You can download the password hashes.
5,089 karma · joined May 11, 2022
Has there been a case to challenge this recently?
The current court is looking at Alot of old precedents and is poised to rollback federal power in some big ways. Before them right now is a case on Chevron Deference
I am not aware of any that has been before the current current that would challenge Wickard or any of the other terrible rulings that followed Wickard. So I am not sure the statement of "they allowed Wickard v Filburn to stand" is accurate.
<<I wish I was joking>>>
veterinarians are the most realists people in the medical field. While you put cost as the main factor my experience it is not simply a math problem, it is often a quality of life issue. Spending the $10,000 to extended a pets life for a another year is rarely about making the pet better, it is emotional support for the human companion of the pet while the pet will end up suffering for the year and die anyway.
So yes it is often cheaper to humanely put a pet down, it is often also the most ethical thing do to even if money was not a factor.
I call them realists because the face the inevitability of death head on in a way that we do not do in Human Medicine where we believe maximization of chronological age is the singular goal to be achieved at all costs with no regard to cost, pain, suffering or quality of life.
the US Federal government was not suppose to tax citizens directly either, thanks to the 16th Amendment that was passed under the lie that it would only ever be a "Tax on the rich" of 3% and only apply to 1% of the people, now the federal government takes nearly 25% of all citizens incomes,, and uses that money to bribe people for votes and extort states for policies they desire...
That's said The arguments against Congressional delegation to the executive existed long before qanon and the arguments of limited congressional power date back to before 1789 so unless q anon existed in 1700's then you're just using a modern fringe group in a very poor attempt to sideline the conversation no different than calling everything that you disagree with racist or sexist or some other ism
For there still this idea that Congress and the executive should work together as a novel one and not one shared by the Constitution separately equal is critical to the functioning of our governance The key word there being separate.
The cozy relationship between the executive and Congress is a problem
Under the current "living document" doctrine adopted by the court the power of the federal government is limitless, and there really is not need for Section 8 of Article 1 as to them "Necessary and Proper Clause" makes everything congress deems " Necessary and Proper Clause" to be constitution, a moronic interpretation of the Constitution who's entire purpose was to limit federal power.
The current court is set to role back some of that, I hope it does but it is unlikely they will go as far I want them to... Which includes going all the way back and reversing Wickard v. Filburn and every decision that built off that wrong.
However the actual wording is "to Regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States", the original intent to was to give power to congress to regulate how commerce is conducted between the states, i.e prevent the coastal states from having tariffs against the internal states, and prevent the internal states from having export taxes on gains, etc etc etc
The original intent was not to allow the congress regulate individual commercial transactions by citizens that happen to cross state lines.
If only the founders would have thought of that problem and included a method for which the constitution could be amended to grant additional powers to the federal government should the people and the states desire it...
But no it is easier to just invent new powers by continual reinterpretation of the documents than actually amending the document as required
Keeping in mind that a democracy was never the goal, and being a democracy is actually the root of the problem. Looking to the federal government for solutions to all of these problems is the the problem itself.
People expecting the government to fix everything is the problem....
Maybe instead of acting "are we a functioning democracy", the better question is "how can we solve these problems with out government..."
Well in my world we used to run many Dev/Training/Non-Prod servers with CentOS and then Run the Prod Servers with Licensed RHEL
Similar to having a MSDN License for Windows vs Production licenses
Then with the announcement of CentOS Stream they tried to sell their Dev program, but that program was TERRIBLE for enterprise use, it was built for individual developers, and not at all compatible with the model many organizations where using. They have since tweaked the terms to make is somewhat more compatible but it still IMO, not very useful for many of the scenarios I found myself in over my life
And frankly I have enough problem keeping track with MS Licensing I do not need the additional headache I might as well just use windows at that point.
Red Hat was able to become a billion dollar company by providing great support, and being easy to do business with, even before IBM buyout and accelerating after their support was becoming less and less quality, and they became more and more hostile / harder to do business with
Many organizations where already questioning their continued use of Licensed RHEL because of this, this like played a part in them killing CENTOS (and yes they killed CentOS, CentOS Stream is not a compatible replacement) as that was easier that fixing the systemic internal issues around support and business processed.
The entire Propose of CentOS was Binary Compatibility with RHEL, largely for Vendor compliance reasons, if a vendor of a commercial software product validated RHEL 7 for their software running CentOS 7 was also supported
Running CentOS Stream, or now Alma Linux would not be as their are no longer binary compatible with RHEL.
the Hostility of IBM and Redhat here has lead me to transition 100% of the CentOS Server I managed to Ubuntu Last year... The software vendors that i use all quickly validated Ubuntu as an alternative to CentOS after the original CentOS Stream announcement which made is a easy choice for me..
I will never use RHEL or RHEL based distribution again at this point so I really do not care about the future of Alma or Rocky either
>Personally, I don’t find value in the EL ecosystem, I prefer rolling releases everywhere when possible
if you are running ERP Systems, LOB Apps, or other critical functions that measure their code life in decades not weeks then EL systems are required. I do not want the system to change as the app i am running has not changed. I want Stability, and security not new features or more performance or even new hardware
using a Laptop as an example, prices of Laptops go UP every year, their price / performance ratio may improve...
So in this example if your 300 Mile range battery costs $15,000 today you may be able to get a 600 mile range battery for $15,000 in the future but you will unlikely be able to buy a 300 mile range battery for $8,000
All that savings goes out the window if I am hit with with $40,000 to $60,000 repair bill to change the battery, even if my entire drive chain goes out in my ICE I am looking at probably $5,000 and that rarely happens.
batteries 100% will need replaced, and ICE can go decades with no major issues
No that is not what is boils down to, i dont even agree that prison should be viewed as a punishment at all
Prison should be for separating a person that is a danger to others until such time they are no longer a danger to others. Judges often have a bad record at picking who will be a danger and who will not thus by default for public safety the public demands people convicted of crimes be sent away for a long time to maximize the possible safety of the public at the expense of the individuals that get caught up in the system
Sorry no... This is 3rd party Liability and that can not be the basis for a free society, as at that point everything becomes regulated
Want to go back to Alcohol Prohibition as well?
