Solution seems simple to me: make it a temporary assignment to that list. One possible condition might be that if "Person of Interest XYZ" has been charged with violence against the USA, then they are automatically placed on this temporary list. If they beat the rap, then they're removed, simple as that. (Well, as simple as government is usually capable of.) If they fall to the axe, then the temporary condition is made permanent.
Consider it sort of akin to jail until bail is made - in no way is such considered a punishment without due process, so this shouldn't be either.
As to why this discussion has cropped up, I agree that knee-jerk reactions are always bad, particularly where government in any guise is concerned. But to allow one or more wrong-headed yahoos to tramp around the country and likely repeat their misdeeds, that's simply asking for more gnashing of hair and pulling of teeth, don't you think? Make the no-fly condition temporary until the case is decided; that's how we do it for other kinds of accused perpetrators, so why not here?
Re: Re: Re: You don't get it, do you? This was a test run.
Sorry, but somehow this reply got midirected to a different comment by Thad. Please read well up the page from here (at Thad's admonishment directed at me), and it will make sense.
Re: Re: You don't get it, do you? This was a test run.
Yes Thad, though I've probably not been here as long as you....
My idea was not so much to accuse G.M. of jumping the gun, it was more to addressing a "potential misdirection" that new readers might perceive as "the TD norm". By fleshing it out, I had hoped to leave it without needing further explanation, but alas, I see now that I failed to cover all the bases before heading for home plate. Thanks for making me realize that not everyone thinks like me, nor takes my meaning when I uses shortcuts like this. Time to up my dose of caffeine in the morning!
... there is more useful data that can be used to identify and convict people
Whoa, not so fast there, me bucko. Nice sentiment, but that's about as dangerous as giving #45 the nuclear launch codes. Jumping straight from identification to conviction strongly bypasses the Constitutional requirement that a person be presumed innocent until proven guilty. Better would've been to say "... identify, prosecute, and likely convict people"
Now that I've written that, and pondered it during Preview, I realize that this is exactly what's been going on for the last 4 years:
a) Jump to a conclusion about an allegation against someone, evidence be damned;
b) Recruit others who also run strictly on emotion, and don't want evidence to get in the way;
c) Make life a living hell for that person, publicly and privately;
d) Feel smug in your righteousness.
It's called self-aggrandizement, or in my book, it's the ol' "Holier Than Thou" syndrome. Allow me to quote my father: It's too bad that ignorance isn't painful".
Protesting police violence is not the same thing as attempting to overthrow a government.
Indeed. In point of fact, the protesters got what they wanted, a high degree of public awareness and an eyes-wide-open look at police brutality, with resultant decisions by various jurisdictions to re-apportion some funding away from police departments.
OTOH, the insurrectionists (or attempted ones, at any rate), got just the opposite - the Congress Entire reacted in near-unanimity to proclaim Biden as the winner. I'd like to think that Hawley and Cruz, for starters, are about to be the recipients of the same kind of scrutiny as the rioters, but in these waning days of #45, I'm probably just pipe-dreaming.
If any of those idjits had ever been in the armed forces, it's a dead certainty that they were REMF's, no doubt about it in my unmilitary mind. OPSEC indeed.
Holy Jeebus, man, today just isn't gonna be your day, is it.
First, TOG is asking why isn't it required that those who are expected to present to the public an example of civil behavior aren't held to an even higher standard than Average Joe Sixpack. QA is essentially a thumb-your-nose buck slip, and it's available only to a subset of the populace. The simple question is, why's that?
Second, define criminal acts. Does killing George Floyd count, in your book? Does beating Rodney King count? How about stopping a speeding car, with a married couple on their way to an abortion, whereupon the officer takes them to a "Come To Jesus" meeting, complete with a dunking in the lake... does that count as a criminal act in your book?
My particular modem is DOCSIS 3.3 compliant. I'm under the impression that everything is pretty much automatic (given that I, as the user, have not done a manual configuration), and as such, any incoming data is free to appear on any channel it might desire - if it's bonded at the source (the ISP) then the modem simply receives it in stride and passes it all through to the router.
