1) There is no 'mind' requirement in the First Amendment. It is not speaking your mind, it is speaking. SCOTUS has ruled that corporations have the right to free speech, so so do schools. Your understanding of the law is seriously flawed.
2) No. The school/government has no duty to help anyone speak. That is NOT part of the law. The school/government is however expressly PREVENTED from stopping speech, even if that speech itself may interfere with others right to speak.
3) I do agree that an employee may still have his own free speech, but the government/school has the right to require them make it clear that it is his personal speech, not that of the school/government. They do not have trust the employee, they can make him do any/all of the following are reasonable step:
A) Do not do it on employer owned ground, via employer printed books, or during employer owned time. B) Expressly state this is not the opinion of your employers. C) Not list your affiliation to your employer. (I.E. Professor Speaker, rather than Speaker, a Professor of UW)
So, in order to stop students (non-government) from 'stopping' (by that they mean speaking up so loudly the other side gives up), others from speaking, they want to prevent the schools from speaking their own mind.
All in the name of the "Free Speech". Yes, that sounds just about right for the Republican Party.
Students have the right to say anything they want and the school has the SAME right (unless it is a state school, then the state could determine what they say, as long as they don't interfere with what the students say.)
Free speech is not the right to make others listen to you, nor is it the right to hear only what you want. No one, not the students, not the schools, and not the government has the right to shut anyone (besides their employees) up, or make others listen to you.
Free speech is only the right to speak without the government interfering with your speech.
This article focused on how people put up with risk to get what they want, their prime example was car accidents are accepted to because we love cars.
The problem is that the LOT usually is for the benefit of the COMPANY, not the owner. They find something that people want just a little bit and sell it based on that convenience. Take the silly "BUG MY HOUSE" products now being sold, that offer internet searches and music in exchange for letting companies place always on microphones in your home. Huge benefit to the corporations, hue invasion of your privacy, all in exchange for not having to take your phone out of your pocket and tap one button before making the request.
Yes, silly people buy these things. But people d not have to. Their advantage is minimal and I truly doubt it will ever achieve the ubiquity of cars, fridges, TVs, etc.
This is typical. In general IOT is not a huge innovation allowing new consumer things for a minor cost, instead it is a huge corporate benefit with a minor consumer benefit.
It's not revolutionizing our life, it is just revolutionizing corporate business.
As such, it will probably be similar to Premium cable channels, like HBO. Some people, but not all or even most, will buy these things. Many people will refuse.
1) Low pay/benefits. In some situations, Silicon Valley will offer low pay and no benefits, but only to new hires. This is particularly common in start ups. Competent, Experienced people get god pay and can demand their own benefits. But new people have the right to reasonable pay.
2) Dangerous working conditions. Silicon Valley does not do this.
3) Ridiculous hours/work. Silicon Valley is known to do this consistently.
That is two out of three for new/bad workers. Yes, Silicon Valley needs Labor Unions.
No. When you say working for free it means they knew they would not get money, something that implies they are really stupid.
At the time they were working, they thought they would be paid. They did NOT work for free, they worked for money that was not paid. They were tricked into believing they were paid, they were not tricked into working for free.
I hate when they do this stuff. Forging a wire transfer is NOT 'tricking you into working for free'. Instead it is tricking people into thinking they were paid. Or more accurately: Wire Fraud against their own employees.
Tricking someone into working for free would mean the employee had to have done something stupid like accepting a bet on a coin flip that turned out to be a two headed coin.
What person felt the need to downgrade the horrible crime of wire fraud into merely 'tricking'?
Contracts should NOT be allowed to block both personal court cases and class actions.
I.E. If you require arbitration, then you must allow class actions. If you block class actions, then you can not require arbitration.
Also, all arbitrators should be required to participate in some kind of YELP like ranking system, allowing the suer to have SOME idea of how the arbitrator works, because the contract writer surely did research on them before they picked them.
I believe it was a scam. He never really had that good compression. Either he got cold feet and offed himself before he had to deliver the product that would not work, or someone else found out and killed him in a a rage at being tricked.
While yes, there are a few scientific advancements that are remarkable, in fields like computer file compression that are:
1) Essential to an existing, highly profitable business 2) Mathematically interesting 3) Being heavily researched by multiple people.
then any advancements get duplicated in less than 10 years. Too much money, brains and corporate greed focused on this issue for us not to figure out it or something similar by ourselves.
This has not been duplicated, therefore it was fake.
The article is not about the US paying farmers, but about farmers refusing to use the program.
Note, the problem is the poster. but NPR that used a stupid headline.
