The problem is once you allow editing, you open a can of worms. I'd rather live with mistakes then not being able to trust the integrity of the written record. Forums are conversations.
Libertarians believe in limited government, of which civil law is a part of. I'm not saying there shouldn't be government involvement, only that it's an idiotic claim to say this isn't a free speech issue or doesn't involve the government.
Let me say this clearly: You are knowledgeable enough to know there's a difference between criminal law and civil law. But your knowledge is too superficial to realize that they are both government processes. That's why you won't answer my questions, because they expose your shallow knowledge like wiping away dust with a finger.
So you're saying that the judge in this case is not a government employee paid salary, and not handling this case as part of his salary?
In any case? No one gives a shit.
Are you saying it didn't take place in a courthouse, built and paid for by the government to handle such matters?
The judgement is enforced through the contempt of the courts process, which is a criminal process.
Why would that be, if the government had nothing to do with it?
hahahaha you have a lot to learn about how the world actually works.
You need to look in a mirror.
Yeah I'm sure the losing party thinks it's fun to be the equivalent of half the value of a house out of pocket.
How can this happen, if there is no government involvement? How else do you think you could be forced out of that much money by insulting somebody on Twitter?
Yes, people have accidents every day too. But Americans have come to accept that.
And people will come to accept that from automated cars, too. Deadly accidents with automated drivers have already happened, with media coverage, but that hasn't stopped the march to automation.
Actually now I don't think you understand how a civil trial works either.
I think you're as ignorant as you make others to be.
Here's a tip. Anytime you mention the word government in your post, or make any reference to constitutions or rights hit cancel and start over. Because none of it has anything to do with a civil libel case.
Actually, beyond ignorant, I'm going to go with stupid. Questions: Who was paying the judge that ruled in this case? Where did the proceedings take place? How will the judgment be enforced with regards to liability?
Do you think, just maybe, that, *gasp*, it's the government? Or do you think this libel suit was just some folks having a friendly game for funsies?
Yes, her name is Jack. No, she didn't used to be a guy.
Oh noes, you just misgendered them: "Monroe, who was assigned female at birth, identifies as non-binary transgender and goes by singular they pronouns, rather than "he" or "she". [2]".
If you live in Ontario, please report your violation to the Human Rights Commission. Thanks.
You may think you know what that means, but you obviously have no clue how it works. Freedom of speech has zero to do with a civil trial between two people.
Zero, huh? Are you really that stupid or myopic? Libel is a limit on free speech. Its damages are enforced by the government. If the government decided to subtract 100,000 pounds from your bank account for something you said you might feel differently. But as long as the people you disagree with are getting sued and losing, you defend it.
I wouldn't be so sure. Bush got re-elected, even though the left hated him, and he bungled the Iraq war. And very few people thought Trump had a chance of winning in the first place.
In typical Trump fashion, he exaggerates his claims to focus attention, but the Obama administration was, in fact, investigating Trump's campaign ties to Russia. Or I guess the last 4 months of constant news coverage regarding leaks from the "Deep State" involving wiretaps and other info is just my imagination.
People get pissed off when they see someone with the same job title and experience making more money than them.
Except that's not why there's a wage gap. Read the fucking summary, at least, which, shockingly, manages to move past the stupid lie that women are paid less than men for doing the same job.
It's ridiculous the people trying to pawn the problem off on the ADA, politics, politicians, or the deaf people complaining.
What's ridiculous is assigning the blame to anybody else. It's an enormous expense to benefit the few, or in many cases, zero when no person with disabilities even uses the resource.
What would have been sane would be for the deaf person to ask her school to pay for a transcription, and then make that transcription available back to Berkeley. But nooo, the politicians just legislate everybody has to go through upfront expenses and effort, because it's not them doing the work. So now something that was useful to an enormous number of the public will be squirreled away, because public universities like Berkeley are already facing budget shortfalls.
Then toss in the special snowflakes who demand their own, premium, "safe spaces", riot and cause property damage when somebody they don't agree with is invited to speak on campus, and always more demands for lower tuition while increasing "social justice" programs and diversity hires, etc. And then people wonder why colleges is so expensive.
And this debate is likely to repeat itself at least until you get some reading comprehension.
It'll continue as long as you have your head in the sand but still want to spout your bullshit.
There is a period in which Islam had the most advanced civilization on Earth. Considering when it was, this isn't a really high bar, but it does demonstrate that Islam can support a good civilization.
You're moving the goalposts. You claimed "the most vibrant and very tolerant society was Muslim", used that as a lame example of how Islam isn't inherently what I say it's been all along. You ignore today's standards and the hard truth that Islam is a backwards ideology that treats women and other religions as second-class citizens.
"Not all Muslims" is a perfectly reasonable response when discussing an absolute.
I wasn't discussing the absolute of all Islam or all Muslims. I was talking about its beating, black heart, which consists of its violent roots, backwards ideology, and fundamentalist followers.
If Islam were inherently evil, then the people I've known who were Muslim would tend towards evil.
Many people do not take their religion seriously or choose to cherry pick what they want to believe in. That fact doesn't magically wash away the inherent evil within Islam, nor does it make the fundamentalists who are following it any less real or Islamic.
