It wasn't until a couple years ago I learned that it wasn't considered proper form to double-space; decades of muscle memory are hard to unlearn.
Nobody has ever suggested to me that it is improper form. In my opinion, it still makes paragraphs more easily readable. I'm also old enough that if someone were to suggest to me that it was improper form I could safely ignore them.
The messages are gone, so it's up to you to prove that the administration overstepped the bonds.
You poor, ignorant sod. The messages are not gone -- the users were blocked. The messages remain. The news on this topic even includes copies of many...
Are you going to say that setting cars on fire, as done on the inauguration day, is a protected free speech as well? Or setting a campus on fire, when a speaker for the conservatives is to give a speech?
Classic whataboutism. Ignored.
The "opponents" have a long and sordid history of violating the rules of civil discussion,
Labeling all members of a perceived group according to the worst anecdote that you can recall. Clear due process violation. Ignored.
so in absence of solid proofs that this instance specifically this was not the case, I'm strongly inclined to believe you're trying to dig up dirt on the administration where there is none.
Proofs provided.
While we're at it, please explain how one twitter message amongst 43K replies can disrupt the discussion
What about being disruptive, disorderly and a nuisance to the users and hosts?
Define disruptive, disorderly, and a nuisance. Without using the content of the messages being posted.
Can I just walk into a limited public forum and start screaming through a megaphone whenever someone tries to speak?
Demonstrate that the blocked users screamed through a megaphone whenever anyone tried to speak. I'm thinking that it will be difficult given that this concerns a tweets, there's no volume, and users posting simultaneous replies is inherently part of the platform.
Can I claim 1st amendment protection on performing a DDoS comprising of political criticism messages?
Demonstrate that @realDonaldTrump has even been DDoSed by replies to his tweets.
Keep desperately pretending that these users were blocked for doing anything that any @realDonaldTrump supporter was doing but for being critical instead of supportive in their tweets.
Well, Colin Ferguson didn't get a "hate crime" enhancement to his mass murder charges, even though he said his goal was to kill as many white people and Asians as possible.
Well, Colin Ferguson committed his crime in 1993 and New York didn't pass hate crime legislation until 2000. Federal hate crime legislation didn't really take off until 1994.
Just what "hate crime" law do you contend should have enhanced Ferguson's sentence?
Still, if his admittedly racially biased mass murder wasn't a "hate crime", the concept is irredeemably broken.
Your knowledge of the law, sense of time, and apparent ignorance of prohibitions against ex post facto laws is irredeemably broken...
Valley Values triggered and out comes the ban hammer...
Whereas conservative values concerning things like the sanctity of one's personal property and the benefits of strong copyright seemingly evaporate the moment that someone appropriates Pepe for conservative lulz.
Did Matt Furie author the app, or license it to the app? I doubt it, because Pepe is dead.
Too bad, this channel is a social media account and not a press conference. Davison v. Loudoun County Board of Supervisors, 2016 WL 4801617 (E.D. Va. Sept. 14, 2016).
Defendants concede that in adopting a Social Media Comments Policy, see Compl. Exh. 11 [Dkt. 1-11], the County designated its Facebook page a limited public forum. See Mem. in Supp. of Mot. to Dismiss [Dkt. 4] at 13-14; see also Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of Univ. of Virginia, 515 U.S. 819, 830 (1995) (a state policy facilitating speech creates a "metaphysical" forum). Once opened, the public may utilize a limited public forum to the extent consistent with the restrictions placed upon it by the state. See id. at 829; see also Perry Educ. Ass'n v. Perry Local Educators' Ass'n, 460 U.S. 37, 71 n.7 (1983) (a limited public forum is "created for a limited purpose such as use by certain groups . . . or for the discussion of certain subjects.").
"Once it has opened a limited forum . . . the State must respect the lawful boundaries it has itself set." Rosenberger, 515 U.S. at 829. This rule applies as much to Defendants' Facebook page as to any other limited public forum. See Bland v. Roberts, 730 F.3d 368, 386 (4th Cir. 2013), as amended (Sept. 23, 2013) (noting that speech on Facebook is subject to the same First Amendment protections as speech in any other context).
Once you open a limited public forum, you cannot exclude those qualified to participate on the basis that they are posting content or expression that you do not like. Full stop, per the Rosenberger Supreme Court case.
