swansont

That wasn't your scenario. The eyewitness only places them in the vicinity. That's not what convicted them. And? We are talking about overturned conviction based on evidence (e.g. DNA) which shows the person was mis-identified, not a technicality. You are making up a straw-man scenario No, you inferred it. You probably meant to say I implied it. But I don't think I did.

Then go look them up. I get Innocence Project summaries for people that are exonerated, giving such details. If the person was actually there, DNA can't prove that they weren't. So this would seem to be a bad example. The statistic is labeled "misidentification" which implies that the wrong person was identified. The conviction was overturned. How does DNA prove him innocent? And how is this an example of misidentification? Nobody has claimed that it does.

The cited info says ~70% of the overturned convictions depended up eyewitness testimony. Do the details matter that much? Someone identified the defendant as the perpetrator in a court of law. So an eyewitness that was wrong isn't wrong anymore, if there was other evidence? That doesn't strike me as the kind of testimony that gets overturned by DNA, or that could establish guilt. They did not witness the crime.

What does it have to do with the thread?

Mass (rest mass or more specifically the invariant mass, not relativistic mass), charge, spin, number of leptons, the spacetime interval, the four-velocity "At rest wrt a medium" is not really a formulation consistent with relativity, which uses inertial frames of reference. Invariant means it's the same no matter which reference frame you are in. The speed of a wave in a medium is not invariant. If you could be moving at the same speed as the wave, then it's not moving at all.

! Moderator Note That's a question for discussion. You aren't taking a position that's contrary to accepted science, so it's not a speculation. Moving to politics (as it's a discussion related to law) "Crap" depends on the context. The justice system is not supposed to be a crapshoot. The standard is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. And we can dig further to assess the accuracy of eyewitness accounts. Does eyewitness testimony overturn convictions based on DNA evidence? I'm not aware of this happening, but the reverse does. One must conclude that eyewitness testimony is less reliable. The link's claim "358 people who had been convicted and sentenced to death since 1989 have been exonerated through DNA evidence" is wrong; they cite the Innocence Project, who say that "21 of 367 people served time on death row" (the 367 presumably is a more recent number of the exonerated), and they make it clear the statistics only apply to DNA exonerations. https://www.innocenceproject.org/dna-exonerations-in-the-united-states/ The number of people exonerated on death row is 165 since 1973, with the rate increasing in recent years, correlating with the rise in prominence of DNA evidence. https://files.deathpenaltyinfo.org/legacy/documents/FactSheet.pdf https://www.cnn.com/2013/07/19/us/death-penalty-fast-facts/index.html With ~1500 convictions (edit: executions) and and other ~2650 on death row, that's a ~4% demonstrated wrongful conviction rate (the actual rate is likely higher than this, since not every innocent person has been exonerated, and the rate is higher with better accessibility to DNA testing in more recent times) in what is supposed to be a zero-tolerance system. "Reasonable doubt" correlates to 98-99% certainty according to some https://courts.uslegal.com/burden-of-proof/beyond-a-reasonable-doubt/ If eyewitness testimony is less reliable than what is required for conviction, then I'd say that calling it "crap" isn't out of line. edit to add: and we don't know how much eyewitness testimony is excluded from evidence beforehand, because it is deemed unreliable.

! Moderator Note What is the speculation here?

I’m not sure where you are getting “empty space” from, and how that applies to Newton’s first law, or how the first law implies invariance. Why would you distinguish between them, considering only Newtonian physics?

You said "Consider Einstein’s set condition of empty space. " which is not something that happened before he postulated an invariant c — it happened after — so it makes no sense to conclude that it's somehow expected that c be invariant. In essence, you have assumed the conclusion. For any other wave we might consider — one that travels in a medium — the speed depends on the frame. Why would a light wave a priori be assumed to behave differently? Using Newton's laws do sound waves have an invariant speed?