Does the modem really have to be told ahead of time something like "Hey, wake up - here's comes some data on channels 1, 2, 3 and 4... deal with it." Seems like wasted overhead to me.
But then again, my mileage has been known to vary. Widely. ;)
They were so politically powerful, they convinced the FCC to effectively self-immolate....
I do so wish that someone, anyone, would cite for me the Chapter and Verse where it says that the FCC gets to abdicate its mandated responsibilities, without repercussions.
Oh, wait... This is the era of #45, where responsibility is a curse word. Crap, I momentarily forgot what year it was. Sorry everyone, please forget this request and carry on.
Taken in a literally technological sense, the word modem does indeed include the equipment on the ISP's end of the connection. But we users have been inculcated for a long time with the word's use as pertaining to our home-bound setup, not the ISP's.
Point taken though, I'll back off on any further assertions of like nature.
t is programmed to detect when a modem isn’t using all the bandwidth available to it and automatically adjust the modem to deliver significant increases in speed and capacity.
My first thought was that this sounds like someone is attempting to access my internet equipment illegally. At only one time is Comcast (or any other ISP) authorized to access equipment on my private premises, and that is when the modem in question is theirs, and I'm only leasing it. (NOT true in my case.)
But in actuality, I believe that the statement really meant to point to the connecting equipment at locations owned by Comcast, not at the connection point in someone's home. I"d be willing to bet that this is a more a matter of how one interprets nuance, rather than someone's sales brochure having bypassed the legal department before release.
Here's the bottom line: §230 recognizes and formalizes just one concept - in a civil society, you don't get to shoot the messenger. All the wordage being expended that willfully sweeps this dictum under the carpet is just so many electrons in the ether being harassed by people who fail spectacularly at making good use of oxygen.
Well, to be specific, the last question was predicated on which of the two versions of B.C. was lying - the willfully ignorant one, or the innocently ignorant one. So your response should've been worded thus: 'Not just both versions, but all of his versions were lying!"
Being a politician of the captured-regulator sort, the bit about Carr's moving lips was redundant, but I'm not gonna pee in your Cheerios. ;)
SDM is correct, better to keep them out in the open for easy surveillance. And while this might fail in the courts, it serves both as notice to the malcontents that they're being watched (and that they aren't particularly appreciated), and as a starting point in the much-needed discussion about how these clowns came to exist in the first place. I mean, they weren't born with the "sure knowledge" that white supremacy was a God-given right... someone had to teach them that crap, and that's the particular recidivism that I want to see rooted out and killed off.
I'd have to say yes, if my prediction comes true - that those certain members of the Republican party known as the Cult of Trump get themselves labeled as a domestic terrorist organization. That's pretty far off the path, but no further than Cuomo's proclamation.
On the post: More Bad Ideas: Congressional Rep Suggests Participants In The Attack On The Capitol Building Be Added To The No-Fly List
Solution seems simple to me: make it a temporary assignment to that list. One possible condition might be that if "Person of Interest XYZ" has been charged with violence against the USA, then they are automatically placed on this temporary list. If they beat the rap, then they're removed, simple as that. (Well, as simple as government is usually capable of.) If they fall to the axe, then the temporary condition is made permanent.
Consider it sort of akin to jail until bail is made - in no way is such considered a punishment without due process, so this shouldn't be either.
As to why this discussion has cropped up, I agree that knee-jerk reactions are always bad, particularly where government in any guise is concerned. But to allow one or more wrong-headed yahoos to tramp around the country and likely repeat their misdeeds, that's simply asking for more gnashing of hair and pulling of teeth, don't you think? Make the no-fly condition temporary until the case is decided; that's how we do it for other kinds of accused perpetrators, so why not here?
On the post: Identifying Insurrectionists Is Going To Be Easy -- Thanks To Social Media And All The Other Online Trails People Leave
Re: Re: Re: You don't get it, do you? This was a test run.
Sorry, but somehow this reply got midirected to a different comment by Thad. Please read well up the page from here (at Thad's admonishment directed at me), and it will make sense.
On the post: Identifying Insurrectionists Is Going To Be Easy -- Thanks To Social Media And All The Other Online Trails People Leave
Re: Re: You don't get it, do you? This was a test run.
