And your example does nothing to prove your statement. I'm a graduate of public schools and I'm doing just fine.

"You'd also be able to move to cities that didn't have it"

Then why did segregation in the south exist for 100 years after slavery ended? The problem with this libertarian approach to civil rights is that we have just thousands of years of experience showing it doesn't work.

" If this was true then that would mean that two people who independently interpreted the law would come to the same conclusion."

No, that's why I said "it's hard to make that way."

Also, criminal law is overwhelmingly written in a manner where most educated people can understand it. If you don't believe, check out your state's criminal statutes.

That already happens.

Legal language has developed over hundreds of years to be as unambiguous as it can be, and even then it's hard to make that way. Starting over with non-experts and we'd end up with a lot of very vague laws with a lot more loopholes.

Annotated statutes have that (not the individual who introduced it, but that information is easy to find out).

"Case in point, recently a student was suspended for nibbling a toaster pastry into the shape of a gun."

One case does not prove anything. That's like saying nobody could plausibly leave their house because someone got struck by lightning once doing that.

No, the Supreme Court did not decide what was said is immaterial. They made a perfectly logical analysis:

1. The statute says the States can set up an exchange.

2. If a State doesn't, the federal government can set up "such Exchange" for them. Note that it doesn't say set up "an Exchange," but "SUCH Exchange." The statute is pretty clearly stating by using "such" that any Exchange set up constitutes a State Exchange under the statute. What else would "such" mean in that context?

"Lacking any cultural embrace of critical thinking" The problem is "voters lack critical thinking skills" usually just means "too many voters are voting other than I am."

If it weren't for the expansion of Federal powers we'd probably still have segregation.

I am generally anti-Apple and think Steve Jobs was a massive cock, but I still think that's true. Look at how ineffectual Apple is without him.

Perhaps, but I just don't agree that "but he made a lot of money" excuses cruelty or nastiness. We didn't and still don't need Apple.

It's often criticized, and over the last few conversations on the subject I'd say that the tone on slashdot has been more muted, with less support for his level of abuse. On the other hand, when has Linus gone off on someone who hadn't definitely earned a less-than-polite brush-off?

That's great, but for many years every nasty, unprofessional, over-the-top tantrum he's thrown has been received overwhelmingly glowingly by the slashdot commentariat. I think it's probably the best instance of what I'm talking about, this idea of noticing your own flaws on a successful person and trying to explain those flaws as virtues that explain the success.

Where are those people now? We haven't heard from them basically since... well, you know. Since their argument got taken away..

They were defending him after the guilty verdict. Even after he led police to the body, there were some people on slashdot seriously trying to come up with explanations how he could know where the body was but not have killed her. And, of course, loudly insisting that even if he did kill her there was reasonable doubt during the trial (which there absolutely was not). The defenses tended to be "he's just a geek, he's being persecuted for being uncomfortable with people like me!"

He was in a position of awesome responsibility and performed his job duties to the best of his ability. That's a fairly useless level of integrity in my opinion, but yeah, a very high level as well. He was only arrested after actually having made arrangements to hand over the passwords, as well.

The problem is he did not do his job; he created a new job in his head and did that one. And any administrator who sets himself up as the sole accessor of mission-critical hardware is doing a poor job per se. But in any event, the response here was over-the-top support

Oh no, he's both. He's an easy target, but still a target.

But around here any criticisms of his personality are frequently met with insinuations that it's just the US trying to destroy him. I really don't see the big deal in dropping charges, raising them again, etc.. It's actually not uncommon in criminal prosecutions at least in the US, as decision-making authority moves from police to prosecutors to maybe a higher level prosecutor.

There's always been this weird dynamic on Slashdot where if someone has done something good or useful, or is perceived as "one of us," you get this absolute defense of every single action of that person, no matter how objectionable. A lot of it seems to be based on perceiving oneself in that person, and I suspect wanting to defend them from criticisms they themselves have received in real life.

Examples: Steve Jobs was a cruel narcissist, but he "had to be" to turn Apple into what it is. Linus Torvalds has on occasion treated people nastily, but that's something to be absolutely admired and never criticized. Hans Reiser was being persecuted because he was a geek. Terry Childs was the epitome of integrity for locking out his supervisors. Julian Assange isn't a self-obsessed narcissist, he's the noble target of an international conspiracy to besmirch his good name.

Here's my view:
Julian Assange did a lot of good through wikileaks, and should be praised for that.
He's also on a personal level an objectionable human being and that should not be excused or explained away.
If he is accused of committing a crime in Sweden, he should fight those charges in Sweden.
Whether he's innocent or not of those charges, he's probably not innocent of violating bail, and should be charged with that as well.
The first point I made above is completely consistent with all the ones that follow. people who were I think a lot of it is a sort of

"So you agree that it's the US, not Swedish law, that wants him imprisoned and made an example of? Because your assertion doesn't really make sense otherwise." That does not logically follow. Both US and Sweden can want him imprisoned, and Ecuador could be acting to thwart just the US. Alternately, just Sweden can want him imprisoned, and Ecuador could just mistakenly believe that the US wants him imprisoned and are acting on that false belief.

"Bash security tips" seems to bring up useful pages. "Writing secure bash scripts" brings up even more useful pages.

Greatest racing game of all time: Star Wars Episode 1 Racer. It is the perfect racing game. This is not a joke.