I noticed it is nighttime in the US. If you were to go outside and look at the sky, you would see things that are millions of miles away. You can't see them at night. You'd also see about 100 times as many planes as you can see during the day. In a few hours, you'll be able to see the International Space Station.
You may have noticed in the summary they are required to be clearly visible from at least 3 miles, minimum. During the day, my drone is visible out to about 300-400 meters, or 0.25 miles max. So at minimum it's required to be visible at 12 times the distance it's visible during the day.
If you're not sure I'm right, go get yourself a milk jug or something and try looking at it from a mile away. Then at night glance around and notice you can clearly see the lights on the antenna tower 10 miles away. My friends and I discovered a Bic lighter is visible at almost a mile at night. We used that to show our position while camping in the mountains.
VW shouldn't even bother adding this $800 billion factory. In a couple of years Tesla will be the only car company that matters.
Tesla is producing over 0.1% percent of the all automobiles today. Within three years, Tesla may hit 0.2% market share. VW shouldn't even try to compete, with their measly 8%.
Let me restate my point in a slightly different way. Sure writing "I don't agree" will give you an argument you can make. You might think it's a bulletproof argument, but the judge may disagree.
How do I know that the judge may disagree? It's somewhat likely I'll run for election as a judge. So I could be the judge in your case. Depending on the circumstances, I might rule against you. Therefore, I know that the judge *might* not be persuaded by your argument.
You can sign a credit card receipt "Kermit Frog" - they never check, but you still have to pay for your food if you order it and eat it. The payment is in exchange for the food, the signature is just *evidence* of a transaction that already exists.
In law, an agreement isn't enforceable based on a signature, but rather based on "consideration" - each side gets something from the other. The non-compete is something you give them, their side is giving you a paycheck. The paper just provides evidence that you got a copy of the policy that you have to follow *in exchange for a paycheck*. If you make any mark on the paper copy of the policy, that's evidence you got it.
If you don't sign *and you don't accept a paycheck from them*, there is no enforceable agreement (contract) and you're covered. If you take the paycheck the company has done their part, a judge may very well expect you to do your part.
Not signing, or writing "I don't agree", may put you in a *slightly* stronger position than if you sign, but don't think it means you can do whatever you want and there's no way anyone can do anything to you.
Yeah it took some layers of approvals for me. A while back I started looking at want ads for jobs I'd like to qualify for in a few years. I made tick marks for the keywords that often appeared in ads for jobs I wanted, mainly at companies I wanted to work for. After gaining exactly the skills and credentials that employers were asking for, I was worth the hassle to them.
I had changes made to my non-compete clause when I was hired at my current job.
It said I couldn't work for or own another security company *while* working for my new employer. It just so happens that the company I worked for two companies prior, I still owned. I hadn't worked for the company in years, but I still owned it. We struck the ownership clause and put in a clause limiting my involvement in the old company to an advisory role.
The point of this being, it is a negotiation. Read the clauses and if something needs to be adjusted, perhaps be made more specific, bring it up and maybe propose some new wording. The company has a legitimate interest in you not taking their proprietary technology directly to their closest direct competitor, and you have a legitimate interest in being able to work in your field. Find some wording that protects both. Ideally, you can think about what kind of company you want to be working for in 5-10 years and what kind of worknyou want to be doing. You can keep that in mind while adjusting the contract as needed.
Their are several significant security issues around Ethereum. Basically, Ethereum isn't just a coin, it's a complete programming language. Ethereum is a vast collection not of coins, but of programs. You can write malware, or oopsware, in Ethereum.
One of the most interesting things about code released on Ethereum is that you can't update it. Any bug you have, you're stuck with forever. People have lost a lot of money that way, suffered damage. So it's important to make sure your Ethereum code is 100% perfect, and avoid to code that makes any assumptions about the future. DNS entries change, companies are bought and sold - even entire countries come and go, with a new country emerging about every three years, on average. There are lots of ways to have code that needs to be updated. Ethereum code, since it can't be updated, can't assume that a country that exists today will still be there when the code runs.
The advertiser in TFS is a security company that helps people make sure their Ethereum code is bullet proof. That's a useful service.
First, try getting a new class B in minutes. Or years. You can get a new class B in - roughly never, plus or minus a bit.
