Speaking as a liberal, I don't approve of bans on porn production (there's actually a lot of laws banning things that I strongly disagree with). I have no idea where you got the idea that liberals must approve of anything California does.
Yeah, and police officers shoot black people without justification and some elected officials still have something to do with police. Got any evidence that #BlackLivesMatter has any policy to shoot police, or are you saying that any movement with a few despicable fanatics going along with its main thrust is bad?
If my wife were to become Secretary of State, I'd expect lots of powerful people to suddenly become interested in me. Are you saying there's anything out of the ordinary about that? Can you establish a statistical pattern of approvals, or are you just going to wave a few examples in the air and make claims?
Could you point me at a source for this that does get into enough detail for me to try to confirm this?
I've been poking around and finding out about these "inexcusable" actions, and the ones I've found information about are eminently excusable. There are a great many people out there who hate one or more Clintons and are quite practiced at making mountains from molehills.
Let's go through some things. The email problems have been exaggerated by her detractors. She shouldn't have done that, but she is facing the same level of criminal prosecution as anyone else who did what she did. Everybody seems to under oath to Congress, and I don't know what specific thing you're talking about. That uranium company sale was a decision of multiple people, primarily to get Russia to be friendlier with us (and that effort didn't work), and I'd like some actual legal commentary on the fund-raising laws she allegedly twisted along with some information on how they've been complied with in the past. I don't know about the cruise missile technology. Laureate University wasn't one of her high points, sure, but the money her husband got was from a for-profit private company, not the taxpayers. Did she call Pat Smith a liar, or did she merely disagree with her about what happened between them? The whole situation around the Benghazi attacks was confused and murky, and only became clear in retrospect. I don't know how much the Clinton campaign cheated and how much it was intertwined with the DNC, and in any case the issue is murky.
I don't see the same level of wrongdoing that many people do, after considering the issues carefully. There's things she definitely should not have done, and positions I disagree with, but that's true of pretty much all politicians.
The FBI said that nobody else had faced criminal prosecution for what Clinton did, and in fact nobody's shown me a counterexample. She's getting the exact same legal treatment anyone else would for similar offenses. If you have a counterexample, I'd be very interested in a cite. For the rest, please provide cites if you want me to take you seriously.
Unless Google is providing cable TV service, the cable company still has the monopoly it asked for. If that particular monopoly has become less lucrative over time, that's not the fault of either Google or the city.
In this, the Euro is at a bad level of integration. Greece would be much better off with either a drachma that can fall in value internationally but still leave enough in circulation to run the Greek economy, or if it had real help from other EU members rather than financial colonization.
What you seem to be saying is that a narrow victory in a referendum to make major changes to the status quo without detailed planning should be followed at all cost. Typically, changes to the status quo require more support than keeping things the same, so I'm not impressed with the vote. Moreover, it was a vote on a very general idea, with no actual planning behind it, and no way to consider consequences.
I'd expect the UK government to carry on with planning based on that vote, but would want it to get more confirmation before invoking Article 50. If the public still wants Brexit at that time, they can always vote for it, and if they have changed their collective minds they can back out then.
Typically, people who hack drivers have test machines that are not their primary computers, so they can have some stability for reading email and playing WoW. I'm sure there are some people out there who like to live dangerously, but they can still do that.
If the developer is writing drivers to break DRM, why would it be necessary for the OS to allow DRMed media to play?
At any rate, developing and distributing software to get around DRM is illegal. The big problems are WIPO and the DMCA, not what Microsoft puts into WIndows.
You apparently are putting up content so I can enjoy it for free, by sending it out to anyone who makes a HTTP or HTTPS request. You are under no obligation to serve up content for any given request, and I am under no obligation to find out what you want before sending a request. There is no contract or agreement formed by sending or responding to a HTTPS? request. You may wish to have some additional features that require (technologically or socially) the reader to read the ad if you like.
I used to avoid using ad blockers, because I didn't want to cut off sites' revenue. That became a security risk I wasn't willing to take. I installed NoScript because I was willing to put up with some hassle to enjoy websites without allowing javascript exploits. That became impossible, as sites I was trying to use imported javascript from all over the place, so I could no longer distinguish between the site's javascript and the javascript from the ads. I installed one on my phone because mobile websites were becoming impossible to use due to the ads.
