The leading Supreme Court case is Ex parte Garland (1867). Justice Stephen J. Field, writing for the Court in a 5-4 decision, held that the President's pardoning power is ''unlimited,'' and ''It extends to every offense known to the law, and may be exercised at any time after its commission, either before legal proceedings are taken, or during their pendency, or after conviction and judgment.''
and everyone else is within their rights when they call it what it is: censorship.
Upon further reflection, I realize that I was wrong and it is not in fact "censorship".
I've resolved to be less hysterical and to realize that words have meaning. I apologize to everyone here on Slashdot.
Now that you've calmed down, which word are you having trouble with? Censorship? Are you one of those pedants who can't even get the meaning right?
From wikipedia itself:
Censorship is the suppression of free speech, public communication or other information which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, politically incorrect or inconvenient as determined by governments, media outlets, authorities or other groups or institutions./blockquote.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship
So, is it suppression of information for an encyclopedia to filter out poor sources? I think it isn't. Or, you have to put it that all false information is purposefully censored by wikipedia, as sort of its mission statement, which semantically makes sense but the connotations of the word censorship makes its use taste absurd on the tongue in this context.
I'm sorry you were triggered. The comment you responded to didn't indicate that the person was a liberal or in support of any measures to ban anything. Possibly, you're so easily triggered that you need a safe space? I recommend a room without a laptop.
Yes, we can. Information is the ultimate currency and weapon in human endeavors. The Russians stole some of ours and used it to undermine our most important institution. This goes beyond the law, which is a set of rules states setup for how internal actors can behave, and goes to issues of sovereignty. This is one of the largest rapes of sovereignty ever. Not because they changed or didn't change the result, but because they tried to so by violating our digital security. This was a successful digital invasion and the loss of control over information to us was massive.
Now that they know they can do it and morons in our country will even defend them for it, they're going to do it more, and more. It won't stop with the DNC.
We're being digitally invaded and the hoi polloi, usually so hot to beat someone with a stick, are quite pleased with everything. It's shocking. Can we get back to American ass-kicking mode and fuck these authoritarian rubes? A war is on, brother.
Not doing anything is often a tough decision. I wouldn't say sanctions accomplish nothing, however, even if you're right I would say sanctions are often used to get the public to accept that we've made the tough decision not to respond with physical aggression. It's often the right decision, and rarely popular.
They illegally acquired access to Podesta's emails and other DNC IP. Then they broadcast it to the world. Information is the most powerful commodity and control of it is critical. The point is not whether we lost the election or not, but that a foreign state is attempting to control information by robbing internal campaign information and releasing it to the public. We need to get beyond this agitprop response about democrats whining about the election and get into ass-kicking American mode because we are being digitally invaded and it's not going to stop (nor did it start) with the DNC.
narcissist, hilarious, annoying, fuck, pathetic, diverging wildly, fabricate -- your mind is screaming and absurd. It's like a dadaist performance with total seriousness. Diction alone is sufficient to spot those who consume anger media.
We already knew that before the hacks. Compared to the GOP, the DNC is only gently screwing us. Russia asymmetrically exposed the bullshit, and that's a problem. Information wars have been going on for some time and are more important.
This same argument is being used to try to suggest all the rural people should move to cities because it's now too difficult for most people to run a small family farm and earn a reasonable income.
There's just few places left for unskilled labor to go and get reasonable jobs and housing.
The counterclaim to the argument that use taxes on networks (like highways) will be passed on to those that indirectly benefit is that the indirect benefits are not just based on getting goods to markets.
Roads are used to get to hospitals, schools, and the like, which means you're now heavily taxing investment behavior (not ideal).
Roads are used to help reduce food insecurity by making it cheaper to get access to food and to distribute a variety around to various places. Lower food insecurity in a population has indirect benefits for everyone. Less crime tops the list. How is a use tax passed on to the safer citizen? Not to mention that social investment in individuals tends to bear fruit that everyone eats. Your teachers might be happier and teach your kids better, your neighbors might invent more, your doctors might save more lives, your service workers might give better service, etc. In each of these cases, use taxes will not necessarily be passed onto you.
Consumption taxes are naturally anti-progressive, in the sense that they hit the poorest the hardest since the wealthier you are the less your income tends to be used for consumption. This results in widening inequality, as the gravity well of poverty gets suckier. Dramatic inequality of wealth is widely regarded as a social ill by economists and sociologists.
Our success is interconnected. You do not have to use highways or to even consume goods or services brought to you by highways in order to benefit from their existence. The wealth generating nature of them is better spread by a general income tax than by a use tax. The latter is a way to hurt the poor which in turn degrades our entire society because success is interconnected.
