Declaring intent is a threat. "I'm gonna punch you" is a threat. That alone is enough in many places to act preemptively. But one has to have REASON to believe the threat can be carried out. It comes down to "reason", which is about as nebulous as one can get.
In the case above (4/16) is hardly a threat, because the intent is completely unknown. Random numbers, even in the context of the Campus shooting, isn't enough to gauge a threat. It just isn't. The police should investigate, and even make an arrest (investigative detention) if needed. BUT to charge a person with a crime, for mentioning a date? Without any further cause is just wrong. Yeah, the police had to do their work, boo hoo. Not enough to charge with a crime.
For Speech to be dangerous, it must be followed by an action. Yelling "fire" in a theater isn't illegal, it happens all the time (Actor on stage)"ready, aim, fire!" The resultant panic is what makes it dangerous. If I yelled fire in a theater, where there was no actual flames, and nothing happened, then.. nothing happened. You shouldn't be able to arrest me for nothing.
This is like all the new Politically Correct thought crimes that people love to embrace, you know the poor pizza shop in Indiana, who didn't commit any crime, and yet the harm done by those crying "HATE!!!!!" (no hate, just a difference of opinion on longstanding definition of "marriage" vs the new hip definition), which DID cause harm.
IMHO, speech that is the worst kind, is the kind that needs the strongest defense.
How does one distinguish between credible and non-credible threats?
How does one distinguish attempts at humor ("Hi Jack" in the airport) vs an actual threat (hijack at the airport) ?
I'll tell you how. Hard work. You have to assume the worst, hope for the best and actually do your work and investigate it. I know, it is much easier to arrest the poor guy selling single cigarettes on the street than it is actually doing real important police work.
Not really. At some point, because it is currency (and not just an asset), it is useful and needed in commerce. Those products and services that actually provide usefulness become valued, while extemporaneous superfluous expenditures.
Here is a good example of the difference between currency and an asset. You had $1000 in 1987 to use. You could buy an Apple MacBook, or invest it in Apple stock. Looking back did you make the right decision between Asset or Currency (buying something). Now, if buying the MacBook made you enough money, to later buy $1000 in stock, and other things (it was a tool) then you made a good decision. If not, then it wasn't a good decision.
The long term view of deflationary CURRENCY is that it is also an asset, but it also remains a currency. It has double usefulness. Inflationary currency is a long term net loss if you hold it. It is a liability. The currency part means that you work hard, and save ANYTHING it because a net gain for you. There is no loss over time.
And this is different than now how? You're under the assumption that what you said is something that isn't happening now. I already said the rich hold assets. Changing what is an asset doesn't actually change anything.
However, a poor man, being frugal, can become rich over time. A worker earns his wage and doesn't lose value before he is even been paid.
Here, I'll show you: A worker works for an hour, and earns a bit coin. The person paying him owes him a bit coin. If the currency is deflationary, the longer the payer holds that coin, the worse it is for the payer. He owes that coin no matter what its purchasing power is. Today, one bitcoin can buy a shopping cart full of food. Tomorrow, the shopping cart and something else (a candy bar).
With Inflationary money, a worker can work for $500, which can buy a shopping cart of food. If the payer holds that currency, the worker waits and when he gets it, he can buy a shopping cart of food, minus a candy bar.
Guess which is better for which person. I work for a salary. I haven't had a raise in 7 years. Guess what happens in the inflationary currency? If I work for deflationary currency, guess what happens (hint, it is the opposite).
There are other issues with deflationary currency. However, those that work hard, work extra, save currency are rewarded in deflationary currency market, and punished in inflationary currency.
People want to know why the rich keep getting richer? It is because they don't deal in currency, they deal in assets. Currency is only used when converting one asset for another. Most Currency is inflationary, meaning if you hold it, you lose. This is such a little known fact of life. BitCoin, should it survive will ultimately be deflationary currency, meaning it gains value the longer you hold it.
Think of it this way, you work hard, when you're young, you can retire if you save anything, because deflationary currency becomes an asset. But that doesn't bode well for the rich n powerful, or politicians who need a dependent class of people to take care of.
Actually it doesn't have to match anything. It has to match what the market in Argentina bears. And since Bitcoin is deflationary, while Pesos are Inflationary they counter each other very well. By having Bitcoins, the average Argentine can increase wealth by performing services and charging BitCoins for them.
In terms of monetary terms, withholding payment in Inflationary currency (Peso) is a net gain, and unless you are paid in cash (or equivalent) immediately, Pesos are a losing proposition for workers. On the other hand, withholding payment in a deflationary currency (BitCoin) is bad for the employer, and good for the worker.
This will result in better economy for Argentina, at least for workers.
Purchasing power of gold wildly fluctuates over time.
You say that like it is a bad thing. It isn't necessarily a bad thing, just different.
I'd say having unaccountable private enterprise (the Fed) in charge of money supply has, at least partially, been responsible for dismantling the middle class, and the accumulation of wealth by the few at the top.
