First, it is a tiny continental fragment, not a whole continent. Second, their evidence is based only tiny crystals washed ashore, as all island is covered in more recent lava. I will trust this more when they actually drill through that one or two km of lava to recover the actual ancient continental crust.
No. Even the summary does not suggest that Mauritius is an "old" continental fragment ("Mauritius is an island, and there is no rock older than 9 million years old on the island."). They are reporting on zircon inclusions found within lavas and hypothesized to have come from subducted continental crust, rather than subducted oceanic plate (much younger) or the mantle itself.
"It's clear that Reddit banned us because we were becoming very popular and spreading inconvenient truths about who's ruining our country and robbing our children of a future," the moderator said.
Whatever. You're still banned,and whining about secret 'persecutorial' motivations won't do anything to change that.
Stormfront will probably host you and not bat an eye. Why do you feel so deprived? If you wanted to stay on Reddit you could simply have stamped out the doxing problem and, you know, followed Reddit's 'pretextual' rules.
Only reason I stick with AT&T is their 4G LTE coverage and the civilized function of being able to use DATA whine in a call. Verizon and their archaic system that disallows data during a call needs to be thrown out.
Verizon's archaic VoLTE capability that lets you use DATA while in a call, that I used just last week, you mean?
That feature was introduced in late 2014. Sounds more like your knowledge is archaic.
Um, women letting you grab them because they want you to as you are a celebrity is not sexual assault. Did you listen to the audio recording at all?
Yes. "I'm automatically attracted to beautiful [women] -- I just start kissing them. It's like a magnet. Just kiss. I don't even wait. And when you're a star they let you do it. You can do anything... Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything."
Sexual assault requires that the contact be unwanted, but as that is not what he described, it is your bias, or your source's bias showing.
The women complaining to the media seemed to think that it was unwanted. But of course, they're biased... and you're not.
But I don't believe such bullshit. It's really funny that you're so stupid that you can't understand the words that I wrote, and instead substitute your own bullshit.
Indeed. One story is merely backed by a voice recording of the perpetrator, who quickly gave up upon even denying the words and instead argued that he was being hypothetical.
Who could possibly believe such bullshit... surely not I./s
I'd love to get the money back that i spend on 'police' so i can instead buy another gun or maybe a personal body guard, either way the private sector would deliver me far superior security than i get from the state for 'free'.
Oh please, please, PLEASE implement this. It is so much easier to kill one or two people and seize everything they have than it is to avoid, overcome, or defeat an entire police force.
What you really want is police protection without paying for it, and perhaps some more guns. If you could truly choose to be an old timey outlaw,, i.e., someone who is excluded from the protection of the law, you wouldn't have the balls to take us up on it.
To enjoy 4k, you need a monitor that supports it, that is large enough relative to the viewing distance, enough bandwidth and processing power. You also need a 4k source. Few people produce 4k video : it is more expensive, more difficult and the result is only marginally better.
Yes. Flipping that video option toggle on the iPhone 6SE, 6s, 6s plus, etc. is so expensive and difficult. I can't believe I was able to accomplish it myself...
You sell where the buyers are or you're not a very successful businessman unless you're lucky enough to break into a new demographic and corner the market.
Nice theory. Now call your local locksmiths and ask them to sell you lockpicks.
There are restricted classes of buyers everywhere. From police (certain weapons and body armor) to geotechnical and demolitions experts (detonating caps and industrial explosives) to the everyday people known as patients (antibiotics and narcotic prescriptions).
You're free to go to where the buyers are. And prosecutors are free to go to where are you are, and then put you somewhere that you don't want to be.
Anti trust implies controlling prices to the detriment of the consumer. Apple in no way sets or controls the pricing. An app developer is free to charge whatever they want or make it free.
Apple controls the store cut of the software developer's asking price (30%). There is no competitive store, therefore no competition in the store cut for the application price.
Apple also limits the phone to purchasing from its own store. Apple therefore controls access to the applications market, and sets itself up as a monopsony/monopoly intermediary between developers and consumers. If you can plausibly argue that this has a monpolistic effect on price, then you have standing for a potential claim. As held by the appeals court.
Now the lower court will have to consider the actual theory of damage instead of procedurally killing the case for lack of standing.
"the handful of us (who are too time-poor to maintain libreboot) a.k.a the *actual* libreboot community"
If you can't and won't maintain the package, you are not the *actual* libreboot community. That last link is merely the flip side of the problem that the linked material is complaining about -- a person, at best formerly involved in the project, pretending that they speak for a larger community, but unwilling to *actually* do anything about the problem.
