Nope, no evidence of bias. Here is what he said about the EFF's brief:
I read the brief. It adds absolutely nothing helpful at all. It is a combination of describing the horrors that one endures from losing the Internet for any length of time. Frankly, it sounded like my son complaining when I took his electronics away when he watched YouTube videos instead of doing homework. And it's completely hysterical.
See that bit about 'adds absolutely nothing helpful at all'? That is why it was rejected, which is a perfectly valid reason. An amicus brief is supposed to provide some HELPFUL legal information, not just be a bunch of whining about why someone does not like a law.
Judge probably thinks the internet is a series of tubes....
In other words, there is plenty of evidence of YOU being biased.
No, it is not a 'thing', because if it was a 'thing' nothing would ever procede. It is not unusual for there to be lots of pre-trial motions filed, etc. Remember the SCO v IBM case? All that stuff was pre-trail, and it went on for years. And in every one of those motions, someone is going to win and someone is going to lose. That in no way indicates bias on the part of the judge, even if every ruling goes one way. His job is, after all, to judge.
Bias would be if the judge had some reason to favor one party over the other, and that reason had nothing to do with what is presented. There is no evidence of bias here, except that he issued a ruling some people don't like. According to those people, the only possible reason anyone could disagree with them is if they were biased, paid off, etc.
So is it stockholders, officers, or employees that are not part of 'we the people'? At what point does one stop being 'people', and thus become eligble to lose their rights? As soon as they are successful?
I never said one word about whether or not I agree with the actions of Facebook, et al. I simply said that if we are free, the NOBODY has to do ANYTHING just because someone else wants them to. You apparently don't agree with that position, and think it is just fine to force someone to do something against their will.
The only 'committment' Facebook, et al make is through their terms of service, which state that they don't have to carry everything. So no committment has been broken.
An awful lot of people seem to confuse freedoms (rights) with abilities and opportunities. They are not at all the same. Your rights are guaranteed, abilities and opportunities are not.
Your rights do not place any responsibilities on anyone else, which is good because if they did then their rights would place responibility on you. And in both case that is a loss of freedom.
No, they are not at all at odds with one another. Freedom of speech means that you will not be prevented from speaking, nor will your life and liberty be put at risk by making a speech. Free speech most definitely does not mean, and has never meant, that anyone else has to provide you with a forum or outlet to make your speech. Why does it not mean that? Because any such requirement would detract from THEIR rights.
Facebook, Twitter, et al can not stop you from speaking, therefore they are not restricting your speech. Whether or not you can be heard is an entirely different matter, but you have no right to be heard.
Is there some reason they think freedom of the press is somehow of lesser importance than freedom of speech? It is not, they are equals. A newspaper is not 'censoring' you if they decline to print your letter to the editor. And they don't need to be 'transparent' about it, it is their right to print or not print whatever they want. And they don't owe you any explanation either, because that itself would be a restriction on their freedom.
What makes you think that a newspaper, or anyone else, has to publish ads with 'only limited and nuanced discrimination allowed'? The only possible restriction might be that they can't discriminate against a person based on some proscribed criteria, but they can 'discriminate' at will against any content they choose.
Gdstoddart did not do any of the things you accuse him of. Here is what he said:
you are free to say any stupid shit you want to. You are not free from the public telling you that what you said was stupid.
There is no personal attack in there. What he said is 100% true. You (and I, and everyone else) ARE free to say any stupid shit we want. And you, and I, and everyone else ARE free to say what someone else said is stupid.
ou are legally free to say any stupid crap which you choose. And others are free to decide you're a fucking idiot.
Again, no personal attack, just a simpe statement of the freedoms we have.
You, on the other hand, decided (and stated) that people stating their opinions 'is what is making our country more difficult to live in'. The only way to interpret that is to come to the conclusion that you think some people (namely those that disagree with some position) should NOT be free to state their opinions, or should suppress their opinions. And, yes, their opinion may very well be that both the original opinion and the person who said it are stupid. Kind of hard to reconcile that with a stated belief in freedom of speech.
