I never said the data weren't real. Just like your data astrology uses real data. And just like your post, astrology then draws false conclusions from that data.
1. But you showed no evidence that it was frivolous. More importantly - it is as fundamentally first amendment case as you can ever imagine. There can be no LESS frivolous one than something as fundamental as a religious test for entry into the country. Nothing could more obviously violate what that amendment is designed to ensure will never happen.
2. All true but entirely irrellevant since the religion in question is already (and has been for centuries) deemed a recognised religion by the US government. There may a process by which a religion goes from 'frivolous' to 'recognised' - but there is no process by which it can go the other way.
And mostly I had a problem with the claim that religions have different effects on the world and this justifies governmental discrimination. The claim isn't true - and even if it was true the conclusion doesn't follow and is, in fact,specifically prohibited by the constitution.
That's completely irrelevant actually - indeed it's not even the purpose of background checks. The purpose of background checks is to let existing gun ownership laws actually be enforced - so that previously convicted felons (already prohibited), or dishonourably discharged serviceman cannot easily acquire a weapon they are prohibited from owning. They do not reduce the people who are legally able to get a gun - which is why resistance to them is so fundamentally stupid, all the people they may prevent from getting one are already legally prohibited anyway, it just takes away the loopholes that let sellers ignore the law - it has no impact on who is a legal buyer.
The point of fixing the background checks is much more simple than reducing gun violence: it's about the principle of the rule of law.
Gun violence is an entirely different debate -- which should not be conflated.
The evidence you sought you, yourself, provided. 'When the NRA tells its members'... As opposed to real representative organisations where the members telk the org what to do.
>This is a common misconception. The NRA is overwhelmingly funded by individual members, not by gun manufacturers. They publicly report their accounts; you can look it up. I spoke of who they represent, I said nothing about who funds them.
These are USUALLY correlated things, but not inevitably so - and the NRA is a perfect example of an organisation where no such correlation exists. Besides which, they really have incredibly outsized political power - the entire NRA has less members than Planet fitness does !
>clean it would leave significant radioactive residue which would fall afoul of anti-pollution laws And sooner or later somebody would pass through the area, no matter how remote it is, and get killed. I never said you would kill the innocent bystander right away.
No I compared your argument to astrology. The stars that make up the constellations really exist you know. They are real life. Nevertheless astrology is bullshit.
I accused you of using legitimate and real data to make a bullshit argument that was neither supported by nor followed from your data.
In fact there is no discernible link between them whatsoever, nor did you establish one.
All well and good - now somebody please tell me why fixing the ridiculously stupid loopholes in the background check laws would not meet all those criteria in a heartbeat ?
You have shown no evidence of the government being complicit - in fact all the evidence we DO have is that on those occasions where some on the left have overstepped the bounds of protest the police have acted swiftly and, if anything, TOO harshly against them.
So quite the contrary - not only is the government NOT complicit - they are actually on the side of the people you're defending!
But even so - anybody has the right to protest, including the right to protest against a speaker. To take that away would BE the greatest intrusion on free speech in the history of the united states. If some protestors get violent, those individuals should be arrested and prosecuted for their crimes. It tells you FUCK ALL about the other protestors or the legitimacy of their cause.
And it's not like it's only the left that gets violent. You complain about antifa getting violent - but I bet you don't even KNOW the fascists they attack have consistently shown up armed (and armoured) and frequently attacked first ? The majority of antifa violence are clear-cut self-defense and while the remainder is less clear-cut most of THAT is self-defense too.
I have never seen such a perfect example of well researched stupidity. It rather reminds me of high end astrology, books upon books of data -and nothing worthwhile anywhere.
So your personal belief is that it's wrong for the law to ban personal nuclear weapons ?
Okay - so why is the NRA never making that argument ?
Because it's rather tempting to conclude the answer is: "Because they NRA only REALLY represent gun sellers - and there are no big, commercial nuclear misile makers who are lobbying for sales to the public"
The fact that there is absolutely no possible way you can conceivably use a nuclear weapon in a legal manner anyway (you WILL kill innocent bystanders no matter what)... makes it a rather moot point in my mind.
