I guess you're either not a parent, or you've never been a child, or perhaps you don't understand English. Or maybe you are a parent, but your kid has some kind of brain damage whereby she's incapable of showing emotion.
In the real world, parents need to do everything from prepare food for the kid to clean up her diaper. If she's acting up, that's a problem for a variety of reasons, one of which is that it means the child isn't being stimulated. Children of all ages act up. They do. Mine doesn't like bibs. She doesn't like being strapped into a high chair. She doesn't like waiting with nothing to do. She doesn't like lying down for a diaper change.
Of course, she's my kid, so she's smart, so she gets bored if not stimulated in some way. Yours, I'm assume, if you have one, is not so much, so is easily left strapped into a high chair with nothing to do with her thinking nothing but "Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.". It's the only way to explain your position.
In fact, it's hard to see how you're anything other than 180 degrees wrong. If you think there's ever a situation where you shouldn't be attentive to your kid, you suck as a parent. Seriously.
Sorry, but you're missing the fact that if a heroic jerb creating (in China) corporation does anything that results in you losing money because of anything that involved any decision on your part, regardless of whether you did it knowing that you'd lose money, or whether the corporation even used trickery or in some other way took advantage of the fact no reasonable person would think they'd lose money, then ITS YOUR FAULT AND YOUR DUMM HUH HUH.
*sigh* I don't understand the mentality either. Who the hell wants to spend their entire lives having a lawyer and army of technical experts look over every decision they make, just in case there's some hidden feature in there that's likely to screw you over.
Slightly different. Microsoft submitted the core.NET, minus the Windows specific parts, to ECMA for use as a standard and made a patent guarantee as part of that. FAT was never declared by Microsoft to be a public standard and it's never said it would be available patent free.
Had they gone after Android, Microsoft would have had more problems than Oracle as Oracle could at least pretend it didn't know the company it bought that owned Java had praised the introduction of Android and Dalvic and had been supportive of the overall product (as Sun did). Microsoft couldn't really have claimed "Oh, those patent promises - we totally never knew some company that made.NET made them!"
So yeah, in some ways.NET was in a stronger position to inspire a new leading mobile technology in the mid-nineties. What's also truly ironic (in terms of Oracle's claims to be suing over "protecting" Java) is that if Oracle had succeeded in killing Android (or at least forcing Google to compensate Oracle in some way), Java would have died as developers fled for.NET. Using and developing frameworks that run over the official Java system would have become legally dubious. Nobody would recommend it for new projects.
All of which said: at the time Miguel was busy plugging Mono, Java was owned by Sun, and Sun always was a pro-OSS open company. So it was a choice between Microsoft, who was mistrusted even if they had made all the right noises with.NET itself, and Sun, who were friends. Add to that the fact that Mono feels clumsy on GNU/Linux (dot-tla file types? Really?), and you had a general atmosphere that said "That's very nice Miguel, but we'll work on something else for now."
CBS generally veers right, but generally it doesn't show it in the same way as Fox News. On the one occasion they kinda sorta went pro-Democrat (So called "Rathergate"), they didn't say anything that wasn't pretty much public domain already, and they botched it by taking seriously some seriously dubious "evidence".
This year CBS has been trying to outfox Fox, and has done so badly, to the point that there's been resignations. 60 Minutes pretty much fabricated an entire story about Benghazi, for instance. Part of the problem is that CBS isn't expected to be like Fox, and so when it does pull stunts like this, it gets caught, quickly.
This crap is modded +5 informative? Read it again mods: he's claiming a CFL is always dimmer than an incandesant. eg a 40W incandesant is brighter than a 23W CFL.
Yes, CFLs do take a little while to "warm up" to their maximum brightness, but it's utterly ludicrous to claim that one type of bulb isn't as bright as the other type of bulb because it doesn't make any sense. What is true is that CFLs produce more light per watt. That's a fact.
Most people don't have significant amounts of wealth stored as piles of green paper. Your home, your shares, your land, etc, are not "devalued" in any way, shape, or form by inflation.
Do you know, however, what most people have that is devalued by inflation? Debt.
Browsers only warn you about self-signed certs if you don't install your CA certificate on that browser, which is completely reasonable and they absolutely should be doing that, given you're asking them for a secure connection and they're not getting anything from the server indicating that there's a genuinely secure connection in progress.
