It all sounded good to me until the last sentence, which does not follow from all the others.
People have pursued their erotic and political passions no matter whether religion played a large part in their lives. In fact, religious leaders throughout history are rather notorious for doing so.
Also, Wikipedia very much disagrees with you about the authority of Administrative Law Judges. Quote:
The United States Supreme Court has recognized that the role of a federal administrative law judge is "functionally comparable" to that of an Article III judge.
There is nothing about only deciding "minor" issues.
He was an administrative judge (ie: not a real full judge, only allowed to rule on MINOR cases) and that his so called ruling was overturned less than a week later because he didn't have the authority to give the rule.
Citation? I've seen multiple articles about this judge's ruling but nothing about it being overturned.
I know the FAA appealed the ruling but having an appeal take "less than a week" is pretty much unheard of.
Sublime Text, which is a simple text editor, is a better IDE than any other IDE out there.
I've used Sublime Text, and if you can get past the awful name, it's pretty good.
But the reason I don't use it on a daily basis is because of its bizarre interface, which appears to be a combination of ideas from Emacs, TextMate, and Plan 9 From Outer Space.
I just want to repeat this point, but I should not have to: your pretense at being "offended" is not an excuse for your own errant behavior. You do not have a "right" to not be offended, but I do have certain rights.
The only reason I did nothing about this before was because my personal position was such that I had no practical way to pursue it.
Your "examples" are hilarious, and don't even support your point. Although some of them may appear to do so, on the surface. As usual, you bring things out of context and present them in the worst possible light. There is a name for that.
But to be more specific:
Then there are those who simply prefer to ignore the facts and treat it like some kind of giant male conspiracy. I think you can tell which side of that fence I am on.
You know nobody like this? I do. But the comment referred to a few individuals, not an entire gender. I said nothing about "women" in general here, and did no "stereotyping".
... for every "OMG I'm offended!" pseudo-feminist out there, there is another who really, really enjoys being slobbered over as a booth babe.
This is a statement of fact as demonstrated by impartial empirical statistics. It's isn't a "stereotype".
... men should take some responsibility for birth control (condoms or whatever), but to trick somebody in that manner and then try to hold them responsible is one of the most despicable acts I can imagine. In general I would call it worse than rape because, again in general, it will have longer and more profound, tangible effect....
This was a comment about those few women who (again, it does happen... I'd like to see you deny it) have tricked men into getting them pregnant. It wasn't a "stereotype" of any kind. It was a criticism of exactly those few immoral people who do that. Pardon me, but where is the "sexist stereotype"? Did I say or even imply that all women do this? (Obvious answer: no.) You might as well try to call me out for criticizing those few women who commit murder.
It's okay when Lonny Eachus recommends "Men On Strike" because at least he isn't pretending to be a woman telling "her" sisters that it ain't all mens' fault.
This is a book written by a woman psychologist about social phenomena. If you have a beef about "sexual stereotypes", you'll have to talk to (and refute) here. I doubt you can do either. As for the Twitter thing, I have already asked you: you think I don't follow people on Twitter? Where would you get such an idea?
My personal interpretation of how a woman should behave is irrelevant, because you're not a woman.
This is the most hilarious comment yet, because this was the exact excuse you gave for your previous comment: that I was promoting "sexual stereotypes" that "offended" you.
Yet again, you have taken my statements out of context, assigned your own interpretation to them, and tried to present your view as fact. I've had enough of your claims and distortions, which -- it appears to me -- is being done for no other reason than an attempt at character assassination. Which again I have tried to warn you about before, but you just don't get it.
I am done with this behavior of yours that I consider to be incessant and rather outrageous harassment, and worse. You should be aware that I am looking into the feasibility of getting records subpoenaed.
I seem to have had to keep repeating this endlessly on Slashdot, but a Federal NTSB judgehas already ruled that the FAA does not have lawful authority to regulate low-altitude models or drones, regardless of whether they are being used commercially.
The FAA has appealed the decision, and so far seems hell-bent on regulating as much as it can before it gets slapped down in higher court. Which it surely will... Congress simply hasn't given them legal authority to regulate such things. They're acting like the EPA has been recently, seemingly trying to greedily grab up all the usurped authority they can before the November elections.
I did not mean to imply that it was "invented by" the Obama administration. Gates has been pushing for something like this since the Bush days or even before. And as GP mentioned, "No Child Left Behind" had something to do with it too.