Frivolous grounds ? The fourth circuit blocked it on first ammendment grounds (the 9th deliberately avoided that, because it didn't NEED to use it and judges have a standard modus of using the lowest bar for a decision - that's a freedom preserver, don't accuse the government of violating the constitution if you can block the same order on a lesser violation). But that fourth circuit matters here. Your whole post is about how, supposedly, YOUR first ammendment rights are under assault (because private citizens dare excercise their free speech in conflict with yours) - yet when the court protects first ammendment rights you call it 'frivolous grounds'.
Is it only a valid right when rightwingers or white people or Christian's first ammendment rights are at stake ? Does it become 'frivolous' based on whose freedom of religion is being assaulted ?
You know... there is also a law that prohibits you from owning a nuclear misile. Nukes are, in fact, arms. Do you feel this law is okay ? Should you have the right to own private nukes for deer hunting ? If not - why is THAT a legitimate restriction on the right to bear arms but a fully automatic is not ?
Where do you think the line should be drawn - and why should I trust YOUR line over anybody else's ?
You listed movements. You've shown no evidence of these organisations engaging the power of the state to silence the speech of others. That, and that alone, is censorship.
Freedom of speech means teh GOVERNMENT cannot be used to silence you. It never says anybody else has to listen, or can't chase you the hell away. That's not censorship - nothing stops you from saying the exact same thing somewhere else.
And the examples I just gave you of them 'doing the same shit' don't matter ?
I've never yet seen a legitimate example of the left being anti-speech. All I've seen is a bunch of idiotic rightwingers getting their panties in a bunch and crying 'censorship' whenever they face criticism for saying something fucking stupid, or told they can't just talk anywhere they want to. Free speech never guaranteed anybody an audience.
The party with a long history of actually being anti-free speech, that is - trying to use the force of the state to restrict speech, is and remains the republicans. It was the republicans who tried to ban metal music during the satanic panic, the republicans who tried to ban porn over and over, the republicans who tried to ban video games. If a politician is trying to limit what you can see and read (and ipso facto: what you can think) - there is almost always an (R) after their name.
That is censorship. That is assaulting free speech. Nothing else is. So while I gave you examples of republicans doing 'the same shit' that particular shit is not WRONG - it's just hypocritical to pretend only the left does it, but it's perfectly allowable for ANYBODY to do because it's NOT a violation of free speech. On the contrary - it IS free speech.
Well I have had some dealings with them (and the university that supplies many of their staff) over the years, and they don't generally let phycisists write code. They have a dedicated coding team - who works very closely with the other teams to translate requirements into code. The analysis software tend to be once-offs and not hugely complex pieces of software (many, of course, are minor modifications of previous ones)
The big and complex part is the code to keep all those hundreds of dishes synchronised. Interferometery relies on perfect synchronicity between all your recievers (be they dishes or lenses). The maths to combine their data is easy - the maths to ensure every one of the dishes point at the same thing, at the right angles relative to each other, and communicates with the servos that actually move the things, that's the really cool stuff they write - and this is still early days. When SKA is complete - it will be several thousand dishes being kept in synch with each other.
Taking to the streets to protest, march and chant is a constitutional right - and indeed they DID do that to Obama as well. Remember the teabaggers ?
And they did ALL the same things you just said - only when WHITE people do it during protests the police (and the media) tend to look the other way. It's not news unless it's black people.
Famously during the massive women's march there were no arrests or altercations with police - but as many women who were there documented, there were all the things happening that usually causes arrests and altercations with police: but police don't respond when it's white women doing those things because white women getting beaten by police looks bad on TV. Nothing new about that - hell Louis XV was about to have his soldiers murder a troop of protestors in the early days of the revolution (before the Bastile storming, when the aristos still held power and the revolution was just sporadic protests over food hoarding while the people starved) until he realized these were FEMALE protesters - then rapidly pulled his soldiers back and instead ordered them to open the grain stores so the protestors could get all the food they wanted ! The same pattern has attended basically every women's march since (and probably before -though history is doesn't record prior examples as well).
