The job of a cop is to enforce all laws and bring people to justice through the justice system. Failures to do so ends with bad laws that are selectively enforced and disproportionately enforced law giving appearances of if not just outright discrimination ingrained into the justice system.
A car load of white boys being igored while doing 10mph over the posted speed limit while the black man following gets pulled over because its a white neighborhood is exactly what happens when cops act like you suggest. The cops have to use the law. If there are silly laws,they need to be changed. But they absolutely need to be enforced indiscriminately.
Lol.. you are simply wrong. The FCC had never regulated an part of the internet and never deregulated it. A court said in the portland case that the FCC had jurisdiction under titleII not the city franchise board but before any regulation was imposed the ruling was overturned. The FCC since the 1970s until recently has always maintained the position that the internet was not subject to titleII regulation. They even filed briefs in several cases including the Portland case stating as much.
You will not find any regulation or proceedings to deregulate it anywhere. It simply is a lie (untruth) that they did.
The internet was never regulated. Whoever started that lie should be shot for making idiots out of people like you. The FCC has always maintained that the internet was an information services outside their regulation until recently. A court case said the FCC had regulatory authority so a Portland franchise board couldn't dictate terms of a sale for a cable company but that was overturned on appeal and the supreme court agreed. You will not find any comment period or declaration of rules that either regulate or deregulated the internet until recently. It simply does not exist because it never happened. All you will find is discussion starting in the early 1970s with the computers paper about how it was not subject to regulation outside its direct use in existing telecommunications services. Even in the 1990s after computersII the FCC held that view with VoIP.
Even if you repeat a lie long enough, it doesn't magically become true. Please educate yourself and stop repeating it.
That's a false equivalent. Local monopolies are generally required to build out to the unprofitable areas as a condition of that monopoly. For instance when time Warner increased their internet speeds in my area they had to replace lines to do so. They were not allowed to only offer this in the business or rich areas, They had to replace lines and make it available in the entire franchise area. That's why it's not just a no competition equivalent.
What is needed is more along the lines of right of ways being opened up and line sharing at near costs. Perhaps the government role might be something like running fiber and leasing access at or near costs to private ISPs. The problem is that telcos and cable internet piggybacks on existing infrastructure making it extremely expensive for others to enter and compete. Take that out of the way and there will be competition.
That's right. I mean there can only be so many millionaires or billionaires and attempting to understand groups that seem to accumulate wealth much more than most of us will likely result in more people accumulating wealth and devaluation of those billionaire's wealth.
Besides, how can we have a 99% and something to cry about if people started paying attention to what works and move out of the 99% group. So don't bother trying to understand them. Hell, if you did, you put someone's job on the line as they won't be able to profit from inequality or whatever rable they are rousing and they might have kids. Won't you think of the children?
This is basically a large heater for MRE packages but controlled to make it useful in some way other than shorting out and creating heat. This isn't really new except for making it practical I guess.
But are there less intrusive ways to do the same? Of course there is and existing consumer protection laws should cover it without making more laws.
We used to only accept government intrusion to the extent necessary and no more. Now it seems like people are willing to jump at the chance to surrender freedom in favor of government intrusion. Perhaps it is because they can force others to do what they want or maybe it's so they don't need to think for themselves. But it is a fact- the bigger the government the smaller the citizens.It won't be much longer before the government ignores the citizens they are so small.
The government has been messing with it long enough that only a fool would think there is a free market in the mix. I guess we could say +1 for paying attention part of the timem
Which ones? The only one I know of is a small pizza shop that said they would serve anyone who comes in but not cater a gay wedding. I'm not sure if there are any gays who would actually have pizza as their wedding food unless it was some fancy wood fired made to order on site gourmet pizza every one was raving about which rules that shop out.
Well, this has nothing to do with linux or android so that slashdotter may still be right. It is about an add on app that you use to encrypt and obfuscate stuff. It can just as easily be written for the Iphone or windows or even mac as it has nothing to do with the underlying platform except running on it.
First, I have no idea why the US government doesn't do something it should do or you think it should do. Second, the US government can and does operate against US law with almost complete impunity and has demonstrated they have absolutely no qualms about doing so or attempting to do so. The settlements in the west bank do not seem to be in violation of any US law and since 1981. the official US policy was that they do not violate international law either.
but since you spend more than 20 minutes on it, tell me, when has the Israelis on the west bank been classified as terrorist, a terrorist organization, or enemies of the state by the United States?
