The problems with identity and security aren't any higher with online voting. In fact, they may be less. FUD by the secret-voting proponents wants to make sure that stuffed ballot boxes can *never* be stopped.
So the number of unarmed killings not related to a felony is deserved because "those people" commit crimes?
We aren't talking about killings during felony arrests. That is biased towards killing whites, as Blacks are less likely to fight back. We are talking about unarmed Black people who have done nothing other than contempt of cop or "resisting arrest" when they weren't being arrested.
But then she didn't act anything like a person being cited for a traffic violation.
Yeah, she acted like an uppity Nigger, and deserved to die.
The cop asked her if she was nervous. She said yes. The cop asked why (hoping to hear something incriminating) , and she said she was nervous because she was pulled over. The cop then asked her "are you done yet" because her direct answer to his direct question took more than 3 words, and she responded that she was just answering his question. The cop recognized the uppity bitch was right, and so he arrested her.
It was a by the book lynching for the '60s or '70s, but a little out of place for today, with all the privileged whites on Slashdot excusing the illegal arrest.
I'm sure it was a suicide. Like the guy a few years ago in Texas with documented death threats for dating white women who beat himself up, then lynched himself with a pulley (in a manner that was physically impossible to hang himself with). Ruled a suicide, no investigation needed. Same here. When you hear the same story a million times, proven false most of them, it makes the few that might be true sound like lies and cover-ups.
I watched a Border Patrol episode from Australia, where an American had his visa denied because he was "working" by performing in a professional wrestling match, where that match was an exhibition he wasn't getting paid for. He ended up being held long enough to rush through an entertainment visa (the same kind actors have to get to shoot a movie, or the band shooting a video may need). Though, the US is one of the least flexible countries when it comes to issuing the correct visa at the point of entry, and denial is much more likely.
There was an article on/. not that long ago (well a few years now probably) 'bout some dude who came here planning on traveling around doing a bunch of pick-up gigs and was aghast that DHS wouldn't let him in on his tourist Visa.
Most countries would have converted him to a working holiday visa, if he were eligible, and allowed him in. The US is one of the least flexible for such modifications at the border. The US presumes you have $1,000,000 to spend on lawyers for each point of law, and if you don't, you are too lazy or too poor to bother entering in discussions with.
The implication of the article is that somehow US authorities are discriminating against this family because of their faith. Obviously, that's false, since there are large numbers of Muslims traveling to the US every day.
A large number of Blacks didn't get killed by cops today. That's not proof the justice system is colorblind.
The issue is the specificity. I entered Amsterdam with no plans. We didn't have a place to stay that night. We didn't have transportation. We had 12% of a plan. Head west on the trains until we stopped, then get a place to stay there, whatever country that was. But articulating an outline of a plan, however odd, is still a plan. A tourist landing in LAX who says he wants to "see the sights" but can't name a single one, will be turned away at the border. No sane tourist has no idea of anything they'd want to see. Just answering "Rodeo Drive, maybe Long Beach, Pasadena, and Anaheim" is more than simply "looking around" which will get you sent home for not being a valid tourist.
"Looking around" is not sufficient reason to be granted permission to enter the US.
That's explicitly what the B-2 visa is for.
The issue is that no sane person doesn't have a plan.
"I'm going to land in IAH and take a cab to the Hilton. I'm staying there one night, and going out. If I like it, I'll be staying more nights there. If Houston sucks, I'll fly to Las Vegas. Spend 3-7 days there, then to California, then home from LAX, open ended ticket."
That's "looking around" and is specific enough that it doesn't sound like a drug dealer making up shit. "I'm going to look around IAH, then maybe fly home." That will be taken as a lie and you'll be denied entry because they will have reason to believe that you are not a legitimate tourist. But "looking around" is a valid reason to enter.
That's not how it works. There were no US government officials on the ground in the UK that were blocking their boarding. They computer system put a red asterisk next to their names in the system, put there by the US government. The airlines decided that it was in their best interests to deny boarding. The airline was the sole actor in blocking boarding. The asterisk indicates a risk of refusal of entry, and in that case, the airline is often required to send them home at their own expense, so to prevent all those problems, the standard practice is to deny boarding and refer the travelers to the US Embassy.
By refusing boarding, the airline cancelled their tickets. Though the context of that rule may mean cancellation of flights, but it was the airline's choice to deny boarding, and the airline could have boarded them without a US official causing a problem. That the airline is complicit in a government policy doesn't absolve them of their ultimate responsibility for not honoring the ticket, which should then be refunded.