There has been no president more deserving of mass protest since Donalds' hero Andrew Jackson - and if you recall his actions led to the brutal murder of thousands of innocents. Here is a president who is exactly like Jackson in every regard. Like Jackson he was elected on a populist wave by angry middle Americans after promising to defend them from the 'elites'. Like Jackson he has spent his time in office only enriching himself and surrounding himself with corruption while an ultra-partisan congress has been too afraid to restrain him. Like Jackson he is considered an idiotic buffoon by most of the voters and ALL of Washington. Like Jackson he thinks he is a strongman and is way to eager to use the military. Like Jackson he has absolutely nor regard or respect for American's institutions or checks and balances - including, critically, the courts and the press.
But unlike Jackson - he lives in the 21st century - with a far more educated populace, and far more rapid flow of news. Unlike Jackson - he cannot operate with the ignorance of most citizens. Unlike Jackson - he can be protested against whenever he tries to overstep his authority, and forced to obey the courts. Unlike Jackson - even with congress refusing to do his job - the CITIZENS can step up and do it for them.
The best thing you can say about Donald Trump is that he is probably suffering from dementia (one merely needs to compare a video of him speaking now to one of his speaking in the 1990s to see the marked and obvious decline in coherence). He'll probably end up impeached, but in fairness he really should be removed under the 25th amendment because he is simply unfit to continue to hold office.
Trump's actions can only be adequately explained by a trained psychiatrist. Personally - looking at the markedly obvious deterioration in his speech patterns and ability to form coherent sentences between videos of himself in the 1990s and now - I have my money on either dementia or final stage neurosyphilis.
Its like you Americans seriously think your institutions are infallible. Like you do not even know of their past failures. Like the time a president flat our ignored a supreme court decision and, in the process, killed 8000 innocent people and faced no consequences whatsoever for his god-emperorish abuse of power. By the way he too was elected by angry middle americans pissed at 'the elites' because he promised to fight for them. Then spent his entire administration on nothing but self enrichment and corruption on 3rd world dictator levels. By the way he is Donald's favorite past president ! Makes sense: don the con could be his reincarnation. Andrew fucking Jackson one of the worst leaders in the history not just of America but of the whole world. The systems are only as strong as congress's willingness to defend them. When congress wants to appease the president even the supreme court can become impotent. Its happened before. Do not imagine it cannot happen again.
Like when Tomi Lahren got fired for daring to not tow the conservative line on abortion ? Republicans always complain about evil PC when some dickwad gets fired for shouting racist or homophobic slurs on air - but their belief that people should not lose their jobs over 'different opinions' just because somebody was offended seemed to evaporate when Kathy Griffith got fired for offending the trumpster. Seems they never truly cared about free speech (or this ridiculous definition theroff) they just do not like that their side is more prone to foot in mouth disease.
A good python library will take ALL of them - and handle it correctly depending on the type it received. A good python function should accept ANY compatible data in any compatible type - and know how to deal with different types it may encounter.
Some tasks only ever make sense on a list - so only implement list code.
But if the task could, also, in a sensible way be done on a dict - then you damn well implement support for a dict and ensure your code checks which type it is and uses the right iterator.
Good python devs never let the user of a library try to guess what the library accepts - they tries to cater for whatever the users needs. Consider this class I wrote: https://github.com/ajventer/py...
Notice how it will work correctly regardless of whether the input is a list, an arbitrary sequence of parameters or even an arbitrary string - it will parse the data, and construct it into a generic format for use in internal calculations, and fail cleanly if the provided data cannot logically be parsed into an understandable sequence.
That's how python is supposed to do it. As long as the data is compatible with the processing function, all compatible types should be accepted.
Slashdot Mirror
I never said the data weren't real. Just like your data astrology uses real data. And just like your post, astrology then draws false conclusions from that data.
1. But you showed no evidence that it was frivolous. More importantly - it is as fundamentally first amendment case as you can ever imagine. There can be no LESS frivolous one than something as fundamental as a religious test for entry into the country. Nothing could more obviously violate what that amendment is designed to ensure will never happen.