But Common Core as we know it now has been strongly supported and promoted from the beginning by the Obama Administration. Anyone who thinks otherwise hasn't been paying attention.
Actually Common Core was an initiative started by States, not the Federal Government. http://www.usnews.com/news/spe....
But absolutely agree with the rest of your post.
Actually, the Federal Government has been a lot more involved with Common Core than you think.
Among other things, people in the administration who were pushing Obama's "Race to the Top" initiative pressured States to adopt it and threatened loss of funding if they didn't.
There is also funding from DoE and other support from the Obama administration. Republicans tried to pinch it off, so far without much success.
There is propaganda on both sides, but here are some facts: Common Core was centrally planned, with cooperation and input from the Obama administration. It was not conceived or initiated by States on their own. It was adopted by individual States, but at the same time they were pressured to do so in order to receive Federal and private funds.
Set up aluminium plant that can absorb any surplus capacity.
They'd be far better off if they could figure out how to store the surplus.
Stored energy is the big answer to variable sources. And it doesn't have to be batteries. There are many ways to store energy. Potential energy in the form of gravity has so far been one of the most practical. Usually it has been large volumes of water pumped uphill to storage, which then runs back down during peak periods to generate more electricity. But one current project pumps water OUT of a large tower in the ocean, and allowing the water back in is what generates the electricity. It's still the same basic concept: stored potential energy.
I am also wondering where your evidence of "reinforcing sexist stereotypes" is. I didn't see that in any of the links you provided. (I did, however, find even more evidence of what I wrote above. Thanks for that.) I didn't see any comments of mine that had anything specifically to do with women or their behavior at all. One link does lead to a comment I made about the behavior of certain people, but it wasn't about their sexual orientation.
I am left to conclude that your rant is actually about something that is going on exclusively in your own mind, and your own personal interpretation of how a woman should behave.
Maybe it's something else, but that's how it looks from here. And why the hell should I care?
Wut. Visual Studio is light years ahead of any other IDE anywhere
Regardless of whether you are being serious or facetious, editor != IDE.
Lots of languages are primarily developed in "simple" text editors, which have a plugin or two for syntax highlighting and maybe a couple of other bells and whistles, but which are a far cry from a full-blown IDE.
The majority of Ruby programmers likely use TextMate, SublimeText, VIM, or similar. Emacs is used too but is probably not as common as those others.
But the editor space has become much more fragmented in the last few years. There was that JavaScript-based editor a couple of months ago, for example. (What was it called? Don't remember. I tried it and tossed it.) TextWrangler and others have entered that space and do okay, if not exactly taking the world by storm.
Please stop lying, and please try to find it in your heart to stop posing as a woman while reinforcing sexist female stereotypes.
This is such disingenuous bullshit that I hardly know where to begin. But I'll try:
First, point out where I told a lie. Please be specific. Calling me a liar without specific proof could be construed as libel. I've warned you about this before. (But of course, in order for that to be true it would also have to be about ME, not somebody else.)
Second, even if what you said here was true, how does that justify:
[A] repeatedly copying comments of mine out of context on your personal blog, and then "arguing" with them there, including demonstrated and deliberate distortions of my clear meaning, and false "interpretations" of my motivations for making those comments, for a period of years.
[B] Repeatedly, over a period of years, replying to (and possibly even modding) my comments via sock-puppet accounts, including masquerading as AC rather than using your established account. (Perhaps in order to give the illusion of support for your views? Just a guess.) I have told you this before, too: the Slashdot community considers that unacceptable behavior.
[D] Impersonating me here on Slashdot, by creating an account with a hacked name that looked, to the casual eye, exactly like my own name.
[E] Other OBSESSIVE behavior, including but not limited to the above, which has been far BEYOND "creepy" from where I sit.
You can be as "offended" as you like by my behavior (and other things you THINK I'm doing), but your behavior has been demonstrably (i.e., there are records) not just beyond the limits of social acceptability, but very possibly illegal.
So get stuffed. Before you try to moralize to others, you should start by looking in a goddamned mirror.
Note the court highlighted the distinction that being compelled to surrender information or evidence that can be used against you is not automatically a violation of Fourth Amendment right to avoid self-incrimination: the right only prevents testimonial self-incrimination; i.e. the right not to be compelled to testify as to one's own guilt or innocence of a crime. If you're forced to give fingerprints to the police, and they tie you to a crime scene, that is not testimonial self-incrimination and not a violation of one's rights under the Fourth Amendment.