As long as ads were not security holes and would allow me to use a website normally, I was fine with them. As it is, I can't accept your ads unless you're willing to guarantee they don't have malware, and accept financial responsibility if they do. It's not that I don't have a job; in fact, since I have a well-paying job and significant savings, I'm a more attractive target for whoever provides ads to the person who provides ads to whoever provides ads to you. You're perfectly free to block me from your content if I don't accept your ads. Heck, you're perfectly free to put up a sign asking me to leave if I have an ad blocker on, and I'll either disable it for your site or go away.
What you are not free to do is assume that my web request is an offer of a binding contract that I'll do something in particular if you return content.
The law doesn't require intent for everything, but not everything illegal is prosecuted.
Clinton probably thought she was keeping classified material off her server. She clearly knew that having it there was illegal, and if she'd not made some sort of effort to keep classified information off it I suspect there'd be more there. (Once I was involved in what I believe was a Romanian DDOS attack against a Swedish server. I know I have to keep my systems from doing that. I thought I had taken adequate precautions. It turned out that I hadn't. Do you count that as negligence or intent?)
I looked at the MSM links, and I'm not arguing with anything about those cases. The Marine Major had no intent to cause harm, but he had intent to violate the law. Clinton, as far as I can tell, had no intention of violating the law, but took insufficient precautions.
I just looked up the Deutch case on Wikipedia. He was not facing prosecution; instead, the Justice Department wanted to look into having his security clearance revoked, when Clinton intervened. He had agreed to plead guilty to a misdemeanor, which is a minor crime, but I have no knowledge of why.
Again, you have not provided any example of someone who did what Clinton did and faced prosecution.
Clinton supported the TPP when she was helping negotiate it. That was several years ago, and when the thing finally came out there were all sorts of problems with it. So, Clinton liked the idea of the TPP, but disliked the particular implementation. Nothing wrong with that.
The Bush administration deceived a lot of people before the invasion of Iraq. Powell said that he was given a lawyer's brief as preparation for his UN speech, and didn't have time to check most of it on his own. Given that, I don't blame anyone for voting for the Iraq disaster.
The problem with Trump's positions is not that he doesn't have a platform, it's that he says so many different things that it's not clear that he takes it seriously.
The sex offender registry should go away. However, this ban doesn't apply to people on the registry who have served their sentence, it applies to people who haven't finished their sentence and are out on parole.
I have a priest friend with a church. I put it on Wikipedia (there's a few interesting things about it), and even put in a pointer to the church website.
You don't have to stare at your phone while walking. Mine vibrates when there's something worth stopping for. The game emphasizes that you should know where you're going, and the loading page shows a player, intent on phone, walking into the jaws of a Gyrados.
People really need to teach other people that blindly following directions, or having all attention on a phone while walking, is a bad idea. I've read about enough adults who do it, it's not just children. If you don't let children have anything that distracting, how will they handle it later?
I knew a guy who got caught, while 16, having sex with his almost-14 girlfriend. (14 would be legal, 13 isn't, in this state.) He was supposed to keep registering as a minor, and could have gotten his record sealed if he'd applied when he should (don't remember whether that was at 18 or 21).
I wouldn't trust him with anything important, but he doesn't seem to me to be a danger to anyone.
However, parole is not mandatory for the convict. The convict is offered the choice of staying in prison vs. getting out and adhering to a lot of rules, which may be arbitrary. If the rules become unacceptable, back to prison is an option.
I'm not saying that this is necessarily good, I'm saying it's considered constitutional.
As far as suicide goes, I found it helped to have a specific designated reason to live. For some time, it was that suicide would be losing (I'm not sure I can define this better), and after that it was my son.
I don't pay fees. I wouldn't accept a credit card with an annual fee, having a high enough credit score to pick and choose. I don't pay interest, because I pay the entire amount off each month. I get the equivalent of 1% back. I get an average of a free 45-day loan (although since I usually pay off the card shortly after I get the statement it's more like 30 days). I'm not paying much to use my money.
If you're referring to the fact that prices have to be high enough to cover credit card overhead, that's nothing anything I say or do or think affects. I pay the same amount when using cash (and handling cash isn't completely free and no hassle for the merchant either).
Lots of applications run just fine with slow and bloated interpretive languages, since the limiting factor is user input. There's a lot of applications that are limited primarily by the user, and efficiency past a certain point isn't all that useful.
Most top Common Lisp implementations are compilers, and that's pretty much where "eval" (or whatever Javascript has) started. In many cases, the interpretation is done by compiling on the fly.
Slashdot Mirror
Speaking as a liberal, I don't approve of bans on porn production (there's actually a lot of laws banning things that I strongly disagree with). I have no idea where you got the idea that liberals must approve of anything California does.
