E.g.: The Department of Health, to operate properly, needs to have records on you. They can share those records.
N.B.: While in principle it should be possible for the end user (patient) to have control over those records, in practice a large number of separate people (medical specialists, at least) need to be able to access them simultaneously. This makes real security of the information impossible (or at least I have no idea how one could do it). And THIS means that as more and more information is needed by the Department of Health (e.g., your DNA sequence) and as advances allow more and more to be done with the information (e.g., your DNA sequence)...well, eventually other parts of the government will be able to access that information, and use it to produce an estimate of how you will act in various situations. (It need not be accurate for people to do it.)
P.S.: There have already been attempts to categorize people as "proabale criminals" purely on the basis of their DNA. So don't think it will never happen. It may never be accurate, but that's a separate question.
Anyway, because of this, it makes sense to consider the government as a unitary entity, even though the various parts of it don't coordinate. It's probably more of a unitary entity than is a sponge, though possibly less so than is an earthworm.
D's basic language, and standard library, are excellent and solid. But they don't cover enough. This is probably inevitable, but it *IS* a real problem. The obvious way to solve it is to wrap C libraries with D code, and include them. This, however, takes the time and effort of skilled people.
E.g.: Sqlite3 wrappers are currently included, but they are so thin that calling them wrappers is almost a misnomer. There have been several attempts to wrap Sqlite3 in the past, but they've all been completed, used, and dropped. (Well, the ones that I know of.) It's hard to tell whether a external library has been abandoned, or is just considered "good enough".
OTOH, if you are comfortable with C, then using C libraries directly from D is not a problem. So I suspect the language maintainers don't understand the scope of the problem. Even I have successfully wrapped a library once or twice, and I'm not highly skilled at any particular language. (OTOH, I'm at far better than basic skill level in a large number of languages. But I haven't concentrated on one. [Professionally, before I retired, I was finally forced to use MS Access Basic, which I came to after over a decade of Fortran and various specialized languages, e.g. DataFlex.])
Where do you think they normally put power plants?
P.S.: There's no KNOWN reason that you couldn't put the antenna's on the tops of buildings, but people don't like the idea of even probably harmless radiation. And that's why they talk about pasture. If after a few decades the cows don't show any effects, then they'll talk about moving the antennas downtown.
Lisp doesn't work well without a good IDE...and I don't count EMACS.
Racket would be ok. It has a decent IDE. But it doesn't do multi-processing, even though it has the appropriate language features.
I don't know Clojure well enough. The last time I tried it (over a year ago) the install instructions produced an only-partially-working result. This is probably NetBeans fault rather than Clojure, but I didn't follow this up. I never got as far as checking how it did on parallel processing.
Most Scheme's and most Lisps don't handle Unicode gracefully.
I've considered Lisp several times, and always found some reason, not always the same, why it was not satisfactory. Most of them weren't inherent in the language, but in the state of the libraries or of the development environment.
P.S.: For Python, Ruby, Vala, etc. I don't feel the need of an IDE. For Java one is highly desireable. For Lisp it's essential. This largely has to do with the state of the libraries and the documentation....but it also has to do with the size of the active namespace (and how familiar I am with it).
P.P.S.: If you're going to depend on a set of public libraries instead of an included set, they you had better verify them for quality. This is why Python's "batteries included" stance is so good. You can depend on the basic libraries. Ruby tries to handle this with Ruby gems. The quality isn't as good as Python, but it's pretty good, and it has wide coverage. Lisp....The public Lisp libraries often don't work as advertised. It appears as if anyone can add anything to the library collection without any quality control. D also has that problem. It's one of my favorite languages, but it's collection of libraries is abyssmal. Often they will only work with an old or new version, but the requirements aren't usually listed. Frequently they have dependencies that aren't listed.
But I've only seen one post saying that they should be sued because the sold a gadget with and advertised feature that they broke after the purchase. So I think that Google is still being let off easy.
