The problem is that AZ still requires the police to determine the immigration status of a person by doing little more than looking at them...
But then
The cops have no legal grounds to demand ID of anyone unless they have reason to suspect wrong-doing.
So you have agreed it's reasonable for police to ask for a driver's license for some kind of traffic violation (wrongdoing), right? Given that they don't have one, is it reasonable to ask why they don't have it?
The only way this law would come into play is if the cops already have probable cause to suspect wrongdoing, in your words. It's far different than judging their immigration status just by looking at them.
OK, except that there was a NET GAIN in population in the areas that they were predicting. Every single zone except New Orleans (where an unrelated natural disaster caused people to flee) experienced population growth. There were fewer than zero climate refugees.
Let's put it another way. I'd say that being off your maximum estimate by more than 100% is pretty bad. (Technically, so long as their minimum estimate is greater than 1, they're more than 100% lower than their minimum too.) How wrong would you say they have to be before their prediction is proven false?
So, what "single specific change"s are you saying failed to occur? What "hockey-stick warming prediction" failed to happen? I suspect you fail to understand the temporal nature of the predicted changes. Most of them occur over a period of decades or longer, not in the next 10 years.
It's not a hockey stick, but in 2005 the UN predicted that the climate would change so much by 2010 that there would be a total of 50 million "climate refugees" from a list of places. With the exception of New Orleans (remember, the prediction was pre-Katrina), EVERY SINGLE ONE of those places has a HIGHER population now than it did then. Here is the slashdot story covering it.
No, it is an excuse to increase taxes, and make money selling "carbon credits", while the people behind it all, like Al Gore, can still live in luxury on the profits while they themselves can ignore the new regulations and taxes. It's "do as I say, not as I do".
To be fair to GP, the economy is a complex system that the Democrats don't understand. You can't say that they want to minimize their impact, but they do want to make changes despite their obvious shortsightedness as to the consequences.
Did you read my post? The Wall Street Journal, like Fox News and Fox Broadcasting, is owned by News Corporation. It's still wrong to attribute Pulitzer Prizes won by The Wall Street Journal to Fox News. Monsanto gets to write to whomever they want. Ailes didn't kill the story, probably because he doesn't call the shots at Fox Broadcasting.
Fox Television affiliates are different and distinct from Fox News. Is it fair to say that Fox News won the Pulitzer Prize for Public Service in 2007? The Wall Street Journal, which today falls under the News Corp. umbrella, won it. Of course not. Attributing possible malfeasance to Fox News is the same thing.
By the way, the court didn't rule that the story WTVT told Akre to run was a lie. The rule in question says that whistle-blowing is alerting the proper authorities to violations of the law. The lower court threw out all the claims made by the reporters (including that they were told to report something false) except that they were whistle-blowers because they were going to make a report to the FCC. The low court left that claim intact because they believed that they were whistle-blowers, even though the court just ruled that WTVT did not tell them to lie.
The high court overturned the whistle-blower part, but they didn't consider whether the reporters were told to lie, except to note that the low court ruled that they were never told to lie. This story is told in plain English on every Wikipedia page mentioning this.
So let's review this. You say "Fox News won the right to lie from the Supreme Court." I say that "Someone who's not Fox News won a case because the a Florida district court (not the Supreme Court) ruled that it wasn't a lie." What part of your statement is not a lie?
That, and the Fox News "We won the right to blatantly lie and call it news" SCOTUS case pretty much clenched it.
Humorously enough, this is a blatant lie. The case you are referring to had nothing to do with Fox News. Also, the case wasn't a SCOTUS case (it was a Florida court case.)
I can't wait for people to cite these e-mails as evidence of wrongdoing on her part just because they were released. Look what happened when Tennessee State Representative Mike Kernell's son hacked Sarah Palin's e-mail account. To this day, people claim that David Kernell's hack proved wrongdoing on Palin's part, even after Kernell told 4chan that he DIDN'T find anything interesting.
It's called a Club, not a corporation (which is a government-created entity).
It's not government created. It's government licensed, which is different. I'm a member of a few clubs that have a license from the government to operate the way they do. (As non-profit organizations, the clubs I'm referring to don't charge sales tax for things that they do. Without the IRS doing whatever it is they do to certify the club as a non-profit, this would be illegal.)