Which is a pity because the article is pretty informative, including it's conclusion: The government should be purchasing rather than renting the land. They have the money, it rarely makes sense to rent unimproved land if you can afford to own, and the problem is not going away.
Bad Science should be basic requirement in all high schools. People need to understand the difference between good science and bad science. Too many people think good science is bad, and bad science is good.
Never understood that selection. The Fountainhead is an incredible book. It explains the basic principles incredibly well. And it does so without all the obvious stupid mistakes Rand makes in Atlas Shrugged. Shrugged was obviously written by someone with first hand experience in the problems with Communism but had no idea of how to do Capitalism correctly.
Don't tell anyone to read Atlas Shrugged, it just makes them stupider. Point them at The Fountainhead, Ayn Rand's true masterpiece.
The article I read did not give enough specifics (I skipped the paywall one).
So you can't tell if a good school merely failed to improve rather than had their students fail.
Everyone should have critical thinking skills, and if you don't have any, then college should teach you that skill. But that is NOT the only thing a college should teach. Once you have that skill, there are many other skills you need, from pure knowledge, to creativity, to social skills (beyond drinking), pattern recognition, basic computer usage, among other things.
In particular, I would be SHOCKED if Ivy league schools showed significant improvement in critical thinking. It's exactly the kind of thing they love their incoming students to already have, and the ivy league schools have gotten so selective that they can pick the students that already have that.
If you call up and ask for a specific person's location, they won't just refuse, they will contact the police and you should expect a visit. And you damn well better get a lawyer to explain what you are doing.
Also, the police don't just call and ask, they demand. That's a big difference.
1) Should police obtain this kind of data. The answer to that is YES, they should.
2) Separate issue is should they get a warrant first. That is also a yes.
Basically what it comes down to is this. Anything a normal citizen could get arrested for should be require a warrant for the police to do.
The reason for this simple, police are human beings and according to most surveys are 96% honest. But normal citizens are 95% honest. That means police are more honest than other people, but only by a little bit. So we need to limit their ability to abuse their authority, just as we limit regular citizens.
In other words, if you can't trust your neighbor to have the right to do something, then neither should you trust the police to do it.
Terrorism is an attempt to generate PUBLICITY using violence, not an attempt to generate violence using publicity. The only reason they kill is to get attention. So when they publicize their terrorism, you have misunderstood cause and effect. I.E. They are not publishing on Facebook to convince people to join their violent movement, they are using violence to convince people to read their publicity. As such, cracking down on Facebook merely encourages them to be MORE violent so that the News covers them instead of being less violent.
Your other advice is true, we generally are aware of the dangerous people, but the reason we do not pick them up is that we have a list of 1000 people, 999 of which are non-violent activists, while one is a real terrorists. That is why we don't crack down on the people we suspect.
Worst of all, remember these people are trying violence most often because they have a real problem that is being ignored. Their solution may be horrible, but those 999 out of a thousand are the good guys trying to end the real problem WITHOUT violence. For example. the Irish were mistreated by the British. So your suggestion is that we crack down on any one we suspect of being an IRA member in order to get to the few IRA members is simply Fascism. Not allowing the pro-irish movement free speech is why and how the IRA was formed.
Finally, as a side note, the fact that terrorist think something is a good idea is not evidence that it is a good idea. These are people stupid enough to think violence is a good way to generate publicity.
Since the dawn of time, people have confused 'stopping speech' with solving the problem. It doesn't. Despite the lying panic, communication does NOT 'radicalize' people. Instead it lets other people find out about the radicalization. While it is true that a small number of lunatics that were considering minor criminal actions upgrade to larger actions, free speech does not create problems, it REVEALS them.
Stopping free speech delays the problem at best, rather than solving them. Eventually the pent up issues burst forth into violence.
Better to have a constant small stream that is deal able rather than a flash flood.
Others have already shown why the answer to this question is No.
I would like to point out why No is always the answer to questions like this.
If the answer is Yes, the editor rephrases the question as a statement. I.E. no one writes a headline "Did Trump get elected?" Instead we write "Trump wins."
We only use a question when the real headline would be boring, so we re-write it to sound more exciting and make it a question so we can't get sued. So if we know that Trump has not resigned, but we want people to click/read our article, we write "Has Trump RESIGNED?" The answer is no.
Same thing with this question. The answer is obviously no, we should never trust anyone that says "I refuse to tell you why, but I think the judge should do X." You want us to listen to your legal argument then you HAVE to back it up with your thinking.
There is a definite, medical benefit for some of the elderly, at least if the hook up was 24/7. Whether a once a week (or even once a day) blood transfusion will be enough is another question entirely.