If the reasonable points of view can be fostered, which apparently isn't happening any time real soon, Islam stops being a problem while remaining Islam.
I sort of agree that Islam, theoretically, can be reformed, in which case it would have a cold, dead black heart at its center instead of a beating one bathing in the blood of jihad.
If you think I think all religions are equally bad, then either I haven't really addressed the subject, I haven't been clear, or you haven't been listening.
You've several times made comparisons to Christianity, while ignoring the roots, history, and central tenants of the faith. You even tossed in Buddhists for good measure. All to argue that there isn't something inherently evil in Islam.
Of the world's major religion, Islam is my least favorite, partly because of the large number of extremists and partly for other issues I'm not going to discuss here..
And yet you keep your head buried in the sand and ignore the root causes and the entire history of Islam that makes it so.
Muslims today are doing pretty much what Christians did centuries ago.
And here you go again. Since you want to repeat arguments, let me quote myself in one of my earlier replies to you: "And this is where it's helpful to actually look at the basis of the religion. Jesus, as described in the gospels, was basically a hippie who preached virtue, love, and peace. Muhammad, as described in the Quran, hadith, and Sunna, was a conquering warlord."
It matters, and that is why Islam is going to be much harder to reform, and that's reflected on the ground and throughout history.
You prompted me to try it, went to Google's home page (with Firefox 45.7.0). What you claim did not happen. Sorry.
Ok, I read the other comments, and verified that Google search still pushes Chrome. It just remembers if you say no (or it won't ask if you already have it). My link is to a screenshot of a private IE session (no saved cookies). There's a prompt in the upper-right that says, "Google works better with Chrome. Try it?" And two buttons: "NO THANKS" and "YES, GET CHROME".
Maybe they stopped, and I got confused with it's annoying prompt to make Google my default search page in IE when I go to google.com. They absolutely used to do push Chrome, a lot, when it first came out.
Actually, they used their quasi-monopoly on search to push their browser. Anytime you visit Google with a non-Chrome browser it tries to push Chrome on you.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem is once you allow editing, you open a can of worms. I'd rather live with mistakes then not being able to trust the integrity of the written record. Forums are conversations.
Not being able to edit posts is a feature. Being able to rewrite the history of a conversation is Orwellian.
Libertarians believe in limited government, of which civil law is a part of. I'm not saying there shouldn't be government involvement, only that it's an idiotic claim to say this isn't a free speech issue or doesn't involve the government.
It'll be amusing if I can remember to revisit this comment in 5 years time, assuming Slashdot is still operating then.
And yet he still get elected. He even got elected after that horrible October surprise and calls for him to step aside.
Let me say this clearly: You are knowledgeable enough to know there's a difference between criminal law and civil law. But your knowledge is too superficial to realize that they are both government processes. That's why you won't answer my questions, because they expose your shallow knowledge like wiping away dust with a finger.
In a civil case? The loser.
So you're saying that the judge in this case is not a government employee paid salary, and not handling this case as part of his salary?
In any case? No one gives a shit.
Are you saying it didn't take place in a courthouse, built and paid for by the government to handle such matters?
The judgement is enforced through the contempt of the courts process, which is a criminal process.
Why would that be, if the government had nothing to do with it?
hahahaha you have a lot to learn about how the world actually works.
You need to look in a mirror.
Yeah I'm sure the losing party thinks it's fun to be the equivalent of half the value of a house out of pocket.
How can this happen, if there is no government involvement? How else do you think you could be forced out of that much money by insulting somebody on Twitter?
Yes, people have accidents every day too. But Americans have come to accept that.
And people will come to accept that from automated cars, too. Deadly accidents with automated drivers have already happened, with media coverage, but that hasn't stopped the march to automation.
Human drivers aren't going anywhere.
Paid drivers will be the minority within 5 years.
Actually now I don't think you understand how a civil trial works either.
I think you're as ignorant as you make others to be.
Here's a tip. Anytime you mention the word government in your post, or make any reference to constitutions or rights hit cancel and start over. Because none of it has anything to do with a civil libel case.
Actually, beyond ignorant, I'm going to go with stupid. Questions: Who was paying the judge that ruled in this case? Where did the proceedings take place? How will the judgment be enforced with regards to liability?
Do you think, just maybe, that, *gasp*, it's the government? Or do you think this libel suit was just some folks having a friendly game for funsies?
Yes, her name is Jack. No, she didn't used to be a guy.
Oh noes, you just misgendered them: "Monroe, who was assigned female at birth, identifies as non-binary transgender and goes by singular they pronouns, rather than "he" or "she". [2]".
If you live in Ontario, please report your violation to the Human Rights Commission. Thanks.
You may think you know what that means, but you obviously have no clue how it works. Freedom of speech has zero to do with a civil trial between two people.
Zero, huh? Are you really that stupid or myopic? Libel is a limit on free speech. Its damages are enforced by the government. If the government decided to subtract 100,000 pounds from your bank account for something you said you might feel differently. But as long as the people you disagree with are getting sued and losing, you defend it.
