"In the end, the government really doesn't care and the Constitution doesn't come into play."
Short version: Didn't say they did.
277 posts • joined 2 Feb 2010
"Hardly surprising, since critical thinking doesn't appear to be your strong suit."
Oh this should be good.
"It hardly takes an expert phenomenologist to observe a difference between holding and expressing an opinion. Though effective policing of the mind has been limited at best, up to the present day, that hasn't prevented many jurisdictions from attempting to outlaw the former separately from the latter, or simply let the latter serve as evidence of the former."
Irrelevance not addressing anything.
"The US Constitution and its amendments, concerned as they are with delimiting the powers of the state (that is, the Union and the several States), generally do not deal with matters inaccessible to government practice. Thus the First Amendment makes no statement about holding opinions."
Irrelevant pedantry only a lawyer would care about. I've already stated that it is perfectly reasonable to a reasonable person - which doesn't appear to be your strong suit - that the context would allow for these things to be interchangeable especially when an expression of opinion *has* occurred.
In other words if you'd like to reduce your throbbing vein of pedantry on your forehead just read "speech" instead of "opinion" and then you can calm down.
You seem to have a problem with reading things written. Perhaps deal with that first before trying to feel superior in your "thinking".
"I'll skip past the naive intentionalism - there's no force to your argument even if it were an adequate model of the relationship between discourse and state of mind."
My argument is simply that you're making an argument for the hell of it. You've provided another sentence to justify that.
"No one's right to political expression has been compromised in the slightest."
I never said it was.
Please attempt to read words as written. The point of the First Amendment is clearly to protect political opinion/speech/enaction - whatever. You have made it up in your own mind that I have said:
* Anyone was actually being compromised here
* The US government is involved in this case
The reason for the invocation would be obvious if you weren't determined to be an ass. That the US government isn't the one trying to shut down the dialog doesn't invalidate the idea that perhaps the people of the country should have a particular attitude to this based upon the constitution created for their country.
But please - if it makes you feel superior to a random person on the Internet do continue with irrelevancies only a lawyer would care about to a statement never uttered. Perhaps call into question whether I have any sexually transmitted diseases or suggest I have the brainpan of a of stage coach tilter. Big up your chest and thump it. Come on - you're a superior individual. You can do better than a lame ad hom right out the box. Or not.
So let me make this quite clear again: I never said nor implied the US government was doing anything - you made that up in your own head. That's your problem: critical reading fail.
K THX BYE.
"The First Amendment does prohibit the Federal Government from imposing prior restraint on the freedoms of speech and of the press, among other things. That's rather different from "protect[ing]" some mythical right to "hav[e] a political opinion"."
I don't really see how unless you want to be strangely pedantic and argue it's possible to have an opinion banned that you can nonetheless freely speak. Or even stranger argue that it's possible to freely speak as long as you don't hold that speech as your opinion. Clearly unless you're a lawyer prone to perverting language for no reason it's entirely sensible to read "speech" and "opinion" as basically synomous in that if you're allowed to speak something then unless thoughtcrime is to be prosecuted the opinion of the speaker as to that speech may be reasonable assumed from be what it is from the content of that speech; but even if it is not it's not relevant.
Besides protecting political opinons/ideas - whatever - is entirely the point. It's clearly not about protecting the right to vocalise words in general as some physical action - it's entirely about the Government of the United States of the moment not being able to ban speech it has decided it doesn't like.
Not that any of this is relevant in particular to myself not being under the protection of that Constitution so whatever - lawyer away.
Yes, they can do what they like.
The problem is the fundamental attitude of why: innuendo, not fact. That's the difference especially when the guy is not coming out thumping a Bible telling the queers to shut up but is instead trying to reconcile.
You see people who really hold fast to a particular belief generally don't shut-up just because someone else told them it makes them feel bad because they wouldn't care. But it doesn't look like the people taking issue with this are interested in thinking - the decision has been made and the non-person is to be persecuted.