Basically that governments can't increase the money supply arbitrarily.
Our (US) government can't increase or decrease the money supply. The Federal Reserve, a privately held company does that. You want to know why we're screwed? Because only a handful of people have control of the entire US economy, and a large part of the world economy.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency gave its 2009 SmartWay Excellence Award to Georgia-Pacific, a Koch Industries company. “I commend Georgia-Pacific for its leadership in promoting sustainable transportation practices through the SmartWay Transportation Partnership,” said Margo T. Oge, director of EPA’s Office of Transportation and Air Quality. “These actions demonstrate a commitment to a cleaner environment and more secure energy supply.”
EPA gives an environmental award to a Koch Industries business unit. What Koch does is not cater to the Far left viewpoint of Environmentalist / anti Capitalist / socialist agenda. You know the "build wind farms, just not where I can see them" Kennedy types
very few tats look good. Most are exactly as you describe, blotches. Half the time, you can't tell WTF the tat was supposed to be. Its cool, until its not. Then it is just permanent reminder how suggestible you are. On the plus side, you can tell who are the sheeple this way.
"Slut" is a term liberals use on conservative women, but decry its use by conservatives at all, being the 'war on women'. Which I find amusingly hypocritical on multiple levels.
Presenting Microsoft in a positive light. Wasn't probably needed to support your point, and enough kneejerk Slashdotters think MS can do nothing right... and for the most part, they are correct, but broken clocks are right twice a day.
No worries about Getting modded down. I have excellent Karma now, I had excellent Karma in the past, and in between I've had BAD Karma. Easy come easier go. The time it took me to go from Excellent to bad was about two days (experiment), to get back to Excellent took about a month.
Which only proves one thing, it is easier to lose Good Karma Points than it is to get it back.
The thing that I change wasn't my view, it was simply how I presented my view.
Slashdot Mirror
Which is a real crime! I'm diabetic .. :-(
Declaring intent is a threat. "I'm gonna punch you" is a threat. That alone is enough in many places to act preemptively. But one has to have REASON to believe the threat can be carried out. It comes down to "reason", which is about as nebulous as one can get.
In the case above (4/16) is hardly a threat, because the intent is completely unknown. Random numbers, even in the context of the Campus shooting, isn't enough to gauge a threat. It just isn't. The police should investigate, and even make an arrest (investigative detention) if needed. BUT to charge a person with a crime, for mentioning a date? Without any further cause is just wrong. Yeah, the police had to do their work, boo hoo. Not enough to charge with a crime.
It shouldn't be ok to incite mass panic
For Speech to be dangerous, it must be followed by an action. Yelling "fire" in a theater isn't illegal, it happens all the time (Actor on stage)"ready, aim, fire!" The resultant panic is what makes it dangerous. If I yelled fire in a theater, where there was no actual flames, and nothing happened, then .. nothing happened. You shouldn't be able to arrest me for nothing.
This is like all the new Politically Correct thought crimes that people love to embrace, you know the poor pizza shop in Indiana, who didn't commit any crime, and yet the harm done by those crying "HATE!!!!!" (no hate, just a difference of opinion on longstanding definition of "marriage" vs the new hip definition), which DID cause harm.
IMHO, speech that is the worst kind, is the kind that needs the strongest defense.
How does one distinguish between credible and non-credible threats?
How does one distinguish attempts at humor ("Hi Jack" in the airport) vs an actual threat (hijack at the airport) ?
I'll tell you how. Hard work. You have to assume the worst, hope for the best and actually do your work and investigate it. I know, it is much easier to arrest the poor guy selling single cigarettes on the street than it is actually doing real important police work.
Not really. At some point, because it is currency (and not just an asset), it is useful and needed in commerce. Those products and services that actually provide usefulness become valued, while extemporaneous superfluous expenditures.
Here is a good example of the difference between currency and an asset. You had $1000 in 1987 to use. You could buy an Apple MacBook, or invest it in Apple stock. Looking back did you make the right decision between Asset or Currency (buying something). Now, if buying the MacBook made you enough money, to later buy $1000 in stock, and other things (it was a tool) then you made a good decision. If not, then it wasn't a good decision.
The long term view of deflationary CURRENCY is that it is also an asset, but it also remains a currency. It has double usefulness. Inflationary currency is a long term net loss if you hold it. It is a liability. The currency part means that you work hard, and save ANYTHING it because a net gain for you. There is no loss over time.
And this is different than now how? You're under the assumption that what you said is something that isn't happening now. I already said the rich hold assets. Changing what is an asset doesn't actually change anything.
However, a poor man, being frugal, can become rich over time. A worker earns his wage and doesn't lose value before he is even been paid.
Here, I'll show you: A worker works for an hour, and earns a bit coin. The person paying him owes him a bit coin. If the currency is deflationary, the longer the payer holds that coin, the worse it is for the payer. He owes that coin no matter what its purchasing power is. Today, one bitcoin can buy a shopping cart full of food. Tomorrow, the shopping cart and something else (a candy bar).
