I don't really agree with this description of good law. This seems to suggest that we start with a concept of what is good, and then use law to put that concept into practice. I would say instead that this goes in both direction, with good law (especially in common law jurisdictions) operating more as a reflective equilibrium. We have some concept of what would be good, then put it into practice through law, but then based on the actual effects of law through the courts revise that concept, which then changes the law, and so on (this is more obviously true of common law jurisdictions). Here legal concepts are understood as the result of evolutionary changes in how we should think of some basic moral ideas, sort of similar to a rudimentary form of machine learning.

My post about bribery had nothing to do with legal definitions. And legal definitions of a word rarely differ in a material way from ordinary definitions of that same word that you would find in a Webster's dictionary.

I'll give you another example of the point I was trying to make. Victor stated at one point that all Biden/HRC types, and even some progressives, were Republicans. My response was:

In debate parlance, a word being used in an ad hoc or idiosyncratic way would be classified as a Stipulative Definition.

e.g. "For the purposes of this debate, I will use the word bribe to refer to the giving of money to a candidate for public office."

Oh, I get it now! Like when you say you are "not anti-science", you are working with a stipulative definition of "science".

Your reads are you usually pretty good, but not this time, Sport!

Chess????

Got a couple of MTTs on right now, maybe in a bit if you're still about.

Shoot me an e-mail or PM if/when you want to play.

Fair enough.

I accept no one has to accept my definition. My call is more of an advocacy one. I am calling on people to reject that definition and label certain things as they are.

I accept not everyone will agree.

Curious. Do you guys trash talk one another as you play chess?

No. We joke a bit, but no real trash talk.

Not really. I just swear a lot when I lose. Got a warning from the site for it lol.

Damn. I kinda wanted to hear it was battle chess.

Ya that's your knight m****er. How dumb do you feel about that move now!

(actually now that i write it out seems lame. Normal chess will do)

LOL. I wondered about this as well. d2 and lagtight have a strange relationship.

____________


the FBI was hacked

are the black hats sharper than the white hats?

I think so


.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...l-cyberattack/


.

It is near impossible for agencies like the FBI to hire and retain the top talent in the hacking, counter hacking world as those people, even the ones who stay strictly within the law, will always make multiples more money outside those agencies.

They can hire consulting firms in security with some good talent but even those are unlikely to be the very best.

The way they often get their best anti-hackers is when they arrest and convict a hacker and then make it part of their probation that they must then work with them.

So overall I would answer your question 'yes the black hats are sharper'.

Getting access to a mail server (which is not where mails are stored, it is just a server for either sending or receiving mail) and faking some outgoing mails isn't exactly top notch hacking material.

My guess: Someone™ configured a mail server wrong or ran outdated software, someone else™ figured it out and used is as the send server for a chain of e-mails.

Whatever anti-cyber top dogs the FBI have, they're not configuring mail servers.

Seems reminiscent of this:


https://xkcd.com/932/

Aye, from the technical viewpoint that seems very apt.

The risk to the target is probably higher on a mail server, since if you can pose as a legitimate sender to various filters, you can probably run some phishing scams with much higher chance of success. Still, you'd have to be daft to do that against a federal US law enforcement agency. Unless you come from a country with no US extradition treaty and don't plan any vacations abroad for the remainder of your life.

https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/...y-126409797816

Yes time and time and time again the examples of voter fraud found are almost all Republicans doing it.


The voter fraud issue is one of the cheating spouse riddled with paranoia and convinced their spouse must be cheating. Why? Because they are. Pure projection.

Wokism seems to be on the way out

Wokeism was never a thing. It's a nothingburger put together by Fox to create faux outrage. Like voter fraud and CRT. Just a gimmick to trick the idiots into being mad.

Wokeism was put together by Fox has got to be on the short list of dumbest things said in this Forum in 2021.

Full disclosure: There are probably at least three or four of my posts on the short list, so I welcome any and all competition.

Don't be mad that you got suckered into it lagtight.

I understand people say woke, but wokeism is literally brought up by fox daily. It's because they want little scared children to give them money to protect them from the big bad brown boogeyman.

Only boomers even use the term woke