I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
He has failed to faithfully execute the laws, permitting fraud and perjury by executive level bankers, and war crimes committed by the previous administration to go completely unpunished. He has failed to uphold the Constitution by authorizing warrantless wiretaps and military detentions.
The guy is a god damned crook and should be impeached immediately.
In short, if you go to the Debian website, click download, boot off the media and take all the defaults you will end up with a GNOME 2 desktop install.
But who actually does that?
A lot of people don't use the net install option either because their network is slow or simply because they want to do multiple installs and don't want to download a huge pile of packages every time.
If your network is slow, it's going to be slower to download a CD image that has packages you won't use on it than it is to just download the packages you need. If you want to do multiple installs, it's easy to set up a local cache with apt-cacher.
Which is exactly the same recourse we have if the President merely does something we dislike. If there are not additional consequences for breaking the highest law in the land, isn't that the same as saying the highest law in the land is null?
Assume you won your hypothetical case sans immunity: Who is going to enforce that ruling under the current system?
At the very least, they can issue a ruling, and force the executive to openly flaut the law, instead of just giving up. Better, would be to direct their bailiffs to hold any representative of the executive that steps into court in contempt until the executive obeys the ruling.
There's supposed to be a balance of powers in this country. It turns out that is not the case. Even an all out fire fight between the US Marshalls and the Secret Service would be a preferable result to the courts just rolling over and giving up.
Which is the same recourse I'd have if the President did something I merely didn't like. What's the point of having a Bill of Rights then, if the President can disregard it at will and suffer no greater consequences than any other exercise of his power?
The number of transactions is irrelevant. It's the latency that matters. 9 women can't make a baby in 1 month, and a billion transactions completed in 1 second isn't the same as one transaction completed a billion times per second.
Even a moments research would have shown how much of a non-issue this was, but that is too much to ask of slashdot.
If it only takes a moments research to show how much of a non-issue this is, explain to me how we can hold the government accountable for its crimes. If we can't (which appears to be the case), then it is very much a huge issue. It absolutely destroys the rule of law.
What's god damned retarded here is the complete lack of recourse we have against a government who has violated its constitution. Where are the checks and balances we were promised?
I understand that this has been the way the US has always been, but the point is that the US has always been broken in exactly this way. What is the point of the bill of rights if the people have no recourse when our rights are violated?
So can someone explain how the world is a better place than if, say, you could only issue one trade per second?
The rich and powerful don't get richer and more powerful as quickly if you could only issue one trade per second. So HFT makes the world a better place, if you're rich and powerful, who are the people making the rules anyway.
Easy to work around. Make fake buyers to buy from fake sellers to boost your seller rating. That's assuming the entire thing isn't compromised, as was the case for some carding forums they've shut down.
Slashdot Mirror
Unless you know some way for the atmosphere to clear all the heat trapping CO2 we've been dumping for the past 100 years, I wouldn't get my hopes up.
Use the GNAA login: nigger/nigger.
How does he suck at his job?
The Oath of Office he took has two parts:
He has failed to faithfully execute the laws, permitting fraud and perjury by executive level bankers, and war crimes committed by the previous administration to go completely unpunished. He has failed to uphold the Constitution by authorizing warrantless wiretaps and military detentions.
The guy is a god damned crook and should be impeached immediately.
In short, if you go to the Debian website, click download, boot off the media and take all the defaults you will end up with a GNOME 2 desktop install.
But who actually does that?
A lot of people don't use the net install option either because their network is slow or simply because they want to do multiple installs and don't want to download a huge pile of packages every time.
If your network is slow, it's going to be slower to download a CD image that has packages you won't use on it than it is to just download the packages you need. If you want to do multiple installs, it's easy to set up a local cache with apt-cacher.
There's a "default desktop" in Debian? I thought everyone just installed the netinst and used apt-get to install whatever desktop they wanted.
By voting them out of office.
Which is exactly the same recourse we have if the President merely does something we dislike. If there are not additional consequences for breaking the highest law in the land, isn't that the same as saying the highest law in the land is null?
Assume you won your hypothetical case sans immunity: Who is going to enforce that ruling under the current system?
At the very least, they can issue a ruling, and force the executive to openly flaut the law, instead of just giving up. Better, would be to direct their bailiffs to hold any representative of the executive that steps into court in contempt until the executive obeys the ruling.
There's supposed to be a balance of powers in this country. It turns out that is not the case. Even an all out fire fight between the US Marshalls and the Secret Service would be a preferable result to the courts just rolling over and giving up.
That's just not true. The President does not have the power to overturn the Constitution.
Apparently he does, because he has in this very case. I don't see how you can deny this.
Which is the same recourse I'd have if the President did something I merely didn't like. What's the point of having a Bill of Rights then, if the President can disregard it at will and suffer no greater consequences than any other exercise of his power?
Throw the executives in jail.
The number of transactions is irrelevant. It's the latency that matters. 9 women can't make a baby in 1 month, and a billion transactions completed in 1 second isn't the same as one transaction completed a billion times per second.
And Ashcroft v. Kidd (2011) effectively overturned that ruling. You can still raise a Bivens action, but you will lose.
Even a moments research would have shown how much of a non-issue this was, but that is too much to ask of slashdot.
If it only takes a moments research to show how much of a non-issue this is, explain to me how we can hold the government accountable for its crimes. If we can't (which appears to be the case), then it is very much a huge issue. It absolutely destroys the rule of law.
What's god damned retarded here is the complete lack of recourse we have against a government who has violated its constitution. Where are the checks and balances we were promised?
I understand that this has been the way the US has always been, but the point is that the US has always been broken in exactly this way. What is the point of the bill of rights if the people have no recourse when our rights are violated?
That would mean the courts have the power to overthrow the Federal government, which they don't.
This decision means that the executive has the power to overturn the Constitution, which he doesn't.
No you don't. You can batch the trades and do all of them at once every second.
Liquidity is good, but nobody needs their cash in microseconds.
So can someone explain how the world is a better place than if, say, you could only issue one trade per second?
The rich and powerful don't get richer and more powerful as quickly if you could only issue one trade per second. So HFT makes the world a better place, if you're rich and powerful, who are the people making the rules anyway.
This ruling is proof that the government is in fact above the law. The constitution means dick if you can't get the courts to enforce it.
Title says it all. The government should not be above the law. Abolish every other sort of immunity (judicial, qualified, etc) while you're at it.
Ecstasy might not have been invented then
MDMA was actually invented by Merck in 1912, but didn't find its way into recreational use until the 80s.
Most drug dealers are trustworthy. It's the cops you have to worry about.
I'll get modded down but don't care. What we need is to be more brutal.
Have you ever heard of the concept of proportional justice? People like you are more dangerous than the drug users you seek to destroy.
Easy to work around. Make fake buyers to buy from fake sellers to boost your seller rating. That's assuming the entire thing isn't compromised, as was the case for some carding forums they've shut down.
Except that the location of the data is the primary way of verifying the identity of the author.
Only for historical reasons, not technical, and it's always been a bad way of identifying the author.
How am I supposed to know that the game patch I have just downloaded came from CompanyX, rather than from some malware spammer?
Cryptographic signatures.
This thing has got to be loaded with narcs.