Uh, no. We kicked enough ass at the Battle of Baltimore and the Battle of Plattsburgh to get the bastards to leave. The War of 1812 made the British take American sovereignty seriously, to end impressment of American sailors and illegal blockades against American shipping.
Hell, one ship from Baltimore was enough to keep the whole British shipping industry peeing its pants.
I know our Canadian friends like to pretend that they won because we didn't roll over them, but the point of the war was never to annex Canada. Canada was just the closest part of the UK to hit in a land war.
Wait. Are you actually, seriously, arguing that racism cannot exist in the U.S. because a handful of people in positions of authority are black? Are you really advancing that as an argument? Or am I missing some sort of subtle joke?
I'm saying you must have done something, not necessarily violently changing lanes every few seconds (as "swerving" might suggest), but *something* that he didn't like the look of.
Sure. Like being black. Or having the wrong bumper stickers on your car. Or driving by him while he's short on his traffic ticket quota this month.
You do not have to violate any laws to get pulled over.
They weren't stopping people without probable cause, it was a random checkpoint stopping people to collect data,
You contradict yourself. If they were stopping people at random, ipso facto they had no probable cause. A supposed goal "to collect data" is irrelevant to that point, and legally questionable.
The Authorization for Use of Military Force is pretty clear about who the US is at war with.
No, it's not. War is a state that exists between two sovereign nations or putative nations. It is not a state that exists between a nation and criminal gang.
Nobody seems to be confused about who the war was against during the "war against fascism" between 1939-1945, but the "war against terror" from 2001-2013 seems to "baffle" people
We were not at war with an abstract concept like "fascism" during WWII, we were at war with Germany, Japan, and Italy; when the governments of those nations signed surrender papers the state of war ended.
Conveniently, there is no government to surrender in the "war" (so-called) on terror. We get to always be at "war" with terror.
Those treaties allow al Qaida members to be held as enemy combatants and tried before military commissions if applicable.
Not quite. Accused members of the criminal organization Al Qaida are entitled to the same civilian trials as any other criminal defendants, unless they were captured on the battlefield while engaging in combat. In that case they are combatants and are either prisoners of war or unlawful combatants; they are entitled to the presumption of POW status until their status has been determined by "a competent tribunal". But the U.S. doesn't get to say "we know, we just *know* you're an Al Qaida member!"
Good. Grind it to a fine edge and cut these fraudulent mofos down. MOOCs in general are 90% scam, nothing more than taking the old idea of a correspondence course and adding the phrase "...on the inernet!", and this one specifically is clearly engaging in unethical behavior:
For example, in Week 4, the assignment was to complete this research study [link to a SurveyGizmo questionnaire about your gaming habits], which was not linked with any learning objectives in that week (at least in any way indicated to students). If you didn't complete the research study, you earned a zero for the assignment. There was no apparent way around it.
In my experience on one of the human subjects review boards at my university, I can tell you emphatically that this would not be considered an ethical course design choice in a real college classroom.
Was he unaware that using a threshold of 0.05 means a 20% probability that a finding is a chance result - by definition ?
A P-value of 0.05 means by definition that there is a 0.05, or 5%, or 1 in 20, probability that the result could be obtained by chance even though there's no actual relationship.
The imperial government of Japan bears full responsibility for the pacific war, no question about it.
How, exactly, did American ships end up in Hawaii again?
The Pacific war was a straight-up fight between two nasty expansionist colonial powers, the U.S. being slightly less nasty. If you want to trace it all the way to it's root, look to 1853 and Perry's black ships. Before that, Japan minded its own business, but faced with the American ultimatum it had the option of being colonized like India or China, or trying to beat the West at its own game. And it did pretty well at that for a few decades.
The idea that the U.S. was quietly minding its own business when suddenly, bam!, out of nowhere! Pearl Harbor! is self-serving mythology.
