" it's about the president (ie the govt) stopping citizens from having their say - this is a suit from people who have been silenced and are unable to respond to Trump's tweets"
The suit is as fucking stupid as they are. Because that's not happening in any way, shape or form. People can complain all they want, under their own Twitter accounts or pretty much anywhere else they feel they'll be heard. Guess what - you can't submit an article and automatically get it published in the Congressional Record, either. No one is being silenced.
Nope. Not a problem. An extension of the same example - if he wants to allow a guest to speak during a press conference, that's his prerogative, he doesn't have to allow anyone he doesn't want.
And, it is in no way a restriction or infringement of "free speech," anyone who wants to make a speech can do so, in their own forum.
To even try to claim it's censorship is simply ignorant.
More correctly, you do not have to provide a forum for others to speak in. A presidential press conference is an official forum, that doesn't mean anyone can stand up and speak their mind at one.
Buy stuff over the Internet and get receipts via email. Receipt, date of purchase for warranty claim, documented. Someone at work asks via email that some job be done in a certain way. Later there's an issue because of how it was done. Documented.
There are lots of examples of why someone with a real life might want to keep emails around, completely unrelated to their death. But you're obviously not someone whose life has any significance.
"i dont keep email longer than a week or two, when i am finished with it i delete it,"
We understand. You don't have a real world life, and would like to forget any of the embarrassing social interactions you've had. Especially if they happened over a week ago.
But, surprising as it may seem to you, some others actually have a meaningful existence and and would like to document it.
" if the images are embedded everywhere then they have no opportunity to show ads and fund servers"
Sure they do - they could set it so, say, a random 10% of the linked images are displayed as ads instead. A page (or image) reload would then still have a 90% chance of showing the desired image. Win-win, except for the sites on which the ads might appear. They may not like non-remunerative ads appearing on their site, but that provides incentive for them to provide their own image hosting.
"If you're talking about the line poles, well, AT&T paid to put those up, didn't they?"
They put them on (mostly) public rights-of-way, at a time when they were given the status of a regulated monopoly because of the perceived efficiencies of only building a single wired telephone infrastructure.
It's not a free market unless at a minimum they're forced to negotiate with local municipalities and landowner's for continued use of those rights-of-way.
To those mod'ing my comment "troll," you're late to the game. The editors fixed it. Unlike us proles,/. editors have the opportunity to edit their errors.
Anyone who correctly follows the official BIPM guidelines. The unit is "degrees Celsius," not Celsius. If symbols are used, then (/. still doesn't handle Unicode) "[degree symbol]C".
"If somebody is willing to steal a $1 candy bar, do you really want to trust them with information if unauthorized disclosure of that information can cause exceptionally grave damage to the nation's security?"
Depends. If it were limited to "let's try this," and they got a $1 candy bar and it ended there, so what? At that point they should point it out to the vending company. And I would't have any problem with them "stealing" that $1 candy bar.
But it didn't end there. Not only didn't they report the vulnerability, they continued to abuse it to the tune of $3000. Them, I wouldn't trust.
Instead, they have this conceitful affectation for prominently using their honorific titles whenever possible. Which instead of linking them to their roots, associates them with other practitioners like Dr. Wilhelm Reich (Orgone accumulator), Dr. Mehmet Oz ("miracle pill"), Dr. Farid Fata (confessed in court to intentionally and wrongfully diagnosing healthy people with cancer, then selling them profitable chemotherapy drugs), Dr. Christine Daniel (selling herbal cancer cures), Dr. Gayle Rothenberg (injecting people with fake Botox), many more. And that's not even exploring the rich waters of doctors practicing psychiatry.
Certainly, if the summary can point to 3 chiropractors and use that do proclaim chiropractic to be bullshit, the same can be done for mainstream medicine as represented by MDs.
You're right, but your conclusion isn't. Neither is BS, both work. I used BS in relation to the headline - which itself is BS, generalizing "chiropractors" to include fringe therapies well beyond what many (most?) chiropractors practice. It's painting with a very, very, broad brush. One could just as easily point to questionable practices by a subset of MDs, there are many to chose from. It's a case of invalid generalization. What's next, picking on osteopaths?
I see it as a spectrum with increasing training, and a difference in focus - physical therapists, chiropractors, osteopaths, MDs (although the OD/MD distinction has lessened over time). There are physical maladies which can be helped with physical manipulation in lieu of drugs or invasive surgery, which is what MDs tend to push. The article was written by someone with a biased agenda.
Slashdot Mirror
" it's about the president (ie the govt) stopping citizens from having their say - this is a suit from people who have been silenced and are unable to respond to Trump's tweets"
The suit is as fucking stupid as they are. Because that's not happening in any way, shape or form. People can complain all they want, under their own Twitter accounts or pretty much anywhere else they feel they'll be heard. Guess what - you can't submit an article and automatically get it published in the Congressional Record, either. No one is being silenced.
"Some in his WH cabinet have claimed it is official."
Leave it to an AC to not know the difference between "public" and "official." He has an official plane, too. Doesn't mean you get a ride in it.
