We are served by organic ghosts, he thought, who, speaking and writing, pass through this our new environment. Watching, wise, physical ghosts from the full-life world, elements of which have become for us invading but agreeable splinters of a substance that pulsates like a former heart.
Seriously, the majority of people cutting the cord aren't looking to ensure a 1:1 replacement of all channels they may or may not have been watching previously, and the industry damn well knows it. A lot of people are perfectly happy with general internet news, available content on youtube, and maybe 1 or 2 streaming services (netflix, hulu, hbo go, amazon, etc).
Given that people are unlikely to subscribe to cable but not internet, the cost of internet is a non-factor making cord cutting very reasonable to a huge number of people.
in the case of religious discrimination, the class defined in the ban as originally written would have included people outside the US that would fall under the definition of "the people" which i'm pretty sure is why it was reinstated with the caveat that effectively removed travelers that would fit that definition.
Wouldn't be surprised if in October the response becomes "given that the class defined as it stands now is not protected, this is not a constitutional issue".
You are incorrect. There are certain phrases in the constitution that most definitely apply to literally anyone within the US, most notably those which reflect on "any person". In fact a large portion of the constitution falls into these categories.
There are, however, other wordings where things are less clear. This is especially the case regarding the travel ban and wording around freedom of religion; It's even most likely the reason the Supreme Court reinstatement had the requirement of not applying if the person has "credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States." This has to do with the accepted definition of "The People" in the constitution, see: https://harvardlawreview.org/w...
As you can see it gets rather murky around that point, but just to say that the constitution only applies to citizens is not at all accurate.
Oddly confrontational, all was saying is exactly that would happen. People would more likely choose to not play because they do not like those conditions.
Unless I misunderstand how it works in the US, if both Trump and Pence were removed from office this very moment the presidency would fall to the president pro tempore of the senate, who is currently Senator Orrin Hatch (A Republican).
I know nothing of his politics or whether he'd be for or against h1b reform though.
In this case it would be because of the rise of the Roman empire; You got a point though that it would be interesting if there was a means of quantifying whether complacency in later generations of ancient Greeks had a significant impact on their inability to compete.
The children now love luxury; they have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise. Children are now tyrants, not the servants of their households. They no longer rise when elders enter the room. They contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up dainties at the table, cross their legs, and tyrannize their teachers.
Exactly this. It seems more like a violation by the advertisers to make use of available options that are illegal in their specific cases when they should know damn well it is illegal for them to do so. Facebook providing the options in and of itself isn't what is at fault here as there are definitely certain products and services that appeal more to certain demographic.
Also given that there will be very easily associated keywords it should be very easy to provide the courts with advertisers for housing and lending who made use of these options.
Seriously, this is the dumbest most "hey lets try to generate views by ranting comments" stupid bullshit I've seen in ages. That is taking into account the completely unrelated US politics bullshit that has been barfed out of the firehose these days.
Popularity of a language is immaterial to the usefulness of a language, to the creation of solutions with whatever language, and certainly will never have a final answer.
Algae is definitely the single big player producing 70-80% of available atmospheric oxygen overall, and trees are a fraction of the remaining 20-30% so they aren't the definitely go-to overall. However, for a study like this it would only require trees to be roughly 7% of global free O2 production for a 10%ish drop in available forests to equate to a 0.7% reduction in atmospheric O2 versus other molecules.
This wouldn't even take into account an increase in the amount of atmospheric oxygen ending up as other molecules due to the rapid increase in different forms of combustion.
I don't have any direct data on global O2 production by forests as a portion of the whole versus other plants beyond algae, nor any on the precise amount of deforestation as a percentage of the whole either, but the proportions required for parents description to be viable seem likely enough that it might be worth considering as a potential answer if anyone bothers looking into it.
Because there is a difference between local (city/district) police, provincial police, and RCMP (federal police) in Canada. You know how like in the states there'll be city/county police, state police, and FBI.
In this case, the defendants in question are ones who preload their boxes with plugins that specifically access copyright infringing content sources. There are other companies in Canada unaffected by the injunction because they were smart enough to just provide the basic Kodi and such pre-installed. The problem isn't that Kodi is preinstalled, it is the addon packages they pre-install. Basically the difference between providing copies of Chrome or Firefox, or providing the same in a package that preinstalls extensions for specific to torrenting/streaming infringing content sources.