Then, notice the attacker can update the range much, much faster than the targets can update all of their IPs. The attack would be switched over to the new block even before all the target equipment is switched over.
If you're "pretty sure" of that, you don't know anything about the case and you're just "pretty sure" of whatever you imagine, for no reason whatsoever.
He attacked the class B network, 65,536 IP addresses, serving the hospital district, knocking not only that hospital, but other hospitals offline. His attack lasted two weeks.
You know the medical district he attacked uses networking for more than just their web page, don't you?
He attacked the class B network, 65,536 IP addresses, serving the hospital district, knocking not only that hospital, but other hospitals offline. His attack lasted two weeks. Doctors do use the internet, you know - they don't keep all the world's medical knowledge in their head.
Why the heck are you pretending his crime has anything to do with a web page? He attacked the class B network, 65,536 IP addresses, serving the hospital district, knocking not only that hospital, but other hospitals offline. His attack lasted two weeks. Doctors do use the internet, you know - they don't keep all the world's medical knowledge in their head.
What they do is often called "science demonstrations". I might want to teach my kid something about science, so I drop two balls from height - a big heavy one and a little ligjt one. I'm showing that they fall at the same rate. I *know* the principle I'm demonstrating. It's not something I thought up, it's well-known basic science.
If the balls don't drop at the same rate, I know that I messed up the demonstration in some way and I should admit that. (And yes there are a couple ways to screw up that demonstration).
I then have the option of doing a "revisit" and trying not figure out what caused the unexpected results.
> According to wikipedia, you people had a field of 17 major candidates in your primaries. > Did you select any of the reasonable candidates?
That's right, there were at least a dozen traditional Republican candidates, this big group of "reasonable candidates" (per Republican criteria for reasonable) including Kasich, Cruz, Marco Rubio, etc. And then there was this weirdo, Trump, who stuck out like a store thumb. There was Trump vs "everybody else", and the whole #nevertrump. The fact that he stuck out as clearly different from the dozen or so normal Republican candidates demonstrates something right there.
You asked "Did you select any of the reasonable candidates? " - well yes, I did, most Republicans did. Most of us favored either Kasich, Cruze, or Rubio, with many supporting other choices such as Jindal. Generally, anyone who chose Cruze would have been okay or Rubio and vice versa, they were similar enough. Kasich had pretty similar policy proposals, so most Republicans would have been fine with him. Then there was Trump, who was well outside the norm. To put it simply, the votes for "reasonable" were split many different ways, while the 30% who wanted weird all chose Trump. Which is sad.
I have a hard time finding anything to like about the guy. By luck or whatever, so far the country is doing pretty well - maybe despite Trump, maybe he's a jackass who also happens to sign off on good policies. Anyway, I'm glad he hasn't done much damage. The economy is good shape, though worries about the partial shutdown and confronting China are a drag. The shutdown sucks because both Trump and the Democrats have dug in their heels with exact opposite positions; there doesn't seem to be much room for negotiation. Democrats could have gone back to the positions they advocated in 2014, which basically agree with Trump on border security (he basically wants to finish what Obama started), but currently they are saying they insist on going the opposite direction and won't budge.
> Prisons should only be for people that are physically dangerous. For everyone else, there are more constructive punishments.
I would say attacking the systems used to care for critically ill children is physically dangerous. I'm sure the doctors and nurses did their best to care for the kids despite the attacks; I'm also sure that they use computerized systems to improve the quality of care.
You mentioned parole. He can get time off for good behavior.
I don't necessarily have an opinion on what his sentence should be, and I don't know if that is controlled by what some other person got for some other crime. I don't know enough about the facts of the case, ornhis history. Sentencing decisions are also just plain very difficult. I do see this as physically dangerous, taking out the hospital's electronic systems reduces their ability to care for very sick children.
I also note that someone who has already attacked a children's hospital has demonstrated that they are able and willing to harm sick kids. I don't really want to give him a chance to see what he does next. I particularly don't want to trust him hanging out in the very hospitals he attacked, which he now has even more rage against since it's their fault he's sentenced to his prison (in his mind). I wouldn't want him anywhere near my kid if she were hospitalized.
Here's the basic Republican belief about law and how it differs from Democrat belief.
