Well, Hillary Clinton is credible at promoting herself to you at least. From my perspective Donald Trump has been credible at promoting himself for far longer. We can't tell who is more corrupt; the whole problem with corruption is that no one actually shows their cards. Trump and Hillary share certain traits that Trump doesn't try to hide and Hillary does. And she's worse at it than she realizes. With Trump I feel like I'll have a better heads up of the troubles I'll face when he messes up than when Hillary messes up, and whichever one makes it in, will. I just don't know for sure who will mess up worse. When Trump messed up in business he declared bankruptcy publicly. When Hillary messed up as Secretary of State she deleted emails and said "What difference does it make?"
I would prefer a person who was pro-humanity, but neither seem to be that parson. Donald Trump has an America versus the world mentality, whiled Hillary seems to think that it takes a village to raise a globally minded citizen, when all villages tend to raise are people with a tribe versus the world mentality.
I think Trump has a mentality that would be okay whether the bathrooms match gender mentality or not, while Hillary has the mindset of how the world must suit the mindset of individuals, all awhile engendering qualities in others that are ill suited to shaping the world to your will. Which is to say that Trump is the sort of man who changes the world to suit him, while Hillary is the sort of person who pleads to the world to change lest bad things happen to people.
The question wasn't whether or to what degree he is corrupt. However a better question along the same lines is would you rather have someone in office that is bought and sold or someone who buys and sells?
Heh, good thing I actually went back and read more of the article before posting the below. Still, waste not, want not, and I still doubt a thorough examination of what archive.org actually preserved had been done. Then there's the matter of whether or not Google merely hid or deleted his work.
https://web.archive.org/web/*/... seems to say that archive.org has in fact been scanning the site, which is the first thing I check every time I discover content gone missing and should have been one of the things that someone at fusion should have done before running the piece. Besides, everyone knows you should back up the things that are important to you. I didn't care to click on any of the links
Or maybe you could try using an array of directional antennas. I'm still learning all the conventional wisdom, and the workarounds that make them not all hold water, but I use three indoor antennas attached to one television to pick up channels, and what I read on the ARRL website would seem to suggest that the signals should either cancel themselves out as when impromptu karaoke tracks are made, or be out of timing alignment with each other which are kind of variations on the same problem. There are any number of ways of tackling the problem and I'm not even sure the problem has been identified correctly as among other things when it gets explained, the effects of relativity don't seem to be taken into account, and don't anyone go expecting me to put into words for them my limited understanding of relativity, though if anyone else feels so inclined to express their understanding, well go ahead.
My first guess for why people are not free to burn stuff is because things that are not theirs are more likely to catch fire, and a lot of other stuff.
I'm not sure how much your reasoning holds water as air is mobile and if that was really the issue there would have been more problems back in the time where fire was the main method of keeping warm and cooking. We talk of the great fire of London and Rome burned while Nero fiddled because of stuff burning not asphyxiation. Of course, in enclosed and insulated spaces there are issues and that's a more modern thing. Though the chemical composition of things that get burned these days have changed too, to having a more toxic composition. Still, my original analysis is more time-worthy.
At some point of in time someone decided, "Murder is a problem. We need one law." At another point, "Manslaughter is a problem." Not because somebody sat down and said "Let's try to outlaw evey wrongful death." If I understand correctly most stuff that causes cancer is still civil law, not criminal. And in fact I seem to remember saying that in an ideal world, civil court action was the recourse. However, I acknowledge that sometimes things can get to be too big of a problem for civil law. In that case, the piecemeal approach is the best. Problem is, people are looking to have the state do their dirty work for them as with copyright. The Pokemon Go situation is interesting since trespassing is mainly a problem that I see should be pretty solidly in the realm of civil law, but the tone being taken in warnings is one of it being a crime. I find it sad that law has come to be so strongly associated with crime.
Minor point: Harassment is generally not considered behavior bad enough to criminalize and too many people see it as their right to do so under the right circumstances for that to change. When sexual harassment comes up, it is usually a tort, a civil matter.
