Saying "the laws are there" doesn't explain how they are interpreted or applied. When they are -- like an example cited above -- as vague as "express[ing] disrespect" for certain groups, that is a recipe for inconsistent and even interpretation. Moreover, most of the people deciding who gets prosecuted or not have a strong bias about it. If the protections for speech are so robust, why did people in Germany face prosecution over a rather mild joke about Erdogan?
Well, they'll be able to arrest the perps if those perps post video of the attack to YouTube! If we're really lucky, Google will prevent those videos from being monetized via ads.
Bullshit. The global poverty rate has plummeted over the last 40 years. It's increasingly possible for poor citizens in Third World countries to own a cell phone that is more powerful than the fastest PCs from 20 years ago. Most of the developed world is dealing with the problem of having too much food rather than not enough.
There will be limitations and conflicts as long as we are Homo sapiens, but for the most part, we're doing pretty well at escaping what people 50 or 100 years ago thought was the inevitable "human condition".
I have not implied that the criminal actions should be ignored or excused, so it is frankly silly for you to expect me to name reasons to ignore or excuse them. If you want anyone to take that idea seriously, maybe you should give us reasons to do so.
The things you mentioned are mechanisms to stop a prosecution. They are not reasons or legal principles to do so. A defendant can't appear in court and demand nolle prosequi. A defendant (or counsel) who even mentioned jury nullification in court would be found in contempt. A defendant moving for judicial dismissal would be told to explain why such dismissal is proper and required.
You forgot to mention that the other point is that Democrats always lie about taxes, too. After all, in one breath they claim that rich people and corporations engage in extensive tax avoidance schemes (implying that we are on the right side of the Laffer curve), and in the next breath conclude that we need to raise taxes on the rich and corporations (implying that we are on the left side of the Laffer curve).
After all, if you're going to blatantly lie and say that politicians "always" advance a strawman argument, you should probably be even-handed about it, lest you look like a pathetic partisan hack.
At atmospheric concentration of several percent CO2, our lungs can't perform gas exchange to move CO2 from our blood to the air, and we die. That is about 100 times as much as is in the air right now (~400 ppm), and many times the point at which we have other things to worry about.
So don't put "CO2 levels that are toxic to humans" high on your priority list of things to worry about.
So if I shortchange program X by $9.99M, and give program Y an extra $10M, the only real story is that I went a net $10k over budget, not that I misdirected a thousand times as much?
Should the primary goal of government be to maximize its revenues?
It's also silly to talk about Laffer curves and marginal rates in the same sentence. A Laffer curve is implicitly about revenues as a function of a single tax rate. Once you have multiple tax rates, you won't get a single peak (local maximum) in the multidimensional surface, and you can't predict where the global maximum will be, much less whether you have achieved it.
At most of my jobs, I have worked with people for whom programming was just a job. It beat hauling garbage or sitting at a front desk, but they didn't get excited about it. They usually aren't so bad -- they know their limitations, and while they're mostly never going to win prizes, they are often reliable.
The people who really make my life difficult are the ones who apparently like programming without being good at it. For some reason, a lot of programmers are stuck in a 1980s mentality -- they've decided that C++ is too fancy and complicated, and they're perfectly happy with their C (or C With Classes) approach to solving problems. Or they think it's acceptable to write a buggy class and explain its biggest hazard with one comment: "PARTIALLY Thread Safe!!!"
That's neither tricky nor grounds to overturn the law. A model airplane ceases to be one when its operator flies it out of his or her line of sight (subject to reasonable exceptions for momentary, accidental, breaks in the line of sight). Any model aircraft could be flown out of the operator's sight -- that doesn't mean the FAA suddenly gets to regulate them all.
Because the law says that its use of "model aircraft" is limited to hobbyist/non-commercial flight, as the court was quoted above. Resolving questions like yours is a major reason that laws have "definitions" sections.
External environmental and social factors also influence how many job-site injuries occur. By your logic, number of ambulance calls is also a bad metric by which to judge how this factory's workers are treated.
It's different because these places are open to the general public, and they want to provide amenities like WiFi access and printers to people they haven't screened. They *want* some of their systems to be easy to access. That doesn't mean they use those systems for anything proprietary or confidential.
Mr. O's here, what youâ(TM)ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
I mean, really. How sold we take your claim that Thais are "richer" than Germans because a bottle of beer costs about $1 in stores in both countries, but the average Thai has to work a lot longer to earn that dollar?
Slashdot Mirror
Saying "the laws are there" doesn't explain how they are interpreted or applied. When they are -- like an example cited above -- as vague as "express[ing] disrespect" for certain groups, that is a recipe for inconsistent and even interpretation. Moreover, most of the people deciding who gets prosecuted or not have a strong bias about it. If the protections for speech are so robust, why did people in Germany face prosecution over a rather mild joke about Erdogan?
Is it so silly to try to change things because of how the 1% behave?
If so, I've got great news for Republicans.
