"We admit that, in many places and in ordinary times, the defendants, in saying all that was said in the circular, would have been within their constitutional rights. But the character of every act depends upon the circumstances in which it is done. Aikens v. Wisconsin, 195 U.S. 194, 205, 206. The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic. It does not even protect a man from an injunction against uttering words that may have all the effect of force. Gompers v. Bucks Stove & Range Co., 221 U.S. 418, 439. The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent. It is a question of proximity and degree."
This, combined with the fact that the ruling banned the pamphlet, i.e. restricted free speech, would seem to belie what you're saying.
You have laid out a grand series of assertions, with absolutely nothing to back them up. And then say that, if we don't simply believe what you say, then we are hopelessly stupid sheep fattened by the feces of propaganda. My friend, you are bizarre.
No, he tried to apply a blanket restoration in contravention of the Virginia Constitution. The Virginia Supreme Court ruled that he could not do such a thing, but had to rely instead on performing individual restoration of rights as the Governor is permitted to do. So, the roughly 200,000 people whose voting rights were unconstitutionally restored had their voting rights revoked. Since that ruling and revocation, the Governor individually restored the voting rights of more than 60,000 in accordance with his powers under the Virginia Constitution.
Yes, well twitter completely controls their service, so they are in a position to say definitively that they would not provide support for such a thing.
:
Microsoft, on the other hand, sells product in a myriad of stores around the world. Even if they do not support such a thing, if they reply "NO", all it takes is one gomer in a staples store selling a windows notebook to a fed for "people" to start screaming about how Microsoft "lied" and really does "support" the evil deed.
"All this was inspired by the principle—which is quite true within itself—that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying."
Though historically much of what comes from a major news outlet wasn't fake, completely and demonstrably false.
Indeed. It seems to me, in the past, each side of an issue would spin a common set of facts to their respective advantage. The difference today is that one side, the other, or both, find it much easier to simply create their own facts. And I'm not inclined to place all the "blame" on uneducated people believing the bullshit because regardless of the point of view there will certainly be myriad web sites, blogs and other sources on the internet that can be turned to for "corroboration". I think if people don't "fact-check", it's because they don't know who to believe. No matter who you look to, there will always be someone who claims they're "biased".
What about the story is bullshit? I might agree that the title is over-the-top and if all you do is scan the first 15 characters of story titles, then you might have a point. But deliberately misrepresenting the title in order to excoriate CNN is part of the problem.
"A hate crime is a traditional offense like murder, arson, or vandalism with an added element of bias. For the purposes of collecting statistics, the FBI has defined a hate crime as a “criminal offense against a person or property motivated in whole or in part by an offender’s bias against a race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, ethnicity, gender, or gender identity.” Hate itself is not a crime—and the FBI is mindful of protecting freedom of speech and other civil liberties."
Does that mean a baker doesn't have to bake a cake for a gay couple? They are both private companies, yet one gets to decide who uses their service based on political ideology.
No. The bakery is a 'public accommodation' and, as such, has to abide by things like the Civil Rights Act. Apparently, (IDK), Oregon extends these federal protections to LGBT people.
Are platforms of speech critical to political discourse in the country and should they be protected?
I personally believe so and, if twitter were the only internet platform for disseminating (political) speech, then they should be compelled to restore the accounts they've suspended. But they're not the only platform, so...
You know how I know your lying? Liberals don't believe in the second amendment.
Well, I'm a liberal and I absolutely believe in the Second Amendment. In fact, I'm to the right of the NRA. And there are other issues for which I'm to the left of socialists.
Indeed. And just before the sentences you quote, Jefferson wrote:
"The people can not be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty."
So for those complaining about the left, (or the right), protesting the results of the election, fuck off.
From the conclusion at the end of the linked excerpt from the Federal Register:
The Special Conditions
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of
the type certification basis for the Boeing Model 787-8 airplane.
