Not too much of a story, it seems likely that CNN took notice of this guy in particular because of Trump and because this guy was specifically targeting CNN with his posting.
Think about what you're saying here though. You're saying that what the President of the United States says to the public is not only not worth reporting on, but that it lessens a news organization for doing so. It is not the role of the press to ignore politicians and let them do whatever they want, or say whatever they want. This is specifically their job: to call out the president when he does stupid shit.
The summary and article are giving events backwards in order to make CNN look like the villains. It wasn't CNN tracking down this guy and threatening to dox him and then him agreeing not to do this anymore. It was him begging them not to reveal his identity, and then CNN agreeing not to do that in light of his apology.
What CNN did actually do: they tracked down an internet poster, and then called him for a statement. They could have just published his name without calling him first, but that's irresponsible journalism. They could have ignored his request not to be identified, which... I guess they should have done, as heartless as it may be. They're getting a lot of shit for their compassion right now.
In the US this could easily be possible, but this is a British company so that probably isn't true. Link. Typical CEO pay ratio in the UK is 22 times the salary of the median employee.
Unlikely. Mythbusters did a lot on this: I don't recall that they tested with a.22, but it takes an awful lot of book in order to stop a bullet. Multiple phone books placed back-to-back.
Well... the largest beneficiaries of charitable giving in the United States are religious organizations. Some portion of that probably gets passed on to those in need, through religion-based soup kitchens, etc., but it would probably be more accurate to say that we give what we do to charity because our tax code categorizes religious giving as charitable.
This article disagrees with the parents' claim, however. I'm not willing to pay enough attention to this topic to figure out that discrepancy, but... there you go.
It's not entirely obvious: the president nominates all of the commissioners, and only three are allowed to be from the president's own party. Ajit Pai was originally nominated by Obama, in order to fill one of the two opposition seats during his presidency.
My father's perspective has become skewed enough that he doesn't understand what a healthy weight looks like. It's not surprising to me that his dogs are all fat, though he denies it and decries other people for under-feeding their dogs because, "You can see their ribs."
Well I did read some of it, that's why I wrote what I said above. What convinced me that he was partisan though, was not the fact that his economic beliefs line up with party dogma. What convinced me was that everything else I read by him also seemed to go that way - he's a climate denier, for example. He loves charter schools and Betsy DeVos, he talks about "the left" and how horrible they are, many articles about how much he hates Obama, etc.
If he's not a partisan shill, then he's indistinguishable from a partisan shill.
He started as a Marxist until he actually did some research.
If you say so. The video is just an excerpt from an audiobook, so I went looking for something a little more substantial in video form... which I did not find. I did find a lot of articles though, and this guy is partisan as shit. If he "started as a Marxist," it was a very long time ago.
I don't know what you're going on about now. I talked about what the parent and the article were saying, specifically that there are some regulations which exist to ensure that drones are visible to pilots. You come along and say that those regulations don't exist. Ergo: the article which claimed that they exist, which you didn't bother to read, is lying.
You do understand that these two statements are not equivalent, right?
Nothing ensures anything about the visibility of a drone to "pilots."
Nothing in the regulations says anything about making that drone more visible to them, or visible at all to other pilots.
You're claiming that the article is just outright lying? Without even bothering to read it? That seems awfully negligent. But, whatever. This story is more than a day old now, so no one is ever going to read this.
The court said that the mandate wasn't unconstitutional, because the constitution grants the government the right to tax. This is not the same thing as declaring it to be a tax. Think how the constitution protects speech, but implicitly also protects writing. Strictly speaking writing isn't speech, since it isn't spoken, but the understanding is that "speech" is that case just means communication. This doesn't mean that the court is declaring that writing is something other than writing, only that the intent of the constitution is broader than it specifies.
So some people still call the healthcare penalty a mandate, and some people call it a tax. Most people shrug and say that it doesn't matter what it's called, because regardless of what you call it the court says that it isn't unconstitutional. The politicians, of course, say that what you cal it is critically important.
Researchers find a trend in the data, then rationalize an explanation and present it as "theory".
I'll propose an alternate explanation for the data.
You're doing this backwards. You start with a hypothesis, then you conduct your experiment. The order is very important. Making a baseless assumption about how the researchers did it is bad enough, but then you just turn around and do the same thing yourself. If you're going to slander these people then you could at least make an effort to set a good example.
