Modern legal experts agree that a major contributor to the Korematsu ruling was that the government knowingly submitted false information related to the case. Korematsu only hasn't been overturned because the ruling doesn't generally get cited as precedent in cases anymore. The convictions of korematsu and Hirabayashi, however, both have been.
Lincoln's actions were ruled unconstitutional in the US Circuit Court of Appeals, by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and Lincoln just straight up IGNORED that ruling. And when people bitched about this, Lincoln had them thrown in prison too. Lincoln went on to throw a massive chunk of the Maryland Legislature in prison, just to keep them from voting, which is a MASSIVE stretch of the concept of "rebellion or invasion"
The only reason Korematsu hasn't been overturned is that it hasn't come under judicial review. The actual conviction was overturned in 1983 because the government knowingly submitted false information. The Department of Justice issued a notice confirming that the solicitor general at the time was in error. If the ruling were to come under review, it's generally agreed that it would be overturned. Instead of explicitly overturning it, it just never gets cited as president.
Even if Korematsu vs. the United States was initially ruled unconstitutional, the president still would've had the power to set up the camps until that ruling (and the other before it) told him to knock it off. That's the concern.
Obama got the Peace Prize from the Nobel committee, which is mostly Europeans. Most people on all political sides are still a bit confused as to why he won that thing, beyond it just being a kinda silly symbolic act. People on both sides overracted to Obama's election. There were the ignorant liberals who believed that Obama's presidency was gonna do stuff like halt middle-east conflict and put an end to racial inequality, and there were the ignorant conservatives who ran to gun stores in droves believing Gun-industry funded NRA scare campaigns saying Obama was gonna take their guns and they should all become preppers and build survival shelters.
The trouble with Trump is that between his complete lack of experience in government, and his continued declarations of clearly unconstitutional ideas, he's an unknown. Most people don't have a reason to be terrified of anything, this is true. However, it gives people an opportunity to take stock of things and do a little risk assessment.
In this case, I think it's a good move. Not because Trump will ruin the world, but becuase "Oh, hey, now that you mention it, all this really really important information in a single country is a pretty dumb move, because, laws and stuff can change."
They've had budget issues, including a fire in 2013 (although that did bring in plenty of donations, I don't know if it offset all the damages). Setting up tens of petabytes of storage that'll be approaching exabytes before we know it, and doing so in foreign countries, that ain't cheap.
FWIW, all new archived items for the past few years are pushed up as bittorrents. So, so long as seeders stay up for everything, it'd technically be retrievable in the case it fell off the planet somehow.
First decent semi-recent source I could find says 10 petabytes (10,000 terabytes) as of October 2012. I can't find any sorta graph, but I can just rough estimate a doubling in size every 18 months, Which gives me a ballpark guess of about 70PB.
They were having some major budget problems preventing this. You're right though, this has been long overdue, and it should be in way more than just Canada. It should be on every continent; I'd even support sending the occasional backup to Antarctica. Now that I think about it, these guys deserve my money. I'm gonna start donating.
Lincoln didn't have the power to suspend Habeas Corpus. Roosevelt didn't have the power to send American citizens of Japanese-decent to internment camps.
Honestly, even if Trump wasn't elected, this is still a very good idea. The Internet Archive is one of the most important sources of information ever created. I think we should put a copy of it on every continent at the very least.
Fair enough, I either fucked up my math or I was working with old numbers. I wouldn't give you AZ from the numbers I'm seeing; that one's too close. However I would grant you Michigan. But it would really just take PA and FL. Man, it feels weird that FL gets so many votes. Freaky little state. But yeah, we seem to agree with eachother on most everything else.
I mean, that's kinda silly. They knew from the start that it involved Hillary Fucking Clinton. No deep investigation needed there. Republicans control both houses of congress, the 2017 presidency, the attorney general, they've got a shot at yanking the supreme court in a more conservative direction. How much more is needed to prosecute this woman?? And if she's so brilliantly bulletproof, then why did she fail to win the election? Nah, none of this makes sense.
They were dismissed as baseless by James Comey, a man who was registered as a Republican for most of his life, currently not registered either way, and is on record as having personally donated to the 2008 McCain campaign as well as the 2012 Romney campaign.
