Attraction changes based on the type of person you are. Different types of people congregate in clubs as opposed to other areas. The rest of the argument is left as an exercise for the reader.
But you didn't say: "Well, my reading of the constitution is...", you said: "... is constitutionally protected.." -- well, not to coin a phrase or anything, but that depends on what the meaning of "is" is. If "is" means "because GeneralEmergency say so", well, you are right. But if "is" means "the law of the land in a practical sense as implemented in every federal district court circuit" then I think I'm closer to the mark.
Constitutionally protected refers to what is actually in the constitution, not how law is practiced. If there is a difference, the constitution is right and the practice of "law" (thuggery really) is illegitimate.
In some places a restraining order can force the abuser to give up their firearms.
If you can do that without raising 2nd amendment issues, I think it's safe to say there's no 1st amendment issue either.
You can't do that without 2nd amendment issues. You can only do that if you ignore the obvious 2nd amendment issues. The fact that they refuse to adhere to one amendment isn't a green light for them to ignore another amendment. It's just proof that this government is illegitimate.
Giving the general public the freedom to insult, harass, annoy, and otherwise bother people is far less dangerous than giving the state the right to shut people up. I will take a war of words with my neighbors over a censorship regime any time.
What you are seeing is probably a sphere of expanding plasma. It can't possibly be a "sphere of light" because light travels at the speed of light. By the time you could see the sphere, you would be inside it.
Few sites require javascript for basic functionality. Less than half easily. Of those, most are shit anyway. Of the few that remain, nearly all require only one domain to be whitelisted, the same one the page is on. That's got to account for at least 95% of the web.
That's about my experience, roughly one in 20 websites don't work readily with NoScript. For those, it does take some thinking to figure out which domains to whitelist temporarily. But once you figure it out you can make it permanent, and never have to deal with it again.
Is it perfect? No, but it's a hell of a lot better than running every god damn script on the internet. And fairly often sites are improved by blocking javascript. The scripts are so bad that they detract from user experience. Slashdot is a fine example of that.
The VLC developer made the claim because Apple's TOS is incompatible with the GPL. Apple is 100% to blame for that incompatibility.
If that's not obvious, try a thought experiment. Apple could change their TOS to be consistent with the GPL pretty easily. Apple would still have an app store, and VLC would still be free software. Clearly Apple can do something to resolve this incompatibility, so they bear at least some responsibility for it.
Now consider if VLC changed their license to be consistent with the app store TOS. VLC would be allowed on the app store, but it would no longer be free software. In that case, Apple's app store is still incompatible with free software. Nothing the VLC developers can do can change that, so they bear none of the responsibility for it.
P.S. A lot of folks are using "Free Software" and "Open Source" interchangably here. This is one of the times when the distinction matters. You might be able to get open source apps on the app store, but you'll never be able to exercise your fundamental software freedoms.
1. Legalizing drugs would lead to more drug users and addicts. A vast majority of crime is perpetrated by drug users (alcohol included)
This is unsupported by data. Wherever drug laws are liberalized drug use stays the same or decreases. Also, you're starting off on a disingenuous note. The vast majority of *everything* is perpetuated by drug users because the vast majority of humanity uses drugs.
2. Legalizing and then taxing drugs would lead to... wait for it... black market for untaxed or cheaper drugs ! (see cigarettes, alcohol, past attempts at legalizing drugs like opium)
We already have a black market for untaxed drugs. Legalizing would move at least some of that into the legal market. Looking at alcohol and tobacco, most of that traffic is legal. Wouldn't we benefit by doing the same with other drugs?
3. Legalizing and sanctioning drugs would lead to drugs with potentially limited potency due to Government control on the product which leads to.. black market
Which is why a sound drug policy wouldn't do that.
4. Drug dealers, runners, and general baddies are not going to suddenly because good citizens just because drugs can be purchased over the counter. The sell this shit for money, cause they want money... See #2 and #3 - they won't be out of a job anyways.
Organized crime will never disappear, but we can make it less profitable. You've offered no reason why we shouldn't.
