Accuracy only matters if you think that the rights of the people against unreasonable searches is more important than the 'rights' of police to perform any searches they want. If you prioritize the latter more than the former any level of accuracy is acceptable, because it allows more searches that would otherwise be prohibited.
If a particular dog was shown to have a 99% false positive rate over the course of 100 stops, they would still say it was acceptable and valid because that's 100 searches they wouldn't have otherwise been able to perform.
One way to look at it would be to ask if anyone else could do the same thing, and have their actions be legal. If a non-law enforcement individual set up a camera at the top of the pole and that would be considered legal, then the actions of the police would probably fall within the law. If however a random person could not do the same and have it be legal, then a warrant should be required.
Given a four-legged probable cause can be the difference from a legal search and an illegal one, I'd say anything below 80-90% accuracy rate should be grounds for suppression of evidence and 'retirement' into non-police work related duties for the dog in question.
If flipping a coin wouldn't be acceptable grounds to search a vehicle, then a system, dog or otherwise with worse odds of being correct shouldn't be either.
As it stands now -- even without malice aforethought by the State Department -- four states will have concluded their primaries before the agency has to produce the documents.
I have no doubt that if the State Department is allowed to go at their own pace, several presidential elections will be over before they decide that they've vetted the documents for sensitive material to an 'adequate' degree, at which point they'll refuse to release them anyway as no longer being relevant.
The judge needs to hand them an ultimatum, 'You have until X, at which point whether or not you've gone through every document you're releasing them all. Get busy.'
They'll still refuse to comply of course, 'asking' for more time because why wouldn't they, it's not like the judge has the power or courage to hold them accountable for refusing an order, but at least they'd know that the judge was somewhat annoyed at their flaunting of the court's orders, and that's about as much as the judge can expect to get out of them.
That resulted in Senator Dianne Feinstein accusing the CIA of illegally spying on the Senate (its overseers).
'Do you not agree there was improper access that senate staffers had to CIA internal deliberative documents? Was that not inappropriate or unauthorized?'
For oversight to be in any way effective, there can be no such thing as 'improper access', because if the ones providing oversight can be told 'No, you don't get to see that', or 'No, you're not allowed to ask for that' then there can be no oversight, as the ones theoretically being overseen can simply refuse to provide anything they think will make them look bad or expose actions that they don't want known.
'And I'm still awaiting the review that was done by the Senate to take a look at what the staffers actions were.'
Though I'm sure it would never happen, I'd love it if Wyden and the others called his bluff here. Call together a few of his colleagues, go into a room, wait five minutes, come out to declare that after a thorough investigation into the events the staffers did nothing wrong, and then dare Brennan to object. I imagine the point would be impossible for anyone to miss at that point.
Pay no attention to the left hand which is picking your pocket, focus all your attention on the right as it might do something worse
For whatever bizarre reason (read $$$), the FCC doing its job is described as a government power grab, and thus a nonstarter for his constituents.
Oh come now, I'm sure it's a pure coincidence that he's against the FCC stepping in and attempting to curtail abuses by the major cable companies, and has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that Comcast for example has been one of the top three donors to his election committee the past three elections(#1, #3, and #1 respectively counting back from the current one).
Get people worked up over the big bad government coming in and interfering with honest jobs and how if they let that happen their jobs might be next!, and you can get them to ignore the actions of private companies robbing them blind. They're so focused on what might happen that they completely miss what is happening.
"No one needs that much, no one will ever use it!"
Saying that no one needs a 25 Mbps connection because a single user/service won't use it completely is rather like saying that there's no point in building multi-lane roads or highways because a single car will never be able to take up more than one lane.
Not so, they still like to pretend that copyright isn't effectively eternal, so they argue for 'forever minus a day', as that technically isn't forever, which means it's technically limited in it's duration.
I don't follow sports either, but I think the general idea is that it's basically the league in question throwing a tantrum over something, usually related to 'not enough' people buying tickets, and refusing to allow people to watch the game via other methods.
"If you won't watch it in person, you're not watching it via tv" basically.
Anyone who was going into these negotiations to enhance environmental protection, consumer protection and labour standards would have nothing to fear from transparency. Anyone who's engaged in selling out democracy, on the other hand, is obviously going to want to avoid public scrutiny. If [Germany's Minister for Economic Affairs] Sigmar Gabriel and the negotiators are really so convinced of the benefits of TTIP, why don't they just make the text available to everyone online?
If it has a high likelihood of affecting you, and you're not allowed to see it before it comes into affect... yeah, odds are good it's because it's not going to help you. Other than giving medicine to kids(and if those involved see the public like that, there's yet another reason they're not suitable for their positions and authority) you don't need to trick someone into accepting something clearly beneficial to them.
