You really need to specify Yahweh, Vishnu, Allah, etc.
Allah is the Arabic word for God. It's identical in terms of it being both the generic word and carrying a more specific meaning when capitalized. They also both refer to the same 'god', that of Abraham, which is Yahweh.
Just because I got pulled over doesn't mean I broke the speed limit. I may go to the court date and challenge the ticket, and I can bring up that I have a clean driving record for over 10 years as evidence that I did not speed.
But then, the cop shows that I have all these YouTube Videos of myself drag racing and bragging about breaking the speed limit and never getting a ticket... well then I'm probably not getting off.
So intent and character can be relevant. If the EO intends to subvert the First Amendment, then that is relevant.
Also, the Constitutional is subjective. The Founders knew that, which is why they gave the Supreme Court the job of telling us what it means. If it was objective then there would be no reason to debate it's meaning in court, as has been done perpetually since ratification. Even while the people who the Constitution were still alive, its meaning was already being debated.
I don't know actually. I could see the Supreme Court considering Trump's intentions and using that to color how the EO is read. I don't think the 2 issues can be separated entirely. Ultimately, it will come down to how the Court weighs these various things against each other.
They didn't reject that basis. They specifically put that consideration aside for this ruling, but said they would consider the religious discrimination argument in October.
They will not just rule on "how it is written". They will also rule on "how it is implemented".
If they rule that the EO "as written" is constitutional, then the question will become was the EO executed in such a way that agrees with "how it was written".
This decision set aside the question of whether the ban constitutes religious discrimination, which they will consider in October.
I think what the Supreme Court is saying is that the President has the power to impose such a ban, assuming that it is not otherwise unconstitutional. Then in a few months they will consider whether this particular ban is constitutional or not.
If they do end up striking down Trump's ban, they don't want it to set a general precedent restricting the constitutional powers of the President.
I took statistics in college and one thing they teach is that not everything has to line up to show a trend.
Except that this point does fit the trend. Does it really not make sense to you that higher temperatures would make the ice break up into smaller pieces and become mobile? Have you ever seen a lake melt in the spring? It doesn't just melt down into a single little ice cube and vanish; it begins to crack and break up into pieces long before the ice completely melts.
You should never trust closed-source encryption anyway, as it won't have been vetted as well or by as many people. The algorithm doesn't have to be secret for encryption to be secure.
You are forcing people to adhere to your definition of freedom. You assert that more government = less freedom in all cases, but not everyone agrees with that premise. You say you would "offer" freedom to those who want it, but what you are really offering is anarchy.
While a system of anarchy may start off with everyone "equal", that equality will quickly evaporate as control of resources is seized by those who have more power. These imbalances of power can't be prevented as they can occur naturally due to something as simple as geography. I can't be free if I can't access fresh water, all I am free to do is die of dehydration.
That is quite distinct from utopians or idealists like myself who are trying to achieve a philosophical principle rather than some form of narrow self interest.
Said every dictator ever. Are you the only person in the history of humankind who cannot be corrupted by power?
Actually in terms of self-interest I would probably be better off with a fully socialist government than a Libertarian one.
Not sure I understand. I thought the whole point of Libertarianism was that everyone acting in their own best interest achieves the best result overall? Now you're saying that in order to achieve what you consider to be the best result overall, you have to act against your own interests?
They are the same process but surely threads can have their own memory too? Which isn't accessible by other threads?
There is no hard restriction on memory access between threads running in the same process. If you want to prevent memory by being accessed by other threads, you simply don't have them access that memory. The only time you need to implement a lock or semaphore is if multiple threads have access to the memory but only one at a time, and generally this isn't necessary unless multiple threads are actually writing to the location, rather than simply reading from it.
Coming up with excuses as to why you lost is not the same as not accepting the results. I'm not saying she "accepted" the results in an emotional way (who cares?), but in a legal and political way: she did not contest the results of the election and conceded defeat to Trump.
Actually the polls were more accurate than they were in 2012. The analysis of the polls was what was wrong.
