For anyone who is not currently the Vice President, the 25th amendment is not an option for them.
The 25th Amendment requires a vote by the cabinet. It doesn't have anything to do with the VP except in that the VP is normally the person who takes over. The VP cannot unilaterally invoke it. I'm not sure what point you think you're making, or what you think you're addressing, but you're not correct or posting anything pertaining to the discussion.
The entire point of having a 25th Amendment is so that there's a transparent process to take over power from Presidents that are unable to do their job. If, as the NYT writer says, the entire Whitehouse is conspiring against the President, they should have enough votes within the cabinet to 25th him. That they're conspiring without 25thing means they're violating the constitution and ensuring the rules put in place to ensure handovers are democratically accountable are being broken; they are evil people, and they need to held to account.
In theory, sure. In practice, if Congress takes any action at all on virtually anything it would shock the country.
Well, yes, but can you really see the 25th ever being invoked when it's not reasonable? The fact Trump is incapable of doing his job is uncontroversial, so no, of course Congress will take only administrative actions if the 25th is invoked.
That's not really Whataboutism when you've started the discussion attempting to suggest that the difference between the elected people and the establishment is that the latter regards you with contempt.
Whataboutism is trying to change the subject by using a poor example to suggest that your side is guilty of the same great evil that the side you're attacking is. As in "Trump used information stolen from Facebook to win the election", "Well Obama also used Facebook to help him win an election, so what's wrong with that. I win, you lose, #triggered #tgot #maga" Nobody mentioned Obama, the example is poor, it wouldn't show stealing Facebook data was right, it's just trolling.
The person who compared the establishment to Trump is you, albeit by implication. And the thing you accused the establishment of is more accurately directed at Trump.
In reality, there's nothing to suggest that the establishment is more contemptuous of "ordinary people" than the administration that the Republican side of the establishment is underhandedly trying to undermine. Far from it, the overwhelming evidence is that, from the lies, the use of racism, Trump University, and so on, Trump has absolute contempt not merely for Americans as a whole, but his own base in particular.
I do not believe that to be true of your average random establishment jackass, most of whom really don't give a fuck about your or me either way as long as they get their's.
Either you believe your President is capable of doing his job, in which case you allow him to do it, or you don't, in which case you execute the constitutional process for relieving him from power, a process that was put in place so it's transparent and so that the people who use it can be held accountable.
What you don't fucking do is pretend everything's OK and then steal papers from his desk because you're worried he might sign them.
I absolutely believe that Trump is a clear and present danger to this country, and I am absolutely convinced he needs to be removed from office. But pretending he's in charge and frustrating his efforts is not the way to do that, that's what cowards do who do not want to be held accountable.
The 25th and impeachment are both cases where Democratic agencies can hold those responsible for the actions to account. If you believe the government should be accountable to the governed, you should be utterly opposed to what the NYT op-ed writer claimed to be doing. He or she should be identified and held accountable.
Seemed to start with eBay where they gave you three choices, and for some reason you're only allowed to use the "Good" rating when rating anyone, because "Neutral" will cause the ratee to get, uh, irate. So there's no way to distinguish between someone who sold you exactly what they said they'd sell and shipped it on time, and that person who made a special effort to make sure you got what you needed a little more quickly.
And this has been going on since the late 1990s, so it's not new.
And it's stupid.
Oh, did you know that when your cellphone carrier follows up with you after you call them to change your rate plan, to ask how the customer care person was, that if you don't rate them 5/5 for everything there are "consequences"? Like "Too many 4/5s, you're getting canned" type consequences?
But sure, you're going to rate people honestly now knowing that.
This is the wrong article, and the article that does make the claim that Google wants to get rid of URLs in the headline has a misleading headline. The summary makes it plain that Google wants something to replace current HTTP:// style URLs because they're cryptic and easy to create misleading versions of. They're not proposing you use IP address (where the hell did you get that from?)
RFCs are what you issue when you have a proposed standard. Right now Google are just saying "URLs suck, know what I mean? Right? You agree right?" which isn't really a "proposed standard" any more than "You know, it'd be awesome if I could send some text across the Internet" would have been enough to issue RFC 822.
