the hand wavy appeal to Newton rather than rigorous correction of him
Hand-wavy appeals to Newton are a hallmark of "consensus" anti-scientists. It's particularly odious to use Newton as he was one of the earliest Presidents of the Royal Society: nullius in verba - not even Newton.
there's no debugger.
Plenty of bugger, though.
. . . he was still OK with other people eating meat, but he himself couldn't because poor innocent animals . .
indeed, poor innocent animals. so sad.
I recall reading about someone (an academic?) who had interviewed cannibals (and others) and came to the conclusion that people taste mostly like pork.
Hmm. . . All those fine, grass-fed vegans . . . I feel a proposal coming on . .
If you're looking for someone children can look up to, he's it.
Absolutely. Someone that anyone can look up to. I hope I'm wrong, but it doesn't seem that we are able to make people like that anymore.
Thanks for correcting me. I thought you were referring to Schenk. My mistake.
Ok, well to quote the opinion:
"We admit that, in many places and in ordinary times, the defendants, in saying all that was said in the circular, would have been within their constitutional rights. But the character of every act depends upon the circumstances in which it is done. Aikens v. Wisconsin, 195 U.S. 194, 205, 206. The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic. It does not even protect a man from an injunction against uttering words that may have all the effect of force. Gompers v. Bucks Stove & Range Co., 221 U.S. 418, 439. The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent. It is a question of proximity and degree."
This, combined with the fact that the ruling banned the pamphlet, i.e. restricted free speech, would seem to belie what you're saying.
You have laid out a grand series of assertions, with absolutely nothing to back them up. And then say that, if we don't simply believe what you say, then we are hopelessly stupid sheep fattened by the feces of propaganda. My friend, you are bizarre.
No, he tried to apply a blanket restoration in contravention of the Virginia Constitution. The Virginia Supreme Court ruled that he could not do such a thing, but had to rely instead on performing individual restoration of rights as the Governor is permitted to do. So, the roughly 200,000 people whose voting rights were unconstitutionally restored had their voting rights revoked. Since that ruling and revocation, the Governor individually restored the voting rights of more than 60,000 in accordance with his powers under the Virginia Constitution.
I think there's no point in trying to rationalize with "absolute zero".
:
Microsoft, on the other hand, sells product in a myriad of stores around the world. Even if they do not support such a thing, if they reply "NO", all it takes is one gomer in a staples store selling a windows notebook to a fed for "people" to start screaming about how Microsoft "lied" and really does "support" the evil deed.
Indeed, but perhaps it's simpler than that:
"All this was inspired by the principle—which is quite true within itself—that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying."
President Kennedy was screwing more women than Bill Clinton could dream of
Bullshit. Of course, all the references are either MSM or government, so I'm sure they'll be rejected out of hand as being in the bag for JFK.
Though historically much of what comes from a major news outlet wasn't fake, completely and demonstrably false.
Indeed. It seems to me, in the past, each side of an issue would spin a common set of facts to their respective advantage. The difference today is that one side, the other, or both, find it much easier to simply create their own facts. And I'm not inclined to place all the "blame" on uneducated people believing the bullshit because regardless of the point of view there will certainly be myriad web sites, blogs and other sources on the internet that can be turned to for "corroboration". I think if people don't "fact-check", it's because they don't know who to believe. No matter who you look to, there will always be someone who claims they're "biased".
The use of anthropomorphic terminology when dealing with computing systems is a symptom of professional immaturity. -- Edsger Dijkstra