75% of your peak IQ is genetic. You'll never be smarter than nature allows. But lead in your air, mercury in your fish, and poor schools, and you'll find there's no limit to how low your IQ can go. The poor in the US live vastly different lives from the middle class. The environmental factors hold back people more in the US than anywhere else.
A brain is like a car. The listed top speed is 150. Without great effort, you'll not go above 150, but poor tire inflation, bad gas, fouled spark plugs, and a car with no major mechanical failure will go much slower. The rich can afford to tune up the engine and take heroic efforts to exceed 150. The poor have a clogged air filter and fouled fuel filter, with bad oil and a crappy alignment. And are told it's their fault.
money confiscated from the captive citizenry at gun-point
Nobody ever came to demand my 1040 with a gun on their hip. And "captive" would indicate there's some government barrier to you moving away. What barrier is there? None. Reality proves your little fantasy a lie. Just gather more guns, and move out to the wilderness and lament how Randy Weaver is your idol.
Watch some of the border security shows sometime. They can get into your suitcase without opening the lock, then seal it back like they were never in. Only a keyed hardcase with real latches will keep anyone out. Zippers are secure against someone who doesn't have 5 spare seconds to untraceably open and reseal it.
Or, like real keys, someone opens the lock and reverse engineers the master key. Then every lock is compromised. That's why people panic when root certs have issues. They are essentially master keys to certain types of locks.
You would prefer the scenario where: You go into a liquor store and threaten to kill someone if they don't give you their money. You get caught. You are given a pat on the head, and the lack of consequence for being a violent douche magically causes you to change your ways and never do such a thing again.
That's what happens when young rich white kids do it. And they grow up to not be in prison. It's not about a single person, but when the system is so obviously rigged, it makes the system fail to work. Prison isn't a deterrent when someone expects to end up there no matter what they do. Sandra Bland was pulled over for a trivial traffic offense, and ended up dead in jail. That's the reality. That you don't like reality, and that reality causes crime, won't change reality.
The NSA reads all sites, thus read this, and is part of the feds. Buy yes, nobody has yet petitioned the ACLU to protect our rights. Which I'm sure one of the released and re-arrested will do. We just haven't gotten there yet because the evil people like you excuse government inaction. You have to petition for your rights to have them, and that's your responsibility. The government shouldn't recognize blatant illegal acts and step in without the fees paid. Only the rich get justice.
You forgot that the results of a UAT for unrelated code will change the constants across all the code. It's called "case law" in law, no idea what it would be called in code.
The single thing that would benefit law best is a sunset clause on laws. Explicit action needed to renew silly laws would help clean up some of the stupid ones. Though, it'd have to be written intelligently, or we'd get a "renew all laws" vote at the start of every session, and no review of the laws themselves.
It's bad enough that we have this many people in jail to begin with.
That is definitely true. Fewer people should commit crimes.
We have more than anywhere else in the world. At some point we have to admit we have a problem. It was a good idea when it was pitched in the '50s as a means of making every Black man a felon, so we could strip all them of the right to vote. But it turns out that experiment was a failure. How many centuries until we admit that error and correct it?
As much as you don't want to admit it, putting people in prison *causes* crime.
Making convicted criminals complete their prison sentences is stupid?
No, violating the release terms of the citizens is wrong and evil. They were released by the prison, with full release papers and the complete process followed. That contract should be honored.
User testing tests the UI, not every possible software function. If you are using UAT as the only test of functionality, then the software developer is doing it wrong.
These people were released from prison with signed paperwork from the state indicating they served all their time, congratulating them on their release, and wishing them well in their new life. Along with explicit after-prison support, like half-way house enrollment and such.
One of the purposes of the federal government is to protect the rights of the people from bad actions of the state. At least it has been sine the Civil War.
The politicians who passed it are usually not the ones that expand it. It's the next generation of politicians that corrupt anything that came before, then blame their predecessors for the problem they caused. The current politicians could easily solve the problem, but choose not to.
In any case, it is lunacy to think that the police in any country can protect everyone everyplace all the time. It's just absurd to even pretend that it could be true.
The US is the only place I know where the police have sued to prove legally that they don't even have to try.
Xiaomi may be zero margin, but there are other makers, like Oppo that run with higher margins. They sell into other places, but avoid the US because the US is toxic. TPP/NAFTA/ETC exist to force them to play by US rules or not sell outside China. And by "US rules" I mean subject to US litigation, not US law.
