CDAK

This is what you said: "If they're exercising them because they think "I could NEVER be convicted".....then yeah, it's not just arrogance and entitlement, it's arrogance and entitlement so grand that it overrides reason and logic." Thus, in your opinion, it's arrogant and entitled to exercise your due process rights (that's what "them" refers to in your quote) depending on your motivations. In my opinion, it's never arrogant or entitled to exercise your due process rights.

I don't take issue with your saying the decision is not smart. I take issue with calling her entitled or arrogant for requesting a jury trial. Those are different concepts no matter how you try to conflate them.

Maybe she's making an unwise decision. I don't know. And I won't dispute it if anyone criticizes her potentially unwise decision. I object to calling her arrogant and entitled for exercising her due process rights.

What does that have to do with being arrogant and entitled? You said, if her motivations for rejecting a plea deal are X, that's "arrogance and entitlement so grand that it overrides reason and logic." Now you're asserting that she may not have been "intelligent[]" in rejecting a plea deal. Your arguments are inconsistent and all over the map. I don't think any criminal defendant is arrogant or entitled for exercising their due process rights. But of course, it's not always the intelligent decision to request a jury trial. Those are two very different ideas (i.e., arrogant and entitled vs. an unwise decision).

I'm sure I'll disagree but I don't know what distinction you're trying to draw. What are the acceptable motivations for exercising your due process rights? And are there any other unacceptable motivations for exercising due process rights?

It's arrogant and entitled to exercise your due process rights including a jury trial? The guilty have due process rights. They aren't entitled or arrogant if they exercise those rights rather than pleading guilty.

That's a fair assessment. I'd term it a modified equity stake (as opposed to hybrid of an equity stake and a loan), in that instead of a percent of ownership, the investor receives a percent of future cash flow. I suppose that could be considered a characteristic of a loan, however.

I don't think it's a loan. It's an equity stake. The equity stake could be worth $0 in 10 years or potentially could be worth a few billion. The investor invests cash in exchange for a percent of future earnings. But there is no principal or interest or any of the characteristics of a traditional loan.

The clear solution to mass incarceration is more incarceration. Imprison everyone!

Poors and browns get worse [sentences] for the same [bribing their way into college] or less [half bribes?] every day? It seems like that should be part of the storylines (i.e., that poors and browns are also bribing exam proctors and college coaches and admission counselors and receiving harsher sentences on a daily basis). Media is really missing a big part of the story.

Look at the explanation in the article I posted above. The betting line was approximately 4.5 points different when Durant was in vs when he was out. The Thunder (I know the article is a couple years old) were 29-35-1 ATS with Durant out. And the Thunder were 56-57-4 ATS with Durant in. So they were close to the same against the spread, regardless of whether he was in or out. That shows that the 4.5 point difference was accurate.

Yes, correct (understanding that I'm basing that assertion on betting lines). I would note, if you read the article I linked, that some folks had Durant slight higher and worth 4-4.5 points. Below is an explanation from the site. In any event, the overarching point is that Owens is significant but no way is he worth 10 points, particularly when the O/U is 118, which is well well below most NBA games. I have Durant worth four to 4.5 points to the point spread and Dave Mason from BetOnline told me he has Durant valued at 3.5 to four points. When our OddsShark numbers came back, we found those numbers made sense. Here are the average OKC point spreads with Durant in and out of the lineup over the past two seasons: OUT: -1.54 IN: -5.88 (missed 65 games) So we’re looking at around a tangible 4.5 points to the spread. Even with the bigger numbers OKC proved to be a better bet with KD on the court. With Durant out of the lineup the last two seasons, the Thunder were 30-35 SU (straight up), 29-35-1 ATS (against the spread) and 33-29-3 OVER/UNDER (he missed 55 games in the 2014-15 season with injury). Just this past season he only missed 10 games and the Thunder were 3-7 SU, 3-7 ATS and 5-5 OVER/UNDER. With Durant in the lineup over the last two seasons, the Thunder were 81-36 SU, 56-57-4 ATS and 54-63 OVER/UNDER. That still didn’t make them a profitable bet but they were 49.5 percent against the spread with Durant in the lineup compared to 46.1 percent with him sidelined. What’s intriguing is that the totals seem to be a little inflated with Durant in the lineup. The UNDER hit at 53.8 percent with Durant in the lineup compared to 46.7 percent with him out. Might be something to watch next year along with inflated lines. I don’t think Durant can still be worth four or 4.5 points to the spread with all the talent running around for the Warriors. I do think the recreational bettor is going to be uncomfortable betting against the Warriors though so there may be some value in the early going. We’ll see.

Is your point that I should take the word of you and the mathematically challenged Slorch regarding how many points Owens is worth because Tech has handily covered 5 games so far in the tournament?

Show your math. Take this hypothetical. Warriors are favored by 10 over the Pelicans. Durant is worth 3.5-4. It's announced he's out before the game. What is the resulting line?

What? UVA is a 1 point favorite. If Owens is worth 10 points as you said, that would move the line to Tech -9. That's 10 points between the two teams. And yes, in general, I trust betting markets much more than fans who have watched a bunch of games.

I am not sure what I am misinterpreting. You think he COULD be worth 10 points. He's not worth 10 points. The line is not moving anywhere close to 10 points based on the health of Owens.

Meant to quote these as well. Owens is not worth 10 points. That's nuts.

You are way overvaluing individual players. I know this is not a perfect comparison but Kevin Durant is worth 3.5-4 points in an NBA game in Vegas. https://www.oddsshark.com/nba/what-kevin-durant-worth-point-spread And there are a lot more points scored in the NBA than college. 3.5-4 points out of 200 is less impact than 3.5-4 points out of 120. UVA is a 1 point favorite in Vegas. You think if Tariq Owens was healthy, Tech would be a 9 point favorite?

I don't think Owens is worth 5-10 points. That's really high. But I do think he's impactful and likely worth a few points.

So why is this kid claiming to be the missing kid? Super weird all around.

Is the pronunciation above saying to pronounce it latinks? I just assumed it was Latin_X. Sorry, I must have missed the day in school where we learned how to read pronunciation spellings.

Do you have any data for that assertion? Anecdotally, it seems like many of the well-known billionaires have become large philanthropists, maybe with the notable exception of Bezos. Bill Gates, Paul Allen, Oprah, Ken Langone, John Paulson, etc.

Hibbeler to short. No Reagan.

I'm flying in from Seattle to go to the Friday and Saturday games.

You could try some Arab fiction. I'm reading The Televangelist by Ibrahim Essa right now. I think it's my first foray into Arab fiction. I'm about halfway through and am really enjoying it. It's about a popular sheikh in Cairo with a television show (hence the title) who gets involved in two government issues, one of which is a young man connected to the President's son through marriage who attempts to convert to Christianity (Coptic Orthodox). The author delves succinctly and interestingly into a lot of Arab and Egyptian history, particularly religious history. It's assuredly not a replacement for a lengthy history of the Arab people, but it's a good read and I recommend it.