Most of the media is run by Liberals, just not ALL of it. That is why Fox News and talk radio are so hated by some - they aren't under Liberal control, and offer a different perspective. That is simply intollerable to some.
Surveys have repeatedly shown that about 90% of newsroom staff in the media supports Democrats. That is where the oft repeated line about "reality having a liberal bias" comes in. That isn't actually true. The facts of life are conservative, but the reporting is generally liberal.
You are reasoning about this without considering key inputs. It doesn't matter much who "the Establishment" wants if nobody in the base votes for them. The selection process is very much one of mobilizing the base of the party because the outcome is determined by votes of party members, not some secret backroom committee.
There is a wide variety of good Republicans candidates running. Bush has to fight his way through them if he is going to be the frontrunner.
Bernie Sanders is a self described socialist. It means the same as in Europe. Political parties in Europe use the world socialist.
Your claim about Libertarian is nonsense. Perhaps you are too busy. You might want to slow down long enough to at least get some of the facts straight.
Employment and compensation agreements between private employers and employees are outside the scope of government, and these contracts should not be encumbered by government-mandated benefits or social engineering. We support the right of private employers and employees to choose whether or not to bargain with each other through a labor union....
Sorry, but nutters will be nutters, and the nutter Left loves to use that term. You have apparently never listed to the fringe Left media. Mike Malloy, among others, loves that term, and it isn't being used sarcastically.
.... the Obama administration doesn't seem to have much interest in extraditing him (and executing him (as the conspiracy theory goes)). A future Hillary Clinton administration, on the other hand,....
Since 2001, the Clinton Foundation has amassed a staggering $2 billion, mostly in chunks from globally powerful individuals, multinational companies and foreign countries.
There were articles of impeachment of President Nixon moving in the House, the first was voted out of committee. The only reason Nixon wasn't impeached was because he resigned.
They're offering high perfomance, low power, low cost IP cores that can be combined with other IP. This will make it easier and cheaper to integrate that functionality into other devices.
Your post has nothing to do with the thread and post you responded to. It is a non sequitor, an injection of a political attack against conservatives into the discussion. To correct you, "Bob" isn't making a point, he's making an argument, and a specious one at that. His writings in essense are a polemic which is riddled with errors or distortions from what I've seen. Oh, and what a surprise, it was written during the height of BDS - Bush Derangement Syndrom, of which he seems to be a carrier.
So if we are recommending literature that might provide some illumination on the qestion of authoritarians, there is a book that is far more useful and factual than Bob's book. You can find a review here and the book here.
How about we disregard what EVERYONE thinks and go by what the law says. How's that 4th amendment go again?
Thanks, you've just demonstrated my point, pretty much exactly. Can we get some chants for Articles II and III? I'm sure that will be far less popular, but highly relevant.
You can chant "4th Amendment" till you're blue in the face, as is common here, but if the issue at hand isn't covered by the 4th Amendment then the 4th Amendment is irrelevant. Even if the 4th Amendment does apply, its application may not be what you expected.
The 4th Amendment to the US Constitution is simply law, not a magic talisman able to repel all things people here find unpleasant.
Considering that our country was founded on the idea of consent of the governed [wikipedia.org], I'd say that "what the mob believes" regarding what liberty requires is exactly where that line falls.
If it wasn't for that pesky Constitution and the actual body of law from it.
I think if you examine the US Constitution for the acceptable means to alter its contents that street protests and tirades on Slashdot are not among them. The law is what it is until properly changed.
You can't pardon and release those that aren't imprisoned. How and why were they imprisoned, and by whom? The government is responsible for more than one thing, and is granted the power to do it. Ignoring that fact does not make it go away.
I disagree. They are not tasked with keeping us safe; they are tasked with safeguarding our liberties.
I guess you aren't a big believer in the US Constitution then. There seem to be things like the army, navy, militia, and common defense mentioned. I also see that the President is given the power to grant Pardons. Might some people be in jail for breach of peace, reducing the "safety" of others? You might think so.
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
Your oversight is understandable. People here are all about Amendments 1, 2, 4, and 5. They don't really care much about any other part of the Constitution, and that inattention shows.
It just goes to show how completely terrible human beings are at estimate the risk of extremely rare events.
As you have just demonstrated again. It is only "extremely rare" (for some values of "extremely) in the West, at present, and not necessarily in other parts of the world. This is subject to change.
Senator Rand Paul, a Republican presidential candidate who has made opposition to overbroad surveillance central to his platform, tweeted: “The phone records of law abiding citizens are none of the NSA’s business! Pleased with the ruling this morning.”
How fast would his attitude towards surveillance change if were elected president?
Probably either after his first National Intelligence briefing, or after the first massacre.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
The issue here isn't the ability to read, but applying the law, which in this case is the Constitution.
Previous court cases have settled the question regarding the treatment of phone records: they are ordinary business records.
Here is what they are not: your person, your papers, your effects. They aren't kept in your home.
If you don't like the law, work to get it changed. Mod bombing me will have no effect on the law.
