So who won the race? Where can I buy a fully self-driving car?
So who won the race? Where can I buy a fully self-driving car?
Wrong again. Current made a lot of money, and Gore sold it at a huge profit.
Current TV was a financial failure, and Gore made his money by selling it to a Qatari prince. His Apple stock, incidentally, came from him being put on their boards of directors, also because of his name recognition.
Conservatives really do hate people who succeed without cheating! I guess it makes them feel like they can't keep up when the playing field is level.
Al Gore was born with a silver spoon in his mouth; he made his fame and fortune as a politician; and afterwards, he translated his political power into financial success.
Your idea that this is "succeeding without cheating" just shows how morally bankrupt, economically ignorant, and hypocritical you are.
Wrong. Gore made all the right moves, especially with Current, and conservatives hate him for walking the walk.
Current TV was a commercial failure. Gore bet on his government connections, his name recognition, and a big influx of money from foreign dictators.
made possible through laws enacted by crooked politicians
Yes, indeed. Crooked politicians like Gore for example.
I don't have any real issues with someone getting rich after they leave govt office, as you stated. As someone else mentioned once, it just means they're smart, right?
Al Capone was smart. Joseph Stalin was smart. Hitler and Goebbels were smart. Getting money and power through being smart is not intrinsically a good thing.
Getting money and power through voluntary exchanges is a good thing; often the people who do that happen to be smart, but it is neither necessary nor sufficient.
I read through some of the comments on this story, and I couldn't help but notice there were quite a few that related Gore's politics and finance. None gave him any credit at all for financial acumen.
Financial acumen? Gore got rich the same way Clinton did: by translating his political power, political advocacy, and connections into money.
If you get rich legally before you enter politics, that shows that you can succeed by producing stuff people want. If you get rich after you leave high government office, it strongly suggests that you are a corrupt fraud. Gore clearly did the latter.
Then kindly say what you mean.
I did say what I mean: I made a general comment about the distinction between "establishing rights" and the granting of powers. Nowhere in my comment did I say anything about the ruling itself. Apparently, you simply can't read.
This ruling wasn't about whether or not the guy had the right to film the cops.
And I wasn't commenting on the ruling, I was commenting on the language.
The really funny part is this - the dissent, which is what you actually don't like,
No, what I don't like is the notion of "rights" that need to be "established". Even the attorney for the plaintiffs uses the language involving "clearrly established rights".
Qualified immunity is not about requiring a plaintiff to demonstrate their rights before they can sue the government over infringements of those rights.
I'm not saying anything about qualified immunity or the merits of the case. I am admonishing people to stop talking about "infringements of rights". Americans aren't European peasants.
The key word in what you said is "the government". According to the dissent (and the majority also agrees on this point), the government violated the guy's rights.
Again, you are not listening: I'm objecting to the notion and language that Americans have specific rights that can be violated. That is a view of justice and the law that applies to European peasants, it is not what we have in the US. In the US, citizens don't have rights that can be violated, government has (limited) powers that can be exercised. This has nothing to do with the specific outcome of the case, nor with whether police, the judges, or you are misusing the language; in fact, the lawyers for the plaintiff themselves are misusing language in their complaint. Once you talk about "establishing rights" of citizens, you have already submitted yourself to an all-powerful state, and whether you win specific cases doesn't matter anymore.
Judge: II + II = III
ooloorie: No, damn it! 2 + 1 is 3 you fucking idiot! If you use Roman numerals, you may get the right result for small numbers, but you can't do complex science or engineering that way.
You're missing the point. I'm not concerned with the details or the outcome of the case, but the reasoning. Under US law, you should not have to clearly establish that you have rights, the government should have to clearly establish that it has been granted the powers that it is exercising. The reasoning of the court is abhorrent, albeit distressingly common: US courts have started treating Americans like European peasants.
at which point the plaintiff must demonstrate the officials' actions violated "clearly established" law.
My point is that the court reasoned as if the plaintiff needed to "clearly establish a right"; under US law, you should not have to clearly establish that you have rights, the government should have to clearly establish that it has the powers that it is exercising. The reasoning of the court is abhorrent, albeit distressingly common: US courts have started treating Americans like European peasants.
- wrote Turner was not unlawfully arrested and that the majority opinion from the Texas-based appeals court jumped the gun to declare a First Amendment right here because one "is not clearly established."
Under the US Constitution, you don't have to "clearly establish rights"; rather, the government has to clearly establish that it has been granted certain powers by the people.
It's vague and arbitrary rules without clear enforcement that screw over the American public, and that's what this looks like. This looks more like an FCC power grab and possibly even a way for the FCC to shield ISPs against legal claims.
If your ISP leaks your information, you should be able to hold them responsible in court (if need be, via a class action lawsuit). That's far better than FCC rulemaking.
The data security rule requires ISPs and phone companies to take "reasonable" steps to protect customers' information -- such as Social Security numbers, financial and health information, and Web browsing data -- from theft and data breaches.
That sounds like a very pro-consumer rule, doesn't it? Except, it really isn't, because "reasonable" is pretty arbitrary, and so is FCC enforcement. More likely than not, such a rule is simply an excuse for ISPs to say "we took reasonable steps, so if something happened anyway, we're not liable".
It would be far better if people whose information has been leaked or mishandled could simply sue for damages and hold ISPs liable in court.
The problem with that definition is that it'd include a lot of random TNOs. We'd be up to like 15 planets by now, with an additional maybe 100 yet to be found in highly eccentric orbits
So? That's bad how?
Also, if that definition gets chosen you can look forward to decades of drama after every new TNO discovery about whether that object is in hydro-static equilibrium or not.
For almost all bodies, this is pretty obvious. For objects directly on the border, you can call them "borderline" or "indeterminate". It happens a lot in science.
Can you imagine if a Chinese astronomer finds such an object barely on the edge of the definition, but we only have a few single pixels of images available, and the IAU needs to make a finding on whether it qualifies as a planet or not?
If that bothers you, it's because you are confusing an IAU finding with fact.
If you have a procedure with 10 parameters, you probably missed some.