I honestly just meant that I don't think she's "equally or more unpopular than Trump". I'm happy to agree that she's not supremely popular. But she's got both the 2% give or take a fraction that were there during the election, with the addition of Trump, who's OK with her now, so that adds one more person, and the potential addition of anyone who only hated her because Trump told them to hate her.
"Since my letter, the FBI investigative team has been working around the clock to process and review a large volume of emails from a device obtained in connection with an unrelated criminal investigation...we have not changed our conclusions that we expressed in July with respect to Secretary Clinton." -James Comey, Director FBI, Sunday, November 6
In terms of the presidential election, voter turnout only particularly matters for swing-states, which saw an overall increase in voters.
Anyone seriously supporting a 3rd party should know that between not voting and voting for a 3rd party candidate, it is important to vote for those 3rd party candidates for the sake of determining funding.
"Alternative Vote" is not an unknown set of rules, it is a well defined voting strategy. I'll agree that if we had an Alternative Vote strategy that allowed voters to pick Sanders first and Hillary as an alternative, the outcome potentially could've been altered. But as you mention, if we had such a system, a whole mess of things related to how US political parties and primaries work would be different, so I wasn't talking about that. I was just talking about the ability to pick among a system that better supports more than just 2 major parties. In other words, you can't say, "rawr, those who voted for the libertarian party allowed Trump to win!" in the same way that you can say "Rawr, those who voted for the Bull Moose Party allowed Woodrow Wilson to win!"
It's real news that this urge has been made, but the way things are summarized is somewhere between weak and fake sensationalizing. The real story is "we should probably recount and investigate even though it almost certainly won't change a thing or come up with any fraud" which is too boring for decent headlines.
She can't be that unpopular. Even Trump says that she's a good woman. Most of her unpopularity is either related to FUD from Trump's negative campaign, and concerns that were determined to be baseless at the last minute.
It costs money, and there's no point in rigging an election and very little point to check to see if there is rigging in an election if that rigging is not sufficient to alter the outcome. Plenty of states already have laws regarding automatic recounts if the results are within a certain degree of closeness.
There are methods for things like physical recounts, and investigating voter fraud concerns, but in this situation, there is almost zero chance that they would result in changing the results of even a single state. A different situation occurred in 2000, where there were genuine concerns regarding ballots in locations like Florida, but ultimately, the objections there likewise failed to change anything.
There's no mechanism for results to be challenged in such a way that there's a 2nd vote.
The only evidence of fraud in this article is a statistical anomaly, which is about as weak as you can get. There are so many possible statistical anomalies out there that statistically speaking, at least one of them is always going to show up. That's why you rely on computer scientists to write code, not to gauge the fairness of an election. You should rely instead on statisticians to....actually, you should usually be pretty careful about statisticians as well.
Strategically speaking, that doesn't make much sense. If you want to win an election, you make your side afraid that it might lose. If instead you present polls saying that your side is a shoe-in, then many people will not bother to vote. I'm happy to entertain that many facets of the media attempted to skew public opinion, but I don't see any reason to believe that one of their methods was to fudge the polling.
I'd never thought about this before your comment, so I looked into this. I can't find any information saying that federal money goes towards the primary elections. Everything I can find talks about state and possibly county money going to pay for the primaries. The only federal funds I can find related to primaries are funds that go towards individual candidate's campaigns, by way of the public funds matching on federal income tax. Could you point me to more information? I'd appreciate it.
Not long ago, there was no public vote for party nominations at all. The parties are technically allowed to completely ignore primary election results. So, the idea that the DNC was doing sneaky things to slant things honestly doesn't bother me that much, other than the fact that it wasn't a very smart idea.
The data shows that fairly few Sanders supporters voted for trump. Some did vote for 3rd party candidates, but, if you crunch the numbers this time around, even if we had a Alternative Vote system, and we assume that 3rd party voters all selected Hillary as their 2nd choice, Trump would still win the electoral college, just not by quite as much.
If that was true, wouldn't there be arrests? Are you sure they were really caught red-handed? Are you sure that isn't hyperbole, and the truth is more like, "some have suspected that the DNC is doing things that are blatantly illegal"? Or perhaps "The DNC was caught doing things that some might consider a conflict-of-interest, but not technically illegal"?