That said, perhaps the circumstances were different, and certainly the time-lapse is different. Probably a lot fewer posters bought Goiogle's gadget because of the feature. (And, honestly, to me it's a lot murkier exactly what Google did. Perhaps that will clear up in a couple of days.)
Even if those numbers are correct, they could be great for powering other satellites. Or even for beamed power transmission to an ion-rocket headed WAY out.
For any particular set of numbers there is a range of uses. Could be large, could be small. Personally I think it could be the best way to power a refinery build on a captured asteroid, e.g. Of course, first you need to capture the asteroid, but there's another group(s?) of people working on that.
This depends entirely on the frequency chosen. One should presume that they chose a frequency that is minimally affected by those. There are many such, though they ARE a minority. Probably something long enough that the term "microwave" is a misnomer.
It's always seemed to me that for an SPSS the logical source of power would be a heat engine. Perhaps a Sterling cycle engine. Lubrication would, of course, be a problem.
Another alternative would be manufacturing the cells in orbit. (There is talk about capturing an asteroid.) Cells made in orbit could be designed with large traces, for durability, and wouldn't need to be rugged enough to survive liftoff. Perhaps some sort of 3D printer could be used. (We wouldn't need a high volume.) FWIW I've already heard of a 3D printer that could print integratted circuits, though I'm not sure how well it works, or what medium it uses.
Unh.,.. Just how soon do you think cancers could be expected to show up? That's not a fact, that's a hope. One that isn't in any way justifiable.
OTOH, I will agree that it will probably never be possible to look at any one particular case of cancer and say definitively that this particular cancer was caused by Fukishima. What WILL be possible is to look a a population of cancers and say "This proportion was probably caused by Fukishima.".
I believe that in your other two "facts" you may be committing the "no true Scotsman" fallacy, but I haven't studied the situation sufficiently to have any certainty. (And you haven't specified how one is to distinguish the membership of the "couple of subcultures" from the rest...outside, that is, of using guns illegally.)
You are foolish. The expenditure on ALL space projects by the US is a minisicule fraction of the total government expenses. You could quadruple NASAs budget, and it wouldn't even show up as a blip in the overall budget.
OTOH, this is the exact kind of thing NASA *should* be doing. Advanced research. Something that no company or corporation will do, because the payoff is decades away. I'm not a real fan of planetary exploration, robotic or human, but that's because I thing the asteroids are the important place. Sitll, they all require that similar problems be solved (though slightly differently, as asteroids don't have a requirement for a heavy lifter at the destination).
P.S.: Don't expect libertarian asteroid governments. Asteroid governments are going to be highly dependent on complex technology. That means strict limits on anything that might be seen as damaging. Think, if optimistic, about constitutional monarchies, which a bit of a heavy emphasis on the monarch. And where anyone who's second cousin or so the the current monarch has a shot at being selected by the "council of elders" or some such to be the successor. Based as largely on their competence as their desire.
The technology is already good enough that you don't need that large an antenna. The antenna is designed to allow the capture of a lot of power at a low intensity. IIRC microwave power transmission is over 90% efficient at low intensities, though in this case you also need to use a wavelength that the atmosphere is transparent to. That means that it treats water vapor as transparent. Probably also liquid water (rain, sleet, snow, hail, you), because if they absorb energy, then it can't be picked up by the receiver. This probably means that only electrical conductors will absorb it. The frequency determines the size of the antenna needed to be the most efficient absorber. Multiples and fractions of the wavelength of the radiation is generally most effective, but this can be altered by applied electric charge. (Think tuning a radio.)
The place where we can expect improvement is in the transmitter. That's got a lot of tricky parts that need to be quite durable. The antenna is already pretty good, and there probably isn't too much improvement possible...not if you want efficient reception.