The design shall prevent all inadvertent or malicious changes
to, and all adverse impacts upon, all systems, networks, hardware,
software, and data in the Aircraft Control Domain and in the Airline
Information Domain from all points within the Passenger Information
and Entertainment Domain.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on December 21, 2007.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. E7-25467 Filed 12-31-07; 8:45 am]
No, we can't. We have no such capability. ... The only way you're going to stomp ISIS into the ground is to level Sunni cities, and kill ALL the people living in them. The west is not willing to do that.
The ability to accomplish a task has nothing to do with a willingness to accomplish a task.
And not just that; there are many things about homelessness that hinder efforts to find work. In the end, there has to be some level of empathy for people. Without it there's little hope for the understanding that leads to proper solutions.
Probably had something to do with a requirement that in return for a FREE PLACE TO LIVE, they had to actually look for work, or attend job training.
Right. And that's a problem. Try providing something for less fortunate people without strings. You know, providing for the sake of providing, because it's the RightThing(tm) to do, rather than as an effort to force your will on powerless people. What no one wants is the leash around their neck.
While I agree in principle that someone should be responsible for what they post, I agree much more strongly with the notion that, if you don't want nude pictures of yourself distributed across the net, then don't fucking take nude pictures of yourself. And certainly don't act the butt-hurt "victim" when they get loose.
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.
While the Constitution did not explicitly "allow" slavery, it did implicitly recognize it's existence (the 3/5ths clause) and it could be argued thereby tacitly allowed it. With the 13th Amendment slavery was abolished.
Slashdot Mirror
If you're looking for someone children can look up to, he's it.
Absolutely. Someone that anyone can look up to. I hope I'm wrong, but it doesn't seem that we are able to make people like that anymore.
Thanks for correcting me. I thought you were referring to Schenk. My mistake.
AA 191 at O'Hare. Also, TACA 110; a 737 that lost both motors and landed on a levee at NOLA.
Ok, well to quote the opinion:
"We admit that, in many places and in ordinary times, the defendants, in saying all that was said in the circular, would have been within their constitutional rights. But the character of every act depends upon the circumstances in which it is done. Aikens v. Wisconsin, 195 U.S. 194, 205, 206. The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic. It does not even protect a man from an injunction against uttering words that may have all the effect of force. Gompers v. Bucks Stove & Range Co., 221 U.S. 418, 439. The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent. It is a question of proximity and degree."
This, combined with the fact that the ruling banned the pamphlet, i.e. restricted free speech, would seem to belie what you're saying.
You have laid out a grand series of assertions, with absolutely nothing to back them up. And then say that, if we don't simply believe what you say, then we are hopelessly stupid sheep fattened by the feces of propaganda. My friend, you are bizarre.
No, he tried to apply a blanket restoration in contravention of the Virginia Constitution. The Virginia Supreme Court ruled that he could not do such a thing, but had to rely instead on performing individual restoration of rights as the Governor is permitted to do. So, the roughly 200,000 people whose voting rights were unconstitutionally restored had their voting rights revoked. Since that ruling and revocation, the Governor individually restored the voting rights of more than 60,000 in accordance with his powers under the Virginia Constitution.
I think there's no point in trying to rationalize with "absolute zero".
:
Microsoft, on the other hand, sells product in a myriad of stores around the world. Even if they do not support such a thing, if they reply "NO", all it takes is one gomer in a staples store selling a windows notebook to a fed for "people" to start screaming about how Microsoft "lied" and really does "support" the evil deed.
Are you sure that's not a fake story about a fake investigation by the Anti-Socrates movement?
Indeed, but perhaps it's simpler than that:
"All this was inspired by the principle—which is quite true within itself—that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying."
President Kennedy was screwing more women than Bill Clinton could dream of
Bullshit. Of course, all the references are either MSM or government, so I'm sure they'll be rejected out of hand as being in the bag for JFK.
Though historically much of what comes from a major news outlet wasn't fake, completely and demonstrably false.