2. All true but entirely irrellevant since the religion in question is already (and has been for centuries) deemed a recognised religion by the US government. There may a process by which a religion goes from 'frivolous' to 'recognised' - but there is no process by which it can go the other way.
And mostly I had a problem with the claim that religions have different effects on the world and this justifies governmental discrimination. The claim isn't true - and even if it was true the conclusion doesn't follow and is, in fact,specifically prohibited by the constitution.
That's completely irrelevant actually - indeed it's not even the purpose of background checks. The purpose of background checks is to let existing gun ownership laws actually be enforced - so that previously convicted felons (already prohibited), or dishonourably discharged serviceman cannot easily acquire a weapon they are prohibited from owning.
They do not reduce the people who are legally able to get a gun - which is why resistance to them is so fundamentally stupid, all the people they may prevent from getting one are already legally prohibited anyway, it just takes away the loopholes that let sellers ignore the law - it has no impact on who is a legal buyer.
The point of fixing the background checks is much more simple than reducing gun violence: it's about the principle of the rule of law.
Gun violence is an entirely different debate -- which should not be conflated.
The evidence you sought you, yourself, provided.
'When the NRA tells its members'...
As opposed to real representative organisations where the members telk the org what to do.
>This is a common misconception. The NRA is overwhelmingly funded by individual members, not by gun manufacturers. They publicly report their accounts; you can look it up.
I spoke of who they represent, I said nothing about who funds them.
These are USUALLY correlated things, but not inevitably so - and the NRA is a perfect example of an organisation where no such correlation exists. Besides which, they really have incredibly outsized political power - the entire NRA has less members than Planet fitness does !
>clean it would leave significant radioactive residue which would fall afoul of anti-pollution laws
And sooner or later somebody would pass through the area, no matter how remote it is, and get killed. I never said you would kill the innocent bystander right away.
No I compared your argument to astrology.
The stars that make up the constellations really exist you know. They are real life.
Nevertheless astrology is bullshit.
I accused you of using legitimate and real data to make a bullshit argument that was neither supported by nor followed from your data.
In fact there is no discernible link between them whatsoever, nor did you establish one.
All well and good - now somebody please tell me why fixing the ridiculously stupid loopholes in the background check laws would not meet all those criteria in a heartbeat ?
I'm not a troll, I just refuse to play chess with pigeons.
You have shown no evidence of the government being complicit - in fact all the evidence we DO have is that on those occasions where some on the left have overstepped the bounds of protest the police have acted swiftly and, if anything, TOO harshly against them.
So quite the contrary - not only is the government NOT complicit - they are actually on the side of the people you're defending!
But even so - anybody has the right to protest, including the right to protest against a speaker. To take that away would BE the greatest intrusion on free speech in the history of the united states.
If some protestors get violent, those individuals should be arrested and prosecuted for their crimes. It tells you FUCK ALL about the other protestors or the legitimacy of their cause.
And it's not like it's only the left that gets violent. You complain about antifa getting violent - but I bet you don't even KNOW the fascists they attack have consistently shown up armed (and armoured) and frequently attacked first ? The majority of antifa violence are clear-cut self-defense and while the remainder is less clear-cut most of THAT is self-defense too.
I have never seen such a perfect example of well researched stupidity. It rather reminds me of high end astrology, books upon books of data -and nothing worthwhile anywhere.
So your personal belief is that it's wrong for the law to ban personal nuclear weapons ?
Okay - so why is the NRA never making that argument ?
Because it's rather tempting to conclude the answer is: "Because they NRA only REALLY represent gun sellers - and there are no big, commercial nuclear misile makers who are lobbying for sales to the public"
The fact that there is absolutely no possible way you can conceivably use a nuclear weapon in a legal manner anyway (you WILL kill innocent bystanders no matter what) ... makes it a rather moot point in my mind.
That doesn't actually answer any of the questions I asked...
>This description perfectly describes all those opposed to Trump.