First of all, the election was much closer than 2012, so it was well within the possibility that a normal polling error could change the result. This amplifies the "mistake" in people's minds. In 2012 the polls were less accurate, but the errors favored Obama, who won anyway, so no one cares ("The polls said he would win, and he did.").
Again, you could say their model was "wrong" because it gave the person who didn't win a higher chance, but that's not how probabilities work. If you flip heads twice in a row you don't then say "well clearly then it can't be a 50/50 chance". The 30% was probably about right: it's an upset, but not a huge one, if Trump wins.
In classic conspiracy theory fashion, those involved have to be simultaneously the smartest and stupidest people in the world.
The Democrats got 3 million illegal votes on the books, but none of them showed up in the states where 70,000 votes (IIRC) could have made the difference.
As I recall, the Clinton Campaign and the Obama administration were acting all huffy about Trump refusing to accept the election results in advance (remember that?). Remember all the assurances that it would be a fair election then?
You are equating 2 different issues.
The first is then-candidate Trump's claim that if he lost the election it was because it was rigged. He wasn't talking about foreign interference, but that the normal election process was corrupted somehow. He still claims this is the case, by the way. He honestly believes to this day that he won the popular vote.
The second issue is Russia at least attempting to interfere in the election. This has nothing to do with the results of the election. Clinton accepted the results with no issue. But just because the Russian's were unsuccessful doesn't mean we should all just shrug and pretend everything is OK.
Slashdot Mirror
This is because you view health care as a product and not as a human right.
You really need to specify Yahweh, Vishnu, Allah, etc.
Allah is the Arabic word for God. It's identical in terms of it being both the generic word and carrying a more specific meaning when capitalized. They also both refer to the same 'god', that of Abraham, which is Yahweh.
Just because I got pulled over doesn't mean I broke the speed limit. I may go to the court date and challenge the ticket, and I can bring up that I have a clean driving record for over 10 years as evidence that I did not speed.
But then, the cop shows that I have all these YouTube Videos of myself drag racing and bragging about breaking the speed limit and never getting a ticket... well then I'm probably not getting off.
So intent and character can be relevant. If the EO intends to subvert the First Amendment, then that is relevant.
Also, the Constitutional is subjective. The Founders knew that, which is why they gave the Supreme Court the job of telling us what it means. If it was objective then there would be no reason to debate it's meaning in court, as has been done perpetually since ratification. Even while the people who the Constitution were still alive, its meaning was already being debated.
I don't know actually. I could see the Supreme Court considering Trump's intentions and using that to color how the EO is read. I don't think the 2 issues can be separated entirely. Ultimately, it will come down to how the Court weighs these various things against each other.
They didn't reject that basis. They specifically put that consideration aside for this ruling, but said they would consider the religious discrimination argument in October.
They will not just rule on "how it is written". They will also rule on "how it is implemented".
If they rule that the EO "as written" is constitutional, then the question will become was the EO executed in such a way that agrees with "how it was written".
I feel like Dr. Evil with all the "air quotes".
This decision set aside the question of whether the ban constitutes religious discrimination, which they will consider in October.
I think what the Supreme Court is saying is that the President has the power to impose such a ban, assuming that it is not otherwise unconstitutional. Then in a few months they will consider whether this particular ban is constitutional or not.
If they do end up striking down Trump's ban, they don't want it to set a general precedent restricting the constitutional powers of the President.
That is my understanding at least.
Really, because I thought the greatest superpower the world has ever seen was a nation of immigrants.
Surprising number of German innovations become available to American businessmen, even before German researchers fully publish their results.
Never heard of this before, although I wouldn't be surprised either way. Any notable examples?
I turned 12 in Y2K, and I don't think it's OK to physically assault someone just because when you called them you heard music.
Aren't us millenials supposed to be the immature, naive, sensitive snowflakes who are entitled? Maybe set a better example.
The ice becoming more mobile to the point of becoming a hazard to navigation was something I've never seen predicted before.
Well maybe you never saw it, but...
I took statistics in college and one thing they teach is that not everything has to line up to show a trend.
