The implication is that yellow is better, not that yellow sucks as much as green, and certainly not that yellow sucks more than green. That you can't see that indicates that in addition to a complete lack of logic, you also completely lack empathy. Please see someone about your mental illness.
There's a simple question, should it be illegal to use speech to try to hurt people (yelling fire in a theater, fraud, etc.)? If it should be illegal, then you are agreeing with the people you are disagreeing with, just working on defining the line while denying you are in agreement.
Just speech that calls for action you put in the category of "no true just speech". Fire in a crowded theater, fraud, defamation, criminal conspiracies are all "just speech" at some point. The lies for fraud are "just speech" under your definition, until there's a transaction, right? So hwat about grooming? Most places have laws against that, but it's "just speech" until the groomer tries to meet with the groomed, right?
Seems you do agree that "just speech" should be limited, and we are just haggling over the limits. "shall not be infringed" at all in any way was never held to the high standard you hold it to, even in the framer's time.
But if someone MITM your first trip to that site, you'll have no independent way to verify Google is Google. If you have a root certificate loaded, then you trust the root when it says it knows Google is Google, so you have multiple independent points of agreement that you are at the right spot.
I've seen people do that, put in two servers, then replicate between them. So now, a hardware failure between either would cause both to fail, and a failure of the replication would cause both to fail. So the uptime was reduced greatly, but they had redundancy. That kind of stupidity is what happens when someone demands redundancy without understanding.
You want resiliency, not redundancy. Redundancy was good back in the real world, but with networks, redundancy of equipment makes for more points of failure, not better up time. Resilience can be achieved through redundancy, but redundancy for redundancy's sake can end up with a worse up time. When HSRP goes down, it doesn't matter how many routers you have, none of them will work.
Yes, a person started to say "I've been to all 50 states" and corrected himself midway through to "I've been to 47 states" and it came out a little mixed up. It's always funny, that a party known for huge gaffes has to pick on errors so minor. Mission Accomplished.
Forcing doctors to say specific things before specific medical procedures is a limitation on free speech, and I've heard many conservative groups advocate such things.
I see more restrictions on speech coming from the Right than the Left. The left is more likely to indicate what you "should" say, but the right is more likely to indicate what you "must" say.
"falsely" is degree not substance. If false speech must be regulated, then all speech is regulated. The rest is arguing about where the line is drawn, not whether to draw one.
I think you responded to the wrong post. Someone who says they don't like the color red isn't saying that all colors should be outlawed, and that's the logic if you wanted your statement to be relevant to mine.
The Republican's hunted them under McCarthy. Call anyone "liberal" a communist, and try them in the court of public opinion as a communist terrorist spy. Free speech, so long as you don't annoy anyone in the Republican party. Republicans, the party of the Constitution, so long as you believe and do what they want. How fitting Kevin McCarthy carries on the pointless unconstitutional hearings his namesake pioneered. Yet the Republicans wrap themselves in that paper, claiming they are the Constitutional party, but not demonstrate it. The republicans hate the ACLU for standing up for 9 of the 10 Amendments in the Bill of Rights.
No, that's the fist step. Go read the platform. All roads privatized. Toll sidewalks (though that was deleted from the official platform, and is denied to have ever existed, though LP spokesmen still admit that toll sidewalks is a possibility under the ideal libertarian government.
For sure, elements of society want to eliminate a woman's right to make that choice but a government that doesn't take money from woman A against her will to pay for woman B's abortion is NOT shitting on woman B.
You haven't been following the LP. The LP is officially not taking a side, but the LP candidates for the areas I've been have all been explicitly anti-choice. They don't care who funds it, the LP wants it to be illegal. With woman A telling woman B that she can't get an abortion, and using the government to enforce that. The discussion about money is a distraction.
But they want to pay for prisons that come with some (or all) of those things. Libertarians are big-government conservatives. Rather than $1 on prevention, they'd rather pay $10 in cure. High costs are preferred, so long as you don't accidentally pay someone who doesn't deserve it.
I've been to LP meetings in multiple states, and they are nothing like that. You either get pro-gun Democrats, or toll-sidewalk conservatives.
Much more like Puritans. Flee somewhere for "religious freedom" then impose rules that eliminate religious freedom. Puritans never wanted "religious freedom", but instead wanted a place that eliminated religious freedom in a particular manner.
Nope. Those aren't the liberals. Those are the conservatives who want the freedom to force everyone else to have the freedom to do what they want, and nothing else. But "liberal" in the US means "someone I don't like", so the conservatives are called "liberal" because no words are used correctly in political contexts.
Slashdot Mirror
There was no such implication,
"Do you like yellow or green?"
"Green sucks"
The implication is that yellow is better, not that yellow sucks as much as green, and certainly not that yellow sucks more than green. That you can't see that indicates that in addition to a complete lack of logic, you also completely lack empathy. Please see someone about your mental illness.
There's a simple question, should it be illegal to use speech to try to hurt people (yelling fire in a theater, fraud, etc.)? If it should be illegal, then you are agreeing with the people you are disagreeing with, just working on defining the line while denying you are in agreement.
