The first terrorist attack, likely, predates written history. It is only in recent decades, that we started to frown on the method as a morally unacceptable one.
was conducted by Jewish terrorists
Bzzz! An attempt to change subject detected — and rejected.
Elian Gonzalez had one surviving parent, his father, who wanted to take him back home.
Irrelevant. The court didn't rule, whether Elian should stay in the US. Instead, it reaffirmed, that the decision — whatever it is — is up to the Executive Branch.
The courts used to recognize the President's authority on matters of immigration — and some no longer do. What explains such sharp reversal away from the very recent precedents? The feeling of "Social" Justice is the most plausible explanation, which reaffirms the OP's calling them "SJW judges".
And of course you'll insist that the Gunpowder Plotters
Ok, so you surrender the previous topic and wish to change to the new one? Fine, I accept.
Gunpowder Plotters were also just coincidentally Catholic
England created its own "Church of England" to break away from Rome. Though ostensibly it involved religion, it was a purely political move. Catholics, who continued to divide their loyalty between their nation and the Pope (who was often directly controlled by France), were justifiably suspected. (In modern terms, the conflict was between the Euro-centrics and Euro-sceptics — and so it remains today, even if terrorism is no longer used by either side.)
For another example, consider today's Russian-Ukrainian war — Russia is using the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of Moscow Patriarchate as a bulwark against Ukraine, which tries to resist with the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of Kyivan Patriarchate. There are no differences in religious doctrine — none whatsoever. The sole difference is that of loyalty... Though it involves religions, the conflict is not religious in the slightest.
I love watching the extent to which people trying to make Islam into some sort of special case
It is a special case. Whereas Christianity "renders Cæsar's to Cæsar", Islam prescribes — in detail — how the country (the world!) ought to be governed: by Sharia, a Theocracy. You can not be a good Muslim and not fight for the establishment of it — on this Earth...
This makes Islam not purely a religion, but also a political movement/ideology. A movement, which — like Communism, for example — should be resisted and indeed attacked.
There have been centuries of discrimination against Irish Catholics.
Yes, starting with Cromwell... England was prosecuting even the domestic Catholics — questioning their loyalty (again, on Nationalist grounds) — those of the subjugated lands stood no chance...
It would seem to me that the actions my government is taking with regard to muslims is only going to exacerbate a problem
If you are referring to the US government, you are quite obviously wrong. The US has not persecuted Muslims at all until 9/11 — to a fault. We walked on eggshells. For example, we didn't finish Saddam Hussein in 1992 so as not to appear to be "crusaders". And what did we get — we got 9/11 because our troops have entered, with the country's government's permission (invitation!) the "sacred lands of Saudi Arabia"!
could have remained a regional, political conflict
Yeah, which "region" is it, the contains the Arabian peninsula, Manhattan, and Virginia?
Yes, it is a coincidence. The England-Ireland conflict began, when both sides were still a mixture Catholics/Pagans, centuries before establishment of the Church of England.
Cromwell's anti-Catholicism laws date to 17th century — half a millennium after the early armed invasions of England's armies into Ireland.
the deep red state of Utah, is showing how the free market is supposed to operate.
Government sucks everywhere — the less of it, the better. Free people ought to be able to sell stuff to each other at will. The list is long... Deep blue New Jersey, which first prohibited and then allowed sales of Tesla is not any better in this regard.
It is not a right, if you need a permission (license, permit, approval) to exercise it.
Calling those judges SJW diminishes the power of the insult
It is not an insult — the judiciary has no say in who is allowed to cross the border. None. Zilch — it is entirely up to the Executive branch. At least, that's what we were told, when Elian Gonzalez was sent back to Cuba — in defiance of wishes of his mother, who gave up her life to get him out of there. A court refused to grant Elian a reprieve, deferring to the President, who wanted to send the boy back:
"in no context is the executive branch entitled to more deference than in the context of foreign affairs"
To suddenly switch for the exact opposite opinion requires utter disregard for the actual law and earlier precedents, however recent. The explanation, that the judges' motivation is some kind of "higher" justice — such as "Social" justice — is the most reasonable one...