Worker ants have zero chance of passing on genetic information; they are effectively genderless. They serve a critical purpose in an ant colony as a whole. They are not suffering from a mental disorder, and they are perfectly explainable via evolution when you just take the time to consider the evolution of species as a whole.
It is extremely difficult to show that there is any rise in gender-fluidity, as it can't be distinguished from a rise in being comfortable identifying as a non-binary gender.
Science is not afraid to say "we don't know yet" and absolutely, we've got tons more to learn about the nature of gender. However, we don't define it as a mental disorder in itself, because it is not distressing in itself. The mental disorder is "Gender Dysphoric Disorder" or "Gender Identity Disorder". which relates to the distress of gender identity not matching phenotype. There is and has been plenty of research related to try to solve this, and not merely through sexual reassignment.
I have a deadline coming up for this NYT article, and I haven't done anything but Facebook and Twitter all week so I don't even have an idea for a topic yet.....WAIT! I'VE GOT IT!
Slashdot Mirror
Modern legal experts agree that a major contributor to the Korematsu ruling was that the government knowingly submitted false information related to the case. Korematsu only hasn't been overturned because the ruling doesn't generally get cited as precedent in cases anymore. The convictions of korematsu and Hirabayashi, however, both have been.
The only reason Korematsu hasn't been overturned is that it hasn't come under judicial review. The actual conviction was overturned in 1983 because the government knowingly submitted false information. The Department of Justice issued a notice confirming that the solicitor general at the time was in error. If the ruling were to come under review, it's generally agreed that it would be overturned. Instead of explicitly overturning it, it just never gets cited as president.
Even if Korematsu vs. the United States was initially ruled unconstitutional, the president still would've had the power to set up the camps until that ruling (and the other before it) told him to knock it off. That's the concern.
The trouble with Trump is that between his complete lack of experience in government, and his continued declarations of clearly unconstitutional ideas, he's an unknown. Most people don't have a reason to be terrified of anything, this is true. However, it gives people an opportunity to take stock of things and do a little risk assessment.
In this case, I think it's a good move. Not because Trump will ruin the world, but becuase "Oh, hey, now that you mention it, all this really really important information in a single country is a pretty dumb move, because, laws and stuff can change."
FWIW, all new archived items for the past few years are pushed up as bittorrents. So, so long as seeders stay up for everything, it'd technically be retrievable in the case it fell off the planet somehow.
1PB = 1,000 (or 1024) TB, I meant to say...Stupid typos.
First decent semi-recent source I could find says 10 petabytes (10,000 terabytes) as of October 2012. I can't find any sorta graph, but I can just rough estimate a doubling in size every 18 months, Which gives me a ballpark guess of about 70PB.
They were having some major budget problems preventing this. You're right though, this has been long overdue, and it should be in way more than just Canada. It should be on every continent; I'd even support sending the occasional backup to Antarctica. Now that I think about it, these guys deserve my money. I'm gonna start donating.
Honestly, even if Trump wasn't elected, this is still a very good idea. The Internet Archive is one of the most important sources of information ever created. I think we should put a copy of it on every continent at the very least.
Fair enough, I either fucked up my math or I was working with old numbers. I wouldn't give you AZ from the numbers I'm seeing; that one's too close. However I would grant you Michigan. But it would really just take PA and FL. Man, it feels weird that FL gets so many votes. Freaky little state. But yeah, we seem to agree with eachother on most everything else.
I mean, that's kinda silly. They knew from the start that it involved Hillary Fucking Clinton. No deep investigation needed there. Republicans control both houses of congress, the 2017 presidency, the attorney general, they've got a shot at yanking the supreme court in a more conservative direction. How much more is needed to prosecute this woman?? And if she's so brilliantly bulletproof, then why did she fail to win the election? Nah, none of this makes sense.
They were dismissed as baseless by James Comey, a man who was registered as a Republican for most of his life, currently not registered either way, and is on record as having personally donated to the 2008 McCain campaign as well as the 2012 Romney campaign.
I honestly just meant that I don't think she's "equally or more unpopular than Trump". I'm happy to agree that she's not supremely popular. But she's got both the 2% give or take a fraction that were there during the election, with the addition of Trump, who's OK with her now, so that adds one more person, and the potential addition of anyone who only hated her because Trump told them to hate her.