Since we're quoting the US Constitution, there is another part of it that applies to these questions that for some reason nobody wants to pay attention to:
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
As noted above the previous section from Wikipedia:
In the landmark decision Nixon v. General Services Administration Justice William Rehnquist, afterwards the Chief Justice, declared in his dissent the need to "fully describe the preeminent position that the President of the United States occupies with respect to our Republic. Suffice it to say that the President is made the sole repository of the executive powers of the United States, and the powers entrusted to him as well as the duties imposed upon him are awesome indeed."
Seriously. The real story with this bill is that the republicans are defunding the climate monitoring programs. It will take decades to regain the capabilities we'll lose by defunding them now. There's no turf war between NASA and NOAA, just one between republicans and science.
Decades to regain capabilities you say? You mean like the current US capability for manned space flight? Or are you all jazzed up about the first and only country to put astronauts on the moon and return them safely to earth being reduced to having its astronauts hitchhike a ride into space from other countries like Russia (under embargo for aggression, probing the US with nuclear bombers and subs), China (nuclear threats against US), or maybe India?
If you want to beat the gong about "wars on science" you better include Democrats & Progressives. There is no shortage of unscientific nonsense to be found there.
Nice job trying to write a summary for geeks that attempts to bury the real story.
No, the real story, that the US is going to reinvigorate its moribund manned space capability is clearly mentioned. Or don't you think geeks interested in that?
That wasn't a statement from a "historian" but from the former head of the Mormon church. Your facts aren't in order yet again. You're trying to hide behind a fig leaf instead of acknowledge that the LDS faith has banned polygamy for a very long time, and you can't admit that you are wrong.
Its kind of amusing that you think wikipedia.org would be more relevant on this issue than mormon.org.
Have you thought about contacting the Mormon church to inform it how wrong it is on its position banning polygamy? Maybe if you quote Wikipedia you'll convince them.
Slashdot Mirror
Most of the media is run by Liberals, just not ALL of it. That is why Fox News and talk radio are so hated by some - they aren't under Liberal control, and offer a different perspective. That is simply intollerable to some.
Surveys have repeatedly shown that about 90% of newsroom staff in the media supports Democrats. That is where the oft repeated line about "reality having a liberal bias" comes in. That isn't actually true. The facts of life are conservative, but the reporting is generally liberal.
You are reasoning about this without considering key inputs. It doesn't matter much who "the Establishment" wants if nobody in the base votes for them. The selection process is very much one of mobilizing the base of the party because the outcome is determined by votes of party members, not some secret backroom committee.
There is a wide variety of good Republicans candidates running. Bush has to fight his way through them if he is going to be the frontrunner.
I don't think you post here often enough. I encourage you get get an account and post under your own name so that more people can enjoy your insights.
Bernie Sanders is a self described socialist. It means the same as in Europe. Political parties in Europe use the world socialist.
Your claim about Libertarian is nonsense. Perhaps you are too busy. You might want to slow down long enough to at least get some of the facts straight.
2.7 Labor Markets
Employment and compensation agreements between private employers and employees are outside the scope of government, and these contracts should not be encumbered by government-mandated benefits or social engineering. We support the right of private employers and employees to choose whether or not to bargain with each other through a labor union....
Is There a Libertarian Case for Organized Labor?
I'm not exactly excited about Hillary,....
For some reason that comes across sort of like: "I can quit smoking anytime I want, .... I've done it a thousand times."
Have the Democrats nobody better to offer? Seriously?
Sorry, but nutters will be nutters, and the nutter Left loves to use that term. You have apparently never listed to the fringe Left media. Mike Malloy, among others, loves that term, and it isn't being used sarcastically.
.... the Obama administration doesn't seem to have much interest in extraditing him (and executing him (as the conspiracy theory goes)). A future Hillary Clinton administration, on the other hand, ....
Why Clinton Cash Has Bi-Partisan And National Importance
Since 2001, the Clinton Foundation has amassed a staggering $2 billion, mostly in chunks from globally powerful individuals, multinational companies and foreign countries.
“Clinton Cash”: Disputations
House of the Stackd Deck of Cards
There were articles of impeachment of President Nixon moving in the House, the first was voted out of committee. The only reason Nixon wasn't impeached was because he resigned.
Judiciary Committee Approves Article to Impeach President Nixon, 27 to 11
In your case it works both ways. :D
We seem to be safe for now, the vendor of the IP is only including visual recognition, not audio.
The vendor of this IP claims their IP is far more power efficient. That could be important for many applications, or scalability.
Delivers 1000 GOPS/W with 5x better power efficiency than GPUs
They're offering high perfomance, low power, low cost IP cores that can be combined with other IP. This will make it easier and cheaper to integrate that functionality into other devices.
News release: Synopsys Launches High-Performance Embedded Vision Processor IP
Description page w/ link to datasheet: High-Performance Vision Processors Optimized for Object Detection
Interesting nugget: Delivers 1000 GOPS/W with 5x better power efficiency than GPUs
Your post has nothing to do with the thread and post you responded to. It is a non sequitor, an injection of a political attack against conservatives into the discussion. To correct you, "Bob" isn't making a point, he's making an argument, and a specious one at that. His writings in essense are a polemic which is riddled with errors or distortions from what I've seen. Oh, and what a surprise, it was written during the height of BDS - Bush Derangement Syndrom, of which he seems to be a carrier.