As you get older, your organs, such as your kidneys and liver start to fail. Those organs add and remove things from your blood.
That means an 80 year old probably has not enough of certain good things in their blood and too much of certain waste products.
If your blood is too acidic, it will leach your bones, making them weaker. Gout is basically caused by having too much uric acid in your blood so it crystallizes out.
Note that donated Blood has an expiration date. Living cells die. Red blood cells last for 42 days, platelets last only for 7 days.
That means in order to have enough blood for medical emergencies, we need t constantly have EXTRA blood available that will be wasted. Which means that every day we throw out a ton of 'expired' blood.
This new business can help manage this problem. Bigger market, means less gets wasted. Worst case scenario, we can say "sorry, you need to return that blood, that was a 12 car pile up on I95." Build it into their contracts.
The trigger for the violation was when the steering wheel was turned more than 15 degrees. That seems an odd trigger. It's not like the position of the steering wheel should affect the combustion in any way, nor would it be something a reasonable person would use to start a secret 'less pollution for the testing mode'.
It seems more like a major coding flaw rather than an intentional cheat. Like someone assumed that a set of values would be inside a range but when the wheel was turned, it gave an out of range reading that confused a computer, resulting in poor pollution control.
Very different than a 'test mode', that VW clearly used just to intentionally fool government agencies.
Movie Critics as a whole tend to ignore/poorly rate certain types of movies (comedies, action) while excessively praising certain other types. (Documentaries, drama). This is a separate issue than Rotten Tomatoes. I would agree that the movie critics need to fix how they grade movies. Among other things, they should be forced to bell curve, WITHIN categories. That is they should rate action movies only in comparison to other action movies, and give the best one of the year a 5 star rating, even if they did not like it as much as the documentary about how horrible murder is.
Rotten Tomatoes is another, separate issue. It is a great informational site, and they are complaining about it being GOOD at it's job, rather than bad it's job. They are in no way to blame for the scores the critics give and should not be blamed if movies do poorly because no one wants to see a piece of crap.
Slashdot Mirror
This is an Appeals court, not a Supreme Court ruling.
Big difference.
1) There is no 'mind' requirement in the First Amendment. It is not speaking your mind, it is speaking. SCOTUS has ruled that corporations have the right to free speech, so so do schools. Your understanding of the law is seriously flawed.
2) No. The school/government has no duty to help anyone speak. That is NOT part of the law. The school/government is however expressly PREVENTED from stopping speech, even if that speech itself may interfere with others right to speak.
3) I do agree that an employee may still have his own free speech, but the government/school has the right to require them make it clear that it is his personal speech, not that of the school/government. They do not have trust the employee, they can make him do any/all of the following are reasonable step:
A) Do not do it on employer owned ground, via employer printed books, or during employer owned time.
B) Expressly state this is not the opinion of your employers.
C) Not list your affiliation to your employer. (I.E. Professor Speaker, rather than Speaker, a Professor of UW)
So, in order to stop students (non-government) from 'stopping' (by that they mean speaking up so loudly the other side gives up), others from speaking, they want to prevent the schools from speaking their own mind.
All in the name of the "Free Speech". Yes, that sounds just about right for the Republican Party.
Students have the right to say anything they want and the school has the SAME right (unless it is a state school, then the state could determine what they say, as long as they don't interfere with what the students say.)
Free speech is not the right to make others listen to you, nor is it the right to hear only what you want. No one, not the students, not the schools, and not the government has the right to shut anyone (besides their employees) up, or make others listen to you.
Free speech is only the right to speak without the government interfering with your speech.
This article focused on how people put up with risk to get what they want, their prime example was car accidents are accepted to because we love cars.
The problem is that the LOT usually is for the benefit of the COMPANY, not the owner. They find something that people want just a little bit and sell it based on that convenience. Take the silly "BUG MY HOUSE" products now being sold, that offer internet searches and music in exchange for letting companies place always on microphones in your home. Huge benefit to the corporations, hue invasion of your privacy, all in exchange for not having to take your phone out of your pocket and tap one button before making the request.
Yes, silly people buy these things. But people d not have to. Their advantage is minimal and I truly doubt it will ever achieve the ubiquity of cars, fridges, TVs, etc.
This is typical. In general IOT is not a huge innovation allowing new consumer things for a minor cost, instead it is a huge corporate benefit with a minor consumer benefit.
It's not revolutionizing our life, it is just revolutionizing corporate business.
As such, it will probably be similar to Premium cable channels, like HBO. Some people, but not all or even most, will buy these things. Many people will refuse.