Further The Father is also free to choose a job where he makes less money that would impact the "little girl" in negative ways, or may choose to tell off his boss and get fired, will you now regulate speech "for the children"
>>The idea that drug use is a victimless crime is patently false and all it takes is a few moments of thought to realize it.
Victimless crime is defined for First Party victimization, to most people 3rd party liability is not a thing, Ford is not responsible if someone kills someones else in a F150, A Gun Manufacturer is not responsible when someone kills someone with a gun... The victims of those crimes are victim of the PERSON that victimized them, the driver or murder
Drug abuse can lead to other crimes, such as theft, and the victims of those crimes are victims of the drug user.
However you can not have a free society if you start shifting the liability upstream, at that point you get in a Pre Crime laws (which is what Drug laws are) and you end up with a whole negative effect and tyranny
In reality just like with policing we need better judges we need better officers we need better judges in the system the problem is how to get that nobody has solved that problem and it's easier to just write rules to make things worse for everybody instead of trying to fix the system with better people
I'm of the position it all drugs even medical drugs should be free to consume by anybody I should be able to walk in to CVS and get heart medication if I want or cocaine if I want if CVS is willing to sell it to me it's not for the government to decide nor government licensed agents AKA doctors to decide what I consume into my own body
My body my choice
Assault act of causing someone to reasonably fear imminent harm, what most people think of Assault they actually mean what the law calls battery which is actually causing physical harm.
Further I am not sure why we are focusing on Assault or battery, the OP said that was not the charge they were convicted of, and a Felony by definition is any crime punishable by more than 1 year of imprisonment which given the "Tough on crime" provision starting in the 90 makes a HUGE number if non-violent offenses felonies, as something a simple a playing your music too loud could be in some circumstances classified as a felony (often charged as " Nuisances" which is many states is a low level felony)
Most people have "felon" associated with violent crime, or serious crime, but unfortunately in our over criminalized society most people commit as many as 3 felonies a day not even knowing it.
The better, faster and easier solution is a path to quick expungement, this also has the added bonus of offering people an incentive to no re-offend.
IMO once you have completed all active punishment (ie you are no longer on parole or probation) your record should be sealed.
>>If we're so concerned about employers hiring bad employees then state should instead build a centralised database of bad employees and their reason for termination at previous places of work
That would actually be illegal under most state laws as most State's have Anti-Black List laws to prohibit such lists from being created.
I had some Latency and Bandwidth problems when trying to push alot of data into BackBlaze not terrible but slower than Wasabi it however was usable. Some of the other vendors I tried were not even usable
your links are to their "backup" service which is only for Windows and Mac computers, and is limited to their backup app which many people report having throttling and other issues, it is "unlimited" in the sense that it should only be used for a single computer, which is why they never support Linux on it, because they believe (probably correctly) that linux support would mean most people will install it to NAS devices and ruin the business model for everyone else
Historically that has been the case for all of the backup solutions that offered "unlimited" data for a fixed price monthly, I think BackBlaze is the only remaining vendor in the game that does
This is simply incorrect, organizations, people, and groups all lobby the government to include their pet line item as an exemption, deduction, or credit.
These are not "loop holes" and a CPA or tax lawyer having the knowledge to fully utilize all of them is not " legally avoid paying taxes" as those taxes where not owed in the first place.
In order to get to the point where paying the correct amount of taxes you owe by law is "using loophole to avoid taxes" one has to assume 100% of all income is belongs to the government and we are just figuring out how much the government is going to allow us to keep. I reject that
If it needs such a thing it is too complex and should be repealed
Neither of which should be federal programs. It has no business being at the federal level.
>>or freedom from religion.
It was not until the Civil War really the passage of the 14th amendment that the Bill of right even applied at the state level, that is why each state has their own Constitution.
In fact federal constitution implicitly did not bar States from supporting religion, the "separation" as it were was intended to only be for the federal government leaving each state to choose for themselves if they wanted to be secular or not (most did desire that anyway) however the federal government was to powerless to force a religion on any state, but also power less to prevent it.
the Civil War and 14th amendment forever upended the role of the federal government in State Affairs.
>>I'd be terrified if we had to relitigate the Bill of Rights
Hamilton as not in favor of the Bill of Rights[1], in fact has now be proven correct in his fears. he thought that the Bill of rights would become something it was never intended to be, that the people would view it as a complete list of rights the government as granted the people. A complete inversion of how the constitution is suppose to work. Often times the case law authorizing these new powers dive into the nuances of the "bill of rights" proving Hamilton correct when he said that men disposed to usurp power would use the Bill of Rights to expand government power beyond its authorized remit
For example since Article 1 Section 8 of the US Constitution does not grant the authority for the federal government to regulate Education then the government should have no power to create the Dept of Education yet they find all kinds of ways do things they are not actually empowered to do
>>.changed the method of election over the course of the past 200-odd years
yes for the worse, we have progress more to a centralized democracy with power consolidated into a single federal government. Moving away from the Republican form of government our founders established.
https://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/bill_of_r... [1] >> I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colourable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? -- Alexander Hamiton
One of the reasons firefox is dying is because they are chasing market share and not listening to the users at all.
They look at Edge, Chrome, etc and try to duplicate them hoping to peel off users.
They look everything under the sun but what the actual users of their actual product want... Us users they just ignore us.