I don't give a damn about your theories concerning press conferences, because for Trump's twitter account every non-blocked member of the public is authorized to participate, and every non-blocked member gets to follow, retweet, and reply to tweets. I don't have to have some more contrived definition of a channel of communication because Sean Mother-F'in Spicer says that @realDonaldTrump is an official channel of communication and it's not operated remotely similarly to a press conference.
It's your burden to establish a valid analogy between a Twitter account and a press conference. You're the only one to bring it up in this thread. I utterly reject the premise.
Press conferences would end only when every single person present had their questions answered.
Non sequitur. Twitter posts are not press conferences, and Trump's posts remain open for retweets and replies by those he likes.
Also, nobody said that you couldn't use content-neutral controls like time limits. However, Trump is using his account for official business while selectively blocking only those who disagree with him.
I'm not sure that analysis is correct. The case you linked to (in the indystar) never went to court. To consider it differently, if you are at a town-hall meeting, and CODEPINK runs in and starts shouting, they can be arrested.
Yet I am sure, since there's a bit more law in this area then the example that I provided. If you pay me, I'll teach you. Otherwise, I've given you more than enough resources and keywords to figure it out in your own.
Obviously that isn't something the creators of the constitution had thought about when they wrote the amendment, and none of the prior judgements really address the point, so the Supreme Court ruling would be based entirely on the opinions of the members of the court.
Law fail. Perry Educ. Ass'n v. Perry Local Educators' Ass'n, 460 U.S. 37, 45 (1983), as explained in Section III.A. of Christian Legal Soc'y Chapter of the Univ. of Cal., Hastings Coll. of the Law v. Martinez, 130 S. Ct. 2971 (2010).
As long as these exist, it's free to create any other channels that have arbitrary restrictions.
Nope. It's either open to comments by all under content neutral standards or it's announcement only. Arbitrary restrictions are not permitted in a designated public forum.
Get a law degree and learn about "designated public forum[s]." Or don't. The caselaw is out there, and the right is rooted in the first amendment exactly as summarized in the article.
The President is under no obligation to listen to you. Ignoring constituents is rather poor form, but it's not illegal or unconstitutional, any more than it is illegal or unconstitutional for current or past Presidents to ignore emails, phone calls, or written correspondence.
He doesn't have to listen. But if he permits comments from his supporters and uses the account for presidential purposes, then he has to accept ALL comments without editing out those he doesn't like or blocking commenters that he doesn't like. It's not like the question has not come up before in other contexts. Mike Pence even ran into the buzzsaw.
Public officials can either accept comments or not, but they can't selectively curate their audience and the audience's comments to assuage their fragile egos.
Arguing with an AC that will never have to take responsibility for their inane positions has officially become boring.
Won't happen. Reprise of H.264 vs VP9. Google will use it. Essentially nobody else will. Installed base of hardware decoders, where HEVC has a 4 year lead time, will dictate market share.
Remember that both VP8 and VP9 succeeded in being royalty-free video formats. YouTube uses VP9 [googleblog.com] and has done for a long time. Netflix uses VP9 [medium.com]. AV1 will also succeed in being a royalty-free format.
Wrong.. Google subsidized it. Like everything else until they get bored and move on to the next thing.
You can't make a hardware codec if the bitstream of the codec is not frozen.
So Apple's mistake is not supporting, in software only, a codec where even the software side is under delayed finalization (original due date was March 2017)? Should everybody simply redo their encodings when the bitstream is finalized?
Yeah, I'm still not seeing the mistake, only zealotry.
The summary is very wrong. The sun's surface is ~5800K. The corona (above the surface) is ~500,000 K, or 100x hotter than that (or more; the temperature of the corona varies). This means if the probe is designed to burn up at ~1700K, it won't get to 5 km above the surface; in fact, it will burn up more than 2000 km above the surface.
Your understanding of heat transfer is very wrong. The probe could very well operate within the corona depending upon the density of the material, the heat transfer coefficient, and the thermal mass of the probe.
Dunk your hand into a pot of boiling water (212 F). Severe injury. Hold you hand in the air of an oven preheated to 400 F. Gets uncomfortable, but after a much longer period of time. Put your hand in a silicone glove before reaching in the oven. Hell, you can even pick up metal pans heated to 400 F then.
