Accurate demographic information came from the mandatory short form census which all households still have to complete. Only the long form census which was smaller distribution and random was made not mandatory.
The short form census (which is actually quite long) is still mandatory by all households and that is what is used to gauge the needs of the country for different programs. Nothing has changed there. The only thing that has changed is the mandatory nature of the long form which was a random smaller distribution anyway.
All the complaints against the removal of the long form census, like yours and the comments you received below are all baseless once you look at what has actually changed.
They don't like evidence getting in the way of their agenda. From this, to the abolishment of the long-form census...
They did not abolish the long form census, they only made it voluntary instead of mandatory. From a freedom point of view this is exactly the right thing to do.. Do you really want your government asking you very personal questions, then having the ability to fine and jail you if you don't want to answer? Thankfully they fixed that piece of nonsense.
EXACTLY. Everything you state I completely agree with, and is seemingly incompatible with the ridiculous statement you made earlier which was
I'd assert that the police should not be allowed to do anything to limit the rights of the person exercising free speech, let alone arresting that person.
This blanket statement you said earlier implied that anything someone said regardless of what it was was free speech and the police could do nothing until something actually happened. Your post above is much more sane.
Can you explain the difference between someone stating publicly that they are going to kill the president, and a bully at school stating he is going to beat the crap out of another kid, or kill the school principal or blow up the school? These are the same thing - threatening the safety of another and should all be taken seriously.
However what you stated:
the police should not be allowed to do anything to limit the rights of the person exercising free speech
clearly states that if someone utters a death threat then that would be protected by free speech. This is blatantly clear and I'm not extrapolating anything beyond what you stated.
the answer to this in the US should be a resounding yes, yes, and yes again! You extrapolated that the police should do nothing. I'd assert that the police should not be allowed to do anything to limit the rights of the person exercising free speech, let alone arresting that person.
Wow. Thankfully you have no say in anti-bullying laws.
So anyone that utters a death threat before killing someone cannot possibly be a suspect since they are actually too stupid to carry out the killing??
So I guess the guy they just arrested in Norway is innocent since he also did an online video threat, and published his intent in a 1500 page document. Clearly too stupid to kill anyone..
How about the Columbine killings? Since they posted their intent on video then clearly they must have also been innocent.
When people make videos of themselves making death threats, it's not that they are too stupid to kill, it's that they are just crazy enough to do what they say they are going to do.
You're splitting hairs. If the result of the speech is that the person saying it is charged, then it wasn't possible to freely give the speech then was it?
So he has to be a professional killer? Was Hinkley a professional? Were any af the nutjobs that shot at presidents professionals or were they just insane clowns like this guy?
~Anything~ you want to say is legal. You can say anything you want. That is our freedom that is constitutionally protected. What is illegal though is criminal threatening.
And this is where many Americans simply do not understand their true rights.
What about slander? That's illegal.
Making false statements about your company in a stock holder meeting to mislead your investors. That's illegal (and will often get you more time behind bars than killing someone)
What about walking into an airport and stating 'i have a bomb', or 'I have a sharp toothpick' or even 'I saw the pilot - reeked of alcohol and I think he had a bomb on him'. All just statements of fact or fiction without criminal threatening
What about yelling 'fire' in a theater? No criminal intent there, just trying to have fun but that's illegal.
Trying to create a work of fiction on your tax return is also illegal, even though that can be considered saying what you want.
Rights to free speech are not infinite and all encompassing. You have to be reasonable.
Sadly too often in this country we take those that are seriously mentally ill and put them in prison instead of getting them help.
Well because the state giving someone the medical help they need amounts to free medical care which is really SOCIALISM and the Republicans wouldn't stand for anything that even resembled that.
I don't, but if it was a command, and Obama does get shot, then the investigators can look up this guy again, and question him in light of the new facts to determine whether it was a command. That's the way it should work.
So basically what you are saying is if someone utters a death threat to someone else, like a guy to his ex-wife, then it's ok if the police don't do anything since they can arrest him AFTER she gets killed. Yes, that seems like the way it should work.
If the US lauds itself as the freest (did I spell that right?) country of the world
The citizens may believe that but anyone looking in from outside can clearly see that is not true. To give just one example, the amount of censorship on US TV is just mind boggling. That's not freedom.
