So you are saying I logged into UCLA's system and got some else's transcript?
No, I would not accuse you of being that clever.
A transcript that shows someone else who graduated from UCLA with a BS in computer science on June 18, 2014?
You certainly have not presented a convincing case for you being a CSci graduate from UCLA.
Not only that, but access to a ucla.edu email account?
Considering how much you were willing to openly lie earlier in this discussion, I don't see any reason to see that statement as credible either.
Even if the transcript you claim to have does exist, there would be no way to verify it to be from you - aside from the fact that if it has passing statistics grades it most certainly is not yours. It could very likely be from someone else you know who actually holds such a degree. Even angry liars such as yourself manage to make friends at some points in their life.
Superfish should be all the average slashdotter needs to know about this company
Now you need to stop. The average slashdotter already knows that the Lenovo / superfish problem never included any ThinkPad laptops, period. It included basically every non-ThinkPad laptop made by Lenovo but no ThinPad ever shipped with superfish installed.
Yeah, sure you did. You completely failed at one of the most fundamental statistical tests and you expect us to believe that you passed stat at UCLA. Nope, does not add up. You also fell on your face in simple matters of logic in this discussion and you expect us to believe that you passed logic at that school as well. Also does not add up.
You are most likely trying to play chicken, or you have a document that is not your own. You sure as hell did not pass the requisite coursework at UCLA for a CSci degree.
Not a single republican in congress that I know of ever introduced legislation that looked like the ACA, and not a single republican voted for the passage of the ACA as written.
I encourage you to look at all the various "Obamacare alternative" plans that have been proposed by republicans in the past several years. The overwhelming majority of they keep over 90% of the functionality of the ACA.
Then look at who is lining the pockets of our current batch of congress-critters. There is one industry in particular that owns a large number of politicians from both parties, and that is the insurance industry. There was absolutely no way that they were going to be left out on any "health care reform" bill. When 2010 came around and it was time for a bill to be passed, they leaned on the democrats only because that was who was in power. We would have had functionally the same bill had it been GOP control of both houses and 1600 Pennsylvania, or some mix between the three. It just so happened that it was democrats all the way in 2010 and Obama knew that his legacy was on the line.
So ultimately the only things that mattered when it came time to produce a bill were paying the piper and cementing a legacy for the POTUS. This is why we ended up with this shitty bill that helps an industry that has been notorious for abusing customers for decades, while giving the voting public almost nothing that they asked for.
Your refusal to accept facts that have been posted on slashdot previously is not my fault. You've shown you can use a search engine enough to fabricate a backstory for yourself, why can't you use it to look up information that pertains to this discussion?
I am disputing that your claims and opinions are actually facts. I even gave reasons for why I disputed them, which you had no response to.
Your reasons were rooted only in your faith. I referred you to other articles that were here on slashdot; it is not my fault that you cannot be bothered to read them. But when you claim that they are fantasy you only make yourself look ever more ridiculous.
It is faith because it is ignoring the enormous body of facts that counters the assumptions that your faith require. You are using faith because there is information out there that is well-known and contrary to your beliefs, but you are choosing to ignore those facts.
You don't even know what I believe
You have stated your beliefs - particularly the ones that relate to this topic (which you have since held no qualms against abandoning completely) - very plainly. You wear your faith on your sleeve, son.
You have already provided a solid argument that you did not complete a CSci degree at UCLA. I don't need to reinforce it when your own writing makes it clear.
You've made a really solid argument that you are almost certainly not a software engineer, based on several things (including the fact that you feel it necessary to lie about [amongst other things] your educational background).
I love how you keep digging yourself a hole on this point.
That is a very strange way to acknowledge someone else delivering an argument based on facts that you provided yourself. But just keep on lying if you feel it somehow makes you look less ridiculous (protip - it doesn't).
You already provided me with some doozies just in this discussion. I really don't give a shit what lies you have spouted out in other discussions, I have more interesting things to do than that.
So you refuse to even look at evidence that is presented to you? And you just assume it must be lies? Sounds like faith to me.
That is one of the more absurd things you have written in this thread - and that is saying a lot. Go back and look at what you just wrote, and what you wrote it in reply to. See how they don't connect? You are providing yet more evidence that you do not have a college degree from a reputable institution. You showed that you don't understand statistics, and now you have shown again that you don't understand logic.
But go ahead, keep lying about yourself, and keep insulting me. That seems to be working out really, really, well for you so far.
why else would they have written and passed the largest corporate handout in the history of government?
I am curious about this claim and the numbers attached to it compared to prior corporate handouts by the federal government.
In terms of corporate handouts, how could you possibly surpass making every living American an obligate consumer of a for-profit industry? Such a handout has never been done before. For the overwhelming majority of Americans the bill offers no alternative, either - most of us couldn't switch to Medicaid / Medicare even if we wanted to.