And, before you ask, they were talking about Federal Executive branch — not that of any of the member States (suck it up, California). It was only in 2012, that Supreme Court Justice Kennedy wrote for the court's majority against Arizona:
The Government of the United States has broad, undoubted power over the subject of immigration and the status of aliens. This authority rests, in part, on the National Government’s constitutional power to “establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” U. S. Const., Art. I, 8, cl. 4, and its inherent power as sovereign to control and conduct relations with foreign nations.
I was going to just ignore your outburst on Godwin's Law grounds, but then realized, that even if, as the Progressive assholes love to claim, the "US is no different from Nazi Germany" (or that "Trump is Hitler"), there is still the importance of your side winning.
Whether it's the CIA, MI5, or the Nazi SS violating your rights and killing/imprisoning you
There is a lot more to why we love Nazis, than the SS. And, of course, in reality neither CIA nor MI5 are anywhere close to them in the "killing/imprisoning" part, which you clumsily attempted to conflate with the amorphous "violating your rights".
Next-Generation DDR5 RAM Will Double the Speed of DDR4 In 2018
This is awesome technology... I mean, to double the speed of all the DDR4 memory already sold and installed in computers world-wide — without even touching them. Pure magic...
he would likely have burned not only his own work, but also the entire Bletchley Park complex to the ground and then shot himself after making sure the facts surrounding his actions went public.
No, I'm confident, he would've preferred the "domestic spying" — however appalling by itself — to Hitler's victory.
All of the cancer cluster information, for example, not only has the sex and age of the affected person, but also their physical address (since it's necessary for establishing the geospatial location of a spill / release / plume.
Easily replaced by ZIP code. You do not need the precise address — simply noting the distance to the spill is enough. I worked in both financial and health industry. There are "data-scrubbing" programs and scripts, that can obfuscate the clients' databases (hiding the trading positions and PHI respectively) before a dump is forwarded to the software-vendor for debugging. It is a solved problem — EPA and its water-carriers simply want to protect the organization. With lies, if necessary — because they are good, noble lies, aren't they?
I do not see, how an ostensibly free country can tell citizens, it is illegal to use certain toilet models...
and hopefully Trump can reign it in
Only for the next President to reverse it all with the strike of a pen... As I say, all such "agencies" violate the spirit (if not the letter) of the Constitution and signify government overreach.
Ancel Keys was brilliant, charismatic, and combative. A friendly colleague at the University of Minnesota described him as, “direct to the point of bluntness, critical to the point of skewering”; others were less charitable. He exuded conviction at a time when confidence was most welcome. The president, the physician and the scientist formed a reassuring chain of male authority, and the notion that fatty foods were unhealthy started to take hold with doctors, and the public. (Eisenhower himself cut saturated fats and cholesterol from his diet altogether, right up until his death, in 1969, from heart disease.)
But as I said, the problem wasn't with the scientists. It was the politicians pushing the agenda
Stipulating for a second, the scientists were innocent and it were all the politicians at fault at the FDA, how is the EPA different? That is, what did happen at the FDA, that does not and will not happen at the EPA?
Wrong. First of all, your link describes (with the weaselese "may have" rather than firm "has") such efforts, which ended in 1967 — USDA's "dietary guidelines" denouncing fat were published only in 1980ies. And second, the "sugar industry", according to your link, didn't lobby the politicians — instead, they paid scientists. And it was hardly a massive bribe — the three scientists from Harvard were paid an equivalent of today's $50,000 to publish a paper, which the believed to be valid.
In other words, the smart assholes at NYTimes realized what massive egg is on the Big Government's face and wanted to create some smokescreen for it to shift the blame towards the Greedy KKKapitali$t$, but failed. Well, almost failed — you fell for it...
In the case of fat, there was heavy industry lobbying in favor of a position that scientists said was unsupported by current research
You aren't citing any sources and I call bullshit. Why would industry lobby — heavily! — for a major overhaul of its production lines? The "fat free" stuff is not any cheaper, the margins on it aren't specifically higher, while developing it requires work and brings about uncertainty. No. Once the demand was there, the industry responded to satisfy it — praise be to Capitalism — but it made no sense for anyone to lobby for it...
the suggestion that if the EPA isn't perfect, the solution is not to fix it but to abolish it. [...] a lot easier to destroy programs that benefit society
My argument is, the EPA does not "benefit society". If only for this reason — they can ban and banish anything they please willy-nilly... We already have toilets, that don't flush (even the EPA themselves admit such problems "in earlier models") and dishwashing machines, that do not wash dishes. In a rush for "renewable energy", we
All research affected by HIPAA would be banned by this bill.
