Well yeah. They’re selling snake oil, and they better get as much money as they can now. That cash is going to dry up in a couple of years, and then where will they be. They’ll have to do real work again.

This should have been done decades ago, and I think law was strong enough decades ago to make it happen, it’s just that district attorneys didn’t want to piss off large businesses.

If a company shows on their website that they are selling you something, you as a buyer have the reasonable expectation that you’ve actually purchased it, and through that purchase, you can do all the things that you would with anything you own. When that’s not true, they haven’t actually sold you something. They’ve rented you something, and they know it, and that’s a deceptive business practice.

Which is to say, I’m happy to see some improvement on potential enforcement for false advertising, but the reality is I’m not too optimistic that people will seriously follow up on it because they already had a couple decades to do so.

He already got suspended. His weapon was suspended there, on this outside of the MRI machine.

The question, as always, is enforcement. It’s a great idea, and good for them for making it happen, and then we’ll find out if they were serious.

I probably wouldn’t describe them as flawed, because the goal wasn’t and couldn’t ever be perfection, so then everything is flawed, but then is it really a flaw? It sounds like more of an issue of what’s useful in what type of situation.

Far.

That means you’re not down with OOP.

You’re talking about the wrong thing. The Mozilla Foundation is and has been acting a fool in recent years. Firefox, the open source program, is doing mostly OK. Obviously the two are closely connected, but they’re definitely not the same thing, and this matters when discussing policy.

Now now. If Mozilla is breaking the law here, of course someone would report them for it. There’s no need to shoot the messenger when everything was predictable.

I appreciate your apprehension. Fortunately, you don’t need to speculate. Go try it and find out.

What’s even sadder than the quote is the fact that it’s not true. Some people will never make an about face, even if they should because they have nothing to lose 10 or 20 years from now.

Take a look at Vietnam or the Iraq War. How many people who supported those when they happened or in the decade after they happened later went public and admitted that they got it wrong? Some people did, but many never would. Part of that is their identity. They never cared about the loss of life, and they never will, but they do care about signaling to their allies what’s important.

I think the point of the article is not that there was one word mistakenly written, but that an entire department lied for months and never bothered to test their system, and that they felt it was normal to do so. In other words, the problem here was the human factor. Typos are going to happen no matter what you do, and if you’re not planning around them then you suck at your job.

Well this is a no-brainer, isn’t it. As a tool, the filibuster has always been hogwash. If the rules are that you need 60 votes, then make that the official rules. Or don’t, but don’t leave it like it is. She’s probably just talking the talk, but it’s something worth saying and maybe she means it.

I don’t think that’s what the relevant case law shows. There’s no legal requirement for symmetry between the words uttered and the actions undertaken by others.

First, we know that because it doesn’t say that in the case law, and second because you can think of obvious examples where the speaker should be in trouble. If I yell at you to punch someone in the face and instead you kick them in the knee, probably I should be held accountable.

It will be difficult to get this past the judge, because the First Amendment generally protects speech, even lies. Specifically inciting violence is not protected, but is this speech vague enough? My gut suggests it is, but we’ll see what the courts think.

If the courts OK the charges, there’s a passing chance that a jury could convict, because the effects are so clear and shocking. It’s easy to make a solid case.

These are criminal charges, which if successful (unlikely) would have more severe consequences for Trump and his couch-loving companion.

This was your deck. Now it’s your new cat’s deck.

What, you mean kids won’t learn dirty words properly if they don’t hear them from their parents? That’s one theory of development.

That’s the name of my RSS reader.

Stop buying the cheap ones. :-)