Even when the auto insurance industry fed at the trough and all vehicle drivers were forced to purchase auto insurance, there were alternatives for people - they could not drive and find other forms of transportation. But we have no way around this bill that forces everyone to have health insurance.
Just because the government isn't handing out free money directly (as they did with the Wall Street bailouts) to the beneficiary, doesn't make it less of a giant handout. The government is still making sure that money is going to the insurance industry. This is really not a surprise though when one considers how many politicians - of both parties - are raking in big campaign contributions from the insurance industry. This bill was just the insurance industry coming to collect for their investment.
But I was not talking about Scalia, but rather Roberts.
Ooops, my mistake. I apologize. Being as Scalia wrote the bit for the dissent, and is getting the most attention in comments here right now, I somehow saw Roberts and saw Scalia. Indeed I was off topic to bring him up by name.
Also, unlike most of them, he has legal background (mildly speaking) so the reading would've been much simpler for him.
I don't easily see any references for the current class of congress-critters, but in the 112th congress more than a third of the total members listed lawyer as their primary occupation. Considering the embarrassing rate at which we reelect people to congress, the number hasn't likely changed much. While I don't dispute the legal experience of Scalia or Roberts, there are plenty of members of congress who are well versed in the law as well.
Basically, those 3 are some of the worst justices that America has had.
I agree with that part, for sure. Scalia in particular is not just a hack but also has a huge ego to go with it. He is himself an argument for not making these lifetime appointments.
I would not be surprised to see 1 or more of these were on the take.
I would argue it is actually most likely the opposite. The ACA was written by a bunch of congresspeople who were on the take (why else would they have written and passed the largest corporate handout in the history of government?). I expect this retaliation from Scalia and friends is their expression of anger that they were not given a cut in the action.
Not one Congressman has read the law in full â" not before it was passed, not after. It is too long and too complicated.
If you don't believe that any congressperson has read it, do you then believe Scalia in his dissent when he says that he has read it?
the reader of the whole Act will
come across a number of provisions beyond Â36B that refer
This comes from page 5 of Scalia's dissent. Do you believe that he somehow found time to read the entire document in the time they had between arguments and writing of the judgement, even when they had other cases to decide on as well?
If SCOTUS can twist these words what stops them from twisting ANY words?
Except that if "State", only means individual states, then many of the constitutional amendments - including the second - fall apart on the federal level.
Even for Scalia - who has a reputation of holding no punches - this is intriguing stuff in his dissent (which is nearly as long as the verdict itself - pages 27 to 47 of 47 total are all his):
That is
of course quite absurd, and
the Court's 21 pages of explanation make it no less so.
You would think the answer would
be obviousâ"so obvious there would hardly be a need for
the Supreme Court to hear a case about it.
I particularly enjoy seeing him jump on the conspiracy bandwagon with this tasty morsel:
But normal rules of interpretation seem always to
yield to the overriding principle of the present Court: The
Affordable Care Act must be saved.
(Understatement, thy name is an opinion on the Afford-
able Care Act!)
This little circular snippet is fun as well:
Who would ever have dreamt
that âoeExchange established
by the Stateâ means âoeExchange established by the State
or
the Federal Government
â?
Considering he is a known fan of constitutional amendments where "state" means "federal government". Of course, here it doesn't matter because.... well, whatever.
The Court's next bit of interpretive jiggery-pokery
For its next defense of the indefensible
Well, it is good to know that he clearly didn't have any strong opinions on the matter before the case made it to the bench. After all, a predetermined judiciary is what justice is all about in this country, is it not? I would say that he was posturing himself for a new career with Fox News, but there is no good reason for him to do that, being as he already has a job for life.
I started by posting a fact-based argument that filters do not improve the overall situation in regards to spam.
I can;t think of a single thing you said that even resembles something close to a fact. Unsubstantiated claims and opinions don't count.
Your refusal to accept facts that have been posted on slashdot previously is not my fault. You've shown you can use a search engine enough to fabricate a backstory for yourself, why can't you use it to look up information that pertains to this discussion?
I responded by challenging your faith-based argument, and you took it personally. You eventually allowed your end of the discussion to devolve into personal insults and complete lies.
Despite informing you that I was actually initially quite skeptical of the effectiveness of filters after using many that were ineffective, I was eventually convinced of their effectiveness by using them (i.e. actual empirical evidence of *improved* effectiveness). I'm not sure why you think this is "faith".
It is faith because it is ignoring the enormous body of facts that counters the assumptions that your faith require. You are using faith because there is information out there that is well-known and contrary to your beliefs, but you are choosing to ignore those facts.
Which again, is your problem and not mine.
