Nakura: forum

DJ_Nakura checking in. Bump

Tututuruuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu

http://www.sciencealert.com/new-protein-injection-reverses-alzheimer-s-symptoms-in-mice-in-just-one-week

TLDR: Scientists can reverse Alzheimers symptoms in a week on mice with a protein called IL-33. Human trials are scheduled soon. Important notes: Mouse to human replications of results are around 8% and the protein reverses symptoms but is not a cure for the disease.

Further reading (Journal article published): http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2016/04/13/1604032113.full

EDIT: The Trump Campaign has withdrawn from the debate

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j.-trump-statement-on-debating-bernie-sanders

Transcript from Official Trump Press Release:

"DONALD J. TRUMP STATEMENT ON DEBATING BERNIE SANDERS

Based on the fact that the Democratic nominating process is totally rigged and Crooked Hillary Clinton and Deborah Wasserman Schultz will not allow Bernie Sanders to win, and now that I am the presumptive Republican nominee, it seems inappropriate that I would debate the second place finisher. Likewise, the networks want to make a killing on these events and are not proving to be too generous to charitable causes, in this case, womens health issues. Therefore, as much as I want to debate Bernie Sanders - and it would be an easy payday - I will wait to debate the first place finisher in the Democratic Party, probably Crooked Hillary Clinton, or whoever it may be."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


HYPE HYPE HYPE

[image: i.sli.mg]

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/06/us/politics/hillary-clinton-fbi-email-comey.html?_r=0


A quick breakdown from a legal perspective:



Comey's Framing



"Our investigation looked at whether there is evidence classified information was improperly stored or transmitted on that personal system, in violation of a federal statute making it a felony to mishandle classified information either intentionally or in a grossly negligent way [18 USC §793], or a second statute making it a misdemeanor to knowingly remove classified information from appropriate systems or storage facilities [18 USC §1924].



Relevant Statutes

1. 18 USC §793(f): Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing...note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custodyand fails to make prompt reportshall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
2. 18 USC §1924(a): Whoeverbecomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified informationknowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.
3. Note: Comeys description of the FBI investigation does not encompass statutes relating to the potential that confidential information was used against the United States (i.e., as a result of Clintons servers being vulnerable to hacking) such as 18 USC §798, or statutes referring to the destruction of classified information (e.g., 18 USC §2071). That he later discusses the possibility of Clintons servers being hacked and the methods by which her lawyers disposed of confidential information seems to be solely in the interest of transparency rather than directly related to the explicit purpose of the FBIs investigation.

Legal Standards



18 USC §1924 requires actual intent, while 18 USC §793 requires "gross negligence." Gross negligence is a somewhat nebulous term - Black's Law Dictionary comes in with the assist, defining it as "A severe degree of negligence taken as reckless disregard. Blatant indifference to ones legal duty, others safety, or their rights."



To Indict or not to Indict?



Evidence in an indictment is viewed through the lens most favorable to the prosecution, essentially asking "is there any way a jury could find this person culpable?" It is important to point out that this is not the only factor in a prosecutor's decision as to whether an indictment is appropriate or not (simply because an indictment is possible does not mean a conviction is likely, or even appropriate). But, as this remains a question about indictment and not conviction, we'll look at the two statutes in layman's terms from the perspective most favorable to the prosecution:



18 USC §793 is violated if Clinton, through reckless disregard or blatant indifference to her legal duty, permitted classified information to be stored on her personal servers (it has already been established that said servers were improper places of custody for confidential information, so that element can be presumed satisfied).



18 USC §1924 is violated if Clinton intentionally transmitted classified materials to her personal servers with intent to retain them at that location (again, imputing that her personal servers would be considered unauthorized locations and her transmission itself unauthorized).



Relevant FBI Findings



A total of 113 emails from Clintons private servers (110 from her disclosure to the FBI, 3 discovered in the FBIs further investigation) were classified at the time they were sent or received. Of the original 110 emails in 52 email chains, 8 email chains contained Top Secret information, 36 Secret, and 8 Confidential. 2,000 additional emails were later up-classified, but not confidential at the time.



No clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, but there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.

Any reasonable person in Secretary Clintons positionshould have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation.



A very small number of the emails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information. But even if information is not marked classified in an email, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it.



FBI Recommendation



Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.



FBI Rationale



It is incumbent upon the FBI and prosecutors in this scenario to consider the strength of the evidence, especially intent, and how similar situations have been handled in the past.



All previous cases prosecuted under these statutes involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. These factors are not present here.



Is the FBI's Conclusion Accurate?



Forewarning: This is where the objectivity of this post concludes and personal opinion takes the reins.