The original point was that the user had not received any federal benefits. The counterpoint was that he had (highways, judges, military protection, the internet). Your point addresses a point that nobody made.
Regarding the internet being invented faster, my understanding is that these prohibitions you're talking about were based on who could use arpanet. They did not prohibit companies from building their own data networks.
Regarding ISS benefits see https://www.nasa.gov/sites/def... . They're not going to list two benefits I think we have from ISS: They give (some of) us hope for the future, and it brings us closer to spreading our civilization to other planets some day.
There is such a thing as predictive modeling. Maybe the word "predict" bothers you somehow, yet the computer may have understood there was likely to be a crash before it happened. Maybe it only understood that it was a good time to brake. Giving probability to a future possibility sounds like prediction to me.
Corrupt, terrible, awesome, tremendous, disaster. I feel like powerful words have lost all their power through capricious use.
Hotel owners are part of the polity and deserve to have a voice in government. Hotel owners were not the only ones asking for this. Corruption is a serious charge which you throw out with no evidence. Maybe your point is that they have undue influence?
It wasn't the land owners that decided the original zoning in your stated example. There's a reason that these things are decided at a more encompassing level than just HOAs.
If we did away with all restrictions, we could stack people in 70 square foot rooms, 10 people to a bathroom, for almost nothing. Especially if we did away with fire safety codes.
Housing costs cannot be the only metric upon which we try to min/max with residential codes. Of course, they increase housing costs. It is patently obvious. Still not sure it makes the point I infer that you're attempting to imply, namely that we're overrun with zoning policies.
How is it a complete farce if the chip is more secure? My understanding is that the magnetic strips were frequently swiped into card readers in order to steal, but the chip is harder to steal in this way. To use your terminology, it moves from a model where it's "something you can both have" to a model where "only one of you can have it."
Slashdot Mirror
The leading Supreme Court case is Ex parte Garland (1867). Justice Stephen J. Field, writing for the Court in a 5-4 decision, held that the President's pardoning power is ''unlimited,'' and ''It extends to every offense known to the law, and may be exercised at any time after its commission, either before legal proceedings are taken, or during their pendency, or after conviction and judgment.''
http://www.nytimes.com/1988/01...
You seem more hysterical than the post you're responding to.
The left seems to have gotten over losing faster then the right has gotten over winning.
Upon further reflection, I realize that I was wrong and it is not in fact "censorship".
I've resolved to be less hysterical and to realize that words have meaning. I apologize to everyone here on Slashdot.
Now that you've calmed down, which word are you having trouble with? Censorship? Are you one of those pedants who can't even get the meaning right?
From wikipedia itself:
So, is it suppression of information for an encyclopedia to filter out poor sources? I think it isn't. Or, you have to put it that all false information is purposefully censored by wikipedia, as sort of its mission statement, which semantically makes sense but the connotations of the word censorship makes its use taste absurd on the tongue in this context.
For the love of god, can we please collapse/grey out/auto collapse whole threads that start like this?
I'm sorry you were triggered. The comment you responded to didn't indicate that the person was a liberal or in support of any measures to ban anything. Possibly, you're so easily triggered that you need a safe space? I recommend a room without a laptop.
Yes, we can. Information is the ultimate currency and weapon in human endeavors. The Russians stole some of ours and used it to undermine our most important institution. This goes beyond the law, which is a set of rules states setup for how internal actors can behave, and goes to issues of sovereignty. This is one of the largest rapes of sovereignty ever. Not because they changed or didn't change the result, but because they tried to so by violating our digital security. This was a successful digital invasion and the loss of control over information to us was massive.
Now that they know they can do it and morons in our country will even defend them for it, they're going to do it more, and more. It won't stop with the DNC.
We're being digitally invaded and the hoi polloi, usually so hot to beat someone with a stick, are quite pleased with everything. It's shocking. Can we get back to American ass-kicking mode and fuck these authoritarian rubes? A war is on, brother.
Not doing anything is often a tough decision. I wouldn't say sanctions accomplish nothing, however, even if you're right I would say sanctions are often used to get the public to accept that we've made the tough decision not to respond with physical aggression. It's often the right decision, and rarely popular.
They illegally acquired access to Podesta's emails and other DNC IP. Then they broadcast it to the world. Information is the most powerful commodity and control of it is critical. The point is not whether we lost the election or not, but that a foreign state is attempting to control information by robbing internal campaign information and releasing it to the public. We need to get beyond this agitprop response about democrats whining about the election and get into ass-kicking American mode because we are being digitally invaded and it's not going to stop (nor did it start) with the DNC.