Slashdot Mirror
The problems with identity and security aren't any higher with online voting. In fact, they may be less. FUD by the secret-voting proponents wants to make sure that stuffed ballot boxes can *never* be stopped.
So the number of unarmed killings not related to a felony is deserved because "those people" commit crimes?
We aren't talking about killings during felony arrests. That is biased towards killing whites, as Blacks are less likely to fight back. We are talking about unarmed Black people who have done nothing other than contempt of cop or "resisting arrest" when they weren't being arrested.
But then she didn't act anything like a person being cited for a traffic violation.
Yeah, she acted like an uppity Nigger, and deserved to die.
The cop asked her if she was nervous. She said yes. The cop asked why (hoping to hear something incriminating) , and she said she was nervous because she was pulled over. The cop then asked her "are you done yet" because her direct answer to his direct question took more than 3 words, and she responded that she was just answering his question. The cop recognized the uppity bitch was right, and so he arrested her.
It was a by the book lynching for the '60s or '70s, but a little out of place for today, with all the privileged whites on Slashdot excusing the illegal arrest.
I'm sure it was a suicide. Like the guy a few years ago in Texas with documented death threats for dating white women who beat himself up, then lynched himself with a pulley (in a manner that was physically impossible to hang himself with). Ruled a suicide, no investigation needed. Same here. When you hear the same story a million times, proven false most of them, it makes the few that might be true sound like lies and cover-ups.
There was an article on /. not that long ago (well a few years now probably) 'bout some dude who came here planning on traveling around doing a bunch of pick-up gigs and was aghast that DHS wouldn't let him in on his tourist Visa.
Most countries would have converted him to a working holiday visa, if he were eligible, and allowed him in. The US is one of the least flexible for such modifications at the border. The US presumes you have $1,000,000 to spend on lawyers for each point of law, and if you don't, you are too lazy or too poor to bother entering in discussions with.
The implication of the article is that somehow US authorities are discriminating against this family because of their faith. Obviously, that's false, since there are large numbers of Muslims traveling to the US every day.
A large number of Blacks didn't get killed by cops today. That's not proof the justice system is colorblind.
The issue is the specificity. I entered Amsterdam with no plans. We didn't have a place to stay that night. We didn't have transportation. We had 12% of a plan. Head west on the trains until we stopped, then get a place to stay there, whatever country that was. But articulating an outline of a plan, however odd, is still a plan. A tourist landing in LAX who says he wants to "see the sights" but can't name a single one, will be turned away at the border. No sane tourist has no idea of anything they'd want to see. Just answering "Rodeo Drive, maybe Long Beach, Pasadena, and Anaheim" is more than simply "looking around" which will get you sent home for not being a valid tourist.
"Looking around" is not sufficient reason to be granted permission to enter the US.
That's explicitly what the B-2 visa is for.
The issue is that no sane person doesn't have a plan.
"I'm going to land in IAH and take a cab to the Hilton. I'm staying there one night, and going out. If I like it, I'll be staying more nights there. If Houston sucks, I'll fly to Las Vegas. Spend 3-7 days there, then to California, then home from LAX, open ended ticket."
That's "looking around" and is specific enough that it doesn't sound like a drug dealer making up shit. "I'm going to look around IAH, then maybe fly home." That will be taken as a lie and you'll be denied entry because they will have reason to believe that you are not a legitimate tourist. But "looking around" is a valid reason to enter.
That's not how it works. There were no US government officials on the ground in the UK that were blocking their boarding. They computer system put a red asterisk next to their names in the system, put there by the US government. The airlines decided that it was in their best interests to deny boarding. The airline was the sole actor in blocking boarding. The asterisk indicates a risk of refusal of entry, and in that case, the airline is often required to send them home at their own expense, so to prevent all those problems, the standard practice is to deny boarding and refer the travelers to the US Embassy.
By refusing boarding, the airline cancelled their tickets. Though the context of that rule may mean cancellation of flights, but it was the airline's choice to deny boarding, and the airline could have boarded them without a US official causing a problem. That the airline is complicit in a government policy doesn't absolve them of their ultimate responsibility for not honoring the ticket, which should then be refunded.
Citations needed.
Would you like a LMGTFY link to "lead effect on iq" or can you use Google all by your self?
Demanding citations to settled science just makes you look like an idiot.
75% of your peak IQ is genetic. You'll never be smarter than nature allows. But lead in your air, mercury in your fish, and poor schools, and you'll find there's no limit to how low your IQ can go. The poor in the US live vastly different lives from the middle class. The environmental factors hold back people more in the US than anywhere else.
