Smeelious

Yes, Exactly.

I would suspect that Biggs would have asked the obvious follow-up question "So the data does exist somewhere". He didn't because he knows it does exist. Looking through the interwebs, the maricopa officials backed up the data in preparation for the original audit so that the software / hardware could be tested. So yes, I know that no information has been lost because it was already audited. It isn't actually covered in the video, but the data was also provided, but just not where the auditors expected it to be. Also, the auditors themselves confirmed that the data was recovered, so nothing was lost. As to the FBI, if I back up files in the cloud and remove them, and THEN the FBI askes for my computer, I wouldn't have to provide the data in the cloud unless specifically mentioned in the court order. Based on the subpoena they only asked for the SQL server itself, to test the function. This makes since the data itself may have been "correct" but the server itself may have been tampered with, so each needs to be tested separately.

It's hard to compare since it looks like the Tamil Nadu had a slower uptake of covid cases. In all the cases above the time from the peak case load to the base is around the same time. I will say that Dehli and Uttar Pradesh seem to be doing a much better job of managing covid atm, but I don't know enough about the region to speculate why. Ie, Ontario is doing better at managing covid than Alberta is, but that has little to nothing to do with treatment.

India has since removed Ivermectin from their Covid treament plans due to "lack of evidence". It also took significantly longer for the spike in question to subside in India. Looking at a wave that happened at a similar time but did not use Ivermectin, we see a similar timeframe This is of course not an apples to apples comparison, but on the surface it doesn't look like Ivermectin had much of an effect.

So, aside from the article not being an article. The video shows the files were archived, not deleted. Does Biggs have a point that this data should have been provided in the original subpoena? Sure. a title of "Maricopa Officials tried to hide election data by moving it to avoid subpeona" and you might have a point. But the data wasn't deleted.

Oh deary me. I want to spend a few hours crafting my answer to this. Anyway, most people use the scientific method in their lives, if they acknowledge it or not. The sun example: Everyone generally has this hypothesis: The sun will come up tomorrow. Our perceived model of the sun is, thus, that is rises every day. We test this hypothesis everyday: Did it come up today? Yes! Good, put another in the observed column. This constitutes a scientific theory. "The sun rises every day" This isn't actually belief as such, as our model relies on historical data. We "expect" that it will rise because it always has risen. We have proof that it has always risen, not belief. Trust is exactly like the sun. If the people around us are trustworthy, we assume people are trustworthy. It becomes a theory: "People are trustworthy!" ...Until you hit a result of the experiment that falls into the negative category. Suddenly you have to change your hypothesis, or reject it outright. Crossing the street is the same. You don't trust that the car will stop because you have seen proof that sometimes a car will not stop. You cannot therefore have a reasonable thesis that "cars will always stop when they are supposed to" So. You rely on evidence as a basis for your decisions...not faith

I didn't expect much out of this thread, But honestly, this has been some of the best discussion on these boards in a while. Cheers

Ok, So if this 10 year old who got raped wants to keep it? People do stupid things all the time that are against their own interest. I'm still leaning towards the 10 year old being able to make the choice.

Thank you for this...I was trying to remember this guy last week and couldn't find it.

From what I read (in about 3 seconds of looking) is the only physical implications are an increased risk of obesity. Even then, there was no evidence that it was actually a result of physical changes due to pregnancy. My bigger worry is WHO gets to make the choice. If a 10 year old isn't competent to make that choice, does it fall to her guardians? (Not the parents in this case.......) Does a judge decide?

Betsy has a point...It doesn't matter who the father is. The mother can always exercise her choice to keep it or not. *edit* In the case of a 10 year old, I'm not sure what to say here actually. I can't see a 10 year old being able to make an informed decision on such a thing.

The problem with any system is that observation affects the results.

On the flip side He breaks up with her, she reports rape...2+2... (Honestly it bothers me even writing that, but it isn't outside the realm of possible)

I agree with you on this tbh. At the same time...No rape case could ever be prosecuted under these conditions.

Frankly I think it depends on the girls themselves. If they aren't comfortable with swimming with boys, but still want to swim...So long as it isn't an undue burden on the pool schedule I don't see a problem. If on the otherhand, the girls are fine with it, but the pool/UoR is making assumptions for them, that isn't ok.

Life beginning at conception has no bearing on the argument you highlighted in Peter's post.

Rule #1 of a breakup. Don't have sex right afterwards. Her text isn't really relevant. If I send a text asking someone to make me tea, then I get there and don't want it...They can't make me drink it. His text a few days after the fact is probably why he was convicted. Something to the effect of, "Sorry, I got carried away...blah blah..."

I imagine Bernie singing in the shower: "I didn't start the fire, But when I am gone, It will still burn on and on and on and on And on and on and on and on..." Imagine though if Bernie had a fair shake from the get-go. I'd bet we'd be seeing Hillary supporters rioting in the same manner right now because yet again a woman couldn't get nominated, and instead went to another old white guy.

Grandparent win.

Couple things: I don't think pro-life is necessarily a religious choice, so much as a moral one. Pro-choice doesn't mean "Kill all the babiez!" Finally, you can be pro-choice AND pro-life.

Honestly, The government has no business forcing anyone to be an incubator against their will. The best way to limit abortion is open and honest sex education. Forcing legal protection on a fetus is a bad precedent, especially given how early we can detect pregnancies.

If you believe that a tornado is coming, but your neighbour doesn't, do you try and force him to leave?

What about same married same sex couples that are abstinent?

That would require broad sex ed in schools. Regardless. The government has no right what-so-ever to force a woman to be an incubator against her will for 9 months. The situation is irrelevant. Personally I think we can revisit abortion when the fetus can be "relocated" without risk.

betsy casts deflection!