Yeah, and police officers shoot black people without justification and some elected officials still have something to do with police. Got any evidence that #BlackLivesMatter has any policy to shoot police, or are you saying that any movement with a few despicable fanatics going along with its main thrust is bad?
If my wife were to become Secretary of State, I'd expect lots of powerful people to suddenly become interested in me. Are you saying there's anything out of the ordinary about that? Can you establish a statistical pattern of approvals, or are you just going to wave a few examples in the air and make claims?
Could you point me at a source for this that does get into enough detail for me to try to confirm this?
I've been poking around and finding out about these "inexcusable" actions, and the ones I've found information about are eminently excusable. There are a great many people out there who hate one or more Clintons and are quite practiced at making mountains from molehills.
Let's go through some things. The email problems have been exaggerated by her detractors. She shouldn't have done that, but she is facing the same level of criminal prosecution as anyone else who did what she did. Everybody seems to under oath to Congress, and I don't know what specific thing you're talking about. That uranium company sale was a decision of multiple people, primarily to get Russia to be friendlier with us (and that effort didn't work), and I'd like some actual legal commentary on the fund-raising laws she allegedly twisted along with some information on how they've been complied with in the past. I don't know about the cruise missile technology. Laureate University wasn't one of her high points, sure, but the money her husband got was from a for-profit private company, not the taxpayers. Did she call Pat Smith a liar, or did she merely disagree with her about what happened between them? The whole situation around the Benghazi attacks was confused and murky, and only became clear in retrospect. I don't know how much the Clinton campaign cheated and how much it was intertwined with the DNC, and in any case the issue is murky.
I don't see the same level of wrongdoing that many people do, after considering the issues carefully. There's things she definitely should not have done, and positions I disagree with, but that's true of pretty much all politicians.
The FBI said that nobody else had faced criminal prosecution for what Clinton did, and in fact nobody's shown me a counterexample. She's getting the exact same legal treatment anyone else would for similar offenses. If you have a counterexample, I'd be very interested in a cite. For the rest, please provide cites if you want me to take you seriously.
Unless Google is providing cable TV service, the cable company still has the monopoly it asked for. If that particular monopoly has become less lucrative over time, that's not the fault of either Google or the city.
We know no such thing. You're speculating on the outcome of a hypothetical situation.
In this, the Euro is at a bad level of integration. Greece would be much better off with either a drachma that can fall in value internationally but still leave enough in circulation to run the Greek economy, or if it had real help from other EU members rather than financial colonization.
A narrow majority wanted it, and some of those people are currently unhappy with the vote. That doesn't support a claim that "most people are happy".
What you seem to be saying is that a narrow victory in a referendum to make major changes to the status quo without detailed planning should be followed at all cost. Typically, changes to the status quo require more support than keeping things the same, so I'm not impressed with the vote. Moreover, it was a vote on a very general idea, with no actual planning behind it, and no way to consider consequences.
I'd expect the UK government to carry on with planning based on that vote, but would want it to get more confirmation before invoking Article 50. If the public still wants Brexit at that time, they can always vote for it, and if they have changed their collective minds they can back out then.
Typically, people who hack drivers have test machines that are not their primary computers, so they can have some stability for reading email and playing WoW. I'm sure there are some people out there who like to live dangerously, but they can still do that.
If the developer is writing drivers to break DRM, why would it be necessary for the OS to allow DRMed media to play?
At any rate, developing and distributing software to get around DRM is illegal. The big problems are WIPO and the DMCA, not what Microsoft puts into WIndows.
You apparently are putting up content so I can enjoy it for free, by sending it out to anyone who makes a HTTP or HTTPS request. You are under no obligation to serve up content for any given request, and I am under no obligation to find out what you want before sending a request. There is no contract or agreement formed by sending or responding to a HTTPS? request. You may wish to have some additional features that require (technologically or socially) the reader to read the ad if you like.
I used to avoid using ad blockers, because I didn't want to cut off sites' revenue. That became a security risk I wasn't willing to take. I installed NoScript because I was willing to put up with some hassle to enjoy websites without allowing javascript exploits. That became impossible, as sites I was trying to use imported javascript from all over the place, so I could no longer distinguish between the site's javascript and the javascript from the ads. I installed one on my phone because mobile websites were becoming impossible to use due to the ads.