IF you start making it to where a company has to pay for the bandwidth of its users
What article are you reading where any company, AT&T or otherwise, is MAKING IT (changing something) so that you now HAVE to pay for the bandwidth of your users?
This is a new service, not a replacement for AT&T's existing services. Tomorrow it will still cost at most exactly the same as it did yesterday to reach an AT&T customer. What you now have, however, is an option you can spend money on to make services that otherwise weren't usable on AT&T's network.
And before anyone goes into slippery slope mode, there isn't one here. Nobody's going to pay AT&T an extra $30 a month for something that doesn't even give them Wikipedia or anything hosted outside the US. They're not going to transition everything to provider paid services, because they can't. They couldn't even if they wanted to.
If this becomes popular, wait for the data caps to get lowered.
True, it'll certainly help with their bandwidth issues if they push customers off their networks and onto T-Mobile's.
On the other hand, their shareholders will be pissed if that happens, so my guess would be they'll instead use the most of the money coming in from this project to put up more towers while reducing cell sizes.
AT&T did that briefly and then only for certain devices. Throughout most of their data-providing history, they've billed data by the byte and/or provided quotas. And they've never offered any combination of BYOD with uncapped data.
In other words, AT&T has always sucked. So FWIW, this proposal isn't too bad. And also FWIW, when, in the past, I've suggested enforced network neutrality might be going too far, this is the kind of application I saw as legitimate that anti-NN laws would ban. I still think it's a good idea.
Do you think it's more likely the GMO foods being sold to Hawaiians is of the "really noble" variety or the "eeevil profit driven corporation" variety?
Yes.
What, you think the two are incompatible? Here's a thought: maybe companies monetize products that have, or are perceived to have, value. For example, a company might see a market for a strain of cereal that is resistant to a particular herbicide, making it easier to attack weeds on land used to grow that cereal. The business selling the seeds for the cereal can charge lots of money for the cereal - and even the herbicide! - and farmers gratefully buy the seed in question because it'll make their practices more efficient and reduce the amount of food they have to throw away due to weeks.
But I know, that's probably not the type of GMO application anyone's thinking of.
Except it is.
And no, labeling does nothing other than give GM foods a stigma. It's inherently anti-consumer to label GM products that have no likely health or nutritional differences from their non-GM equivalents, because it adds noise to the consumer warning labels, and that makes the labels less easy to interpret. You shouldn't have to look up every warning label on Wikipedia before buying something just to find out whether there's a legitimate issue there, or some anti-corporatists getting power and using it to push an agenda.
FWIW, I count only one tower. And burning/exploding skyscrapers is hardly a concept that was kicked off with 9/11, never appearing in action movies prior - I can think of two movies featuring them off the top of my head, from the 1970s and the 1980s.
It's a generic action movie poster featuring a generic action movie scene.
Recently had a thought you could totally f--- up much of modern Christianity, and alas give more ammunition to the ultra-rich, if you went back in time and, a year before Jesus's birth, built a giant Las Vegas style luxury hotel and entertainment complex (with, for reasons that'd be unexplained at the time, an adjoining hospital with a substantial maternity wing) in the middle of Bethlehem. making it absolutely impossible for his parents to arrive and be forced to sleep in a stable.
You're describing the theory. You'd be better off investigating why the theory is wrong than repeating it blindly, pretending it's right.
FWIW, the GP actually gave an answer, essentially the unconstrained speculation that you're seeing. It's probably not the only reason Bitcoin's far from stable, but it's certainly likely to be a major contributing factor.
I'm saying the building of pipelines will make little or no difference to oil transportation safety. It simply isn't practical to build out a pipeline network as substantial as the existing rail network within any reasonable timeframe.
If you think that the Keystone XL pipeline will reduce substantially the amount of crude tranported by rail, you're probably either unaware exactly how many sources and destinations crude has in this country alone, or you're under the impression it's a much more substantial project than it is. Saying the Keystone XL project will "greatly reduce the crude oil being shipped on rails" is like saying that a new subway from 42nd Street to Broadway in New York will "greatly reduce" the amount of cars on the road nationwide.
Creating a single pipeline will not remove demand for oil on rail. In order to reduce that demand you'd have to create a network of oil pipelines as big as the rail network itself. Oil goes by rail beause it's relatively efficient (compared to trucks et al) and can go anywhere without the need to build out huge amounts of infrastructure.
Pipelines are a total red-herring.