The principal significance of the temperature of the corona is that it limits the ability of the probe to dissipate its heat into the environment, because you can't reject heat from a colder object into a hotter environment without adding energy to the system... Orbit through portions of the corona and back outside so that you can cool the probe? A good part of that problem becomes solvable.
there should be ways to deal with it without having to worry about the drone owner threatening a lawsuit.
Exactly. Those Constitutional amendments saying things like "[no person shall be] deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law" were drafted with the express idea of permitting the governent to destory property without even having to prove that the action was reasonable...
After all, due process is such a pain. Summary non-process is cheap, easy, and never arbitrary.
I used Lyft twice last week. I also deleted the Uber app earlier this year and have pretty much devided that I'll use a taxi before supporting Kalanick's demon spawn of a company.
. It is not the place of cities to carve out their own little fiefdoms for which large-scale projects such as the internet, energy projects, or mass transit, are things to which everyone else must be subservient. Cities are there to provide local services, such as police, fire, garbage collection, and perhaps some road repairs. When individual cities start stomping on the rights of state citizens, then it is well within the scope of the state to step in and restore those rights.
Ah yes.... the right level of government to decide an issue is, of course, the level of government that your party controls. Small government is great until someone is doing something that you don't like. Then big government under your control magically resumes being the answer.
Slashdot Mirror
Did any of them also offer to pay for a legal defense?
Nobody has ever suggested to me that it is improper form. In my opinion, it still makes paragraphs more easily readable. I'm also old enough that if someone were to suggest to me that it was improper form I could safely ignore them.
Now get off my used-to-be-fixed-spaced lawn.
Ok.
There's two. Especially the second one.
You poor, ignorant sod. The messages are not gone -- the users were blocked. The messages remain. The news on this topic even includes copies of many...
Classic whataboutism. Ignored.
Labeling all members of a perceived group according to the worst anecdote that you can recall. Clear due process violation. Ignored.
Proofs provided.
While we're at it, please explain how one twitter message amongst 43K replies can disrupt the discussion
Define disruptive, disorderly, and a nuisance. Without using the content of the messages being posted.
Demonstrate that the blocked users screamed through a megaphone whenever anyone tried to speak. I'm thinking that it will be difficult given that this concerns a tweets, there's no volume, and users posting simultaneous replies is inherently part of the platform.
Demonstrate that @realDonaldTrump has even been DDoSed by replies to his tweets.
Keep desperately pretending that these users were blocked for doing anything that any @realDonaldTrump supporter was doing but for being critical instead of supportive in their tweets.
Well, Colin Ferguson committed his crime in 1993 and New York didn't pass hate crime legislation until 2000. Federal hate crime legislation didn't really take off until 1994.
Just what "hate crime" law do you contend should have enhanced Ferguson's sentence?
Your knowledge of the law, sense of time, and apparent ignorance of prohibitions against ex post facto laws is irredeemably broken...
Whereas conservative values concerning things like the sanctity of one's personal property and the benefits of strong copyright seemingly evaporate the moment that someone appropriates Pepe for conservative lulz.
Did Matt Furie author the app, or license it to the app? I doubt it, because Pepe is dead.
Too bad, this channel is a social media account and not a press conference. Davison v. Loudoun County Board of Supervisors, 2016 WL 4801617 (E.D. Va. Sept. 14, 2016).
Once you open a limited public forum, you cannot exclude those qualified to participate on the basis that they are posting content or expression that you do not like. Full stop, per the Rosenberger Supreme Court case.
Jesus H. Christ... another non-sequitur.
The controversy is not over a press conference, it's over a twitter account that allows followers, retweets, and replies, and for that matter one which Sean Spicer has publicly said is an official channel of the Presidency.
I don't give a damn about your theories concerning press conferences, because for Trump's twitter account every non-blocked member of the public is authorized to participate, and every non-blocked member gets to follow, retweet, and reply to tweets. I don't have to have some more contrived definition of a channel of communication because Sean Mother-F'in Spicer says that @realDonaldTrump is an official channel of communication and it's not operated remotely similarly to a press conference.
It's your burden to establish a valid analogy between a Twitter account and a press conference. You're the only one to bring it up in this thread. I utterly reject the premise.