No. If it is not personally identifiable, you can publish it. EPA could still use a paper, that says, for example, "Of the 5000 people exposed to such-and-such-sulfate, 537 developed such-and-such-iasis." As long as it does not identify the patients.
Indeed, if doing research in the first place and making it available to the EPA was not in violation of HIPAA (or, rather, HITECH) privacy rules, the EPA can publish it further.
This is not a fault of people not caring whether or not research is reproducible, but simply of errors
One is still at fault even if his was an honest mistake...
Whether Global Warming is, indeed, a (grave) threat to humanity remains to be seen. But we already know another blatant mistake of the governments, which has lead to the explosion of the obesity epidemics and millions of premature deaths — the War on Fat. And on cholesterol — though manufacturers are still marketing "low cholesterol" foods, the government's current stance is Cholesterol is not a nutrient of concern for overconsumption...
Though Americans — and other nations following America's lead — grew obese, no one was punished for that mistake. Without any accountability for the FDA personnel even when the fault is obvious, what is there to restraint the EPA? What "checks and balances" are there to prevent them from banning anything another "charismatic and confident" doctor suggests to ban without much proof?
The "Trust Us" science is junk science — and Congress is absolutely right to fight it, even if they are too chicken to abolish the EPA altogether.
Recording an on-duty officer in a public place in a manner that does not interfere with his official duties? Protected. Recording an off-duty officer talking about work over dinner? Not clearly protected.
Yes, indeed. Now, the PP officials were certainly not "off-duty", so that does not apply. But I'll even grant you, that it is unclear and a "gray area".
Moreover, I have argued earlier, that while I personally support the right to record anything and everything one is legally allowed to see, I do not understand, how the First Amendment in particular protects such an activity.
But the court's — and the Slashdot's — prevailing opinion was, that it does. It is patently obvious from all the namecalling and other passions expressed both in that earlier discussion and this one, that this right to record depends on who is being recorded. As I suggested, had these two activists been from the Left — secretly recording, say, a lobbyist discussing abolition of some FCC regulation or an effort to stall legalization of "gay marriage" — the same prosecutor would've looked the other way and the same folks on Slashdot would've cheered.
If anything, Lockheed Martin would have a stronger case because it holds contracts directly with the US government that are tied to funding directed by Congress
Indeed, had it been a guerilla attempt to expose LM's colluding with lawmakers or to violate some environmental rule, no one would've asked, wait a minute — how did these guys record this? And, even if someone did ask, no prosecution would've resulted from the question.
And without that, it is impossible for them to be considered public officials in any way.
Let's put it this way — it is a much smaller logical jump to conclude, that they are public officials, than to claim, that the First Amendment — the law about Freedom of Expression — protects a perfectly silent and expressionless activity.
I'm sorry, you're one of those "states rights" dipshits
Please, don't hate, asshole. One more namecalling attempt from you, and you'll be talking to your keyboard alone. Behave yourself — you aren't in your "safe space" denouncing opponents' "evil thoughts" to like-minded assholes.
difference between police officers working for the public in a public setting, and doctors working for a private company
Planned Parenthood is not a private company. Ostensibly a "charity", it is financed by taxes — government money being their single largest source of funds — by far. Which makes them indistinguishable from police, firefighters, or the NPR "journalists".
none of the states found any evidence of wrongdoing
That's irrelevant. The topic is, California bans recording of public officials — such as PP personnel. Had it been about secretly recording, say, opponents of "gay marriage" for example, you and Mr. Becerra would not have objected — because both of you are hypocrites.
These films were nothing more than a couple lying piece of shits
Irrelevant. It still is — or ought to be — legal to make them. "Sticks and bones can break my bones, but the words never hurt me," — remember?
Get the supreme court to agree with you on that one, and I'll change my answer.
The four "Liberals" on Supreme Court — your part of it — did agree in the decision I linked to. If some school vouchers are taken to a religious school, they said, that makes the entire voucher program unconstitutional because tax money "supports religion".
