I'm not advocating on BG's behalf but your suggestion pre-supposes that his activities exceeded those he has already admitted to. I don't know whether they did or not, but I think it's worth noting that Epstein was very keen to make contacts with influential people and then boast of those contacts. It's at least worth considering what while boasting he made up some stuff about the nature of his activities with those people. For that reason I'm not willing to assume that everyone who ever had contact with Epstein was involved in child sex crimes.
> In emails, Epstein wrote that Bill Gates had come to him to facilitate trysts with married women and to get medication to treat an STI from "sex with Russian girls."
> Epstein also claimed that Bill Gates wanted to try to give that STI medication to Melinda French Gates in secret.
> "To add insult to the injury you then implore me to please delete the emails regarding your std, your request that I provide you antibiotics that you can surreptitiously give to Melinda and the description of your penis," outlined one angry email from Epstein.
Bill has done nothing but attempt to minimize his connection to Epstein, and done so poorly.
If you're not British please don't assume that "ejecting heriditary nobles" from the upper house of parliament is automatically going to increase the quality of governance.
For more than a century the majority of those who sit in the House of Lords have been "Life Peers", appointed by a politician and without any heriditary aspect. They include such towers of statepersonship as : Evgeny Lebedev (Russian businessman, son of a KGB officer); Alexander Lebedev (another Russian businessman, he's actually been in the KGB); Charlotte Owen (junior aide to Boris Johnson for three years) ... the list goes on.
This isn't new (although in recent time the dodginess has risen to new highs) and many of those appointed to Life Peerages meet the goal of having significant life experience they can use to illuminate aspects of legislation that might otherwise be missed. Equally heriditary peers are not all some Wodehousian stereotype of bumbling idiots.
This is more an argument against political appointees than it is an argument for hereditary peers. I agree that the system has been abused. It's need reforming
If you don't see any difference between people who won US presidential elections and those appointed for political favoritism, then I don't know what to tell you. Also, if you look at the current state of the UK vs US and don't see any difference then you need to get out more.
The first sentence of the cited article makes clear the matter at hand is not "elimination of jury trials" but "a plan to abolish some jury trials". The proposal is an attempt to reduce the time which those who are accused must wait for trial.
FWIW the majority of all criminal cases in the UK are dealt with by either a single judge, or three judges[1]. This is hardly surprising as assembling a jury is vastly time consuming and for minor criminal matters is hard to justify.
Jury trials are a colossal and disproportionate waste of time. Jury trials have it place, but most of the time is spent on jury selection, theatrics, and deliberation--all this cost dearly, both in terms of time and money.
Thanks to its high cost and unpredictability, laughable inventions like "plea bargains" exist, only to selectively prey on the vulnerable.
It's not perfect (nor are jury trials), but when it comes to truth discovery and arriving at a proportionate sentence, as long as all parties are fairly represented, one without jury trials should be just as effective.
| Congress could pass a new law requiring it, of course, but I think we all understand that this would not accomplish the administration's real goal of letting Trump prove he's the specialest boy and everyone has to give him what he wants.
... plus it would require "tech firms" to actually modify their behaviour and that would never do.
They ran the exact same question with the same
forced choice between "drive" and > "walk," no
additional context, past 10,000 real people
through their human feedback platform.
The article is a little difficult to read so perhaps I missed this.
Surely a key determinant in making your project closed source is your willingness to cut yourself off from dependencies with strong copyleft licences? And, correct me if I'm wrong, this is true at whatever depth of dependency the copyleft licensed dependency is found, which in some environments ("hello npm registry") is going to exclude an awful lot of code.
The book that I looked at had the same blurb on odd-lots-books.netlify.app as was used in my local library catalogue, so I assume it's the standard publisher's blurb?
In the case of the AWS scenario someone driving by who decides to nick it?
Or the courier puts the box down upside down?
Just by the way is a package delivery company going to be willing to deliver a package to an abandoned lot?
Your solar panel equipped, "rest and recharge" idea is interesting.
reply