With the CFAA, my thinking was that the law had to be updated because being authorized to access a computer was significantly different from authorization to a physical property that some judge determined that those laws didn't apply. I suspected you had some other overarching concept besides authorization in mind in the same way you seem to think vigilantism is an overarching concept that makes harassment a crime, which as I've pointed out, usually isn't a crime. The odd thing is that the two examples you are giving for vigilantism are examples where the majority of the local people don't usually see it as a crime, but the just punishment of someone not knowing their place and it happens too far from other people for them to care. Sometimes (maybe a lot of the time) there is a special interest group when people of a group are unjustly targeted, but those aren't going to be impressed with the law being promoted as part of a tough on crime stance. Starting from the principle that something is wrong allows people to criminalize things that have no business being criminalized and that is at least one of the points I am trying to get across to you. I understand that the CFAA doesn't have to do with copyright but copyright infringement is one of the things that recently went from a civil matter to a criminal matter and I was at least a little bit curious as to what you might think the overarching principle might be. Harassment is not a real crime in either use of the phrase.
I'm entitled to a lot more than what they want me to have and throwing their muscle around, so I'm quietly taking things we would have agreed I wouldn't in compensation.
So when's Universal going to be slapped with a CFAA lawsuit? You just know that they have to be interacting with systems they don't have rights to to do this.
I suspect that lynching and... Wait... many if not forms of harassment aren't even a crime, and you'd be hard pressed to even get civil redress for at least some. When trying to figure out why lynching might be a separate crime, I went not to vigilantism, but to murder. They didn't go to either murder or vigilantism and figure out all the different ways someone can murder/be a vigilante and pass laws for each and every one of them, see lynching and then go, oops I guess we missed one of them. Lynching was already a crime of murder or attempted murder. Where lynching was made a separate crime in the American south, according to my reasoning juries probably did some of that jury nullification type of thing and legislators thought something new had to be done. My guess is that lesser sentences might have been imposed to encourage juries to convict. I haven't actually seen the sentencing rules, at first had it in my head that they wouldn't be available or hard to compare to the original statutes for murder and when I finally worked my mind around that, ran straight into news articles about laws used to arrest some activists that (in my head again) I think will probably drown out legal results and are something I want to look into to boot. So, I'm finding it hard at the moment to hold up my end of speculation.
In an ideal world, there would be no civil or criminal problems. In a lesser ideal world all problems would be civil.
Copyright was addressed by civil law and then some people got it into their heads they wanted there to be criminal penalties. There can be citizen's arrests that aren't crimes, too.
laws are made to address the common-term understanding of criminal activity, rather than the other way around.
Not only does that not make sense to me, it doesn't make sense in regard to freedom. The original story was about the CFAA law. I don't even want to know what "common-term understanding of criminal activity" you think that law was meant to address. On the other hand, I am a bit curious what "common-term understanding of criminal activity" you think criminalizing copyright infringment was meant to address.
Laws are meant to deal with problems. It has nothing to do with whether or not there is a common term for any given activity that has been criminalized. The law is supposed to let people know with great specificity what they can and cannot do in exercise of their freedoms.
I guess you understood "radio specs" to mean something different than everyone else here. Not that I'm convinced as to what degree everyone else has that understanding. As far as I can tell, this likely means that Verizon has a specification for the radio hardware that works on the frequencies it bought ready to go for phone manufacturers who want to sell phones that will work on Verizon's network that it will brand 5G in the United States. I'm not sure what the "agenda for global standard" stuff is about.
I don't go running to a dictionary as if it was prescriptive rather than descriptive. You said that vigilantism was a "real crime". Dictionaries do poorly when it comes to the meaning of two words together like that anyways, but in my book a real crime is a crime which has a law on the books specifically by that name. In the jurisdictions I frequent, assault is a real crime but the real crime when people say they have been assaulted is battery. The crime of assault is threatening to harm another person.
I think one of the other posts may have the answer Verizon's 5G is the rest of the world's 4G. Or my guess, Verizon is branding the service it is going to provide over the freed analog TV frequencies because in Murika, words don't have to mean anything anymore, and coming soon to a spelling bee near you are the words Disney, Verizon, and Scripps.
Unlike the union, where you're apparently from, there is no unified market called the states. Sure, it sounds like it should be, but it isn't. There's a unified currency, and well, there's a unified currency. If you get sick outside your home state, not all health insurance plans will cover that. An insurance plan, you ask. How do I explain the concept of non-universal coverage... eh, I'm bored anyways. Nevermind.