As for the rest, the burden of proof has shifted to you. Show how prohibiting a service from publishing an age, much less an age posted by a third party, is consistent with the first amendment.
It's easy to be a critic. It's much harder to make your own argument.
Yep. Left out the "true" in speech. Defamation and fraud can be punished, and commercial speech can be regulated to prevent omissions or misrepresentations.
Of course, the counterpoint is United States v. Alvarez. As with fraud, mere falsity may not be enough.
First off, "fighting words" is a bullshit argument and nobody in their right mind will argue based on it.
Well, them, it's a good thing that I said that it didn't apply.
Second, you missed "discriminatory".
You're going to have to explain that point in a bit more detail.
Go read Popehat.
I do. Likely more than you, since a regular reader would recognize that I comment there as well. You may want to read the quote from United States v. Stevens discussed here. I apologize for leaving out defamation and fraud, which don't quite fit in the topic at hand (each require falsity). But I don't see the "discrimination" among "well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any Constitutional problem" listed at your preferred resource either.
Maybe not. Anti-discrimination laws are allowed by the constitution. Those laws can prohibit certain speech. That's well established and tested in court.
You are absolutely correct that the law can prohibit certain speech. Yet there are only three categories of speech that can be prohibited. 1. Obscenity 2. Fighting words and 3. Threats or incitement to violence. Let's see if this fits within any of them:
1. Reporting age is not obscene. Miller v. California (1973) requires that: *The average person, applying "contemporary community standards", would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest; *The work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, "sexual conduct or excretory functions" specifically defined by applicable state law; and *Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
The average person does not believe that discussions of age are prurient. Nor does reporting age involve sexual conduct or an excretory function. Finally, reporting age is of serious "scientific" value -- we do everything from condition certain privileges and benefits based upon age to discuss accomplishment with respect to age. Even if you dispute the latter point, it's an "and" test, so you would have to satisfy the other factors as well.
2. Reporting age is not fighting words. Cohen v. California (1971) and Snyder v. Phelps (2011) limit that doctrine.
*Cohen held that wearing a jacket that said "fuck the draft" was outside the doctrine because it was not a "personally abusive epithet"; *Snyder held that the Westboro Babptist Church's funeral protests were outside the doctrine because the speech was was not personal but instead public; and *Most courts also require physical proximity between the speaker and the target -- and there's no such proximity here.
You're not going to get a jury to unanimously hold that reporting someone's numerical age is a personally abusive epithet. Reporting an age is also speech that is public rather than personal -- it is not made at or to the person, but the public at large. Finally, there's no proximity between IMDB and the person that could permit an immediate breach of the peace, i.e., a physical altercation.
3. Finally, reporting on age does not constitute a threat, whether personal or general. Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) requires that: * the speaker intend to incite a violation of the law; and * that the violation is both imminent and likely.
You're not going to get a jury to unanimously hold that reporting someone's numerical age is intended to create age discrimination. Also, there's no imminent, i.e., immediate, connection between reporting the age and any individual incident of age discrimination, nor is any such discrimination likely as opposed to merely being "possible."
So the issue here is if publishing actor's ages against their wishes is possibly discriminatory.
No it's not. The issue here is whether the reporting fits within any exception to the first amendment. It does not.
You could have figured this out without much familiarity with the law. Publishing information itself is not "possibly discriminatory" -- it neither conditions nor denies a privilege or benefit based upon the person's age. You're arguing that someone else might use that information to discriminate -- but that's an entirely different and separate kettle of fish.
Having built 3 flight simulators around the i7 we took a risk on the AMD 8350 for the next machine. The risk paid off. The savings in the CPU allowed us to use dual Nvidia 1070s as opposed to the 970s that are in the other machines.
Or you could simply back off to an i5.
Since the majority of the workload falls on the Nvidia GPU (3 screens at 5760x1080), for our purposes the AMD based machine is far superior to its Intel counterpart for significantly less money. I would be willing to recommend it for any gaming rig.
We're GPU limited but insist upon using a top tier Intel CPU and it's all their fault... Hint: each chip has only 4 FPU units... whether it's the i7, i5, or 8250. Most games and simulators also don't make real use of anything above four cores, if even that.
As they said in the article they are processing million of images and that's expected to have some false positive. There is no way in the world a human can review every single photo posted. I think it's a story out of nothing special.
The fact that they use an automated process that might make mistakes does not excuse a human-generated policy that wholeheartedly embraces such "mistakes":
The company added: "The usage of images or video of nude bodies or plunging necklines is not allowed, even if the use is for artistic or educational reasons."