Republicans believe laws are things enforced by an armed government. They aren't suggestions, politicians and bureacrats don't get to follow them *when they feel like it*. North Korea has a government based on personality - whatever Kim Jong-un says and does is fine. Republicans traditionally don't want a government based on blindly following a personality, we want a government based on law.
Because laws are enforced (en-force), we should be wary of having too many of them. We don't want armed government agents arresting you for using a straw.
Democrats have a softer, more mushy view of law. Anything that seems like a good idea most of the time, they are happy to make a law requiring it. It's not like the law is actually enforced anyway. Obama doesn't get the immigration law he wants? That's okay, he can just do whatever he wants, because he's Obama. (Kinda like Jong-un can do whatever he wants because he's Jong-un Republicans would say).
So yes, we want know what the actual (enforced) law will be on any given day; we don't want bureacrats picking and choosing whatever they feel like doing that day. So we want the actual written law to be what is enforced, and because it's enforced by armed government agents, we want to avoid having more laws than necessary.
That includes the idea that a law which is needed in Florida and not needed in Alaska should be law in Florida, not in Alaska.
Someone is about to reply "but Trump...". Yes Trump is a jackass. At least half of what Trump advocates is the opposite of traditional Republican viewpoints. So saying "Republicans don't... because Trump doesn't" is a lot like saying "Democrats don't... because Elmo doesn't". Trump is in no way a traditional Republican, he's darn sure not a clean-cut family-values kinda guy, is he.
As I recall, Mythbusters did a test of the effect of sounds on plants. When their data surprisingly DID clearly show an effect, they reminded viewers that their experiment wasn't rigorously scientific, and the results could have been caused by some experimental error. It was pretty clear they were not expecting that result, and didn't quite believe it.
>> Private memory and slow interconnects based on message passing.
> To me, there's no clear indication that this is "the wrong model". That's basically a distributed actor architecture. We may still be forced to do just that one day.
We in fact do that today, private memory, slow interconnects, and pass messages. We just added more software than the old model amd re-arranged it some to work better. We call it virtualization and REST.
Remember an operating system is defined as the software layer that abstracts the hardware and manages multiple programs running on that hardware. Most of the OS, we now call the hypervisor - it abstracts the hardware and manages the multiple programs running. We added a bit of OS to each application and called it a VM.
Ps here is Obama's border chief talking for about four minutes about the change in rhetoric from the Democrat leadership. He points out that in 2014 the Democrat leadership was calling it a border crisis and saying we needed a wall. As you know, years later they did a 180.
I don't necessarily agree or disagree with either position. What I personally think wouldn't fit on a bumper sticker, or in a tweet. I do think it's worthwhile to know their positions.
Sorry about medium - it just so happens that Obama's border chief made those comments on that particular channel. We can just listen to him and ignore Cavuto.
I had to wake up two hours early today, so I'm headed to bed rather than spending much time on this, but here's the first hit on Google. Pelosi in 2013 voted for the following bill:
"Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary [of Homeland Security] shall establish.â.â. the 'Southern Border Fencing Strategy' to identify where 700 miles of fencing (including double-layer fencing).â.â. should be deployed along the Southern border.... The Secretary may not adjust the status of aliens who have been granted registered provisional immigrant status until 6 months after.â.â. [the Secretary submits] a written certification that.â.â. there is in place along the Southern Border no fewer than 700 miles of pedestrian fencing."
Pelosi stated at the time "every piece of this legislation has had bipartisan support".
> Let's say I'm a spaghetti sauce maker. I put peanut meal in as a filler but don't tell anyone. Someone with the peanut allergy dies. Oh dear.
*Selling* the product with deceptive labeling would be a violation of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (1938). That's an actual law, not something I thought up, but a law passed by lawmakers.
It would also be a tort, giving rise to civil liability. However I'm now saying:
It put peanut filler in my soup five minutes ago.
That's a lie. It is NOT a violation of any law, because lying isn't illegal. Selling something based on a lie is illegal. You might certainly WISH that lying were illegal, but that doesn't make it so, because you are not a senator.
That's what you don't seem to understand. Laws are actual written things. They are numbered. Federal laws have numbers of the form "number USC number". For example, the Federal Food and Drug act is 21 USC 9. The law isn't whatever you wish it was or think it could be.
> No one here will disagree that there's perjury by stating anything you've said.
