There is a lot of empty space occupied by banks which is not used. Half of the floors in the investment bank buildings are literally empty. And this is prime real estate -- midtown or even right down town Manhattan. If they didn't get the huge subsidy they got, they'd be forced to consolidate the floors and rent out the half of the floors in those buildings. As it stands, those prime buildings are acting as storage space for empty desks while small starts ups rent residential apartments as their places of business.
It says nothing about being silent or waiving your rights by testifying.
You are putting emphasis on "nor shall be". But it's "nor shall be compelled". If you put emphasis on compelled, it becomes clear that once certain steps are taken voluntarily, one cannot be compelled to take those steps.
There is a subtle point not covered by the language of the amendment. As written, it can be interpreted either way. In such situations, it is the legislature's prerogative to chose one of the alternatives. The courts', of course, also have the right to make sure that this choice of alternative does not overreach in removing the actual intent of the amendment. The two alternative reading of "shall not be compelled" are (1) will not be forced to start engaging in an activity (2) will have a right to stop engaging in an activity even after starting to engage in the said activity. If the alternative (1) is chosen as the legitimate one (through legislature), then no protection exists after a person voluntarily starts to engage in an activity. Chose (1) is where we are at the moment.
Most rights exist only until you voluntarily give them up. There are very few rights which you cannot give up. The right to freedom is one of them (so you can't sell yourself into slavery). The right to remain silent is NOT one of them. You lose that right the moment you don't remain silent and testify.
She has the right to not incriminate herself PERIOD.
How hard is this to understand?
No, she has a right to remain silent. She doesn't have the right to tell her side of the story and then to not answer any questions. She can only practice her right not to incriminate herself by not testifying. Once she testifies, she can't invoke a right to not testify. And she REALLY, REEEEALY does not have a right to accuse others of crimes without being cross examined. At the very least, those she accused have a right to question her as their accuser.
Suffice it to say that I was writing Device Drivers before you ever saw a computer and Windows Device Drivers before you knew what a device driver was..
Which means you have 0 skills as a programmer and a negative skills as a developer. You are the worst kind of coder -- an engineer. You think that code is there to do stuff. It's not. It's there to tell what it does. And you are very,very,very,very likely a very poor story teller. There is virtually no difference in entropy between the code you write and the compiled code that comes out of what you write. You produce negative information because people learn nothing from reading what you write. Engineers are notoriously, obnoxiously terrible coders. There. Feel better.
The names of your objects, classes and functions should be the comments. If they are not, then no amount of commenting will help to understand your code. No one gives a damn what you think your code should do (and what you claim it does in the comments). The only thing that a person unlucky enough to have to read YOUR code cares about is what it actually does. And if the symbols in your program are not properly named, you might as well be writing it in assembly. All the higher-level language crap is useless if the programmer thinks that his code will be understood from reading the comments. If a comment is absolutely necessary to understand a particular piece of the code, the code needs rewriting. If a comment is as much as remotely useful in understanding a particular piece of code, then the code needs re-writing.
Except it wasn't a court proceeding and she wasn't testifying in a trial
Forget the fact that she is a federal employee whose salary has to be approved by Congress. Forget the fact that she works for an agency whose power is subject for Congressional oversight (so at the very least they can summon her to testify in order to see if her job is worth paying for with the funds they approve). Everyone can be subpoenaed to testify. Everyone can refuse to testify. But no one can refuse to testify after testifying.
Still befuddles me. So you're telling me if you provide any information whatsoever, you're legally obliged to answer every single question,
Unless you work for the IRS. In that case, you can go in front of Congress and give a speech proclaiming your innocence, level charges against others and then plead the 5th so that you cannot be questioned any further.
It's just how your brain works. It's a lot easier to examine a piece of mechanical machinery when it's in motion. You notice more. Do the same with the code. Run it. Run components independently. Put plenty of log statements or if it's feasible, watch under a debugger. But don't try to look at stale code just sitting there. You'll notice more as it moves.
