59 lies in 122 minutes? That's just about 1 lie every 2 minutes. How many times do you think a White House Press Secretary lies in a 2 minute Q/A period?
He previously called the cloud a joke. But here is the reality of the situation. I like having my email available on multiple devices
Email has always been available on any devices. Email is how the cloud should work. Your data is stored on a remote server, but the protocol you access it with is open and the source for the client is open. If I don't like the client provided, I can switch clients, or modify it to work as I see fit.
I'm not sure I'm following you on this. What cancer patients are being thrown in jail?
The ones being prosecuted for growing their own medication legally in their state. Here's my argument in a nutshell. People are protesting this law on the basis that it's an overreach of the commerce clause. I say that if you really care about the commerce clause, you'd be just as outraged over the 2005 decision Gonzalez v Raich (ok she's a chronic pain patient, but that's immaterial) as this one.
Considering that there was no outrage from the right over the Gonzalez vs Raich decision, we can conclude that nobody on the right honestly cares about the abuse of the Commerce clause.
So my specific argument here isn't for or against any particular health care system. My claim (which I believe I've demonstrated) is that the commerce clause objection raised here is an unprincipled objection raised by unprincipled people. My intent was not so much as to convince anyone, but to publicly shame these despicable people for whom a slightly higher tax burden is a greater injustice than a sick woman going to jail for medicating herself.
I honestly do not have the words to express the contempt I have for these people. If I did, they would contain the phrase "up against the wall when the revolution comes".
strangely emotional attack such as accusations that I, or anyone else, suddenly wants to see jailed cancer patients.
Every person who wasn't outraged over Gonzalez v Raich wants to see cancer patients in jail. This is not a strange accusation or an emotional attack. This is the only reasonable interpretation. Sending seriously ill people to jail for medicating themselves is barely above stoning women for adultery. This is the kind of scum we have holding office in this country. This is the kind of scum we have trying to convince the nation that they actually care about freedom.
(1) The "Quiet Prius" prob: You basic inexpensive Geiger counter, for durability, has a thickish diaphragm over its sensor, which blocks alpha and beta radiation. The element of most concern is Plutonium, which is an Alpha emitter.
My bench top pancake style geiger counter detects alpha particles from 35S and beta particles from 32P just fine. I'm sure it would handle plutonium no problem.
(2) The "Quiet on the average" prob: It does not help that traffic sounds quiet. All it takes is one car to send you flying. Similarly, it does not matter that the radiation level is, on the average, low. All it takes is one particle of Plutonium
All it takes is one cosmic ray, or one decay from an atom of phosphorous in a banana, etc. etc. Risk is proportional to dose. It's managable.
(3) The "Ivana made it okay" prob-- it does not matter that some dame allegedly snapped some pics years ago. She may be dead or dying now. Plus we will never know how many folks took a similar trip but are now too sick or too dead to post their pics.
If we can estimate the exposure, we can calculate exactly how many people we'd expect to get cancer from such an expedition. Again risk is proportional to dose.
Your shortsightedness will be your downfall. They created precedent with an issue you don't care about, and now that they have that precedent they will use it against you. If you really care about freedom, you have to be vigilant and preserve that freedom whenever it is in danger. If you don't defend it when you don't need it, it won't be there when you do need it.
And no, I don't concede that the government forming a monopoly on health care would be legal. It simply isn't one of the powers granted it by the Constitution and is therefore reserved for the states or the individual.
Then you're arguing something entirely different than what's being argued here.
They're listening now because we've made a huge stink, mostly
What's disturbing is that the Government has been sending chronic pain patients to jail for decades and no huge stink was raised. Large injustices felt by other people go unnoticed. People only started complaining when they found themselves on the target end of a minor injustice. This tells me that your movement is not based on lofty principles like "freedom" and "limited government", but instead just a bunch of whiny assholes who want their way and don't care about anyone else.
it's not a major issue to me
Abuse of the commerce clause only matters when it personally affects you. Got it. So you don't *really* care about the constitution as much as you do the bills in your wallet.