Non sequitur. Twitter posts are not press conferences, and Trump's posts remain open for retweets and replies by those he likes.
Also, nobody said that you couldn't use content-neutral controls like time limits. However, Trump is using his account for official business while selectively blocking only those who disagree with him.
Yet I am sure, since there's a bit more law in this area then the example that I provided. If you pay me, I'll teach you. Otherwise, I've given you more than enough resources and keywords to figure it out in your own.
Law fail. Perry Educ. Ass'n v. Perry Local Educators' Ass'n, 460 U.S. 37, 45 (1983), as explained in Section III.A. of Christian Legal Soc'y Chapter of the
Univ. of Cal., Hastings Coll. of the Law
v. Martinez, 130 S. Ct. 2971 (2010).
Nope. It's either open to comments by all under content neutral standards or it's announcement only. Arbitrary restrictions are not permitted in a designated public forum.
Get a law degree and learn about "designated public forum[s]." Or don't. The caselaw is out there, and the right is rooted in the first amendment exactly as summarized in the article.
If only we didn't turn everything that some legislator doesn't like into felonies...
He doesn't have to listen. But if he permits comments from his supporters and uses the account for presidential purposes, then he has to accept ALL comments without editing out those he doesn't like or blocking commenters that he doesn't like. It's not like the question has not come up before in other contexts. Mike Pence even ran into the buzzsaw.
Public officials can either accept comments or not, but they can't selectively curate their audience and the audience's comments to assuage their fragile egos.
Arguing with an AC that will never have to take responsibility for their inane positions has officially become boring.
Won't happen. Reprise of H.264 vs VP9. Google will use it. Essentially nobody else will. Installed base of hardware decoders, where HEVC has a 4 year lead time, will dictate market share.
End of story.
Wrong.. Google subsidized it. Like everything else until they get bored and move on to the next thing.
Skipped the "when" question. Probably because there is no answer...
Just wait, and wait, and wait. It will be the best. You'll get so much video quality you'll get tired of it. Trust me.
When will that be again? Before or after the patent lawsuits?
And yet all the major platforms have HEVC hardware decoders. Apparently not that much of a mess.
Too little to late. See H.264 vs. VP9.
If it's not supported in hardware, then browser support is not relevant. I'm not sacrificing 95% of my phone's battery life to watch AV1 video.
All concrete evidence running to the contrary...
AV1 is the true successor to VP9... an also ran that will remain an also ran.
So Apple's mistake is not supporting, in software only, a codec where even the software side is under delayed finalization (original due date was March 2017)? Should everybody simply redo their encodings when the bitstream is finalized?
Yeah, I'm still not seeing the mistake, only zealotry.
6 month old list of HEVC hardware decode-supporting devices
Current list of AV1 hardware decode-supporting devices: ...
I'm not seeing Apple's mistake. I'm seeing a software zealot that thinks that battery life is simply a hardware problem for others to solve.
Your understanding of heat transfer is very wrong. The probe could very well operate within the corona depending upon the density of the material, the heat transfer coefficient, and the thermal mass of the probe.
Dunk your hand into a pot of boiling water (212 F). Severe injury. Hold you hand in the air of an oven preheated to 400 F. Gets uncomfortable, but after a much longer period of time. Put your hand in a silicone glove before reaching in the oven. Hell, you can even pick up metal pans heated to 400 F then.
The principal significance of the temperature of the corona is that it limits the ability of the probe to dissipate its heat into the environment, because you can't reject heat from a colder object into a hotter environment without adding energy to the system... Orbit through portions of the corona and back outside so that you can cool the probe? A good part of that problem becomes solvable.
Exactly. Those Constitutional amendments saying things like "[no person shall be] deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law" were drafted with the express idea of permitting the governent to destory property without even having to prove that the action was reasonable...
After all, due process is such a pain. Summary non-process is cheap, easy, and never arbitrary.
I used Lyft twice last week. I also deleted the Uber app earlier this year and have pretty much devided that I'll use a taxi before supporting Kalanick's demon spawn of a company.
So there.
Ah yes.... the right level of government to decide an issue is, of course, the level of government that your party controls. Small government is great until someone is doing something that you don't like. Then big government under your control magically resumes being the answer.