With Inflationary money, a worker can work for $500, which can buy a shopping cart of food. If the payer holds that currency, the worker waits and when he gets it, he can buy a shopping cart of food, minus a candy bar.
Guess which is better for which person. I work for a salary. I haven't had a raise in 7 years. Guess what happens in the inflationary currency? If I work for deflationary currency, guess what happens (hint, it is the opposite).
There are other issues with deflationary currency. However, those that work hard, work extra, save currency are rewarded in deflationary currency market, and punished in inflationary currency.
People want to know why the rich keep getting richer? It is because they don't deal in currency, they deal in assets. Currency is only used when converting one asset for another. Most Currency is inflationary, meaning if you hold it, you lose. This is such a little known fact of life. BitCoin, should it survive will ultimately be deflationary currency, meaning it gains value the longer you hold it.
Think of it this way, you work hard, when you're young, you can retire if you save anything, because deflationary currency becomes an asset. But that doesn't bode well for the rich n powerful, or politicians who need a dependent class of people to take care of.
Actually it doesn't have to match anything. It has to match what the market in Argentina bears. And since Bitcoin is deflationary, while Pesos are Inflationary they counter each other very well. By having Bitcoins, the average Argentine can increase wealth by performing services and charging BitCoins for them.
In terms of monetary terms, withholding payment in Inflationary currency (Peso) is a net gain, and unless you are paid in cash (or equivalent) immediately, Pesos are a losing proposition for workers. On the other hand, withholding payment in a deflationary currency (BitCoin) is bad for the employer, and good for the worker.
This will result in better economy for Argentina, at least for workers.
Purchasing power of gold wildly fluctuates over time.
You say that like it is a bad thing. It isn't necessarily a bad thing, just different.
I'd say having unaccountable private enterprise (the Fed) in charge of money supply has, at least partially, been responsible for dismantling the middle class, and the accumulation of wealth by the few at the top.
Ah yes, the "no true Scotsman" argument".
Basically that governments can't increase the money supply arbitrarily.
Our (US) government can't increase or decrease the money supply. The Federal Reserve, a privately held company does that. You want to know why we're screwed? Because only a handful of people have control of the entire US economy, and a large part of the world economy.
http://www.nationalreview.com/...
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency gave its 2009 SmartWay Excellence Award to Georgia-Pacific, a Koch Industries company. “I commend Georgia-Pacific for its leadership in promoting sustainable transportation practices through the SmartWay Transportation Partnership,” said Margo T. Oge, director of EPA’s Office of Transportation and Air Quality. “These actions demonstrate a commitment to a cleaner environment and more secure energy supply.”
EPA gives an environmental award to a Koch Industries business unit. What Koch does is not cater to the Far left viewpoint of Environmentalist / anti Capitalist / socialist agenda. You know the "build wind farms, just not where I can see them" Kennedy types
Another hipster fail that everyone will blame Apple for.
FTFY
very few tats look good. Most are exactly as you describe, blotches. Half the time, you can't tell WTF the tat was supposed to be. Its cool, until its not. Then it is just permanent reminder how suggestible you are. On the plus side, you can tell who are the sheeple this way.
And Apple fixed their website yesterday.
'
FTFY
I don't have a tattoo. Saved $200 ... Priceless!
Not buying an iWatch Saved 10,000
Sticking to nobody, just living my life
The current version of free market is faith based. You have faith in fiat currency, just to start with.
We keep trying to fix the wrong problem.
Fix the last mile problem, and everything else goes away.
"Slut" is a term liberals use on conservative women, but decry its use by conservatives at all, being the 'war on women'. Which I find amusingly hypocritical on multiple levels.
"ANY" of it meaning that plenty of people still smoke pot in public, even though there are laws against it.
Presenting Microsoft in a positive light. Wasn't probably needed to support your point, and enough kneejerk Slashdotters think MS can do nothing right... and for the most part, they are correct, but broken clocks are right twice a day.
Or asking a misplaced question (Off Topic)
or both.
No worries about Getting modded down. I have excellent Karma now, I had excellent Karma in the past, and in between I've had BAD Karma. Easy come easier go. The time it took me to go from Excellent to bad was about two days (experiment), to get back to Excellent took about a month.
Which only proves one thing, it is easier to lose Good Karma Points than it is to get it back.
The thing that I change wasn't my view, it was simply how I presented my view.
Walking through the City Plaza park, which is right across the street from the police department, one will always smell pot. Always.
There is a park that is supposedly a "drug free zone" with "enhanced penalties" (super law) where you can find people smoking pot throughout the day.
Laws typically do not deter people from anything. There are plenty of laws against smoking Pot, it hasn't stopped any of it
The problem with our legal system are the things that often start with "There ought to be a law".
No, there shouldn't be a law, because laws that can be abused, will be abused, and the law will not actually stop anyone from anything.