The plain fact that you take your faith so personally - indeed so personally that you feel justified in insulting me personally when I challenge your faith - suggests that perhaps you went to a different school in Los Angeles. Did you perhaps go to BIOLA instead of UCLA? That could explain your demonstrated lack of knowledge on statistics and logic, as well as how tightly you hold on to your faith.
I don't take anything on the internet personally. I don;t really know anything about BIOLA, so I am incapable of being offended by this comment
That was not an insult. That was an hypothesis based on the facts that you have provided us - such as the fact that you do not understand even the most basic and fundamental aspects of statistics.
It is still nice to see how highly you apparently regard my alma mater.
I have no idea which school you went to. You present a very strong argument that you did not complete a CSci degree at UCLA, however.
I'll just say I'm an atheist to be clear.
You need to look up that word. An atheist is someone with no faith. You have clearly demonstrated faith in this argument. Just because it is not faith in an Abrahamic deity does not mean it is not faith.
If *anything* is a fact it is that spam filters have "improved" and are effective (not 100% effective).
If you could bother yourself to actually read what I have written here (you have spent plenty of time writing here it appears, yet very little time reading) you would know how far off you are on that statement.
I can't even think of a more reasonable statement than this. It takes a real zealot to say things like "Spam filters are not and *never* will be effective."
You should indeed be well versed on zealousness. Unfortunately your faith seems to have completely blinded you to how to identify it.
Do you still want to challenge that I graduated from UCLA with a CS degree in 2004?
You have already provided a solid argument that you did not complete a CSci degree at UCLA. I don't need to reinforce it when your own writing makes it clear.
Do you still want to challenge that I am a software engineer?
You've made a really solid argument that you are almost certainly not a software engineer, based on several things (including the fact that you feel it necessary to lie
Let's review how you have fallen on your face repeatedly in this discussion, shall we?
I started by posting a fact-based argument that filters do not improve the overall situation in regards to spam.
You replied with a faith-based argument that you feel filters are great and will bring about an eventual end to spam.
I responded by challenging your faith-based argument, and you took it personally. You eventually allowed your end of the discussion to devolve into personal insults and complete lies.
The plain fact that you take your faith so personally - indeed so personally that you feel justified in insulting me personally when I challenge your faith - suggests that perhaps you went to a different school in Los Angeles. Did you perhaps go to BIOLA instead of UCLA? That could explain your demonstrated lack of knowledge on statistics and logic, as well as how tightly you hold on to your faith.
The biggest problem with that hypothesis though is why you would feel justified in lying about that. Really, that is not a very Christian thing to do. Furthermore, slashdot has an overwhelming Christian majority in the discussions, so you would be in comfortable company if you were to come out and say that you went to a 4-year bible camp.
But go ahead, keep insulting me. It is clear that you abandoned the discussion some time ago. We could have discussed the topic of this thread but when your faith was challenged you took it personally instead of actually discussing the matter. Few people ever learn anything by using that tactic.
If people with an irrational belief demand that others do more or less onerous things for their belief, that's a problem. In this case, the irrational woman is loudly attempting to force storekeepers into changing their lighting to accommodate her delusions.
I will admit I did not read that far in to the article; I read the summary and figured it was more front page clickbait. If this woman is indeed trying to force other people to do things for no good reason I would tell her she can go shop somewhere else. If someone from the town agrees that the lights are a problem and wants to open a new store with different lights, that's fine too but I don't see their freedom to ban WiFi in their town as being something that extends to being able to dictate how others in town do their business on a level as fundamental as lighting fixtures.
Considering how poorly files move between different versions of Office for the same platform (and some times even between the same version for the same platform!)
Can you give me a concrete example that is easily reproducible or would affect a majority of users?
I have personally lost files many times in office when I took a file from one PC to another, even when they are running the same version. Powerpoint is the worst offender, but I have lost Word documents as well. Recently my boss sent me a Powerpoint presentation that he made in Powerpoint for Mac and I had to deliver it in the latest version of Powerpoint for windows at a departmental seminar; I ended up with the distinction of being the first person to crash Powerpoint that day.
That distinction might not have been so awful had I not been the first presenter of the morning.
Your allegation of this being a "troll" is just silly. People lose files this way all the time. I can't even tell you how many presentations I've had destroyed by this. I don't know how you want me to give a "concrete example" but if you ask anyone who has used powerpoint or word for more than a couple years - particularly anyone who has used it across multiple versions or platforms - you're bound to not need to ask long before you find someone else who has had their files eat shit.
Governments and any other powerful entities of the world: fuck you all, go fuck yourselves.com
Are you off your meds? ICANN is independent and doesn't give a crap what any government wants or demands (at least, without a warrant). This has nothing to do with any government or powerful non-profit / not-for-profit entity. Indeed, they will rule in favor of anoymized registration precisely to make sure that more registration money is coming in for themselves and for their lower-level registrar buddies.
associated with commercial activities and which are used for online financial transactions.