Perjury is defined in 18 USC 1623. Perjury is:
A false statement Made under oath While the person knows it is false And the statement is material to the proceeding in which it is made.
The crime of perjury has an actual definition. Just like the crime of fraud has an actual, written definition. Your opinion of what the definition should be doesn't change the law. The law exists outside of your head, independent of your thoughts.
> I can't say that I represent 300million voters. I do not, and you don't either.
I represent 300 million voters.
Apparently, I CAN say that. I can also day: I'm a duck. You're a giraffe. The sky is green. Trump is a good President. Cars have one wheel. Wood doesn't burn. Clinton is honest. Poop is tasty. 1+1=5
I have no fear of being prosecuted for saying these things because by doing so I have NOT committed the crime of fraud. Criminal fraud is an unlawful taking. Not an untrue saying.
Freedom of speech means only that you can parrot Trump's version of the truth.
> Fraud and deception haven't ever been legal. To posit that an app is a human is fraudulent and deceitful.
The current government would probably say that most anything said that includes the words "Trump" and "Russia" is deceitful. You're still allowed to say it, even if the government disagrees with your statement. A "freedom of speech" which only allows one to say things that the government agrees are true is no freedom at all.
The crime of fraud is taking something from someone by means of deceit. You or I can post on Slashdot "I'm a expert at building boats". You can't be prosecuted for making that statement here on Slashdot. What would be illegal, what would be fraud, would be taking someone's money, agreeing to build a great boat for them, when I'm fact we've never built a boat and have no idea what we're doing.
Speaking is protected, saying the thing on Slashdot or whatever isn't fraud, it's free speech. Fraud is taking someone's money or other valuable thing, using deception to get it from them.
Suppose a law said "you may criticise Nancy Pelosi all you want; you just have to end your message with 'I'm an idiot Trumptard'".
That would of course violate the first amendment. Which demonstrates that requiring people to add additional words to a message can violate the first amendment. The first amendment means you can say "the orange moron in the White House doesn't know what he's doing" and not have to add anything more to that, in general. A law requiring you to add "and I have know idea what I'm talking about" wouldn't be valid.
Further, a blanket requirement to always sign messages with your real ID would tend to quell certain important speech. We want "sources in the administration" to be able to say that the President is being loony. We can easily a imagine a slightly more oppressive future US government taking action against those who speak out. So the ability to speak anonymously is tied to free speech. Not inextricably in all cases, but there is certainly a connection.
Having said all that, there are counter-balancing interests in some cases. False advertising, for example. We have the freedom to say what we want. Including things that don't match up with the government's official "truth". We don't have the freedom to sell fraudulent products via false and misleading speech. So different types of speech have different considerations, and sometimes there is a balancing act.
One that is interesting to me is political speech. We know that one of the major reasons for the first amendment is allow people to criticize government officials and government policies. So this should be an area where we err on the side of freedom. On the other hand, criticizing Trump (or Obama) in a way that would be effective often requires making many copies of a pamphlet, or hosting it on a web site, or something else that can reach a lot of people - and costs money. That's when we run head on into the "money in politics" issue.
Should it be legal to do what Michael Moore and his company do, make a movie criticizing a politician? That involves spending money! I suspect most people on Slashdot would say Michael Moore's movie Farenheit 911 was an exercise of his free speech rights. Most also seem to think that the response movie Celsius 41.1 is NOT within the First Amendment. Celsius 41.11 is the movie by Citizens United.
The famous court court case was when Citizens United appealed a decision that was ilegal to advertise their movie prior to the 2008 primaries because the movie was critical of Hillary Clinton.
It's an interesting issue. Obviously the freedom to criticize politicians and their policies is key to the first amendment. To have that criticism heard often requires spending ten cents to make a copy, thirty cents to mail it, or even $15 to rent a microphone. And of course pointing out bad decisions by politicians can influence an election. So criticizing politicians is money affecting elections.
Slashdot Mirror
That was funny. +1 for the humor.
I noticed it is nighttime in the US. If you were to go outside and look at the sky, you would see things that are millions of miles away. You can't see them at night. You'd also see about 100 times as many planes as you can see during the day. In a few hours, you'll be able to see the International Space Station.