Pretty soon... not when, but soon, you are not gonna like your today's self. There is nothing more vile than someone who still clings to defending Obama after all of this. And soon this feeling will set in. Until then, you don't have enough perspective to have a rational discussion.
You do understand that the point you are trying to make is that Obama is only slightly worse than Bush rather than significantly worse than Bush? You do know that Bush never ran a campaign on protecting civil rights or ending wars? Obama did. You do further understand that Bush stayed within the law or tried to. And Obama blatantly disregarded both his campaign promises and the law, do you not?
They weren't soldiers in an army. They were civilians doing their civilian job. The distinction between right and wrong here is in the application of the law.... not in some moral sense (like committing mass murder would have been). As laymen in the legal system, they had no choice but to accept government's interpretation of what was legal. It was the government and only the government that was at fault.
Were the people in Hollywood that were tagetted by McCarthy elected officials that had taken such an oath? No. So your comment is irrelevent.
If they were plotting for illegal change of government, then their plot was not a legal activity. My comments are relevant and appropriate.
That's strange, I don't recall reading any limit on freedom of speech in the first amendment.
That's ok because it's not YOUR reading of the Constitution that determines how it is to be interpreted. The only people
whose reading of The Constitution has legal merit are the SCOTUS.
Advocating murder is different to advocating a peaceful change of government.
The key difference is not between peaceful vs violent. It's legal vs illegal. Advocating for illegal actions
is not covered under free speech.
It doesn't matter that it's stored on 3rd party's equipment. You don't "own" your conversation either. But it's established case law that you need a warrant for the subscriber rather than for the provider of the service to gain access to the information stored on 3rd party's equipment. As to the "only want warrant" comment, no one has claimed that they got multiple warrants. But a warrant is still an exception to the regular restrictions on government activities toward end-users. A single warrant can cover multiple end-users. In this case, however, it attempts to create a new by simply issuing a warrant. If the warrant to examine provider argument were legit, then the government could get a warrant against paper manufacturers and claim the right to every paper note in order to examine their paper content. Yes, I do understand the subtle difference in transfer of ownership here, but it's too subtle. A warrant lifts protections against search and seizure, so the stretch would be too tenuous to prevent overreach.
Actually, to add to my other comment, the main (rarely discussed) difference between Communists and Fascists philosophies was not that one believed in some restrictions on the government and the other didn't. Both believed that the government should rightfully have any power just for asking. The main difference was that Fascists were nationalists and ethno-centric in their views. Communists saw themselves as internationalists. This was the reason why so many black journalists were Communists. Internationalism was an anti-racist idea and it increased the appeal of Communism to then-still-oppressed minorities world-wide. Because the particular brand of socialists that is the modern Democratic Party is very much internationalist, it is more appropriate to call them Communists than Fascists.
Your link shows that they collected information only from Microsoft in 2007. Not even from Skype. Just Microsoft. So what are we talking about Microsoft messenger? You want to compare parsing MS messanger chats to recording meta data on all phone calls in the country as equal? I am tired. You know you are full of shit. I stand by my original statement. Bush wasn't innocent. Bush walked the line. But Obama is guilty. He doesn't even concern himself with the line.
No, they didn't. They had a piece of paper which said it was a warrant. But a warrant is a recognition of an exceptional condition by a judge. As such, it cannot be issued for 120,000,000 people. It wasn't a warrant. It wan an attempt to change the law and call it a warrant.
Slashdot Mirror
Forgot to mention: small-mindedness and thinking that the world doesn't exist beyond the 10 miles surrounding your jail compound = Brooklyn.
Tiny living quarters = jail cells. Congested roads = prison corridors. Unsanitary overcrowding = unsanitary overcrowding. Pride in misery and suffering = prison mentality. Brooklyn = jail.
Brooklyn is a jail. And every inmate is just taking pride in their own cell block.