It's probably not wise to paint with such a broad brush when in reality most people simply didn't care 5 years ago
Yeah really. Who gives a shit when it's just cancer patients being thrown in jail? But when they fine me a couple hundred dollars! I'll raise hell!
Think about it. Do you really want to be associated with people who think that paying a fine they can easily afford is a greater injustice than other people going to jail for treating their illness?
Taxes going to the government is one thing. This forced payment is going to private corporations. Very important difference there.
Why? Isn't the current situation less restrictive than a complete government monopoly (which you concede would be legal)? Also, there's nothing stopping the government from contracting with private organizations. Would it satisfy the constitutional issues if the government set itself up as a middle man collecting taxes and paying it out to the same private organizations we're talking about here?
We've been around all along. The problem is when the majority in both parties are wanting bigger government
Yes, but why are people listening now? (hint: they're not, they're using you) You should try asking your compatriots the same question I did. You might find that a surprising proportion of them support abuse of the commerce clause when it's used to hurt drug users, but are against a similar overreach when it's used to help the poor. Ask that question, and seriously consider what kind of people you choose to associate with.
Let me rephrase. Being forced to buy from a single provider (the US government) is constitutional. The assertion of the above poster is that being forced to buy from a choice of providers is unconstitutional. The argument then is that giving citizens a choice in where their tax dollars get spent is unconstitutional, right?
Yep, that's why I referred to the last century. I preferred to use an example that's relatively recent, in order to poke fun at the fake "small government" types that are running around now. Anyone who's pissed about this now and wasn't outraged over Gonzalez v Raich in 2005 is a fucking hypocrite.
The key difference between your example of services provided through taxes and the individual mandate to buy health insurance is that the requirement is not implemented through taxes for a government-provided service. The mandate is for individuals to purchase insurance from companies
So forcing people to buy services from a single provider (e.g. the US government) is ok. But forcing people to buy services from a choice of providers is not? How is giving people more choice unconstitutional?
It's surprising when the constitutionality of *ANY* measure the federal government takes is called into question. If we really read the constitution, very, very little of what our government does is authorized. The real question is not whether this bill is unconstitutional, most laws are unconstitutional. The question is why does this law get questioned, when other laws that are just as clearly unconstitutional get a pass?
The same way it's possible to force him to pay for roads he doesn't use, police he doesn't need, or libraries he doesn't want. It's like people never heard of taxes before.
As for the Commerce Clause, yes it's been mutilated in the past century. I'd be in favor of rolling back those abuses. But as long as the courts hold that Cannabis grown for personal medical use in ones own home can be considered interstate commerce this challenge doesn't have a chance.
Where the hell were all of you limited government people 5 years ago?
When I switched to Google it wasn't really because it was sparse or clean or white or because there were less adds or anything like that. It was because it worked. I typed in a search, I got results I could use.
Those were the days.. And now they're gone. Google doesn't really work as well as it should. Just this weekend I was looking for an informal comparison of 2 parts, so I googled "X vs Y" (details aren't important) with and without quotes. All I got were data sheets for X and Y. I wasn't until I started adding terms to the query that I found a message in a mailing list archive entitled "X vs Y" which answered my question instantly. This should have been on the first page of my first query, but was nowhere to be found.
Ron Paul has been in office for 30 years. Another 30 years wouldn't be any more productive than the 30 years he's already had. Our system has problems that cannot be fixed from within.
I'm pretty well versed in CAD but moving to 3D is quite a step. Usually these programs assume an extruded material, which is then carved out, using logical operations.
So you have to code the logical operations yourself? This will get big when you can submit a 3d model and have the computer figure out how to do it.
If you have a shell, what's the point of running a shell script? 'sh./test.sh' doesn't allow you to do anything that you can't do from the shell itself. How would you use that to run arbitrary binaries from a noexec partition?
Slashdot Mirror
59 lies in 122 minutes? That's just about 1 lie every 2 minutes. How many times do you think a White House Press Secretary lies in a 2 minute Q/A period?
He previously called the cloud a joke. But here is the reality of the situation. I like having my email available on multiple devices
Email has always been available on any devices. Email is how the cloud should work. Your data is stored on a remote server, but the protocol you access it with is open and the source for the client is open. If I don't like the client provided, I can switch clients, or modify it to work as I see fit.