Yes Thad, though I've probably not been here as long as you....
My idea was not so much to accuse G.M. of jumping the gun, it was more to addressing a "potential misdirection" that new readers might perceive as "the TD norm". By fleshing it out, I had hoped to leave it without needing further explanation, but alas, I see now that I failed to cover all the bases before heading for home plate. Thanks for making me realize that not everyone thinks like me, nor takes my meaning when I uses shortcuts like this. Time to up my dose of caffeine in the morning!
On the post: Identifying Insurrectionists Is Going To Be Easy -- Thanks To Social Media And All The Other Online Trails People Leave
Whoa, not so fast there, me bucko. Nice sentiment, but that's about as dangerous as giving #45 the nuclear launch codes. Jumping straight from identification to conviction strongly bypasses the Constitutional requirement that a person be presumed innocent until proven guilty. Better would've been to say "... identify, prosecute, and likely convict people"
Now that I've written that, and pondered it during Preview, I realize that this is exactly what's been going on for the last 4 years:
a) Jump to a conclusion about an allegation against someone, evidence be damned;
b) Recruit others who also run strictly on emotion, and don't want evidence to get in the way;
c) Make life a living hell for that person, publicly and privately;
d) Feel smug in your righteousness.
It's called self-aggrandizement, or in my book, it's the ol' "Holier Than Thou" syndrome. Allow me to quote my father: It's too bad that ignorance isn't painful".
On the post: Identifying Insurrectionists Is Going To Be Easy -- Thanks To Social Media And All The Other Online Trails People Leave
Re: Re: 6-hour Insurrectionists?
Indeed. In point of fact, the protesters got what they wanted, a high degree of public awareness and an eyes-wide-open look at police brutality, with resultant decisions by various jurisdictions to re-apportion some funding away from police departments.
OTOH, the insurrectionists (or attempted ones, at any rate), got just the opposite - the Congress Entire reacted in near-unanimity to proclaim Biden as the winner. I'd like to think that Hawley and Cruz, for starters, are about to be the recipients of the same kind of scrutiny as the rioters, but in these waning days of #45, I'm probably just pipe-dreaming.
On the post: Identifying Insurrectionists Is Going To Be Easy -- Thanks To Social Media And All The Other Online Trails People Leave
Re:
If any of those idjits had ever been in the armed forces, it's a dead certainty that they were REMF's, no doubt about it in my unmilitary mind. OPSEC indeed.
On the post: Eighth Circuit Strips Qualified Immunity From Cop Who Pulled Over A Driver For Flipping Her Off
Re: Re: Mostly good
Holy Jeebus, man, today just isn't gonna be your day, is it.
First, TOG is asking why isn't it required that those who are expected to present to the public an example of civil behavior aren't held to an even higher standard than Average Joe Sixpack. QA is essentially a thumb-your-nose buck slip, and it's available only to a subset of the populace. The simple question is, why's that?
Second, define criminal acts. Does killing George Floyd count, in your book? Does beating Rodney King count? How about stopping a speeding car, with a married couple on their way to an abortion, whereupon the officer takes them to a "Come To Jesus" meeting, complete with a dunking in the lake... does that count as a criminal act in your book?
Tell us, bunky, where do you draw the line?
On the post: Eighth Circuit Strips Qualified Immunity From Cop Who Pulled Over A Driver For Flipping Her Off
Re:
Actually, you can imagine it - it'd be Zero, for the reason you explained.
On the post: How Smart Software And AI Helped Networks Thrive For Consumers During The Pandemic
Re: Re: Re:
My particular modem is DOCSIS 3.3 compliant. I'm under the impression that everything is pretty much automatic (given that I, as the user, have not done a manual configuration), and as such, any incoming data is free to appear on any channel it might desire - if it's bonded at the source (the ISP) then the modem simply receives it in stride and passes it all through to the router.
Does the modem really have to be told ahead of time something like "Hey, wake up - here's comes some data on channels 1, 2, 3 and 4... deal with it." Seems like wasted overhead to me.
