I moved out before Christie was elected, so I can't comment, except to indicate that Florio's DMV of the early 90s was the worst I experienced there. I know that the circa 2007 NJ DMV was worse than Georgia's or Texas' or Minnesota's. But it's better than the MD DMV is. Ugh.
FTFY. Half a lifetime in New Jersey was enough education on that score.
Depressingly, the government is actually better in red states - polite junkyard personnel, DMVs that don't suck, simpler tax forms, etc. Entirely counter-intuitive but also entirely true.
Sure, having 300 million people go to sleep an hour earlier is MUCH simpler than just not having the same number of people adjusting clocks twice a year, and all the IT infrastructure associated with same.
First Amendment rights don't extend to threats and trafficking stolen financial instruments Fifth Amendment rights are clearly satisfied; the motion practice described above indicates he was charged and habeas corpus is not an issue. Sixth Amendment rights are muddied by the aforementioned motion practice - I am positive that if he had wanted a trial by now, he'd have one. I think the point is that he'd get convicted of something, hence the delay. Eighth Amendment - someone with a bunch of stolen credit cards available has resources, so evaluating 'excessive bail'...please.
Woodward and Bernstein weren't instrumental to the Watergate case, they were simply public relations arms. The case was proceeding without them, and would have ended up in pretty much the same place if they'd been run over by a bus. Despite the mythology, the principals would have found some other reporter to feed data to. The independent prosecutor was the key to the case beyond February 1973, initially Cox and later Jaworski. It is important to remember that initially, the press reports of Watergate were not considered a large issue by the White House. The potential testimony of the burglars themselves was the primary issue initially, hence the hush money delivered until after the 1972 election.
Post 9-11, the cell towers ignore anything moving over a certain speed. Pre-9-11, no such thing You'll note cell reception returns when the plane is about to land and the speeds are down sufficiently.
The fact that the US has a higher proportion of its population incarcerated than most other nations is well known.
The reasons why are less well-known. Mandatory sentences play their part, but blaming the war on drugs for this is a little shortsighted. I see the US at war with an insurgency within its borders, except the government has chosen to combat it with a criminal justice approach. This approach does not work - and note that the enforcers look more and more like an army every day, with every little municipality having a SWAT team with automatic weapons, and people being summarily executed in their homes by supposed law enforcers for little to no reason. The insurgency started when the government chose to intrude on matters that had previously been left to individual liberty and the best judgement of the population. It is a very low-intensity sort of conflict, but the signs are all around us. The war on drugs is just one slice of the entire problem. The totalization of state control is the problem.
I am not offering solutions, as I doubt any of the possible ways out would be paths taken.
I think I acknowledged a difference between alcohol, marijuana and the aggregate majority of abused substances and addressed it. That said, the whole issue is conflated nicely and is hard to split apart in most people's heads.
It appears no one has answered this question, so I will. Why are people on the right so resolutely anti-drug?
If you spent your whole life working - regardless of the delivered value to society - the idea of paying an able-bodied person's way in life is antithetical. Those on the right perceive drugs as a certain way to turn an able-bodied person into someone who requires social welfare. No one on the right trusts the individual to make logical choices in the presence in the corrupting influence of a mind-altering drug. They correctly identify the number of people who would remain productive members of society while consuming drugs as very small.
Legalizing drugs would amount to at least removing society's disfavor from the consumption of same. The right expects that an ever-increasing crop of wastrels who do not work will be the result, increasing their tax burden and further damaging the perception that work is the correct pathway to life success. To the right, there is no upside to legalization.
Wresting alcohol and marijuana from this perception goes far to explain why blue laws are still prevalent in many areas and that the first commercial legalization of marijuana happened this year.
This is pretty stupid. This has no relation to actual multithreaded execution, but the author pretends like it does. Perhaps the sites are hosted from Colorado?
Most of Roblimo's posts over the past 10 years have been pretty disconnected from the userbase. This is hardly unusual.
Re:Minimum Security?
on
Losing Aaron
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
It was an over-reaction, but the guy wasn't willing to pay the price for civil disobedience. So now the hipster crowd wants to redefine civil disobedience as something that should never inconvenience you.
This, luckily, is something that will never fly with the public at large, who will continue to think he's a criminal forever.
Couldn't resist the chance for the dig, could you?
Granting cert on the case in question required more than Sotomayor's concurrence. One imagines the decision to issue an injunction also resulted from consultation with other justices. You have no idea who she talked to, nor what the content of the justices' discussions are.
Nonetheless, let's rip on the conservatives, because you don't like what they think. This pretty much defines "being an asshole". Which you are.
I don't think there is that much more to the Snowden story. The guy seems to be an idealist. Snowden is at risk in Russia, but he's at risk anywhere in the world. The US would like nothing better but to take him into custody. That's the sum total of his protection - his freedom amounts to thumbing a nose at the US government and pointing out its powerlessness. Same as the Soviet defectors back in the Cold War era.