You're getting your amendments confused. The self-incrimination thing is 5th, not 4th. Anyway...
Yes and no. The court highlighted that being compelled is not automatically a 5th Amendment violation. But the judge did not claim that it automatically isn't, either. Just that it's not a foregone conclusion.
Fingerprints and other collection of obvious material evidence is one thing, and generally covered by the 4th. But the whole point here -- the WHOLE point in this ruling -- is that the encryption key involved is not material evidence, but "a product of the mind", as the courts have phrased it in prior cases. Personal knowledge. If compelled, it is by definition "testimonial".
It all boils down to this. It can be stated in relatively few words:
The 5th Amendment protects against testimonial self-incrimination. But when testimony cannot be said to incriminate, the 5th Amendment does not apply and it can be compelled.
In this case, since the court already knew what was there, the defendant could not incriminate himself, because he was already "incriminated". This is actually a pretty rare circumstance. I've only seen I think 2 cases like this in the last 5 years or so. (There may have been more, that's just what I've read about.)
I am assuming the above was within the context of the same situation the original article articulated, and was offered as a possible defense for such an individual.
No. Those are principles of law, at least as it was taught to me by my professors. (But I am not a lawyer.) I will qualify [b], however: if you are doing it for the particular purpose of concealing a crime, there might well be a law against it.
BUT... I think there was a misunderstanding here.
*IF*, as in this particular case, the incriminating evidence were already known, then yes, you could be subject to obstruction (or likely contempt) charges.
When I wrote my prior comment, I thought you were saying that the judge could order the decryption in spite of the 5th Amendment because of the obstruction issue. When in fact the 5th Amendment issue trumps the obstruction. In this case, however, it turned out that the 5th Amendment protection did not legitimately apply.
It might be a romantic coincidence that Jane and Lonny Eachus are both Sky Dragon Slayers, 9/11 Truthers, and Obama Birthers who deny the existence of dark matter/energy and dislike the word homophobe. Jane isn't a lesbian, Lonny Eachus isn't gay, and both Jane and Lonny Eachus have ferrets and talk about asshole diameter. So if you two lovebirds aren't already hooking up, you really should!
Really? I have a ferret?
But leaving that aside... I have warned you before: you really ought to be careful what you say about people, because if it turns out that you have made a mistake, you could be creating all kinds of trouble for yourself.
But maybe more to the point, I have said this before, too: I have to wonder why you care. This behavior seems a bit beyond normal, and well into obsession to me. I mean, I've found out that you have been writing about me and my Slashdot comments FOR YEARS.
I don't think very many people here would consider that normal.
I'm just guessing here, but wouldn't a private corporation be exempt from the qualified immunity law enforcement has in carrying out their duties? That's going to hurt.
Yes, I think so, but I think it goes further than that. (Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer.) Let's leave immunity out of it just for the moment.
What gives them authority in the first place? I mean, certainly it varies among states, but in what state does a corporation have legal authority to raid homes? Making a citizen's arrest when witnessing a crime is one thing. Pointing guns and breaking down doors, regardless of whether the police have a warrant, is very, very different.
I know very damned well that would never fly in my state. Anybody who tried it would end up in prison with little delay. And very likely so would the officers who organized and participated.
Again, don't feel bad. I've had someone "stalking" my comments for years now. He also revealed himself to have been using sock-puppet accounts to comment (even after I called him out on it several times!). And even that is not all. He tried to impersonate me here on Slashdot. I got that nipped in the bud though.
And just so you get the point: Pew linked to a CDC page which in turn said they had gotten their data from yet a third source, and as it turns out I'd seen that data from that third source before.
So I repeat: third-hand evidence filtered through parties that are known to lack credibility, especially in these particular topics, is a pretty shitty standard of evidence to ask me to accept.
And YOU should accept that, because it's right in front of your face.
Accept that I don't look like an asshat from your own words you admit to not looking into this:
Not even close. What I said was (paraphrase): "Don't expect me to believe from the evidence you've shown me.
YOU, then, basically called me an asshat for not looking it up. Well, guess what? I have. That still doesn't change the fact that the evidence GP gave me was not very credible.
And this completes the point, you said you wouldn't accept Pew's numbers based on the "CDC said so" but you claim that you would have to see the CDCs raw numbers but you also have claimed to have been in the know on this for roughly 30 years.... Um, what?
