bwaldrep

5 ms·

1.
by bwaldrep 4y ago
It's a bit hyperbolic to say a civil war or one party rule is required. We've successfully amended it 27 times, 6 of those after 1950. Ideally we'd see less of "judges rule without interpreting it strictly," which w
2.
by bwaldrep 4y ago
Remember O man that thou art dust, and to dust thou shalt return. Our work is important, but is not the only source of purpose, meaning, or identity.
3.
by bwaldrep 7y ago
The claim being responded to was that there is no evidence that "growing with chemicals" has increased crop yields. Evidence was provided that crop yields have increased as the industry has switched to "growing with chemicals
4.
by bwaldrep 7y ago
The issue with finding a "happy medium" in one segment of the market is that investment capital will immediately start to flow towards other segments of the market without such constraints. In your example where TVs are a lifesavi
5.
by bwaldrep 9y ago
I don't think such an admission necessarily follows. It has always been possible for determined criminals to invest enough time and caution to make their communications prohibitively expensive to intercept. The vast majority do not do
6.
by bwaldrep 13y ago
From US v Miller as cited in Smith v Maryland: "The depositor takes the risk, in revealing his affairs to another, that the information will be conveyed by that person to the Government. . . . This Court has held repeatedly that the Fo
7.
by bwaldrep 13y ago
An alternate view of Zimbardo's prison study: http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=3025
8.
by bwaldrep 13y ago
That was not the question. The question was if Manning specifically released ANY evidence of unconstitutional activity. The answer seems to be no.
9.
by bwaldrep 13y ago
They discuss this in the paper. In the event of a medical emergency the pod will proceed to the destination as normal, and paramedics can be waiting at the end. In the absolute worst case you are looking at ~30 minutes before you can get to
10.
by bwaldrep 13y ago
Sure, you are free to discuss what circumstances and latitude people bound by the UCMJ should have to speak their mind. You might be able to argue that the portions of Manning's leak that show evidence of wrongdoing were justified. Tha
11.
by bwaldrep 13y ago
> Information must always be free --- non-disclosure contracts never take precedence over the First Amendment. This belief is very naive and unrealistic. There are some kinds of information that should obviously not be free. Credit car
12.
by bwaldrep 13y ago
Thank you for clarifying. While I still disagree, I can respect your opinion.
13.
by bwaldrep 13y ago
By volunteering to join the military and obtain security clearance, Manning waived his First Amendment right to disclose anything he saw fit. If he only broke the law to reveal evidence of government wrongdoing, then there might be a case t
14.
by bwaldrep 13y ago
Again with the sweeping characterizations. Why do you assume that every single person in the armed forces is corrupt? As someone with a brother and several close friends in the military, this attitude is disheartening. You are free to belie
15.
by bwaldrep 13y ago
As of now your survey has less than 50 responses, and is heavily skewed towards young males. Right now it looks like barely 20 people have said it is "flat-out wrong." How are you concluding that "almost nobody supports it&qu
16.
by bwaldrep 13y ago
Thanks. There seems to be no public evidence that the grandson deserved death. The white house's official stance is that someone else was being targeted and he was in the wrong place at the wrong time. Gibb's quote "he should
17.
by bwaldrep 13y ago
No explanations given by the author. Here is some general background on the father: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki Edit: Note I am not defending the killing of the grandson by any means. However, I did no
18.
by bwaldrep 13y ago
I am confused. If there are no claims or evidence supporting the usage of the term "paramilitary thugs," then why bring it up at all? "Trying to get some terminology inserted into the discussion" is worthless (and arguab
19.
by bwaldrep 14y ago
Sorry to nitpick, but these two quotes stuck out at me: > "I bet you a pile of cash not one of those self-righteous a--holes would even think about adopting a non-white kid someone found in the subway." Having known several families fro
20.
by bwaldrep 14y ago
Working fine in Chrome on Mint here.
21.
by bwaldrep 14y ago
UofC fourth-year CS major here. While the department is still heavily focused on theory, over the last three years it has greatly improved its offerings as far as practical hacking goes. In the last two years alone several new systems facul
22.
by bwaldrep 14y ago
No one is giving Facebook a free pass. We currently have no evidence whatsoever of a bug. On the other hand, we do know that wall posts could not be commented on pre-2009. Informal conversations were carried out with quick exchanges of wall
23.
by bwaldrep 14y ago
Not true. This is the source of all the confusion. Originally you couldn't like or comment on wall posts. Conversations were individual posts on each other's walls. You could click the "wall-to-wall" link to view the whole conversation. Thi
24.
by bwaldrep 14y ago
For example: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/28/opinion/for-the-herds-sake... http://danamccaffery.com/openletter.html
25.
by bwaldrep 14y ago
No, it's not the question. Vaccines don't cause autism. This has been established beyond doubt. Further speculation about a link between the two is nothing other than dangerous. http://arstechnica.com/science/2010/02/the-lancet-retracts-p.
26.
by bwaldrep 14y ago
There is no evidence that the huge impact was caused by these subtle changes. It is far more likely that the even gender split was obtained by the ticket quotas omitted in the original post. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4282226