There is a lot of empty space occupied by banks which is not used. Half of the floors in the investment bank buildings are literally empty. And this is prime real estate -- midtown or even right down town Manhattan. If they didn't get the huge subsidy they got, they'd be forced to consolidate the floors and rent out the half of the floors in those buildings. As it stands, those prime buildings are acting as storage space for empty desks while small starts ups rent residential apartments as their places of business.
It says nothing about being silent or waiving your rights by testifying.
You are putting emphasis on "nor shall be". But it's "nor shall be compelled". If you put emphasis on compelled, it becomes clear that once certain steps are taken voluntarily, one cannot be compelled to take those steps.
There is a subtle point not covered by the language of the amendment. As written, it can be interpreted either way. In such situations, it is the legislature's prerogative to chose one of the alternatives. The courts', of course, also have the right to make sure that this choice of alternative does not overreach in removing the actual intent of the amendment. The two alternative reading of "shall not be compelled" are (1) will not be forced to start engaging in an activity (2) will have a right to stop engaging in an activity even after starting to engage in the said activity. If the alternative (1) is chosen as the legitimate one (through legislature), then no protection exists after a person voluntarily starts to engage in an activity. Chose (1) is where we are at the moment.
Most rights exist only until you voluntarily give them up. There are very few rights which you cannot give up. The right to freedom is one of them (so you can't sell yourself into slavery). The right to remain silent is NOT one of them. You lose that right the moment you don't remain silent and testify.
She has the right to not incriminate herself PERIOD. How hard is this to understand?
No, she has a right to remain silent. She doesn't have the right to tell her side of the story and then to not answer any questions. She can only practice her right not to incriminate herself by not testifying. Once she testifies, she can't invoke a right to not testify. And she REALLY, REEEEALY does not have a right to accuse others of crimes without being cross examined. At the very least, those she accused have a right to question her as their accuser.
Suffice it to say that I was writing Device Drivers before you ever saw a computer and Windows Device Drivers before you knew what a device driver was..
Which means you have 0 skills as a programmer and a negative skills as a developer. You are the worst kind of coder -- an engineer. You think that code is there to do stuff. It's not. It's there to tell what it does. And you are very,very,very,very likely a very poor story teller. There is virtually no difference in entropy between the code you write and the compiled code that comes out of what you write. You produce negative information because people learn nothing from reading what you write. Engineers are notoriously, obnoxiously terrible coders. There. Feel better.
I read a lot of oss code. If it gets to the point where I start looking at the comments, it's because the code itself is too buggy to fix on its own.
The names of your objects, classes and functions should be the comments. If they are not, then no amount of commenting will help to understand your code. No one gives a damn what you think your code should do (and what you claim it does in the comments). The only thing that a person unlucky enough to have to read YOUR code cares about is what it actually does. And if the symbols in your program are not properly named, you might as well be writing it in assembly. All the higher-level language crap is useless if the programmer thinks that his code will be understood from reading the comments. If a comment is absolutely necessary to understand a particular piece of the code, the code needs rewriting. If a comment is as much as remotely useful in understanding a particular piece of code, then the code needs re-writing.
Except it wasn't a court proceeding and she wasn't testifying in a trial
Forget the fact that she is a federal employee whose salary has to be approved by Congress. Forget the fact that she works for an agency whose power is subject for Congressional oversight (so at the very least they can summon her to testify in order to see if her job is worth paying for with the funds they approve). Everyone can be subpoenaed to testify. Everyone can refuse to testify. But no one can refuse to testify after testifying.
Still befuddles me. So you're telling me if you provide any information whatsoever, you're legally obliged to answer every single question,
Unless you work for the IRS. In that case, you can go in front of Congress and give a speech proclaiming your innocence, level charges against others and then plead the 5th so that you cannot be questioned any further.
If your code needs comments, it needs re-factoring. If the code is not self-documenting, it's worthless.