In the designs I've previously seen, you don't need to "solve" that problem, because it just doesn't exist. The prior plans called for the area under the microwave antenna to be pasture land. They didn't want it to be residential because there was no evidence that low level exposure to microwaves over a long period of time was safe. Short periods of time? No problem. You have much less intensity per square cm than you have in a microwave over. That's why the receiving antennas need to be so large. (But large doesn't mean expensive. It's [almost] just wire netting.)
OTOH, I didn't look at this design. But from the size of the receiving antennas proposed nothing about that feature has changed.
I don't believe that there's been any real study to determine how many people have it. But of the number of people who have bad enough cases to be admitted to a hospital, and were then diagnosed with MERS, more than half of them died. Without knowing the associated percentages, however, we can't really say more about it than "it's occasionally fatal".
The main point is that the owners of the new media are not news organizations. Consider the implications.
To help you in your consideration... 1) Kentucky Fried Chicken used to be extremely tastey. 2) H. Salt Fish and chips used to be not only extremely tastey, but quite popular. 3) Hublein, basically a liquor company, bought KFC. Within a few months that chicken became not worth my eating. 4) About a year later, KFC bought H. Salt fish and chips. Within the same month that also became not worth eating. 5) It's been years since I've seen an H. Salt fish and chips store. (I may have seen on inside a KFC outlet a year or two ago. But it could be a decade ago.)
The Senate is a privileged group. But note that McCarthy didn't directly destroy people's lives. He did things that in other contexts would have been libel and slander, and he did it in the public media. But because he was a Senator, that wasn't technically illegal (IIUC).
OTOH, his smear campaign was used by many other people, some who just didn't want to be smeared themselves, to get people fired, etc. He didn't run into any real opposition until he tackled the Army. Then he lost, because he never had any substantial evidence against anyone.
So people that McCarthy attacked were fired, not because there was some legal requirement that they be fired, but because their employers or supervisors didn't want to find themselves smeared. (And, admittedly, sometimes because of internal politics, and this made an excellent excuse that their enemies took advantage of.) Also, if any company took any federal money, either directly or indirectly, and didn't fire someone McCarthy accused, they faced the strong likelihood of losing those grants. Etc.
Please note that the McCarthy inspired HUAC (House Unamerican Activities Committee) continued up into the 1960's. McCarthy's disgrace didn't mark the end of McCarthyism, merely its weakening. (I've always read HUAC as being a Committee of Representatives that gathered to engage in Unamerican Activities.)
Yes, it may bring us down too. Particularly since every president who has reduced that debt has been subjected to virulent attacks. But Reagan *did* end the Cold War. We may lose also, but it's essentially over.
Now whether he did it on purpose, that's a different question. I doubt that he was sane enough to have done it on purpose. He was clearly in the latter stages of Altzheimers while he was president. Perhaps we should really give credit either to Nancy Reagan, or to someone unknown.
As I said to another poster, I think you believe too much government propaganda. Despite the government telling us we are frightened, and using that as an excuse for oppressive and illegal programs, most people I know aren't frightened. They just don't see any practical way to get rid of the bastards in charge.
FWIW, it does appear that we are headed in a direction that will leave us frightened and oppressed, but that's not the current state. There's just no obvious way to improve the direction things are moving.
I think you believe the government's self-serving propaganda. Very little of what the US has done beyond it's borders has been done with the intent, or effect, of benefiting anyone except the US (and, of course, political lobbyists). Much of it has been to the active detriment of those it was claiming to help. Much of the rest has been, at best, neutral.
In particular we use our arms to support foreign dictators, to overthrow popularly elected governments, and to extract wealth by extortion. To cause treaties to be signed that favor politically connected corporations. Etc.
The world would have been much safer if we had been willing to recognize Castro's cuba when he first overthrew our puppet dictator (Batista). The results of that refusal lead us to within around 30 seconds of WWIII. Vietnam would gladly have allied with the US rather than China, if we had followed our diplomatic commitments and yielded to the results of the popular election of Ho Chi Min rather than installing our own puppet dictator in the south. Etc.