The successor to QBASIC forever. QB64. If it doesn't have a feature you want you are encouraged to learn how to add it to your personal copy and even stand a good chance having it incorporated into the mainline language if you want to submit it.
Is vigilantism a real crime? If so, then it is unnecessarily so, since other crimes are usually committed in the act of committing vigilantism. But at any rate, vigilantism does not appear to be the crime the person is being charged with.
I'm not sure what degree you are agreeing with me that it makes sense for the callee to do the stack reset as part of the return as opposed to the caller doing it. I don't understand the need of a frame pointer, though I am aware of the "enter" "leave" instructions on the Intel architecture. I'm sorry if you misunderstood me. Sometimes I have difficulty being clear.
I'm not talking about "after each use". At least, in any sense that you aren't resetting it after each use either way. Just that some calling methods "reset" the stack on return by the called procedure, or on architectures without a return instruction that has a parameter that specifies how much to adjust the stack by, immediately before, or immediately after by the calling procedure. Having the calling procedure free the stack means that there is an extra instruction each and every time a call is made. The called procedure has to modify the stack anyways when the space of the address to return to is adjusted on the stack.
I'm sorry I wasn't clear. I call moving the stack pointer to a specific known point as opposed to pushing and popping, "resetting the stack". The return has to modify the stack when it pops the return address to the calling program. so your statement about needing to adjust the stack pointer every time you call that function makes no sense as the return instruction has a parameter for adjusting the stack in addition to the amount necessary for the call. I touched on argument/parameter order, but I didn't link it strongly to the pascal keyword.
I also think that the space saved by using an instruction once at the end of the procedure as opposed to an instruction after each and every return from a procedure a particular reason.
Hey, I'm on Slashdot in church
Just got thanked by the pastor for helping put on an event yesterday. Anyone can tell I'm on my phone during the music portion.
The resolution of your screen and how much of that memory is shared with the graphics processor is also a factor. If you actually have Cortana running, it could potentially be a resource consumer, as well as how many browsers/browser windows. Steam and other game "hubs"/clients/I don't like the term. Wired vs. wireless. There are any number of resource consumers that you might get used to having around and the performance suffered a hit with the batch I was using from 8/8.1 to Windows 10.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, Hillary Clinton is credible at promoting herself to you at least. From my perspective Donald Trump has been credible at promoting himself for far longer. We can't tell who is more corrupt; the whole problem with corruption is that no one actually shows their cards. Trump and Hillary share certain traits that Trump doesn't try to hide and Hillary does. And she's worse at it than she realizes. With Trump I feel like I'll have a better heads up of the troubles I'll face when he messes up than when Hillary messes up, and whichever one makes it in, will. I just don't know for sure who will mess up worse. When Trump messed up in business he declared bankruptcy publicly. When Hillary messed up as Secretary of State she deleted emails and said "What difference does it make?"
I would prefer a person who was pro-humanity, but neither seem to be that parson. Donald Trump has an America versus the world mentality, whiled Hillary seems to think that it takes a village to raise a globally minded citizen, when all villages tend to raise are people with a tribe versus the world mentality.
I think Trump has a mentality that would be okay whether the bathrooms match gender mentality or not, while Hillary has the mindset of how the world must suit the mindset of individuals, all awhile engendering qualities in others that are ill suited to shaping the world to your will. Which is to say that Trump is the sort of man who changes the world to suit him, while Hillary is the sort of person who pleads to the world to change lest bad things happen to people.
The question wasn't whether or to what degree he is corrupt. However a better question along the same lines is would you rather have someone in office that is bought and sold or someone who buys and sells?
Heh, good thing I actually went back and read more of the article before posting the below. Still, waste not, want not, and I still doubt a thorough examination of what archive.org actually preserved had been done. Then there's the matter of whether or not Google merely hid or deleted his work.
https://web.archive.org/web/*/... seems to say that archive.org has in fact been scanning the site, which is the first thing I check every time I discover content gone missing and should have been one of the things that someone at fusion should have done before running the piece. Besides, everyone knows you should back up the things that are important to you. I didn't care to click on any of the links
Or maybe you could try using an array of directional antennas. I'm still learning all the conventional wisdom, and the workarounds that make them not all hold water, but I use three indoor antennas attached to one television to pick up channels, and what I read on the ARRL website would seem to suggest that the signals should either cancel themselves out as when impromptu karaoke tracks are made, or be out of timing alignment with each other which are kind of variations on the same problem. There are any number of ways of tackling the problem and I'm not even sure the problem has been identified correctly as among other things when it gets explained, the effects of relativity don't seem to be taken into account, and don't anyone go expecting me to put into words for them my limited understanding of relativity, though if anyone else feels so inclined to express their understanding, well go ahead.