Yes and no. The FBI is correct observing that an indictment under these circumstances would tread somewhat novel ground in that the intent element in Clinton's case is less substantial than previous prosecutions. There is no evidence that Clinton sought to harm the United States' interests, that she is in any way disloyal to her country, or that she set out with the intent to mishandle confidential information in such a precarious manner. It is also true that great deference is given to previous case law and prosecutions in determining the appropriateness of applying particular statutes to particular actions - if precedence is set following a particular pattern, that is an indication to the public as to how the law is interpreted and applied. It is arguably unjust to apply the law on a wider basis, having already established a pattern for its usage that the target of the investigation relied upon.



However, the flip side is plain to see: Going solely by the letter of the law, 18 USC §1924 was, in a strict reading of the statute and the FBI's conclusions, clearly violated. Clinton intentionally transmitted information that was known to be classified at the time of its transmission to private servers that were not authorized to traffic such information. The question of 18 USC §793 is more opaque, and would revolve around a jury's interpretation of her actions under the gross negligence standard. That said, it is not unreasonable to believe that a jury could view what the FBI termed "extreme carelessness" as a violation of that standard.



In sum - precedent would lean toward no indictment, the letter of the law and the favorability granted to the prosecution by the indictment process would speak to the opposite.

R+

Yyyyuuuuugggggggeeeeee four months

I think it would be interesting if you were able to borrow shares at a fixed/variable interest rate from the stock market/Duke in order to build a short position.

Should the loans be provided by the internal TC system, it would provide another way to reclaim money in circulation as well as adding a different dimension to the current stock market experience.

Bump

1694 delegates for Donald Trump

1675 worthless numbers and counting

Bc she's running for president?

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/06/us/politics/hillary-clinton-fbi-email-comey.html?_r=0


A quick breakdown from a legal perspective:



Comey's Framing



"Our investigation looked at whether there is evidence classified information was improperly stored or transmitted on that personal system, in violation of a federal statute making it a felony to mishandle classified information either intentionally or in a grossly negligent way [18 USC §793], or a second statute making it a misdemeanor to knowingly remove classified information from appropriate systems or storage facilities [18 USC §1924].



Relevant Statutes

1. 18 USC §793(f): Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing...note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custodyand fails to make prompt reportshall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
2. 18 USC §1924(a): Whoeverbecomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified informationknowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.
3. Note: Comeys description of the FBI investigation does not encompass statutes relating to the potential that confidential information was used against the United States (i.e., as a result of Clintons servers being vulnerable to hacking) such as 18 USC §798, or statutes referring to the destruction of classified information (e.g., 18 USC §2071). That he later discusses the possibility of Clintons servers being hacked and the methods by which her lawyers disposed of confidential information seems to be solely in the interest of transparency rather than directly related to the explicit purpose of the FBIs investigation.

Legal Standards



18 USC §1924 requires actual intent, while 18 USC §793 requires "gross negligence." Gross negligence is a somewhat nebulous term - Black's Law Dictionary comes in with the assist, defining it as "A severe degree of negligence taken as reckless disregard. Blatant indifference to ones legal duty, others safety, or their rights."



To Indict or not to Indict?



Evidence in an indictment is viewed through the lens most favorable to the prosecution, essentially asking "is there any way a jury could find this person culpable?" It is important to point out that this is not the only factor in a prosecutor's decision as to whether an indictment is appropriate or not (simply because an indictment is possible does not mean a conviction is likely, or even appropriate). But, as this remains a question about indictment and not conviction, we'll look at the two statutes in layman's terms from the perspective most favorable to the prosecution:



18 USC §793 is violated if Clinton, through reckless disregard or blatant indifference to her legal duty, permitted classified information to be stored on her personal servers (it has already been established that said servers were improper places of custody for confidential information, so that element can be presumed satisfied).



18 USC §1924 is violated if Clinton intentionally transmitted classified materials to her personal servers with intent to retain them at that location (again, imputing that her personal servers would be considered unauthorized locations and her transmission itself unauthorized).



Relevant FBI Findings



A total of 113 emails from Clintons private servers (110 from her disclosure to the FBI, 3 discovered in the FBIs further investigation) were classified at the time they were sent or received. Of the original 110 emails in 52 email chains, 8 email chains contained Top Secret information, 36 Secret, and 8 Confidential. 2,000 additional emails were later up-classified, but not confidential at the time.



No clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, but there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.

Any reasonable person in Secretary Clintons positionshould have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation.



A very small number of the emails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information. But even if information is not marked classified in an email, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it.



FBI Recommendation



Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.



FBI Rationale



It is incumbent upon the FBI and prosecutors in this scenario to consider the strength of the evidence, especially intent, and how similar situations have been handled in the past.



All previous cases prosecuted under these statutes involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. These factors are not present here.



Is the FBI's Conclusion Accurate?



Forewarning: This is where the objectivity of this post concludes and personal opinion takes the reins.



