> It's easy for some people to just say "Well, don't use Facebook," but for many > people that's not really an option these days. You may have that luxury, but > many people do not. Facebook has become a key way to stay in touch with > family.
I can't imagine how horrifying it must be to wake up one day and find out that doing without Facebook simply isn't an option anymore. I mean, seriously. That would be depressing on a level I can't comprehend.
Also, I wonder how families stayed in touch with one another in the pre-Zuckerberg Epoch? What dark, hellish times those must have been.
Then it's the job of the other journalists after the debate to highlight the lies and provide the truth.
The moderator is just the moderator, not a journalist. Even if he/she is a journalist in their day job, when they're acting as a moderator, they're not journalists. They are two entirely different jobs.
Masnick light-bulbed this like that was his point all along, but he wasn't only talking about Lauer's show in the article. He brought up Matthews' and Wallace's comments regarding the proper role of a moderator at a debate, to which Masnick responded:
"If that's what they think, then they should all find new jobs. Because they're not journalists."
Therefore, it's perfectly appropriate to address the larger point of what a moderator should and shouldn't be doing at debates even if this most recent show with Lauer wasn't a debate. And David was absolutely right. The role of the moderator is to ask the questions and play referee, keeping each candidate to their allotted time, etc. Not to fact-check the answers and call out lies.
> If that's what they think, then they should all find new jobs. Because > they're not journalists.
But when they're moderating a debate, they're not acting as journalists. Wallace is right-- a debate moderator's job is not to be a truth squad. The job of the moderator is to ask the questions and make sure the candidates follow the rules--, i.e., stick to the time allotted, respond only when allowed, etc.
Wallace is also right when he said that it's each candidate's job to expose their opponent's lies, not the moderator's.
"The North Las Vegas Code of Ordinances 12.16.060 reads "No male person over the age of right years shall occupy... any park which shall be reserved and designated for the use of parents and children only."
Seems like that ordinance has some Equal Protection problems. Singling out just males from exclusion from such areas is problematic. The gov's justification for the law is likely child safety, however, lone females without children can be just as dangerous to the welfare of the kids in the park as a man-- a homeless, schizophrenic woman, for example-- yet they aren't banned.
And eight years old? Really? Like a 10-year-old boy in a children's park using the swings or the monkey bars is something that needs to be prevented?
> they developed a game where players could place 'objects' > in other peoples private property, without permission
Niantic is not actually placing anything on private property. They're putting graphics on a map of the city, which is not owned by anyone. There's not actually any trespass by the game-makers onto private property, nor are any tangible objects being left there.
> Or the time he sued a bunch of night clubs for violating > the 14th Amendment by having "Ladies' Nights." Or the > time he sued Columbia University for offering women's > studies courses. Or the time he wanted to file a lawsuit > to force women to register for the draft.
His suit against the media over Trump coverage is deluded, as was his suit against Columbia, claiming feminism classes are a religion and therefore unconstitutional.
However, he's got a point when it comes to some of his other legal gripes. This guy is a kook, but even a kook makes a good point every now and then.
Why should a night club be allowed to discriminate on the basis of gender by having "ladies nights" and charging men more than women? We don't put up with that kind of discrimination by businesses in any other context. Why here? If the same night club started hosting "white people nights" where whites got in free and everyone else had to pay, they'd be shut down and sued into oblivion instantly. What's the legal argument that discriminating on the basis of gender-- in contravention of state and federal laws that prohibit it-- is okay if it's a night club trying to lure in female customers?
And he's also right about the draft. Even when women were banned from combat roles, there was still plenty to do in the military that didn't involve combat. Remember Rosie the Riveter? And the military always needs administrative personnel to organize and file the mountains of paperwork it generates. (And now that the Department of Defense has opened up combat positions to women, even that weak argument for exemption goes out the window.)
If we've reached a point of national crisis where we're forcing men against their will into the army to fight a war, then women can and should do their part as well. They enjoy the privileges and benefits that citizenship in this country bestows. They have an equal responsibility to help preserve it when necessary. There's no reason why they should be exempt from the draft or registration for it.
> PS: thanks to the fucking idiots who paid money to see > the latest Star Wars and Marvel movies, in less than 5 > years, we're going to see how those billions are spent > when copyright law comes up for renewed extensions.
Huh? I shouldn't go to movies I enjoy because you're worried copyright law will get renewed in a decade or so?
> Now, to be clear, a verbal agreement is just as binding under the law as a > written down contract
That's not completely true. Under the Statute of Frauds, which has been incorporated into the Uniform Commercial Code, certain contracts *must* be in writing in order to be enforceable. Two examples: any contract for more than $500, and any contract involving the sale or transfer of real property.
The exact same thing happened to me, except the teenagers that banged on my door asking to be let into my backyard to catch their critter did at 01:15 in the morning, waking me up out of a deep sleep. A couple of days later, I found a couple of kids climbing my fence. They didn't even bother to knock and ask.
Difference between me and this New Jersey guy is that I don't blame the game makers. I blame the little shits whose parents didn't raise them well enough to know how to behave better.
> a strict "right to an explanation" seems like it may > actually create limits on machine learning and AI in > Europe -- potentially hamstringing projects by requiring > them to be limited to levels of human understanding