Hillary vs. Donald is looking like a very close race. Imagine a repeat of the 2000 presidential election with Bush v. Gore decided by weeks of recounts and court battles. Imagine it with Hillary vs. Trump. Imagine the Supreme Court battle in the current environment, with Judge Scalia's death and the fight to replace him. With a Tea Party and Trump movement that didn't exist in 2000.
***I AM THE TRUE PRESIDENT***
ALL OTHER PRESIDENTS ARE FAKE. DON'T BE SCAMMED BY OTHER PRESIDENTS. ALL OTHER PRESIDENTS ARE ILLEGAL AND UNDER INVESTIGATION.
For "dire consequences" we're not talking about birds bursting into flames in mid-air.
We're talking about sea-level rise, which we know happened before and is happening again now. With a large fraction of the human population now living on the coasts, there's "dire consequences" that weren't there before. We're talking about a large reduction in the world's food supply, especially in places where it'll hurt the most.
Actually there WAS statistically significant warming during the 15 years. On one hand it wasn't as much as some climate models predicted, but on the other hand it was too short a time period to declare the models wrong.
The selected period starts immediately after 1998's temperature record (making the few years after seem lesser by comparison) and stops before new high temperature records. It's classic cherry picking, and STILL there was overall warming during the period.
> More than two dozen reconstructions, using various statistical methods and combinations of proxy records, have supported the broad consensus shown in the original 1998 hockey-stick graph, with variations in how flat the pre-20th century "shaft" appears. The 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report cited 14 reconstructions, 10 of which covered 1,000 years or longer, to support its strengthened conclusion that it was likely that Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the 20th century were the highest in at least the past 1,300 years. Over a dozen subsequent reconstructions, including Mann et al. 2008 and PAGES 2k Consortium 2013, have supported these general conclusions.
9) Because the justice system can simply ignore DNA evidence.
News of the Weird occasionally features these stories.
Lost in the public debate over whether DNA testing should be done on death-row convicts is the case of Texan Roy Criner, now 33, who is in no danger of execution but has been imprisoned since 1990 (sentence: 99 years) for rape, despite a subsequent DNA test concluding that the sperm in question was not his. One appeals court had overturned Criner's conviction even before the DNA test was performed, but the state's highest court reimposed the conviction, and in interviews with the PBS TV program "Frontline" in January, Judge Sharon Keller of that court said that Criner was nonetheless properly convicted even though the sperm did not match.
In an October decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit voted, 8-7, not only to affirm Paul Gregory House's 1986 rape-murder conviction but also to keep him on Tennessee's death row, despite subsequent knowledge that the prosecutor's primary evidence was faulty. The eight judges accepted the conviction, even though the rape evidence was based, nearly archaically, on a match of blood "type" in semen found on the victim; much more sophisticated DNA testing later showed that the semen was not from House but from the victim's estranged husband (who, it was subsequently learned, allegedly "confessed" the crime to three witnesses, evidence that was too belatedly offered to satisfy the majority judges). [New York Times, 10-7-04]
Cox News Service reported in August that Florida state-agency DNA paternity tests on child-support-resisting men found that 36 percent of 1,025 "fathers" in four counties were not the fathers after all. However, Florida courts are split on whether even a negative DNA test will relieve men of support responsibilities once they voluntarily begin paying.
Granted, some times it all turns out OK:
William Dillon was released in November after 26 years in prison when a DNA test ruled him out as the murderer. He was the second Florida man recently freed by DNA after being positively identified at trial by a star police dog, Harass II, whose trainer Bill Preston had sworn could amazingly track scents through water and after months of site contamination. In June, the Innocence Project of Florida said as many as 60 other convicts might have been "identified" by Harass II. According to an Orlando Sentinel report, only one judge (who's now retired) thought to actually test Harass II's ability in a courtroom, and he wrote that the dog failed badly. [Orlando Sentinel, 6-14-09]
I started programming at the end of the punch card era, back when it was still common to hear the phrase "computers don't make mistakes."
I've seen at least four cases in the news where DNA evidence turned out to be mistaken. Three from lab and evidence collection errors. And one where someone in a factory was packing cotton swabs by hand, his DNA then detected in multiple investigations, leading police in Europe to believe that they were dealing with a serial killer.
It's a good tool, but the real-world certainty isn't as good as the theoretical certainty.
If I set up a VPN tunnel from my home network to the one at the office (firewall appliance to firewall appliance), the two networks are effectively joined. (Although on different subnets.) This is great for doing remote tech support on many machines.
But not only can I see devices on the office network from home, devices at home can be seen from the office. Even devices blocked at the firewall from communicating over the internet, can be reached via the VPN.
Is that PIA VPN also going to be two-way? If I connect to a PIA VPN tunnel from my home firewall appliance, is PIA (or the internet) then able to scan my home network?
Or to put it another way, should I connect to the VPN ONLY from one specific PC?
Or even CNN. You *might* remember when news broke that Halliburton had lost entire cargo pallets full of money being sent to Iraq, to the tune of $Billions. You know, former CEO and still shareholder Dick Cheney's company. It was the same week that a Playboy Playmate had died of a drug overdose.
Comedy show The Daily Show covered the Halliburton executives appearing before Congress to give their blank stares and nothing else.
CNN avoided the story by switching to a 24/7 Dead Playmate format for the week.
One can only laugh bitterly when the nutjobs declare them left-wing.