Right! So I guess she should have remained silent.
In the Marion Jones case, she got 6 months for lying to federal officials. Out of all the cloud of stuff thrown at her, that's the best they could manage. Do I think it's A-OK to use steroids in competition? No, I do not. However, if we're going to start jailing everyone whose ever cheated in sports, we're going to need more jails. In any event, that's not what she was convicted of. She was convicted for saying she didn't do that to federal officials who wanted to prosecute someone else, even though it was in the context of not incriminating herself. Ultimately, had she simply remained silent, she might have avoided criminal prosecution, but the rest probably would have come out anyway. If federal officials don't want to be lied to, they need to respect an unwillingness to answer their questions at all.
Vick was not a great example. I believe he did what they say he did. Even there though, it is a bit disturbing that his sentencing weighed factors such as failing a polygraph as aggravating circumstances. Did they ask the magic 8-ball while they were at it? what was the result of the seance?
Now, on to the main question. Should a person have the right to not self-incriminate, even when it is just a yes/no question? Yes, absolutely. Do you want an innocent person held for questioning until they give the 'true' answer to "Did you rob that store?"? I think not. The absolute right to not self-incriminate prevents exactly that. He invokes and then the police have to either cut him loose or press charges. No matter how much they believe he did it (even though he didn't), they can't keep asking him over and over in a dozen different ways until he gets tired and confused enough to inadvertently self-incriminate (and you'd better believe in court they won't mention that he was so fatigued at that point that he got his own name wrong).
Any arguments of Bob vs. Alice are simply resolved by stating that Alice likewise has every right to remain silent.
As for point 5, YES!!! And I'll expand it to include the prosecutor's office and the courts as well. We are living in a world where a convicted man in jail is proven innocent beyond any doubt by new forensic methods (DNA) and the DA continues to argue against his release and the courts for some reason entertain his arguments. If keeping a man imprisoned after evidence a school child could understand has proven him innocent is not a corruption, I don't know what is.
We routinely see well proven felons getting a special break on their sentence in exchange for fabricating testimony to convict someone else. Sure, prosecutors claim not to know the testimony is false but REALLY?!? They look at a guy who has been in and out of jail repeatedly for lying, cheating, and stealing who now has practically nothing to lose but everything to gain and they suddenly believe every word he says?
So YES! There is corruption and YES it is that bad.
Blatant lies are also useful for analysis. They show you what the person wants you to believe. Figure out why they want you to believe that and you have your answers. They tell you where the sore spots are for the liar.
I prefer to call it lies because it is lies. It is lies within lies, in fact, since they have already built in a weak 'out' for when they get called on it. I prefer not to gloss over their unethical behavior. There is no morality driving their twisting of truth, they do it so they have just barely enough of an out to not get dragged in to court.
I prefer not to use sugar coated terms for it when it is clearly a lie. There are many kinds of lies. There are lies of omission, lies of mis-direction (both of those are the sort we're talking about here) as well as blatant lies (once known as damned lies). I prefer that terminology because it properly captures the intent of the speaker.
There are even reluctant lies. In the business world, if everyone around you has lied, simple self-preservation may require you to do the same. When everyone and his dog offers 'unlimited' access (with some rather severe limitations), if you don't call your service 'unlimited' as well, the public will see your offering as inferior even if it is several times more generous than the competitions'. Note that if more liars were plainly identified as liars, there would be less call for reluctant lies.
There can even be statements that are technically untrue (perhaps only in the most pedantic sense) that are not at all lies because practically everyone understands it as a figure of speech and is left with a correct understanding.
Capturing the intent matters because it differentiates those who are merely unclear speakers who may make misleading statements without ill intent. Those require a different analysis to get at the truth. There are also merely incorrect statements made by people who actually believe what they are saying. That is yet another analysis.
Corporate PR may be depended on to be a lie and we may further depend on it being pre-loaded with some technically true but decieving statement so that they may later lie about lying.
Promising costs nothing, it's the delivering that kills you.