Is your personal webpage involved in such activities? If not, it would be exempt. No worries though, ICANN knows they will make more money if they do allow anonymous registrations to continue, hence they will. This is just ICANN trying to get some publicity - after all, all press is good press, right?
That said
random asshole with a grudge to mail you elephant shit. or, you know, threaten your family, stalk your pets, whatever.
Happens so rarely it is pretty much a non-issue. Out of how many hundreds of millions of registered domains, such things have happened how many dozens of times? These deranged people could have found other ways to harass their targets in meatspace had the registration data been anonymized.
ICANN has been pro-profit for some time now. They make more money by allowing registrars to sell anonymized domains than if they do not. The privacy question is just window dressing.
In the end, though, it doesn't make much of a difference. I used to take the time to do WHOIS lookups on particularly egregious spamvertised domains (specifically ones selling counterfeit or contraband products) and contact their registrars and hosting providers. Did it make a difference? No. I even found that specific registrars were notably complacent and willing to do business with the characters behind such operations, so I reported said registrars to ICANN. Did ICANN do anything? No.
I also pointed out to ICANN that selling gTLDs would be a bad idea as it opened the floodgates to more such doings. Did they care? No.
In other words, if you are concerned that ICANN might start to prohibit anonymized registration, don't be. They are just trying to drum up some PR to make it look like they care about more than their bottom line. It will all pass soon.
Why do you feel the need to try to make up for your failings by lying about your past? You would have been much better off just admitting your giant statistical failure from a few comments ago and moving on. Now you are making up more nonsense and cursing at me to try to seal the deal.
Listen kid, you are way out of your league here. Digging in your heels won't help your situation. We get that you are too emotionally fragile to admit to being wrong. If you want to just walk away at this point and lick your wounds that is fine, the probability of anyone else seeing you throwing a fit and lying like crazy this deep in this thread is exceptionally low. It is clear you have decided some time ago that you don't want to learn anything from this discussion.
Congrats though on suddenly deciding to use google to try to support your argument - even though it is not in any way attached to the discussion. Maybe some day you will use it to acquire knowledge that is important to the topic of this discussion.
Looking a little further we see that Math 170A is Probability Theory. If you had completed even one semester of statistics or probability you would not have committed that epic statistical failure that you so proudly displayed a few comments ago.
Care to try selling us on a different lie instead?
Oooh, so clever you insults are. Your claims of your own accomplishments however don't hold water as nobody would graduate from a reputable school with a BS in computer science without a working understanding of logic or statistics. You very plainly demonstrated that you don't understand either, hence I am being entirely too generous to label your claim of educational credentials as merely questionable.
Considering how poorly files move between different versions of Office for the same platform (and some times even between the same version for the same platform!) I look forward to now being able to trash my files on the go. Thank you Microsoft, I have been wishing for some time that you would find a way to make my files even more fragile yet.
There is nothing I can do to prove to you that I am proficient at computer science, so I'm not going to try.
You have demonstrated yourself to not understand statistics or logic. You have also shown that you don't understand how to use search engines effectively. It is therefore a huge stretch to expect you to be a competent computer science professional.
Furthermore you claimed to be doing that for "10 years", yet you have had a slashdot account for less than 3. While indeed neither requires the other it is highly unlikely that a computer science "professional" would have only found this site after working for 7 years (by which point this site was already well into its decline).
In other words, there is plenty of evidence here against you being a computer science professional, and none whatsoever here in favor of it.
I would expect the Amish to have to receive non-interfering RF. And that's the point, isn't it? These people are claming to be sensitive to things even the radio observatory isn't bothered by, because it's below the level of the background noise.
If they choose to believe that non-interfering RF is causing them great harm, what is the harm in allowing them to hold that belief? It appears they are only harming themselves in so doing; outsiders can choose to visit other towns instead. Make no mistake that I don't agree with their ideas of Wi-Fi causing harm to humans, but I also don't see how their idea hurts anyone outside their own group.
Oh, no. Never base your religion on something that can be conclusively disproven by science.
Isn't that generally how religions grow, by touting something that is disproven? Hell the religion with the fastest growth rate in the US - in terms of number of new members relative to their total number of existing members - is almost certainly the one that counters reality the most strongly.
If these "electrosensitive" people could find a leader willing to post lots of youtube videos (which would likely be tricky if they think that the requisite technology for making such videos harms them) they could likely see the same kind of huge growth.
But again, why does it matter? If they want to shut themselves off from the outside world, why should the outside world care? They still pay their taxes, they still send their kids to school. They don't seem to be breaking any laws.