Snowden was interested in leaking to somewhere that wouldn't turn him over to the FBI instantly, and was out of the subpoena/no knock warrant power of the United States government. That's why the Guardian. It would be idiotic to give anything harmful to US interests to a US newspaper. Even if they wanted to play ball, the feds would be all over them with "National Security" letters.
Snowden played this excessively smart, and that's the only reason he's sort of free now.
The only cure will be a taste of it. The Soviets were great as a counterpoise for that reason. Now, I think we'll have to have some totalitarianism in the western world before the point is made again.
You weren't there, obviously. If you were, you'd know that there was _always_ a way to circumvent the troublesome assholes. In a world of alternative feeds and "Infinity Bombs", no one wielded the control that will exist after the corporate masters insist on universal identification.
Any idiot who could log into Fidonet - meaning literally anyone, since there were thousands of such BBS around the world - could access the Internet in some fashion even from the late 1980s. This belief about there being an academic-only wall is a bunch of hogwash.
Please, enjoy your walled garden ruled by your overlords. The rest of us will avoid such places, and be glad the Eternal September has led to this, finally. We might get the fucking Internet back at last. The spammers and trolls are parasites on the likes of you.
Are you sure you know what China is? While they care less for human rights than other countries, it is one of the biggest economies in the world, and nearly all other economies are dependent on them for cheap labor.
Plame and her husband were an example of clear corruption. She was using her intel position to feed information to her husband for more political uses. They got caught, and paid the price that a career government employee pays when they get involved in politics - career ended.
Suffice to say that your summary doesn't do justice to the actual story, they didn't have much that was of value and are only well known because of the politics they were involved in. They couldn't make their lawsuits stick and now she's writing spy novels. So much for Valerie Plame.
A little bit of critical reading of the two sources in conjunction with each other will show some discrepancies. I have a nice award from the OSD hung up in my basement that says I was at Al-Tuwaitha. My time in Iraq with dosimeter badges and looking at the abandoned fortifications atop the depicted berms (in the IAEA report) convince me that there was every appearance of a WMD program in Iraq. There may have been no nuclear weapon produced, but the theater was excellent.
Perhaps every unthinking idiot who proclaims free speech to be 'mindless' should be reminded that this sort of power is always abused ultimately. It won't be just used to curtail racist speech, but any speech that the authorities dislike. Yet another right that once given away, will have to have much blood spilled to regain.
Slashdot Mirror
I moved out before Christie was elected, so I can't comment, except to indicate that Florio's DMV of the early 90s was the worst I experienced there. I know that the circa 2007 NJ DMV was worse than Georgia's or Texas' or Minnesota's. But it's better than the MD DMV is. Ugh.
Democrats aren't any deeper than FOX Republicans.
FTFY. Half a lifetime in New Jersey was enough education on that score.
Depressingly, the government is actually better in red states - polite junkyard personnel, DMVs that don't suck, simpler tax forms, etc. Entirely counter-intuitive but also entirely true.
Sure, having 300 million people go to sleep an hour earlier is MUCH simpler than just not having the same number of people adjusting clocks twice a year, and all the IT infrastructure associated with same.
I admire that logic.
First Amendment rights don't extend to threats and trafficking stolen financial instruments ...please.
Fifth Amendment rights are clearly satisfied; the motion practice described above indicates he was charged and habeas corpus is not an issue.
Sixth Amendment rights are muddied by the aforementioned motion practice - I am positive that if he had wanted a trial by now, he'd have one. I think the point is that he'd get convicted of something, hence the delay.
Eighth Amendment - someone with a bunch of stolen credit cards available has resources, so evaluating 'excessive bail'
Woodward and Bernstein weren't instrumental to the Watergate case, they were simply public relations arms. The case was proceeding without them, and would have ended up in pretty much the same place if they'd been run over by a bus. Despite the mythology, the principals would have found some other reporter to feed data to. The independent prosecutor was the key to the case beyond February 1973, initially Cox and later Jaworski. It is important to remember that initially, the press reports of Watergate were not considered a large issue by the White House. The potential testimony of the burglars themselves was the primary issue initially, hence the hush money delivered until after the 1972 election.
Post 9-11, the cell towers ignore anything moving over a certain speed. Pre-9-11, no such thing
You'll note cell reception returns when the plane is about to land and the speeds are down sufficiently.
The fact that the US has a higher proportion of its population incarcerated than most other nations is well known.
The reasons why are less well-known. Mandatory sentences play their part, but blaming the war on drugs for this is a little shortsighted. I see the US at war with an insurgency within its borders, except the government has chosen to combat it with a criminal justice approach. This approach does not work - and note that the enforcers look more and more like an army every day, with every little municipality having a SWAT team with automatic weapons, and people being summarily executed in their homes by supposed law enforcers for little to no reason. The insurgency started when the government chose to intrude on matters that had previously been left to individual liberty and the best judgement of the population. It is a very low-intensity sort of conflict, but the signs are all around us. The war on drugs is just one slice of the entire problem. The totalization of state control is the problem.
I am not offering solutions, as I doubt any of the possible ways out would be paths taken.