As I've said earlier, I really do not care enough to be bothered by it. I know they lost their appeals, the supreme court refused to take the case up, and outside a few people claiming problems with the case, they seem to have knowingly did what they were accused of.
What evidence did they have to make up? Seriously, I only did a cursory search on them and don't really care about their cause or situation. If you have something to say, you should say it with that in mind as I don't know what you think you know and I do not know what you think you know is true or false. From all the available sources I could find in a short search, they went to supporting Hamas and the guy in question to this day says he will still smuggle weapons into the west bank for Hamas. That is his own admission so I suggest it is reasonable to assume the claims are true enough.
it IS about race, for republicans. down deep, they are the modern minority-haters and have been for decades, now. not forever, (things were reversed previous to that) but now, they are the poster boys of 'if you are not white, straight and christian, we're against you'.
no ideology anyone could have would create this much anger in a group of people - it HAS to be race. america never got right about how to deal with race issues and this pretty much proves it.
Outside of someone saying any opposition to Obama is because he is black, there simply is no evidence of your claim. Maybe you can stretch having the federal government grant special privileges to minorities and the ideological opposition to it as a racial bias but it would have to completely ignore reality.
the anti-gay trend in the red states is more proof of 'if you aint a christian you're not one of us and we will shun you' belief. again, pure republican minority hatred.
There is absolutely no anti gay trend in any state. There might end up being one if people are accused of it enough and get fed up with having extra rights pushed on them that override their own rights. Keeping the status quo is not anti gay, it is simply not changing to give anything extra. And when you sit there and say that freedom to exercise religion only applies as long as you do not try to make a living or conflict with any of these new found rights of a minority population, it isn't anti gay, it is anti Christianity.
now, I totally dislike obama these days, but its because of how he turned his back on the liberal ideas and has become a push-over for the power brokers who control him and own him. he never did much good for the liberal cause (partly because he was blocked by the R's, but also because he really didn't TRY all that much. not sure if he was lying to us or just ignorant of how little control he'd have as president).
He was definitely lying to you. All politicians do so to get what they want and then ignore those commitments as soon as it becomes inconvenient to something else they want.This has nothing to do with being democrat or republican or liberal, it has to do with how much of a chump they believe you really are. Evidently, it is more so of one than you envisioned and are disillusioned now.
I do think its time to redo our whole system. if your code base is so old, so tangled, so full of exception code and has more exceptions than rules, its time to scrap it and start over. and yes, I'm arguing for a complete re-do of our laws, our government and it needs to come sooner rather than later if we are to salvage what is left of our once great country.
I completely disagree. What needs to happen is that the federal government needs to stop nanny policing everything and go back to a limited constitutional directive they originally had and your state can do the things most people expect the federal government to do. This benifits you more because you have more control over local politicians and do not have to worry about idiots 4 states away overriding your concerns or wishes when implimented by your government. The problem now is that people seem to think everyone from different backgrounds all support the same trash you support because everyone you surround yourself with does but the reality is that not everyone does and 3/4s of the states can effectively block what you want to force on them. If you stuck to your state policies, you would have your momentum and paradise or whatever without having to be subjected to the will of the millions of other people in different states that do not agree with you.
No, by all means, redoing the government is not needed, restricting the federal government is what is needed. It allows the most people to have the most freedoms most of the times.
It appears their problem was getting involved with Hamas. Maybe that was because one of their founders was directly involved in Hamas but Hamas was declared a terrorist organization as far back as the mid 1990s.
I have no sympathy for them and doubt they were only a "feed the children" fund from the little I have been able to find about them in the last 20 minutes.
If I didn't think you were serious I would suggest you are trying to be funny and disgusting at the same time.
Many republicans rejected Romney care at the time and many told of it's failures before Obama was even elected. Republicans also promoted a law similar in the 90s and got shot down by their own then too.
If you really think it is about a nigger in the white house, you are delusional and ignorant.Its about ideological differences and strong arm shenanigans that started off in this administration like how they played games to pass Obama care in the first place or harry Reid's purposeful blocking of republican amendments and inputs in senate bills.
Now i understand why you would want to make this about race because it doesn't require any thinking and can be used to rally support from people who seem to be dropping it. But it doesn't reflect the reality of the situation.