That can go either way. As long as "justice" is non-controversial, it's probably a very good system, if the judged *do* adhere to it. But it's easily subject to corruption by popular movements, and by judges whose idea of justice doesn't match yours.
OTOH, laws are difficult to change, and when a bunch of self-serving bastards control the legislature (common) extremely unjust laws get passed. Which means that judges that are willing to enforce them are a really bad idea.
On the third hand (sorry, but this *isn't* the gripping hand) remember the way justice was shackeled in the US South for nearly a century after the Civil War. That involved judges either ignoring the laws or chosing which ones to notice in an unjust way. But *they* didn't think they were being unjust. They probably thought they were fostering a proper rule of and respect for the law. So neither way is an answer when humans are making the decisions.
If you think your news is good quality enough that you don't need a moderation system, then separate it. Well moderated (i.e., suppress the trolls and flakes) news systems are superior to purely "good quality news", but they do require extra effort to maintain. And "suppress the trolls and flakes" should not be taken as a license to suppress anyone who disagrees with you. Which is were most sites get into problems (if they even attempt to be honest and fair).
OTOH, a quality news site isn't all that common. I know a couple that work in restricted areas, where most people don't have a major ax to grind, but even there, say, biology news is subject to politically inspired attacks.
So the moderated comments section could be separated from the news section, but there should be two-way links (I want to say bijective links) between them. Slashdot is one extreme, where there's almost NO news reporting, merely aggregation without concerning oneself over the quality of the original source or story. Other sites have varying degrees of requirements on how to post.
As to why do it? Sites with public commentary get more hits.
Slashdot Mirror
That's true, but ...
E.g.: The Department of Health, to operate properly, needs to have records on you. They can share those records.
N.B.: While in principle it should be possible for the end user (patient) to have control over those records, in practice a large number of separate people (medical specialists, at least) need to be able to access them simultaneously. This makes real security of the information impossible (or at least I have no idea how one could do it). And THIS means that as more and more information is needed by the Department of Health (e.g., your DNA sequence) and as advances allow more and more to be done with the information (e.g., your DNA sequence)...well, eventually other parts of the government will be able to access that information, and use it to produce an estimate of how you will act in various situations. (It need not be accurate for people to do it.)
P.S.: There have already been attempts to categorize people as "proabale criminals" purely on the basis of their DNA. So don't think it will never happen. It may never be accurate, but that's a separate question.
Anyway, because of this, it makes sense to consider the government as a unitary entity, even though the various parts of it don't coordinate. It's probably more of a unitary entity than is a sponge, though possibly less so than is an earthworm.
OK. I've never encountered that problem. Did you inform them of your problem? Ask about it on the list?
D's basic language, and standard library, are excellent and solid. But they don't cover enough. This is probably inevitable, but it *IS* a real problem. The obvious way to solve it is to wrap C libraries with D code, and include them. This, however, takes the time and effort of skilled people.
E.g.: Sqlite3 wrappers are currently included, but they are so thin that calling them wrappers is almost a misnomer. There have been several attempts to wrap Sqlite3 in the past, but they've all been completed, used, and dropped. (Well, the ones that I know of.) It's hard to tell whether a external library has been abandoned, or is just considered "good enough".
OTOH, if you are comfortable with C, then using C libraries directly from D is not a problem. So I suspect the language maintainers don't understand the scope of the problem. Even I have successfully wrapped a library once or twice, and I'm not highly skilled at any particular language. (OTOH, I'm at far better than basic skill level in a large number of languages. But I haven't concentrated on one. [Professionally, before I retired, I was finally forced to use MS Access Basic, which I came to after over a decade of Fortran and various specialized languages, e.g. DataFlex.])
Where do you think they normally put power plants?
P.S.: There's no KNOWN reason that you couldn't put the antenna's on the tops of buildings, but people don't like the idea of even probably harmless radiation. And that's why they talk about pasture. If after a few decades the cows don't show any effects, then they'll talk about moving the antennas downtown.