According to the statement you're guilty until you prove your innocent, so much for innocent until proven guilty.
Welcome to the result of 8 years of Bush rule. (Yes that colossal waste of tax dollars and abuse of power that is called Homeland Security was created in the Bush era)
Believing in evolution doesn't mean the bible is not true. The Catholic church has officially come out and said that the bible cannot conflict with science, effectively endorsing evolution and rejecting the theory that the earth is only eight thousand years old, a long held belief by the Catholic church. Judaism also used to believe in a young Earth, (their calendar effectively marks the number of years since God created the planet), but Judaism now rejects this belief with only the most fundamental sects still clinging to the non-evolution theory.
None of these people have rejected religion or the bible. They just realize that he bible was written by man, with the knowledge of the day, and from stories passed down over the centuries. We now realize that some of these beliefs were wrong, but that does not invalidate the entire message found in the religious texts.
that these days there's no excuse whatsoever for an app - even a malicious app - to crash anything beyond itself. If the OS allows an app to either take all cycles by refusing to yield, or to b0rk the OS itself through poor memory management techniques, then there's proof that the OS authors didn't know what they were doing. Its not as if these are new concepts. Once you've established that a modern OS was written by people without those very basic (by today's standards) skills, you're so far in the hole that its not even worth continuing.
Really? So so given that an app can freeze Windows, even windows7, clearly shows that Microsoft doesn't have a freakin clue given that they've had over 25 YEARS to get it right and clearly have not as of yet.
What I'm saying is if the BB freezes, its generally an app. most apps are very well written and have no problems. Some are crap, just like an every other platform.
If you found a phone you like then great - good for you. Personally I like my Torch and find it does everything I need and more.
Slashdot Mirror
Accurate demographic information came from the mandatory short form census which all households still have to complete. Only the long form census which was smaller distribution and random was made not mandatory.
The short form census (which is actually quite long) is still mandatory by all households and that is what is used to gauge the needs of the country for different programs. Nothing has changed there. The only thing that has changed is the mandatory nature of the long form which was a random smaller distribution anyway.
All the complaints against the removal of the long form census, like yours and the comments you received below are all baseless once you look at what has actually changed.
What a crock of shit.
They don't like evidence getting in the way of their agenda. From this, to the abolishment of the long-form census...
They did not abolish the long form census, they only made it voluntary instead of mandatory. From a freedom point of view this is exactly the right thing to do.. Do you really want your government asking you very personal questions, then having the ability to fine and jail you if you don't want to answer? Thankfully they fixed that piece of nonsense.
EXACTLY. Everything you state I completely agree with, and is seemingly incompatible with the ridiculous statement you made earlier which was
I'd assert that the police should not be allowed to do anything to limit the rights of the person exercising free speech, let alone arresting that person.
This blanket statement you said earlier implied that anything someone said regardless of what it was was free speech and the police could do nothing until something actually happened. Your post above is much more sane.
Can you explain the difference between someone stating publicly that they are going to kill the president, and a bully at school stating he is going to beat the crap out of another kid, or kill the school principal or blow up the school? These are the same thing - threatening the safety of another and should all be taken seriously.
However what you stated:
the police should not be allowed to do anything to limit the rights of the person exercising free speech
clearly states that if someone utters a death threat then that would be protected by free speech. This is blatantly clear and I'm not extrapolating anything beyond what you stated.
the answer to this in the US should be a resounding yes, yes, and yes again! You extrapolated that the police should do nothing. I'd assert that the police should not be allowed to do anything to limit the rights of the person exercising free speech, let alone arresting that person.
Wow. Thankfully you have no say in anti-bullying laws.
you say that like its a bad thing
So anyone that utters a death threat before killing someone cannot possibly be a suspect since they are actually too stupid to carry out the killing??
So I guess the guy they just arrested in Norway is innocent since he also did an online video threat, and published his intent in a 1500 page document. Clearly too stupid to kill anyone..
How about the Columbine killings? Since they posted their intent on video then clearly they must have also been innocent.