I'm not sure how anything he says can be taken seriously when he does that. Its like a young earth creationists trying to explain evolution and angiogenesis. Perhaps like a Klan member trying to espouse racial equality would be a better comparison. It just takes credibility away completely.
Its not really a secret list. Giving material or monetary aid and support to any fugitive from the law or in support of any one breaking the law has already been illegal to some degree. That degree depends a lot on what you know when doing so. It has to do with the "mens rea" or state of mind. For instance, donations to a "feed the children" charity or a legal defense fund for someone when used to render such aid would likely not show intent and couldn't be prosecuted outside of who misused the funding. But donations specific to help Snowden or Al Capone avoid capture and prosecution could be prosecuted. But even then it would depend on how much resources the government wants to spend and any "ideological" statement they want to make. They likely would not prosecute 2000 people making $100 donations but they might pick a few and freeze their bank accounts turning their life upside down to create a high profile case with lots of media exposure to send a message.
I don't particularly like Snowden but i dislike the administration's use of executive orders to ignore, change, or even create new law without any congressional interaction at all even more. I just suggest that if you decide to aid Snowden that you do it as anonymous as possible.
I don't know if you need to clean your glasses, but the page you linked to specifically mentions the GPL'd code bits but if you need more information, this should inform you.
Only if they became citizens at the time the constitution was adopted. That's what the constitution says about the first presidents. A Canadian born only after Canada becomes the 51st state would be considered natural born unless they became part of US territory first. And then only after that point.
I don't know about that. Senator Byrd from west Virginia - the democrat who was actually a leadership member of the KKK- was so old he was wearing diapers in the senate and was reelected shortly before passing away from old age at 90 some years old (1917 to 2010). Feinstein is only 81 years old and senate terms are 6 years so she could be elected 2 more times giving us another 13 or so years. She got the most amount of popular votes of any senator before her. A record that still stands today.
I got one better. I actually saw a lawyer argue that a dead man was a worthless bum who was so frivolous with his income that he was a burden to the family and that the same man was the primary bread winner and the loss of his income had devastating effects on the family well being all in the same case and within 2 hours of each position. It was in a case to settle claims on his estate. A guy argued he was owed money from the deceased and he also left him assets in the will. The assets claim got the worthless bit trying to claim it wasn't his to give and the owed money bit was about how devastated the family was financially due to the loss of the deceased.
Well,there is also barber college. But barring that, he should look into legal representation because many government agencies will consider him an employee. If the description and complaints is an accurate description, he needs to complain to the right people.
Slashdot Mirror
Wrong...
The job of a cop is to enforce all laws and bring people to justice through the justice system. Failures to do so ends with bad laws that are selectively enforced and disproportionately enforced law giving appearances of if not just outright discrimination ingrained into the justice system.
A car load of white boys being igored while doing 10mph over the posted speed limit while the black man following gets pulled over because its a white neighborhood is exactly what happens when cops act like you suggest. The cops have to use the law. If there are silly laws,they need to be changed. But they absolutely need to be enforced indiscriminately.
Really? Why?
And define homophobia. I don't think a fear of homos (humam) is what you mean.
Lol.. you are simply wrong. The FCC had never regulated an part of the internet and never deregulated it. A court said in the portland case that the FCC had jurisdiction under titleII not the city franchise board but before any regulation was imposed the ruling was overturned. The FCC since the 1970s until recently has always maintained the position that the internet was not subject to titleII regulation. They even filed briefs in several cases including the Portland case stating as much.
You will not find any regulation or proceedings to deregulate it anywhere. It simply is a lie (untruth) that they did.
The internet was never regulated. Whoever started that lie should be shot for making idiots out of people like you. The FCC has always maintained that the internet was an information services outside their regulation until recently. A court case said the FCC had regulatory authority so a Portland franchise board couldn't dictate terms of a sale for a cable company but that was overturned on appeal and the supreme court agreed. You will not find any comment period or declaration of rules that either regulate or deregulated the internet until recently. It simply does not exist because it never happened. All you will find is discussion starting in the early 1970s with the computers paper about how it was not subject to regulation outside its direct use in existing telecommunications services. Even in the 1990s after computersII the FCC held that view with VoIP.
Even if you repeat a lie long enough, it doesn't magically become true. Please educate yourself and stop repeating it.
