Is, and always has been. This really shouldn't have ever even gone to court. Politicians are just shitbags who like to hope they can railroad shit through the system that is *obviously* unconstitutional given their position as a part of *The Fucking Government*. Whatever lawyer signed off on this being something that could be debated should be kicked in the teeth and removed from his position for his attempt at curtailing the restrictions of the First Amendment against the Government.
If Twitter can suddenly be considered a Public Forum which is subject to First Amendment protections, then how soon until other arguments will be made against Twitter banning people?
Never, because the first amendment protects Twitter and its users from the Government, not vice versa. The first amendment does *not* imply any restriction against the owner or operator of that forum (unless of course the operator or owner is the Government)
No, because that phone is not a public forum, by any of the 3 (last I checked) case law definitions for that term in the context of first amendment law.
I honestly believe that the inability to access a space on the basis of financial inequality necessarily privatizes it.
A "public forum" in first amendment case law is not publicly owned (though absolutely could be), and is therefor *not* bound by the restrictions of the first amendment. The *government* is restricted from imposing restrictions on speech within a public forum.
Even private clubs are public forums in first amendment law, and there is absolutely *no* restriction preventing the owner of said public forum from restricting speech within it.
It can't be stated enough- the First Amendment is a restriction on the government, no one else. It is incapable of turning twitter into a government entity because it operates a public forum, and thus cannot be used as argument for restricting Twitter's censorship, should it exist.
No, they cannot, as they have no right to speak in a public forum. The government simply has no right to restrict their speech there.
Please stop spouting your misinformed bullshit with such confidence.
This is completely false. A public forum is not a forum owned by the public, it is a forum in which the public congregates.
Restricting the Government's ability to limit discourse in a public forum does not limit the public forum, if privately owned, from exercising its rights.
That could work, but there's a pretty hard limit to how fast you could slingshot around the Earth: an explosively hard maximum of less than 1g acceleration at the tightest point of its turn.
Not sure what you're trying to say...
the tightness of its turn isn't really relevant. The object is in free-fall. The only consideration is impact with the atmosphere and tidal effects (too negligible to matter).
Am I misunderstanding what you're saying?
No, he's right. For the same reason you're right.
It is near impossible to cancel out all of the Earth's effects. However, those effects are nearly as strong in orbit. You stand a better chance of canceling them out here with "lots of space, power, and engineers"
You have to get it out of the gravity well before you can start testing the efficacy of its claim to push against the universe.
Personally, I think Saturn up close would be an excellent feature of the night sky.
Of course, we have to figure out how to heat the planet... and power it, all without solar input... but that might not be all that difficult once we're talking about moving planets.
He postulated that it worked outside of the magnetic regime, it would basically be a self-contained power-to-force converter, which is indeed a violation of conservation of momentum. The obligatory analogue would be a high-centered car.
His post was saying, "it makes sense that they've identified magnetism as the thrust generating factor", and it now does *not* violate conservation of momentum.
I didn't know this, though it makes perfect sense. I just never thought about it.
Pill bugs resemble a terrestrial isopod... and it turns out... they're exactly that.
Communism inherently requires redistribution. That does *not* require authoritarianism. If you need authoritarianism to impose communism, then it is not supported by your populace, and you're a dictator.
As you pointed out, Marx believed it would emerge organically, and *must* emerge organically for it to succeed.
As I said previously, I believe if communism ever comes to this world, it'll be in one of the scandinavian societies that are already heavily socialist.
It isn't valid to blame communism as an ideology, unless you also want to blame capitalism as an ideology.
Almost all revolutions are literally an act of imposing your will from the top-down. The only real difference between communist revolutions and capitalist revolutions, are that the communist ones seem to survive longer.
America is an outlier with regard to non-authoritarian revolutions.
First, no. I'm most definitely not trying to defend communism. I'm a capitalist through and through. I'm just smarter than you.
No one said they weren't followers of Marx. I said the aspect you criticized them for was most certainly not Marxism in any form, it was a side effect of the fact that most revolutions end in Fascist authoritarian governments to hold on to their power, regardless of the economic model. That's called explaining how you're wrong, not invoking a No True Scotsman fallacy. The way you use No True Scotsman, pointing out any objective example of how a criticism toward a group isn't a diagnostic characteristic of that group is a fallacy. In short, it's a pathetic attempt at silencing people you can't actually argue with. Good job. You're so clever;)
You really are a disgusting fuck, you know that?