Nope. Not a problem. An extension of the same example - if he wants to allow a guest to speak during a press conference, that's his prerogative, he doesn't have to allow anyone he doesn't want.
And, it is in no way a restriction or infringement of "free speech," anyone who wants to make a speech can do so, in their own forum.
To even try to claim it's censorship is simply ignorant.
More correctly, you do not have to provide a forum for others to speak in. A presidential press conference is an official forum, that doesn't mean anyone can stand up and speak their mind at one.
"Microsoft's TrueType"
Uh, TT was created by Apple, and later licensed to and adopted by MS.
WTF are you babbling on about?
Buy stuff over the Internet and get receipts via email. Receipt, date of purchase for warranty claim, documented. Someone at work asks via email that some job be done in a certain way. Later there's an issue because of how it was done. Documented.
There are lots of examples of why someone with a real life might want to keep emails around, completely unrelated to their death. But you're obviously not someone whose life has any significance.
"i dont keep email longer than a week or two, when i am finished with it i delete it,"
We understand. You don't have a real world life, and would like to forget any of the embarrassing social interactions you've had. Especially if they happened over a week ago.
But, surprising as it may seem to you, some others actually have a meaningful existence and and would like to document it.
"How do you envision an ad that cannot link anywhere going over with marketing departments?"
About the same as those using TV, radio, magazines, newspapers, and billboards. IOW, quite well.
" if the images are embedded everywhere then they have no opportunity to show ads and fund servers"
Sure they do - they could set it so, say, a random 10% of the linked images are displayed as ads instead. A page (or image) reload would then still have a 90% chance of showing the desired image. Win-win, except for the sites on which the ads might appear. They may not like non-remunerative ads appearing on their site, but that provides incentive for them to provide their own image hosting.
"If you're talking about the line poles, well, AT&T paid to put those up, didn't they?"
They put them on (mostly) public rights-of-way, at a time when they were given the status of a regulated monopoly because of the perceived efficiencies of only building a single wired telephone infrastructure.
It's not a free market unless at a minimum they're forced to negotiate with local municipalities and landowner's for continued use of those rights-of-way.
Yep. "...no AT&T customer is ever 'forced' to agree to arbitration"
They're not a customer unless there's a contract, so it's the opposite of what AT&T claims - all customers are forced to accept arbitration.
Of course, if they want that claim to be true, they simply have to stop enforcing (or remove) that clause.
One wonders how the early white settlers ever survived their migration to the west. Did the native Americans provide them with "living wage" jobs?
To those mod'ing my comment "troll," you're late to the game. The editors fixed it. Unlike us proles, /. editors have the opportunity to edit their errors.
Anyone who correctly follows the official BIPM guidelines. The unit is "degrees Celsius," not Celsius. If symbols are used, then (/. still doesn't handle Unicode) "[degree symbol]C".
Even worse, how long can they survive at 129C, as the headline says?
-FCC
"Now (to me) it scans like a wall of clickbait."
Just like cnn.com and foxnews.com.
"If somebody is willing to steal a $1 candy bar, do you really want to trust them with information if unauthorized disclosure of that information can cause exceptionally grave damage to the nation's security?"
Depends. If it were limited to "let's try this," and they got a $1 candy bar and it ended there, so what? At that point they should point it out to the vending company. And I would't have any problem with them "stealing" that $1 candy bar.
But it didn't end there. Not only didn't they report the vulnerability, they continued to abuse it to the tune of $3000. Them, I wouldn't trust.
LOL. How predictable. "No true Scotsman..."
BTDT.
My opiate addicted brother-in-law proves you wrong.
No, they don't.
Instead, they have this conceitful affectation for prominently using their honorific titles whenever possible. Which instead of linking them to their roots, associates them with other practitioners like Dr. Wilhelm Reich (Orgone accumulator), Dr. Mehmet Oz ("miracle pill"), Dr. Farid Fata (confessed in court to intentionally and wrongfully diagnosing healthy people with cancer, then selling them profitable chemotherapy drugs), Dr. Christine Daniel (selling herbal cancer cures), Dr. Gayle Rothenberg (injecting people with fake Botox), many more. And that's not even exploring the rich waters of doctors practicing psychiatry.
Certainly, if the summary can point to 3 chiropractors and use that do proclaim chiropractic to be bullshit, the same can be done for mainstream medicine as represented by MDs.
"The history of chiropractic was not founded in medicine. "
So it's different than barbers using leeches to remove the ill humors? You say that as if it's a good thing.
You're right, but your conclusion isn't. Neither is BS, both work. I used BS in relation to the headline - which itself is BS, generalizing "chiropractors" to include fringe therapies well beyond what many (most?) chiropractors practice. It's painting with a very, very, broad brush. One could just as easily point to questionable practices by a subset of MDs, there are many to chose from. It's a case of invalid generalization. What's next, picking on osteopaths?
I see it as a spectrum with increasing training, and a difference in focus - physical therapists, chiropractors, osteopaths, MDs (although the OD/MD distinction has lessened over time). There are physical maladies which can be helped with physical manipulation in lieu of drugs or invasive surgery, which is what MDs tend to push. The article was written by someone with a biased agenda.