Nah, just someone who believes that enlightened self interest doesn't require screwing everyone else for fun. Or a libertarian with a conscience.
Just speech that calls for action you put in the category of "no true just speech". Fire in a crowded theater, fraud, defamation, criminal conspiracies are all "just speech" at some point. The lies for fraud are "just speech" under your definition, until there's a transaction, right? So hwat about grooming? Most places have laws against that, but it's "just speech" until the groomer tries to meet with the groomed, right?
Seems you do agree that "just speech" should be limited, and we are just haggling over the limits. "shall not be infringed" at all in any way was never held to the high standard you hold it to, even in the framer's time.
Ah, so the "You are wrong" without explanation or reason is the best way to demonstrate that point.
And when everyone self signs, we'll have many millions of bad CAs.
But if someone MITM your first trip to that site, you'll have no independent way to verify Google is Google. If you have a root certificate loaded, then you trust the root when it says it knows Google is Google, so you have multiple independent points of agreement that you are at the right spot.
Is the technology to read punchcards archaic?
I signed a contract with my cable internet service. In exchange for $x/mo, they provide me with 730 hours of service.
Which company? Even business services don't have commitments like that.
I've seen people do that, put in two servers, then replicate between them. So now, a hardware failure between either would cause both to fail, and a failure of the replication would cause both to fail. So the uptime was reduced greatly, but they had redundancy. That kind of stupidity is what happens when someone demands redundancy without understanding.
They had a 40 minute outage. So 99.995% up time over a year. And you find 99.995% uptime to be unacceptable on a residential connection.
We aren't pillorying you for calling out a wealthy company, but for you saying silly things.
You want resiliency, not redundancy. Redundancy was good back in the real world, but with networks, redundancy of equipment makes for more points of failure, not better up time. Resilience can be achieved through redundancy, but redundancy for redundancy's sake can end up with a worse up time. When HSRP goes down, it doesn't matter how many routers you have, none of them will work.
57 states ring a bell??
Yes, a person started to say "I've been to all 50 states" and corrected himself midway through to "I've been to 47 states" and it came out a little mixed up. It's always funny, that a party known for huge gaffes has to pick on errors so minor. Mission Accomplished.
Forcing doctors to say specific things before specific medical procedures is a limitation on free speech, and I've heard many conservative groups advocate such things.
I see more restrictions on speech coming from the Right than the Left. The left is more likely to indicate what you "should" say, but the right is more likely to indicate what you "must" say.
"falsely" is degree not substance. If false speech must be regulated, then all speech is regulated. The rest is arguing about where the line is drawn, not whether to draw one.
I think you responded to the wrong post. Someone who says they don't like the color red isn't saying that all colors should be outlawed, and that's the logic if you wanted your statement to be relevant to mine.
The Republican's hunted them under McCarthy. Call anyone "liberal" a communist, and try them in the court of public opinion as a communist terrorist spy. Free speech, so long as you don't annoy anyone in the Republican party. Republicans, the party of the Constitution, so long as you believe and do what they want. How fitting Kevin McCarthy carries on the pointless unconstitutional hearings his namesake pioneered. Yet the Republicans wrap themselves in that paper, claiming they are the Constitutional party, but not demonstrate it. The republicans hate the ACLU for standing up for 9 of the 10 Amendments in the Bill of Rights.
For sure, elements of society want to eliminate a woman's right to make that choice but a government that doesn't take money from woman A against her will to pay for woman B's abortion is NOT shitting on woman B.
You haven't been following the LP. The LP is officially not taking a side, but the LP candidates for the areas I've been have all been explicitly anti-choice. They don't care who funds it, the LP wants it to be illegal. With woman A telling woman B that she can't get an abortion, and using the government to enforce that. The discussion about money is a distraction.
The Libertarians beliefs are simpler and more consistent if you consider that property has rights, but people don't.
Well, then the LP is full of Ds and Rs, and no Ls. As the LP meetings I've attended (multiples in multiple states) are exactly what he describes.
But they want to pay for prisons that come with some (or all) of those things. Libertarians are big-government conservatives. Rather than $1 on prevention, they'd rather pay $10 in cure. High costs are preferred, so long as you don't accidentally pay someone who doesn't deserve it.
So you assert speech can be dangerous and should be regulated, and you are only looking for where to draw the line?
I've been to LP meetings in multiple states, and they are nothing like that. You either get pro-gun Democrats, or toll-sidewalk conservatives.
Much more like Puritans. Flee somewhere for "religious freedom" then impose rules that eliminate religious freedom. Puritans never wanted "religious freedom", but instead wanted a place that eliminated religious freedom in a particular manner.
Nope. Those aren't the liberals. Those are the conservatives who want the freedom to force everyone else to have the freedom to do what they want, and nothing else. But "liberal" in the US means "someone I don't like", so the conservatives are called "liberal" because no words are used correctly in political contexts.
So fraud should be legal. And slander. After all, those are just speech.