That's not intended as an insult. It's just a fucking observation.
You're labeling a group of historically marginalized humans who struggle to better their lot in an unarguably male dominated world a weapon of the Chinese state to "weaken" us.
They don't weaken us you fucking chimp-brained asshat. They make us stronger. You and your ilk are our weakness and our baggage.
Sounds like an alternative to "Everyone I hate or has ever done anything bad is a Nazi."
Sounds like gaslighting. Like the assholes who spout clearly fascist beliefs and complain about being Godwin'd in the same breath. It must seem so clever to you.
Nu uh, YOU'RE the fascist!
He didn't leave it out, he just didn't want to mislead people like you seem bent on doing.
The communists in question were fascists. To the core.
Slaughtering humans and letting them starve because they're an inferior breed of Rus aren't any tenants of Communism that I'm aware of.
The real problem, is that *most* revolutions end up with some form of fascist government, regardless of their economic model. America lucked out in this regard.
When the world sees communism for real, and not simple fascism dressed in red, it will come form scandinavia.
This is just in-home streaming. Your performance will mirror your in-home streaming to any other device connected via the same medium.
For the vast majority of 2.4Ghz users, that's terrible.
The game doesn't matter- Binding of Isaac, or Crysis 12. The encoder isn't the slow part, it's the network bandwidth over congested 2.4Ghz spectrum.
Long time SteamLink + nVidia GameStream user, here. I am one of the (huge majority) of 2.4Ghz wireless users that it doesn't work for, that you can read all about on the support forums. I suspect it has to do with interference. I live in a condominium, so 2.4Ghz is insanely cluttered. Bad enough that I often can't stream Netflix, even. 5Ghz is clean as a whistle.
Valve doesn't say you "need" 5Ghz, they highly recommend it, because otherwise, you're likely to have problems. That doesn't mean you will for sure, as 2.4Ghz N does technically have the bandwidth capability if your spectrum is clear.
Slashdot Mirror
Is, and always has been. This really shouldn't have ever even gone to court. Politicians are just shitbags who like to hope they can railroad shit through the system that is *obviously* unconstitutional given their position as a part of *The Fucking Government*. Whatever lawyer signed off on this being something that could be debated should be kicked in the teeth and removed from his position for his attempt at curtailing the restrictions of the First Amendment against the Government.
if blocking someone keeps them from commenting vs the recipient having to sort through things.
It does.
There maybe a basis for the judgement.
There is. And that's it. It's emphasized in the judgement in fact.
If Twitter can suddenly be considered a Public Forum which is subject to First Amendment protections, then how soon until other arguments will be made against Twitter banning people?
Never, because the first amendment protects Twitter and its users from the Government, not vice versa. The first amendment does *not* imply any restriction against the owner or operator of that forum (unless of course the operator or owner is the Government)
No, because that phone is not a public forum, by any of the 3 (last I checked) case law definitions for that term in the context of first amendment law.
I honestly believe that the inability to access a space on the basis of financial inequality necessarily privatizes it.
A "public forum" in first amendment case law is not publicly owned (though absolutely could be), and is therefor *not* bound by the restrictions of the first amendment. The *government* is restricted from imposing restrictions on speech within a public forum.
Even private clubs are public forums in first amendment law, and there is absolutely *no* restriction preventing the owner of said public forum from restricting speech within it.
It can't be stated enough- the First Amendment is a restriction on the government, no one else. It is incapable of turning twitter into a government entity because it operates a public forum, and thus cannot be used as argument for restricting Twitter's censorship, should it exist.
No, they cannot, as they have no right to speak in a public forum. The government simply has no right to restrict their speech there.
Please stop spouting your misinformed bullshit with such confidence.
This is completely false. A public forum is not a forum owned by the public, it is a forum in which the public congregates.
Restricting the Government's ability to limit discourse in a public forum does not limit the public forum, if privately owned, from exercising its rights.
You are completely off the wall, chief.
That could work, but there's a pretty hard limit to how fast you could slingshot around the Earth: an explosively hard maximum of less than 1g acceleration at the tightest point of its turn.
Not sure what you're trying to say...
the tightness of its turn isn't really relevant. The object is in free-fall. The only consideration is impact with the atmosphere and tidal effects (too negligible to matter).
Am I misunderstanding what you're saying?
Fair enough, lol
No, he's right. For the same reason you're right.