5. Imagine our healthcare costs when we increase drug users drastically by making drugs acceptable and more available. We've already wasted lives, energy, and costs on smokers and heavy drinkers, why on Earth would we want to add more to this???
It's more likely that drug abusers will die more rapidly than the rest of the population. That will save us money on end of life health care. This is the case with tobacco today.
Legalizing these things just redefines the problem.
Sure, this guy wrote code to handle modern Excel 2010 files in Java on Android. Unfortunately it won't run because of a stupid arbitrary limit in Android. The author is too busy to fix it, but the code is out there and he roughly outlines what needs to be done in case someone wants to pick it up.
Many people like how easy and straightforward Mac OSX is.
Many people expect and require condescension and don't know what to do when their hand isn't held. That doesn't negate the fact that the UI is in fact condescending.
No kidding. And when you click through to the update, the guy actually comes forward and tries to blame it on the test:
âoeOn the FCAT, they are reading material they didnâ(TM)t choose. They are given four possible answers and three out of the four are pretty good. One is the best answer but kids donâ(TM)t get points for only a pretty good answer. They get zero points, the same for the absolute wrong answer. And then they are given an arbitrary time limit. Those are a number of reasons that I think the test has to be suspect.â
That sounds a lot like what I do at work all day. Reading lots of stuff that I wouldn't choose to, evaluating many potential options, and being responsible for the choices I make. And life is full of arbitrary deadlines.
Slashdot Mirror
Attraction changes based on the type of person you are. Different types of people congregate in clubs as opposed to other areas. The rest of the argument is left as an exercise for the reader.
There are 4 clauses there. Only one of them mentions political activity in any way.
But you didn't say: "Well, my reading of the constitution is...", you said: "... is constitutionally protected.." -- well, not to coin a phrase or anything, but that depends on what the meaning of "is" is. If "is" means "because GeneralEmergency say so", well, you are right. But if "is" means "the law of the land in a practical sense as implemented in every federal district court circuit" then I think I'm closer to the mark.
Constitutionally protected refers to what is actually in the constitution, not how law is practiced. If there is a difference, the constitution is right and the practice of "law" (thuggery really) is illegitimate.
In some places a restraining order can force the abuser to give up their firearms.
If you can do that without raising 2nd amendment issues, I think it's safe to say there's no 1st amendment issue either.
You can't do that without 2nd amendment issues. You can only do that if you ignore the obvious 2nd amendment issues. The fact that they refuse to adhere to one amendment isn't a green light for them to ignore another amendment. It's just proof that this government is illegitimate.
Except that the guy consented to the restriction not to adversely affect her privacy.
Was he free to refuse consent?
Giving the general public the freedom to insult, harass, annoy, and otherwise bother people is far less dangerous than giving the state the right to shut people up. I will take a war of words with my neighbors over a censorship regime any time.
Why?
Maybe he's the 57th person in the world to be the richest man in the world?
Unless the laser is a tightly focused dot
Of course it is, it's a laser.
What you are seeing is probably a sphere of expanding plasma. It can't possibly be a "sphere of light" because light travels at the speed of light. By the time you could see the sphere, you would be inside it.
Few sites require javascript for basic functionality. Less than half easily. Of those, most are shit anyway. Of the few that remain, nearly all require only one domain to be whitelisted, the same one the page is on. That's got to account for at least 95% of the web.
That's about my experience, roughly one in 20 websites don't work readily with NoScript. For those, it does take some thinking to figure out which domains to whitelist temporarily. But once you figure it out you can make it permanent, and never have to deal with it again.
Is it perfect? No, but it's a hell of a lot better than running every god damn script on the internet. And fairly often sites are improved by blocking javascript. The scripts are so bad that they detract from user experience. Slashdot is a fine example of that.
The law DMCA specifically makes misrepresentation an offense only if it is done knowingly.
Wrong. It's only an offense if it's done without a good faith belief.
Google is an ad company. They're not stiffing their user base, they're delivering product.