And this doesn't complete any point, because the point remains that YOU were being an asshat for calling me out for something I never said. So just to be clear: that isn't what I said. I said, in plain English, that I would not accept it based on "Pew said CDC said..."
Face it, you came along to spread some kind of skepticism but brought nothing to the table.
What I said was that it wasn't a good enough standard of evidence. For ME. If you want to accept it, go right ahead, but get off my ass.
The data has been provided
THIRD-HAND, by sources that lacked credibility. Which I pointed out. I am not obligated to follow links to links to links before I make that observation.
Wow! Links to this survey were posted on Twitter last night, and somebody actually discussed it? Amazing!
Is it coincidence that 2 people who are science-minded might come to the same conclusions when shown this same information? It's not possible that I follow some of the same people on Twitter that you do?
So, tell me: do you think it was conspiracy that Lois Lerner's hard drive was "recycled"? Or was it "coincidence"?
Is it "conspiracy" that USHCN data over the years has progressively shown the past to get colder and recent years warmer than the actual historical station data says? Or are these progressive adjustments mere "coincidence"?
I am curious about your interpretation of what is coincidence and what isn't.
That's because of this! Without regulations, you only see apparent cost. Then someone sees the negatives for that particular activity and (a) estimates cost for recovering from that negative (b) tacks on additional cost to discourage such activity.
I'll grant that you have a point, but I'm not convinced the positives have actually made up for the negatives.
I'm not even going to bother reading the rest of your post.
Don't worry about it. This is pretty much the guy's typical mode of argument:
First, he will spout mainstream (usually but not always "liberal") news propaganda as fact. Then if you disagree with him, he will then insult you, and link to the first things he finds on Google (or maybe it's Bing) that he thinks support his point.
Then insult you again.
And don't you dare swear at him or insult him back. Because then you're being "infantile".
What we need to do is put it to him in a way that will verify how true he actually believes he is being. Something along the lines of:
I think this is a better idea: let him do it for a while, then throw the book at him for every Federal privacy and HIPAA violation they have committed.
Slashdot Mirror
someone mod this AC up
It all sounded good to me until the last sentence, which does not follow from all the others.
People have pursued their erotic and political passions no matter whether religion played a large part in their lives. In fact, religious leaders throughout history are rather notorious for doing so.
The United States Supreme Court has recognized that the role of a federal administrative law judge is "functionally comparable" to that of an Article III judge.
There is nothing about only deciding "minor" issues.
He was an administrative judge (ie: not a real full judge, only allowed to rule on MINOR cases) and that his so called ruling was overturned less than a week later because he didn't have the authority to give the rule.
Citation? I've seen multiple articles about this judge's ruling but nothing about it being overturned.
I know the FAA appealed the ruling but having an appeal take "less than a week" is pretty much unheard of.
Sublime Text, which is a simple text editor, is a better IDE than any other IDE out there.
I've used Sublime Text, and if you can get past the awful name, it's pretty good.
But the reason I don't use it on a daily basis is because of its bizarre interface, which appears to be a combination of ideas from Emacs, TextMate, and Plan 9 From Outer Space.
s/refute here/refute her
I just want to repeat this point, but I should not have to: your pretense at being "offended" is not an excuse for your own errant behavior. You do not have a "right" to not be offended, but I do have certain rights.
The only reason I did nothing about this before was because my personal position was such that I had no practical way to pursue it.
But that has changed now.
See your entire posting history.
Your "examples" are hilarious, and don't even support your point. Although some of them may appear to do so, on the surface. As usual, you bring things out of context and present them in the worst possible light. There is a name for that.
But to be more specific:
Then there are those who simply prefer to ignore the facts and treat it like some kind of giant male conspiracy. I think you can tell which side of that fence I am on.
You know nobody like this? I do. But the comment referred to a few individuals, not an entire gender. I said nothing about "women" in general here, and did no "stereotyping".
... for every "OMG I'm offended!" pseudo-feminist out there, there is another who really, really enjoys being slobbered over as a booth babe.
This is a statement of fact as demonstrated by impartial empirical statistics. It's isn't a "stereotype".
... men should take some responsibility for birth control (condoms or whatever), but to trick somebody in that manner and then try to hold them responsible is one of the most despicable acts I can imagine. In general I would call it worse than rape because, again in general, it will have longer and more profound, tangible effect. ...