Lisp doesn't work well without a good IDE...and I don't count EMACS.
Racket would be ok. It has a decent IDE. But it doesn't do multi-processing, even though it has the appropriate language features.
I don't know Clojure well enough. The last time I tried it (over a year ago) the install instructions produced an only-partially-working result. This is probably NetBeans fault rather than Clojure, but I didn't follow this up. I never got as far as checking how it did on parallel processing.
Most Scheme's and most Lisps don't handle Unicode gracefully.
I've considered Lisp several times, and always found some reason, not always the same, why it was not satisfactory. Most of them weren't inherent in the language, but in the state of the libraries or of the development environment.
P.S.: For Python, Ruby, Vala, etc. I don't feel the need of an IDE. For Java one is highly desireable. For Lisp it's essential. This largely has to do with the state of the libraries and the documentation....but it also has to do with the size of the active namespace (and how familiar I am with it).
P.P.S.: If you're going to depend on a set of public libraries instead of an included set, they you had better verify them for quality. This is why Python's "batteries included" stance is so good. You can depend on the basic libraries. Ruby tries to handle this with Ruby gems. The quality isn't as good as Python, but it's pretty good, and it has wide coverage. Lisp....The public Lisp libraries often don't work as advertised. It appears as if anyone can add anything to the library collection without any quality control. D also has that problem. It's one of my favorite languages, but it's collection of libraries is abyssmal. Often they will only work with an old or new version, but the requirements aren't usually listed. Frequently they have dependencies that aren't listed.
That's only one root of the saying. The other is that liberal ideas which are successful become a part of the conservative platform.
(Note that this does NOT refer to neo-cons who are con-men that have usurped the conservative name.)
But I've only seen one post saying that they should be sued because the sold a gadget with and advertised feature that they broke after the purchase. So I think that Google is still being let off easy.
That said, perhaps the circumstances were different, and certainly the time-lapse is different. Probably a lot fewer posters bought Goiogle's gadget because of the feature. (And, honestly, to me it's a lot murkier exactly what Google did. Perhaps that will clear up in a couple of days.)
Even if those numbers are correct, they could be great for powering other satellites. Or even for beamed power transmission to an ion-rocket headed WAY out.
For any particular set of numbers there is a range of uses. Could be large, could be small. Personally I think it could be the best way to power a refinery build on a captured asteroid, e.g. Of course, first you need to capture the asteroid, but there's another group(s?) of people working on that.
This depends entirely on the frequency chosen. One should presume that they chose a frequency that is minimally affected by those. There are many such, though they ARE a minority. Probably something long enough that the term "microwave" is a misnomer.
It's always seemed to me that for an SPSS the logical source of power would be a heat engine. Perhaps a Sterling cycle engine. Lubrication would, of course, be a problem.
Another alternative would be manufacturing the cells in orbit. (There is talk about capturing an asteroid.) Cells made in orbit could be designed with large traces, for durability, and wouldn't need to be rugged enough to survive liftoff. Perhaps some sort of 3D printer could be used. (We wouldn't need a high volume.) FWIW I've already heard of a 3D printer that could print integratted circuits, though I'm not sure how well it works, or what medium it uses.
Unh.,.. Just how soon do you think cancers could be expected to show up? That's not a fact, that's a hope. One that isn't in any way justifiable.
OTOH, I will agree that it will probably never be possible to look at any one particular case of cancer and say definitively that this particular cancer was caused by Fukishima. What WILL be possible is to look a a population of cancers and say "This proportion was probably caused by Fukishima.".
I believe that in your other two "facts" you may be committing the "no true Scotsman" fallacy, but I haven't studied the situation sufficiently to have any certainty. (And you haven't specified how one is to distinguish the membership of the "couple of subcultures" from the rest...outside, that is, of using guns illegally.)