My first guess for why people are not free to burn stuff is because things that are not theirs are more likely to catch fire, and a lot of other stuff.
I'm not sure how much your reasoning holds water as air is mobile and if that was really the issue there would have been more problems back in the time where fire was the main method of keeping warm and cooking. We talk of the great fire of London and Rome burned while Nero fiddled because of stuff burning not asphyxiation. Of course, in enclosed and insulated spaces there are issues and that's a more modern thing. Though the chemical composition of things that get burned these days have changed too, to having a more toxic composition. Still, my original analysis is more time-worthy.
At some point of in time someone decided, "Murder is a problem. We need one law." At another point, "Manslaughter is a problem." Not because somebody sat down and said "Let's try to outlaw evey wrongful death." If I understand correctly most stuff that causes cancer is still civil law, not criminal. And in fact I seem to remember saying that in an ideal world, civil court action was the recourse. However, I acknowledge that sometimes things can get to be too big of a problem for civil law. In that case, the piecemeal approach is the best. Problem is, people are looking to have the state do their dirty work for them as with copyright. The Pokemon Go situation is interesting since trespassing is mainly a problem that I see should be pretty solidly in the realm of civil law, but the tone being taken in warnings is one of it being a crime. I find it sad that law has come to be so strongly associated with crime.
Minor point: Harassment is generally not considered behavior bad enough to criminalize and too many people see it as their right to do so under the right circumstances for that to change. When sexual harassment comes up, it is usually a tort, a civil matter.
With the CFAA, my thinking was that the law had to be updated because being authorized to access a computer was significantly different from authorization to a physical property that some judge determined that those laws didn't apply. I suspected you had some other overarching concept besides authorization in mind in the same way you seem to think vigilantism is an overarching concept that makes harassment a crime, which as I've pointed out, usually isn't a crime. The odd thing is that the two examples you are giving for vigilantism are examples where the majority of the local people don't usually see it as a crime, but the just punishment of someone not knowing their place and it happens too far from other people for them to care. Sometimes (maybe a lot of the time) there is a special interest group when people of a group are unjustly targeted, but those aren't going to be impressed with the law being promoted as part of a tough on crime stance. Starting from the principle that something is wrong allows people to criminalize things that have no business being criminalized and that is at least one of the points I am trying to get across to you. I understand that the CFAA doesn't have to do with copyright but copyright infringement is one of the things that recently went from a civil matter to a criminal matter and I was at least a little bit curious as to what you might think the overarching principle might be. Harassment is not a real crime in either use of the phrase.
I'm entitled to a lot more than what they want me to have and throwing their muscle around, so I'm quietly taking things we would have agreed I wouldn't in compensation.
So when's Universal going to be slapped with a CFAA lawsuit? You just know that they have to be interacting with systems they don't have rights to to do this.
I suspect that lynching and... Wait... many if not forms of harassment aren't even a crime, and you'd be hard pressed to even get civil redress for at least some. When trying to figure out why lynching might be a separate crime, I went not to vigilantism, but to murder. They didn't go to either murder or vigilantism and figure out all the different ways someone can murder/be a vigilante and pass laws for each and every one of them, see lynching and then go, oops I guess we missed one of them. Lynching was already a crime of murder or attempted murder. Where lynching was made a separate crime in the American south, according to my reasoning juries probably did some of that jury nullification type of thing and legislators thought something new had to be done. My guess is that lesser sentences might have been imposed to encourage juries to convict. I haven't actually seen the sentencing rules, at first had it in my head that they wouldn't be available or hard to compare to the original statutes for murder and when I finally worked my mind around that, ran straight into news articles about laws used to arrest some activists that (in my head again) I think will probably drown out legal results and are something I want to look into to boot. So, I'm finding it hard at the moment to hold up my end of speculation.
In an ideal world, there would be no civil or criminal problems. In a lesser ideal world all problems would be civil.
Copyright was addressed by civil law and then some people got it into their heads they wanted there to be criminal penalties. There can be citizen's arrests that aren't crimes, too.