This was a comment about those few women who (again, it does happen... I'd like to see you deny it) have tricked men into getting them pregnant. It wasn't a "stereotype" of any kind. It was a criticism of exactly those few immoral people who do that. Pardon me, but where is the "sexist stereotype"? Did I say or even imply that all women do this? (Obvious answer: no.) You might as well try to call me out for criticizing those few women who commit murder.
It's okay when Lonny Eachus recommends "Men On Strike" because at least he isn't pretending to be a woman telling "her" sisters that it ain't all mens' fault.
This is a book written by a woman psychologist about social phenomena. If you have a beef about "sexual stereotypes", you'll have to talk to (and refute) here. I doubt you can do either. As for the Twitter thing, I have already asked you: you think I don't follow people on Twitter? Where would you get such an idea?
My personal interpretation of how a woman should behave is irrelevant, because you're not a woman.
This is the most hilarious comment yet, because this was the exact excuse you gave for your previous comment: that I was promoting "sexual stereotypes" that "offended" you.
Yet again, you have taken my statements out of context, assigned your own interpretation to them, and tried to present your view as fact. I've had enough of your claims and distortions, which -- it appears to me -- is being done for no other reason than an attempt at character assassination. Which again I have tried to warn you about before, but you just don't get it.
I am done with this behavior of yours that I consider to be incessant and rather outrageous harassment, and worse. You should be aware that I am looking into the feasibility of getting records subpoenaed.
I seem to have had to keep repeating this endlessly on Slashdot, but a Federal NTSB judge has already ruled that the FAA does not have lawful authority to regulate low-altitude models or drones, regardless of whether they are being used commercially.
The FAA has appealed the decision, and so far seems hell-bent on regulating as much as it can before it gets slapped down in higher court. Which it surely will... Congress simply hasn't given them legal authority to regulate such things. They're acting like the EPA has been recently, seemingly trying to greedily grab up all the usurped authority they can before the November elections.
I did not mean to imply that it was "invented by" the Obama administration. Gates has been pushing for something like this since the Bush days or even before. And as GP mentioned, "No Child Left Behind" had something to do with it too.
But Common Core as we know it now has been strongly supported and promoted from the beginning by the Obama Administration. Anyone who thinks otherwise hasn't been paying attention.
Actually Common Core was an initiative started by States, not the Federal Government. http://www.usnews.com/news/spe....
But absolutely agree with the rest of your post.
Actually, the Federal Government has been a lot more involved with Common Core than you think.
Among other things, people in the administration who were pushing Obama's "Race to the Top" initiative pressured States to adopt it and threatened loss of funding if they didn't.
There is also funding from DoE and other support from the Obama administration. Republicans tried to pinch it off, so far without much success.
There is propaganda on both sides, but here are some facts: Common Core was centrally planned, with cooperation and input from the Obama administration. It was not conceived or initiated by States on their own. It was adopted by individual States, but at the same time they were pressured to do so in order to receive Federal and private funds.
Set up aluminium plant that can absorb any surplus capacity.
They'd be far better off if they could figure out how to store the surplus.
Stored energy is the big answer to variable sources. And it doesn't have to be batteries. There are many ways to store energy. Potential energy in the form of gravity has so far been one of the most practical. Usually it has been large volumes of water pumped uphill to storage, which then runs back down during peak periods to generate more electricity. But one current project pumps water OUT of a large tower in the ocean, and allowing the water back in is what generates the electricity. It's still the same basic concept: stored potential energy.
And by the way, I feel this needs to be said:
I am also wondering where your evidence of "reinforcing sexist stereotypes" is. I didn't see that in any of the links you provided. (I did, however, find even more evidence of what I wrote above. Thanks for that.) I didn't see any comments of mine that had anything specifically to do with women or their behavior at all. One link does lead to a comment I made about the behavior of certain people, but it wasn't about their sexual orientation.
I am left to conclude that your rant is actually about something that is going on exclusively in your own mind, and your own personal interpretation of how a woman should behave.
Maybe it's something else, but that's how it looks from here. And why the hell should I care?
Wut. Visual Studio is light years ahead of any other IDE anywhere
Regardless of whether you are being serious or facetious, editor != IDE.
Lots of languages are primarily developed in "simple" text editors, which have a plugin or two for syntax highlighting and maybe a couple of other bells and whistles, but which are a far cry from a full-blown IDE.