When people make videos of themselves making death threats, it's not that they are too stupid to kill, it's that they are just crazy enough to do what they say they are going to do.
You're splitting hairs. If the result of the speech is that the person saying it is charged, then it wasn't possible to freely give the speech then was it?
So he has to be a professional killer? Was Hinkley a professional? Were any af the nutjobs that shot at presidents professionals or were they just insane clowns like this guy?
Yup. Blackberry is the same way. Phone is never really 'off' unless the battery was pulled.
And what do you think this is? Is this not a public threat well before?
threatening your ex is something you can conceivably follow up on, unlike threatening the president himself.
Yea, Cause no one ever successfully shot or killed a president before.
~Anything~ you want to say is legal. You can say anything you want. That is our freedom that is constitutionally protected. What is illegal though is criminal threatening.
And this is where many Americans simply do not understand their true rights.
What about slander? That's illegal.
Making false statements about your company in a stock holder meeting to mislead your investors. That's illegal (and will often get you more time behind bars than killing someone)
What about walking into an airport and stating 'i have a bomb', or 'I have a sharp toothpick' or even 'I saw the pilot - reeked of alcohol and I think he had a bomb on him'. All just statements of fact or fiction without criminal threatening
What about yelling 'fire' in a theater? No criminal intent there, just trying to have fun but that's illegal.
Trying to create a work of fiction on your tax return is also illegal, even though that can be considered saying what you want.
Rights to free speech are not infinite and all encompassing. You have to be reasonable.
Sadly too often in this country we take those that are seriously mentally ill and put them in prison instead of getting them help.
Well because the state giving someone the medical help they need amounts to free medical care which is really SOCIALISM and the Republicans wouldn't stand for anything that even resembled that.
I don't, but if it was a command, and Obama does get shot, then the investigators can look up this guy again, and question him in light of the new facts to determine whether it was a command. That's the way it should work.
So basically what you are saying is if someone utters a death threat to someone else, like a guy to his ex-wife, then it's ok if the police don't do anything since they can arrest him AFTER she gets killed. Yes, that seems like the way it should work.
If the US lauds itself as the freest (did I spell that right?) country of the world
The citizens may believe that but anyone looking in from outside can clearly see that is not true. To give just one example, the amount of censorship on US TV is just mind boggling. That's not freedom.
According to the statement you're guilty until you prove your innocent, so much for innocent until proven guilty.
Welcome to the result of 8 years of Bush rule. (Yes that colossal waste of tax dollars and abuse of power that is called Homeland Security was created in the Bush era)
Believing in evolution doesn't mean the bible is not true. The Catholic church has officially come out and said that the bible cannot conflict with science, effectively endorsing evolution and rejecting the theory that the earth is only eight thousand years old, a long held belief by the Catholic church. Judaism also used to believe in a young Earth, (their calendar effectively marks the number of years since God created the planet), but Judaism now rejects this belief with only the most fundamental sects still clinging to the non-evolution theory.
None of these people have rejected religion or the bible. They just realize that he bible was written by man, with the knowledge of the day, and from stories passed down over the centuries. We now realize that some of these beliefs were wrong, but that does not invalidate the entire message found in the religious texts.
Nonsense. I've had my Torch for over 6 months, used daily. After applying the first OS6 fixpack, this has NEVER happened.
that these days there's no excuse whatsoever for an app - even a malicious app - to crash anything beyond itself. If the OS allows an app to either take all cycles by refusing to yield, or to b0rk the OS itself through poor memory management techniques, then there's proof that the OS authors didn't know what they were doing. Its not as if these are new concepts. Once you've established that a modern OS was written by people without those very basic (by today's standards) skills, you're so far in the hole that its not even worth continuing.
Really? So so given that an app can freeze Windows, even windows7, clearly shows that Microsoft doesn't have a freakin clue given that they've had over 25 YEARS to get it right and clearly have not as of yet.
Yes, because the earth builds up universally evenly mm by mm.
Christianity is not in conflict with evolution. Only crackpot fundamentalism is.
What I'm saying is if the BB freezes, its generally an app. most apps are very well written and have no problems. Some are crap, just like an every other platform.
If you found a phone you like then great - good for you. Personally I like my Torch and find it does everything I need and more.