A brain is like a car. The listed top speed is 150. Without great effort, you'll not go above 150, but poor tire inflation, bad gas, fouled spark plugs, and a car with no major mechanical failure will go much slower. The rich can afford to tune up the engine and take heroic efforts to exceed 150. The poor have a clogged air filter and fouled fuel filter, with bad oil and a crappy alignment. And are told it's their fault.
money confiscated from the captive citizenry at gun-point
Nobody ever came to demand my 1040 with a gun on their hip. And "captive" would indicate there's some government barrier to you moving away. What barrier is there? None. Reality proves your little fantasy a lie. Just gather more guns, and move out to the wilderness and lament how Randy Weaver is your idol.
Watch some of the border security shows sometime. They can get into your suitcase without opening the lock, then seal it back like they were never in. Only a keyed hardcase with real latches will keep anyone out. Zippers are secure against someone who doesn't have 5 spare seconds to untraceably open and reseal it.
Or, like real keys, someone opens the lock and reverse engineers the master key. Then every lock is compromised. That's why people panic when root certs have issues. They are essentially master keys to certain types of locks.
You would prefer the scenario where: You go into a liquor store and threaten to kill someone if they don't give you their money. You get caught. You are given a pat on the head, and the lack of consequence for being a violent douche magically causes you to change your ways and never do such a thing again.
That's what happens when young rich white kids do it. And they grow up to not be in prison. It's not about a single person, but when the system is so obviously rigged, it makes the system fail to work. Prison isn't a deterrent when someone expects to end up there no matter what they do. Sandra Bland was pulled over for a trivial traffic offense, and ended up dead in jail. That's the reality. That you don't like reality, and that reality causes crime, won't change reality.
The NSA reads all sites, thus read this, and is part of the feds. Buy yes, nobody has yet petitioned the ACLU to protect our rights. Which I'm sure one of the released and re-arrested will do. We just haven't gotten there yet because the evil people like you excuse government inaction. You have to petition for your rights to have them, and that's your responsibility. The government shouldn't recognize blatant illegal acts and step in without the fees paid. Only the rich get justice.
Knowing the math is irrelevant if the person who gives you the equation writes it wrong.
You forgot that the results of a UAT for unrelated code will change the constants across all the code. It's called "case law" in law, no idea what it would be called in code.
The single thing that would benefit law best is a sunset clause on laws. Explicit action needed to renew silly laws would help clean up some of the stupid ones. Though, it'd have to be written intelligently, or we'd get a "renew all laws" vote at the start of every session, and no review of the laws themselves.
It's bad enough that we have this many people in jail to begin with.
That is definitely true. Fewer people should commit crimes.
We have more than anywhere else in the world. At some point we have to admit we have a problem. It was a good idea when it was pitched in the '50s as a means of making every Black man a felon, so we could strip all them of the right to vote. But it turns out that experiment was a failure. How many centuries until we admit that error and correct it?
As much as you don't want to admit it, putting people in prison *causes* crime.
Making convicted criminals complete their prison sentences is stupid?
No, violating the release terms of the citizens is wrong and evil. They were released by the prison, with full release papers and the complete process followed. That contract should be honored.
User testing tests the UI, not every possible software function. If you are using UAT as the only test of functionality, then the software developer is doing it wrong.
These people were released from prison with signed paperwork from the state indicating they served all their time, congratulating them on their release, and wishing them well in their new life. Along with explicit after-prison support, like half-way house enrollment and such.
Implying the prisoners snuck out early is a lie.
One of the purposes of the federal government is to protect the rights of the people from bad actions of the state. At least it has been sine the Civil War.
The politicians who passed it are usually not the ones that expand it. It's the next generation of politicians that corrupt anything that came before, then blame their predecessors for the problem they caused. The current politicians could easily solve the problem, but choose not to.
In any case, it is lunacy to think that the police in any country can protect everyone everyplace all the time. It's just absurd to even pretend that it could be true.
The US is the only place I know where the police have sued to prove legally that they don't even have to try.
If you cannot identify at least 28 crimes in that one paragraph, this discussion is a waste of time.
So murder is a gun law? If you can't separate out gun laws and murder, this discussion is a waste of time.
Xiaomi may be zero margin, but there are other makers, like Oppo that run with higher margins. They sell into other places, but avoid the US because the US is toxic. TPP/NAFTA/ETC exist to force them to play by US rules or not sell outside China. And by "US rules" I mean subject to US litigation, not US law.