Reciprocity is necessary. If fees are to be mandated against municipalities, fees and costs should also be awarded to the municipality against frivolous and harassing requesters.
The municipalities are funded by taxpayer money, so the agencies that are stonewalling and/or refusing don't have to pay a cent of their own money if a judgement is awarded against them. As such if a requestor loses a case they shouldn't have to pay any of their own money either, take it out of the municipality then as well. The taxpayers are paying either way after all.
'Would you like some lemon juice and salt for that paper cut?'
So basically people paid $160 for a product that doesn't actually work, and as an extra they're being threatened that if they try and fix it themselves and gain access to content that they paid for they'll lose the $160, get charged another $100, be kicked off the service and potentially face legal problems.
Congrats to the NHL for doing everything in their power to make piracy of their games the better option I guess, as pirates only face the last problem if they get caught, they don't have to pay for a broken service first.
"There's no need for an independent review, as I've already done one and come to the conclusion that the agreement will benefit quite well the only party that matters:
As such I don't give a damn what consequences the agreement will have on the rest of you, and I won't have you uppity peasants putting my benefits at risk by trying to challenge the actions of your betters."
If non-Free Basics is doomed to only help the middle-class and above due to caste system issues, then I really doubt Free Basics would have been any different or better. They can still foot the bill out of the kindness of their hearts for low income individuals to have access, they just don't get to control what is and is not accessible via that access.
Re: Re: AT&T Lobbyists Have Been Writing Awful Protectionist State Broadband Laws
Nice idea in theory, but the problem is that there wouldn't be enough room on the suits of some of them, given how many companies own them. Maybe restrict it to the top ten? Two on each arm(upper and lower), two on the chest(left and right side), one on each shoulder, and four on the back. Could probably fit that many and still have the 'badges' large enough to be easy to recognize.
On the one hand I was tempted to wait and see how many more 'different' people you'd have 'agree' with you before you caught on, but on the other hand I just have to congratulate you for completely missing the point in your attempt to focus just on a single line, ignoring that it's not a dig at the judges, but against those who try and dismiss concerns over corporate sovereignty by categorizing them along those lines.
Policies that discourage private-sector investment put at risk the world-class broadband infrastructure American consumers deserve and enjoy today."
Given the majority of 'American consumers' don't have 'world-class broadband infrastructure' available to them, with a great many lucky to have 'usually up at half the listed speed-class broadband', then I'm not seeing a problem, as clearly nothing is at risk.
And therein lies one of the main problems, how insanely expensive it is to get elected, and then get re-elected.
It costs such a massive amount that anyone who makes it into office pretty much has to sell out to large companies to get the money to have done so, and once they're in office those companies want a return on their 'investment', and if they don't get it then they're not likely to spend any money come next election.
Though I'm sure the idea could use some hefty tweaking, a general idea to fix this would be to make it so that election funds were anonymized and generalized, such that you could donate to election funds in general, but the various candidates would all draw from the same pool.
The idea has got some hefty flaws to be sure, the first among them being that given 'money is speech' for all intents and purposes these days it would have a high likelihood of causing people's 'speech' to support those that they themselves do not, but the general idea, that of making it as difficult as possible for companies to basically by politicians buy bankrolling their elections I'd think is a sound one.
Take the requirement to pander to large companies if you want to get elected out of the equation, and you take a large part of the motivation on both sides to do so.
Solving a termite infestation by buying a new house next door
The Member States are all constitutional states, which provide and guarantee access to justice in all areas where the state has jurisdiction to all law-seeking parties. It is for the Member States to ensure access to justice for all and to ensure feasible access for foreign investors, by providing the courts with the relevant resources. Hence, the establishment of an ICS is the wrong way to guarantee legal certainty.
This really needs to be brought up any time someone defends the idea of corporate sovereignty clauses, because of what those clauses are basically saying at the core:
'The local courts do not, or can not be trusted to, provide justice for both parties.'
That is basically the excuse behind corporate sovereignty, that the courts of a given country are not balanced such that corporations would be treated 'fairly' under the law. Yet were this actually the case the solution is simple, and it does not require adding another 'court' to the mix:
Don't do business in that country.
If a given country can't be trusted to act in a fair manner, then corporations should not be doing business in or with that country. A country that no business wants to set up shop in is one that's going to see it's economy take a steep dive, and they'll either recognize the problem and fix it, ensuring fair treatment, or ignore it and suffer for it. Not to mention if they have no interest in ensuring that their own courts are balanced, the idea that they'd care one bit about an 'independent' court's rulings is absurd, and does nothing to solve the problem.
Corporate sovereignty is taking one problem, not even trying to fix it, and instead just adding another problem on top of it.