I wouldn't be so sure. Bush got re-elected, even though the left hated him, and he bungled the Iraq war. And very few people thought Trump had a chance of winning in the first place.
In typical Trump fashion, he exaggerates his claims to focus attention, but the Obama administration was, in fact, investigating Trump's campaign ties to Russia. Or I guess the last 4 months of constant news coverage regarding leaks from the "Deep State" involving wiretaps and other info is just my imagination.
People get pissed off when they see someone with the same job title and experience making more money than them.
Except that's not why there's a wage gap. Read the fucking summary, at least, which, shockingly, manages to move past the stupid lie that women are paid less than men for doing the same job.
It's ridiculous the people trying to pawn the problem off on the ADA, politics, politicians, or the deaf people complaining.
What's ridiculous is assigning the blame to anybody else. It's an enormous expense to benefit the few, or in many cases, zero when no person with disabilities even uses the resource.
What would have been sane would be for the deaf person to ask her school to pay for a transcription, and then make that transcription available back to Berkeley. But nooo, the politicians just legislate everybody has to go through upfront expenses and effort, because it's not them doing the work. So now something that was useful to an enormous number of the public will be squirreled away, because public universities like Berkeley are already facing budget shortfalls.
Then toss in the special snowflakes who demand their own, premium, "safe spaces", riot and cause property damage when somebody they don't agree with is invited to speak on campus, and always more demands for lower tuition while increasing "social justice" programs and diversity hires, etc. And then people wonder why colleges is so expensive.
Huh? There are actual damages because free content was deemed to be insufficiently accessible? This is bizarre.
Welcome to $CURRENT_YEAR. So progressive!
And this debate is likely to repeat itself at least until you get some reading comprehension.
It'll continue as long as you have your head in the sand but still want to spout your bullshit.
There is a period in which Islam had the most advanced civilization on Earth. Considering when it was, this isn't a really high bar, but it does demonstrate that Islam can support a good civilization.
You're moving the goalposts. You claimed "the most vibrant and very tolerant society was Muslim", used that as a lame example of how Islam isn't inherently what I say it's been all along. You ignore today's standards and the hard truth that Islam is a backwards ideology that treats women and other religions as second-class citizens.
"Not all Muslims" is a perfectly reasonable response when discussing an absolute.
I wasn't discussing the absolute of all Islam or all Muslims. I was talking about its beating, black heart, which consists of its violent roots, backwards ideology, and fundamentalist followers.
If Islam were inherently evil, then the people I've known who were Muslim would tend towards evil.
Many people do not take their religion seriously or choose to cherry pick what they want to believe in. That fact doesn't magically wash away the inherent evil within Islam, nor does it make the fundamentalists who are following it any less real or Islamic.
If the reasonable points of view can be fostered, which apparently isn't happening any time real soon, Islam stops being a problem while remaining Islam.
I sort of agree that Islam, theoretically, can be reformed, in which case it would have a cold, dead black heart at its center instead of a beating one bathing in the blood of jihad.
If you think I think all religions are equally bad, then either I haven't really addressed the subject, I haven't been clear, or you haven't been listening.
You've several times made comparisons to Christianity, while ignoring the roots, history, and central tenants of the faith. You even tossed in Buddhists for good measure. All to argue that there isn't something inherently evil in Islam.
Of the world's major religion, Islam is my least favorite, partly because of the large number of extremists and partly for other issues I'm not going to discuss here..
And yet you keep your head buried in the sand and ignore the root causes and the entire history of Islam that makes it so.
Muslims today are doing pretty much what Christians did centuries ago.
And here you go again. Since you want to repeat arguments, let me quote myself in one of my earlier replies to you: "And this is where it's helpful to actually look at the basis of the religion. Jesus, as described in the gospels, was basically a hippie who preached virtue, love, and peace. Muhammad, as described in the Quran, hadith, and Sunna, was a conquering warlord."
It matters, and that is why Islam is going to be much harder to reform, and that's reflected on the ground and throughout history.
The epitome of fake news - good work.
Just took a screenshot of a private session without cookies. It just remembers if you decline.
Still happens, but it remembers if you decline or it won't prompt if Chrome is already installed, I believe.
You prompted me to try it, went to Google's home page (with Firefox 45.7.0). What you claim did not happen. Sorry.
Ok, I read the other comments, and verified that Google search still pushes Chrome. It just remembers if you say no (or it won't ask if you already have it). My link is to a screenshot of a private IE session (no saved cookies). There's a prompt in the upper-right that says, "Google works better with Chrome. Try it?" And two buttons: "NO THANKS" and "YES, GET CHROME".
Agreed on all fronts.
Maybe they stopped, and I got confused with it's annoying prompt to make Google my default search page in IE when I go to google.com. They absolutely used to do push Chrome, a lot, when it first came out.
Actually, they used their quasi-monopoly on search to push their browser. Anytime you visit Google with a non-Chrome browser it tries to push Chrome on you.
Same here. I'm totally Mr. Pink when it comes to tipping.
Could be he's talking about client-side scripting and the DOM and not the language proper.