I never mean to say anything insightful, I just say what I think, without beating around the bush or using weasely circumlocutions to say something inflammatory while simultaneously trying to distance myself from it.;-)
I appreciate that. It's a rare thing in our society today.
I had to look up Avi Nelson (Boston radio personality). Maybe he was hypocritical. Maybe he wasn't. I don't know what he said nor how his career started. Maybe a few of the older commentators don't have a leg to stand on. What I can say is that most conservative average citizens aren't hypocritical for opposing the so-called fairness doctrine. Neither are the younger commentators nor (shudder) politicians.
Don't you think that if they wanted to do so they would have done it when they had huge majorities in both the House and the Senate?
Do you not understand the past tense? I said "did", not "are trying".
Do you realize that laws are not enacted by "floating" them, but by putting forth a bill that gets voted on and then signed by the President.
I understand that quite well. Do you understand that the first step to actually passing a bill (typically prior to drafting) is to organize a coalition of legislators to support it? Nothing ever gets passed without being "floated".
I never even said that they tried to pass it. All I said is that they really did bring it up. Maybe they were trying to get a rise out of Republicans. That's quite possible (and successful). The fact remains, though, that the Democrats started this. If it makes you feel uncomfortable, then I feel sorry for you.
We (geeks, hackers, etc) did not make it easy enough for the plebs to encrypt their email, and did not make it common practice to do so.
By the time encryption became available, the power was no longer in the hands of geeks and hackers. If (example) Microsoft Outlook had made it a priority, then maybe it would have happened.
Oh, and sometimes SMTP is encrypted (TLS), but only if both servers/client support it.
That's probably true, and there's nothing wrong with that. This is different in scope, rationale, motive, and effect than most. This issue isn't about who made the request, but why.
That's a bit disingenuous, don't you think? Lumping all conservatives together with a few media broadcasters and politicians who benefited? Really? Some of them may be hypocritical, sure (It'd be nice if you'd named names).
What about those who thought it was a bad idea at the time? What about those of us who weren't around yet? Are there no young conservatives, or do our opinions on the matter not count? What about conservatives that aren't Republican?
Maybe you meant to say something insightful, but your post comes off as very superficial.
It's simply not true. I'm about as liberal as they come, and I have exactly zero interest in shutting down or changing talk radio.
If you can't tell the difference between yourself, and them, you're in real trouble. Most of them are simply power hungry. (Most Republicans too, mind you.)
Democrats really did float the Fairness doctrine a few years back, but I don't think they actually tried to legislate it. The Republicans and talk radio got all up in a huff, though. Now bleeding hearts want to rewrite history. The evil nasty fairness doctrine? We didn't bring it up...
WALLACE: So would you revive the fairness doctrine?
FEINSTEIN: Well, I'm looking at it, as a matter of fact, Chris, because I think there ought to be an opportunity to present the other side. And unfortunately, talk radio is overwhelmingly one way.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,286442,00.html#ixzz1HoR5lXx1
(Yeah, it's fox. It's also a direct quote.)
No, but you do need to be able to read Shakespeare. Nobody is suggesting we practice using card readers or programming by hand. We need to go back far enough to understand what is going on, but not the truly archaic. (and no, undergraduates don't need to be fluent in assembly.)
The politics were both integral to the book, and its Achilles heel. The problem is that people generally cannot appreciate philosophies that they disagree with. Geeks and nerds certainly can't, but the general populace even less so.
In order to keep the politics out to the film, they ripped out all of the plot (and most of the legitimate sci-fi). It was very unfortunate.
There is some truth to what you're saying, but it doesn't apply to the AC troll I was responding to. He was strongly implying "mormon = thief". He did claim "mormon = moron".
The church tries to temper people against the human weakness you describe, but in places like Utah it is a losing battle. We hear about it in General Conference from time to time (both implicitly and explicitly). I even hear stories that they're intolerant against other LDS (mormons) who move in from out of state. It's sad, really. People then go and try to paint the whole church with the colors of intolerance that are bred out of hyper cliquishness. I think they just don't understand the damage they're causing locally or worldwide.
Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), speaking at a conference on border issues Thursday, said 663 individuals arrested along the southwest border in 2010 were from countries designated as “special interest” or from countries known to have ties with terrorism.
663 may be a tiny, tiny fraction of 445,000, but it only takes half a dozen to cause nation wide hysteria (assuming few actual casualties).
The problem isn't that they're Mormon. The problem is that they aren't living their professed religion. Isn't that the problem with most crooked politicians?
If I remember correctly, it's for running searches in the firehose. Articles that have been chosen and opened for comment are tagged "story" (I think others are tagged "submission"). There's an example in the help section somewhere that explains how to use it.
"But, your honor, I had absolutely no idea that the ring was stolen. See! I even had him sign an affidavit before I put it on. Why are you looking at me like that? I really didn't know!"