That's a false equivalent. Local monopolies are generally required to build out to the unprofitable areas as a condition of that monopoly. For instance when time Warner increased their internet speeds in my area they had to replace lines to do so. They were not allowed to only offer this in the business or rich areas, They had to replace lines and make it available in the entire franchise area. That's why it's not just a no competition equivalent.
What is needed is more along the lines of right of ways being opened up and line sharing at near costs. Perhaps the government role might be something like running fiber and leasing access at or near costs to private ISPs. The problem is that telcos and cable internet piggybacks on existing infrastructure making it extremely expensive for others to enter and compete. Take that out of the way and there will be competition.
That's right. I mean there can only be so many millionaires or billionaires and attempting to understand groups that seem to accumulate wealth much more than most of us will likely result in more people accumulating wealth and devaluation of those billionaire's wealth.
Besides, how can we have a 99% and something to cry about if people started paying attention to what works and move out of the 99% group. So don't bother trying to understand them. Hell, if you did, you put someone's job on the line as they won't be able to profit from inequality or whatever rable they are rousing and they might have kids. Won't you think of the children?
This is basically a large heater for MRE packages but controlled to make it useful in some way other than shorting out and creating heat. This isn't really new except for making it practical I guess.
But are there less intrusive ways to do the same? Of course there is and existing consumer protection laws should cover it without making more laws.
We used to only accept government intrusion to the extent necessary and no more. Now it seems like people are willing to jump at the chance to surrender freedom in favor of government intrusion. Perhaps it is because they can force others to do what they want or maybe it's so they don't need to think for themselves. But it is a fact- the bigger the government the smaller the citizens.It won't be much longer before the government ignores the citizens they are so small.
The government has been messing with it long enough that only a fool would think there is a free market in the mix. I guess we could say +1 for paying attention part of the timem
In Indiana? Which ones? Lol. Google doesn't seem to know about them. Perhaps you are conflating different people and places.
Which ones? The only one I know of is a small pizza shop that said they would serve anyone who comes in but not cater a gay wedding. I'm not sure if there are any gays who would actually have pizza as their wedding food unless it was some fancy wood fired made to order on site gourmet pizza every one was raving about which rules that shop out.
Well, this has nothing to do with linux or android so that slashdotter may still be right. It is about an add on app that you use to encrypt and obfuscate stuff. It can just as easily be written for the Iphone or windows or even mac as it has nothing to do with the underlying platform except running on it.
First, I have no idea why the US government doesn't do something it should do or you think it should do. Second, the US government can and does operate against US law with almost complete impunity and has demonstrated they have absolutely no qualms about doing so or attempting to do so. The settlements in the west bank do not seem to be in violation of any US law and since 1981. the official US policy was that they do not violate international law either.
but since you spend more than 20 minutes on it, tell me, when has the Israelis on the west bank been classified as terrorist, a terrorist organization, or enemies of the state by the United States?
As I've said earlier, I really do not care enough to be bothered by it. I know they lost their appeals, the supreme court refused to take the case up, and outside a few people claiming problems with the case, they seem to have knowingly did what they were accused of.
What evidence did they have to make up? Seriously, I only did a cursory search on them and don't really care about their cause or situation. If you have something to say, you should say it with that in mind as I don't know what you think you know and I do not know what you think you know is true or false. From all the available sources I could find in a short search, they went to supporting Hamas and the guy in question to this day says he will still smuggle weapons into the west bank for Hamas. That is his own admission so I suggest it is reasonable to assume the claims are true enough.
Outside of someone saying any opposition to Obama is because he is black, there simply is no evidence of your claim. Maybe you can stretch having the federal government grant special privileges to minorities and the ideological opposition to it as a racial bias but it would have to completely ignore reality.
There is absolutely no anti gay trend in any state. There might end up being one if people are accused of it enough and get fed up with having extra rights pushed on them that override their own rights. Keeping the status quo is not anti gay, it is simply not changing to give anything extra. And when you sit there and say that freedom to exercise religion only applies as long as you do not try to make a living or conflict with any of these new found rights of a minority population, it isn't anti gay, it is anti Christianity.
He was definitely lying to you. All politicians do so to get what they want and then ignore those commitments as soon as it becomes inconvenient to something else they want.This has nothing to do with being democrat or republican or liberal, it has to do with how much of a chump they believe you really are. Evidently, it is more so of one than you envisioned and are disillusioned now.