The rest of the Court disagreed and "Liberalism" lost this time, but not in an earlier case like that.
Receiving even a modicum of public funds is a game-changer — as it should be. And then, of course, comes the general and common sense rule of thumb, that California's anti-recording laws are violating: "whatever can be legally seen, can be legally recorded".
I, once again, ask you to come up with an argument for recording police, that can not be used to support recording of PP officials.
I absolutely do not understand this OBSESSION with fetuses
Just can't stay on topic, can you? I expressed no opinion about abortions or fetuses. My point was, any and all government employees — be they policemen, firefighters, teachers, or indeed Planned Parenthood officials — can be recorded by taxpayers while on the job (with the obvious exceptions of those doing classified work, etc.)
Slashdot Mirror
The first terrorist attack, likely, predates written history. It is only in recent decades, that we started to frown on the method as a morally unacceptable one.
Bzzz! An attempt to change subject detected — and rejected.
Irrelevant. The court didn't rule, whether Elian should stay in the US. Instead, it reaffirmed, that the decision — whatever it is — is up to the Executive Branch.
The courts used to recognize the President's authority on matters of immigration — and some no longer do. What explains such sharp reversal away from the very recent precedents? The feeling of "Social" Justice is the most plausible explanation, which reaffirms the OP's calling them "SJW judges".
Ok, so you surrender the previous topic and wish to change to the new one? Fine, I accept.
England created its own "Church of England" to break away from Rome. Though ostensibly it involved religion, it was a purely political move. Catholics, who continued to divide their loyalty between their nation and the Pope (who was often directly controlled by France), were justifiably suspected. (In modern terms, the conflict was between the Euro-centrics and Euro-sceptics — and so it remains today, even if terrorism is no longer used by either side.)
For another example, consider today's Russian-Ukrainian war — Russia is using the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of Moscow Patriarchate as a bulwark against Ukraine, which tries to resist with the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of Kyivan Patriarchate. There are no differences in religious doctrine — none whatsoever. The sole difference is that of loyalty... Though it involves religions, the conflict is not religious in the slightest.
It is a special case. Whereas Christianity "renders Cæsar's to Cæsar", Islam prescribes — in detail — how the country (the world!) ought to be governed: by Sharia, a Theocracy. You can not be a good Muslim and not fight for the establishment of it — on this Earth...
This makes Islam not purely a religion, but also a political movement/ideology. A movement, which — like Communism, for example — should be resisted and indeed attacked.
Yes, starting with Cromwell... England was prosecuting even the domestic Catholics — questioning their loyalty (again, on Nationalist grounds) — those of the subjugated lands stood no chance...
If you are referring to the US government, you are quite obviously wrong. The US has not persecuted Muslims at all until 9/11 — to a fault. We walked on eggshells. For example, we didn't finish Saddam Hussein in 1992 so as not to appear to be "crusaders". And what did we get — we got 9/11 because our troops have entered, with the country's government's permission (invitation!) the "sacred lands of Saudi Arabia"!
Yeah, which "region" is it, the contains the Arabian peninsula, Manhattan, and Virginia?
The "not completely correct" is a spin on incorrect. Which was my point.
Yes, it is a coincidence. The England-Ireland conflict began, when both sides were still a mixture Catholics/Pagans, centuries before establishment of the Church of England.
Cromwell's anti-Catholicism laws date to 17th century — half a millennium after the early armed invasions of England's armies into Ireland.
You got it.
Government sucks everywhere — the less of it, the better. Free people ought to be able to sell stuff to each other at will. The list is long... Deep blue New Jersey, which first prohibited and then allowed sales of Tesla is not any better in this regard.
It is not a right, if you need a permission (license, permit, approval) to exercise it.
Which contradicts the very write-up (and TFA):
WTF, Slashdot? Submitter may make a mistake — but editors ought to know better...
It is not an insult — the judiciary has no say in who is allowed to cross the border. None. Zilch — it is entirely up to the Executive branch. At least, that's what we were told, when Elian Gonzalez was sent back to Cuba — in defiance of wishes of his mother, who gave up her life to get him out of there. A court refused to grant Elian a reprieve, deferring to the President, who wanted to send the boy back:
To suddenly switch for the exact opposite opinion requires utter disregard for the actual law and earlier precedents, however recent. The explanation, that the judges' motivation is some kind of "higher" justice — such as "Social" justice — is the most reasonable one...