No, it's McCarthyism to see Reds under the beds everywhere and to prosecute thoughtcrimes.
Last I checked having a political opinion was protected under the United States constitution; these Social Justice Warriors TM aren't interested in anything as mundane as facts or sensible debate though. Nope. Out come the torches and pitchforks and out go the brains. At this point I think he could actually get married to a man and it wouldn't stop this crusade.
Coronation Street game options:
*) Mini Cab simulator - can you scrape by on the meager takings from the mini cab? Manage your money so you have enough to enjoy in the Rovers - but don't have too much or you won't be able to drive!
*) Factory Simulator - I'm seeing this like Skool Daze where you try to do as little work as possible, gossip - and go to the Rovers.
*) Find the Cat - where is that ginger tabby? Think Where's Waldo but wandering around Corrie.
*) Pub management simulator - try to keep ownership of The Vic for more than a month.
*) Dating Sim - just how complicated can the familial relationships get between the incestuous members of Albert Square?
*) Get Me To Manchester - how quickly can you get yourself into a situation where the only recourse is to leave for Manchester?
" Be thankful it's only a dodecagon, not something crazy like a triangle or square"
That will never happen - coins must have constant width (i.e. if you rolled it then its height doesn't change, unlike a square or triangle) otherwise machines won't be able to deal with them correctly.
A parody of BuzzFeed click-bait articles. Except this is not based off an arbitrary number of pictures of celebrities with minimal textual accompaniment it is instead an arbitrary number of pictures of pliers and almost pliers with minimal textual accompaniment.
If you don't know what BuzzFeed is then good. No need to find out.
"Call me pathetic all you like but the fact that the first comment on this article was a pathetic dig at Microsoft says a lot more about the commenters on this website than anything else."
Ah, so unless every comment in regards to this person is about stripping his skin off and rolling him in salt they are morally objectionable?
Yes, this makes sense entirely - if they estimated X amount and therefore priced the share at that amount and Amazon only achieved Y amount you can expect the share price to reflect that difference in expectation. It wouldn't make any sense if they didn't.
If you don't like the fact speculation is what drives investment fine but don't be surprised when this happens because for anything else to happen wouldn't make any sense.
"You know he doesn't make up the questions, right? You know he's given the answers on the autocue or into his ear, right? You know HE KNOWS all these things, right?"
I really don't think the people who are trying to be all superior care as long as they can troll it up.
"The virus doesn't exploit weakness in the AV to bypass it and infect the system, the virus is a fragement of a full program and actually lifts the AV code to complete itself."
Yeah, that's par for the course in biology as far as viruses are concerned.
" who decides if they screen yet more celebs & dancing, anyway?"
The fact that people will complain the BBC is too highbrow if it doesn't cater for the ITV crowd. These arguments aren't new.
Personally I'd be more than happy if that money went into BBC Four but I can't see it happening politically. I don't really understand how anyone can really believe given the trajectory on "quality" programming that making the BBC a commercial entity is really going to improve that situation is that's what people care about. Because I don't think they care about it.
Yes, it's not the instanteous results that are the most interesting it's the constant monitoring that offers the real benefits. I do wonder how the accuracy of this compares to taking a finger prick blood sample - it may well be superior. (One of the problems being that you generally have to wait at least an hour after eating to see the effect reflected).
Given they're talking about hypoglycemia this would seem to be more about type 1 than type 2 diabetes and type 1 diabetes cannot be caused by the poor diet associated with type 2. It is not clear whether or not this can give any sort of accurate mmol reading or if it's just a more simple normal/low indicator without the high detection. Type 2 diabetics tend to have more problems with hyperglycemia than hypoglycemia as they are often not on insulin taken with meals where by far the easiest way to have a problem is by overshooting on the dose you give yourself.
As a type 1 diabetic I look forward to when I can actually get my hands on one of these.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019