Not nearly as well as it describes Trump himself.
Frivolous grounds ?
The fourth circuit blocked it on first ammendment grounds (the 9th deliberately avoided that, because it didn't NEED to use it and judges have a standard modus of using the lowest bar for a decision - that's a freedom preserver, don't accuse the government of violating the constitution if you can block the same order on a lesser violation).
But that fourth circuit matters here. Your whole post is about how, supposedly, YOUR first ammendment rights are under assault (because private citizens dare excercise their free speech in conflict with yours) - yet when the court protects first ammendment rights you call it 'frivolous grounds'.
Is it only a valid right when rightwingers or white people or Christian's first ammendment rights are at stake ? Does it become 'frivolous' based on whose freedom of religion is being assaulted ?
You know... there is also a law that prohibits you from owning a nuclear misile. Nukes are, in fact, arms. Do you feel this law is okay ? Should you have the right to own private nukes for deer hunting ?
If not - why is THAT a legitimate restriction on the right to bear arms but a fully automatic is not ?
Where do you think the line should be drawn - and why should I trust YOUR line over anybody else's ?
You listed movements. You've shown no evidence of these organisations engaging the power of the state to silence the speech of others.
That, and that alone, is censorship.
Freedom of speech means teh GOVERNMENT cannot be used to silence you. It never says anybody else has to listen, or can't chase you the hell away.
That's not censorship - nothing stops you from saying the exact same thing somewhere else.
And the examples I just gave you of them 'doing the same shit' don't matter ?
I've never yet seen a legitimate example of the left being anti-speech. All I've seen is a bunch of idiotic rightwingers getting their panties in a bunch and crying 'censorship' whenever they face criticism for saying something fucking stupid, or told they can't just talk anywhere they want to. Free speech never guaranteed anybody an audience.
The party with a long history of actually being anti-free speech, that is - trying to use the force of the state to restrict speech, is and remains the republicans. It was the republicans who tried to ban metal music during the satanic panic, the republicans who tried to ban porn over and over, the republicans who tried to ban video games.
If a politician is trying to limit what you can see and read (and ipso facto: what you can think) - there is almost always an (R) after their name.
That is censorship. That is assaulting free speech. Nothing else is. So while I gave you examples of republicans doing 'the same shit' that particular shit is not WRONG - it's just hypocritical to pretend only the left does it, but it's perfectly allowable for ANYBODY to do because it's NOT a violation of free speech. On the contrary - it IS free speech.
Well I have had some dealings with them (and the university that supplies many of their staff) over the years, and they don't generally let phycisists write code. They have a dedicated coding team - who works very closely with the other teams to translate requirements into code.
The analysis software tend to be once-offs and not hugely complex pieces of software (many, of course, are minor modifications of previous ones)
The big and complex part is the code to keep all those hundreds of dishes synchronised. Interferometery relies on perfect synchronicity between all your recievers (be they dishes or lenses). The maths to combine their data is easy - the maths to ensure every one of the dishes point at the same thing, at the right angles relative to each other, and communicates with the servos that actually move the things, that's the really cool stuff they write - and this is still early days. When SKA is complete - it will be several thousand dishes being kept in synch with each other.
Taking to the streets to protest, march and chant is a constitutional right - and indeed they DID do that to Obama as well. Remember the teabaggers ?
And they did ALL the same things you just said - only when WHITE people do it during protests the police (and the media) tend to look the other way. It's not news unless it's black people.
Famously during the massive women's march there were no arrests or altercations with police - but as many women who were there documented, there were all the things happening that usually causes arrests and altercations with police: but police don't respond when it's white women doing those things because white women getting beaten by police looks bad on TV.
Nothing new about that - hell Louis XV was about to have his soldiers murder a troop of protestors in the early days of the revolution (before the Bastile storming, when the aristos still held power and the revolution was just sporadic protests over food hoarding while the people starved) until he realized these were FEMALE protesters - then rapidly pulled his soldiers back and instead ordered them to open the grain stores so the protestors could get all the food they wanted !