And, before you ask, they were talking about Federal Executive branch — not that of any of the member States (suck it up, California). It was only in 2012, that Supreme Court Justice Kennedy wrote for the court's majority against Arizona:
Unlike Islam-motivated terrorists of today, the Irish terrorists were motivated by the sense of nationalism, not religion.
I doubt, that justifies their actions, but it does make them distinctly different.
"In some ways", maybe — because of the technology advances. But not in the killing/imprisoning part.
As for the rest, I remind you of the Godwin's Law once again... Farewell.
There is a lot more to why we love Nazis, than the SS. And, of course, in reality neither CIA nor MI5 are anywhere close to them in the "killing/imprisoning" part, which you clumsily attempted to conflate with the amorphous "violating your rights".
This is awesome technology... I mean, to double the speed of all the DDR4 memory already sold and installed in computers world-wide — without even touching them. Pure magic...
There is nothing about that in TFA. We do know about Obama making it easier for his top staff to learn about — and inevitably leak — some such intelligence pertaining to US citizens, but it is still an awesome tech.
No, I'm confident, he would've preferred the "domestic spying" — however appalling by itself — to Hitler's victory.
Alan Turing would've been proud of the work, American (and British) intelligence agencies are doing in the area of computers and communications.
And whoever leaked the information to adversaries, would've been shot in Alan Turing's times... For treason.
Synzronvg zl gnvy...
If only intellect were sexually transmitted — maybe, I would've agreed to some of that "fucking"... As a charity...
Easily replaced by ZIP code. You do not need the precise address — simply noting the distance to the spill is enough. I worked in both financial and health industry. There are "data-scrubbing" programs and scripts, that can obfuscate the clients' databases (hiding the trading positions and PHI respectively) before a dump is forwarded to the software-vendor for debugging. It is a solved problem — EPA and its water-carriers simply want to protect the organization. With lies, if necessary — because they are good, noble lies, aren't they?
False dilemma. Pollution could have been tackled without creating an office capable of dictating millions of people, how to shower...
Freedom is more important than both — remember the one about trading "essential liberties" for "temporary security"?..
A classic example of:
I do not see, how an ostensibly free country can tell citizens, it is illegal to use certain toilet models...
Only for the next President to reverse it all with the strike of a pen... As I say, all such "agencies" violate the spirit (if not the letter) of the Constitution and signify government overreach.
I, actually, didn't say, somebody should be. What I said was, since no one was, there is nothing to hold the EPA in check...
Not according to Guardian:
Stipulating for a second, the scientists were innocent and it were all the politicians at fault at the FDA, how is the EPA different? That is, what did happen at the FDA, that does not and will not happen at the EPA?
Wrong. First of all, your link describes (with the weaselese "may have" rather than firm "has") such efforts, which ended in 1967 — USDA's "dietary guidelines" denouncing fat were published only in 1980ies. And second, the "sugar industry", according to your link, didn't lobby the politicians — instead, they paid scientists. And it was hardly a massive bribe — the three scientists from Harvard were paid an equivalent of today's $50,000 to publish a paper, which the believed to be valid.
In other words, the smart assholes at NYTimes realized what massive egg is on the Big Government's face and wanted to create some smokescreen for it to shift the blame towards the Greedy KKKapitali$t$, but failed. Well, almost failed — you fell for it...
You aren't citing any sources and I call bullshit. Why would industry lobby — heavily! — for a major overhaul of its production lines? The "fat free" stuff is not any cheaper, the margins on it aren't specifically higher, while developing it requires work and brings about uncertainty. No. Once the demand was there, the industry responded to satisfy it — praise be to Capitalism — but it made no sense for anyone to lobby for it...
My argument is, the EPA does not "benefit society". If only for this reason — they can ban and banish anything they please willy-nilly... We already have toilets, that don't flush (even the EPA themselves admit such problems "in earlier models") and dishwashing machines, that do not wash dishes. In a rush for "renewable energy", we
No. If it is not personally identifiable, you can publish it. EPA could still use a paper, that says, for example, "Of the 5000 people exposed to such-and-such-sulfate, 537 developed such-and-such-iasis." As long as it does not identify the patients.