It's just how your brain works. It's a lot easier to examine a piece of mechanical machinery when it's in motion. You notice more. Do the same with the code. Run it. Run components independently. Put plenty of log statements or if it's feasible, watch under a debugger. But don't try to look at stale code just sitting there. You'll notice more as it moves.
or for political dissenters, too?
Pretty soon... not when, but soon, you are not gonna like your today's self. There is nothing more vile than someone who still clings to defending Obama after all of this. And soon this feeling will set in. Until then, you don't have enough perspective to have a rational discussion.
You do understand that the point you are trying to make is that Obama is only slightly worse than Bush rather than significantly worse than Bush? You do know that Bush never ran a campaign on protecting civil rights or ending wars? Obama did. You do further understand that Bush stayed within the law or tried to. And Obama blatantly disregarded both his campaign promises and the law, do you not?
They weren't soldiers in an army. They were civilians doing their civilian job. The distinction between right and wrong here is in the application of the law.... not in some moral sense (like committing mass murder would have been). As laymen in the legal system, they had no choice but to accept government's interpretation of what was legal. It was the government and only the government that was at fault.
Were the people in Hollywood that were tagetted by McCarthy elected officials that had taken such an oath? No. So your comment is irrelevent.
If they were plotting for illegal change of government, then their plot was not a legal activity. My comments are relevant and appropriate.
That's strange, I don't recall reading any limit on freedom of speech in the first amendment.
That's ok because it's not YOUR reading of the Constitution that determines how it is to be interpreted. The only people whose reading of The Constitution has legal merit are the SCOTUS.
Advocating murder is different to advocating a peaceful change of government.
The key difference is not between peaceful vs violent. It's legal vs illegal. Advocating for illegal actions is not covered under free speech.
It doesn't matter that it's stored on 3rd party's equipment. You don't "own" your conversation either. But it's established case law that you need a warrant for the subscriber rather than for the provider of the service to gain access to the information stored on 3rd party's equipment. As to the "only want warrant" comment, no one has claimed that they got multiple warrants. But a warrant is still an exception to the regular restrictions on government activities toward end-users. A single warrant can cover multiple end-users. In this case, however, it attempts to create a new by simply issuing a warrant. If the warrant to examine provider argument were legit, then the government could get a warrant against paper manufacturers and claim the right to every paper note in order to examine their paper content. Yes, I do understand the subtle difference in transfer of ownership here, but it's too subtle. A warrant lifts protections against search and seizure, so the stretch would be too tenuous to prevent overreach.
Actually, to add to my other comment, the main (rarely discussed) difference between Communists and Fascists philosophies was not that one believed in some restrictions on the government and the other didn't. Both believed that the government should rightfully have any power just for asking. The main difference was that Fascists were nationalists and ethno-centric in their views. Communists saw themselves as internationalists. This was the reason why so many black journalists were Communists. Internationalism was an anti-racist idea and it increased the appeal of Communism to then-still-oppressed minorities world-wide. Because the particular brand of socialists that is the modern Democratic Party is very much internationalist, it is more appropriate to call them Communists than Fascists.
Your link shows that they collected information only from Microsoft in 2007. Not even from Skype. Just Microsoft. So what are we talking about Microsoft messenger? You want to compare parsing MS messanger chats to recording meta data on all phone calls in the country as equal? I am tired. You know you are full of shit. I stand by my original statement. Bush wasn't innocent. Bush walked the line. But Obama is guilty. He doesn't even concern himself with the line.
Well then, we just have to hold verizon and other participating telcos responsible for viola
Yeah, aha. Let's hold the techs responsible.. not the people with shiny guns and government badges who told them to do it.
They had a warrant to search and seize.
No, they didn't. They had a piece of paper which said it was a warrant. But a warrant is a recognition of an exceptional condition by a judge. As such, it cannot be issued for 120,000,000 people. It wasn't a warrant. It wan an attempt to change the law and call it a warrant.