I may have gone off on a tangent and lost my original intent, so let me try again:
As the Constitution does not specifically grant the federal government power to create secret courts, the existence of secret courts (and thus, all decisions handed down by them) are de facto unconstitutional, per the Tenth Amendment:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people
The FISA court isn't a trial court. Nobody is being "held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime." It is letting investigators investigate by issuing warrants.
Without justification based upon probable cause.
Which is still unconstitutional, but in a different way I mentioned.
FYI - the fact that America has a "court" that is not open to public scrutiny is blatantly unconstitutional, no matter what rationale you try to use to justify it.
Therefore, as no Constitutional Amendment has thus far been passed that would negate the Fifth and Sixth, then the FISA court and all its decisions are de facto unconstitutional.
If the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit!
The fifth and sixth are not relevant since the FISA court isn't holding anyone "to answer" or creating "double jeopardy", nor is it dealing with any criminal prosecution. Their decisions are not, thus, defacto unconstitutional based on the fifth or sixth amendments.
What the FISA courts do is issue warrants, so if you want to argue fourth amendment issues, ok.
What are they issuing warrants on, if no one has been charged with a crime? That in itself is a Constitutional violation.
As for the GP saying he's skeptical of court appointed advocates, well, the courts have a long history of appointing advocates. In fact, "if you cannot afford one, you will be appointed one prior to questioning." Miranda.
Yea, let's go ahead and pretend there's no difference between a public defender appointed by a Constitutionally legitimate court, and an "advocate" appointed by a secret court, that issues secret warrants, makes secret ruling, etc.
If they're against an adversarial process, that suggests that the FISA court is not a neutral party. While I agree that it is inadequate, a third-party advocate for civil liberties would be better than the nothing that we have at the moment.
I'm suspicious of an advocate chosen by the court. Fox guarding the henhouse?
Then again, I'm also suspicious of secret court proceedings.
I think of it this way:
The Constitution, which cannot be superseded by anything other than a Constitutional Amendment, states in her Fifth Amendment [emphasis added]:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation
As well as in the Sixth Amendment:
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
Therefore, as no Constitutional Amendment has thus far been passed that would negate the Fifth and Sixth, then the FISA court and all its decisions are de facto unconstitutional.
No, you're the one saying that stereotypes can never be accurate.
Did I say that? I was pretty sure my exact words were
Stereotypes generally exist because...
Which, through the use of the modifier "generally," would imply that I feel most stereotypes are inaccurately based on bigotry, but not necessarily all.
Although, if I did make such a generalization, I hereby retract is, since all generalizations are inherently false.
You know, I never liked the fried chicken or watermelon stereotypes. Who the hell doesn't like fried chicken or watermelon?
I'm with you on the fried chicken part, but personally I've never been a big fan of watermelon.
FTR, the black people/watermelon stereotype is less about liking the fruit, and more about stealing them. Not sure where it originated, but I have seen a gum adverts from the early 20th century that depicts a black-faced child sneaking under a fence to snatch a melon or two. Can't seem to find it on Google, though...
Anyway, stereotypes exist because someone observed that, on average, foo is true of a significant portion of demographic bar. They simplify decision making at the expense of some accuracy.
Some stereotypes exist because of observed behavior. Some exist because of preconceived notions based on no observation whatsoever, but rather bigotry.
I hate generalizations, because they're always wrong.
Like many things, there are times when stereotypes are useful and times when using them is a dick move. Recognizing that a fair majority of women like flowers and chocolate is generally fine to both use and say.
"Recognizing a fair majority," sure. But that's not what OP did when he said "ask any woman..." He generalized, in a way that I know to be untrue, and so I called him on it.
And then, somehow, got into a semantics argument with, like, 10 other people. Only on Slashdot.
Recognizing that a good percentage of pregnant women are often freaking insane is impolite to say but you'd damned well better be prepared to deal with it if you're married to one.
OK, disregarding stereotypes, generalizations, and all that for a moment - never, ever put the words "insane" and "pregnant woman" together when you're within arms reach of one. Unless you're a masochist, in which case, have fun!