I don't know about other jurisdictions, but in California it is only illegal to possess something if you have reason to believe it was stolen. "those who legitimately didn't know" aren't "just let off". They simply aren't guilty (according to the letter of the law).
The receiving stolen goods charge is bogus though, why isn't the pawn shop being charged if it's a valid charge.
It is not a bogus charge. At least in California, the prosecutor must establish that the defendant knew it was stolen. It's often used in theft cases when they can't prove who stole an item, but they have a pretty good idea.
Treason is a hanging offense: Will the judge hang? I cry for America
Not a chance. Treason is very narrowly defined in the US Constitution. You'd first need to classify her court or the Department of Justice as enemies to the United States. I'm not a lawyer, but I think you'd need both Congress and the Judicial system to cooperate in the effort, or maybe a plurality of state governments.
("States", "them", "their" -- Article 3 Section 3, read literally, doesn't refer to the federal government specifically. An argument could be made that any plurality of states could do...)
My feat of logic? You made a bad claim, offered no supporting evidence, and then got insulting. I almost mistook you for a troll. (Your recent post history shows that you're just a jerk. That's your choice, I guess...)
... Effectively the pledge of allegiance is an oath to blindly serve and follow your government;...
Not necessarily. It is a problem, but it does depend on the individual's view of the republic. At least according to the vision the nation was built upon, the republic is not synonymous with the government. Rather, the government should answer to the people and represent their concerns and interests. Thus, when I personally cite the pledge of allegiance it is to the principles of the Constitution and to my fellow Americans, not to the lying scum politicians currently in the drivers seat.
(Not all of them are lying scum, but the majority certainly are.)
I never made the claim that they are foolproof. There is a middle ground between foolproof and fundamentally flawed. I simply rejected the laughable notion that fingerprint and DNA evidence (done properly) has less than 80% accuracy. And yes, crime labs do exaggerate the strength of DNA matches, just not by that much.
80% might be better than some ill advised partial fingerprint match. It's unfortunate, but does happen from time to time. It isn't better than a real match or DNA evidence.
Uh, the article is sparse and images aren't detailed. I see the "giant structure", but it looks like a simple tracking parabolic dish. I don't see "lots of moving parts". What else needs to move? Just curious.
Slashdot Mirror
I never mean to say anything insightful, I just say what I think, without beating around the bush or using weasely circumlocutions to say something inflammatory while simultaneously trying to distance myself from it. ;-)
I appreciate that. It's a rare thing in our society today.
I had to look up Avi Nelson (Boston radio personality). Maybe he was hypocritical. Maybe he wasn't. I don't know what he said nor how his career started. Maybe a few of the older commentators don't have a leg to stand on. What I can say is that most conservative average citizens aren't hypocritical for opposing the so-called fairness doctrine. Neither are the younger commentators nor (shudder) politicians.
Don't you think that if they wanted to do so they would have done it when they had huge majorities in both the House and the Senate?
Do you not understand the past tense? I said "did", not "are trying".
Do you realize that laws are not enacted by "floating" them, but by putting forth a bill that gets voted on and then signed by the President.
I understand that quite well. Do you understand that the first step to actually passing a bill (typically prior to drafting) is to organize a coalition of legislators to support it? Nothing ever gets passed without being "floated".
I never even said that they tried to pass it. All I said is that they really did bring it up. Maybe they were trying to get a rise out of Republicans. That's quite possible (and successful). The fact remains, though, that the Democrats started this. If it makes you feel uncomfortable, then I feel sorry for you.
We (geeks, hackers, etc) did not make it easy enough for the plebs to encrypt their email, and did not make it common practice to do so.
By the time encryption became available, the power was no longer in the hands of geeks and hackers. If (example) Microsoft Outlook had made it a priority, then maybe it would have happened.
Oh, and sometimes SMTP is encrypted (TLS), but only if both servers/client support it.
That's probably true, and there's nothing wrong with that. This is different in scope, rationale, motive, and effect than most. This issue isn't about who made the request, but why.
That's a bit disingenuous, don't you think? Lumping all conservatives together with a few media broadcasters and politicians who benefited? Really? Some of them may be hypocritical, sure (It'd be nice if you'd named names).
What about those who thought it was a bad idea at the time? What about those of us who weren't around yet? Are there no young conservatives, or do our opinions on the matter not count? What about conservatives that aren't Republican?
Maybe you meant to say something insightful, but your post comes off as very superficial.
It's simply not true. I'm about as liberal as they come, and I have exactly zero interest in shutting down or changing talk radio.
If you can't tell the difference between yourself, and them, you're in real trouble. Most of them are simply power hungry. (Most Republicans too, mind you.)
Democrats really did float the Fairness doctrine a few years back, but I don't think they actually tried to legislate it. The Republicans and talk radio got all up in a huff, though. Now bleeding hearts want to rewrite history. The evil nasty fairness doctrine? We didn't bring it up...
WALLACE: So would you revive the fairness doctrine?