I'm reading a book right now by the coach of the New York Jets. They're a football team. (Gridiron football, AKA the one where the ball is 12 inches long.) Anyway, his checks are cut by a business organization called New York Jets Football Club LLC. This "club" makes a great deal of profit for its owner. This "club" sells tickets (to football games) and licenses merchandise. (They also partially own a stadium that they rent out and are part of a television licensing deal.) They "conduct football operations" (that is, they have the football team) to further the goal of making more money for the owner.
They call themselves a club, but they're a business. (Other buisnesses do this too. "Membership stores" which offer lower prices in exchange for an annual fee (like BJs in the US) refer to their customers as club members.) It's a meaningless distinction. If Verizon called itself "The Verizon Club," would you be happy?
Also I find it weird you de-capitalized "people". Are you saying the People of the US are unworthy of being treated any better than a cat or dog or other lower case nouns? I capitalize it for a reason --- same reason it is capitalized in the 51 State and national Constitutions. It is from the citizens that power is derived, not from a king or nobility.
Of course PEOPLE deserve better treatment than nouns. People are living (well, usually), breathing (usually) human beings who were endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights. Nouns are just words to be used in order to further the speaker/writer's points. However, the word "people" is just a word. It doesn't deserve any special treatment.
Also, most people who capitalize the word "people" today* are using it to make the same political point that you are making. Those people (and you) are wrong.
*Yes, I know about the Constitution. The 10th Amendment says that laws pertaining to grammar (among MANY other things) are to be left to the states, or to the people at large.
There is little difference today between giant corporations and government except the name by which one calls them.
Amazon doesn't get to use guns to make you buy its products. There is also some recourse if the don't provide the service they claim to have. Government is immune from both these requirements.
The [p]eople inside Verizon retain all of their rights to speak, think, publish...
Do they retain the right to act in concert with each other?
Let me put it another way. The people (people!) making this decision for Verizon think that the best way to allocate their limited resource (bandwidth) is to charge extra for tethering. You're in favor of the government telling those people (people!) to allocate the limited resources of a large group of people (the people who own Verizon) in a different way, one that may make them less money.
You presumably decided on your career based on a number of factors. For most people, two of them are "How much does this pay?" and "How little does this suck?" You can't do everything that interests you, after all, time is a limited resource too. Say there was a shortage of Wal-Mart greeters. Would you be OK with the government telling you that you had to spend a certain number of hours per day working as a Wal-Mart greeter, at what is presumably a lower salary than what you make now?
I'm a person with innate natural rights, not a Thing like Verizon. Being a thing, it has no more rights to privacy or self-regulation...
Verizon is just a group of people and the equipment that some of those people pitched in their money to own. Do people stop having rights when they peaceably assemble?
Are you sure you're on the right site? This is Slashdot. We defend Democrats even when they're wrong here and attack Republicans even when they're right. On some sites, this would be a valid criticism, but here it's just a strawman.
This act is a protest. It is not censorship. They did not attempt to censor anybody.
They want to, though. That was the whole idea, or did you miss the point about the hacker group wanting to retaliate for a story that the hackers perceive as "anti-Anonymous."
Of course, the world doesn't get better if you buy carbon credits and then burn fuel. It gets better if you buy carbon credits and then DON'T burn fuel. That's where the fallacy in that argument lies.
That's a fallacy too. The world gets better if you don't burn fuel. Giving money to the cult of Al Gore has nothing to do with it.
Fun fact: A football as used in Gridiron/American Football is 11 1/2 inches from tip to tip. The ball was shortened to make the forward pass easier. When the game was invented, the ball was one foot long.
To install the malware, the user has to willingly enter their administrator password. No administrator password, no malware.
But wait, Macs don't get malware. The hip guy in the commercial was making fun of the old fart for that. So since there's no malware, anything that wants my password must want it for a good reason, right?
Physics and chemistry didn't evolve; they sprang into existence fully formed. (Mankind's understanding of them is continually advancing, but the necessary formulas haven't changed since the Big Bang.) Hell, if you want to count computer scientists as scientists, they work pretty exclusively in the realm of things that were intelligently designed by teams of intelligent designers. (That is, microchips and compilers and languages and so forth.)