It can't be a "false positive" if your actual policy is to apply it to art and educational materials. It's an actual positive in response to an actual policy that is arbitrarily rescinded on an ad hoc basis if the target can generate sufficient negative PR.
The F-150 is the most popular vehicle amongst people making more than $1 million a year. It's, pretty much all, contractors and ranchers. You know, people who actually use pickup trucks.
Then you're free to go out and publish "Contractor and Rancher Reports." Otherwise, it's perfectly rational to rank automobiles based upon the criteria that a majority of one's readers will apply to the vehicle. And the majority of even the F-150 market is not ranchers and contractors or people who actually use pickup trucks. It's suburban wannabes who occasionally need to haul large but comparatively lightweight items but for some reason won't simply rent a work truck.
BTW: The Ridgeline is back, so I'm also questioning your knowledge of the market.
Slashdot Mirror
"Every other expenses," starting with federal, state, and local income taxes, so let's knock about $80K off that second number right from the start.
No. Even the summary does not suggest that Mauritius is an "old" continental fragment ("Mauritius is an island, and there is no rock older than 9 million years old on the island."). They are reporting on zircon inclusions found within lavas and hypothesized to have come from subducted continental crust, rather than subducted oceanic plate (much younger) or the mantle itself.
Whatever. You're still banned,and whining about secret 'persecutorial' motivations won't do anything to change that.
Stormfront will probably host you and not bat an eye. Why do you feel so deprived? If you wanted to stay on Reddit you could simply have stamped out the doxing problem and, you know, followed Reddit's 'pretextual' rules.
Verizon's archaic VoLTE capability that lets you use DATA while in a call, that I used just last week, you mean?
That feature was introduced in late 2014. Sounds more like your knowledge is archaic.
Prepare to be sick for four years... I have no intention of stopping.
Yes. ... Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything."
"I'm automatically attracted to beautiful [women] -- I just start kissing them. It's like a magnet. Just kiss. I don't even wait. And when you're a star they let you do it. You can do anything
The women complaining to the media seemed to think that it was unwanted. But of course, they're biased... and you're not.
Well, if Adobe can't tell people how to do it and you can't tell people how to do it then your actual experience means jack diddly.
Yes. Installation instructions with a screenshot walkthrough. Thanks for offering.
Definitely you're equally useless as of the quoted reply. But there's room for improvement.
But I don't believe such bullshit. It's really funny that you're so stupid that you can't understand the words that I wrote, and instead substitute your own bullshit.
I can gaslight too...
Indeed. One story is merely backed by a voice recording of the perpetrator, who quickly gave up upon even denying the words and instead argued that he was being hypothetical.
Who could possibly believe such bullshit... surely not I. /s
For someone demanding, proof, you're quick to throw the "lied" word around without providing any.
There was a publicly released report, and "without proof" != "included proof that I disagree with."
Dasvidaniya, boyevik.
Oh please, please, PLEASE implement this. It is so much easier to kill one or two people and seize everything they have than it is to avoid, overcome, or defeat an entire police force.
What you really want is police protection without paying for it, and perhaps some more guns. If you could truly choose to be an old timey outlaw,, i.e., someone who is excluded from the protection of the law, you wouldn't have the balls to take us up on it.
Yes. Flipping that video option toggle on the iPhone 6SE, 6s, 6s plus, etc. is so expensive and difficult. I can't believe I was able to accomplish it myself...
Nice theory. Now call your local locksmiths and ask them to sell you lockpicks.
There are restricted classes of buyers everywhere. From police (certain weapons and body armor) to geotechnical and demolitions experts (detonating caps and industrial explosives) to the everyday people known as patients (antibiotics and narcotic prescriptions).
You're free to go to where the buyers are. And prosecutors are free to go to where are you are, and then put you somewhere that you don't want to be.
Apple controls the store cut of the software developer's asking price (30%). There is no competitive store, therefore no competition in the store cut for the application price.
Apple also limits the phone to purchasing from its own store. Apple therefore controls access to the applications market, and sets itself up as a monopsony/monopoly intermediary between developers and consumers. If you can plausibly argue that this has a monpolistic effect on price, then you have standing for a potential claim. As held by the appeals court.
Now the lower court will have to consider the actual theory of damage instead of procedurally killing the case for lack of standing.
No, he's thinking of RG11. You're thinking that you know better, but you do not.
RG11 would be a bitch to use for inside wiring, and probably unnecessary, but if he wants to put in the work it's not for us to say.
Indeed. Go suck eggs, AC.