The same pattern has attended basically every women's march since (and probably before -though history is doesn't record prior examples as well).
There has been no president more deserving of mass protest since Donalds' hero Andrew Jackson - and if you recall his actions led to the brutal murder of thousands of innocents. Here is a president who is exactly like Jackson in every regard. Like Jackson he was elected on a populist wave by angry middle Americans after promising to defend them from the 'elites'. Like Jackson he has spent his time in office only enriching himself and surrounding himself with corruption while an ultra-partisan congress has been too afraid to restrain him. Like Jackson he is considered an idiotic buffoon by most of the voters and ALL of Washington. Like Jackson he thinks he is a strongman and is way to eager to use the military. Like Jackson he has absolutely nor regard or respect for American's institutions or checks and balances - including, critically, the courts and the press.
But unlike Jackson - he lives in the 21st century - with a far more educated populace, and far more rapid flow of news. Unlike Jackson - he cannot operate with the ignorance of most citizens. Unlike Jackson - he can be protested against whenever he tries to overstep his authority, and forced to obey the courts. Unlike Jackson - even with congress refusing to do his job - the CITIZENS can step up and do it for them.
The best thing you can say about Donald Trump is that he is probably suffering from dementia (one merely needs to compare a video of him speaking now to one of his speaking in the 1990s to see the marked and obvious decline in coherence). He'll probably end up impeached, but in fairness he really should be removed under the 25th amendment because he is simply unfit to continue to hold office.
Trump's actions can only be adequately explained by a trained psychiatrist.
Personally - looking at the markedly obvious deterioration in his speech patterns and ability to form coherent sentences between videos of himself in the 1990s and now - I have my money on either dementia or final stage neurosyphilis.
Yeah, those astrophycisist types, the best in the world at looking at stars, but we all know they suck at adding up numbers right ?
Its like you Americans seriously think your institutions are infallible. Like you do not even know of their past failures. Like the time a president flat our ignored a supreme court decision and, in the process, killed 8000 innocent people and faced no consequences whatsoever for his god-emperorish abuse of power.
By the way he too was elected by angry middle americans pissed at 'the elites' because he promised to fight for them. Then spent his entire administration on nothing but self enrichment and corruption on 3rd world dictator levels.
By the way he is Donald's favorite past president ! Makes sense: don the con could be his reincarnation.
Andrew fucking Jackson one of the worst leaders in the history not just of America but of the whole world.
The systems are only as strong as congress's willingness to defend them. When congress wants to appease the president even the supreme court can become impotent. Its happened before. Do not imagine it cannot happen again.
Like when Tomi Lahren got fired for daring to not tow the conservative line on abortion ?
Republicans always complain about evil PC when some dickwad gets fired for shouting racist or homophobic slurs on air - but their belief that people should not lose their jobs over 'different opinions' just because somebody was offended seemed to evaporate when Kathy Griffith got fired for offending the trumpster.
Seems they never truly cared about free speech (or this ridiculous definition theroff) they just do not like that their side is more prone to foot in mouth disease.
America has passed many a retroactive law, including the last 2 copyright extensions. The last one survived a supreme court challenge.
Were you living under a rock during the 8 years of Obama's administration ?
A good python library will take ALL of them - and handle it correctly depending on the type it received. A good python function should accept ANY compatible data in any compatible type - and know how to deal with different types it may encounter.
Some tasks only ever make sense on a list - so only implement list code.
But if the task could, also, in a sensible way be done on a dict - then you damn well implement support for a dict and ensure your code checks which type it is and uses the right iterator.
Good python devs never let the user of a library try to guess what the library accepts - they tries to cater for whatever the users needs.
Consider this class I wrote:
https://github.com/ajventer/py...
Notice how it will work correctly regardless of whether the input is a list, an arbitrary sequence of parameters or even an arbitrary string - it will parse the data, and construct it into a generic format for use in internal calculations, and fail cleanly if the provided data cannot logically be parsed into an understandable sequence.
That's how python is supposed to do it. As long as the data is compatible with the processing function, all compatible types should be accepted.