1) Low pay/benefits.
In some situations, Silicon Valley will offer low pay and no benefits, but only to new hires. This is particularly common in start ups. Competent, Experienced people get god pay and can demand their own benefits. But new people have the right to reasonable pay.
2) Dangerous working conditions.
Silicon Valley does not do this.
3) Ridiculous hours/work.
Silicon Valley is known to do this consistently.
That is two out of three for new/bad workers. Yes, Silicon Valley needs Labor Unions.
Turns colored dots into black ones. Problem solved.
No. When you say working for free it means they knew they would not get money, something that implies they are really stupid.
At the time they were working, they thought they would be paid. They did NOT work for free, they worked for money that was not paid. They were tricked into believing they were paid, they were not tricked into working for free.
I hate when they do this stuff. Forging a wire transfer is NOT 'tricking you into working for free'. Instead it is tricking people into thinking they were paid. Or more accurately: Wire Fraud against their own employees.
Tricking someone into working for free would mean the employee had to have done something stupid like accepting a bet on a coin flip that turned out to be a two headed coin.
What person felt the need to downgrade the horrible crime of wire fraud into merely 'tricking'?
Contracts should NOT be allowed to block both personal court cases and class actions.
I.E. If you require arbitration, then you must allow class actions. If you block class actions, then you can not require arbitration.
Also, all arbitrators should be required to participate in some kind of YELP like ranking system, allowing the suer to have SOME idea of how the arbitrator works, because the contract writer surely did research on them before they picked them.
I believe it was a scam. He never really had that good compression. Either he got cold feet and offed himself before he had to deliver the product that would not work, or someone else found out and killed him in a a rage at being tricked.
While yes, there are a few scientific advancements that are remarkable, in fields like computer file compression that are:
1) Essential to an existing, highly profitable business
2) Mathematically interesting
3) Being heavily researched by multiple people.
then any advancements get duplicated in less than 10 years. Too much money, brains and corporate greed focused on this issue for us not to figure out it or something similar by ourselves.
This has not been duplicated, therefore it was fake.
The article is not about the US paying farmers, but about farmers refusing to use the program.
Note, the problem is the poster. but NPR that used a stupid headline.
Which is a pity because the article is pretty informative, including it's conclusion: The government should be purchasing rather than renting the land. They have the money, it rarely makes sense to rent unimproved land if you can afford to own, and the problem is not going away.
Bad Science should be basic requirement in all high schools. People need to understand the difference between good science and bad science. Too many people think good science is bad, and bad science is good.
Never understood that selection. The Fountainhead is an incredible book. It explains the basic principles incredibly well. And it does so without all the obvious stupid mistakes Rand makes in Atlas Shrugged. Shrugged was obviously written by someone with first hand experience in the problems with Communism but had no idea of how to do Capitalism correctly.
Don't tell anyone to read Atlas Shrugged, it just makes them stupider. Point them at The Fountainhead, Ayn Rand's true masterpiece.
The article I read did not give enough specifics (I skipped the paywall one).
So you can't tell if a good school merely failed to improve rather than had their students fail.
Everyone should have critical thinking skills, and if you don't have any, then college should teach you that skill. But that is NOT the only thing a college should teach. Once you have that skill, there are many other skills you need, from pure knowledge, to creativity, to social skills (beyond drinking), pattern recognition, basic computer usage, among other things.
In particular, I would be SHOCKED if Ivy league schools showed significant improvement in critical thinking. It's exactly the kind of thing they love their incoming students to already have, and the ivy league schools have gotten so selective that they can pick the students that already have that.
If you call up and ask for a specific person's location, they won't just refuse, they will contact the police and you should expect a visit. And you damn well better get a lawyer to explain what you are doing.
Also, the police don't just call and ask, they demand. That's a big difference.
1) Should police obtain this kind of data. The answer to that is YES, they should.
2) Separate issue is should they get a warrant first. That is also a yes.
Basically what it comes down to is this. Anything a normal citizen could get arrested for should be require a warrant for the police to do.
The reason for this simple, police are human beings and according to most surveys are 96% honest. But normal citizens are 95% honest. That means police are more honest than other people, but only by a little bit. So we need to limit their ability to abuse their authority, just as we limit regular citizens.
In other words, if you can't trust your neighbor to have the right to do something, then neither should you trust the police to do it.
Terrorism is an attempt to generate PUBLICITY using violence, not an attempt to generate violence using publicity. The only reason they kill is to get attention. So when they publicize their terrorism, you have misunderstood cause and effect. I.E. They are not publishing on Facebook to convince people to join their violent movement, they are using violence to convince people to read their publicity. As such, cracking down on Facebook merely encourages them to be MORE violent so that the News covers them instead of being less violent.