Indeed. It seems to me, in the past, each side of an issue would spin a common set of facts to their respective advantage. The difference today is that one side, the other, or both, find it much easier to simply create their own facts. And I'm not inclined to place all the "blame" on uneducated people believing the bullshit because regardless of the point of view there will certainly be myriad web sites, blogs and other sources on the internet that can be turned to for "corroboration". I think if people don't "fact-check", it's because they don't know who to believe. No matter who you look to, there will always be someone who claims they're "biased".
This single story sums up CNN: Math is racist. [cnn.com]
So, first, you're misrepresenting the title, which is: Math is racist: How data is driving inequality
What about the story is bullshit? I might agree that the title is over-the-top and if all you do is scan the first 15 characters of story titles, then you might have a point. But deliberately misrepresenting the title in order to excoriate CNN is part of the problem.
Hating an individual is not a hate crime ...
According to the FBI, a hate crime is:
"A hate crime is a traditional offense like murder, arson, or vandalism with an added element of bias. For the purposes of collecting statistics, the FBI has defined a hate crime as a “criminal offense against a person or property motivated in whole or in part by an offender’s bias against a race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, ethnicity, gender, or gender identity.” Hate itself is not a crime—and the FBI is mindful of protecting freedom of speech and other civil liberties."
Does that mean a baker doesn't have to bake a cake for a gay couple? They are both private companies, yet one gets to decide who uses their service based on political ideology.
No. The bakery is a 'public accommodation' and, as such, has to abide by things like the Civil Rights Act. Apparently, (IDK), Oregon extends these federal protections to LGBT people.
Are platforms of speech critical to political discourse in the country and should they be protected?
I personally believe so and, if twitter were the only internet platform for disseminating (political) speech, then they should be compelled to restore the accounts they've suspended. But they're not the only platform, so...
You know how I know your lying? Liberals don't believe in the second amendment.
Well, I'm a liberal and I absolutely believe in the Second Amendment. In fact, I'm to the right of the NRA. And there are other issues for which I'm to the left of socialists.
Indeed. And just before the sentences you quote, Jefferson wrote:
"The people can not be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty."
So for those complaining about the left, (or the right), protesting the results of the election, fuck off.
From the conclusion at the end of the linked excerpt from the Federal Register:
The Special Conditions
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of the type certification basis for the Boeing Model 787-8 airplane.
The design shall prevent all inadvertent or malicious changes to, and all adverse impacts upon, all systems, networks, hardware, software, and data in the Aircraft Control Domain and in the Airline Information Domain from all points within the Passenger Information and Entertainment Domain.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on December 21, 2007. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. E7-25467 Filed 12-31-07; 8:45 am]
No, we can't. We have no such capability.
...
The only way you're going to stomp ISIS into the ground is to level Sunni cities, and kill ALL the people living in them. The west is not willing to do that.
The ability to accomplish a task has nothing to do with a willingness to accomplish a task.
So in a few hundred years we will be back to the same point again.
exactly.
"The hand of Vengeance found the bed
To which the Purple Tyrant fled;
The iron hand crush'd the Tyrant's head
And became a Tyrant in his stead."
thanks to wm. blake.
And not just that; there are many things about homelessness that hinder efforts to find work. In the end, there has to be some level of empathy for people. Without it there's little hope for the understanding that leads to proper solutions.
Probably had something to do with a requirement that in return for a FREE PLACE TO LIVE, they had to actually look for work, or attend job training.
Right. And that's a problem. Try providing something for less fortunate people without strings. You know, providing for the sake of providing, because it's the RightThing(tm) to do, rather than as an effort to force your will on powerless people. What no one wants is the leash around their neck.
While I agree in principle that someone should be responsible for what they post, I agree much more strongly with the notion that, if you don't want nude pictures of yourself distributed across the net, then don't fucking take nude pictures of yourself. And certainly don't act the butt-hurt "victim" when they get loose.
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.
While the Constitution did not explicitly "allow" slavery, it did implicitly recognize it's existence (the 3/5ths clause) and it could be argued thereby tacitly allowed it. With the 13th Amendment slavery was abolished.
I see nothing that suggests this software was "intended for nefarious purposes". going to their website, all I see are descriptions of legitimate use.