But then again, my mileage has been known to vary. Widely. ;)
On the post: Lawmakers Complain About Comcast's Bullshit Expanded Usage Caps
I do so wish that someone, anyone, would cite for me the Chapter and Verse where it says that the FCC gets to abdicate its mandated responsibilities, without repercussions.
Oh, wait... This is the era of #45, where responsibility is a curse word. Crap, I momentarily forgot what year it was. Sorry everyone, please forget this request and carry on.
On the post: How Smart Software And AI Helped Networks Thrive For Consumers During The Pandemic
Re: Re: Re:
Taken in a literally technological sense, the word modem does indeed include the equipment on the ISP's end of the connection. But we users have been inculcated for a long time with the word's use as pertaining to our home-bound setup, not the ISP's.
Point taken though, I'll back off on any further assertions of like nature.
On the post: How Smart Software And AI Helped Networks Thrive For Consumers During The Pandemic
Re:
My first thought was that this sounds like someone is attempting to access my internet equipment illegally. At only one time is Comcast (or any other ISP) authorized to access equipment on my private premises, and that is when the modem in question is theirs, and I'm only leasing it. (NOT true in my case.)
But in actuality, I believe that the statement really meant to point to the connecting equipment at locations owned by Comcast, not at the connection point in someone's home. I"d be willing to bet that this is a more a matter of how one interprets nuance, rather than someone's sales brochure having bypassed the legal department before release.
On the post: New Year's Message: Make The World A Better Place
What I've learned so far in 2021
That I can look back at last year with 2020 hindsight.....
And I agree with the others: Thanks, Mike! :)
On the post: Section 230 Isn't A Subsidy; It's A Rule Of Civil Procedure
Here's the bottom line: §230 recognizes and formalizes just one concept - in a civil society, you don't get to shoot the messenger. All the wordage being expended that willfully sweeps this dictum under the carpet is just so many electrons in the ether being harassed by people who fail spectacularly at making good use of oxygen.
On the post: CD Projekt Red Heaps Bullshit Via Tweet After Removing Game To Appease China
Re: GOG, MAGOG
And here I thought that you were gonna link to something more in keeping with the topic at hand: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhHQF94ETVQ
On the post: Yet Another Report Shows Asset Forfeiture Doesn't Reduce Crime Or Cripple Criminal Organizations
Re: Asset Forfeiture Doesn't Reduce Crime
We do assume you are referring to "robbery at badgepoint", yes?
On the post: FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr Again Misrepresents The Debate Over Section 230
Re: To answer that final question.
Well, to be specific, the last question was predicated on which of the two versions of B.C. was lying - the willfully ignorant one, or the innocently ignorant one. So your response should've been worded thus: 'Not just both versions, but all of his versions were lying!"
Being a politician of the captured-regulator sort, the bit about Carr's moving lips was redundant, but I'm not gonna pee in your Cheerios. ;)
On the post: NY Gov. Andrew Cuomo Signs Law Banning Sale Of Confederate Flags That Will Absolutely Get Nullified
Re: Re: Flags of losers everywhere
SDM is correct, better to keep them out in the open for easy surveillance. And while this might fail in the courts, it serves both as notice to the malcontents that they're being watched (and that they aren't particularly appreciated), and as a starting point in the much-needed discussion about how these clowns came to exist in the first place. I mean, they weren't born with the "sure knowledge" that white supremacy was a God-given right... someone had to teach them that crap, and that's the particular recidivism that I want to see rooted out and killed off.
Tell me, am I really asking for too much here?
On the post: NY Gov. Andrew Cuomo Signs Law Banning Sale Of Confederate Flags That Will Absolutely Get Nullified
Re: Loserdom
I'd have to say yes, if my prediction comes true - that those certain members of the Republican party known as the Cult of Trump get themselves labeled as a domestic terrorist organization. That's pretty far off the path, but no further than Cuomo's proclamation.
On the post: NY Gov. Andrew Cuomo Signs Law Banning Sale Of Confederate Flags That Will Absolutely Get Nullified
Re: 'We're such jokes the libs have total control over us.'
But they're just following the example set by their Daddy, you know, Number 45.
Next >>