You may have noticed in the summary they are required to be clearly visible from at least 3 miles, minimum. During the day, my drone is visible out to about 300-400 meters, or 0.25 miles max. So at minimum it's required to be visible at 12 times the distance it's visible during the day.
If you're not sure I'm right, go get yourself a milk jug or something and try looking at it from a mile away. Then at night glance around and notice you can clearly see the lights on the antenna tower 10 miles away. My friends and I discovered a Bic lighter is visible at almost a mile at night. We used that to show our position while camping in the mountains.
VW shouldn't even bother adding this $800 billion factory.
In a couple of years Tesla will be the only car company that matters.
Tesla is producing over 0.1% percent of the all automobiles today. Within three years, Tesla may hit 0.2% market share. VW shouldn't even try to compete, with their measly 8%.
Let me restate my point in a slightly different way.
Sure writing "I don't agree" will give you an argument you can make. You might think it's a bulletproof argument, but the judge may disagree.
How do I know that the judge may disagree?
It's somewhat likely I'll run for election as a judge.
So I could be the judge in your case. Depending on the circumstances, I might rule against you. Therefore, I know that the judge *might* not be persuaded by your argument.
You may not be entirely covered.
You can sign a credit card receipt "Kermit Frog" - they never check, but you still have to pay for your food if you order it and eat it. The payment is in exchange for the food, the signature is just *evidence* of a transaction that already exists.
In law, an agreement isn't enforceable based on a signature, but rather based on "consideration" - each side gets something from the other. The non-compete is something you give them, their side is giving you a paycheck. The paper just provides evidence that you got a copy of the policy that you have to follow *in exchange for a paycheck*. If you make any mark on the paper copy of the policy, that's evidence you got it.
If you don't sign *and you don't accept a paycheck from them*, there is no enforceable agreement (contract) and you're covered. If you take the paycheck the company has done their part, a judge may very well expect you to do your part.
Not signing, or writing "I don't agree", may put you in a *slightly* stronger position than if you sign, but don't think it means you can do whatever you want and there's no way anyone can do anything to you.
Given that mice and trackpads are the two major types of pointing devices, technically this isn't point-less.
Yeah it took some layers of approvals for me.
A while back I started looking at want ads for jobs I'd like to qualify for in a few years. I made tick marks for the keywords that often appeared in ads for jobs I wanted, mainly at companies I wanted to work for. After gaining exactly the skills and credentials that employers were asking for, I was worth the hassle to them.
I had changes made to my non-compete clause when I was hired at my current job.
It said I couldn't work for or own another security company *while* working for my new employer. It just so happens that the company I worked for two companies prior, I still owned. I hadn't worked for the company in years, but I still owned it. We struck the ownership clause and put in a clause limiting my involvement in the old company to an advisory role.
The point of this being, it is a negotiation. Read the clauses and if something needs to be adjusted, perhaps be made more specific, bring it up and maybe propose some new wording. The company has a legitimate interest in you not taking their proprietary technology directly to their closest direct competitor, and you have a legitimate interest in being able to work in your field. Find some wording that protects both. Ideally, you can think about what kind of company you want to be working for in 5-10 years and what kind of worknyou want to be doing. You can keep that in mind while adjusting the contract as needed.
Their are several significant security issues around Ethereum. Basically, Ethereum isn't just a coin, it's a complete programming language. Ethereum is a vast collection not of coins, but of programs. You can write malware, or oopsware, in Ethereum.
One of the most interesting things about code released on Ethereum is that you can't update it. Any bug you have, you're stuck with forever. People have lost a lot of money that way, suffered damage. So it's important to make sure your Ethereum code is 100% perfect, and avoid to code that makes any assumptions about the future. DNS entries change, companies are bought and sold - even entire countries come and go, with a new country emerging about every three years, on average. There are lots of ways to have code that needs to be updated. Ethereum code, since it can't be updated, can't assume that a country that exists today will still be there when the code runs.
The advertiser in TFS is a security company that helps people make sure their Ethereum code is bullet proof. That's a useful service.
First, try getting a new class B in minutes. Or years. You can get a new class B in - roughly never, plus or minus a bit.
Then, notice the attacker can update the range much, much faster than the targets can update all of their IPs. The attack would be switched over to the new block even before all the target equipment is switched over.
Cool story about your single IP, though.
