In how many cases has the supreme court permitted a restriction in free speech that does not involve falsehoods or conspiracy to commit a crime (an how high is the bar for prosecution of those cases)?
You think that "falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic" is the same as repeating information that is part of the public record? Especially if this same information is available restriction to anyone who wants it regardless of if she publishes it or not?
Yes, I know all the 'freedom of speech' people will outcry on this but in reality that is in some ways a imperfect idea.
In the USA it's not just an "idea" - it's the absolute black letter law of the land.
In a case like this I have no problems cutting them some slack to protect their and their family's safety interests. If this means letting them find some law to use to stop a wack-job jeopardizing their safety and ability to do their job efficiently, so be it. It's an imperfect world.
If you want to make changes then modify the constitution via the legally established method.
It would be FAR more imperfect if you didn't have someone to police the rules.
WRONG. "Every man for himself" is preferable to a group of armed thugs that can make up whatever rules they feel like to enforce upon the populace while at the same time ignoring any rules that apply to themselves.
even a quick perusal of the site leads me to believe that she is acting out of pure vindictiveness
It's still protected speech. The constitution doesn't say "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech... unless you're being a vindictive bitch."
1. The point is that the requested feature is available on Linux. Just because a majority of Linux users don't (yet?) use Gentoo does not invalidate this.
2. The commands he posted <em>will</em> revert to an earlier version of the same package.
HTML isn't about specifying a layout. The purpose is to add semantic metadata so that rendering device can decide how to best present the information to the user.
A properly written HTML document should present information to the user in a useful form regardless of if the user is using a traditional browser, mobile phone, braille terminal or text-to-speech screen reader.
For example, the <EM> tag has a specific semantic meaning that can be used by all of the above output devices to enhance meaning, while <I> does not.
It's a different mindset than desktop publishing. Instead of telling the browser, "Make this text bold" you should tell it why the text should be bold. That way the browser (visual or otherwise) can decide how best to present the information to the user.
HTML was never supposed to do those things in the first place. The tags you are referring were hacks invented because CSS did not exist yet.
Unfortunately there is a whole generation of "web developers" who don't understand the concepts of semantic markup and output device-independent layouts.
Below is a reprint of a July 1, 2009 Open Letter to Congress by a team of prominent atmospheric scientists.
OPEN LETTER TO THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES: YOU ARE BEING DECEIVED ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING
You have recently received an Open Letter from the Woods Hole Research Center, exhorting you to act quickly to avoid global disaster. The letter purports to be from independent scientists, but that Center is the former den of the President's science advisor, John Holdren, and is far from independent. This is the same science advisor who has given us predictions of âoealmost certainâ thermonuclear war or eco-catastrophe by the year 2000, and many other forecasts of doom that somehow never seem to arrive on time.
The facts are:
The sky is not falling; the Earth has been cooling for ten years, without help. The present cooling was NOT predicted by the alarmists' computer models, and has come as an embarrassment to them.
The finest meteorologists in the world cannot predict the weather two weeks in advance, let alone the climate for the rest of the century. Can Al Gore? Can John Holdren? We are flooded with claims that the evidence is clear, that the debate is closed, that we must act immediately, etc, but in fact
THERE IS NO SUCH EVIDENCE; IT DOESN'T EXIST.
The proposed legislation would cripple the US economy, putting us at a disadvantage compared to our competitors. For such drastic action, it is only prudent to demand genuine proof that it is needed, not guesswork, and not false claims about the state of the science.
DEMAND PROOF, NOT CONSENSUS
Finally, climate alarmism pays well. Many alarmists are profiting from their activism. There are billions of dollars floating around for the taking, and being taken.
Robert H. Austin Professor of Physics Princeton University Fellow APS, AAAS American Association of Arts and Science Member National Academy of Sciences
William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University Fellow APS, AAAS Member National Academy of Sciences
S. Fred Singer Professor of Environmental Sciences Emeritus, University of Virginia First Director of the National Weather Satellite Service Fellow APS, AAAS, AGU
Roger W. Cohen Manager, Strategic Planning and Programs, ExxonMobil Corporation (retired) Fellow APS
Harold W. Lewis Professor of Physics Emeritus University of California at Santa Barbara Fellow APS, AAAS; Chairman, APS Reactor Safety Study
Laurence I. Gould Professor of Physics University of Hartford Chairman (2004), New England Section of APS
Richard Lindzen Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology Massachusetts Institute of Technology Fellow American Academy of Arts and Sciences, AGU, AAAS, and AMS Member Norwegian Academy of Science and Letters Member National Academy of Sciences
Nothing inherently wrong with a carbon tax. But it does not permit businesses to compete to eliminate carbon emissions at the lowest price. It also increases the price of certain staple commodities by an enormous amount.
You forgot the most important downsides: it doesn't let Congress's Wall Street masters take a cut out of every transaction and it does not allow them to play favorites.
I'm saying that debt is increasing at a much greater rate than real value creation.
We are very near the point where the federal government will lose the ability to borrow because either no one is willing to lend them money, or no one has any more money left to lend.
At that point we will have a catastrophe. The exact form depends on how they react but there is no good solution if you let things get that far. It is much better to take the pain of a balanced budget now than have it forced.
That's where the FBI needs to come in with felony fraud charges where applicable.
Even better would be a federal law that made any white collar crime in excess of $6.9 million (the value of a statistical life) equal to one count of homicide for sentencing purposes.
The bailout loans (considerable parts of it is being repaid this month) saved us from a complete system crash.
Saved? How about "put off the inevitable crash a few months longer"? Given the fact that consumer spending is 70% of GDP and the information in this graph how do you expect that a crash can be avoided, especially while the US economy is losing 600,000 jobs every month as we create trillions of dollars of new debt?