"the handful of us (who are too time-poor to maintain libreboot) a.k.a the *actual* libreboot community"
If you can't and won't maintain the package, you are not the *actual* libreboot community. That last link is merely the flip side of the problem that the linked material is complaining about -- a person, at best formerly involved in the project, pretending that they speak for a larger community, but unwilling to *actually* do anything about the problem.
Create an edit button and we'll talk.
As for the rest, the burden of proof has shifted to you. Show how prohibiting a service from publishing an age, much less an age posted by a third party, is consistent with the first amendment.
It's easy to be a critic. It's much harder to make your own argument.
Yep. Left out the "true" in speech. Defamation and fraud can be punished, and commercial speech can be regulated to prevent omissions or misrepresentations.
Of course, the counterpoint is United States v. Alvarez. As with fraud, mere falsity may not be enough.
Well, them, it's a good thing that I said that it didn't apply.
You're going to have to explain that point in a bit more detail.
I do. Likely more than you, since a regular reader would recognize that I comment there as well. You may want to read the quote from United States v. Stevens discussed here. I apologize for leaving out defamation and fraud, which don't quite fit in the topic at hand (each require falsity). But I don't see the "discrimination" among "well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any Constitutional problem" listed at your preferred resource either.
You are absolutely correct that the law can prohibit certain speech. Yet there are only three categories of speech that can be prohibited. 1. Obscenity 2. Fighting words and 3. Threats or incitement to violence. Let's see if this fits within any of them:
1. Reporting age is not obscene. Miller v. California (1973) requires that:
*The average person, applying "contemporary community standards", would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest;
*The work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, "sexual conduct or excretory functions" specifically defined by applicable state law; and
*Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
The average person does not believe that discussions of age are prurient. Nor does reporting age involve sexual conduct or an excretory function. Finally, reporting age is of serious "scientific" value -- we do everything from condition certain privileges and benefits based upon age to discuss accomplishment with respect to age. Even if you dispute the latter point, it's an "and" test, so you would have to satisfy the other factors as well.
2. Reporting age is not fighting words. Cohen v. California (1971) and Snyder v. Phelps (2011) limit that doctrine.
*Cohen held that wearing a jacket that said "fuck the draft" was outside the doctrine because it was not a "personally abusive epithet";
*Snyder held that the Westboro Babptist Church's funeral protests were outside the doctrine because the speech was was not personal but instead public; and
*Most courts also require physical proximity between the speaker and the target -- and there's no such proximity here.
You're not going to get a jury to unanimously hold that reporting someone's numerical age is a personally abusive epithet. Reporting an age is also speech that is public rather than personal -- it is not made at or to the person, but the public at large. Finally, there's no proximity between IMDB and the person that could permit an immediate breach of the peace, i.e., a physical altercation.
3. Finally, reporting on age does not constitute a threat, whether personal or general. Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) requires that:
* the speaker intend to incite a violation of the law; and
* that the violation is both imminent and likely.
You're not going to get a jury to unanimously hold that reporting someone's numerical age is intended to create age discrimination. Also, there's no imminent, i.e., immediate, connection between reporting the age and any individual incident of age discrimination, nor is any such discrimination likely as opposed to merely being "possible."
No it's not. The issue here is whether the reporting fits within any exception to the first amendment. It does not.
You could have figured this out without much familiarity with the law. Publishing information itself is not "possibly discriminatory" -- it neither conditions nor denies a privilege or benefit based upon the person's age. You're arguing that someone else might use that information to discriminate -- but that's an entirely different and separate kettle of fish.
Or you could simply back off to an i5.
We're GPU limited but insist upon using a top tier Intel CPU and it's all their fault... Hint: each chip has only 4 FPU units... whether it's the i7, i5, or 8250. Most games and simulators also don't make real use of anything above four cores, if even that.
Just wait until they push subtracts, then multiplies and divides. It'll be mathemagical.
The fact that they use an automated process that might make mistakes does not excuse a human-generated policy that wholeheartedly embraces such "mistakes":
It can't be a "false positive" if your actual policy is to apply it to art and educational materials. It's an actual positive in response to an actual policy that is arbitrarily rescinded on an ad hoc basis if the target can generate sufficient negative PR.
Then you're free to go out and publish "Contractor and Rancher Reports." Otherwise, it's perfectly rational to rank automobiles based upon the criteria that a majority of one's readers will apply to the vehicle. And the majority of even the F-150 market is not ranchers and contractors or people who actually use pickup trucks. It's suburban wannabes who occasionally need to haul large but comparatively lightweight items but for some reason won't simply rent a work truck.
BTW: The Ridgeline is back, so I'm also questioning your knowledge of the market.