As it was used in the article, "evolutionary scientist" means "biologist" or possibly "evolutionary biologist."
Slashdot Mirror
The problem is that AZ still requires the police to determine the immigration status of a person by doing little more than looking at them...
But then
The cops have no legal grounds to demand ID of anyone unless they have reason to suspect wrong-doing.
So you have agreed it's reasonable for police to ask for a driver's license for some kind of traffic violation (wrongdoing), right? Given that they don't have one, is it reasonable to ask why they don't have it?
The only way this law would come into play is if the cops already have probable cause to suspect wrongdoing, in your words. It's far different than judging their immigration status just by looking at them.
Also, they gave the prize to a terrorist one time.
Let's put it another way. I'd say that being off your maximum estimate by more than 100% is pretty bad. (Technically, so long as their minimum estimate is greater than 1, they're more than 100% lower than their minimum too.) How wrong would you say they have to be before their prediction is proven false?
So, what "single specific change"s are you saying failed to occur? What "hockey-stick warming prediction" failed to happen? I suspect you fail to understand the temporal nature of the predicted changes. Most of them occur over a period of decades or longer, not in the next 10 years.
It's not a hockey stick, but in 2005 the UN predicted that the climate would change so much by 2010 that there would be a total of 50 million "climate refugees" from a list of places. With the exception of New Orleans (remember, the prediction was pre-Katrina), EVERY SINGLE ONE of those places has a HIGHER population now than it did then. Here is the slashdot story covering it.
No, it is an excuse to increase taxes, and make money selling "carbon credits", while the people behind it all, like Al Gore, can still live in luxury on the profits while they themselves can ignore the new regulations and taxes. It's "do as I say, not as I do".
To be fair to GP, the economy is a complex system that the Democrats don't understand. You can't say that they want to minimize their impact, but they do want to make changes despite their obvious shortsightedness as to the consequences.
Needles? It will have trouble finding the haystack!
Did you read my post? The Wall Street Journal, like Fox News and Fox Broadcasting, is owned by News Corporation. It's still wrong to attribute Pulitzer Prizes won by The Wall Street Journal to Fox News. Monsanto gets to write to whomever they want. Ailes didn't kill the story, probably because he doesn't call the shots at Fox Broadcasting.
By the way, the court didn't rule that the story WTVT told Akre to run was a lie. The rule in question says that whistle-blowing is alerting the proper authorities to violations of the law. The lower court threw out all the claims made by the reporters (including that they were told to report something false) except that they were whistle-blowers because they were going to make a report to the FCC. The low court left that claim intact because they believed that they were whistle-blowers, even though the court just ruled that WTVT did not tell them to lie.
The high court overturned the whistle-blower part, but they didn't consider whether the reporters were told to lie, except to note that the low court ruled that they were never told to lie. This story is told in plain English on every Wikipedia page mentioning this. So let's review this. You say "Fox News won the right to lie from the Supreme Court." I say that "Someone who's not Fox News won a case because the a Florida district court (not the Supreme Court) ruled that it wasn't a lie." What part of your statement is not a lie?
Good thing it's not illegal to lie on Slashdot.
That, and the Fox News "We won the right to blatantly lie and call it news" SCOTUS case pretty much clenched it.
Humorously enough, this is a blatant lie. The case you are referring to had nothing to do with Fox News. Also, the case wasn't a SCOTUS case (it was a Florida court case.)
Except that she didn't. Kernell said that the e-mails in the yahoo account were personal and not official business.
I can't wait for people to cite these e-mails as evidence of wrongdoing on her part just because they were released. Look what happened when Tennessee State Representative Mike Kernell's son hacked Sarah Palin's e-mail account. To this day, people claim that David Kernell's hack proved wrongdoing on Palin's part, even after Kernell told 4chan that he DIDN'T find anything interesting.
What's Internet Justice? I made it up, but I'm sure it will solve your problem.
Hint: Net Neutrality doesn't prevent an ISP from pushing random crap down your pipe.
It's called a Club, not a corporation (which is a government-created entity).
It's not government created. It's government licensed, which is different. I'm a member of a few clubs that have a license from the government to operate the way they do. (As non-profit organizations, the clubs I'm referring to don't charge sales tax for things that they do. Without the IRS doing whatever it is they do to certify the club as a non-profit, this would be illegal.)