As someone who lives in a rural area and burns wood as a secondary heat source (oil is primary), I think this may be getting blown out of proportion.
An overblown story on a website with headlines like "How To Turn Your Home Into A Fortress!" and "Obama Ex-Bodyguard Says Scandals 'Worse Than People Know'"? An overblown story based on an editorial from the Washington Times? An overblown story that defends woodsmoke air pollution by saying it's not as bad as being in a car with a cigarette smoker? Impossible!
Seriously, this article screams "CRANK!". Actual fact: EPA tightens pollution regulations on new wood stoves. Crank interpretation: Obama wants people to freeze to death.
But today you are actually rewarded for being a socialist
How exactly, in this time of increasing economic inequality and concentration of wealth, is one rewarded for desiring an economic system where resources are controlled by the people who do productive work rather than a minority of state-backed capitalists?
Or do you, like more of my fellow Americans, just have no fscking idea what "socialist" means?
They are asking that their trademarked name be removed from the url and that their trademarked logo be removed from the site. That's entirely reasonable defense of their trademark
No. It is not. The logo, yes, the "trademarked name be removed from the url", no. A url is no different than any other mention of a name, and corporations don't get to use trademark law to stop people using their name to talk about them.
If sites like http://www.verizonsucksass.com/ and http://www.verizonfraud.com/ are ok -- Verizon tried unsuccessfuly to use trademark law to sqaush such domains -- https://fixubuntu.com/ is ok too.
Of course, Hollyweird isn't really into libertarian thought...
Starship Troopers, a novel set in a military dictatorship where only veterans have the right to vote, is "libertarian thought"?
I know that the American so-called "Libertarian Party" has twisted the term "libertarian" to the point where people thinks that capitalism is somehow compatible with libertarianism. But militarism too?
even if you're technically poor* you got access to a wealth of information and entertainment
In the long run a society can't substitute circuses for bread, a roof over your head, and decent medical care. Food and housing insecurity does more to prompt riots than not getting another season of whatever TV show is tops in ratings now.
You're assuming that the group is sane and competent and honest. When it comes to anti-pornography activists, evangelical fervor often overwhelms all other considerations as people fly off into a moral panic -- especially when children are involved. "OMG won't SOMEONE think of the CHILDREN!!1!"
Keys are not passwords. Keys are physical objects. Passwords are knowledge. Physical objects can be property. Knowledge can not. (The misnomer "intellectual property" not withstanding.)
It is standard practice for an employer to issue bits of its physical property to employees for the employee's use during the term of employment. They remain the employer's property, however, and therefore one the employer ends the loan of property it must be returned. An employer does not own an employee's mind, however.
If it was just a matter of "tell us the passwords that we forgot to have you tell us while you worked for us", this case would be bullshit. *But*, the court's finding is that Childs went far beyond that, modifying city-owned hardware and software in a manner outside the scope of his legitimate work. If Childs hadn't done that, there were password recovery methods and special admin ports that would have allowed the city to regain control of their network without him.
Boy, I guess they'd go ape shit over my mount I have in my car on the dash just below eyesight of the windows/windshield to set up my oldie but goodie 10" Xoom tablet which I watch things on on longer trips, or even stream movies from netflix over the verizon wireless.
As well they should. If you are not bullshiting us, then you are an grade-A asshole, a threat to other people on the road, and should no only have your license revoked, you should do time for criminal negligence.
How ludicrous that suggesting an end to global military occupation is now labeled "isolationist". There are many ways for nations to interact besides militarily.
If police search a house for guns and on entering find bags of drugs on the table next to wads of cash, you can be pretty sure they're leaving with the drugs and cash too, and they won't need a separate warrant to do so.
If something is in the "plain sight" of a cop who has a legitimate right to be somewhere, no, they don't need a warrant.
Someone with a warrant for guns has no legitimate right to be in your papers.
I very much doubt that a search warrant for guns prevents the police from taking files that very well might have to do with the purchase/maintenance/use of guns.