Of course it only applies to the government. Any law that attempted to say you can't be shouted down, or told to shut up, or to get off my property, or anything else would be a restriction on someone else's rights. And then we are right back to Congress shall make no law...
Holy crap. What is the point of making a speech if not to get people to form some sort of reaction? If you don't want people to judge and form opinions based on your speech, why make it? Is everyone else supposed to just censor themselves and not say what they think of your speech? Isn't that repression of THEIR free speech?
You are an idiot. Nobody's speech was restricted in any way. Was he prevented from making his stupid statement? Nope, and many people heard it. Was he guy arrested? Nope. Did he just 'disppear'? Nope. He used his right of free speech to say something that a majority of people disagree with. Many of those people used their right of free speech to say they disagreed with him (they do have this right, don't they?) Another group of people used their right of association to decide they didn't want to be associated with him, and they also used their right of free speech to state that. Seems like absolutely nobody had their rights infringed.
But the definition of wheel is 'a circular object that revolves on an axle and is fixed below a vehicle or other object to enable it to move easily over the ground.' None of your examples invented or even improved on that concept, so they didn't reinvent the wheel.
Don't reinvent the wheel doesn't mean don't make improvements to something, it means don't waste time coming up with a brilliant new idea when the thing already exists and is (or should be) well known.
How stupid do you have to be to think that blindness must be permanent to be a problem? Seriously, how fucking stupid must you be to think that a pilot having degraded night vision, in the vicinity of an airport, is not a problem? Do you have ANY functioning brain cells?
Stupid position to take. How many air crashes do you think are due to a single cause? The answer is very few, most of them are caused by a series of small events that, individually, would not cause a problem. Unnecessary conversation in the cockpit does not cause a crash. Unnecessary conversation that causes you to miss some other minor, easily correctable, event - crash. Laser by itself, unlikely to cause a crash. Laser temporarily blinding or distracting the pilot from something else - crash.
So it comes down to simple risk/benefit ratios. On the one hand, there is a non-zero risk, and the results of that risk are potentially catastrophic. On the other hand, there is zero actual benefit to shining a laser at an aircraft, so the calculation is pretty damn easy.
The 360 was the first machine to use an 8-bit byte as the unit of memory addressability. In that single byte you could store either 2 BCD digits, a text character, or a binary number. Prior to the 360 machine were more special-purpose; they were good for either decimal math (financials), or text, or binary math, but not all three at the same time. The register size of the 360 was 4 bytes. The address size was 24 bits, allowing 16MB of addressing.
Decimal math (BCD) is still heavily used in financial applications.
I am fighting a losing battle, because I am arguing with idiots who can't read. However, I am not wrong. I clearly said 'unless the person in front does something illegal'. Guess what? Participating in the swoop and stoop scam is illegal! Bet you didn't know that. BRAKING, by itself, is NOT illegal.
That was an unsafe lane change, which I already said was an exception. The guy with the dash cam wasn't following too closely (tailgating), he was cut off by the idiot in the truck.
Nope. Following too closely is following too closely. How do you explain that you managed to drive into the back of someone if you weren't following too closely? All your dashcam is going to show is that, yup, you were too close. And nobody said 'slam on your brakes', they said 'hard tap'.
No, you would not be found at fault. There are no laws against braking. There are laws against following too closely. Unless the person in front did something illegal, like an unsafe lane change, the person in back is always at fault.
What censorship? The publication has a rule that the software must be available for papers about software, and the software is not available. Was it also 'censorship' when the paper linking vaccines to autism was retracted?
Slashdot Mirror
Nope, no evidence of bias. Here is what he said about the EFF's brief:
I read the brief. It adds absolutely nothing helpful at all. It is a combination of describing the horrors that one endures from losing the Internet for any length of time. Frankly, it sounded like my son complaining when I took his electronics away when he watched YouTube videos instead of doing homework. And it's completely hysterical.