Nothing wrong with them themselves, but they're generally underpaid and rarely get proper benefits. We need to make sure everyone in this country receives a living wage, and big corporations aren't subsidized by the families of their employees.
Also they slow down your web browser and are difficult to disable while creating significant potential privacy issues. Especially if they use your phone to browse for porn while you're in the bathroom.
Absolutely nothing. They still exist. You can get a decent, small, laptop, about the same size for under $200. They just don't call them "netbooks" any more.
Tablets didn't kill shit. Netbooks didn't go away, they redefined the base price and form factor of low end laptops.
A man who is not married and has no children will not take 3 months of leave. He has no children, therefore no paternity leave applies.
Are you talking about what they are on the day the business decides to hire them? Because if so, that's obviously untrue. People are not (generally) permanently single, nor childless. I didn't have any children when I joined the employer that was employing me at the time I had my first child.
Interestingly, thinking about it, you've got it backwards. If an employer is looking to discriminate against people they think might get children, and they're obliged to offer maternity and paternity leave, and that's the reason, then they should discriminate in favor of older people, and people with at least 2-3 children that are more than 5 years old.
Why? Because neither group is likely have a child any time soon, while that single 25 year old is highly likely to within the next ten years.
No, it's the exact opposite. All of these cases occurred because a programmer decided to write more code than they should have done for no good reason. They may have been required to write it (their boss insisted on it), but the bottom line is that the logic is stupid and the code should never have been written.
At best, you could argue the developer didn't push back enough, pointing out that, for example, Weiner is a common surname, or Dick is a common forename, to a boss who was otherwise insistent, but the end result is that because they didn't push back, they ended up working for hours making their code more complex, and more likely to fail (and not just because it rejects people with names that might include four letters some people consider intolerable.)
So, nobody then? Or are you saying that someone who can happily move into a job that didn't exist a year prior should be given the benefit if they have to change jobs because automation made the prior job obsolete?
Why at this point in the industrial revolution is the jobs market going to change course and suddenly massively contract?
I mean, it's ludicrous. People were yelling the same thing 300 years ago, hell, they were getting violent and smashing up looms convinced that automation would destroy jobs. Suddenly NOTHING IS DIFFERENT but you think that we're somehow on some threshold that means automation will suddenly switch from creating jobs to destroying them?
The hysteria here is ridiculous. Alexa isn't going to prevent you from having a job. At worse, she might change your job and force you to have a new career, but if we've learned anything over the last 300 years, it's that automation creates work.
Public transportation doesn't really go to "rural areas". Hell, in the US it's not even that good in most cities (real cities I mean, not Anytown USA strip-malls and suburbs.)
So what's your plan for the mass unemployment when general purpose AI does take a majority of the jobs?
It will never happen.
You're basically talking about more automation. We've had 300 years of constant improvements in automation. Throughout that 300 years, the number of jobs has increased, not decreased.
Automation doesn't eliminate jobs, it just changes the work environment.
Most US media is right wing, even in American terms, but gets labelled liberal because:
1. It's generally more likely to post stories that reflect the interests of the Democratic party, which is to the left of the Republican party
2. A concerted smear campaign since the impeachment of Nixon and the failure of the Vietnam war, a war that the media covered largely accurately, as a result increasing political pressure to end what was rapidly becoming an unwinnable quagmire.
People who doubt this should ask themselves:
1. Do you think the media often discusses the same issues as the Democratic party because it's biased towards "The Democrats", or because the Democratic party is more likely to listen to the media than the Republicans?
2. Does the media regard the following policies as mainstream or does it frequently describe them as "leftist"? Are they actually "leftist", or are they pragmatic and common among Western democracies outside of the US:
. - Free education, including University education without tuition fees
. - Single Payer healthcare
. - A livable minimum wage
. - An effort to ensure employment is available for all
For those wondering if I just pulled these examples out of my ass, they're on "notorious leftist" Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's Wikipedia page. I omitted views that either the media is usually sympathetic with (Immigration), or stuff that falls outside of the left/right spectrum (such as Israel) and that would count as foreign policy. Coverage of Ocasio-Cortez has been... if not hostile, certainly "This is far from a serious candidate", by most media outlets that right wingers here would call "mainstream" and "liberal". Absolutely none of her positions is remotely radical - like I said, most Western democracies have these in some shape or form - it's just to the left of the media's position, and hence also to the left of the party that treats the media seriously.