Your other advice is true, we generally are aware of the dangerous people, but the reason we do not pick them up is that we have a list of 1000 people, 999 of which are non-violent activists, while one is a real terrorists. That is why we don't crack down on the people we suspect.
Worst of all, remember these people are trying violence most often because they have a real problem that is being ignored. Their solution may be horrible, but those 999 out of a thousand are the good guys trying to end the real problem WITHOUT violence. For example. the Irish were mistreated by the British. So your suggestion is that we crack down on any one we suspect of being an IRA member in order to get to the few IRA members is simply Fascism. Not allowing the pro-irish movement free speech is why and how the IRA was formed.
Finally, as a side note, the fact that terrorist think something is a good idea is not evidence that it is a good idea. These are people stupid enough to think violence is a good way to generate publicity.
Since the dawn of time, people have confused 'stopping speech' with solving the problem. It doesn't. Despite the lying panic, communication does NOT 'radicalize' people. Instead it lets other people find out about the radicalization. While it is true that a small number of lunatics that were considering minor criminal actions upgrade to larger actions, free speech does not create problems, it REVEALS them.
Stopping free speech delays the problem at best, rather than solving them. Eventually the pent up issues burst forth into violence.
Better to have a constant small stream that is deal able rather than a flash flood.
Others have already shown why the answer to this question is No.
I would like to point out why No is always the answer to questions like this.
If the answer is Yes, the editor rephrases the question as a statement. I.E. no one writes a headline "Did Trump get elected?" Instead we write "Trump wins."
We only use a question when the real headline would be boring, so we re-write it to sound more exciting and make it a question so we can't get sued. So if we know that Trump has not resigned, but we want people to click/read our article, we write "Has Trump RESIGNED?" The answer is no.
Same thing with this question. The answer is obviously no, we should never trust anyone that says "I refuse to tell you why, but I think the judge should do X." You want us to listen to your legal argument then you HAVE to back it up with your thinking.
Because if you list the science he gets wrong, you will be here long after he is dead and buried.
There is a definite, medical benefit for some of the elderly, at least if the hook up was 24/7. Whether a once a week (or even once a day) blood transfusion will be enough is another question entirely.
As you get older, your organs, such as your kidneys and liver start to fail. Those organs add and remove things from your blood.
That means an 80 year old probably has not enough of certain good things in their blood and too much of certain waste products.
If your blood is too acidic, it will leach your bones, making them weaker. Gout is basically caused by having too much uric acid in your blood so it crystallizes out.
Note that donated Blood has an expiration date. Living cells die. Red blood cells last for 42 days, platelets last only for 7 days.
That means in order to have enough blood for medical emergencies, we need t constantly have EXTRA blood available that will be wasted. Which means that every day we throw out a ton of 'expired' blood.
This new business can help manage this problem. Bigger market, means less gets wasted. Worst case scenario, we can say "sorry, you need to return that blood, that was a 12 car pile up on I95." Build it into their contracts.
The trigger for the violation was when the steering wheel was turned more than 15 degrees. That seems an odd trigger. It's not like the position of the steering wheel should affect the combustion in any way, nor would it be something a reasonable person would use to start a secret 'less pollution for the testing mode'.
It seems more like a major coding flaw rather than an intentional cheat. Like someone assumed that a set of values would be inside a range but when the wheel was turned, it gave an out of range reading that confused a computer, resulting in poor pollution control.
Very different than a 'test mode', that VW clearly used just to intentionally fool government agencies.
They are not the same thing.
Movie Critics as a whole tend to ignore/poorly rate certain types of movies (comedies, action) while excessively praising certain other types. (Documentaries, drama). This is a separate issue than Rotten Tomatoes. I would agree that the movie critics need to fix how they grade movies. Among other things, they should be forced to bell curve, WITHIN categories. That is they should rate action movies only in comparison to other action movies, and give the best one of the year a 5 star rating, even if they did not like it as much as the documentary about how horrible murder is.
Rotten Tomatoes is another, separate issue. It is a great informational site, and they are complaining about it being GOOD at it's job, rather than bad it's job. They are in no way to blame for the scores the critics give and should not be blamed if movies do poorly because no one wants to see a piece of crap.
If they were rewarded, they would end up with jobs. If they had jobs, they would not have enough time to do all of that hacking.
Their are only two ways you get hackers of this high quality:
1) They are not rewarded.
2) Their motivations outweigh their greed. Talking about religious extremism quality motivation.