The traffic code in most cases specifically excludes intent from consideration, but that's an anomalous area in the law. Throughout very nearly all of criminal law, intent is crucial to determining guilt. So while you're correct that "Officer, I didn't see the sign" won't do you any good, your argument is a red herring that demonstrates significant lack of knowledge of criminal law. (It's also worth noting that most traffic violations aren't technically crimes in most jurisdictions, they're civil infractions which is why you may be assessed a fine but cannot be arrested. There are exceptions for very serious violations, including extremely high rates of speed.)

I think you are confusing what is really happening here. I've seen all sorts of arguments about Hillary vs Donald and it almost always boils down to one basic argument.

1) Trump is worse than Clinton (Excusing bad behavior by pointing to other bad behavior).

They mostly try to avoid her actual record, because quite frankly it SUCKS.Her four years as SoS are a complete disaster. Her stint as Senator is mostly resume lining material (no actual accomplishments), and that she won because she was Bill's wife isn't really that great either. Basically, she has no record of accomplishments. None. Which is why she is playing the "gotcha" game, and sitting there wondering why she isn't "50 points ahead". Well, when you run douchbad against asshole (I'll let you figure out which is which), it is clear that she shouldn't be "50 points" ahead, and why they are basically neck n neck.

If everyone who actually believes that NEITHER are good for America, actually voted for Gary Johnson (or Jill Stein), it would cause chaos in the election.

"Bush was worse" logic of liberals ...

Pointing to bad behavior to excuse bad behavior is supposed to stop working when you're like 5 years old. Why does it still work with adults?

Which is why they go through a series of training meeting, of which Clinton doesn't recall attending, due to traumatic brain injury, but she is okay to be president.

Another "convenient" excuse. She either didn't attend the requisite training (a dereliction of duty, and evidence she isn't qualified to be President) or she did, and ignorance is no longer an excuse. Now, you might claim she is too stupid to understand (as Director of the FBI basically said), but then that doesn't look to good if you're running for President either.

The whole EMAIL thing is a tar pit for the Clinton's because she is either incompetent, or evil. There really is no other option. And as I have said before, (apologies to Arthur C. Clarke) "Any sufficient level of incompetence is indistinguishable from malice". So which is it, is she incompetent or evil?

Of all the things Clinton should have done, she did none of them. The argument "no proof" is utter bullshit, there is plenty of evidence, and proof is only a conclusion. If you see all the evidence, and can't conclude she is either stupid or evil, you're just being an obtuse party hack.

If your best case for your candidate is that "they lie less than the other guy", and there are a huge long line of lies both candidates have, you're making the best case I have that you shouldn't vote for either one.

The newest revelation is the darling Hispanic Woman who says (no actual proof, which is what you're claiming for Clinton now) Trump said some "mean things" to her, was allegedly involved in a murder, and had relationships with drug dealers. A perfect fit for the Clinton Crime Family if you ask me.

AND if everything about the Clinton's is "ancient history" (as said by others) then why are they digging up what some Drug Cartel's Leaders old girlfriend has to say from 20+ years ago?

The double standards people use in defending Clinton is amazing.

Actually the deletion of email was enough "evidence" of guilt because legally it can be assumed that doing so is evidence of guilt. Gowdy made that case when confronting the FBI director. In fact, Gowdy pretty much proved that the FBI was complicit in the coverup by not prosecuting Clinton on the grounds that the FBI director actually gave.

But there is more, Clinton's Lawyer AND personal Aide (convenient dual role) Mills said in sworn testimony that she didn't know about the server until after it was destroyed, but they just found an email in which she ASKS about that same server, years before. She perjured herself. But nothing will come of it, because she is both a Clinton Aide and her Lawyer. The convenience of having Aides that are also Lawyers will now be fully realized, they will be pretty much untouchable, because you cannot untangle when she was being a Lawyer, and when she was being an Aide.

I'm sure that even most liberals would agree, but the solution liberals have is "more government" (and thus, more corruption), rather than reigning in the corruption we have now by limiting government actions. Liberty is messy. The greatest promotion of Fascism was "at least the trains run on time" (nice neat orderly).

Which is why people still use the "But Bobby's Mom lets him smoke" argument, little kids try on parents. The thing of it is, we are supposed to be adults and not persuaded by childish arguments.

Pointing to another person's wrong NEVER justifies the wrong you're doing. Justice is never going to be exact, so we should stop trying comparison justice, and let each case stand on its own merits. Anything less leads to lawless anarchy.

So says the Basement Dwelling AC. How's your mom?

I have two different variants of the C64 and there was a later one (slightly off-white) that was in production for a long time.

Of course it will. They want to use a blockchain for maintaining an efficient high-speed ledger of all bank-to-bank transactions. When you do a funds transfer from, for your account to an account at another bank, they'll write an entry to the block chain and both parties will be able to validate the time at which the transaction occurred. Having an unforgeable ledger is the entire point of the system that they're proposing.

Your comment makes no sense. They're not talking about adopting BitCoin as a consumer payment system, they're talking about adopting some of the underlying technology for bank-to-bank transfers.

I'm surprised that it was that few. I remember seeing them for £50 in Argos about a decade after they were first released. They were incredibly popular as games machines and a load of shops had a row of C64 game tapes for around 50p each (NES games were around £10, if I remember correctly, at the same time).

There's no vast left- or right-wing media conspiracy. There's a small number of owners of the mainstream press, and they will not print anything that directly contradicts the interests of these owners. This has no allegiance to any political party or ideology other than a desire for certain individuals to increase their personal power.

Various governments have allowed mergers and acquisitions among news companies until there's very little independent press. Most countries don't want to regulate press freedom too heavily (for good reason - there's a very fine line between regulating truth in journalism and forcing propaganda and it's incredibly easy for the former to slip into the latter), so we're left with the majority of the population being informed by untrustworthy sources.

Yeah digital did that with VMS documentation. Maybe this part of DEC still lives on?