FEINSTEIN: Well, I'm looking at it, as a matter of fact, Chris, because I think there ought to be an opportunity to present the other side. And unfortunately, talk radio is overwhelmingly one way.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,286442,00.html#ixzz1HoR5lXx1
(Yeah, it's fox. It's also a direct quote.)
(He's trolling. It's not worth it.)
No, but you do need to be able to read Shakespeare. Nobody is suggesting we practice using card readers or programming by hand. We need to go back far enough to understand what is going on, but not the truly archaic. (and no, undergraduates don't need to be fluent in assembly.)
The politics were both integral to the book, and its Achilles heel. The problem is that people generally cannot appreciate philosophies that they disagree with. Geeks and nerds certainly can't, but the general populace even less so.
In order to keep the politics out to the film, they ripped out all of the plot (and most of the legitimate sci-fi). It was very unfortunate.
There is some truth to what you're saying, but it doesn't apply to the AC troll I was responding to. He was strongly implying "mormon = thief". He did claim "mormon = moron".
The church tries to temper people against the human weakness you describe, but in places like Utah it is a losing battle. We hear about it in General Conference from time to time (both implicitly and explicitly). I even hear stories that they're intolerant against other LDS (mormons) who move in from out of state. It's sad, really. People then go and try to paint the whole church with the colors of intolerance that are bred out of hyper cliquishness. I think they just don't understand the damage they're causing locally or worldwide.
Sorry, meant to include the link. http://cnsnews.com/news/article/663-illegal-aliens-countries-ties-terror
Yesterday, actually.
Somebody reporting on this:
Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), speaking at a conference on border issues Thursday, said 663 individuals arrested along the southwest border in 2010 were from countries designated as “special interest” or from countries known to have ties with terrorism.
663 may be a tiny, tiny fraction of 445,000, but it only takes half a dozen to cause nation wide hysteria (assuming few actual casualties).
Well...you asked.
Posting as AC for obvious reasons.
Yeah. Because you're trolling.
The problem isn't that they're Mormon. The problem is that they aren't living their professed religion. Isn't that the problem with most crooked politicians?
If I remember correctly, it's for running searches in the firehose. Articles that have been chosen and opened for comment are tagged "story" (I think others are tagged "submission"). There's an example in the help section somewhere that explains how to use it.
Oh, that's rich.
"But, your honor, I had absolutely no idea that the ring was stolen. See! I even had him sign an affidavit before I put it on. Why are you looking at me like that? I really didn't know!"
I don't know about other jurisdictions, but in California it is only illegal to possess something if you have reason to believe it was stolen. "those who legitimately didn't know" aren't "just let off". They simply aren't guilty (according to the letter of the law).
The receiving stolen goods charge is bogus though, why isn't the pawn shop being charged if it's a valid charge.
It is not a bogus charge. At least in California, the prosecutor must establish that the defendant knew it was stolen. It's often used in theft cases when they can't prove who stole an item, but they have a pretty good idea.
Treason is a hanging offense: Will the judge hang? I cry for America
Not a chance. Treason is very narrowly defined in the US Constitution. You'd first need to classify her court or the Department of Justice as enemies to the United States. I'm not a lawyer, but I think you'd need both Congress and the Judicial system to cooperate in the effort, or maybe a plurality of state governments.
("States", "them", "their" -- Article 3 Section 3, read literally, doesn't refer to the federal government specifically. An argument could be made that any plurality of states could do...)
Sounds like a tacky comedy.
My feat of logic? You made a bad claim, offered no supporting evidence, and then got insulting. I almost mistook you for a troll. (Your recent post history shows that you're just a jerk. That's your choice, I guess...)
... Effectively the pledge of allegiance is an oath to blindly serve and follow your government;...
Not necessarily. It is a problem, but it does depend on the individual's view of the republic. At least according to the vision the nation was built upon, the republic is not synonymous with the government. Rather, the government should answer to the people and represent their concerns and interests. Thus, when I personally cite the pledge of allegiance it is to the principles of the Constitution and to my fellow Americans, not to the lying scum politicians currently in the drivers seat.
(Not all of them are lying scum, but the majority certainly are.)
Luke 2. They traveled to Jerusalem every year for passover.
Jesus Christ != Joesph Smith
Jesus was literate, as shown in Luke 4. Joesph was literate and grew up reading the family Bible.
You're claim is illogical and self contradictory.
I never made the claim that they are foolproof. There is a middle ground between foolproof and fundamentally flawed. I simply rejected the laughable notion that fingerprint and DNA evidence (done properly) has less than 80% accuracy. And yes, crime labs do exaggerate the strength of DNA matches, just not by that much.
Double whoosh.
80% might be better than some ill advised partial fingerprint match. It's unfortunate, but does happen from time to time. It isn't better than a real match or DNA evidence.
Uh, the article is sparse and images aren't detailed. I see the "giant structure", but it looks like a simple tracking parabolic dish. I don't see "lots of moving parts". What else needs to move? Just curious.