No, they're saying that if a patch is published for a vulnerability, people should be told that the vulnerability exists and that there's a patch for it.
Nope. The real thing that's good for your heart. As the old saying goes "Beans beans, good for your heart, the more you eat, the better your heart is."
For old feature phones, you'd be correct. However, I've never seen an Android phone that's used RS232 emulation mode for tethering, generally they implement a virtual Ethernet device instead.
T-Mobile still has a functional 2G GSM/EDGE network in the US which it runs in parallel with 3G GSM (UMTS) and 4G GSM (LTE). I believe most of Europe still supports GSM.
2G GSM is probably the most solid, reliable, mobile phone technology in existence, it'll be a sad day when it goes completely. If they're short on spectrum, dumping UMTS would make more sense.
USB uses a packet based protocol, you don't talk to it with AT commands. There's an RS-232 profile, where you can have a device that either is or pretends to be hooked up using RS-232 talked to over USB (lots of USB modems use this, and that's how you'd use data on flip phones), but that runs over the native packet based system. USB is more like Ethernet than RS232 in terms of how software treats it.
So essentially I have the same question as the GP, what are we communicating with in "serial mode"? I honestly didn't know smartphones supported such a mode. Is this internal to the phone itself, ie how Android communicates with the GSM hardware?
I can guarantee that, as it was done in Florida, it wasn't in a "gun free zone".Florida has quite a few laws banning such things. Cities can't even ban guns from government offices and children's playgrounds.
Under your standard, a commentary on a movie is "derived from" the movie even if it doesn't contain any content at all from the movie. I consider that undesirable.
I am not a lawyer, but I was under the impression that commentary is "protected" as fair use. If something is fair use, then it's technically breaching copyright, but the copyright holder isn't (usually) able to enforce their copyrights because other laws, or the constitution, take precedence over copyright law in that instance.
So his standard is perfectly reasonable, if you remember that just because something violates copyright it doesn't mean you can enforce copyright law to stop it.
Slashdot Mirror
The 25th Amendment requires a vote by the cabinet. It doesn't have anything to do with the VP except in that the VP is normally the person who takes over. The VP cannot unilaterally invoke it. I'm not sure what point you think you're making, or what you think you're addressing, but you're not correct or posting anything pertaining to the discussion.
The entire point of having a 25th Amendment is so that there's a transparent process to take over power from Presidents that are unable to do their job. If, as the NYT writer says, the entire Whitehouse is conspiring against the President, they should have enough votes within the cabinet to 25th him. That they're conspiring without 25thing means they're violating the constitution and ensuring the rules put in place to ensure handovers are democratically accountable are being broken; they are evil people, and they need to held to account.
Well, yes, but can you really see the 25th ever being invoked when it's not reasonable? The fact Trump is incapable of doing his job is uncontroversial, so no, of course Congress will take only administrative actions if the 25th is invoked.
That's not really Whataboutism when you've started the discussion attempting to suggest that the difference between the elected people and the establishment is that the latter regards you with contempt.
Whataboutism is trying to change the subject by using a poor example to suggest that your side is guilty of the same great evil that the side you're attacking is. As in "Trump used information stolen from Facebook to win the election", "Well Obama also used Facebook to help him win an election, so what's wrong with that. I win, you lose, #triggered #tgot #maga" Nobody mentioned Obama, the example is poor, it wouldn't show stealing Facebook data was right, it's just trolling.
The person who compared the establishment to Trump is you, albeit by implication. And the thing you accused the establishment of is more accurately directed at Trump.
In reality, there's nothing to suggest that the establishment is more contemptuous of "ordinary people" than the administration that the Republican side of the establishment is underhandedly trying to undermine. Far from it, the overwhelming evidence is that, from the lies, the use of racism, Trump University, and so on, Trump has absolute contempt not merely for Americans as a whole, but his own base in particular.
I do not believe that to be true of your average random establishment jackass, most of whom really don't give a fuck about your or me either way as long as they get their's.