The majority of Ruby programmers likely use TextMate, SublimeText, VIM, or similar. Emacs is used too but is probably not as common as those others.
But the editor space has become much more fragmented in the last few years. There was that JavaScript-based editor a couple of months ago, for example. (What was it called? Don't remember. I tried it and tossed it.) TextWrangler and others have entered that space and do okay, if not exactly taking the world by storm.
Please stop lying, and please try to find it in your heart to stop posing as a woman while reinforcing sexist female stereotypes.
This is such disingenuous bullshit that I hardly know where to begin. But I'll try:
First, point out where I told a lie. Please be specific. Calling me a liar without specific proof could be construed as libel. I've warned you about this before. (But of course, in order for that to be true it would also have to be about ME, not somebody else.)
Second, even if what you said here was true, how does that justify:
[A] repeatedly copying comments of mine out of context on your personal blog, and then "arguing" with them there, including demonstrated and deliberate distortions of my clear meaning, and false "interpretations" of my motivations for making those comments, for a period of years.
[B] Repeatedly, over a period of years, replying to (and possibly even modding) my comments via sock-puppet accounts, including masquerading as AC rather than using your established account. (Perhaps in order to give the illusion of support for your views? Just a guess.) I have told you this before, too: the Slashdot community considers that unacceptable behavior.
[D] Impersonating me here on Slashdot, by creating an account with a hacked name that looked, to the casual eye, exactly like my own name.
[E] Other OBSESSIVE behavior, including but not limited to the above, which has been far BEYOND "creepy" from where I sit.
You can be as "offended" as you like by my behavior (and other things you THINK I'm doing), but your behavior has been demonstrably (i.e., there are records) not just beyond the limits of social acceptability, but very possibly illegal.
So get stuffed. Before you try to moralize to others, you should start by looking in a goddamned mirror.
Note the court highlighted the distinction that being compelled to surrender information or evidence that can be used against you is not automatically a violation of Fourth Amendment right to avoid self-incrimination: the right only prevents testimonial self-incrimination; i.e. the right not to be compelled to testify as to one's own guilt or innocence of a crime. If you're forced to give fingerprints to the police, and they tie you to a crime scene, that is not testimonial self-incrimination and not a violation of one's rights under the Fourth Amendment.
You're getting your amendments confused. The self-incrimination thing is 5th, not 4th. Anyway...
Yes and no. The court highlighted that being compelled is not automatically a 5th Amendment violation. But the judge did not claim that it automatically isn't, either. Just that it's not a foregone conclusion.
Fingerprints and other collection of obvious material evidence is one thing, and generally covered by the 4th. But the whole point here -- the WHOLE point in this ruling -- is that the encryption key involved is not material evidence, but "a product of the mind", as the courts have phrased it in prior cases. Personal knowledge. If compelled, it is by definition "testimonial".
It all boils down to this. It can be stated in relatively few words:
The 5th Amendment protects against testimonial self-incrimination. But when testimony cannot be said to incriminate, the 5th Amendment does not apply and it can be compelled.
In this case, since the court already knew what was there, the defendant could not incriminate himself, because he was already "incriminated". This is actually a pretty rare circumstance. I've only seen I think 2 cases like this in the last 5 years or so. (There may have been more, that's just what I've read about.)
I am assuming the above was within the context of the same situation the original article articulated, and was offered as a possible defense for such an individual.
No. Those are principles of law, at least as it was taught to me by my professors. (But I am not a lawyer.) I will qualify [b], however: if you are doing it for the particular purpose of concealing a crime, there might well be a law against it.
BUT... I think there was a misunderstanding here.
*IF*, as in this particular case, the incriminating evidence were already known, then yes, you could be subject to obstruction (or likely contempt) charges.
When I wrote my prior comment, I thought you were saying that the judge could order the decryption in spite of the 5th Amendment because of the obstruction issue. When in fact the 5th Amendment issue trumps the obstruction. In this case, however, it turned out that the 5th Amendment protection did not legitimately apply.
It might be a romantic coincidence that Jane and Lonny Eachus are both Sky Dragon Slayers, 9/11 Truthers, and Obama Birthers who deny the existence of dark matter/energy and dislike the word homophobe. Jane isn't a lesbian, Lonny Eachus isn't gay, and both Jane and Lonny Eachus have ferrets and talk about asshole diameter. So if you two lovebirds aren't already hooking up, you really should!
Really? I have a ferret?