Slashdot Mirror
So you are saying I logged into UCLA's system and got some else's transcript?
No, I would not accuse you of being that clever.
A transcript that shows someone else who graduated from UCLA with a BS in computer science on June 18, 2014?
You certainly have not presented a convincing case for you being a CSci graduate from UCLA.
Not only that, but access to a ucla.edu email account?
Considering how much you were willing to openly lie earlier in this discussion, I don't see any reason to see that statement as credible either.
Even if the transcript you claim to have does exist, there would be no way to verify it to be from you - aside from the fact that if it has passing statistics grades it most certainly is not yours. It could very likely be from someone else you know who actually holds such a degree. Even angry liars such as yourself manage to make friends at some points in their life.
Superfish should be all the average slashdotter needs to know about this company
Now you need to stop. The average slashdotter already knows that the Lenovo / superfish problem never included any ThinkPad laptops, period. It included basically every non-ThinkPad laptop made by Lenovo but no ThinPad ever shipped with superfish installed.
Yeah, sure you did. You completely failed at one of the most fundamental statistical tests and you expect us to believe that you passed stat at UCLA. Nope, does not add up. You also fell on your face in simple matters of logic in this discussion and you expect us to believe that you passed logic at that school as well. Also does not add up.
You are most likely trying to play chicken, or you have a document that is not your own. You sure as hell did not pass the requisite coursework at UCLA for a CSci degree.
Not a single republican in congress that I know of ever introduced legislation that looked like the ACA, and not a single republican voted for the passage of the ACA as written.
I encourage you to look at all the various "Obamacare alternative" plans that have been proposed by republicans in the past several years. The overwhelming majority of they keep over 90% of the functionality of the ACA.
Then look at who is lining the pockets of our current batch of congress-critters. There is one industry in particular that owns a large number of politicians from both parties, and that is the insurance industry. There was absolutely no way that they were going to be left out on any "health care reform" bill. When 2010 came around and it was time for a bill to be passed, they leaned on the democrats only because that was who was in power. We would have had functionally the same bill had it been GOP control of both houses and 1600 Pennsylvania, or some mix between the three. It just so happened that it was democrats all the way in 2010 and Obama knew that his legacy was on the line.
So ultimately the only things that mattered when it came time to produce a bill were paying the piper and cementing a legacy for the POTUS. This is why we ended up with this shitty bill that helps an industry that has been notorious for abusing customers for decades, while giving the voting public almost nothing that they asked for.
Your refusal to accept facts that have been posted on slashdot previously is not my fault. You've shown you can use a search engine enough to fabricate a backstory for yourself, why can't you use it to look up information that pertains to this discussion?
I am disputing that your claims and opinions are actually facts. I even gave reasons for why I disputed them, which you had no response to.
Your reasons were rooted only in your faith. I referred you to other articles that were here on slashdot; it is not my fault that you cannot be bothered to read them. But when you claim that they are fantasy you only make yourself look ever more ridiculous.
It is faith because it is ignoring the enormous body of facts that counters the assumptions that your faith require. You are using faith because there is information out there that is well-known and contrary to your beliefs, but you are choosing to ignore those facts.
You don't even know what I believe
You have stated your beliefs - particularly the ones that relate to this topic (which you have since held no qualms against abandoning completely) - very plainly. You wear your faith on your sleeve, son.
You have already provided a solid argument that you did not complete a CSci degree at UCLA. I don't need to reinforce it when your own writing makes it clear.
You've made a really solid argument that you are almost certainly not a software engineer, based on several things (including the fact that you feel it necessary to lie about [amongst other things] your educational background).
I love how you keep digging yourself a hole on this point.
That is a very strange way to acknowledge someone else delivering an argument based on facts that you provided yourself. But just keep on lying if you feel it somehow makes you look less ridiculous (protip - it doesn't).
You already provided me with some doozies just in this discussion. I really don't give a shit what lies you have spouted out in other discussions, I have more interesting things to do than that.
So you refuse to even look at evidence that is presented to you? And you just assume it must be lies? Sounds like faith to me.
That is one of the more absurd things you have written in this thread - and that is saying a lot. Go back and look at what you just wrote, and what you wrote it in reply to. See how they don't connect? You are providing yet more evidence that you do not have a college degree from a reputable institution. You showed that you don't understand statistics, and now you have shown again that you don't understand logic.
But go ahead, keep lying about yourself, and keep insulting me. That seems to be working out really, really, well for you so far.
why else would they have written and passed the largest corporate handout in the history of government?
I am curious about this claim and the numbers attached to it compared to prior corporate handouts by the federal government.
In terms of corporate handouts, how could you possibly surpass making every living American an obligate consumer of a for-profit industry? Such a handout has never been done before. For the overwhelming majority of Americans the bill offers no alternative, either - most of us couldn't switch to Medicaid / Medicare even if we wanted to.
