The founders never imagined the Internet Either, doesn't mean freedoms die with new technology. OR are you suggesting the government has a duty to restrict people from speaking their minds on the internet, because of how much more dangerous it is?
Perhaps we should require people posting on the Internet a ten day cooling off period between posts, and have government run a background check on everyone. For the children's sake of course.
Yeah, it is called "reality", which has a bias against hyperbole and grandstanding. On the other hand, this account might be a shill for the RUSSIANS!!!!!
I look at the total reviews. If consistently good, then it will be consistently good. If out of a 100 reviews it goes something like this.. 5*(87%), 4*(6%), 3*(0%), 2*(3%) and 1*(4%) I can be relatively sure that the low scores are trolls of some sort. It is really hard to get 93% of people to agree on anything.
I would venture to guess that part of the "settlement" means it is a legally binding clause of the actual settlement, which is not an actual contract. In other words, he was compensated for his silence.
It is the ROLE of government to NOT infringe upon the rights of others, and to protect the liberties of people.
The government should NOT be defining how much of a right belongs to one person/group over another person/group, regardless of who they are. We have libel/slander laws on the books for a reason, and courts to decided these things.
There are two things that could have been done here, without yet another useless law that will end up tied up in courts for years to come, and the result being bought and paid for by the richest of the plaintiffs. The first being, courts could simply say "these contracts are unenforceable" and simply refuse to hear them at all, letting people speak freely regardless of the stupid "contract". The second, is that the courts can hear each and every case, and the public becomes aware enough to STOP doing business with crappy people who sue their customers.
I know, it is hard being free, it is much easier to say "There ought to be a law" and make it so, than actually taking responsibility for yourself. Trust me when I say this, there is going to be some clause or some court somewhere that will use this new law to diminish true liberty of expression.
You want to collect social security and taxes from the people? Unless you're trying to make the Libertarian case of fully open boarders and free to work without government interference / permitting (like IRS, Social Security...), are you? Otherwise, you're giving a benefit to undocumented workers that is denied to citizens (work without government papers)... that's why.
You think an autonomous permit has anything to do with certification of software and systems of an autonomous vehicle? If the permitting ONLY did the certification of the software/systems of autonomous vehicles, I'd be more inclined to support it. But somehow, I doubt the government would want to do that level of work and be responsible for that certification.
Can you tell me exactly what the Permitting of autonomous cars does, exactly. I mean exactly what difference is there between Uber running autonomous cars with or without a permit? Exactly what change has occurred in the process, besides Government suddenly being involved. Is the state going to take any responsibility for monitoring Uber's (or anyone else's) autonomous cars differently than if they didn't have a permit?
My guess is that there is no functional difference, in which case, we have regulation just for the sake of regulation.
To be fair, Chromebooks while outselling Macs, aren't really full desktop computers. Being what they are, they are good for most casual users for doing things that require internet, but suck on anything less than a full size screen, and that require a real keyboard. Macs are more than a Chromebook, but most people don't need them anymore, or have learned out to do less while saving 1500 on computer purchases.
Or, you can believe there were Hack Attempts, that they were made by "Unknown" but "suspected" russian attackers. While ignoring the fact that there were ALSO hack attempt(s) made by the US government on state Election Offices.
Part of the whole "Conspiracy" claim is that it doesn't need to have any evidence of truth. But, if you believe, it is part of the "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy" (where have we heard that before???) or "Trump is an idiot for believing" if you don't.
See how that works? No proof is needed, people asking for proof are "deniers", OR.... the people are idiots and we don't need to prove anything.
Read how to discredit your rivals. Use "conspiracy" (as in "vast right-wing conspiracy") to explain why what you said/did wasn't what you said/did. Alternatively, when others use "conspiracy" against you (regardless of your involvement in said conspiracy) point out of fucking stupid it is to follow with "those crazy people".
You can apply this to just about every conspiracy theory out there, if you want to believe... THERE IS A CONSPIRACY!!!, if you don't its... THOSE CRAZY PEOPLE.
Really convenient once you realize you can control the narrative this way.
BTW, this applies to just about everything "Conspiratorial"... e.g.... THE RUSSIANS HACKED OUR ELECTION.... Imagine if Trump lost and was saying this instead of Clinton, I am sure most people's views would change.
Actually, you are free to choose from a variety of alternate programming, including none. Nobody is holding a gun to your head making you pay for TV at all.
Or does making wildly false claims make you feel morally and mentally superior ?
Taxes for Infrastructure and Education pale in comparison to Social Welfare programs. If only our Gasoline Taxes went to the the roads, we'd have great roads and mass transit. Too bad we don't actually fund infrastructure that way. And education is always cut first, when it is time to spend money on boondoggle government programs. If we only had a prioritized budget system;)
Slashdot Mirror
Hack Clinton Email, that had been Bitbleached (er wiped with a cloth) years before? Hack that Email???
The ONLY evidence of actual hacking was done by the Department of Homeland Security on the Georgia Elections office. Yeah, blame the Russians.
. The narrative being pushed into the willing media
Fix that for you. I mean, it was also exposed that most of the MSM was directly involved with the DNC and Hillary Campaign.
And the Left has the MSM for their false news service.
I wonder if "It was the RUSSIANS" will be considered "Disputed"
No, not that fake news. The other fake news.
"IT was an internet video"
"Police Acted Stupidly"
"It was the Russians"
The founders never imagined the Internet Either, doesn't mean freedoms die with new technology. OR are you suggesting the government has a duty to restrict people from speaking their minds on the internet, because of how much more dangerous it is?