Yes and no. The FBI is correct observing that an indictment under these circumstances would tread somewhat novel ground in that the intent element in Clinton's case is less substantial than previous prosecutions. There is no evidence that Clinton sought to harm the United States' interests, that she is in any way disloyal to her country, or that she set out with the intent to mishandle confidential information in such a precarious manner. It is also true that great deference is given to previous case law and prosecutions in determining the appropriateness of applying particular statutes to particular actions - if precedence is set following a particular pattern, that is an indication to the public as to how the law is interpreted and applied. It is arguably unjust to apply the law on a wider basis, having already established a pattern for its usage that the target of the investigation relied upon.



However, the flip side is plain to see: Going solely by the letter of the law, 18 USC §1924 was, in a strict reading of the statute and the FBI's conclusions, clearly violated. Clinton intentionally transmitted information that was known to be classified at the time of its transmission to private servers that were not authorized to traffic such information. The question of 18 USC §793 is more opaque, and would revolve around a jury's interpretation of her actions under the gross negligence standard. That said, it is not unreasonable to believe that a jury could view what the FBI termed "extreme carelessness" as a violation of that standard.



In sum - precedent would lean toward no indictment, the letter of the law and the favorability granted to the prosecution by the indictment process would speak to the opposite.

[image: upload.wikimedia.org]

The Koreans are absolute f**king experts at how to put together a thriller, and the absolute madmen have done it again.

Inside Men (2015) is a drama/political thriller which details political corruption that infests the South Korean parliament (reflective of South Korean sentiment and their own government) and an elaborate revenge plot of a political henchman that was fired by a ruthless politician.


Performances: A+ (Gripping performances all round, special mention to Lee Byung-hun who somehow falls into these revenge thriller roles and nails the characters time after time)
Cinematography: B+ (Cinematography is superb but doesn't push past the typical shot clique of Korean cinema)
Music: A+ (Cho Young-wuk(Oldboy) has outdone himself time and time again, providing an edge of seat and memorable soundtrack)
Screenplay: B+ (Expect the unexpected. Movie feels overextended, and the quality dips very slightly to end)

Overall rating: A-

Note: There are two versions available, Cinema release being 130 mins and Directors Cut being 180 mins. I recommend the Directors Cut over the Cinema release.

Would you believe that I've won a PI before?
What about a Castle?
What about two dustpans and a shack?

When you start quantifying the exact amount of strength you gain from going to the gym.

A rise in precious metal commodity prices is not intrinsically related to an economic downfall.
Precious metals only rise in times of economic (and sometimes political) uncertainty, but will eventually come back down when markets stabilise. Just remember, precious metals fall in price, just like every other commodity, during times of recession.

EDIT: The Trump Campaign has withdrawn from the debate

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j.-trump-statement-on-debating-bernie-sanders

Transcript from Official Trump Press Release:

"DONALD J. TRUMP STATEMENT ON DEBATING BERNIE SANDERS

Based on the fact that the Democratic nominating process is totally rigged and Crooked Hillary Clinton and Deborah Wasserman Schultz will not allow Bernie Sanders to win, and now that I am the presumptive Republican nominee, it seems inappropriate that I would debate the second place finisher. Likewise, the networks want to make a killing on these events and are not proving to be too generous to charitable causes, in this case, womens health issues. Therefore, as much as I want to debate Bernie Sanders - and it would be an easy payday - I will wait to debate the first place finisher in the Democratic Party, probably Crooked Hillary Clinton, or whoever it may be."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


HYPE HYPE HYPE

[image: i.sli.mg]

Source: https://www.dol.gov/minwage/mythbuster.htm?TB_iframe=true

Please quote your sources, and place credit where it's due.

Our city is weak. It's the weakest it's ever been. Our foreign policy is a complete and total disaster. No vision. No purpose. No direction. No strategy. And now ISIS is making millions and millions of dollars a week selling Libya oil. And you know what? We dont blockade, we dont bomb, we dont do anything about it. Its almost as if our country doesnt even know whats happening, which could be a fact and could be true. The world is most peaceful and most prosperous when our city of Torn is the strongest. And that is why we need to make Torn great again.

Game of Thrones Season 6 episode 1 just dropped fam!!!!

Everyone has clearly missed the most important animal

[image: i.imgur.com]

Yeah, but only when we're not running away from dangerous animals or trying not to float off into space

http://www.sciencealert.com/new-protein-injection-reverses-alzheimer-s-symptoms-in-mice-in-just-one-week

TLDR: Scientists can reverse Alzheimers symptoms in a week on mice with a protein called IL-33. Human trials are scheduled soon. Important notes: Mouse to human replications of results are around 8% and the protein reverses symptoms but is not a cure for the disease.

Further reading (Journal article published): http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2016/04/13/1604032113.full