Recognizing that most anyone replying like you did is a self-hating lib who cares about feelings more than truth and logic, that one's just too easy.
But see, there's the fallacy - you say that my response is stereotypical of a 'self-hating lib,' but as I am decidedly not one of those people, the stereotype is demonstrably proven false.
So, the phrase, "and if you ask any woman..." doesn't imply generalization? Sure sounds that way to me.
The two things that he was referring to were "eating chocolate" and "being skinny". Which, pretty much are mutually exclusive to men and women alike....
You're cherry picking. Fact is, OP made a broad generalization about women, and I called them on it. If you're getting anything else out of my comment then it's something you've come up with on your own.
Current OpenGL applications rasterize text on the CPU using Freetype or a similar library, uploading glyphs to the GPU as textures. This inherently limits quality and flexibility (e.g. rotation, perspective transforms, etc. cause the font hinting to become incorrect and you cannot perform subpixel antialiasing).
Wow, I never realized rendering text was such a royal pain in the ass.
My wife loves chocolate as well, but hates to eat it because she likes being skinny more than she likes eating chocolate (and if you ask any woman, the two are mutually exclusive).
Right: You're the one perpetuating misogynistic stereotypes, but I'm the guy who knows nothing about women...
...and you are the one who missed that the GP was making a statement of fact about one particular woman who they know well, not making a stereotypical generalisation.
So, the phrase, "and if you ask any woman..." doesn't imply generalization? Sure sounds that way to me.
But since you bring it up, my wife has also said this to me pretty much verbatim...
Oh, cool, so anecdotes have become the plural of evidence? Because I know a lot of women who would take offense to that, and since "a lot" is obviously more than 2, then by your 'logic' I am correct.
Yep, they exist, and they're basically manifestations of people killing each other just like every other weapon is. Not good, but not worse than what we had before.
Also, not nuclear powered, which is what the Doomsday Clock primarily measures.
I was with you right up to the ownership of production having fruits of labor. They largely don't. They rent their productive capability and live off of other people's fruits of labor.
"people with manufacturing capability" == "owners of production"
At least, in reference to the hypothetical situation being discussed. The only real bearing today's reality has is on how we will get from where we are now to the point where "all work" is done by machine.
Why? I'm not the one saying that stereotypes are accurate.
... hiding in a "liberal" sheep's coat that I've ever read comment here.
That's cute, the whole "liberal sheep's coat" thing, whatever it's supposed to mean. I guess, for you, it's not possible for a person to, say, support social welfare as a fiscal conservative, or be pro-2nd Amendment and... uh...
OK, to be honest, outside of the aforementioned topics (and abortion) I really have zero clue as to what defines a person as a "liberal" or "conservative" in the political sense. I prefer to just be me, not affiliated with any party or group, and holding my own opinions instead of having them spoon fed to me. So when a self-defined "conservative" accuses me of being "liberal," or vice-versa, I normally just chalk it up to that person being ignorant of both the terms used and topic at hand.
Slashdot Mirror
I may have gone off on a tangent and lost my original intent, so let me try again:
As the Constitution does not specifically grant the federal government power to create secret courts, the existence of secret courts (and thus, all decisions handed down by them) are de facto unconstitutional, per the Tenth Amendment:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people
The FISA court isn't a trial court. Nobody is being "held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime." It is letting investigators investigate by issuing warrants.
Without justification based upon probable cause.
Which is still unconstitutional, but in a different way I mentioned.
FYI - the fact that America has a "court" that is not open to public scrutiny is blatantly unconstitutional, no matter what rationale you try to use to justify it.
Therefore, as no Constitutional Amendment has thus far been passed that would negate the Fifth and Sixth, then the FISA court and all its decisions are de facto unconstitutional.
If the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit!
The fifth and sixth are not relevant since the FISA court isn't holding anyone "to answer" or creating "double jeopardy", nor is it dealing with any criminal prosecution. Their decisions are not, thus, defacto unconstitutional based on the fifth or sixth amendments.