Not only does that not make sense to me, it doesn't make sense in regard to freedom. The original story was about the CFAA law. I don't even want to know what "common-term understanding of criminal activity" you think that law was meant to address. On the other hand, I am a bit curious what "common-term understanding of criminal activity" you think criminalizing copyright infringment was meant to address.
Laws are meant to deal with problems. It has nothing to do with whether or not there is a common term for any given activity that has been criminalized. The law is supposed to let people know with great specificity what they can and cannot do in exercise of their freedoms.
I guess you understood "radio specs" to mean something different than everyone else here. Not that I'm convinced as to what degree everyone else has that understanding. As far as I can tell, this likely means that Verizon has a specification for the radio hardware that works on the frequencies it bought ready to go for phone manufacturers who want to sell phones that will work on Verizon's network that it will brand 5G in the United States. I'm not sure what the "agenda for global standard" stuff is about.
I don't go running to a dictionary as if it was prescriptive rather than descriptive. You said that vigilantism was a "real crime". Dictionaries do poorly when it comes to the meaning of two words together like that anyways, but in my book a real crime is a crime which has a law on the books specifically by that name. In the jurisdictions I frequent, assault is a real crime but the real crime when people say they have been assaulted is battery. The crime of assault is threatening to harm another person.
I think one of the other posts may have the answer Verizon's 5G is the rest of the world's 4G. Or my guess, Verizon is branding the service it is going to provide over the freed analog TV frequencies because in Murika, words don't have to mean anything anymore, and coming soon to a spelling bee near you are the words Disney, Verizon, and Scripps.
Unlike the union, where you're apparently from, there is no unified market called the states. Sure, it sounds like it should be, but it isn't. There's a unified currency, and well, there's a unified currency. If you get sick outside your home state, not all health insurance plans will cover that. An insurance plan, you ask. How do I explain the concept of non-universal coverage... eh, I'm bored anyways. Nevermind.
You had sticks, cans, chalk, and concrete/asphalt?
The successor to QBASIC forever. QB64. If it doesn't have a feature you want you are encouraged to learn how to add it to your personal copy and even stand a good chance having it incorporated into the mainline language if you want to submit it.
Is vigilantism a real crime? If so, then it is unnecessarily so, since other crimes are usually committed in the act of committing vigilantism. But at any rate, vigilantism does not appear to be the crime the person is being charged with.
I'm not sure what degree you are agreeing with me that it makes sense for the callee to do the stack reset as part of the return as opposed to the caller doing it. I don't understand the need of a frame pointer, though I am aware of the "enter" "leave" instructions on the Intel architecture. I'm sorry if you misunderstood me. Sometimes I have difficulty being clear.
I'm not talking about "after each use". At least, in any sense that you aren't resetting it after each use either way. Just that some calling methods "reset" the stack on return by the called procedure, or on architectures without a return instruction that has a parameter that specifies how much to adjust the stack by, immediately before, or immediately after by the calling procedure. Having the calling procedure free the stack means that there is an extra instruction each and every time a call is made. The called procedure has to modify the stack anyways when the space of the address to return to is adjusted on the stack.
I'm sorry I wasn't clear. I call moving the stack pointer to a specific known point as opposed to pushing and popping, "resetting the stack". The return has to modify the stack when it pops the return address to the calling program. so your statement about needing to adjust the stack pointer every time you call that function makes no sense as the return instruction has a parameter for adjusting the stack in addition to the amount necessary for the call. I touched on argument/parameter order, but I didn't link it strongly to the pascal keyword. I also think that the space saved by using an instruction once at the end of the procedure as opposed to an instruction after each and every return from a procedure a particular reason.
I don't know. Let's ask all the Java programmers rhat don't pay Oracle.
Hey, I'm on Slashdot in church Just got thanked by the pastor for helping put on an event yesterday. Anyone can tell I'm on my phone during the music portion.
The resolution of your screen and how much of that memory is shared with the graphics processor is also a factor. If you actually have Cortana running, it could potentially be a resource consumer, as well as how many browsers/browser windows. Steam and other game "hubs"/clients/I don't like the term. Wired vs. wireless. There are any number of resource consumers that you might get used to having around and the performance suffered a hit with the batch I was using from 8/8.1 to Windows 10.