I'm not sure I'm following you on this. What cancer patients are being thrown in jail?
The ones being prosecuted for growing their own medication legally in their state. Here's my argument in a nutshell. People are protesting this law on the basis that it's an overreach of the commerce clause. I say that if you really care about the commerce clause, you'd be just as outraged over the 2005 decision Gonzalez v Raich (ok she's a chronic pain patient, but that's immaterial) as this one.
Considering that there was no outrage from the right over the Gonzalez vs Raich decision, we can conclude that nobody on the right honestly cares about the abuse of the Commerce clause.
So my specific argument here isn't for or against any particular health care system. My claim (which I believe I've demonstrated) is that the commerce clause objection raised here is an unprincipled objection raised by unprincipled people. My intent was not so much as to convince anyone, but to publicly shame these despicable people for whom a slightly higher tax burden is a greater injustice than a sick woman going to jail for medicating herself.
I honestly do not have the words to express the contempt I have for these people. If I did, they would contain the phrase "up against the wall when the revolution comes".
strangely emotional attack such as accusations that I, or anyone else, suddenly wants to see jailed cancer patients.
Every person who wasn't outraged over Gonzalez v Raich wants to see cancer patients in jail. This is not a strange accusation or an emotional attack. This is the only reasonable interpretation. Sending seriously ill people to jail for medicating themselves is barely above stoning women for adultery. This is the kind of scum we have holding office in this country. This is the kind of scum we have trying to convince the nation that they actually care about freedom.
(1) The "Quiet Prius" prob: You basic inexpensive Geiger counter, for durability, has a thickish diaphragm over its sensor, which blocks alpha and beta radiation. The element of most concern is Plutonium, which is an Alpha emitter.
My bench top pancake style geiger counter detects alpha particles from 35S and beta particles from 32P just fine. I'm sure it would handle plutonium no problem.
(2) The "Quiet on the average" prob: It does not help that traffic sounds quiet. All it takes is one car to send you flying. Similarly, it does not matter that the radiation level is, on the average, low. All it takes is one particle of Plutonium
All it takes is one cosmic ray, or one decay from an atom of phosphorous in a banana, etc. etc. Risk is proportional to dose. It's managable.
(3) The "Ivana made it okay" prob-- it does not matter that some dame allegedly snapped some pics years ago. She may be dead or dying now. Plus we will never know how many folks took a similar trip but are now too sick or too dead to post their pics.
If we can estimate the exposure, we can calculate exactly how many people we'd expect to get cancer from such an expedition. Again risk is proportional to dose.
Should Comcast be persecuted because there is a holiday rush on internet video?
Yes. ISPs should be prepared for peak usage.
None of which actually makes it a good movie.
Your shortsightedness will be your downfall. They created precedent with an issue you don't care about, and now that they have that precedent they will use it against you. If you really care about freedom, you have to be vigilant and preserve that freedom whenever it is in danger. If you don't defend it when you don't need it, it won't be there when you do need it.
And no, I don't concede that the government forming a monopoly on health care would be legal. It simply isn't one of the powers granted it by the Constitution and is therefore reserved for the states or the individual.
Then you're arguing something entirely different than what's being argued here.
They're listening now because we've made a huge stink, mostly
What's disturbing is that the Government has been sending chronic pain patients to jail for decades and no huge stink was raised. Large injustices felt by other people go unnoticed. People only started complaining when they found themselves on the target end of a minor injustice. This tells me that your movement is not based on lofty principles like "freedom" and "limited government", but instead just a bunch of whiny assholes who want their way and don't care about anyone else.
it's not a major issue to me
Abuse of the commerce clause only matters when it personally affects you. Got it. So you don't *really* care about the constitution as much as you do the bills in your wallet.
So, why didn't they just raise taxes to pay for the hundreds of billions of dollars in new health care costs?
That's Socialism(TM). They should have done it this way, but it wouldn't have passed.
It's probably not wise to paint with such a broad brush when in reality most people simply didn't care 5 years ago
Yeah really. Who gives a shit when it's just cancer patients being thrown in jail? But when they fine me a couple hundred dollars! I'll raise hell!