Of course, it is trivially easy to then install the plugins on the more intelligent companies set top boxes but the onus for doing so is on the user not the set top box retailer. Skipping this step is rather monumentally stupid of the defendants.
You're missing the big picture. This was a Triumph for them in that the case ended up with no ruling in a situation where public sentiment was being stirred against the government stance. This means they're free to continue to bring it up in this fashion again and again until it occurs at a time when the majority is distracted by the Kardashian's dog being run over or something and the precedent they want to build gets through the courts.
Any time it looks like the end result would be a ruling in favor of the public in these cases, it will be dropped. Any time this occurs and nothing keeps it in the limelight, that is a success to the strategy.
Holy Heck, as a Non-American I thought your claim that there are states that ban atheists from being elected was probably an exaggeration or simply an interpretation of how it is hard in many places to be elected if one is a self-declared atheist. Hit a google search and figured i'd put this in there in case others were thinking like I was but don't bother to follow up.
Arkansas, Article 19, Section 1: No person who denies the being of a God shall hold any office in the civil departments of this State, nor be competent to testify as a witness in any Court.
Maryland, Article 37: That no religious test ought ever to be required as a qualification for any office of profit or trust in this State, other than a declaration of belief in the existence of God; nor shall the Legislature prescribe any other oath of office than the oath prescribed by this Constitution.
Mississippi, Article 14, Section 265: No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office in this state.
North Carolina, Article 6, Section 8 The following persons shall be disqualified for office: Any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God.
South Carolina, Article 17, Section 4: No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office under this Constitution.
Tennessee, Article 9, Section 2: No person who denies the being of God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this state.
Texas, Article 1, Section 4: No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being.
If i had more time i'd look to see if there are cases of anyone actually being denied in the recent past or unseated after the fact but the fact that these provisions even exist to begin with is pretty awful.
Slashdot Mirror
I'll agree it happens far less frequently but it does happen: https://us.norton.com/internet...
We are served by organic ghosts, he thought, who, speaking and writing, pass through this our new environment. Watching, wise, physical ghosts from the full-life world, elements of which have become for us invading but agreeable splinters of a substance that pulsates like a former heart.
- Philip K. Dick, Ubik
Seriously, the majority of people cutting the cord aren't looking to ensure a 1:1 replacement of all channels they may or may not have been watching previously, and the industry damn well knows it. A lot of people are perfectly happy with general internet news, available content on youtube, and maybe 1 or 2 streaming services (netflix, hulu, hbo go, amazon, etc).
Given that people are unlikely to subscribe to cable but not internet, the cost of internet is a non-factor making cord cutting very reasonable to a huge number of people.
in the case of religious discrimination, the class defined in the ban as originally written would have included people outside the US that would fall under the definition of "the people" which i'm pretty sure is why it was reinstated with the caveat that effectively removed travelers that would fit that definition.
Wouldn't be surprised if in October the response becomes "given that the class defined as it stands now is not protected, this is not a constitutional issue".
You are incorrect. There are certain phrases in the constitution that most definitely apply to literally anyone within the US, most notably those which reflect on "any person". In fact a large portion of the constitution falls into these categories.
There are, however, other wordings where things are less clear. This is especially the case regarding the travel ban and wording around freedom of religion; It's even most likely the reason the Supreme Court reinstatement had the requirement of not applying if the person has "credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States." This has to do with the accepted definition of "The People" in the constitution, see: https://harvardlawreview.org/w...
As you can see it gets rather murky around that point, but just to say that the constitution only applies to citizens is not at all accurate.
Oddly confrontational, all was saying is exactly that would happen. People would more likely choose to not play because they do not like those conditions.
because people won't go "well that's fair, what a good idea" they will go "man this games responsiveness sucks!"
Unless I misunderstand how it works in the US, if both Trump and Pence were removed from office this very moment the presidency would fall to the president pro tempore of the senate, who is currently Senator Orrin Hatch (A Republican).
I know nothing of his politics or whether he'd be for or against h1b reform though.
In this case it would be because of the rise of the Roman empire; You got a point though that it would be interesting if there was a means of quantifying whether complacency in later generations of ancient Greeks had a significant impact on their inability to compete.
The children now love luxury; they have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise. Children are now tyrants, not the servants of their households. They no longer rise when elders enter the room. They contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up dainties at the table, cross their legs, and tyrannize their teachers.