Even when the auto insurance industry fed at the trough and all vehicle drivers were forced to purchase auto insurance, there were alternatives for people - they could not drive and find other forms of transportation. But we have no way around this bill that forces everyone to have health insurance.
Just because the government isn't handing out free money directly (as they did with the Wall Street bailouts) to the beneficiary, doesn't make it less of a giant handout. The government is still making sure that money is going to the insurance industry. This is really not a surprise though when one considers how many politicians - of both parties - are raking in big campaign contributions from the insurance industry. This bill was just the insurance industry coming to collect for their investment.
But I was not talking about Scalia, but rather Roberts.
Ooops, my mistake. I apologize. Being as Scalia wrote the bit for the dissent, and is getting the most attention in comments here right now, I somehow saw Roberts and saw Scalia. Indeed I was off topic to bring him up by name.
Also, unlike most of them, he has legal background (mildly speaking) so the reading would've been much simpler for him.
I don't easily see any references for the current class of congress-critters, but in the 112th congress more than a third of the total members listed lawyer as their primary occupation. Considering the embarrassing rate at which we reelect people to congress, the number hasn't likely changed much. While I don't dispute the legal experience of Scalia or Roberts, there are plenty of members of congress who are well versed in the law as well.
Basically, those 3 are some of the worst justices that America has had.
I agree with that part, for sure. Scalia in particular is not just a hack but also has a huge ego to go with it. He is himself an argument for not making these lifetime appointments.
I would not be surprised to see 1 or more of these were on the take.
I would argue it is actually most likely the opposite. The ACA was written by a bunch of congresspeople who were on the take (why else would they have written and passed the largest corporate handout in the history of government?). I expect this retaliation from Scalia and friends is their expression of anger that they were not given a cut in the action.
Not one Congressman has read the law in full â" not before it was passed, not after. It is too long and too complicated.
If you don't believe that any congressperson has read it, do you then believe Scalia in his dissent when he says that he has read it?
the reader of the whole Act will come across a number of provisions beyond Â36B that refer
This comes from page 5 of Scalia's dissent. Do you believe that he somehow found time to read the entire document in the time they had between arguments and writing of the judgement, even when they had other cases to decide on as well?
If SCOTUS can twist these words what stops them from twisting ANY words?
Except that if "State", only means individual states, then many of the constitutional amendments - including the second - fall apart on the federal level.
That is of course quite absurd, and the Court's 21 pages of explanation make it no less so.
You would think the answer would be obviousâ"so obvious there would hardly be a need for the Supreme Court to hear a case about it.
I particularly enjoy seeing him jump on the conspiracy bandwagon with this tasty morsel:
But normal rules of interpretation seem always to yield to the overriding principle of the present Court: The Affordable Care Act must be saved.
(Understatement, thy name is an opinion on the Afford- able Care Act!)
This little circular snippet is fun as well:
Who would ever have dreamt that âoeExchange established by the Stateâ means âoeExchange established by the State or the Federal Government â?
Considering he is a known fan of constitutional amendments where "state" means "federal government". Of course, here it doesn't matter because .... well, whatever.
The Court's next bit of interpretive jiggery-pokery
For its next defense of the indefensible
Well, it is good to know that he clearly didn't have any strong opinions on the matter before the case made it to the bench. After all, a predetermined judiciary is what justice is all about in this country, is it not? I would say that he was posturing himself for a new career with Fox News, but there is no good reason for him to do that, being as he already has a job for life.
I guess all is well in the world, then, right?
I started by posting a fact-based argument that filters do not improve the overall situation in regards to spam.
I can;t think of a single thing you said that even resembles something close to a fact. Unsubstantiated claims and opinions don't count.
Your refusal to accept facts that have been posted on slashdot previously is not my fault. You've shown you can use a search engine enough to fabricate a backstory for yourself, why can't you use it to look up information that pertains to this discussion?
I responded by challenging your faith-based argument, and you took it personally. You eventually allowed your end of the discussion to devolve into personal insults and complete lies.
Despite informing you that I was actually initially quite skeptical of the effectiveness of filters after using many that were ineffective, I was eventually convinced of their effectiveness by using them (i.e. actual empirical evidence of *improved* effectiveness). I'm not sure why you think this is "faith".
It is faith because it is ignoring the enormous body of facts that counters the assumptions that your faith require. You are using faith because there is information out there that is well-known and contrary to your beliefs, but you are choosing to ignore those facts.
Which again, is your problem and not mine.
The plain fact that you take your faith so personally - indeed so personally that you feel justified in insulting me personally when I challenge your faith - suggests that perhaps you went to a different school in Los Angeles. Did you perhaps go to BIOLA instead of UCLA? That could explain your demonstrated lack of knowledge on statistics and logic, as well as how tightly you hold on to your faith.