What is clear is that the North American rail industry has a terrible safety problem. That needs to be resolved. Unfortunately, the fact the entire industry was prepared to rally behind Ed Burkhardt, whose shoe-string rail operation in Montreal and Maine was happy to leave an oil train with a burning locomotive unattended on a slope on the main line, apparently in large part due to understaffing, I don't see any evidence there's even any respect for the concept of a safety culture in this part of the industry, or any desire to see one. Honestly, people in it seem to see "Keeping a railroad open" as more important than "Ensuring terrible horrific accidents don't happen."
The FRA will, undoubtedly, have to act. When it's done so in the past it's done so with no regard to the relative efficiencies of rail vs road, or relative safeties thereof, and it'll probably do something that ends up pushing large amounts of oil transportation onto the roads where they'll do even more damage. In the mean time, pipeline proponents will get a free pass, despite offering "solutions" that don't actually make any substantial difference.
OK, here's the thing. Two people come to you. One says that "Believe" means "Have faith in", but refuses to provide any evidence to support that assertion.
The other opens a dictionary, a respectable one you'd be happy to use normally points at the definition of "Believe", and shows you a definition that simply defines "believe" as "being a state where you are inclined to assume something is correct based upon your available knowledge."
Now, which of the two people do you believe? Which definition do you believe in?
- Requires large amounts of money to spent to stay within the faith
- Founder, now dead, revered by followers
- People rarely encounter this as their first religion, but when they switch to it, they can't shut up about it.
- Largely a rehash of pre-existing stuff, presented in a new way (in this case, pulp science fiction presented as a religion)
They have to come down from "They're not now, for example.on high".
No, they don't. If they do, then who's doing it now? What authority from high has decreed that the standard should be telling people what they want to hear?
I extrapolated from your post.
No, you didn't. You put words into my mouth. You ignored my wish that those who hold the media accountable have different values, and instead claimed I wanted an entirely new group to impose their values on the media.
You may feel that the only way to get the news organizations to publish truth would be to impose a dictatorship, but such an act would not solve the problem I identified and that's what makes your stuffing your words into my mouth ridiculous. I didn't propose tyranny. I didn't argue in favor of it. And tyranny would not solve the problem I identified. You're not making any attempt to extrapolate, you're just inventing straw men to knock down.
Re:"The Newsroom" summarizes the problem ...
on
The Rise of Hoax News
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Then how should the world work?
I don't know, but at no point did I ever suggest anything remotely similar to thinking "something that is managed by (to borrow from a meme I hate) "Top Men"" would be a relevent replacement. At no point did I address or even go near the issue of who should impose accountability - my comment, when read by English speakers, was very clearly and unambigiously talking about the values news organizations should be accountable for.
So knock it off with putting words into my mouth, still worse claiming I'm in favor of "Tyranny" because I think it's not a great thing that news organizations are rewarded for lying.
Re:"The Newsroom" summarizes the problem ...
on
The Rise of Hoax News
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
"Accountability"? For what?
Here's the problem: There already is accountability. The problem is that it's not for what you feel it should be. The accountability is for producing entertainment. If the news is entertaining, the publisher will be rewarded. If the news isn't, the publisher will be weakened.
In terms of accountability to inform, that was tossed out the window years ago - if, indeed, it ever existed. These days most people don't, actually, want to be informed. They want something that doesn't challenge them too much, and that makes them feel informed afterwards, while keeping them entertained. The occasional outright lie in such an environment is not merely tolerable, it's desirable.
Entire news networks exist purely to tell people what they want to hear. Do you think that's an accident?
The world shouldn't work like this, but it does anyway.
I find I have the same problem if I use a generic USB charger with mine. My two solutions are either use the charger that came in the box, or use a really long USB cable and plug it into my PC. I actually have a 400ft USB cable that just about stretches from my work PC, down the stairs, out of the office, past security, into the parking lot, and to where I normally park my car. But I have to make sure I'm at work early or I lose that space and have to park further away, preventing me from charging during the day. Those days I charge a laptop at my desk, and then at lunchtime take the laptop to the Model S, plug the car into the laptop, and let it charge until the laptop battery dies.
A pardon can mean whatever you want. Homosexuality was a crime in the 1950s. It shouldn't have been. A pardon merely says "You were "guilty", but we don't think you should have been punished."
Sometimes pardons are issued because such-and-such is otherwise considered to be a good person or whatever, and that certainly applies here, but it's reasonable to also pardon when you feel a law shouldn't have existed. In that respect, a blanket pardon for anyone ever convicted under these laws would also be appropriate and would send the right message.