If you're "pretty sure" of that, you don't know anything about the case and you're just "pretty sure" of whatever you imagine, for no reason whatsoever.
He attacked the class B network, 65,536 IP addresses, serving the hospital district, knocking not only that hospital, but other hospitals offline. His attack lasted two weeks.
You know the medical district he attacked uses networking for more than just their web page, don't you?
He attacked the class B network, 65,536 IP addresses, serving the hospital district, knocking not only that hospital, but other hospitals offline. His attack lasted two weeks. Doctors do use the internet, you know - they don't keep all the world's medical knowledge in their head.
Why the heck are you pretending his crime has anything to do with a web page? He attacked the class B network, 65,536 IP addresses, serving the hospital district, knocking not only that hospital, but other hospitals offline. His attack lasted two weeks. Doctors do use the internet, you know - they don't keep all the world's medical knowledge in their head.
What they do is often called "science demonstrations".
I might want to teach my kid something about science, so I drop two balls from height - a big heavy one and a little ligjt one. I'm showing that they fall at the same rate. I *know* the principle I'm demonstrating. It's not something I thought up, it's well-known basic science.
If the balls don't drop at the same rate, I know that I messed up the demonstration in some way and I should admit that. (And yes there are a couple ways to screw up that demonstration).
I then have the option of doing a "revisit" and trying not figure out what caused the unexpected results.
> According to wikipedia, you people had a field of 17 major candidates in your primaries.
> Did you select any of the reasonable candidates?
That's right, there were at least a dozen traditional Republican candidates, this big group of "reasonable candidates" (per Republican criteria for reasonable) including Kasich, Cruz, Marco Rubio, etc. And then there was this weirdo, Trump, who stuck out like a store thumb. There was Trump vs "everybody else", and the whole #nevertrump. The fact that he stuck out as clearly different from the dozen or so normal Republican candidates demonstrates something right there.
You asked "Did you select any of the reasonable candidates? " - well yes, I did, most Republicans did. Most of us favored either Kasich, Cruze, or Rubio, with many supporting other choices such as Jindal. Generally, anyone who chose Cruze would have been okay or Rubio and vice versa, they were similar enough. Kasich had pretty similar policy proposals, so most Republicans would have been fine with him. Then there was Trump, who was well outside the norm. To put it simply, the votes for "reasonable" were split many different ways, while the 30% who wanted weird all chose Trump. Which is sad.
I have a hard time finding anything to like about the guy. By luck or whatever, so far the country is doing pretty well - maybe despite Trump, maybe he's a jackass who also happens to sign off on good policies. Anyway, I'm glad he hasn't done much damage. The economy is good shape, though worries about the partial shutdown and confronting China are a drag. The shutdown sucks because both Trump and the Democrats have dug in their heels with exact opposite positions; there doesn't seem to be much room for negotiation. Democrats could have gone back to the positions they advocated in 2014, which basically agree with Trump on border security (he basically wants to finish what Obama started), but currently they are saying they insist on going the opposite direction and won't budge.
> Prisons should only be for people that are physically dangerous. For everyone else, there are more constructive punishments.
I would say attacking the systems used to care for critically ill children is physically dangerous. I'm sure the doctors and nurses did their best to care for the kids despite the attacks; I'm also sure that they use computerized systems to improve the quality of care.
You mentioned parole. He can get time off for good behavior.
I don't necessarily have an opinion on what his sentence should be, and I don't know if that is controlled by what some other person got for some other crime. I don't know enough about the facts of the case, ornhis history. Sentencing decisions are also just plain very difficult. I do see this as physically dangerous, taking out the hospital's electronic systems reduces their ability to care for very sick children.
I also note that someone who has already attacked a children's hospital has demonstrated that they are able and willing to harm sick kids. I don't really want to give him a chance to see what he does next. I particularly don't want to trust him hanging out in the very hospitals he attacked, which he now has even more rage against since it's their fault he's sentenced to his prison (in his mind). I wouldn't want him anywhere near my kid if she were hospitalized.
Here's the basic Republican belief about law and how it differs from Democrat belief.
Republicans believe laws are things enforced by an armed government. They aren't suggestions, politicians and bureacrats don't get to follow them *when they feel like it*. North Korea has a government based on personality - whatever Kim Jong-un says and does is fine. Republicans traditionally don't want a government based on blindly following a personality, we want a government based on law.