As long as ads were not security holes and would allow me to use a website normally, I was fine with them. As it is, I can't accept your ads unless you're willing to guarantee they don't have malware, and accept financial responsibility if they do. It's not that I don't have a job; in fact, since I have a well-paying job and significant savings, I'm a more attractive target for whoever provides ads to the person who provides ads to whoever provides ads to you. You're perfectly free to block me from your content if I don't accept your ads. Heck, you're perfectly free to put up a sign asking me to leave if I have an ad blocker on, and I'll either disable it for your site or go away.
What you are not free to do is assume that my web request is an offer of a binding contract that I'll do something in particular if you return content.
The law doesn't require intent for everything, but not everything illegal is prosecuted.
Clinton probably thought she was keeping classified material off her server. She clearly knew that having it there was illegal, and if she'd not made some sort of effort to keep classified information off it I suspect there'd be more there. (Once I was involved in what I believe was a Romanian DDOS attack against a Swedish server. I know I have to keep my systems from doing that. I thought I had taken adequate precautions. It turned out that I hadn't. Do you count that as negligence or intent?)
I looked at the MSM links, and I'm not arguing with anything about those cases. The Marine Major had no intent to cause harm, but he had intent to violate the law. Clinton, as far as I can tell, had no intention of violating the law, but took insufficient precautions.
I just looked up the Deutch case on Wikipedia. He was not facing prosecution; instead, the Justice Department wanted to look into having his security clearance revoked, when Clinton intervened. He had agreed to plead guilty to a misdemeanor, which is a minor crime, but I have no knowledge of why.
Again, you have not provided any example of someone who did what Clinton did and faced prosecution.
Clinton supported the TPP when she was helping negotiate it. That was several years ago, and when the thing finally came out there were all sorts of problems with it. So, Clinton liked the idea of the TPP, but disliked the particular implementation. Nothing wrong with that.
The Bush administration deceived a lot of people before the invasion of Iraq. Powell said that he was given a lawyer's brief as preparation for his UN speech, and didn't have time to check most of it on his own. Given that, I don't blame anyone for voting for the Iraq disaster.
The problem with Trump's positions is not that he doesn't have a platform, it's that he says so many different things that it's not clear that he takes it seriously.
The sex offender registry should go away. However, this ban doesn't apply to people on the registry who have served their sentence, it applies to people who haven't finished their sentence and are out on parole.
I have a priest friend with a church. I put it on Wikipedia (there's a few interesting things about it), and even put in a pointer to the church website.
I'll go turn myself in now.
You don't have to stare at your phone while walking. Mine vibrates when there's something worth stopping for. The game emphasizes that you should know where you're going, and the loading page shows a player, intent on phone, walking into the jaws of a Gyrados.
People really need to teach other people that blindly following directions, or having all attention on a phone while walking, is a bad idea. I've read about enough adults who do it, it's not just children. If you don't let children have anything that distracting, how will they handle it later?
I knew a guy who got caught, while 16, having sex with his almost-14 girlfriend. (14 would be legal, 13 isn't, in this state.) He was supposed to keep registering as a minor, and could have gotten his record sealed if he'd applied when he should (don't remember whether that was at 18 or 21).
I wouldn't trust him with anything important, but he doesn't seem to me to be a danger to anyone.
However, parole is not mandatory for the convict. The convict is offered the choice of staying in prison vs. getting out and adhering to a lot of rules, which may be arbitrary. If the rules become unacceptable, back to prison is an option.
I'm not saying that this is necessarily good, I'm saying it's considered constitutional.
As far as suicide goes, I found it helped to have a specific designated reason to live. For some time, it was that suicide would be losing (I'm not sure I can define this better), and after that it was my son.
I don't pay fees. I wouldn't accept a credit card with an annual fee, having a high enough credit score to pick and choose. I don't pay interest, because I pay the entire amount off each month. I get the equivalent of 1% back. I get an average of a free 45-day loan (although since I usually pay off the card shortly after I get the statement it's more like 30 days). I'm not paying much to use my money.
If you're referring to the fact that prices have to be high enough to cover credit card overhead, that's nothing anything I say or do or think affects. I pay the same amount when using cash (and handling cash isn't completely free and no hassle for the merchant either).
Lots of applications run just fine with slow and bloated interpretive languages, since the limiting factor is user input. There's a lot of applications that are limited primarily by the user, and efficiency past a certain point isn't all that useful.
Most top Common Lisp implementations are compilers, and that's pretty much where "eval" (or whatever Javascript has) started. In many cases, the interpretation is done by compiling on the fly.
In its early years Stack Overflow was heavily biased towards C# and .NET, with the really big reputation scores coming from those subjects.