Slashdot Mirror
I guess you're either not a parent, or you've never been a child, or perhaps you don't understand English. Or maybe you are a parent, but your kid has some kind of brain damage whereby she's incapable of showing emotion.
In the real world, parents need to do everything from prepare food for the kid to clean up her diaper. If she's acting up, that's a problem for a variety of reasons, one of which is that it means the child isn't being stimulated. Children of all ages act up. They do. Mine doesn't like bibs. She doesn't like being strapped into a high chair. She doesn't like waiting with nothing to do. She doesn't like lying down for a diaper change.
Of course, she's my kid, so she's smart, so she gets bored if not stimulated in some way. Yours, I'm assume, if you have one, is not so much, so is easily left strapped into a high chair with nothing to do with her thinking nothing but "Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.". It's the only way to explain your position.
In fact, it's hard to see how you're anything other than 180 degrees wrong. If you think there's ever a situation where you shouldn't be attentive to your kid, you suck as a parent. Seriously.
Sorry, but you're missing the fact that if a heroic jerb creating (in China) corporation does anything that results in you losing money because of anything that involved any decision on your part, regardless of whether you did it knowing that you'd lose money, or whether the corporation even used trickery or in some other way took advantage of the fact no reasonable person would think they'd lose money, then ITS YOUR FAULT AND YOUR DUMM HUH HUH.
*sigh* I don't understand the mentality either. Who the hell wants to spend their entire lives having a lawyer and army of technical experts look over every decision they make, just in case there's some hidden feature in there that's likely to screw you over.
Slightly different. Microsoft submitted the core .NET, minus the Windows specific parts, to ECMA for use as a standard and made a patent guarantee as part of that. FAT was never declared by Microsoft to be a public standard and it's never said it would be available patent free.
Had they gone after Android, Microsoft would have had more problems than Oracle as Oracle could at least pretend it didn't know the company it bought that owned Java had praised the introduction of Android and Dalvic and had been supportive of the overall product (as Sun did). Microsoft couldn't really have claimed "Oh, those patent promises - we totally never knew some company that made .NET made them!"
So yeah, in some ways .NET was in a stronger position to inspire a new leading mobile technology in the mid-nineties. What's also truly ironic (in terms of Oracle's claims to be suing over "protecting" Java) is that if Oracle had succeeded in killing Android (or at least forcing Google to compensate Oracle in some way), Java would have died as developers fled for .NET. Using and developing frameworks that run over the official Java system would have become legally dubious. Nobody would recommend it for new projects.
All of which said: at the time Miguel was busy plugging Mono, Java was owned by Sun, and Sun always was a pro-OSS open company. So it was a choice between Microsoft, who was mistrusted even if they had made all the right noises with .NET itself, and Sun, who were friends. Add to that the fact that Mono feels clumsy on GNU/Linux (dot-tla file types? Really?), and you had a general atmosphere that said "That's very nice Miguel, but we'll work on something else for now."
CBS is not NBC, employer of Maddow et al.
CBS generally veers right, but generally it doesn't show it in the same way as Fox News. On the one occasion they kinda sorta went pro-Democrat (So called "Rathergate"), they didn't say anything that wasn't pretty much public domain already, and they botched it by taking seriously some seriously dubious "evidence".
This year CBS has been trying to outfox Fox, and has done so badly, to the point that there's been resignations. 60 Minutes pretty much fabricated an entire story about Benghazi, for instance. Part of the problem is that CBS isn't expected to be like Fox, and so when it does pull stunts like this, it gets caught, quickly.
This crap is modded +5 informative? Read it again mods: he's claiming a CFL is always dimmer than an incandesant. eg a 40W incandesant is brighter than a 23W CFL.
Yes, CFLs do take a little while to "warm up" to their maximum brightness, but it's utterly ludicrous to claim that one type of bulb isn't as bright as the other type of bulb because it doesn't make any sense. What is true is that CFLs produce more light per watt. That's a fact.
Or Hitler rises from the dead and hacks your server.
WTF?
Most people don't have significant amounts of wealth stored as piles of green paper. Your home, your shares, your land, etc, are not "devalued" in any way, shape, or form by inflation.
Do you know, however, what most people have that is devalued by inflation? Debt.