The global financial systems are too interlinked that ANY significant bank would have survived the collapse of even Lehman Brothers without significant government intervention - and no being a prudent bank would NOT have helped!
Ok, so go back to last October and give the $800 billion to the all the small banks and credit unions that didn't get involved with the liar loans. They could have used that money to pick up the pieces when the big banks collapsed.
Your argument that we must bailout criminals (individuals and companies that committed felony fraud) with tax money because the banking system will collapse otherwise amounts to extortion: "Nice economy you've got there - it's be a shame if something happened to it..."
Ordering loan officers to lie on loan applications and/or instruct the applicants to lie
Advising customers (that pay for your advice) that a particular stock is a "buy" while at the same time dumping it yourself
Lying about the financial condition of the company to shareholders just prior to insolvency
Insider trading
Uncountable methods of cooking balance sheets
Basically lying, cheating and stealing. These things are crimes just like rape, murder and arson are crimes and should be prosecuted no matter who commits them. Placing certain individuals above the law because of their importance in a political or economic sense is always worse than the alternative.
The country is burning anyway and the bailouts are pouring gaoline on the fire.
The idea that an individual person, municipality, state or nation can run a deficit forever is INSANE. This insanity will end, but we lost the chance to end it the "easy" way. It now appears that it will end the hard way by our government simply borrowing more and more until the world is unwilling ot unable to loan them any more.
Slashdot Mirror
What results and consequences specifically?
In how many cases has the supreme court permitted a restriction in free speech that does not involve falsehoods or conspiracy to commit a crime (an how high is the bar for prosecution of those cases)?
You think that "falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic" is the same as repeating information that is part of the public record? Especially if this same information is available restriction to anyone who wants it regardless of if she publishes it or not?
In the USA it's not just an "idea" - it's the absolute black letter law of the land.
If you want to make changes then modify the constitution via the legally established method.
WRONG. "Every man for himself" is preferable to a group of armed thugs that can make up whatever rules they feel like to enforce upon the populace while at the same time ignoring any rules that apply to themselves.
It's still protected speech. The constitution doesn't say "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech... unless you're being a vindictive bitch."
1. The point is that the requested feature is available on Linux. Just because a majority of Linux users don't (yet?) use Gentoo does not invalidate this.
2. The commands he posted <em>will</em> revert to an earlier version of the same package.
I was most interested in the universal metadata storage via the "files are also directories" idea but it seems like it's been killed permanently.
He probably could have gotten that in if he would have agreed to make an xattr compatability layer (also that whole murder thing)
HTML isn't about specifying a layout. The purpose is to add semantic metadata so that rendering device can decide how to best present the information to the user.
A properly written HTML document should present information to the user in a useful form regardless of if the user is using a traditional browser, mobile phone, braille terminal or text-to-speech screen reader.
For example, the <EM> tag has a specific semantic meaning that can be used by all of the above output devices to enhance meaning, while <I> does not.
It's a different mindset than desktop publishing. Instead of telling the browser, "Make this text bold" you should tell it why the text should be bold. That way the browser (visual or otherwise) can decide how best to present the information to the user.
HTML was never supposed to do those things in the first place. The tags you are referring were hacks invented because CSS did not exist yet.
Unfortunately there is a whole generation of "web developers" who don't understand the concepts of semantic markup and output device-independent layouts.
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/comparison.html
So has the earth been cooling for 10 years or not?
Just recently you can add these
You forgot the most important downsides: it doesn't let Congress's Wall Street masters take a cut out of every transaction and it does not allow them to play favorites.
Easier solution
In Spain every "green" job created came at the cost of 2.2 "regular" jobs lost.
Spain tried that. They lost 9 "regular" jobs for every 5 "green" jobs created.
I agree.
I'm saying that debt is increasing at a much greater rate than real value creation.
We are very near the point where the federal government will lose the ability to borrow because either no one is willing to lend them money, or no one has any more money left to lend.
At that point we will have a catastrophe. The exact form depends on how they react but there is no good solution if you let things get that far. It is much better to take the pain of a balanced budget now than have it forced.
That's where the FBI needs to come in with felony fraud charges where applicable.
Even better would be a federal law that made any white collar crime in excess of $6.9 million (the value of a statistical life) equal to one count of homicide for sentencing purposes.
I'm sorry, but no matter who you are 2+2=4
Self-liquidating debt is good. Can you explain how much, if any, of the $2 trillion planned deficit for this year is self liquidating?
Only if you look at a part of the picture. If you add up ALL debt (government, personal and corporate) the picture is much worse.
Saved? How about "put off the inevitable crash a few months longer"? Given the fact that consumer spending is 70% of GDP and the information in this graph how do you expect that a crash can be avoided, especially while the US economy is losing 600,000 jobs every month as we create trillions of dollars of new debt?
I abbreviated:
"Can house prices really keep going up at a rate higher than average income forever"
Ok, so go back to last October and give the $800 billion to the all the small banks and credit unions that didn't get involved with the liar loans. They could have used that money to pick up the pieces when the big banks collapsed.
Your argument that we must bailout criminals (individuals and companies that committed felony fraud) with tax money because the banking system will collapse otherwise amounts to extortion: "Nice economy you've got there - it's be a shame if something happened to it..."
Fraud:
Basically lying, cheating and stealing.
These things are crimes just like rape, murder and arson are crimes and should be prosecuted no matter who commits them. Placing certain individuals above the law because of their importance in a political or economic sense is always worse than the alternative.
The country is burning anyway and the bailouts are pouring gaoline on the fire.
The idea that an individual person, municipality, state or nation can run a deficit forever is INSANE. This insanity will end, but we lost the chance to end it the "easy" way. It now appears that it will end the hard way by our government simply borrowing more and more until the world is unwilling ot unable to loan them any more.