Some would call it a well founded and empirically supported fear.
Yes, this is why motivation doesn't factor into criminality: people can't be faulted for having different opinions. Only intent factors into criminality.
I don't know what you're talking about with the frequency thing. Who brought up frequency?
The legality depends on what specific actions are being taken, not on intended or anticipated future consequences.
This is not true in general, mens rea is a well established factor in establishing guilt, but I understand that you're talking specifically about bills / laws / executive orders here. I'm no expert on this, but... intent certainly does matter for bills / laws / executive orders too. This is easy to see in any discussion of a law old enough that the original authors can't be consulted - endless arguments over what the law says vs. what the law intended. There are many instances where language has changed over time and people try to figure out the meaning of a given word at the time the law was written, etc.
This claim, "When possible the courts Must pick the interpretation of the intent of all laws or orders in a manner that the result is constitutional and/or legal, if it is possible for there to be a constitutional and legal intent of the law or order." sounds pretty crazy. I can't say for sure that it's wrong, but I suspect that it's wrong. What you're suggesting is that when a bill is unconstitutional, rather than rejecting the bill the court must twist the meaning of the bill until they have something which is not unconstitutional, no matter how ridiculous that result may be.
It is very clear what Trump's intent is: block people from certain countries and backgrounds from entering the USA.
This is what the order states. The intent is what that order is trying to accomplish: "to protect the country" or "to spite certain cultures." The motivation is why this order was made - there's an assumption that the motivation is a fear/hatred of Muslims, but while motivation can act as evidence it doesn't make a crime.
The legality cannot be dependent on the motivation.
You're confusing motive and intent, intent factors heavily into our legal system. Intent is: "What was this order trying to accomplish?" Motive is: "Why was this order made in the first place?"
Just last week I mentioned to someone that I'd like to visit Malta again, and he said "Where's that? Africa?". It's not that he didn't know, but that he had no embarrassment or shame whatsoever.
This is the worst possible example I can think of for your point. The ability to be open about one's ignorance, and to ask a question to rectify that ignorance, without embarrassment or pretending to know something about which you know nothing - that is a strength.
You're right that we have a problem with glorifying ignorance, but this is not a good example. Unfortunately, most of the good examples are political so maybe that's why you were avoiding them...
This is a case where proactive regulation is needed. We need a law upfront that says these are for real-time detection of gunshots only and should not be collecting any other data, or storing any data at all.
This won't happen of course. We've been going through this with the Stingrays only recently - these will be unregulated until they're abused, then people will complain, then law enforcement will point out that they've already been using them for a while for all kinds of things with no complaints and that they have become an indispensable tool. Then it will be a long and slow fight to curtail their use, and it will never be curtailed down to the point where they're just detecting gunshots.
The issue at hand is: you misrepresented what the story and parent were saying. I don't think that's dumbing it down, that's the entire issue.
You're taking an action, arguing for reducing limitations on using unsafe carpet fibers, and associating it with an unrelated other action, deliberately killing someone with a car. And then saying, "Look! These two things are unrelated!"
But this is not the point that the parent was making. The parent was making the point that if current regulations, regulations which exist to ensure that drones are visible to pilots, are removed so that drone manufacturers can sell more drones, and then a plane crashes after a drone collision because a pilot can't see a drone, then maybe that lobbyist or the company who hired that lobbyist should have some culpability.
To go with your car analogy: I don't know about any existing regulations regarding carpet fibers in cars, but if there were any I'd imagine they'd have to do with the length of the carpet. I.e.: carpets in cars must be short. So let's say that some shag rug manufacturer lobbies to get this regulation removed, so they can sell really deep shag carpeting for cars, and then someone gets killed because this carpeting interferes with the brake pedal. Specifically because this carpeting interferes with the brake pedal, not because the person driving the car decides to use the car as a weapon - that would be an unrelated issue.
If that were the case, then you would have a situation similar to what the parent is talking about.
This is a misrepresentation of what the story and parent are saying. The question is: when people profit by lobbying to reduce safety regulations, should they be held liable when someone dies in an accident which those regulations existed to prevent?
The fact that these people manufacture the product is only relevant insofar as they profit from the removal of these regulations.