Yes, actually, it does. If a warrant says "search and seize guns", and you find something that's not a gun, you don't get to mess with it.
"[N]o Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." "Guns and whatever other stuff we find" is not a particular description.
And I very much doubt that they need to read every single file they confiscate before they confiscate it to guarantee its relevance (as that would take months in some cases).
Bullshit. A prima facie examination of a document is all that would be required.
Slashdot Mirror
Uh, no. We kicked enough ass at the Battle of Baltimore and the Battle of Plattsburgh to get the bastards to leave. The War of 1812 made the British take American sovereignty seriously, to end impressment of American sailors and illegal blockades against American shipping.
Hell, one ship from Baltimore was enough to keep the whole British shipping industry peeing its pants.
I know our Canadian friends like to pretend that they won because we didn't roll over them, but the point of the war was never to annex Canada. Canada was just the closest part of the UK to hit in a land war.
Wait. Are you actually, seriously, arguing that racism cannot exist in the U.S. because a handful of people in positions of authority are black? Are you really advancing that as an argument? Or am I missing some sort of subtle joke?
Sure. Like being black. Or having the wrong bumper stickers on your car. Or driving by him while he's short on his traffic ticket quota this month.
You do not have to violate any laws to get pulled over.
You contradict yourself. If they were stopping people at random, ipso facto they had no probable cause. A supposed goal "to collect data" is irrelevant to that point, and legally questionable.
There is still a significant amount of old scientific and numerical code out there built around Fortran. Good discussion here: http://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_FORTRAN_an_outdated_programming_language2
No, it's not. War is a state that exists between two sovereign nations or putative nations. It is not a state that exists between a nation and criminal gang.
We were not at war with an abstract concept like "fascism" during WWII, we were at war with Germany, Japan, and Italy; when the governments of those nations signed surrender papers the state of war ended.
Conveniently, there is no government to surrender in the "war" (so-called) on terror. We get to always be at "war" with terror.
Not quite. Accused members of the criminal organization Al Qaida are entitled to the same civilian trials as any other criminal defendants, unless they were captured on the battlefield while engaging in combat. In that case they are combatants and are either prisoners of war or unlawful combatants; they are entitled to the presumption of POW status until their status has been determined by "a competent tribunal". But the U.S. doesn't get to say "we know, we just *know* you're an Al Qaida member!"
Certainly not much harder than methamphetamine, which the black market has little problem supplying.
Good. Grind it to a fine edge and cut these fraudulent mofos down. MOOCs in general are 90% scam, nothing more than taking the old idea of a correspondence course and adding the phrase "...on the inernet!", and this one specifically is clearly engaging in unethical behavior:
A P-value of 0.05 means by definition that there is a 0.05, or 5%, or 1 in 20, probability that the result could be obtained by chance even though there's no actual relationship.
How, exactly, did American ships end up in Hawaii again?
The Pacific war was a straight-up fight between two nasty expansionist colonial powers, the U.S. being slightly less nasty. If you want to trace it all the way to it's root, look to 1853 and Perry's black ships. Before that, Japan minded its own business, but faced with the American ultimatum it had the option of being colonized like India or China, or trying to beat the West at its own game. And it did pretty well at that for a few decades.
The idea that the U.S. was quietly minding its own business when suddenly, bam!, out of nowhere! Pearl Harbor! is self-serving mythology.
An overblown story on a website with headlines like "How To Turn Your Home Into A Fortress!" and "Obama Ex-Bodyguard Says Scandals 'Worse Than People Know'"? An overblown story based on an editorial from the Washington Times? An overblown story that defends woodsmoke air pollution by saying it's not as bad as being in a car with a cigarette smoker? Impossible!
Seriously, this article screams "CRANK!". Actual fact: EPA tightens pollution regulations on new wood stoves. Crank interpretation: Obama wants people to freeze to death.
