Yep. More generally, I'll add that anyone who does not live in a swing state can do likewise, without worrying about the consequences. Is your state going fully R or D? Do those choices stink? No worries, vote third party.
I think speech implies "public speech", and conspiracy is associated with "private planning". So I think you are correct. Saying something in an open religious setting is probably speech.
...freedom to worship in a manner of your choosing does not imply that you may coerce or force others to worship the way you wish them to...
Right, but it does seem to imply that you may exhort others to behave the way you wish them to.
When does that constitute conspiracy to commit a criminal act? It seems like it should, in some cases, and that freedom of religion should not be a shield.
I do support the idea of having different types of traffic. For instance making bittorent traffic lower priority than realtime streaming.
So does Tom Wheeler. What you are describing is "traffic shaping", where different KINDS of traffic can have different priorities. Net neutrality allows that. What it doesn't allow is prioritization of Comcast's streaming traffic over somebody else's streaming traffic.
Lawyer: Are you an engineer? Potential Juror: Not necessarily. Lawyer: You sound like you might be an engineer. Potential Juror: That's not a sufficient condition for being an engineer. Lawyer: Look, you are not fooling anybody. Potential Juror: I don't grok your meaning. Lawyer: Bzzzt! You can go. Potential Juror: What gave me away?
I would not say it's necessarily audacious to "be oneself". However, you wrote "unlike the vast majority", which carries a different implication, specifically an implication of isolation or separation. Given such isolation or separation, there's a choice: do you act in a manner that increases that separation, or not?
It is audacious to act needlessly clever, which increases that isolation, possibly to the detriment of oneself. That is the situation now, with the "GNU's Not Unix" pun and this judge. Oh boy, how clever! They couldn't just have a common acronym? No? And this judge is now irritated at it.
Personally, I find the judge's opinion preposterous and superficial, but he's in a position of power, and his opinion is about to influence something real.
I think you are correct, that the judge is out of his element, with the programming aspect. However, we are concerned about another aspect. One that ought to be trivial and have no bearing on the case. The 'GNU' acronym. And that's where things get weird and sad.
The judge certainly has prior experience with acronyms, and he plainly expects acronyms to be created using a simple set of rules. The 'GNU' acronym has clearly violated his expected set of rules. Now we are faced with the prospect that the oh-so-clever GNU acronym is helping to irritate the judge. It's a stupid situation, but there it is. That's not a situation any lawyer wants to be in. (irritated judge)
But I do believe that in the tech industry we had reveled a but too much in that idea of our superiority and sometimes try hard to make things more complex to outsiders than they have to be. And now it can hurt us.
We can tell ourselves that, after the judge has become irritated and secretly prejudicial, due to a sarcastically-recursive acronym. It's a sad state of the courts, for sure, but it's also a case of nerd isolation.
Slashdot Mirror
All part of The Plan:
The Project For The New American Century
"But if sometime before the election Putin does a U-turn and starts bashing Trump..."
I can hear Trump's response in my head already: "Putin, he's just a terrible person."
From rare.com: "UPDATE: The bill failed to get the 2/3rds vote needed for passage. It failed with only 229 votes."
Double-extra points for vaping and exploding.
They do understand Stockholm. They did a proof-of-concept in Nevada in which the drank some Svedka. /s
Yeah, but notice that they hired the WHITE egg-shaped robot!
"I'm gonna go vote for Jill Stein."
Yep. More generally, I'll add that anyone who does not live in a swing state can do likewise, without worrying about the consequences. Is your state going fully R or D? Do those choices stink? No worries, vote third party.
IANAL.
I think speech implies "public speech", and conspiracy is associated with "private planning". So I think you are correct. Saying something in an open religious setting is probably speech.
Right, but it does seem to imply that you may exhort others to behave the way you wish them to.
When does that constitute conspiracy to commit a criminal act? It seems like it should, in some cases, and that freedom of religion should not be a shield.
Or FUCKYOU (tm).
Darn. If only he hadn't build an impenetrable wall.
Wish I had mod points for you.
So does Tom Wheeler. What you are describing is "traffic shaping", where different KINDS of traffic can have different priorities. Net neutrality allows that. What it doesn't allow is prioritization of Comcast's streaming traffic over somebody else's streaming traffic.
One word: expertsexchange.com
"...telling them how much money they can make WORKING FROM HOME!
FTFY.
Probably so. Imagine the deer, stuck to the hood, and kicking the shit out of everything within reach.
Extra points for not cleaning/reconditioning the hood afterwards, and driving around with a torso-shaped patch of hair for several weeks.
Yeah. I don't donate money to it anymore.
"...admit being an engineer..."
Lawyer: Are you an engineer?
Potential Juror: Not necessarily.
Lawyer: You sound like you might be an engineer.
Potential Juror: That's not a sufficient condition for being an engineer.
Lawyer: Look, you are not fooling anybody.
Potential Juror: I don't grok your meaning.
Lawyer: Bzzzt! You can go.
Potential Juror: What gave me away?
It is silly, until someone like a judge gets prejudiced by it. Then it is both foolish and problematic.
I would not say it's necessarily audacious to "be oneself". However, you wrote "unlike the vast majority", which carries a different implication, specifically an implication of isolation or separation. Given such isolation or separation, there's a choice: do you act in a manner that increases that separation, or not?
It is audacious to act needlessly clever, which increases that isolation, possibly to the detriment of oneself. That is the situation now, with the "GNU's Not Unix" pun and this judge. Oh boy, how clever! They couldn't just have a common acronym? No? And this judge is now irritated at it.
Personally, I find the judge's opinion preposterous and superficial, but he's in a position of power, and his opinion is about to influence something real.
We deserve what we get for having the audacity to ACT unlike the vast majority.
I think you are correct, that the judge is out of his element, with the programming aspect. However, we are concerned about another aspect. One that ought to be trivial and have no bearing on the case. The 'GNU' acronym. And that's where things get weird and sad.
The judge certainly has prior experience with acronyms, and he plainly expects acronyms to be created using a simple set of rules. The 'GNU' acronym has clearly violated his expected set of rules. Now we are faced with the prospect that the oh-so-clever GNU acronym is helping to irritate the judge. It's a stupid situation, but there it is. That's not a situation any lawyer wants to be in. (irritated judge)
Yes. You have said it well.
"...that's no reason to beat ourselves up."
We can tell ourselves that, after the judge has become irritated and secretly prejudicial, due to a sarcastically-recursive acronym. It's a sad state of the courts, for sure, but it's also a case of nerd isolation.