"Since my letter, the FBI investigative team has been working around the clock to process and review a large volume of emails from a device obtained in connection with an unrelated criminal investigation...we have not changed our conclusions that we expressed in July with respect to Secretary Clinton." -James Comey, Director FBI, Sunday, November 6
http://www.npr.org/sections/th...
http://www.usatoday.com/story/...
http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/06/...
Just what I was looking for, thanks!
Anyone seriously supporting a 3rd party should know that between not voting and voting for a 3rd party candidate, it is important to vote for those 3rd party candidates for the sake of determining funding.
"Alternative Vote" is not an unknown set of rules, it is a well defined voting strategy. I'll agree that if we had an Alternative Vote strategy that allowed voters to pick Sanders first and Hillary as an alternative, the outcome potentially could've been altered. But as you mention, if we had such a system, a whole mess of things related to how US political parties and primaries work would be different, so I wasn't talking about that. I was just talking about the ability to pick among a system that better supports more than just 2 major parties. In other words, you can't say, "rawr, those who voted for the libertarian party allowed Trump to win!" in the same way that you can say "Rawr, those who voted for the Bull Moose Party allowed Woodrow Wilson to win!"
It's real news that this urge has been made, but the way things are summarized is somewhere between weak and fake sensationalizing. The real story is "we should probably recount and investigate even though it almost certainly won't change a thing or come up with any fraud" which is too boring for decent headlines.
She can't be that unpopular. Even Trump says that she's a good woman. Most of her unpopularity is either related to FUD from Trump's negative campaign, and concerns that were determined to be baseless at the last minute.
It costs money, and there's no point in rigging an election and very little point to check to see if there is rigging in an election if that rigging is not sufficient to alter the outcome. Plenty of states already have laws regarding automatic recounts if the results are within a certain degree of closeness.
There's no mechanism for results to be challenged in such a way that there's a 2nd vote.
The only evidence of fraud in this article is a statistical anomaly, which is about as weak as you can get. There are so many possible statistical anomalies out there that statistically speaking, at least one of them is always going to show up. That's why you rely on computer scientists to write code, not to gauge the fairness of an election. You should rely instead on statisticians to....actually, you should usually be pretty careful about statisticians as well.
Strategically speaking, that doesn't make much sense. If you want to win an election, you make your side afraid that it might lose. If instead you present polls saying that your side is a shoe-in, then many people will not bother to vote. I'm happy to entertain that many facets of the media attempted to skew public opinion, but I don't see any reason to believe that one of their methods was to fudge the polling.
I'd never thought about this before your comment, so I looked into this. I can't find any information saying that federal money goes towards the primary elections. Everything I can find talks about state and possibly county money going to pay for the primaries. The only federal funds I can find related to primaries are funds that go towards individual candidate's campaigns, by way of the public funds matching on federal income tax. Could you point me to more information? I'd appreciate it.
The data shows that fairly few Sanders supporters voted for trump. Some did vote for 3rd party candidates, but, if you crunch the numbers this time around, even if we had a Alternative Vote system, and we assume that 3rd party voters all selected Hillary as their 2nd choice, Trump would still win the electoral college, just not by quite as much.
If that was true, wouldn't there be arrests? Are you sure they were really caught red-handed? Are you sure that isn't hyperbole, and the truth is more like, "some have suspected that the DNC is doing things that are blatantly illegal"? Or perhaps "The DNC was caught doing things that some might consider a conflict-of-interest, but not technically illegal"?
It is extremely difficult to show that there is any rise in gender-fluidity, as it can't be distinguished from a rise in being comfortable identifying as a non-binary gender.
Science is not afraid to say "we don't know yet" and absolutely, we've got tons more to learn about the nature of gender. However, we don't define it as a mental disorder in itself, because it is not distressing in itself. The mental disorder is "Gender Dysphoric Disorder" or "Gender Identity Disorder". which relates to the distress of gender identity not matching phenotype. There is and has been plenty of research related to try to solve this, and not merely through sexual reassignment.
I have a deadline coming up for this NYT article, and I haven't done anything but Facebook and Twitter all week so I don't even have an idea for a topic yet.....WAIT! I'VE GOT IT!