Browsers only warn you about self-signed certs if you don't install your CA certificate on that browser, which is completely reasonable and they absolutely should be doing that, given you're asking them for a secure connection and they're not getting anything from the server indicating that there's a genuinely secure connection in progress.
What article are you reading where any company, AT&T or otherwise, is MAKING IT (changing something) so that you now HAVE to pay for the bandwidth of your users?
This is a new service, not a replacement for AT&T's existing services. Tomorrow it will still cost at most exactly the same as it did yesterday to reach an AT&T customer. What you now have, however, is an option you can spend money on to make services that otherwise weren't usable on AT&T's network.
And before anyone goes into slippery slope mode, there isn't one here. Nobody's going to pay AT&T an extra $30 a month for something that doesn't even give them Wikipedia or anything hosted outside the US. They're not going to transition everything to provider paid services, because they can't. They couldn't even if they wanted to.
True, it'll certainly help with their bandwidth issues if they push customers off their networks and onto T-Mobile's.
On the other hand, their shareholders will be pissed if that happens, so my guess would be they'll instead use the most of the money coming in from this project to put up more towers while reducing cell sizes.
AT&T did that briefly and then only for certain devices. Throughout most of their data-providing history, they've billed data by the byte and/or provided quotas. And they've never offered any combination of BYOD with uncapped data.
In other words, AT&T has always sucked. So FWIW, this proposal isn't too bad. And also FWIW, when, in the past, I've suggested enforced network neutrality might be going too far, this is the kind of application I saw as legitimate that anti-NN laws would ban. I still think it's a good idea.
Yes.
What, you think the two are incompatible? Here's a thought: maybe companies monetize products that have, or are perceived to have, value. For example, a company might see a market for a strain of cereal that is resistant to a particular herbicide, making it easier to attack weeds on land used to grow that cereal. The business selling the seeds for the cereal can charge lots of money for the cereal - and even the herbicide! - and farmers gratefully buy the seed in question because it'll make their practices more efficient and reduce the amount of food they have to throw away due to weeks.
But I know, that's probably not the type of GMO application anyone's thinking of.
Except it is.
And no, labeling does nothing other than give GM foods a stigma. It's inherently anti-consumer to label GM products that have no likely health or nutritional differences from their non-GM equivalents, because it adds noise to the consumer warning labels, and that makes the labels less easy to interpret. You shouldn't have to look up every warning label on Wikipedia before buying something just to find out whether there's a legitimate issue there, or some anti-corporatists getting power and using it to push an agenda.
FWIW, I count only one tower. And burning/exploding skyscrapers is hardly a concept that was kicked off with 9/11, never appearing in action movies prior - I can think of two movies featuring them off the top of my head, from the 1970s and the 1980s.
It's a generic action movie poster featuring a generic action movie scene.
Recently had a thought you could totally f--- up much of modern Christianity, and alas give more ammunition to the ultra-rich, if you went back in time and, a year before Jesus's birth, built a giant Las Vegas style luxury hotel and entertainment complex (with, for reasons that'd be unexplained at the time, an adjoining hospital with a substantial maternity wing) in the middle of Bethlehem. making it absolutely impossible for his parents to arrive and be forced to sleep in a stable.
He was very clearly talking about the lack of NBC in that person's region, as could have been deduced by reading the rest of the comment!
You're describing the theory. You'd be better off investigating why the theory is wrong than repeating it blindly, pretending it's right.
FWIW, the GP actually gave an answer, essentially the unconstrained speculation that you're seeing. It's probably not the only reason Bitcoin's far from stable, but it's certainly likely to be a major contributing factor.
I'm saying the building of pipelines will make little or no difference to oil transportation safety. It simply isn't practical to build out a pipeline network as substantial as the existing rail network within any reasonable timeframe.
If you think that the Keystone XL pipeline will reduce substantially the amount of crude tranported by rail, you're probably either unaware exactly how many sources and destinations crude has in this country alone, or you're under the impression it's a much more substantial project than it is. Saying the Keystone XL project will "greatly reduce the crude oil being shipped on rails" is like saying that a new subway from 42nd Street to Broadway in New York will "greatly reduce" the amount of cars on the road nationwide.
Bullshit.
Creating a single pipeline will not remove demand for oil on rail. In order to reduce that demand you'd have to create a network of oil pipelines as big as the rail network itself. Oil goes by rail beause it's relatively efficient (compared to trucks et al) and can go anywhere without the need to build out huge amounts of infrastructure.
Pipelines are a total red-herring.