Think about it. Do you really want to be associated with people who think that paying a fine they can easily afford is a greater injustice than other people going to jail for treating their illness?
Taxes going to the government is one thing. This forced payment is going to private corporations. Very important difference there.
Why? Isn't the current situation less restrictive than a complete government monopoly (which you concede would be legal)? Also, there's nothing stopping the government from contracting with private organizations. Would it satisfy the constitutional issues if the government set itself up as a middle man collecting taxes and paying it out to the same private organizations we're talking about here?
We've been around all along. The problem is when the majority in both parties are wanting bigger government
Yes, but why are people listening now? (hint: they're not, they're using you) You should try asking your compatriots the same question I did. You might find that a surprising proportion of them support abuse of the commerce clause when it's used to hurt drug users, but are against a similar overreach when it's used to help the poor. Ask that question, and seriously consider what kind of people you choose to associate with.
Funding services through taxes is unconstitutional? Really?
Let me rephrase. Being forced to buy from a single provider (the US government) is constitutional. The assertion of the above poster is that being forced to buy from a choice of providers is unconstitutional. The argument then is that giving citizens a choice in where their tax dollars get spent is unconstitutional, right?
Yep, that's why I referred to the last century. I preferred to use an example that's relatively recent, in order to poke fun at the fake "small government" types that are running around now. Anyone who's pissed about this now and wasn't outraged over Gonzalez v Raich in 2005 is a fucking hypocrite.
You can call it contract law if you like. If it looks like coercion, acts like coercion, and quacks like coercion, then it's coercion.
Forcing insurance companies to take on millions of new customers is hardly a public service. It's more like crony capitalism.
Forcing drug laws on states that don't want them is crony capitalism too. The Supreme Court has ruled in favor of crony capitalism on many occasions.
The key difference between your example of services provided through taxes and the individual mandate to buy health insurance is that the requirement is not implemented through taxes for a government-provided service. The mandate is for individuals to purchase insurance from companies
So forcing people to buy services from a single provider (e.g. the US government) is ok. But forcing people to buy services from a choice of providers is not? How is giving people more choice unconstitutional?
It's surprising when the constitutionality of *ANY* measure the federal government takes is called into question. If we really read the constitution, very, very little of what our government does is authorized. The real question is not whether this bill is unconstitutional, most laws are unconstitutional. The question is why does this law get questioned, when other laws that are just as clearly unconstitutional get a pass?
The same way it's possible to force him to pay for roads he doesn't use, police he doesn't need, or libraries he doesn't want. It's like people never heard of taxes before.
As for the Commerce Clause, yes it's been mutilated in the past century. I'd be in favor of rolling back those abuses. But as long as the courts hold that Cannabis grown for personal medical use in ones own home can be considered interstate commerce this challenge doesn't have a chance.
Where the hell were all of you limited government people 5 years ago?
When I switched to Google it wasn't really because it was sparse or clean or white or because there were less adds or anything like that. It was because it worked. I typed in a search, I got results I could use.
Those were the days.. And now they're gone. Google doesn't really work as well as it should. Just this weekend I was looking for an informal comparison of 2 parts, so I googled "X vs Y" (details aren't important) with and without quotes. All I got were data sheets for X and Y. I wasn't until I started adding terms to the query that I found a message in a mailing list archive entitled "X vs Y" which answered my question instantly. This should have been on the first page of my first query, but was nowhere to be found.
Psychic Pizza will deliver 30 minutes before you order or your money back.
Ron Paul has been in office for 30 years. Another 30 years wouldn't be any more productive than the 30 years he's already had. Our system has problems that cannot be fixed from within.
I'm pretty well versed in CAD but moving to 3D is quite a step. Usually these programs assume an extruded material, which is then carved out, using logical operations.
So you have to code the logical operations yourself? This will get big when you can submit a 3d model and have the computer figure out how to do it.
Person commits crime, goes to jail. Fascinating reporting there.
If you have a shell, what's the point of running a shell script? 'sh ./test.sh' doesn't allow you to do anything that you can't do from the shell itself. How would you use that to run arbitrary binaries from a noexec partition?