It's getting bloody difficult to distinguish between the astroturfers and the real morons, isn't it?
narcissist, hilarious, annoying, fuck, pathetic, diverging wildly, fabricate -- your mind is screaming and absurd. It's like a dadaist performance with total seriousness. Diction alone is sufficient to spot those who consume anger media.
The US is not the Ukraine. Only fools think that we should cede control over which truths to reveal to foreign nations.
We already knew that before the hacks. Compared to the GOP, the DNC is only gently screwing us. Russia asymmetrically exposed the bullshit, and that's a problem. Information wars have been going on for some time and are more important.
This same argument is being used to try to suggest all the rural people should move to cities because it's now too difficult for most people to run a small family farm and earn a reasonable income.
There's just few places left for unskilled labor to go and get reasonable jobs and housing.
I was born in Texas and I think the southern people were the real winners of the civil war because the confederacy lost.
The counterclaim to the argument that use taxes on networks (like highways) will be passed on to those that indirectly benefit is that the indirect benefits are not just based on getting goods to markets.
Roads are used to get to hospitals, schools, and the like, which means you're now heavily taxing investment behavior (not ideal).
Roads are used to help reduce food insecurity by making it cheaper to get access to food and to distribute a variety around to various places. Lower food insecurity in a population has indirect benefits for everyone. Less crime tops the list. How is a use tax passed on to the safer citizen? Not to mention that social investment in individuals tends to bear fruit that everyone eats. Your teachers might be happier and teach your kids better, your neighbors might invent more, your doctors might save more lives, your service workers might give better service, etc. In each of these cases, use taxes will not necessarily be passed onto you.
Consumption taxes are naturally anti-progressive, in the sense that they hit the poorest the hardest since the wealthier you are the less your income tends to be used for consumption. This results in widening inequality, as the gravity well of poverty gets suckier. Dramatic inequality of wealth is widely regarded as a social ill by economists and sociologists.
Our success is interconnected. You do not have to use highways or to even consume goods or services brought to you by highways in order to benefit from their existence. The wealth generating nature of them is better spread by a general income tax than by a use tax. The latter is a way to hurt the poor which in turn degrades our entire society because success is interconnected.
The original point was that the user had not received any federal benefits. The counterpoint was that he had (highways, judges, military protection, the internet). Your point addresses a point that nobody made.
Regarding the internet being invented faster, my understanding is that these prohibitions you're talking about were based on who could use arpanet. They did not prohibit companies from building their own data networks.
Regarding ISS benefits see https://www.nasa.gov/sites/def... . They're not going to list two benefits I think we have from ISS: They give (some of) us hope for the future, and it brings us closer to spreading our civilization to other planets some day.
There is such a thing as predictive modeling. Maybe the word "predict" bothers you somehow, yet the computer may have understood there was likely to be a crash before it happened. Maybe it only understood that it was a good time to brake. Giving probability to a future possibility sounds like prediction to me.
I think something touched your nerves.
Please stop posting on our coastal invented internet.
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/05/which-states-are-givers-and-which-are-takers/361668/
You seem to be wrong. You might say massively wrong.
You realize that California sends a metric shit ton of money to the federal government? More than they receive.
Corrupt, terrible, awesome, tremendous, disaster. I feel like powerful words have lost all their power through capricious use.
Hotel owners are part of the polity and deserve to have a voice in government. Hotel owners were not the only ones asking for this. Corruption is a serious charge which you throw out with no evidence. Maybe your point is that they have undue influence?
It wasn't the land owners that decided the original zoning in your stated example. There's a reason that these things are decided at a more encompassing level than just HOAs.
If we did away with all restrictions, we could stack people in 70 square foot rooms, 10 people to a bathroom, for almost nothing. Especially if we did away with fire safety codes. Housing costs cannot be the only metric upon which we try to min/max with residential codes. Of course, they increase housing costs. It is patently obvious. Still not sure it makes the point I infer that you're attempting to imply, namely that we're overrun with zoning policies.
You had "see, liberals, you don't want people telling you where to live." You had it right there.
https://www.citi.com/credit-cards/credit-cards-citi/citi.action?ID=chip-technology-questions
How is it a complete farce if the chip is more secure? My understanding is that the magnetic strips were frequently swiped into card readers in order to steal, but the chip is harder to steal in this way. To use your terminology, it moves from a model where it's "something you can both have" to a model where "only one of you can have it."