But leaving that aside... I have warned you before: you really ought to be careful what you say about people, because if it turns out that you have made a mistake, you could be creating all kinds of trouble for yourself.
But maybe more to the point, I have said this before, too: I have to wonder why you care. This behavior seems a bit beyond normal, and well into obsession to me. I mean, I've found out that you have been writing about me and my Slashdot comments FOR YEARS.
I don't think very many people here would consider that normal.
I'm just guessing here, but wouldn't a private corporation be exempt from the qualified immunity law enforcement has in carrying out their duties? That's going to hurt.
Yes, I think so, but I think it goes further than that. (Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer.) Let's leave immunity out of it just for the moment.
What gives them authority in the first place? I mean, certainly it varies among states, but in what state does a corporation have legal authority to raid homes? Making a citizen's arrest when witnessing a crime is one thing. Pointing guns and breaking down doors, regardless of whether the police have a warrant, is very, very different.
I know very damned well that would never fly in my state. Anybody who tried it would end up in prison with little delay. And very likely so would the officers who organized and participated.
Again, don't feel bad. I've had someone "stalking" my comments for years now. He also revealed himself to have been using sock-puppet accounts to comment (even after I called him out on it several times!). And even that is not all. He tried to impersonate me here on Slashdot. I got that nipped in the bud though.
I'm just calmly keeping track of it all.
And just so you get the point: Pew linked to a CDC page which in turn said they had gotten their data from yet a third source, and as it turns out I'd seen that data from that third source before.
So I repeat: third-hand evidence filtered through parties that are known to lack credibility, especially in these particular topics, is a pretty shitty standard of evidence to ask me to accept.
And YOU should accept that, because it's right in front of your face.
Accept that I don't look like an asshat from your own words you admit to not looking into this:
Not even close. What I said was (paraphrase): "Don't expect me to believe from the evidence you've shown me.
YOU, then, basically called me an asshat for not looking it up. Well, guess what? I have. That still doesn't change the fact that the evidence GP gave me was not very credible.
And this completes the point, you said you wouldn't accept Pew's numbers based on the "CDC said so" but you claim that you would have to see the CDCs raw numbers but you also have claimed to have been in the know on this for roughly 30 years.... Um, what?
And this doesn't complete any point, because the point remains that YOU were being an asshat for calling me out for something I never said. So just to be clear: that isn't what I said. I said, in plain English, that I would not accept it based on "Pew said CDC said..."
Face it, you came along to spread some kind of skepticism but brought nothing to the table.
What I said was that it wasn't a good enough standard of evidence. For ME. If you want to accept it, go right ahead, but get off my ass.
The data has been provided
THIRD-HAND, by sources that lacked credibility. Which I pointed out. I am not obligated to follow links to links to links before I make that observation.
Wow! Links to this survey were posted on Twitter last night, and somebody actually discussed it? Amazing!
Is it coincidence that 2 people who are science-minded might come to the same conclusions when shown this same information? It's not possible that I follow some of the same people on Twitter that you do?
So, tell me: do you think it was conspiracy that Lois Lerner's hard drive was "recycled"? Or was it "coincidence"?
Is it "conspiracy" that USHCN data over the years has progressively shown the past to get colder and recent years warmer than the actual historical station data says? Or are these progressive adjustments mere "coincidence"?
I am curious about your interpretation of what is coincidence and what isn't.
That's because of this! Without regulations, you only see apparent cost. Then someone sees the negatives for that particular activity and (a) estimates cost for recovering from that negative (b) tacks on additional cost to discourage such activity.
I'll grant that you have a point, but I'm not convinced the positives have actually made up for the negatives.
I'm not even going to bother reading the rest of your post.
Don't worry about it. This is pretty much the guy's typical mode of argument:
First, he will spout mainstream (usually but not always "liberal") news propaganda as fact. Then if you disagree with him, he will then insult you, and link to the first things he finds on Google (or maybe it's Bing) that he thinks support his point.
Then insult you again.
And don't you dare swear at him or insult him back. Because then you're being "infantile".
He's done it to me about 100 times now.
Maybe reading and understanding what my post actually said would have saved YOU from looking like an asshat.
I've been following what CDC has been saying about these subjects since the 1980s.
What we need to do is put it to him in a way that will verify how true he actually believes he is being. Something along the lines of:
I think this is a better idea: let him do it for a while, then throw the book at him for every Federal privacy and HIPAA violation they have committed.