! Moderator Note The problem here is that you own the burden of proof. It’s not up to others to develop the idea in order to debunk it. “a” only works if you’ve already provided the mathematical framework. And you haven’t. Since you’ve declared your intent to not comply with our rules, we’re done.

This makes no sense. Einstein is the one that postulated the invariance of c, so it can’t be a conclusion of his theory. .

Because you don’t need a new one, probably. It does a better job of dispersing the light.

One should note that this is no longer the law in California, but it can't be applied to past cases. And I would not agree it's not that they "weren't serious enough." I don't think that such a determination is made. A crime is either subject to the statute of limitations or it isn't. You can argue that rape, in general, was not taken seriously enough, but that's not how you phrased it. How is a burglary "violent"? There are, by definition, no other people involved when someone commits a burglary. IOW, it's a property crime. But if you start breaking things it's vandalism, not burglary. When it involves people, it's robbery. Any actual evidence that this is true, and that it is a consequence of (or affected by) the statute of limitations? Again, evidence? That big chunk of society got involved in this vigilantism, and that it was widepread?

You need to get/provide more information. Tangential to what?

The display of a 5 vs. 6 on an 8-segment display is different by just one element. It is possible (though not certain) this is a display problem and not a computational error. Though if it is consistently wrong, that points away from that being the issue. One would expect this to be intermittent if it were a display problem.

Oldand Dilis had been suspended for trying to bully the staff into letting them post their material without regard for the rules.

Good for you. Too bad this is irrelevant.

(emphasis added) Here's an example of what I was talking about "The Ouachita Electric Cooperative, having added enough solar capacity to reduce its peak load by 30%, plans to file a docket with the Arkansas Public Service Commission for a 4.6% rate reduction" https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2019/10/15/solar-to-lower-power-bills-4-6-at-arkansas-co-op/

One element in the concept of law enforcement (at least in the US, and probably elsewhere) are safeguards against sending the innocent to jail. And they are not foolproof. So one must ask whether the odds of getting a conviction wrong after a certain period of time goes up or not. I would expect it to go up, for the very reason that has been cited already: memory fades/changes. Eyewitness testimony becomes less reliable. In the US, many violent crimes (especially murder) don't have a statute of limitations, but the specifics vary by state. So these concerns about rape or arson are moot in some cases, as they can still be prosecuted. The ones that can't tend to be ones where they probably aren't as thorough in collecting evidence (e.g. DNA) in the first place, so you really can't lean on that as justification for not having the statute of limitations. https://www.avvo.com/legal-guides/ugc/state-statutes-of-limitation-for-criminal-charges

Because our protocols don't work in the way that you seem to want to interpret my statement. And seeing as you have presented yourself as an expert on how the site is run, I would expect that you would know that. I don't know if being obtuse is deliberate or not, but as I have explained previously, it is not the question that I have objected to, per se. It's the title. You offered that as a possibility and I confirmed it, and now we're back to to "my asking a question about a decision that you made" as if you did not read (or did not understand, or forgot) that exchange. You made it personal. You had options (as I said: report the post. You could also have posted the question in a more benign fashion, such as "What influences the decision to move a post or, as happened recently, locking one without telling the poster not to re-introduce the thread) There are probably other options, too. But no. As I said, you made it personal. It also insinuates that the decision was not objective and phrased the question as if I was coloring outside the lines (and, as I pointed out, you were wrong on that account)

! Moderator Note Please do not include your email in your posts as it violates our rules on advertising. If you persist you will be banned as a spammer.

! Moderator Note A new puzzle should go in a new thread.

No, it was the title. That makes it not a simple question. And by all means, make this about me, and absolve yourself of acting in a dickish fashion. You likely don’t know why someone downvoted you, or who did it. No threat. I am not in a position to cite you, since I am involved in the thread (all mods agree to this protocol) and if it’s a violation, it already happened, and you would be the one to have committed it. You are responsible for it, not me. I somehow coerced it? No, I don’t think so. As far as possibly being punished for it, I don’t see where I threatened you. Did I say anything about that?

You found one? When will you post it?