I completely disagree. What needs to happen is that the federal government needs to stop nanny policing everything and go back to a limited constitutional directive they originally had and your state can do the things most people expect the federal government to do. This benifits you more because you have more control over local politicians and do not have to worry about idiots 4 states away overriding your concerns or wishes when implimented by your government. The problem now is that people seem to think everyone from different backgrounds all support the same trash you support because everyone you surround yourself with does but the reality is that not everyone does and 3/4s of the states can effectively block what you want to force on them. If you stuck to your state policies, you would have your momentum and paradise or whatever without having to be subjected to the will of the millions of other people in different states that do not agree with you.
No, by all means, redoing the government is not needed, restricting the federal government is what is needed. It allows the most people to have the most freedoms most of the times.
It appears their problem was getting involved with Hamas. Maybe that was because one of their founders was directly involved in Hamas but Hamas was declared a terrorist organization as far back as the mid 1990s.
I have no sympathy for them and doubt they were only a "feed the children" fund from the little I have been able to find about them in the last 20 minutes.
If I didn't think you were serious I would suggest you are trying to be funny and disgusting at the same time.
Many republicans rejected Romney care at the time and many told of it's failures before Obama was even elected. Republicans also promoted a law similar in the 90s and got shot down by their own then too.
If you really think it is about a nigger in the white house, you are delusional and ignorant.Its about ideological differences and strong arm shenanigans that started off in this administration like how they played games to pass Obama care in the first place or harry Reid's purposeful blocking of republican amendments and inputs in senate bills.
Now i understand why you would want to make this about race because it doesn't require any thinking and can be used to rally support from people who seem to be dropping it. But it doesn't reflect the reality of the situation.
I'm not sure how anything he says can be taken seriously when he does that. Its like a young earth creationists trying to explain evolution and angiogenesis. Perhaps like a Klan member trying to espouse racial equality would be a better comparison. It just takes credibility away completely.
Its not really a secret list. Giving material or monetary aid and support to any fugitive from the law or in support of any one breaking the law has already been illegal to some degree. That degree depends a lot on what you know when doing so. It has to do with the "mens rea" or state of mind. For instance, donations to a "feed the children" charity or a legal defense fund for someone when used to render such aid would likely not show intent and couldn't be prosecuted outside of who misused the funding. But donations specific to help Snowden or Al Capone avoid capture and prosecution could be prosecuted. But even then it would depend on how much resources the government wants to spend and any "ideological" statement they want to make. They likely would not prosecute 2000 people making $100 donations but they might pick a few and freeze their bank accounts turning their life upside down to create a high profile case with lots of media exposure to send a message.
I don't particularly like Snowden but i dislike the administration's use of executive orders to ignore, change, or even create new law without any congressional interaction at all even more. I just suggest that if you decide to aid Snowden that you do it as anonymous as possible.
I don't know if you need to clean your glasses, but the page you linked to specifically mentions the GPL'd code bits but if you need more information, this should inform you.
http://source.android.com/sour...
Don't need to give source code until they distribute it. And then only to those who they distribute to if they wish. Not a GPL violation at all _yet_.
Only if they became citizens at the time the constitution was adopted. That's what the constitution says about the first presidents. A Canadian born only after Canada becomes the 51st state would be considered natural born unless they became part of US territory first. And then only after that point.
I don't know about that. Senator Byrd from west Virginia - the democrat who was actually a leadership member of the KKK- was so old he was wearing diapers in the senate and was reelected shortly before passing away from old age at 90 some years old (1917 to 2010). Feinstein is only 81 years old and senate terms are 6 years so she could be elected 2 more times giving us another 13 or so years. She got the most amount of popular votes of any senator before her. A record that still stands today.
I got one better. I actually saw a lawyer argue that a dead man was a worthless bum who was so frivolous with his income that he was a burden to the family and that the same man was the primary bread winner and the loss of his income had devastating effects on the family well being all in the same case and within 2 hours of each position. It was in a case to settle claims on his estate. A guy argued he was owed money from the deceased and he also left him assets in the will. The assets claim got the worthless bit trying to claim it wasn't his to give and the owed money bit was about how devastated the family was financially due to the loss of the deceased.
Well ,there is also barber college. But barring that, he should look into legal representation because many government agencies will consider him an employee. If the description and complaints is an accurate description, he needs to complain to the right people.
http://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/FAQ...