See that bit about 'adds absolutely nothing helpful at all'? That is why it was rejected, which is a perfectly valid reason. An amicus brief is supposed to provide some HELPFUL legal information, not just be a bunch of whining about why someone does not like a law.
Judge probably thinks the internet is a series of tubes....
In other words, there is plenty of evidence of YOU being biased.
No, it is not a 'thing', because if it was a 'thing' nothing would ever procede. It is not unusual for there to be lots of pre-trial motions filed, etc. Remember the SCO v IBM case? All that stuff was pre-trail, and it went on for years. And in every one of those motions, someone is going to win and someone is going to lose. That in no way indicates bias on the part of the judge, even if every ruling goes one way. His job is, after all, to judge.
Bias would be if the judge had some reason to favor one party over the other, and that reason had nothing to do with what is presented. There is no evidence of bias here, except that he issued a ruling some people don't like. According to those people, the only possible reason anyone could disagree with them is if they were biased, paid off, etc.
Exposes names and addresses? Oh, the horror! Next thing you know they'll print a book with all those names and addresses and give one to everyone!
So is it stockholders, officers, or employees that are not part of 'we the people'? At what point does one stop being 'people', and thus become eligble to lose their rights? As soon as they are successful?
I never said one word about whether or not I agree with the actions of Facebook, et al. I simply said that if we are free, the NOBODY has to do ANYTHING just because someone else wants them to. You apparently don't agree with that position, and think it is just fine to force someone to do something against their will.
The only 'committment' Facebook, et al make is through their terms of service, which state that they don't have to carry everything. So no committment has been broken.
An awful lot of people seem to confuse freedoms (rights) with abilities and opportunities. They are not at all the same. Your rights are guaranteed, abilities and opportunities are not.
Your rights do not place any responsibilities on anyone else, which is good because if they did then their rights would place responibility on you. And in both case that is a loss of freedom.
No, they are not at all at odds with one another. Freedom of speech means that you will not be prevented from speaking, nor will your life and liberty be put at risk by making a speech. Free speech most definitely does not mean, and has never meant, that anyone else has to provide you with a forum or outlet to make your speech. Why does it not mean that? Because any such requirement would detract from THEIR rights.
Facebook, Twitter, et al can not stop you from speaking, therefore they are not restricting your speech. Whether or not you can be heard is an entirely different matter, but you have no right to be heard.
You do understand that even paperboys (and news stands, etc) can choose what papers they carry, right?
Is there some reason they think freedom of the press is somehow of lesser importance than freedom of speech? It is not, they are equals. A newspaper is not 'censoring' you if they decline to print your letter to the editor. And they don't need to be 'transparent' about it, it is their right to print or not print whatever they want. And they don't owe you any explanation either, because that itself would be a restriction on their freedom.
What makes you think that a newspaper, or anyone else, has to publish ads with 'only limited and nuanced discrimination allowed'? The only possible restriction might be that they can't discriminate against a person based on some proscribed criteria, but they can 'discriminate' at will against any content they choose.
Gdstoddart did not do any of the things you accuse him of. Here is what he said:
you are free to say any stupid shit you want to. You are not free from the public telling you that what you said was stupid.
There is no personal attack in there. What he said is 100% true. You (and I, and everyone else) ARE free to say any stupid shit we want. And you, and I, and everyone else ARE free to say what someone else said is stupid.
ou are legally free to say any stupid crap which you choose. And others are free to decide you're a fucking idiot.
Again, no personal attack, just a simpe statement of the freedoms we have.
You, on the other hand, decided (and stated) that people stating their opinions 'is what is making our country more difficult to live in'. The only way to interpret that is to come to the conclusion that you think some people (namely those that disagree with some position) should NOT be free to state their opinions, or should suppress their opinions. And, yes, their opinion may very well be that both the original opinion and the person who said it are stupid. Kind of hard to reconcile that with a stated belief in freedom of speech.