Indeed, if doing research in the first place and making it available to the EPA was not in violation of HIPAA (or, rather, HITECH) privacy rules, the EPA can publish it further.
To pretend, this is about "privacy" is a gimmick — a spin, employed by people afraid of the sunlight shining on the darker corner of the government.
One is still at fault even if his was an honest mistake...
Whether Global Warming is, indeed, a (grave) threat to humanity remains to be seen. But we already know another blatant mistake of the governments, which has lead to the explosion of the obesity epidemics and millions of premature deaths — the War on Fat. And on cholesterol — though manufacturers are still marketing "low cholesterol" foods, the government's current stance is Cholesterol is not a nutrient of concern for overconsumption...
Though Americans — and other nations following America's lead — grew obese, no one was punished for that mistake. Without any accountability for the FDA personnel even when the fault is obvious, what is there to restraint the EPA? What "checks and balances" are there to prevent them from banning anything another "charismatic and confident" doctor suggests to ban without much proof?
The "Trust Us" science is junk science — and Congress is absolutely right to fight it, even if they are too chicken to abolish the EPA altogether.
Yes, indeed. Now, the PP officials were certainly not "off-duty", so that does not apply. But I'll even grant you, that it is unclear and a "gray area".
Moreover, I have argued earlier, that while I personally support the right to record anything and everything one is legally allowed to see, I do not understand, how the First Amendment in particular protects such an activity.
But the court's — and the Slashdot's — prevailing opinion was, that it does. It is patently obvious from all the namecalling and other passions expressed both in that earlier discussion and this one, that this right to record depends on who is being recorded. As I suggested, had these two activists been from the Left — secretly recording, say, a lobbyist discussing abolition of some FCC regulation or an effort to stall legalization of "gay marriage" — the same prosecutor would've looked the other way and the same folks on Slashdot would've cheered.
Indeed, had it been a guerilla attempt to expose LM's colluding with lawmakers or to violate some environmental rule, no one would've asked, wait a minute — how did these guys record this? And, even if someone did ask, no prosecution would've resulted from the question.
Let's put it this way — it is a much smaller logical jump to conclude, that they are public officials, than to claim, that the First Amendment — the law about Freedom of Expression — protects a perfectly silent and expressionless activity.
Please, don't hate, asshole. One more namecalling attempt from you, and you'll be talking to your keyboard alone. Behave yourself — you aren't in your "safe space" denouncing opponents' "evil thoughts" to like-minded assholes.
Constitution trumps state laws. If the right to record officials is protected by the First Amendment, no state can take that away.
Planned Parenthood is not a private company. Ostensibly a "charity", it is financed by taxes — government money being their single largest source of funds — by far. Which makes them indistinguishable from police, firefighters, or the NPR "journalists".
That's irrelevant. The topic is, California bans recording of public officials — such as PP personnel. Had it been about secretly recording, say, opponents of "gay marriage" for example, you and Mr. Becerra would not have objected — because both of you are hypocrites.
Irrelevant. It still is — or ought to be — legal to make them. "Sticks and bones can break my bones, but the words never hurt me," — remember?
The four "Liberals" on Supreme Court — your part of it — did agree in the decision I linked to. If some school vouchers are taken to a religious school, they said, that makes the entire voucher program unconstitutional because tax money "supports religion".
The rest of the Court disagreed and "Liberalism" lost this time, but not in an earlier case like that.
Receiving even a modicum of public funds is a game-changer — as it should be. And then, of course, comes the general and common sense rule of thumb, that California's anti-recording laws are violating: "whatever can be legally seen, can be legally recorded".
I, once again, ask you to come up with an argument for recording police, that can not be used to support recording of PP officials.
Just can't stay on topic, can you? I expressed no opinion about abortions or fetuses. My point was, any and all government employees — be they policemen, firefighters, teachers, or indeed Planned Parenthood officials — can be recorded by taxpayers while on the job (with the obvious exceptions of those doing classified work, etc.)
How about you stick to the topic at hand, uhm?..