Well, they'll be able to arrest the perps if those perps post video of the attack to YouTube! If we're really lucky, Google will prevent those videos from being monetized via ads.
Bullshit. The global poverty rate has plummeted over the last 40 years. It's increasingly possible for poor citizens in Third World countries to own a cell phone that is more powerful than the fastest PCs from 20 years ago. Most of the developed world is dealing with the problem of having too much food rather than not enough.
There will be limitations and conflicts as long as we are Homo sapiens, but for the most part, we're doing pretty well at escaping what people 50 or 100 years ago thought was the inevitable "human condition".
I have not implied that the criminal actions should be ignored or excused, so it is frankly silly for you to expect me to name reasons to ignore or excuse them. If you want anyone to take that idea seriously, maybe you should give us reasons to do so.
Shorter angel'o'sphere: "Stop liking what I don't like!"
Just because you don't see a point to having a GitHub account doesn't mean there is no point for anyone.
The things you mentioned are mechanisms to stop a prosecution. They are not reasons or legal principles to do so. A defendant can't appear in court and demand nolle prosequi. A defendant (or counsel) who even mentioned jury nullification in court would be found in contempt. A defendant moving for judicial dismissal would be told to explain why such dismissal is proper and required.
Also, he doesn't understand why people besides "professional developers" might have GitHub accounts.
Whoosh.
Which Laffer curve were you talking about, anyway? The one for the taxes being avoided, or the one for the lower-tax alternative?
You forgot to mention that the other point is that Democrats always lie about taxes, too. After all, in one breath they claim that rich people and corporations engage in extensive tax avoidance schemes (implying that we are on the right side of the Laffer curve), and in the next breath conclude that we need to raise taxes on the rich and corporations (implying that we are on the left side of the Laffer curve).
After all, if you're going to blatantly lie and say that politicians "always" advance a strawman argument, you should probably be even-handed about it, lest you look like a pathetic partisan hack.
You forgot to pole Poll-land.
At atmospheric concentration of several percent CO2, our lungs can't perform gas exchange to move CO2 from our blood to the air, and we die. That is about 100 times as much as is in the air right now (~400 ppm), and many times the point at which we have other things to worry about.
So don't put "CO2 levels that are toxic to humans" high on your priority list of things to worry about.
So if I shortchange program X by $9.99M, and give program Y an extra $10M, the only real story is that I went a net $10k over budget, not that I misdirected a thousand times as much?
Should the primary goal of government be to maximize its revenues?
It's also silly to talk about Laffer curves and marginal rates in the same sentence. A Laffer curve is implicitly about revenues as a function of a single tax rate. Once you have multiple tax rates, you won't get a single peak (local maximum) in the multidimensional surface, and you can't predict where the global maximum will be, much less whether you have achieved it.
At most of my jobs, I have worked with people for whom programming was just a job. It beat hauling garbage or sitting at a front desk, but they didn't get excited about it. They usually aren't so bad -- they know their limitations, and while they're mostly never going to win prizes, they are often reliable.
The people who really make my life difficult are the ones who apparently like programming without being good at it. For some reason, a lot of programmers are stuck in a 1980s mentality -- they've decided that C++ is too fancy and complicated, and they're perfectly happy with their C (or C With Classes) approach to solving problems. Or they think it's acceptable to write a buggy class and explain its biggest hazard with one comment: "PARTIALLY Thread Safe!!!"
That's neither tricky nor grounds to overturn the law. A model airplane ceases to be one when its operator flies it out of his or her line of sight (subject to reasonable exceptions for momentary, accidental, breaks in the line of sight). Any model aircraft could be flown out of the operator's sight -- that doesn't mean the FAA suddenly gets to regulate them all.
Because the law says that its use of "model aircraft" is limited to hobbyist/non-commercial flight, as the court was quoted above. Resolving questions like yours is a major reason that laws have "definitions" sections.
External environmental and social factors also influence how many job-site injuries occur. By your logic, number of ambulance calls is also a bad metric by which to judge how this factory's workers are treated.
Why do you think the networks mentioned in the article are Trump's infrastructure, much less used for government business?
It's different because these places are open to the general public, and they want to provide amenities like WiFi access and printers to people they haven't screened. They *want* some of their systems to be easy to access. That doesn't mean they use those systems for anything proprietary or confidential.
Given that Camp David isn't a public resort or golf course or whatever, probably none. How far below room temperature is your IQ?
People connect they're phones to public WiFi hotspots. Their phones have cameras and microphones. Checkmate!
(Seriously, though, I'm just as confused as you. There's no reason to think these places would put security systems on the public WiFi network.)
Jeff Sessions made sure there was none of that.
I prefer the term "new-to-me" car, personally.
Mr. O's here, what youâ(TM)ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
I mean, really. How sold we take your claim that Thais are "richer" than Germans because a bottle of beer costs about $1 in stores in both countries, but the average Thai has to work a lot longer to earn that dollar?