You are foolish. The expenditure on ALL space projects by the US is a minisicule fraction of the total government expenses. You could quadruple NASAs budget, and it wouldn't even show up as a blip in the overall budget.
OTOH, this is the exact kind of thing NASA *should* be doing. Advanced research. Something that no company or corporation will do, because the payoff is decades away. I'm not a real fan of planetary exploration, robotic or human, but that's because I thing the asteroids are the important place. Sitll, they all require that similar problems be solved (though slightly differently, as asteroids don't have a requirement for a heavy lifter at the destination).
P.S.: Don't expect libertarian asteroid governments. Asteroid governments are going to be highly dependent on complex technology. That means strict limits on anything that might be seen as damaging. Think, if optimistic, about constitutional monarchies, which a bit of a heavy emphasis on the monarch. And where anyone who's second cousin or so the the current monarch has a shot at being selected by the "council of elders" or some such to be the successor. Based as largely on their competence as their desire.
The technology is already good enough that you don't need that large an antenna. The antenna is designed to allow the capture of a lot of power at a low intensity. IIRC microwave power transmission is over 90% efficient at low intensities, though in this case you also need to use a wavelength that the atmosphere is transparent to. That means that it treats water vapor as transparent. Probably also liquid water (rain, sleet, snow, hail, you), because if they absorb energy, then it can't be picked up by the receiver. This probably means that only electrical conductors will absorb it. The frequency determines the size of the antenna needed to be the most efficient absorber. Multiples and fractions of the wavelength of the radiation is generally most effective, but this can be altered by applied electric charge. (Think tuning a radio.)
The place where we can expect improvement is in the transmitter. That's got a lot of tricky parts that need to be quite durable. The antenna is already pretty good, and there probably isn't too much improvement possible...not if you want efficient reception.
In the designs I've previously seen, you don't need to "solve" that problem, because it just doesn't exist. The prior plans called for the area under the microwave antenna to be pasture land. They didn't want it to be residential because there was no evidence that low level exposure to microwaves over a long period of time was safe. Short periods of time? No problem. You have much less intensity per square cm than you have in a microwave over. That's why the receiving antennas need to be so large. (But large doesn't mean expensive. It's [almost] just wire netting.)
OTOH, I didn't look at this design. But from the size of the receiving antennas proposed nothing about that feature has changed.
Bingo!
I don't believe that there's been any real study to determine how many people have it. But of the number of people who have bad enough cases to be admitted to a hospital, and were then diagnosed with MERS, more than half of them died. Without knowing the associated percentages, however, we can't really say more about it than "it's occasionally fatal".
Excuse me, but what is he clearly guilty of? Please cite a New Zealand law, not a US law.
If the action was committed in New Zealand, and was not illegal there, what are the possible grounds for ANY action?
The main point is that the owners of the new media are not news organizations. Consider the implications.
To help you in your consideration...
1) Kentucky Fried Chicken used to be extremely tastey.
2) H. Salt Fish and chips used to be not only extremely tastey, but quite popular.
3) Hublein, basically a liquor company, bought KFC. Within a few months that chicken became not worth my eating.
4) About a year later, KFC bought H. Salt fish and chips. Within the same month that also became not worth eating.
5) It's been years since I've seen an H. Salt fish and chips store. (I may have seen on inside a KFC outlet a year or two ago. But it could be a decade ago.)
The Senate is a privileged group. But note that McCarthy didn't directly destroy people's lives. He did things that in other contexts would have been libel and slander, and he did it in the public media. But because he was a Senator, that wasn't technically illegal (IIUC).
OTOH, his smear campaign was used by many other people, some who just didn't want to be smeared themselves, to get people fired, etc. He didn't run into any real opposition until he tackled the Army. Then he lost, because he never had any substantial evidence against anyone.