Slashdot Mirror
Not too much of a story, it seems likely that CNN took notice of this guy in particular because of Trump and because this guy was specifically targeting CNN with his posting.
Think about what you're saying here though. You're saying that what the President of the United States says to the public is not only not worth reporting on, but that it lessens a news organization for doing so. It is not the role of the press to ignore politicians and let them do whatever they want, or say whatever they want. This is specifically their job: to call out the president when he does stupid shit.
The summary and article are giving events backwards in order to make CNN look like the villains. It wasn't CNN tracking down this guy and threatening to dox him and then him agreeing not to do this anymore. It was him begging them not to reveal his identity, and then CNN agreeing not to do that in light of his apology.
What CNN did actually do: they tracked down an internet poster, and then called him for a statement. They could have just published his name without calling him first, but that's irresponsible journalism. They could have ignored his request not to be identified, which... I guess they should have done, as heartless as it may be. They're getting a lot of shit for their compassion right now.
In the US this could easily be possible, but this is a British company so that probably isn't true. Link. Typical CEO pay ratio in the UK is 22 times the salary of the median employee.
Unlikely. Mythbusters did a lot on this: I don't recall that they tested with a .22, but it takes an awful lot of book in order to stop a bullet. Multiple phone books placed back-to-back.
Well... the largest beneficiaries of charitable giving in the United States are religious organizations. Some portion of that probably gets passed on to those in need, through religion-based soup kitchens, etc., but it would probably be more accurate to say that we give what we do to charity because our tax code categorizes religious giving as charitable.
This article disagrees with the parents' claim, however. I'm not willing to pay enough attention to this topic to figure out that discrepancy, but... there you go.
It's not entirely obvious: the president nominates all of the commissioners, and only three are allowed to be from the president's own party. Ajit Pai was originally nominated by Obama, in order to fill one of the two opposition seats during his presidency.
My father's perspective has become skewed enough that he doesn't understand what a healthy weight looks like. It's not surprising to me that his dogs are all fat, though he denies it and decries other people for under-feeding their dogs because, "You can see their ribs."
Well I did read some of it, that's why I wrote what I said above. What convinced me that he was partisan though, was not the fact that his economic beliefs line up with party dogma. What convinced me was that everything else I read by him also seemed to go that way - he's a climate denier, for example. He loves charter schools and Betsy DeVos, he talks about "the left" and how horrible they are, many articles about how much he hates Obama, etc.
If he's not a partisan shill, then he's indistinguishable from a partisan shill.
He started as a Marxist until he actually did some research.
If you say so. The video is just an excerpt from an audiobook, so I went looking for something a little more substantial in video form... which I did not find. I did find a lot of articles though, and this guy is partisan as shit. If he "started as a Marxist," it was a very long time ago.
This is the world we now live in. Activation is ubiquitous in software, why not food?
You do understand that these two statements are not equivalent, right?
Nothing ensures anything about the visibility of a drone to "pilots."
Nothing in the regulations says anything about making that drone more visible to them, or visible at all to other pilots.
Maybe you don't. I don't care.
You're claiming that the article is just outright lying? Without even bothering to read it? That seems awfully negligent. But, whatever. This story is more than a day old now, so no one is ever going to read this.
The court said that the mandate wasn't unconstitutional, because the constitution grants the government the right to tax. This is not the same thing as declaring it to be a tax. Think how the constitution protects speech, but implicitly also protects writing. Strictly speaking writing isn't speech, since it isn't spoken, but the understanding is that "speech" is that case just means communication. This doesn't mean that the court is declaring that writing is something other than writing, only that the intent of the constitution is broader than it specifies.
So some people still call the healthcare penalty a mandate, and some people call it a tax. Most people shrug and say that it doesn't matter what it's called, because regardless of what you call it the court says that it isn't unconstitutional. The politicians, of course, say that what you cal it is critically important .
Researchers find a trend in the data, then rationalize an explanation and present it as "theory". I'll propose an alternate explanation for the data.
You're doing this backwards. You start with a hypothesis, then you conduct your experiment. The order is very important. Making a baseless assumption about how the researchers did it is bad enough, but then you just turn around and do the same thing yourself. If you're going to slander these people then you could at least make an effort to set a good example.
... Did you read the article? You should read the article.
Some would call it a well founded and empirically supported fear.