What the FISA courts do is issue warrants, so if you want to argue fourth amendment issues, ok.
What are they issuing warrants on, if no one has been charged with a crime? That in itself is a Constitutional violation.
As for the GP saying he's skeptical of court appointed advocates, well, the courts have a long history of appointing advocates. In fact, "if you cannot afford one, you will be appointed one prior to questioning." Miranda.
Yea, let's go ahead and pretend there's no difference between a public defender appointed by a Constitutionally legitimate court, and an "advocate" appointed by a secret court, that issues secret warrants, makes secret ruling, etc.
If they're against an adversarial process, that suggests that the FISA court is not a neutral party. While I agree that it is inadequate, a third-party advocate for civil liberties would be better than the nothing that we have at the moment.
I'm suspicious of an advocate chosen by the court. Fox guarding the henhouse?
Then again, I'm also suspicious of secret court proceedings.
I think of it this way:
The Constitution, which cannot be superseded by anything other than a Constitutional Amendment, states in her Fifth Amendment [emphasis added]:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation
As well as in the Sixth Amendment:
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
Therefore, as no Constitutional Amendment has thus far been passed that would negate the Fifth and Sixth, then the FISA court and all its decisions are de facto unconstitutional.
No, you're the one saying that stereotypes can never be accurate.
Did I say that? I was pretty sure my exact words were
Stereotypes generally exist because...
Which, through the use of the modifier "generally," would imply that I feel most stereotypes are inaccurately based on bigotry, but not necessarily all.
Although, if I did make such a generalization, I hereby retract is, since all generalizations are inherently false.
Never underestimate the power of looking like you're supposed to be there, doing that.
You have no idea how many "secure" facilities I've been given full access to, just because I dressed and talked like I knew exactly what I was doing.
You know, I never liked the fried chicken or watermelon stereotypes. Who the hell doesn't like fried chicken or watermelon?
I'm with you on the fried chicken part, but personally I've never been a big fan of watermelon.
FTR, the black people/watermelon stereotype is less about liking the fruit, and more about stealing them. Not sure where it originated, but I have seen a gum adverts from the early 20th century that depicts a black-faced child sneaking under a fence to snatch a melon or two. Can't seem to find it on Google, though...
Anyway, stereotypes exist because someone observed that, on average, foo is true of a significant portion of demographic bar. They simplify decision making at the expense of some accuracy.
Some stereotypes exist because of observed behavior. Some exist because of preconceived notions based on no observation whatsoever, but rather bigotry.
I hate generalizations, because they're always wrong.
Like many things, there are times when stereotypes are useful and times when using them is a dick move. Recognizing that a fair majority of women like flowers and chocolate is generally fine to both use and say.
"Recognizing a fair majority," sure. But that's not what OP did when he said "ask any woman..." He generalized, in a way that I know to be untrue, and so I called him on it.
And then, somehow, got into a semantics argument with, like, 10 other people. Only on Slashdot.
Recognizing that a good percentage of pregnant women are often freaking insane is impolite to say but you'd damned well better be prepared to deal with it if you're married to one.
OK, disregarding stereotypes, generalizations, and all that for a moment - never, ever put the words "insane" and "pregnant woman" together when you're within arms reach of one. Unless you're a masochist, in which case, have fun!
Recognizing that most anyone replying like you did is a self-hating lib who cares about feelings more than truth and logic, that one's just too easy.
But see, there's the fallacy - you say that my response is stereotypical of a 'self-hating lib,' but as I am decidedly not one of those people, the stereotype is demonstrably proven false.
The two things that he was referring to were "eating chocolate" and "being skinny". Which, pretty much are mutually exclusive to men and women alike....
You're cherry picking. Fact is, OP made a broad generalization about women, and I called them on it. If you're getting anything else out of my comment then it's something you've come up with on your own.
Normally I'd agree, but considering the context here, I think it works either way.
Perhaps they are referring to different products, some of which are patented, others trade secrets.