25th Amendment.
Either you believe your President is capable of doing his job, in which case you allow him to do it, or you don't, in which case you execute the constitutional process for relieving him from power, a process that was put in place so it's transparent and so that the people who use it can be held accountable.
What you don't fucking do is pretend everything's OK and then steal papers from his desk because you're worried he might sign them.
I absolutely believe that Trump is a clear and present danger to this country, and I am absolutely convinced he needs to be removed from office. But pretending he's in charge and frustrating his efforts is not the way to do that, that's what cowards do who do not want to be held accountable.
The 25th and impeachment are both cases where Democratic agencies can hold those responsible for the actions to account. If you believe the government should be accountable to the governed, you should be utterly opposed to what the NYT op-ed writer claimed to be doing. He or she should be identified and held accountable.
Seemed to start with eBay where they gave you three choices, and for some reason you're only allowed to use the "Good" rating when rating anyone, because "Neutral" will cause the ratee to get, uh, irate. So there's no way to distinguish between someone who sold you exactly what they said they'd sell and shipped it on time, and that person who made a special effort to make sure you got what you needed a little more quickly.
And this has been going on since the late 1990s, so it's not new.
And it's stupid.
Oh, did you know that when your cellphone carrier follows up with you after you call them to change your rate plan, to ask how the customer care person was, that if you don't rate them 5/5 for everything there are "consequences"? Like "Too many 4/5s, you're getting canned" type consequences?
But sure, you're going to rate people honestly now knowing that.
I am all superfast acceleration on this blessed day!
No it's not. I think you need to reread what you just wrote and ask yourself if you seriously meant to write that.
This is the wrong article, and the article that does make the claim that Google wants to get rid of URLs in the headline has a misleading headline. The summary makes it plain that Google wants something to replace current HTTP:// style URLs because they're cryptic and easy to create misleading versions of. They're not proposing you use IP address (where the hell did you get that from?)
Odd that the OS that showcases Chrome always seems to be a version or two behind.
RFCs are what you issue when you have a proposed standard. Right now Google are just saying "URLs suck, know what I mean? Right? You agree right?" which isn't really a "proposed standard" any more than "You know, it'd be awesome if I could send some text across the Internet" would have been enough to issue RFC 822.
Nothing wrong with them themselves, but they're generally underpaid and rarely get proper benefits. We need to make sure everyone in this country receives a living wage, and big corporations aren't subsidized by the families of their employees.
Also they slow down your web browser and are difficult to disable while creating significant potential privacy issues. Especially if they use your phone to browse for porn while you're in the bathroom.
You know what stopped Netbooks?
Absolutely nothing. They still exist. You can get a decent, small, laptop, about the same size for under $200. They just don't call them "netbooks" any more.
Tablets didn't kill shit. Netbooks didn't go away, they redefined the base price and form factor of low end laptops.
Are you talking about what they are on the day the business decides to hire them? Because if so, that's obviously untrue. People are not (generally) permanently single, nor childless. I didn't have any children when I joined the employer that was employing me at the time I had my first child.
Interestingly, thinking about it, you've got it backwards. If an employer is looking to discriminate against people they think might get children, and they're obliged to offer maternity and paternity leave, and that's the reason, then they should discriminate in favor of older people, and people with at least 2-3 children that are more than 5 years old.
Why? Because neither group is likely have a child any time soon, while that single 25 year old is highly likely to within the next ten years.
No, it's the exact opposite. All of these cases occurred because a programmer decided to write more code than they should have done for no good reason. They may have been required to write it (their boss insisted on it), but the bottom line is that the logic is stupid and the code should never have been written.
At best, you could argue the developer didn't push back enough, pointing out that, for example, Weiner is a common surname, or Dick is a common forename, to a boss who was otherwise insistent, but the end result is that because they didn't push back, they ended up working for hours making their code more complex, and more likely to fail (and not just because it rejects people with names that might include four letters some people consider intolerable.)
So, nobody then? Or are you saying that someone who can happily move into a job that didn't exist a year prior should be given the benefit if they have to change jobs because automation made the prior job obsolete?
Why at this point in the industrial revolution is the jobs market going to change course and suddenly massively contract?