Perhaps we should require people posting on the Internet a ten day cooling off period between posts, and have government run a background check on everyone. For the children's sake of course.
Fake news?
"Sniper fire in Bosnia"
"Vast Right wing conspiracy" (monica)
"I did not send or receive any classified emails"
But somehow, we're supposed to believe IT WAS THE RUSSIANS!!!!!!
Yeah, it is called "reality", which has a bias against hyperbole and grandstanding. On the other hand, this account might be a shill for the RUSSIANS!!!!!
I look at the total reviews. If consistently good, then it will be consistently good. If out of a 100 reviews it goes something like this .. 5*(87%), 4*(6%), 3*(0%), 2*(3%) and 1*(4%) I can be relatively sure that the low scores are trolls of some sort. It is really hard to get 93% of people to agree on anything.
I would venture to guess that part of the "settlement" means it is a legally binding clause of the actual settlement, which is not an actual contract. In other words, he was compensated for his silence.
It is the ROLE of government to NOT infringe upon the rights of others, and to protect the liberties of people.
The government should NOT be defining how much of a right belongs to one person/group over another person/group, regardless of who they are. We have libel/slander laws on the books for a reason, and courts to decided these things.
There are two things that could have been done here, without yet another useless law that will end up tied up in courts for years to come, and the result being bought and paid for by the richest of the plaintiffs. The first being, courts could simply say "these contracts are unenforceable" and simply refuse to hear them at all, letting people speak freely regardless of the stupid "contract". The second, is that the courts can hear each and every case, and the public becomes aware enough to STOP doing business with crappy people who sue their customers.
I know, it is hard being free, it is much easier to say "There ought to be a law" and make it so, than actually taking responsibility for yourself. Trust me when I say this, there is going to be some clause or some court somewhere that will use this new law to diminish true liberty of expression.
You want to collect social security and taxes from the people? Unless you're trying to make the Libertarian case of fully open boarders and free to work without government interference / permitting (like IRS, Social Security ...), are you? Otherwise, you're giving a benefit to undocumented workers that is denied to citizens (work without government papers) ... that's why.
You think an autonomous permit has anything to do with certification of software and systems of an autonomous vehicle? If the permitting ONLY did the certification of the software/systems of autonomous vehicles, I'd be more inclined to support it. But somehow, I doubt the government would want to do that level of work and be responsible for that certification.
You can have (as in Require) "reporting" without "permitting"
Next objection.
relatively safe before they get on the road
No it doesn't. Besides, liability laws do that.
lets the local government know
No it doesn't. I can guarantee you that an autonomous vehicle shows up in my city, nobody locally would know ahead of time.
This is what happens when you teach people it is okay to ignore laws they don't like. The true Anarcho-leftist philosophy.
Can you tell me exactly what the Permitting of autonomous cars does, exactly. I mean exactly what difference is there between Uber running autonomous cars with or without a permit? Exactly what change has occurred in the process, besides Government suddenly being involved. Is the state going to take any responsibility for monitoring Uber's (or anyone else's) autonomous cars differently than if they didn't have a permit?
My guess is that there is no functional difference, in which case, we have regulation just for the sake of regulation.
GIrd your Loins doesn't indicate protecting one's Penis, it is the hiking up of one's garments to move easier during a fight.
https://content.artofmanliness...
To be fair, Chromebooks while outselling Macs, aren't really full desktop computers. Being what they are, they are good for most casual users for doing things that require internet, but suck on anything less than a full size screen, and that require a real keyboard. Macs are more than a Chromebook, but most people don't need them anymore, or have learned out to do less while saving 1500 on computer purchases.
Or, you can believe there were Hack Attempts, that they were made by "Unknown" but "suspected" russian attackers. While ignoring the fact that there were ALSO hack attempt(s) made by the US government on state Election Offices.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/ge...
Part of the whole "Conspiracy" claim is that it doesn't need to have any evidence of truth. But, if you believe, it is part of the "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy" (where have we heard that before???) or "Trump is an idiot for believing" if you don't.
See how that works? No proof is needed, people asking for proof are "deniers", OR .... the people are idiots and we don't need to prove anything.
Both sides try to play this game.
Read how to discredit your rivals. Use "conspiracy" (as in "vast right-wing conspiracy") to explain why what you said/did wasn't what you said/did. Alternatively, when others use "conspiracy" against you (regardless of your involvement in said conspiracy) point out of fucking stupid it is to follow with "those crazy people".
You can apply this to just about every conspiracy theory out there, if you want to believe ... THERE IS A CONSPIRACY!!!, if you don't its ... THOSE CRAZY PEOPLE.
Really convenient once you realize you can control the narrative this way.
BTW, this applies to just about everything "Conspiratorial" ... e.g. ... THE RUSSIANS HACKED OUR ELECTION .... Imagine if Trump lost and was saying this instead of Clinton, I am sure most people's views would change.
Actually, you are free to choose from a variety of alternate programming, including none. Nobody is holding a gun to your head making you pay for TV at all.
Or does making wildly false claims make you feel morally and mentally superior ?
Taxes for Infrastructure and Education pale in comparison to Social Welfare programs. If only our Gasoline Taxes went to the the roads, we'd have great roads and mass transit. Too bad we don't actually fund infrastructure that way. And education is always cut first, when it is time to spend money on boondoggle government programs. If we only had a prioritized budget system ;)
I am a Libertarian. I have plenty of "left wing" views on "rights" people have. I support Liberty for everyone, equally.