Current OpenGL applications rasterize text on the CPU using Freetype or a similar library, uploading glyphs to the GPU as textures. This inherently limits quality and flexibility (e.g. rotation, perspective transforms, etc. cause the font hinting to become incorrect and you cannot perform subpixel antialiasing).
Wow, I never realized rendering text was such a royal pain in the ass.
You obviously know nothing about women.
My wife loves chocolate as well, but hates to eat it because she likes being skinny more than she likes eating chocolate (and if you ask any woman, the two are mutually exclusive).
Right: You're the one perpetuating misogynistic stereotypes, but I'm the guy who knows nothing about women...
...and you are the one who missed that the GP was making a statement of fact about one particular woman who they know well, not making a stereotypical generalisation.
So, the phrase, "and if you ask any woman..." doesn't imply generalization? Sure sounds that way to me.
But since you bring it up, my wife has also said this to me pretty much verbatim...
Oh, cool, so anecdotes have become the plural of evidence? Because I know a lot of women who would take offense to that, and since "a lot" is obviously more than 2, then by your 'logic' I am correct.
Do you not realize that "opinion != fact?"
Besides, I never disqualified any 'Murican from being a crank, present company included.
Ah. Forget I said anything, then.
Yup.
At this point, it's no longer "The Boy Who Cried Wolf," and more "That geriatric motherfucker that won't stop calling about those kids on his lawn."
Since when did the doomsday clock include climate change? Since Al Gore became master of earth?
I'm pretty sure ol' Al had to give that title up when he became Emperor of the Moon.
Not entirely sure how thats an existential threat to humanity
The threat doesn't have to be existential. Nukes are our own doing, for example.
I mean, we do lack an objective instrument for how screwed we are as a species, but "any minute now" is just a terribly uninformative model.
Especially when we've been "minutes from DOOM" for 60-some-odd years already.
Yep, they exist, and they're basically manifestations of people killing each other just like every other weapon is. Not good, but not worse than what we had before.
Also, not nuclear powered, which is what the Doomsday Clock primarily measures.
I was with you right up to the ownership of production having fruits of labor. They largely don't. They rent their productive capability and live off of other people's fruits of labor.
"people with manufacturing capability" == "owners of production"
At least, in reference to the hypothetical situation being discussed. The only real bearing today's reality has is on how we will get from where we are now to the point where "all work" is done by machine.
Yesterday I tried to let my dog lick my cereal bowl; he sniffed it, turned away, and promptly began licking his backside.
I'm not really sure I want to know what makes a dog ass more appealing than a bowl of Kix...
You are the most knee-jerk racist...
Why? I'm not the one saying that stereotypes are accurate.
... hiding in a "liberal" sheep's coat that I've ever read comment here.
That's cute, the whole "liberal sheep's coat" thing, whatever it's supposed to mean. I guess, for you, it's not possible for a person to, say, support social welfare as a fiscal conservative, or be pro-2nd Amendment and... uh...
OK, to be honest, outside of the aforementioned topics (and abortion) I really have zero clue as to what defines a person as a "liberal" or "conservative" in the political sense. I prefer to just be me, not affiliated with any party or group, and holding my own opinions instead of having them spoon fed to me. So when a self-defined "conservative" accuses me of being "liberal," or vice-versa, I normally just chalk it up to that person being ignorant of both the terms used and topic at hand.
Opinion has no place in the laboratory, unless we're experimenting on opinions.
OK, but I'm not sure why this paper is subject to that criticism.
All scientific papers should be subject to that criticism.
What can I say, I'm a born skeptic.
But this paper is in a respected, peer-reviewed journal.
Article: Bogus science paper reveals peer review's flaws
And it isn't being used to sell organic, cage-free, non-GMO pomegranates :)
Maybe not, but I'd bet dollars to pesos that it is being used to sell the 'researchers' continued employment.
C'mon that was obviously a joke... How cranky can one be?
You might be surprised - I once knew a lesbian femi-nazi who could, somehow, find offense in you hugging someone, assuming you have a penis.
Welcome to 'Murica, Land of the Cranks, Home of the Narcissistic.