Because laws are enforced (en-force), we should be wary of having too many of them. We don't want armed government agents arresting you for using a straw.
Democrats have a softer, more mushy view of law. Anything that seems like a good idea most of the time, they are happy to make a law requiring it. It's not like the law is actually enforced anyway. Obama doesn't get the immigration law he wants? That's okay, he can just do whatever he wants, because he's Obama. (Kinda like Jong-un can do whatever he wants because he's Jong-un Republicans would say).
So yes, we want know what the actual (enforced) law will be on any given day; we don't want bureacrats picking and choosing whatever they feel like doing that day. So we want the actual written law to be what is enforced, and because it's enforced by armed government agents, we want to avoid having more laws than necessary.
That includes the idea that a law which is needed in Florida and not needed in Alaska should be law in Florida, not in Alaska.
Someone is about to reply "but Trump ...". Yes Trump is a jackass. At least half of what Trump advocates is the opposite of traditional Republican viewpoints. So saying "Republicans don't ... because Trump doesn't" is a lot like saying "Democrats don't ... because Elmo doesn't". Trump is in no way a traditional Republican, he's darn sure not a clean-cut family-values kinda guy, is he.
As I recall, Mythbusters did a test of the effect of sounds on plants. When their data surprisingly DID clearly show an effect, they reminded viewers that their experiment wasn't rigorously scientific, and the results could have been caused by some experimental error. It was pretty clear they were not expecting that result, and didn't quite believe it.
>> Private memory and slow interconnects based on message passing.
> To me, there's no clear indication that this is "the wrong model". That's basically a distributed actor architecture. We may still be forced to do just that one day.
We in fact do that today, private memory, slow interconnects, and pass messages. We just added more software than the old model amd re-arranged it some to work better. We call it virtualization and REST.
Remember an operating system is defined as the software layer that abstracts the hardware and manages multiple programs running on that hardware. Most of the OS, we now call the hypervisor - it abstracts the hardware and manages the multiple programs running. We added a bit of OS to each application and called it a VM.
Ps here is Obama's border chief talking for about four minutes about the change in rhetoric from the Democrat leadership. He points out that in 2014 the Democrat leadership was calling it a border crisis and saying we needed a wall. As you know, years later they did a 180.
I don't necessarily agree or disagree with either position. What I personally think wouldn't fit on a bumper sticker, or in a tweet. I do think it's worthwhile to know their positions.
https://insider.foxnews.com/20...
Sorry about medium - it just so happens that Obama's border chief made those comments on that particular channel. We can just listen to him and ignore Cavuto.
I had to wake up two hours early today, so I'm headed to bed rather than spending much time on this, but here's the first hit on Google. Pelosi in 2013 voted for the following bill:
"Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary [of Homeland Security] shall establish .â.â. the 'Southern Border Fencing Strategy' to identify where 700 miles of fencing (including double-layer fencing) .â.â. should be deployed along the Southern border. ... .â.â. [the Secretary submits] a written certification that .â.â. there is in place along the Southern Border no fewer than 700 miles of pedestrian fencing."
The Secretary may not adjust the status of aliens who have been granted registered provisional immigrant status until 6 months after
Pelosi stated at the time "every piece of this legislation has had bipartisan support".
Here's video of her saying that:
https://thehill.com/homenews/h...
That's just the first link that came up in my quick Google search. I'm sure there's much "juicier" quotes, but I'm headed to bed. Have a great night.
You're asking if I have evidence that Trump's actions in 2019 didn't cause Pelosi's actions in 2015?
I'm pretty sure you're smarter than that, so I must be misunderstanding your question.
> Let's say I'm a spaghetti sauce maker. I put peanut meal in as a filler but don't tell anyone. Someone with the peanut allergy dies. Oh dear.
*Selling* the product with deceptive labeling would be a violation of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (1938). That's an actual law, not something I thought up, but a law passed by lawmakers.
It would also be a tort, giving rise to civil liability. However I'm now saying:
It put peanut filler in my soup five minutes ago.
That's a lie. It is NOT a violation of any law, because lying isn't illegal. Selling something based on a lie is illegal. You might certainly WISH that lying were illegal, but that doesn't make it so, because you are not a senator.