I don't take anything on the internet personally. I don;t really know anything about BIOLA, so I am incapable of being offended by this comment
That was not an insult. That was an hypothesis based on the facts that you have provided us - such as the fact that you do not understand even the most basic and fundamental aspects of statistics.
It is still nice to see how highly you apparently regard my alma mater.
I have no idea which school you went to. You present a very strong argument that you did not complete a CSci degree at UCLA, however.
I'll just say I'm an atheist to be clear.
You need to look up that word. An atheist is someone with no faith. You have clearly demonstrated faith in this argument. Just because it is not faith in an Abrahamic deity does not mean it is not faith.
If *anything* is a fact it is that spam filters have "improved" and are effective (not 100% effective).
If you could bother yourself to actually read what I have written here (you have spent plenty of time writing here it appears, yet very little time reading) you would know how far off you are on that statement.
I can't even think of a more reasonable statement than this. It takes a real zealot to say things like "Spam filters are not and *never* will be effective."
You should indeed be well versed on zealousness. Unfortunately your faith seems to have completely blinded you to how to identify it.
Do you still want to challenge that I graduated from UCLA with a CS degree in 2004?
You have already provided a solid argument that you did not complete a CSci degree at UCLA. I don't need to reinforce it when your own writing makes it clear.
Do you still want to challenge that I am a software engineer?
You've made a really solid argument that you are almost certainly not a software engineer, based on several things (including the fact that you feel it necessary to lie
Let's review how you have fallen on your face repeatedly in this discussion, shall we?
I started by posting a fact-based argument that filters do not improve the overall situation in regards to spam.
You replied with a faith-based argument that you feel filters are great and will bring about an eventual end to spam.
I responded by challenging your faith-based argument, and you took it personally. You eventually allowed your end of the discussion to devolve into personal insults and complete lies.
The plain fact that you take your faith so personally - indeed so personally that you feel justified in insulting me personally when I challenge your faith - suggests that perhaps you went to a different school in Los Angeles. Did you perhaps go to BIOLA instead of UCLA? That could explain your demonstrated lack of knowledge on statistics and logic, as well as how tightly you hold on to your faith.
The biggest problem with that hypothesis though is why you would feel justified in lying about that. Really, that is not a very Christian thing to do. Furthermore, slashdot has an overwhelming Christian majority in the discussions, so you would be in comfortable company if you were to come out and say that you went to a 4-year bible camp.
But go ahead, keep insulting me. It is clear that you abandoned the discussion some time ago. We could have discussed the topic of this thread but when your faith was challenged you took it personally instead of actually discussing the matter. Few people ever learn anything by using that tactic.
If people with an irrational belief demand that others do more or less onerous things for their belief, that's a problem. In this case, the irrational woman is loudly attempting to force storekeepers into changing their lighting to accommodate her delusions.
I will admit I did not read that far in to the article; I read the summary and figured it was more front page clickbait. If this woman is indeed trying to force other people to do things for no good reason I would tell her she can go shop somewhere else. If someone from the town agrees that the lights are a problem and wants to open a new store with different lights, that's fine too but I don't see their freedom to ban WiFi in their town as being something that extends to being able to dictate how others in town do their business on a level as fundamental as lighting fixtures.
Considering how poorly files move between different versions of Office for the same platform (and some times even between the same version for the same platform!)
Can you give me a concrete example that is easily reproducible or would affect a majority of users?
I have personally lost files many times in office when I took a file from one PC to another, even when they are running the same version. Powerpoint is the worst offender, but I have lost Word documents as well. Recently my boss sent me a Powerpoint presentation that he made in Powerpoint for Mac and I had to deliver it in the latest version of Powerpoint for windows at a departmental seminar; I ended up with the distinction of being the first person to crash Powerpoint that day.
That distinction might not have been so awful had I not been the first presenter of the morning.
Your allegation of this being a "troll" is just silly. People lose files this way all the time. I can't even tell you how many presentations I've had destroyed by this. I don't know how you want me to give a "concrete example" but if you ask anyone who has used powerpoint or word for more than a couple years - particularly anyone who has used it across multiple versions or platforms - you're bound to not need to ask long before you find someone else who has had their files eat shit.
Governments and any other powerful entities of the world: fuck you all, go fuck yourselves .com
Are you off your meds? ICANN is independent and doesn't give a crap what any government wants or demands (at least, without a warrant). This has nothing to do with any government or powerful non-profit / not-for-profit entity. Indeed, they will rule in favor of anoymized registration precisely to make sure that more registration money is coming in for themselves and for their lower-level registrar buddies.
associated with commercial activities and which are used for online financial transactions.