Yes, this is why motivation doesn't factor into criminality: people can't be faulted for having different opinions. Only intent factors into criminality.
I don't know what you're talking about with the frequency thing. Who brought up frequency?
The legality depends on what specific actions are being taken, not on intended or anticipated future consequences.
This is not true in general, mens rea is a well established factor in establishing guilt, but I understand that you're talking specifically about bills / laws / executive orders here. I'm no expert on this, but... intent certainly does matter for bills / laws / executive orders too. This is easy to see in any discussion of a law old enough that the original authors can't be consulted - endless arguments over what the law says vs. what the law intended. There are many instances where language has changed over time and people try to figure out the meaning of a given word at the time the law was written, etc.
This claim, "When possible the courts Must pick the interpretation of the intent of all laws or orders in a manner that the result is constitutional and/or legal, if it is possible for there to be a constitutional and legal intent of the law or order." sounds pretty crazy. I can't say for sure that it's wrong, but I suspect that it's wrong. What you're suggesting is that when a bill is unconstitutional, rather than rejecting the bill the court must twist the meaning of the bill until they have something which is not unconstitutional, no matter how ridiculous that result may be.
I don't think that's what you really meant.
It is very clear what Trump's intent is: block people from certain countries and backgrounds from entering the USA.
This is what the order states. The intent is what that order is trying to accomplish: "to protect the country" or "to spite certain cultures." The motivation is why this order was made - there's an assumption that the motivation is a fear/hatred of Muslims, but while motivation can act as evidence it doesn't make a crime.
The legality cannot be dependent on the motivation.
You're confusing motive and intent, intent factors heavily into our legal system. Intent is: "What was this order trying to accomplish?" Motive is: "Why was this order made in the first place?"
Just last week I mentioned to someone that I'd like to visit Malta again, and he said "Where's that? Africa?". It's not that he didn't know, but that he had no embarrassment or shame whatsoever.
This is the worst possible example I can think of for your point. The ability to be open about one's ignorance, and to ask a question to rectify that ignorance, without embarrassment or pretending to know something about which you know nothing - that is a strength.
You're right that we have a problem with glorifying ignorance, but this is not a good example. Unfortunately, most of the good examples are political so maybe that's why you were avoiding them...
This is a case where proactive regulation is needed. We need a law upfront that says these are for real-time detection of gunshots only and should not be collecting any other data, or storing any data at all.
This won't happen of course. We've been going through this with the Stingrays only recently - these will be unregulated until they're abused, then people will complain, then law enforcement will point out that they've already been using them for a while for all kinds of things with no complaints and that they have become an indispensable tool. Then it will be a long and slow fight to curtail their use, and it will never be curtailed down to the point where they're just detecting gunshots.
The issue at hand is: you misrepresented what the story and parent were saying. I don't think that's dumbing it down, that's the entire issue.
You're taking an action, arguing for reducing limitations on using unsafe carpet fibers, and associating it with an unrelated other action, deliberately killing someone with a car. And then saying, "Look! These two things are unrelated!"
But this is not the point that the parent was making. The parent was making the point that if current regulations, regulations which exist to ensure that drones are visible to pilots, are removed so that drone manufacturers can sell more drones, and then a plane crashes after a drone collision because a pilot can't see a drone, then maybe that lobbyist or the company who hired that lobbyist should have some culpability.
To go with your car analogy: I don't know about any existing regulations regarding carpet fibers in cars, but if there were any I'd imagine they'd have to do with the length of the carpet. I.e.: carpets in cars must be short. So let's say that some shag rug manufacturer lobbies to get this regulation removed, so they can sell really deep shag carpeting for cars, and then someone gets killed because this carpeting interferes with the brake pedal. Specifically because this carpeting interferes with the brake pedal, not because the person driving the car decides to use the car as a weapon - that would be an unrelated issue.
If that were the case, then you would have a situation similar to what the parent is talking about.
This is a misrepresentation of what the story and parent are saying. The question is: when people profit by lobbying to reduce safety regulations, should they be held liable when someone dies in an accident which those regulations existed to prevent?
The fact that these people manufacture the product is only relevant insofar as they profit from the removal of these regulations.
At the base? Don't most of these have stiff bases?
In fact, both the glue and the sticker are edible. Here.