I think I acknowledged a difference between alcohol, marijuana and the aggregate majority of abused substances and addressed it. That said, the whole issue is conflated nicely and is hard to split apart in most people's heads.
It appears no one has answered this question, so I will. Why are people on the right so resolutely anti-drug?
If you spent your whole life working - regardless of the delivered value to society - the idea of paying an able-bodied person's way in life is antithetical. Those on the right perceive drugs as a certain way to turn an able-bodied person into someone who requires social welfare. No one on the right trusts the individual to make logical choices in the presence in the corrupting influence of a mind-altering drug. They correctly identify the number of people who would remain productive members of society while consuming drugs as very small.
Legalizing drugs would amount to at least removing society's disfavor from the consumption of same. The right expects that an ever-increasing crop of wastrels who do not work will be the result, increasing their tax burden and further damaging the perception that work is the correct pathway to life success. To the right, there is no upside to legalization.
Wresting alcohol and marijuana from this perception goes far to explain why blue laws are still prevalent in many areas and that the first commercial legalization of marijuana happened this year.
This is pretty stupid. This has no relation to actual multithreaded execution, but the author pretends like it does. Perhaps the sites are hosted from Colorado?
Most of Roblimo's posts over the past 10 years have been pretty disconnected from the userbase. This is hardly unusual.
It was an over-reaction, but the guy wasn't willing to pay the price for civil disobedience. So now the hipster crowd wants to redefine civil disobedience as something that should never inconvenience you.
This, luckily, is something that will never fly with the public at large, who will continue to think he's a criminal forever.
I agree entirely with the AC.
Couldn't resist the chance for the dig, could you?
Granting cert on the case in question required more than Sotomayor's concurrence. One imagines the decision to issue an injunction also resulted from consultation with other justices. You have no idea who she talked to, nor what the content of the justices' discussions are.
Nonetheless, let's rip on the conservatives, because you don't like what they think. This pretty much defines "being an asshole". Which you are.
I don't think there is that much more to the Snowden story. The guy seems to be an idealist. Snowden is at risk in Russia, but he's at risk anywhere in the world. The US would like nothing better but to take him into custody. That's the sum total of his protection - his freedom amounts to thumbing a nose at the US government and pointing out its powerlessness. Same as the Soviet defectors back in the Cold War era.
Snowden was interested in leaking to somewhere that wouldn't turn him over to the FBI instantly, and was out of the subpoena/no knock warrant power of the United States government. That's why the Guardian. It would be idiotic to give anything harmful to US interests to a US newspaper. Even if they wanted to play ball, the feds would be all over them with "National Security" letters.
Snowden played this excessively smart, and that's the only reason he's sort of free now.
The only cure will be a taste of it. The Soviets were great as a counterpoise for that reason. Now, I think we'll have to have some totalitarianism in the western world before the point is made again.
Our personal freedoms weren't worth even reducing the entirely insignificant number of airliner explosions in history. WTF, really?
I love the AC cheerleader for statist surveillance. You work for NSA, I take it?
You weren't there, obviously. If you were, you'd know that there was _always_ a way to circumvent the troublesome assholes. In a world of alternative feeds and "Infinity Bombs", no one wielded the control that will exist after the corporate masters insist on universal identification.
Any idiot who could log into Fidonet - meaning literally anyone, since there were thousands of such BBS around the world - could access the Internet in some fashion even from the late 1980s. This belief about there being an academic-only wall is a bunch of hogwash.
Only walled against retards like the OP, who want mind controlling overlords to save her from reality.
Please, enjoy your walled garden ruled by your overlords. The rest of us will avoid such places, and be glad the Eternal September has led to this, finally. We might get the fucking Internet back at last. The spammers and trolls are parasites on the likes of you.
Are you sure you know what China is? While they care less for human rights than other countries, it is one of the biggest economies in the world, and nearly all other economies are dependent on them for cheap labor.
FTFY
Plame and her husband were an example of clear corruption. She was using her intel position to feed information to her husband for more political uses. They got caught, and paid the price that a career government employee pays when they get involved in politics - career ended.
Suffice to say that your summary doesn't do justice to the actual story, they didn't have much that was of value and are only well known because of the politics they were involved in. They couldn't make their lawsuits stick and now she's writing spy novels. So much for Valerie Plame.
Operation McCall on CNN
IAEA Al-Tuwaitha site report
A little bit of critical reading of the two sources in conjunction with each other will show some discrepancies. I have a nice award from the OSD hung up in my basement that says I was at Al-Tuwaitha. My time in Iraq with dosimeter badges and looking at the abandoned fortifications atop the depicted berms (in the IAEA report) convince me that there was every appearance of a WMD program in Iraq. There may have been no nuclear weapon produced, but the theater was excellent.
Perhaps every unthinking idiot who proclaims free speech to be 'mindless' should be reminded that this sort of power is always abused ultimately. It won't be just used to curtail racist speech, but any speech that the authorities dislike. Yet another right that once given away, will have to have much blood spilled to regain.