That's what you don't seem to understand. Laws are actual written things. They are numbered. Federal laws have numbers of the form "number USC number". For example, the Federal Food and Drug act is 21 USC 9. The law isn't whatever you wish it was or think it could be.
> No one here will disagree that there's perjury by stating anything you've said.
Perjury is defined in 18 USC 1623. Perjury is:
A false statement
Made under oath
While the person knows it is false
And the statement is material to the proceeding in which it is made.
The crime of perjury has an actual definition. Just like the crime of fraud has an actual, written definition. Your opinion of what the definition should be doesn't change the law. The law exists outside of your head, independent of your thoughts.
> I can't say that I represent 300million voters. I do not, and you don't either.
I represent 300 million voters.
Apparently, I CAN say that. I can also day:
I'm a duck.
You're a giraffe.
The sky is green.
Trump is a good President.
Cars have one wheel.
Wood doesn't burn.
Clinton is honest.
Poop is tasty.
1+1=5
I have no fear of being prosecuted for saying these things because by doing so I have NOT committed the crime of fraud. Criminal fraud is an unlawful taking. Not an untrue saying.
Surely you wouldn't agree with this:
Freedom of speech means only that you can parrot Trump's version of the truth.
> Fraud and deception haven't ever been legal. To posit that an app is a human is fraudulent and deceitful.
The current government would probably say that most anything said that includes the words "Trump" and "Russia" is deceitful. You're still allowed to say it, even if the government disagrees with your statement. A "freedom of speech" which only allows one to say things that the government agrees are true is no freedom at all.
The crime of fraud is taking something from someone by means of deceit. You or I can post on Slashdot "I'm a expert at building boats". You can't be prosecuted for making that statement here on Slashdot. What would be illegal, what would be fraud, would be taking someone's money, agreeing to build a great boat for them, when I'm fact we've never built a boat and have no idea what we're doing.
Speaking is protected, saying the thing on Slashdot or whatever isn't fraud, it's free speech. Fraud is taking someone's money or other valuable thing, using deception to get it from them.
Suppose a law said "you may criticise Nancy Pelosi all you want; you just have to end your message with 'I'm an idiot Trumptard'".
That would of course violate the first amendment. Which demonstrates that requiring people to add additional words to a message can violate the first amendment. The first amendment means you can say "the orange moron in the White House doesn't know what he's doing" and not have to add anything more to that, in general. A law requiring you to add "and I have know idea what I'm talking about" wouldn't be valid.
Further, a blanket requirement to always sign messages with your real ID would tend to quell certain important speech. We want "sources in the administration" to be able to say that the President is being loony. We can easily a imagine a slightly more oppressive future US government taking action against those who speak out. So the ability to speak anonymously is tied to free speech. Not inextricably in all cases, but there is certainly a connection.
Having said all that, there are counter-balancing interests in some cases. False advertising, for example. We have the freedom to say what we want. Including things that don't match up with the government's official "truth". We don't have the freedom to sell fraudulent products via false and misleading speech. So different types of speech have different considerations, and sometimes there is a balancing act.
One that is interesting to me is political speech. We know that one of the major reasons for the first amendment is allow people to criticize government officials and government policies. So this should be an area where we err on the side of freedom. On the other hand, criticizing Trump (or Obama) in a way that would be effective often requires making many copies of a pamphlet, or hosting it on a web site, or something else that can reach a lot of people - and costs money. That's when we run head on into the "money in politics" issue.
Should it be legal to do what Michael Moore and his company do, make a movie criticizing a politician? That involves spending money! I suspect most people on Slashdot would say Michael Moore's movie Farenheit 911 was an exercise of his free speech rights. Most also seem to think that the response movie Celsius 41.1 is NOT within the First Amendment. Celsius 41.11 is the movie by Citizens United.
The famous court court case was when Citizens United appealed a decision that was ilegal to advertise their movie prior to the 2008 primaries because the movie was critical of Hillary Clinton.
It's an interesting issue. Obviously the freedom to criticize politicians and their policies is key to the first amendment. To have that criticism heard often requires spending ten cents to make a copy, thirty cents to mail it, or even $15 to rent a microphone. And of course pointing out bad decisions by politicians can influence an election. So criticizing politicians is money affecting elections.