I mean, it's ludicrous. People were yelling the same thing 300 years ago, hell, they were getting violent and smashing up looms convinced that automation would destroy jobs. Suddenly NOTHING IS DIFFERENT but you think that we're somehow on some threshold that means automation will suddenly switch from creating jobs to destroying them?
The hysteria here is ridiculous. Alexa isn't going to prevent you from having a job. At worse, she might change your job and force you to have a new career, but if we've learned anything over the last 300 years, it's that automation creates work.
Public transportation doesn't really go to "rural areas". Hell, in the US it's not even that good in most cities (real cities I mean, not Anytown USA strip-malls and suburbs.)
It will never happen.
You're basically talking about more automation. We've had 300 years of constant improvements in automation. Throughout that 300 years, the number of jobs has increased, not decreased.
Automation doesn't eliminate jobs, it just changes the work environment.
Most US media is right wing, even in American terms, but gets labelled liberal because:
1. It's generally more likely to post stories that reflect the interests of the Democratic party, which is to the left of the Republican party
2. A concerted smear campaign since the impeachment of Nixon and the failure of the Vietnam war, a war that the media covered largely accurately, as a result increasing political pressure to end what was rapidly becoming an unwinnable quagmire.
People who doubt this should ask themselves:
1. Do you think the media often discusses the same issues as the Democratic party because it's biased towards "The Democrats", or because the Democratic party is more likely to listen to the media than the Republicans?
2. Does the media regard the following policies as mainstream or does it frequently describe them as "leftist"? Are they actually "leftist", or are they pragmatic and common among Western democracies outside of the US:
. - Free education, including University education without tuition fees
. - Single Payer healthcare
. - A livable minimum wage
. - An effort to ensure employment is available for all
For those wondering if I just pulled these examples out of my ass, they're on "notorious leftist" Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's Wikipedia page. I omitted views that either the media is usually sympathetic with (Immigration), or stuff that falls outside of the left/right spectrum (such as Israel) and that would count as foreign policy. Coverage of Ocasio-Cortez has been... if not hostile, certainly "This is far from a serious candidate", by most media outlets that right wingers here would call "mainstream" and "liberal". Absolutely none of her positions is remotely radical - like I said, most Western democracies have these in some shape or form - it's just to the left of the media's position, and hence also to the left of the party that treats the media seriously.
No, they're saying that if a patch is published for a vulnerability, people should be told that the vulnerability exists and that there's a patch for it.
Nope. The real thing that's good for your heart. As the old saying goes "Beans beans, good for your heart, the more you eat, the better your heart is."
For old feature phones, you'd be correct. However, I've never seen an Android phone that's used RS232 emulation mode for tethering, generally they implement a virtual Ethernet device instead.
T-Mobile still has a functional 2G GSM/EDGE network in the US which it runs in parallel with 3G GSM (UMTS) and 4G GSM (LTE). I believe most of Europe still supports GSM.
2G GSM is probably the most solid, reliable, mobile phone technology in existence, it'll be a sad day when it goes completely. If they're short on spectrum, dumping UMTS would make more sense.
USB uses a packet based protocol, you don't talk to it with AT commands. There's an RS-232 profile, where you can have a device that either is or pretends to be hooked up using RS-232 talked to over USB (lots of USB modems use this, and that's how you'd use data on flip phones), but that runs over the native packet based system. USB is more like Ethernet than RS232 in terms of how software treats it.
So essentially I have the same question as the GP, what are we communicating with in "serial mode"? I honestly didn't know smartphones supported such a mode. Is this internal to the phone itself, ie how Android communicates with the GSM hardware?
I can guarantee that, as it was done in Florida, it wasn't in a "gun free zone".Florida has quite a few laws banning such things. Cities can't even ban guns from government offices and children's playgrounds.
I am not a lawyer, but I was under the impression that commentary is "protected" as fair use. If something is fair use, then it's technically breaching copyright, but the copyright holder isn't (usually) able to enforce their copyrights because other laws, or the constitution, take precedence over copyright law in that instance.
So his standard is perfectly reasonable, if you remember that just because something violates copyright it doesn't mean you can enforce copyright law to stop it.