Of course it only applies to the government. Any law that attempted to say you can't be shouted down, or told to shut up, or to get off my property, or anything else would be a restriction on someone else's rights. And then we are right back to Congress shall make no law...
Holy crap. What is the point of making a speech if not to get people to form some sort of reaction? If you don't want people to judge and form opinions based on your speech, why make it? Is everyone else supposed to just censor themselves and not say what they think of your speech? Isn't that repression of THEIR free speech?
You are an idiot. Nobody's speech was restricted in any way. Was he prevented from making his stupid statement? Nope, and many people heard it. Was he guy arrested? Nope. Did he just 'disppear'? Nope. He used his right of free speech to say something that a majority of people disagree with. Many of those people used their right of free speech to say they disagreed with him (they do have this right, don't they?) Another group of people used their right of association to decide they didn't want to be associated with him, and they also used their right of free speech to state that. Seems like absolutely nobody had their rights infringed.
But the definition of wheel is 'a circular object that revolves on an axle and is fixed below a vehicle or other object to enable it to move easily over the ground.' None of your examples invented or even improved on that concept, so they didn't reinvent the wheel.
Don't reinvent the wheel doesn't mean don't make improvements to something, it means don't waste time coming up with a brilliant new idea when the thing already exists and is (or should be) well known.
No hint to get, since not a single one of those is a reinvention of the wheel. Those are all refinements or improvements on the wheel.
How stupid do you have to be to think that blindness must be permanent to be a problem? Seriously, how fucking stupid must you be to think that a pilot having degraded night vision, in the vicinity of an airport, is not a problem? Do you have ANY functioning brain cells?
Stupid position to take. How many air crashes do you think are due to a single cause? The answer is very few, most of them are caused by a series of small events that, individually, would not cause a problem. Unnecessary conversation in the cockpit does not cause a crash. Unnecessary conversation that causes you to miss some other minor, easily correctable, event - crash. Laser by itself, unlikely to cause a crash. Laser temporarily blinding or distracting the pilot from something else - crash.
So it comes down to simple risk/benefit ratios. On the one hand, there is a non-zero risk, and the results of that risk are potentially catastrophic. On the other hand, there is zero actual benefit to shining a laser at an aircraft, so the calculation is pretty damn easy.
The 360 was the first machine to use an 8-bit byte as the unit of memory addressability. In that single byte you could store either 2 BCD digits, a text character, or a binary number. Prior to the 360 machine were more special-purpose; they were good for either decimal math (financials), or text, or binary math, but not all three at the same time. The register size of the 360 was 4 bytes. The address size was 24 bits, allowing 16MB of addressing.
Decimal math (BCD) is still heavily used in financial applications.
System/360? No. It runs on modern System Z hardware. System Z is capable of running System/360 application programs (but not OS's).
I am fighting a losing battle, because I am arguing with idiots who can't read. However, I am not wrong. I clearly said 'unless the person in front does something illegal'. Guess what? Participating in the swoop and stoop scam is illegal! Bet you didn't know that. BRAKING, by itself, is NOT illegal.
That was an unsafe lane change, which I already said was an exception. The guy with the dash cam wasn't following too closely (tailgating), he was cut off by the idiot in the truck.
Nope. Following too closely is following too closely. How do you explain that you managed to drive into the back of someone if you weren't following too closely? All your dashcam is going to show is that, yup, you were too close. And nobody said 'slam on your brakes', they said 'hard tap'.
No, you would not be found at fault. There are no laws against braking. There are laws against following too closely. Unless the person in front did something illegal, like an unsafe lane change, the person in back is always at fault.
And if it is volatile (and it is), then it is useless for transferring money.
What censorship? The publication has a rule that the software must be available for papers about software, and the software is not available. Was it also 'censorship' when the paper linking vaccines to autism was retracted?