So people that McCarthy attacked were fired, not because there was some legal requirement that they be fired, but because their employers or supervisors didn't want to find themselves smeared. (And, admittedly, sometimes because of internal politics, and this made an excellent excuse that their enemies took advantage of.) Also, if any company took any federal money, either directly or indirectly, and didn't fire someone McCarthy accused, they faced the strong likelihood of losing those grants. Etc.
Please note that the McCarthy inspired HUAC (House Unamerican Activities Committee) continued up into the 1960's. McCarthy's disgrace didn't mark the end of McCarthyism, merely its weakening. (I've always read HUAC as being a Committee of Representatives that gathered to engage in Unamerican Activities.)
Yes, it may bring us down too. Particularly since every president who has reduced that debt has been subjected to virulent attacks. But Reagan *did* end the Cold War. We may lose also, but it's essentially over.
Now whether he did it on purpose, that's a different question. I doubt that he was sane enough to have done it on purpose. He was clearly in the latter stages of Altzheimers while he was president. Perhaps we should really give credit either to Nancy Reagan, or to someone unknown.
You *hope* the current anti-muslim fearmongers are less capable. That has yet to be proven. Ask me again after the TSA has been abolished.
As I said to another poster, I think you believe too much government propaganda. Despite the government telling us we are frightened, and using that as an excuse for oppressive and illegal programs, most people I know aren't frightened. They just don't see any practical way to get rid of the bastards in charge.
FWIW, it does appear that we are headed in a direction that will leave us frightened and oppressed, but that's not the current state. There's just no obvious way to improve the direction things are moving.
I think you believe the government's self-serving propaganda. Very little of what the US has done beyond it's borders has been done with the intent, or effect, of benefiting anyone except the US (and, of course, political lobbyists). Much of it has been to the active detriment of those it was claiming to help. Much of the rest has been, at best, neutral.
In particular we use our arms to support foreign dictators, to overthrow popularly elected governments, and to extract wealth by extortion. To cause treaties to be signed that favor politically connected corporations. Etc.
The world would have been much safer if we had been willing to recognize Castro's cuba when he first overthrew our puppet dictator (Batista). The results of that refusal lead us to within around 30 seconds of WWIII. Vietnam would gladly have allied with the US rather than China, if we had followed our diplomatic commitments and yielded to the results of the popular election of Ho Chi Min rather than installing our own puppet dictator in the south. Etc.
That can go either way. As long as "justice" is non-controversial, it's probably a very good system, if the judged *do* adhere to it. But it's easily subject to corruption by popular movements, and by judges whose idea of justice doesn't match yours.
OTOH, laws are difficult to change, and when a bunch of self-serving bastards control the legislature (common) extremely unjust laws get passed. Which means that judges that are willing to enforce them are a really bad idea.
On the third hand (sorry, but this *isn't* the gripping hand) remember the way justice was shackeled in the US South for nearly a century after the Civil War. That involved judges either ignoring the laws or chosing which ones to notice in an unjust way. But *they* didn't think they were being unjust. They probably thought they were fostering a proper rule of and respect for the law. So neither way is an answer when humans are making the decisions.
If you think your news is good quality enough that you don't need a moderation system, then separate it. Well moderated (i.e., suppress the trolls and flakes) news systems are superior to purely "good quality news", but they do require extra effort to maintain. And "suppress the trolls and flakes" should not be taken as a license to suppress anyone who disagrees with you. Which is were most sites get into problems (if they even attempt to be honest and fair).
OTOH, a quality news site isn't all that common. I know a couple that work in restricted areas, where most people don't have a major ax to grind, but even there, say, biology news is subject to politically inspired attacks.
So the moderated comments section could be separated from the news section, but there should be two-way links (I want to say bijective links) between them. Slashdot is one extreme, where there's almost NO news reporting, merely aggregation without concerning oneself over the quality of the original source or story. Other sites have varying degrees of requirements on how to post.
As to why do it? Sites with public commentary get more hits.
"The Italian navigator has landed in the new world. The natives are friendly."