Viewing profile — throwaway199956

Recent weeks frankly not a good show by US Judiciary. The series of Trump indictments all fizzling out, because judges didn't want to indict an on coming president. And on this par…

That is exactly what the government has not done all these years. Why be tight-lipped if there is solid evidence and data, its not some issue of nuclear weapons/military-strategy.

Did the supreme court examine government as to, if this was the only path available to achieve what it wanted? Was it established that existing provisions of law is not sufficient …

Of course if the app have done anything seriously illegal, it would not have been necessary to bring this law to ban it, because existing laws would have sufficed to do it. Perhaps…

Why only to the Congress, does not the American people have a right to know? Why be tight-lipped about it, certainly it's not some military or nuclear technology matter.

The question is if the new law was necessary, if there is case that to be made TikTok has violated other existing law, but government merely has to prove so? Was government trying …

Of course if the app have done anything seriously illegal it would not have been necessary to bring this law to ban it, because existing laws would have sufficed to do it. Perhaps …

Of course if the app have done anything seriously illegal it would not have been necessary to bring this law to ban it, because existing laws would have sufficed to do it. Perhaps …

Soviet Life Magazine for example was printed and sold in the US by the Soviet Embassy.

As far as first ammendment it does make no difference if it is print or voice or online service.

That is not the point of the First Ammendment, it is that Government cannot stop anyone from saying/printing/dissemination of content. So question if government has power to do so.…

What does intermediate scrutiny mean?

Like such cannot be enforced for example against foreign radio stations or print publications. Then how do court justify that it stands in the case of an app.

Are they banning any TV channels from hostile countries? RT, for example can be watched by Americans without restriction.

"Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech". First ammendment protections have no National security caveats.

But why didn't Supreme Court find the first ammendment arguments compelling? As per first ammendment it is legal and protected to print/distribute/disseminate even enemy propaganda…

But why didn't Supreme Court find the first ammendment arguments compelling? As per first ammendment it is legal and protected to print/distribute/disseminate even enemy propaganda…

But the comments largely doesn't add anything further interesting to the discussion. Its been mentioned and spoken about ad nauseam.

Some further updates: https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/cuba-power-grid-1.7356496 It appears power is being restored atleast in some parts. Also airports and flight operations seems no…

May be you should visit Haiti and see which is better.

It may not be verifiable, but is it possible to do some kind of macroeconomic analysis/modelling to estimate it?

What are the numbers for Haiti?

Interesting that its mostly image/ video processing, which isn't a 'traditional' guidance/control approach.

For continuous probability distributions, the pmf(x) has value of 0 for all real x, as per the text books.