I'm reading a book right now by the coach of the New York Jets. They're a football team. (Gridiron football, AKA the one where the ball is 12 inches long.) Anyway, his checks are cut by a business organization called New York Jets Football Club LLC. This "club" makes a great deal of profit for its owner. This "club" sells tickets (to football games) and licenses merchandise. (They also partially own a stadium that they rent out and are part of a television licensing deal.) They "conduct football operations" (that is, they have the football team) to further the goal of making more money for the owner.
They call themselves a club, but they're a business. (Other buisnesses do this too. "Membership stores" which offer lower prices in exchange for an annual fee (like BJs in the US) refer to their customers as club members.) It's a meaningless distinction. If Verizon called itself "The Verizon Club," would you be happy?
Also I find it weird you de-capitalized "people". Are you saying the People of the US are unworthy of being treated any better than a cat or dog or other lower case nouns? I capitalize it for a reason --- same reason it is capitalized in the 51 State and national Constitutions. It is from the citizens that power is derived, not from a king or nobility.
Of course PEOPLE deserve better treatment than nouns. People are living (well, usually), breathing (usually) human beings who were endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights. Nouns are just words to be used in order to further the speaker/writer's points. However, the word "people" is just a word. It doesn't deserve any special treatment.
Also, most people who capitalize the word "people" today* are using it to make the same political point that you are making. Those people (and you) are wrong.
*Yes, I know about the Constitution. The 10th Amendment says that laws pertaining to grammar (among MANY other things) are to be left to the states, or to the people at large.
Amazon doesn't get to use guns to make you buy its products. There is also some recourse if the don't provide the service they claim to have. Government is immune from both these requirements.
The [p]eople inside Verizon retain all of their rights to speak, think, publish...
Do they retain the right to act in concert with each other?
Let me put it another way. The people (people!) making this decision for Verizon think that the best way to allocate their limited resource (bandwidth) is to charge extra for tethering. You're in favor of the government telling those people (people!) to allocate the limited resources of a large group of people (the people who own Verizon) in a different way, one that may make them less money.
You presumably decided on your career based on a number of factors. For most people, two of them are "How much does this pay?" and "How little does this suck?" You can't do everything that interests you, after all, time is a limited resource too. Say there was a shortage of Wal-Mart greeters. Would you be OK with the government telling you that you had to spend a certain number of hours per day working as a Wal-Mart greeter, at what is presumably a lower salary than what you make now?
Didn't think so.
I'm a person with innate natural rights, not a Thing like Verizon. Being a thing, it has no more rights to privacy or self-regulation...
Verizon is just a group of people and the equipment that some of those people pitched in their money to own. Do people stop having rights when they peaceably assemble?
Are you sure you're on the right site? This is Slashdot. We defend Democrats even when they're wrong here and attack Republicans even when they're right. On some sites, this would be a valid criticism, but here it's just a strawman.
This act is a protest. It is not censorship. They did not attempt to censor anybody.
They want to, though. That was the whole idea, or did you miss the point about the hacker group wanting to retaliate for a story that the hackers perceive as "anti-Anonymous."
Of course, the world doesn't get better if you buy carbon credits and then burn fuel. It gets better if you buy carbon credits and then DON'T burn fuel. That's where the fallacy in that argument lies.
That's a fallacy too. The world gets better if you don't burn fuel. Giving money to the cult of Al Gore has nothing to do with it.
No, but brick and mortar retailers don't restrict what the software can do after the end user buys it.
Fun fact: A football as used in Gridiron/American Football is 11 1/2 inches from tip to tip. The ball was shortened to make the forward pass easier. When the game was invented, the ball was one foot long.
Mozilla and Skype give into retail store extortion?
To install the malware, the user has to willingly enter their administrator password. No administrator password, no malware.
But wait, Macs don't get malware. The hip guy in the commercial was making fun of the old fart for that. So since there's no malware, anything that wants my password must want it for a good reason, right?
Live by the incompetent, die by the incompetent.
As it was used in the article, "evolutionary scientist" means "biologist" or possibly "evolutionary biologist."
You're wrong. They were started by Democrats running against Reagan in 1984.