Except that VLC wouldn't be free software if you changed the license.
The VLC developer made the claim because Apple's TOS is incompatible with the GPL. Apple is 100% to blame for that incompatibility.
If that's not obvious, try a thought experiment. Apple could change their TOS to be consistent with the GPL pretty easily. Apple would still have an app store, and VLC would still be free software. Clearly Apple can do something to resolve this incompatibility, so they bear at least some responsibility for it.
Now consider if VLC changed their license to be consistent with the app store TOS. VLC would be allowed on the app store, but it would no longer be free software. In that case, Apple's app store is still incompatible with free software. Nothing the VLC developers can do can change that, so they bear none of the responsibility for it.
P.S. A lot of folks are using "Free Software" and "Open Source" interchangably here. This is one of the times when the distinction matters. You might be able to get open source apps on the app store, but you'll never be able to exercise your fundamental software freedoms.
1. Legalizing drugs would lead to more drug users and addicts. A vast majority of crime is perpetrated by drug users (alcohol included)
This is unsupported by data. Wherever drug laws are liberalized drug use stays the same or decreases. Also, you're starting off on a disingenuous note. The vast majority of *everything* is perpetuated by drug users because the vast majority of humanity uses drugs.
2. Legalizing and then taxing drugs would lead to... wait for it... black market for untaxed or cheaper drugs ! (see cigarettes, alcohol, past attempts at legalizing drugs like opium)
We already have a black market for untaxed drugs. Legalizing would move at least some of that into the legal market. Looking at alcohol and tobacco, most of that traffic is legal. Wouldn't we benefit by doing the same with other drugs?
3. Legalizing and sanctioning drugs would lead to drugs with potentially limited potency due to Government control on the product which leads to.. black market
Which is why a sound drug policy wouldn't do that.
4. Drug dealers, runners, and general baddies are not going to suddenly because good citizens just because drugs can be purchased over the counter. The sell this shit for money, cause they want money... See #2 and #3 - they won't be out of a job anyways.
Organized crime will never disappear, but we can make it less profitable. You've offered no reason why we shouldn't.
5. Imagine our healthcare costs when we increase drug users drastically by making drugs acceptable and more available. We've already wasted lives, energy, and costs on smokers and heavy drinkers, why on Earth would we want to add more to this???
It's more likely that drug abusers will die more rapidly than the rest of the population. That will save us money on end of life health care. This is the case with tobacco today.
Legalizing these things just redefines the problem.
F. U. D.
Education is most effective when it's self directed. White listing limits the ability for the student to research what he's interested in.
The real question is, what's wrong with a little porn during a study break?
In which case any textbook will serve the purpose. There's still no reason to have a professor assigned textbook.
One would need to create all kinds of new laws, regulations, and enforcement agencies.. none of which would be particularily cheap
Actually, you don't. Sell it over the counter like coffee. Problem solved.
Meanwhile, has anybody noticed how more pervasive advertising is than it was before all the consolidation?
That would be a great chart. Number of media companies vs advertising time per hour.
Sure, this guy wrote code to handle modern Excel 2010 files in Java on Android. Unfortunately it won't run because of a stupid arbitrary limit in Android. The author is too busy to fix it, but the code is out there and he roughly outlines what needs to be done in case someone wants to pick it up.
Yes, your power users are going to be frustrated by simplified UI, sorry guys, you're not our main audience.
That is precisely the problem. You'll never make a good product unless you address the needs of those who really want to master it.
This is why OS X ships with a fully functional UNIX environment. It's a lot easier to get real work done on OS X than Windows for that reason.
Many people like how easy and straightforward Mac OSX is.
Many people expect and require condescension and don't know what to do when their hand isn't held. That doesn't negate the fact that the UI is in fact condescending.
No kidding. And when you click through to the update, the guy actually comes forward and tries to blame it on the test:
That sounds a lot like what I do at work all day. Reading lots of stuff that I wouldn't choose to, evaluating many potential options, and being responsible for the choices I make. And life is full of arbitrary deadlines.