- SOCRATES by Plato
Exactly this. It seems more like a violation by the advertisers to make use of available options that are illegal in their specific cases when they should know damn well it is illegal for them to do so. Facebook providing the options in and of itself isn't what is at fault here as there are definitely certain products and services that appeal more to certain demographic.
Also given that there will be very easily associated keywords it should be very easy to provide the courts with advertisers for housing and lending who made use of these options.
Seriously, this is the dumbest most "hey lets try to generate views by ranting comments" stupid bullshit I've seen in ages. That is taking into account the completely unrelated US politics bullshit that has been barfed out of the firehose these days.
Popularity of a language is immaterial to the usefulness of a language, to the creation of solutions with whatever language, and certainly will never have a final answer.
What the sincere fuck Slashdot.
Algae is definitely the single big player producing 70-80% of available atmospheric oxygen overall, and trees are a fraction of the remaining 20-30% so they aren't the definitely go-to overall. However, for a study like this it would only require trees to be roughly 7% of global free O2 production for a 10%ish drop in available forests to equate to a 0.7% reduction in atmospheric O2 versus other molecules.
This wouldn't even take into account an increase in the amount of atmospheric oxygen ending up as other molecules due to the rapid increase in different forms of combustion.
I don't have any direct data on global O2 production by forests as a portion of the whole versus other plants beyond algae, nor any on the precise amount of deforestation as a percentage of the whole either, but the proportions required for parents description to be viable seem likely enough that it might be worth considering as a potential answer if anyone bothers looking into it.
Because there is a difference between local (city/district) police, provincial police, and RCMP (federal police) in Canada. You know how like in the states there'll be city/county police, state police, and FBI.
This is not a complicated concept.
In this case, the defendants in question are ones who preload their boxes with plugins that specifically access copyright infringing content sources. There are other companies in Canada unaffected by the injunction because they were smart enough to just provide the basic Kodi and such pre-installed. The problem isn't that Kodi is preinstalled, it is the addon packages they pre-install. Basically the difference between providing copies of Chrome or Firefox, or providing the same in a package that preinstalls extensions for specific to torrenting/streaming infringing content sources.
Of course, it is trivially easy to then install the plugins on the more intelligent companies set top boxes but the onus for doing so is on the user not the set top box retailer. Skipping this step is rather monumentally stupid of the defendants.
Good old retro boot sector viruses.
Ignore laws, write off settlements as cost of doing business compared to revenue.
Sounds about business as usual.
You're missing the big picture. This was a Triumph for them in that the case ended up with no ruling in a situation where public sentiment was being stirred against the government stance. This means they're free to continue to bring it up in this fashion again and again until it occurs at a time when the majority is distracted by the Kardashian's dog being run over or something and the precedent they want to build gets through the courts.
Any time it looks like the end result would be a ruling in favor of the public in these cases, it will be dropped. Any time this occurs and nothing keeps it in the limelight, that is a success to the strategy.
Pretty straight forward.
oh nevermind they corrected it.
isn't it Anne Frank? or have i been an idiot about that this whole time.
Wonko the Sane had it right, time to live outside the Asylum.
Holy Heck, as a Non-American I thought your claim that there are states that ban atheists from being elected was probably an exaggeration or simply an interpretation of how it is hard in many places to be elected if one is a self-declared atheist. Hit a google search and figured i'd put this in there in case others were thinking like I was but don't bother to follow up.
Arkansas, Article 19, Section 1:
No person who denies the being of a God shall hold any office in the civil departments of this State, nor be competent to testify as a witness in any Court.
Maryland, Article 37:
That no religious test ought ever to be required as a qualification for any office of profit or trust in this State, other than a declaration of belief in the existence of God; nor shall the Legislature prescribe any other oath of office than the oath prescribed by this Constitution.
Mississippi, Article 14, Section 265:
No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office in this state.
North Carolina, Article 6, Section 8
The following persons shall be disqualified for office: Any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God.
South Carolina, Article 17, Section 4:
No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office under this Constitution.
Tennessee, Article 9, Section 2:
No person who denies the being of God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this state.
Texas, Article 1, Section 4:
No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being.
from here and the wiki page they probably got it from.
If i had more time i'd look to see if there are cases of anyone actually being denied in the recent past or unseated after the fact but the fact that these provisions even exist to begin with is pretty awful.
Lisa, I want to buy your rock.
That's why they're called revolutions.
---Terry Pratchett, Night Watch
gotta agree, sounds like someone building self-delusion around himself then cracking when it all comes falling down.