Except that this point does fit the trend. Does it really not make sense to you that higher temperatures would make the ice break up into smaller pieces and become mobile? Have you ever seen a lake melt in the spring? It doesn't just melt down into a single little ice cube and vanish; it begins to crack and break up into pieces long before the ice completely melts.
You should never trust closed-source encryption anyway, as it won't have been vetted as well or by as many people. The algorithm doesn't have to be secret for encryption to be secure.
Yet aircraft almost never collide above even the busiest airports.
But isn't that exactly because they maintain minimum distances between aircraft?
Konami doesn't care about making video games. They care about making Pachinko machines.
You are forcing people to adhere to your definition of freedom. You assert that more government = less freedom in all cases, but not everyone agrees with that premise. You say you would "offer" freedom to those who want it, but what you are really offering is anarchy.
While a system of anarchy may start off with everyone "equal", that equality will quickly evaporate as control of resources is seized by those who have more power. These imbalances of power can't be prevented as they can occur naturally due to something as simple as geography. I can't be free if I can't access fresh water, all I am free to do is die of dehydration.
That is quite distinct from utopians or idealists like myself who are trying to achieve a philosophical principle rather than some form of narrow self interest.
Said every dictator ever. Are you the only person in the history of humankind who cannot be corrupted by power?
Actually in terms of self-interest I would probably be better off with a fully socialist government than a Libertarian one.
Not sure I understand. I thought the whole point of Libertarianism was that everyone acting in their own best interest achieves the best result overall? Now you're saying that in order to achieve what you consider to be the best result overall, you have to act against your own interests?
They are the same process but surely threads can have their own memory too? Which isn't accessible by other threads?
There is no hard restriction on memory access between threads running in the same process. If you want to prevent memory by being accessed by other threads, you simply don't have them access that memory. The only time you need to implement a lock or semaphore is if multiple threads have access to the memory but only one at a time, and generally this isn't necessary unless multiple threads are actually writing to the location, rather than simply reading from it.
people are cunts and will always try to seize power when they can
You mean just like you said you would do given the chance?
The effect of the 'shy' Trump voter is debatable.
Coming up with excuses as to why you lost is not the same as not accepting the results. I'm not saying she "accepted" the results in an emotional way (who cares?), but in a legal and political way: she did not contest the results of the election and conceded defeat to Trump.
Actually the polls were more accurate than they were in 2012. The analysis of the polls was what was wrong.
First of all, the election was much closer than 2012, so it was well within the possibility that a normal polling error could change the result. This amplifies the "mistake" in people's minds. In 2012 the polls were less accurate, but the errors favored Obama, who won anyway, so no one cares ("The polls said he would win, and he did.").
FiveThirtyEight was getting a lot of flack for giving Trump a 30% chance while some models had him at less than a 1% chance to win.
Again, you could say their model was "wrong" because it gave the person who didn't win a higher chance, but that's not how probabilities work. If you flip heads twice in a row you don't then say "well clearly then it can't be a 50/50 chance". The 30% was probably about right: it's an upset, but not a huge one, if Trump wins.
I care about human rights a lot, but I would totally violate everyone else's to ensure I got what I wanted. Just like the Founding Father's intended.
In classic conspiracy theory fashion, those involved have to be simultaneously the smartest and stupidest people in the world.
The Democrats got 3 million illegal votes on the books, but none of them showed up in the states where 70,000 votes (IIRC) could have made the difference.
As I recall, the Clinton Campaign and the Obama administration were acting all huffy about Trump refusing to accept the election results in advance (remember that?). Remember all the assurances that it would be a fair election then?
You are equating 2 different issues.
The first is then-candidate Trump's claim that if he lost the election it was because it was rigged. He wasn't talking about foreign interference, but that the normal election process was corrupted somehow. He still claims this is the case, by the way. He honestly believes to this day that he won the popular vote.
The second issue is Russia at least attempting to interfere in the election. This has nothing to do with the results of the election. Clinton accepted the results with no issue. But just because the Russian's were unsuccessful doesn't mean we should all just shrug and pretend everything is OK.
In this case, that's what happened.
the peaceful protesters didn't even try to stop the rioters
And how exactly would they do that?