How exactly, in this time of increasing economic inequality and concentration of wealth, is one rewarded for desiring an economic system where resources are controlled by the people who do productive work rather than a minority of state-backed capitalists?
Or do you, like more of my fellow Americans, just have no fscking idea what "socialist" means?
Unless that individual was black. Or red. Or yellow.
(And just a hint: people will take you more seriously if you drop the capital letters from "Individual" and "Collective".)
Hitler's "final solution" was modeled in part on American genocide of Native Americans. Nazi eugenics were inspired by American programs of segregation, sterilization, and murder.
Anyone who thinks comparing America to the Nazis is "ridiculous" is dangerously ignorant of history.
No. It is not. The logo, yes, the "trademarked name be removed from the url", no. A url is no different than any other mention of a name, and corporations don't get to use trademark law to stop people using their name to talk about them. If sites like http://www.verizonsucksass.com/ and http://www.verizonfraud.com/ are ok -- Verizon tried unsuccessfuly to use trademark law to sqaush such domains -- https://fixubuntu.com/ is ok too.
Starship Troopers, a novel set in a military dictatorship where only veterans have the right to vote, is "libertarian thought"?
I know that the American so-called "Libertarian Party" has twisted the term "libertarian" to the point where people thinks that capitalism is somehow compatible with libertarianism. But militarism too?
In the long run a society can't substitute circuses for bread, a roof over your head, and decent medical care. Food and housing insecurity does more to prompt riots than not getting another season of whatever TV show is tops in ratings now.
Young children should not be on the internet unsupervised. If they are, they is faulty and unwise behavior on the part of the parents/caregivers.
If such unsupervised net use leads to abuse, the abuse is faulty and criminal behavior on the part of the abuser.
Neither is faulty behavior on the part of the young child.
You're assuming that the group is sane and competent and honest. When it comes to anti-pornography activists, evangelical fervor often overwhelms all other considerations as people fly off into a moral panic -- especially when children are involved. "OMG won't SOMEONE think of the CHILDREN!!1!"
I'd need to see something far more rigorous -- especially when the group in question has been accused of covering up for real child abusers and used a criminal defamation suit to silence the accuser.
That said: there are creeps on the net and you should not let ten-year-olds out there unsupervised. (Duh.)
Keys are not passwords. Keys are physical objects. Passwords are knowledge. Physical objects can be property. Knowledge can not. (The misnomer "intellectual property" not withstanding.)
It is standard practice for an employer to issue bits of its physical property to employees for the employee's use during the term of employment. They remain the employer's property, however, and therefore one the employer ends the loan of property it must be returned. An employer does not own an employee's mind, however.
If it was just a matter of "tell us the passwords that we forgot to have you tell us while you worked for us", this case would be bullshit. *But*, the court's finding is that Childs went far beyond that, modifying city-owned hardware and software in a manner outside the scope of his legitimate work. If Childs hadn't done that, there were password recovery methods and special admin ports that would have allowed the city to regain control of their network without him.
...with a 10 GB cap. That's a bad joke.
As well they should. If you are not bullshiting us, then you are an grade-A asshole, a threat to other people on the road, and should no only have your license revoked, you should do time for criminal negligence.
The federal government was intended from the start to have wide authority over commerce.
Health insurance is commerce. Unless you require insurers to each operate only in a single state, it's interstate commerce.
How ludicrous that suggesting an end to global military occupation is now labeled "isolationist". There are many ways for nations to interact besides militarily.
If something is in the "plain sight" of a cop who has a legitimate right to be somewhere, no, they don't need a warrant.
Someone with a warrant for guns has no legitimate right to be in your papers.
Yes, actually, it does. If a warrant says "search and seize guns", and you find something that's not a gun, you don't get to mess with it.
"[N]o Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." "Guns and whatever other stuff we find" is not a particular description.
Bullshit. A prima facie examination of a document is all that would be required.