They were attempting to combat these evils and what they saw as increasing moral disintegration of society. But culpability for these unrepentant neighbors-- and I'm saying neighbors. This is neighbors both immediately around them, and also they are considering neighbors those in China-- they felt that their culpability rested on their shoulders,
for securing facilities that possess special nuclear material. What are the standards of culpability ? What are the mechanisms to hold people accountable?
And it's probably not what they told the press, exactly, right? So I think there's some culpability here where the press is fed spin and bullshit, basically, and then they act surprised later on when the bullshit in fact turns out to be bullshit.
is alleging both sides, they probably ought to be trying to make some determination as to whether or not you're offering some useful context for trying to better understand the circumstance, or whether you're trying to kind of obfuscate the situation and help someone escape culpability by saying, but what about what they're doing? And they do that online all the time, by the way. Of course. I think we see that we see that latter thing all the time. I think we really don't see quite enough of people trying to excavate some additional context related to something else or find this trend line
And I went to US Congress seminar on transition to democracy. It's up to the Pakistani justice system to exonerate or to declare culpability .
So Airbnb, for example. And I think that that's part of it is allowing individuals to have culpability for their own brand, which is to say themselves.
So I'm now persuaded that that is a paradigm shift in the implementation of switching systems for computing communications. I missed this, so this is my way of trying to escape too much culpability .
sentence to life. As we discuss in the book, when this evidence tends to come up in book it's never to say "I’m not guilty, let me off completely." It's always to reduce the level of culpability that the defendant is accused of. And that case made it all the way to the Supreme Court. I think it was in 2009, Clarence Thomas wrote the decision, so you know which way it's going. And you know he didn't really consider the scientific evidence and that's
But culpability for these unrepentant neighbors-- and I'm saying neighbors. This is neighbors both immediately around them, and also they are considering neighbors those in China-- they felt that their culpability rested on their shoulders, and it would equally determine their salvation.
but how much of a record trail is there that is accessible. I feel like that'd be a really good place to start, to surface that information and show the culpability of all the players in the tech industry, including all of us, by the way, because we are consumers of tech products.
to this defense lawyer and we were talking about just this: "Do you feel, when you defend somebody--. Say you defended a rapist and he gets out and he re-offends." Serial rapists are run of the mill, you know. And I asked him, “Would you feel any culpability , would you feel any guilt?" And he said, "No, not at all." And he said, "When you get to know these people, you start seeing them as people and you don't say 'Well, he's a rapist,'--you say, 'He's Joe and he comes from this or that background
That was a ridiculous exercise because I already had all the research and all the stuff was already available in the Denver District, the Denver County Records Department. So the fact that they stonewalled it, they obfuscated, it says to me, speaks volumes about what they feel their own culpability in the situation was. And that if they really felt, if they really felt that they were on solid ground, they would have cooperated and they'd have said, "Yeah, we were right because of x, y, and x and we still stand by it."