So if we are recommending literature that might provide some illumination on the qestion of authoritarians, there is a book that is far more useful and factual than Bob's book. You can find a review here and the book here.
How about we disregard what EVERYONE thinks and go by what the law says. How's that 4th amendment go again?
Thanks, you've just demonstrated my point, pretty much exactly. Can we get some chants for Articles II and III? I'm sure that will be far less popular, but highly relevant.
You can chant "4th Amendment" till you're blue in the face, as is common here, but if the issue at hand isn't covered by the 4th Amendment then the 4th Amendment is irrelevant. Even if the 4th Amendment does apply, its application may not be what you expected.
The 4th Amendment to the US Constitution is simply law, not a magic talisman able to repel all things people here find unpleasant.
Considering that our country was founded on the idea of consent of the governed [wikipedia.org], I'd say that "what the mob believes" regarding what liberty requires is exactly where that line falls.
If it wasn't for that pesky Constitution and the actual body of law from it.
I think if you examine the US Constitution for the acceptable means to alter its contents that street protests and tirades on Slashdot are not among them. The law is what it is until properly changed.
You can't pardon and release those that aren't imprisoned. How and why were they imprisoned, and by whom? The government is responsible for more than one thing, and is granted the power to do it. Ignoring that fact does not make it go away.
I disagree. They are not tasked with keeping us safe; they are tasked with safeguarding our liberties.
I guess you aren't a big believer in the US Constitution then. There seem to be things like the army, navy, militia, and common defense mentioned. I also see that the President is given the power to grant Pardons. Might some people be in jail for breach of peace, reducing the "safety" of others? You might think so.
Preamble to the United States Constitution
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Clause 1: Command of military; Opinions of cabinet secretaries; Pardons
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
Your oversight is understandable. People here are all about Amendments 1, 2, 4, and 5. They don't really care much about any other part of the Constitution, and that inattention shows.
It just goes to show how completely terrible human beings are at estimate the risk of extremely rare events.
As you have just demonstrated again. It is only "extremely rare" (for some values of "extremely) in the West, at present, and not necessarily in other parts of the world. This is subject to change.
Senator Rand Paul, a Republican presidential candidate who has made opposition to overbroad surveillance central to his platform, tweeted: “The phone records of law abiding citizens are none of the NSA’s business! Pleased with the ruling this morning.”
How fast would his attitude towards surveillance change if were elected president?
Probably either after his first National Intelligence briefing, or after the first massacre.
.... keeping in mind that what liberty requires in regard to restrictions may be different than what the mob believes.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
The issue here isn't the ability to read, but applying the law, which in this case is the Constitution.
Previous court cases have settled the question regarding the treatment of phone records: they are ordinary business records.
Here is what they are not: your person, your papers, your effects. They aren't kept in your home.
If you don't like the law, work to get it changed. Mod bombing me will have no effect on the law.
Since we're quoting the US Constitution, there is another part of it that applies to these questions that for some reason nobody wants to pay attention to:
Clause 1: Command of military; Opinions of cabinet secretaries; Pardons
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
As noted above the previous section from Wikipedia:
In the landmark decision Nixon v. General Services Administration Justice William Rehnquist, afterwards the Chief Justice, declared in his dissent the need to "fully describe the preeminent position that the President of the United States occupies with respect to our Republic. Suffice it to say that the President is made the sole repository of the executive powers of the United States, and the powers entrusted to him as well as the duties imposed upon him are awesome indeed."
Seriously. The real story with this bill is that the republicans are defunding the climate monitoring programs. It will take decades to regain the capabilities we'll lose by defunding them now. There's no turf war between NASA and NOAA, just one between republicans and science.
Decades to regain capabilities you say? You mean like the current US capability for manned space flight? Or are you all jazzed up about the first and only country to put astronauts on the moon and return them safely to earth being reduced to having its astronauts hitchhike a ride into space from other countries like Russia (under embargo for aggression, probing the US with nuclear bombers and subs), China (nuclear threats against US), or maybe India?
If you want to beat the gong about "wars on science" you better include Democrats & Progressives. There is no shortage of unscientific nonsense to be found there.
Nice job trying to write a summary for geeks that attempts to bury the real story.
No, the real story, that the US is going to reinvigorate its moribund manned space capability is clearly mentioned. Or don't you think geeks interested in that?
That wasn't a statement from a "historian" but from the former head of the Mormon church. Your facts aren't in order yet again. You're trying to hide behind a fig leaf instead of acknowledge that the LDS faith has banned polygamy for a very long time, and you can't admit that you are wrong.
Its kind of amusing that you think wikipedia.org would be more relevant on this issue than mormon.org.
Have you thought about contacting the Mormon church to inform it how wrong it is on its position banning polygamy? Maybe if you quote Wikipedia you'll convince them.
Wow, a fallacious application of "no true Scotsman" in the context of morality. What a "surprise."