It is near impossible to cancel out all of the Earth's effects. However, those effects are nearly as strong in orbit. You stand a better chance of canceling them out here with "lots of space, power, and engineers"
You have to get it out of the gravity well before you can start testing the efficacy of its claim to push against the universe.
You're going to need something a lot better than the average provided by a twisted pair when you're measuring nano-newtons.
but then again where would you go anyhow?
Personally, I think Saturn up close would be an excellent feature of the night sky.
Of course, we have to figure out how to heat the planet... and power it, all without solar input... but that might not be all that difficult once we're talking about moving planets.
*if it
Sigh.
Read better.
He postulated that it worked outside of the magnetic regime, it would basically be a self-contained power-to-force converter, which is indeed a violation of conservation of momentum. The obligatory analogue would be a high-centered car.
His post was saying, "it makes sense that they've identified magnetism as the thrust generating factor", and it now does *not* violate conservation of momentum.
That one hurts my head...
Mammals aren't reptiles.. Birds however are definitely dinosaurs.
I didn't know this, though it makes perfect sense. I just never thought about it.
Pill bugs resemble a terrestrial isopod... and it turns out... they're exactly that.
Communism inherently requires redistribution. That does *not* require authoritarianism. If you need authoritarianism to impose communism, then it is not supported by your populace, and you're a dictator.
As you pointed out, Marx believed it would emerge organically, and *must* emerge organically for it to succeed.
As I said previously, I believe if communism ever comes to this world, it'll be in one of the scandinavian societies that are already heavily socialist.
It isn't valid to blame communism as an ideology, unless you also want to blame capitalism as an ideology.
Almost all revolutions are literally an act of imposing your will from the top-down. The only real difference between communist revolutions and capitalist revolutions, are that the communist ones seem to survive longer.
America is an outlier with regard to non-authoritarian revolutions.
First, no. I'm most definitely not trying to defend communism. I'm a capitalist through and through. I'm just smarter than you. ;)
No one said they weren't followers of Marx. I said the aspect you criticized them for was most certainly not Marxism in any form, it was a side effect of the fact that most revolutions end in Fascist authoritarian governments to hold on to their power, regardless of the economic model. That's called explaining how you're wrong, not invoking a No True Scotsman fallacy. The way you use No True Scotsman, pointing out any objective example of how a criticism toward a group isn't a diagnostic characteristic of that group is a fallacy. In short, it's a pathetic attempt at silencing people you can't actually argue with. Good job. You're so clever
You really are a disgusting fuck, you know that?
That's not intended as an insult. It's just a fucking observation.
You're labeling a group of historically marginalized humans who struggle to better their lot in an unarguably male dominated world a weapon of the Chinese state to "weaken" us.
They don't weaken us you fucking chimp-brained asshat. They make us stronger. You and your ilk are our weakness and our baggage.
Sounds like an alternative to "Everyone I hate or has ever done anything bad is a Nazi."
Sounds like gaslighting. Like the assholes who spout clearly fascist beliefs and complain about being Godwin'd in the same breath. It must seem so clever to you.
Nu uh, YOU'RE the fascist!
He didn't leave it out, he just didn't want to mislead people like you seem bent on doing.
The communists in question were fascists. To the core.
Slaughtering humans and letting them starve because they're an inferior breed of Rus aren't any tenants of Communism that I'm aware of.
The real problem, is that *most* revolutions end up with some form of fascist government, regardless of their economic model. America lucked out in this regard.
When the world sees communism for real, and not simple fascism dressed in red, it will come form scandinavia.
You have my vote.
This is just in-home streaming. Your performance will mirror your in-home streaming to any other device connected via the same medium.
For the vast majority of 2.4Ghz users, that's terrible.
The game doesn't matter- Binding of Isaac, or Crysis 12. The encoder isn't the slow part, it's the network bandwidth over congested 2.4Ghz spectrum.
Long time SteamLink + nVidia GameStream user, here. I am one of the (huge majority) of 2.4Ghz wireless users that it doesn't work for, that you can read all about on the support forums. I suspect it has to do with interference. I live in a condominium, so 2.4Ghz is insanely cluttered. Bad enough that I often can't stream Netflix, even. 5Ghz is clean as a whistle.
Valve doesn't say you "need" 5Ghz, they highly recommend it, because otherwise, you're likely to have problems. That doesn't mean you will for sure, as 2.4Ghz N does technically have the bandwidth capability if your spectrum is clear.