I live in B.C. and applaud losing the time change, but think the choice of time zones going forward wasn't the best.

I'm expecting major buyer's remorse this winter when people realize that the sun sets at 5 in December and January, and doesn't rise until 9.

...laura

I don't know about them, but I wouldn't agree that the printing press was even an enabler. Religious wars were already common, and writing already existed. Things that people felt strongly enough about to go to war over were already being written before the printing press, and most of the people involved in promoting and executing those wars were illiterate. You seem to be conflating the printing press with mere communication, which would have been primarily word of mouth both before and after the printing press.

Probably his first, second, and third cousin.

Narrow and stupid thinking.

Another possibility is simply that this was over-charged because she doesn't like the police, eg, most of her crime was Contempt of Cop.

People keep cherry-picking the "in any manner in which it may be viewed by another person" but are completely ignoring the words about "to send, post, or transmit." In context, send, post, and transmit are all talking about sending to somebody, not merely "on a computer" or "in cloud storage."

Many people are also ignoring the definition of "threat," forgetting that you have to intend somebody to receive it and be frightened for it be a "threat." It isn't at all clear that a reasonable person knowing it's possible for a tech worker at the cloud diary company to review it means that any person automatically is intending to threaten somebody via that reviewer.

It's also not true that the standard of Mens Rea is that if you're an idiot you have to be imprisoned in a mental facility. "She should have read the terms" is fine for civil liability, but it doesn't satisfy mens rea. "The defendant must be conscious of the “facts that make his conduct fit the definition of the offense." See: Staples v. United States, 511 US 600 (1994)." https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.law.cornell.edu%2Fwe... If she didn't understand that a human might read her diary, then there's no threat crime there. And if she understood people would read it, she probably wouldn't put her diary there, as it is a type of document that is customarily private.

"The rotten apple spoils his companion."

A means NOT. You want to argue, but you don't know what was said, you're unable to compare it to what you believe the Truth to be.

(When you're arguing from ignorance, you have nothing but belief in a Truth to guide you.)

AI is the least efficient algorithm for almost any task that it can reliably complete, barring just adding NOP loops.

If it was spherical precise accelerometer calculations would be a lot easier.

And GPS would be more accurate.

Your statement of disagreement is equally arbitrary, but contains much less argument. Your argument is synonymous with, "nuh uh, Poopypants."

What's that, the sound you make when you don't understand anything?

You just turn your head and say, "la la la la la" whenever anybody points out you're full of shit. Who do you think you're trying to convince? Yourself?

Definitely a blog. What excuse do you make when you lie? "It's ok to hallucinate, it's part of the growth process!"

No. You're just an idiot who is full of shit.

Baaaaaaaaaakka. Baka baka baka baka baka.

Ceiling cat sees all. Ceiling cat sees you in front of the mirror, with your "spaghetti."

The sad reality.

I doubt that's what they meant... you probably have it exactly backwards.

You seem in agreement about who we are, and what it will show us.

Is that good or bad? That's probably the only part honest people will disagree about.

Why, because somebody threw some mud on the internet, and when you upvoted it you felt Virtuous?

As somebody just explained, you were full of shit when you were claiming the bar diversion was because of corruption or incompetence; rather, it was the whistleblower activity described above!

As for "prosecutorial misconduct," every prosecutor who has been at the job for a few years has a few cases with such a ruling. In that case, she successfully prosecuted Daniel Gudino for the murder of his own mother. In the second phase of the trial, the jury was split on the question of "not guilty by reason of insanity" and instead of a mistrial the judge stepped in and ruled Not Guilty by Insanity. The appeals court did ding her for "misconduct" for her closing argument, but did not reverse the conviction or free the convicted killer. Note that she accused the former DA of having reached a deal in that case, and it's what led to her resignation, the recall, and eventually her replacing him.

What was it that she did wrong in her closing statement? She said the defense didn't "seek justice or to tell the truth about what happened," and instead that their "obligation is to their client; and by any means necessary they seek to have him acquitted of these charges." Which is all true. The appeals court said she's not allowed to "imply that counsel is free to deceive the jury." And yet it is true; the defense council not only is allowed to try to deceive the jury, it's required! If it is found that they could have deceived the jury but didn't, the accused will get a re-trial because of insufficient defense. The appeals court dinged her for excess honesty.

You right wingers always pretend to want "law and order," but you never do.