lozzle posted:

Still not convinced it isn't a wig that's been surgically attached to his scalp.

Nocturtle posted:

I'm still not clear what you're arguing, but apparently you're doing it from total ignorance? Fine.

Description of Medenbach's theft, indictment
Copy of actual federal indictment, check count 4
Description of Medenbach's pathetic defense

From Medenbach's defense:


You don't actually need to know what they used the truck for, that's completely irrelevant to whether it was theft aside from a few exceptional circumstances. Just to be clear it was theft, getting groceries isn't reason enough to take someone else's car without their permission. I feel like I shouldn't have to explain this.

I'd actually assumed this was the charge the jury was divided on, given how straightforward it was and the incompetent defense. I don't understand people here who've suggested that jurors have a tough job and the instruction process is too complex. People get convicted for stealing cars every day, it's not some huge burgen. The fact they unanimously voted not guilty on this charge is even worse than I thought.

Nocturtle posted:

You don't actually need to know what they used the truck for, that's completely irrelevant to whether it was theft aside from a few exceptional circumstances. Just to be clear it was theft, getting groceries isn't reason enough to take someone else's car without their permission. I feel like I shouldn't have to explain this.

Harrow posted:

God drat that's a serious combover.

I wonder what his hair looks like when he wakes up in the morning.

lozzle posted:

Still not convinced it isn't a wig that's been surgically attached to his scalp.

Agrajag posted:

Now imagine it drooping over your face while he sweats and grunts on top of you...

iospace posted:

Meanwhile, in tech land:
https://twitter.com/sergenyt/status/791998482173267968

FAUXTON posted:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...b69b640f54c6be/

Agrajag posted:

Now imagine it drooping over your face while he sweats and grunts on top of you...

Ogmius815 posted:

You'd think this would help me but in my nightmare Trump wins by flipping Michigan or Wisconsin so it doesn't.

botany posted:

You feel that way because you think theft is easy to understand in a legal context when it's not. Theft typically requires the intent to relieve somebody of their property permanently, which is why it absolutely matters what they did with the truck and which is why -- even if you don't believe Medenbach's intention was to bring the truck back -- his stated intention absolutely matters. (For the record "theft" isn't even defined in most states, but larceny is, and it requires intent to permanently take poo poo away from somebody.)

Goatman Sacks posted:

So what are the chances that all DNC networks associated with their GOTV operation get DDoSed by Russia on election day?

Ogmius815 posted:

You'd think this would help me but in my nightmare Trump wins by flipping Michigan or Wisconsin so it doesn't.

Tricky D posted:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/641

There is no requirement for permenancy under the US code for theft of public property.

Tom Guycot posted:

How would this ever matter? Every single ISP will just throw it in somewhere in the contract, and everything will be exactly as it ever was.

Cingulate posted:

Yeah but how much do you like it really? The SEM estimation seems rather optimistic to me.

Also, is all of it public? From the description, it sounded like some parts of the analytic probability calculation are patented.

botany posted:

Hm, alright. I admit I'm out of my depth here, but I'd be interested if a lawyer couldn't still argue that the same defense (I was only borrowing) applies. If anyone can do a legal analysis on that I'd be happy to hear it.

botany posted:

Hm, alright. I admit I'm out of my depth here, but I'd be interested if a lawyer couldn't still argue that the same defense (I was only borrowing) applies. If anyone can do a legal analysis on that I'd be happy to hear it.

CascadeBeta posted:

Mr Hootington posted:

Crossposting this to Dadchat:

I am currently looking for beginner level books, podcasts, or movies for understanding liberalism, conservatism, libertarianism, neoliberalism, neoconservativism, socialism, and fascism. A good book that explains the differences between them, the under lying philosophy of each, and the strengths and weakness of the ideologues.

I am also looking for some beginner level books, podcasts, or movies that explain the differences between the major US parties, the factions with in them, and outlines of the policies they push.

Anything would be of help. Thank you.

Hollismason posted:

Probably pretty likely.

Tom Guycot posted:

How would this ever matter? Every single ISP will just throw it in somewhere in the contract, and everything will be exactly as it ever was.

beejay posted:

I know people say this a lot about people but he does not look like a human.

eviltastic posted:

Requiring customer agreement to do that in the service contract is one of the things the proposed rules would prohibit, as is charging more for elevated privacy protection.

Harrow posted:

You know what I love about this little election tool? If you give Trump every single state that is under a 90% chance for Clinton to win it, Clinton still wins.

Mr Hootington posted:

Crossposting this to Dadchat:

I am currently looking for beginner level books, podcasts, or movies for understanding liberalism, conservatism, libertarianism, neoliberalism, neoconservativism, socialism, and fascism. A good book that explains the differences between them, the under lying philosophy of each, and the strengths and weakness of the ideologues.

I am also looking for some beginner level books, podcasts, or movies that explain the differences between the major US parties, the factions with in them, and outlines of the policies they push.

Anything would be of help. Thank you.

eviltastic posted:

Requiring customer agreement to do that in the service contract is one of the things the proposed rules would prohibit, as is charging more for elevated privacy protection.

Tricky D posted:

The phrase "knowingly converts to his use" coupled with "without authority" precludes the defense of "I was only borrowing it."

Devor posted:

Please go do this in the Y'allqueda thread instead of continuing to make educated guesses here

cant cook creole bream posted:

By the way. Do we know anything about how the Russians hacked Podesta? If it was a large scale breach of the servers, I'd imagine there would be mails from other accounts of his subordinates. What account was it anyway? Is he just one of those people who use 1233456 as a password?

botany posted:

Hm, alright. I admit I'm out of my depth here, but I'd be interested if a lawyer couldn't still argue that the same defense (I was only borrowing) applies. If anyone can do a legal analysis on that I'd be happy to hear it.

Harrow posted:

You know what I love about this little election tool? If you give Trump every single state that is under a 90% chance for Clinton to win it, Clinton still wins.

Kalman posted:

People have tried that argument before. It isn't valid for 641. US v Rehak has a good discussion of it.

Kalman posted:

People have tried that argument before. It isn't valid for 641. US v Rehak has a good discussion of it.

Roland Jones posted:

In better news, this is good:

https://twitter.com/FlaDems/status/792017994276675585

Roland Jones posted:

In better news, this is good:

https://twitter.com/FlaDems/status/792017994276675585

botany posted:

I see, thanks! You're a lawyer? What's your best guess about the situation then? If you had to defend Medenbacher, what would your argument look like?


edit:


Yeah thanks poster with 4 whole posts in this thread I'm going to stop discussing this topic at once if it displeases you

Pakled posted:

It would be good for Murphy to win, but I'm not holding my breath. This is one poll, and in aggregate, Rubio's been in +4 or +5 territory for practically the entire race.

mcmagic posted:

He's not going to win. He also sucks.

James Garfield posted:

You can read the code including for the patented bits, admittedly that's not the greatest way. I think most of it is explained in old posts that are hard to search for.

99% is a high probability but it's not hard to believe considering how little the polls have been moving this election. Certainly Nate Silver has consistently been way more optimistic about Trump than any of the other forecasters, most of the other forecasts (that are shown on the NYT page) have Clinton in the mid-90% range.