Is your personal webpage involved in such activities? If not, it would be exempt. No worries though, ICANN knows they will make more money if they do allow anonymous registrations to continue, hence they will. This is just ICANN trying to get some publicity - after all, all press is good press, right?
That said
random asshole with a grudge to mail you elephant shit. or, you know, threaten your family, stalk your pets, whatever.
Happens so rarely it is pretty much a non-issue. Out of how many hundreds of millions of registered domains, such things have happened how many dozens of times? These deranged people could have found other ways to harass their targets in meatspace had the registration data been anonymized.
ICANN has been pro-profit for some time now. They make more money by allowing registrars to sell anonymized domains than if they do not. The privacy question is just window dressing.
In the end, though, it doesn't make much of a difference. I used to take the time to do WHOIS lookups on particularly egregious spamvertised domains (specifically ones selling counterfeit or contraband products) and contact their registrars and hosting providers. Did it make a difference? No. I even found that specific registrars were notably complacent and willing to do business with the characters behind such operations, so I reported said registrars to ICANN. Did ICANN do anything? No.
I also pointed out to ICANN that selling gTLDs would be a bad idea as it opened the floodgates to more such doings. Did they care? No.
In other words, if you are concerned that ICANN might start to prohibit anonymized registration, don't be. They are just trying to drum up some PR to make it look like they care about more than their bottom line. It will all pass soon.
Why do you feel the need to try to make up for your failings by lying about your past? You would have been much better off just admitting your giant statistical failure from a few comments ago and moving on. Now you are making up more nonsense and cursing at me to try to seal the deal.
Listen kid, you are way out of your league here. Digging in your heels won't help your situation. We get that you are too emotionally fragile to admit to being wrong. If you want to just walk away at this point and lick your wounds that is fine, the probability of anyone else seeing you throwing a fit and lying like crazy this deep in this thread is exceptionally low. It is clear you have decided some time ago that you don't want to learn anything from this discussion.
Congrats though on suddenly deciding to use google to try to support your argument - even though it is not in any way attached to the discussion. Maybe some day you will use it to acquire knowledge that is important to the topic of this discussion.
UCLA was a reputable school last time I checked.
A reputable school which you clearly did not earn a BS in CSci from. How can I be sure? Their undergraduate CSci major requires
Mathematics 170A, or Statistics 100A
Looking a little further we see that Math 170A is Probability Theory. If you had completed even one semester of statistics or probability you would not have committed that epic statistical failure that you so proudly displayed a few comments ago.
Care to try selling us on a different lie instead?
Oooh, so clever you insults are. Your claims of your own accomplishments however don't hold water as nobody would graduate from a reputable school with a BS in computer science without a working understanding of logic or statistics. You very plainly demonstrated that you don't understand either, hence I am being entirely too generous to label your claim of educational credentials as merely questionable.
Considering how poorly files move between different versions of Office for the same platform (and some times even between the same version for the same platform!) I look forward to now being able to trash my files on the go. Thank you Microsoft, I have been wishing for some time that you would find a way to make my files even more fragile yet.
There is nothing I can do to prove to you that I am proficient at computer science, so I'm not going to try.
You have demonstrated yourself to not understand statistics or logic. You have also shown that you don't understand how to use search engines effectively. It is therefore a huge stretch to expect you to be a competent computer science professional.
Furthermore you claimed to be doing that for "10 years", yet you have had a slashdot account for less than 3. While indeed neither requires the other it is highly unlikely that a computer science "professional" would have only found this site after working for 7 years (by which point this site was already well into its decline).
In other words, there is plenty of evidence here against you being a computer science professional, and none whatsoever here in favor of it.
I would expect the Amish to have to receive non-interfering RF. And that's the point, isn't it? These people are claming to be sensitive to things even the radio observatory isn't bothered by, because it's below the level of the background noise.
If they choose to believe that non-interfering RF is causing them great harm, what is the harm in allowing them to hold that belief? It appears they are only harming themselves in so doing; outsiders can choose to visit other towns instead. Make no mistake that I don't agree with their ideas of Wi-Fi causing harm to humans, but I also don't see how their idea hurts anyone outside their own group.
Oh, no. Never base your religion on something that can be conclusively disproven by science.
Isn't that generally how religions grow, by touting something that is disproven? Hell the religion with the fastest growth rate in the US - in terms of number of new members relative to their total number of existing members - is almost certainly the one that counters reality the most strongly.
If these "electrosensitive" people could find a leader willing to post lots of youtube videos (which would likely be tricky if they think that the requisite technology for making such videos harms them) they could likely see the same kind of huge growth.
But again, why does it matter? If they want to shut themselves off from the outside world, why should the outside world care? They still pay their taxes, they still send their kids to school. They don't seem to be breaking any laws.