What is clear is that the North American rail industry has a terrible safety problem. That needs to be resolved. Unfortunately, the fact the entire industry was prepared to rally behind Ed Burkhardt, whose shoe-string rail operation in Montreal and Maine was happy to leave an oil train with a burning locomotive unattended on a slope on the main line, apparently in large part due to understaffing, I don't see any evidence there's even any respect for the concept of a safety culture in this part of the industry, or any desire to see one. Honestly, people in it seem to see "Keeping a railroad open" as more important than "Ensuring terrible horrific accidents don't happen."
The FRA will, undoubtedly, have to act. When it's done so in the past it's done so with no regard to the relative efficiencies of rail vs road, or relative safeties thereof, and it'll probably do something that ends up pushing large amounts of oil transportation onto the roads where they'll do even more damage. In the mean time, pipeline proponents will get a free pass, despite offering "solutions" that don't actually make any substantial difference.
This is a cluster fuck. Thanks Obama!
OK, here's the thing. Two people come to you. One says that "Believe" means "Have faith in", but refuses to provide any evidence to support that assertion.
The other opens a dictionary, a respectable one you'd be happy to use normally points at the definition of "Believe", and shows you a definition that simply defines "believe" as "being a state where you are inclined to assume something is correct based upon your available knowledge."
Now, which of the two people do you believe? Which definition do you believe in?
Scientology? That one's easy.
- Requires large amounts of money to spent to stay within the faith
- Founder, now dead, revered by followers
- People rarely encounter this as their first religion, but when they switch to it, they can't shut up about it.
- Largely a rehash of pre-existing stuff, presented in a new way (in this case, pulp science fiction presented as a religion)
Mac OS X. We have a winner.
No, they don't. If they do, then who's doing it now? What authority from high has decreed that the standard should be telling people what they want to hear?
No, you didn't. You put words into my mouth. You ignored my wish that those who hold the media accountable have different values, and instead claimed I wanted an entirely new group to impose their values on the media.
You may feel that the only way to get the news organizations to publish truth would be to impose a dictatorship, but such an act would not solve the problem I identified and that's what makes your stuffing your words into my mouth ridiculous. I didn't propose tyranny. I didn't argue in favor of it. And tyranny would not solve the problem I identified. You're not making any attempt to extrapolate, you're just inventing straw men to knock down.
I don't know, but at no point did I ever suggest anything remotely similar to thinking "something that is managed by (to borrow from a meme I hate) "Top Men"" would be a relevent replacement. At no point did I address or even go near the issue of who should impose accountability - my comment, when read by English speakers, was very clearly and unambigiously talking about the values news organizations should be accountable for.
So knock it off with putting words into my mouth, still worse claiming I'm in favor of "Tyranny" because I think it's not a great thing that news organizations are rewarded for lying.
"Accountability"? For what?
Here's the problem: There already is accountability. The problem is that it's not for what you feel it should be. The accountability is for producing entertainment. If the news is entertaining, the publisher will be rewarded. If the news isn't, the publisher will be weakened.
In terms of accountability to inform, that was tossed out the window years ago - if, indeed, it ever existed. These days most people don't, actually, want to be informed. They want something that doesn't challenge them too much, and that makes them feel informed afterwards, while keeping them entertained. The occasional outright lie in such an environment is not merely tolerable, it's desirable.
Entire news networks exist purely to tell people what they want to hear. Do you think that's an accident?
The world shouldn't work like this, but it does anyway.
I find I have the same problem if I use a generic USB charger with mine. My two solutions are either use the charger that came in the box, or use a really long USB cable and plug it into my PC. I actually have a 400ft USB cable that just about stretches from my work PC, down the stairs, out of the office, past security, into the parking lot, and to where I normally park my car. But I have to make sure I'm at work early or I lose that space and have to park further away, preventing me from charging during the day. Those days I charge a laptop at my desk, and then at lunchtime take the laptop to the Model S, plug the car into the laptop, and let it charge until the laptop battery dies.
A pardon can mean whatever you want. Homosexuality was a crime in the 1950s. It shouldn't have been. A pardon merely says "You were "guilty", but we don't think you should have been punished."
Sometimes pardons are issued because such-and-such is otherwise considered to be a good person or whatever, and that certainly applies here, but it's reasonable to also pardon when you feel a law shouldn't have existed. In that respect, a blanket pardon for anyone ever convicted under these laws would also be appropriate and would send the right message.