|
Apparently it's possible to just upload an html file to that fcc domain https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/public-api-docs.html
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2017 03:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 02:30 |
|
|
AlmightyBob posted:https://twitter.com/h3apspray/status/903044975813771264 Note: You are filing a document into an official FCC proceeding. All information submitted, including names and addresses, will be publicly available via the web. You can file poo poo yourself w/ the FCC
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2017 03:16
|
|
|
AlmightyBob posted:Apparently it's possible to just upload an html file to that fcc domain But how long before we start getting FCC letterhead "jet fuel can't melt" memes? Or Bernie Would Have Won? And then how long before the extra freude from someone getting into some shiiiiiit for their upload? See below: KingSlime posted:now this is a feast
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2017 04:24
|
|
|
  
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2017 04:41
|
|
|
Solid loving post
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2017 05:05
|
|
|
theres a will theres moe posted:From the tech support thread I am a college professor and I would never ask a student to explain what medical condition they have that might make them miss class. Specifically because it's none of my business, and also because we have offices at the school that are dedicated to evaluating students' medical issues and disabilities, determining the accommodation they require, and telling me "so-and-so needs an extra week, everything is legit" or whatever. Total privacy. This sounds like either the professor asked for the details, which is an ethics code violation; or the student volunteered the information, which makes me ask why would you ever voluntarily tell your professor about bumps on your rear end in a top hat??
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2017 06:47
|
|
|
Probably didn't understand that they didn't have to. I can imagine someone thinking "If I don't tell him why, he won't believe me."
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2017 06:57
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:I am a college professor and I would never ask a student to explain what medical condition they have that might make them miss class. Specifically because it's none of my business, and also because we have offices at the school that are dedicated to evaluating students' medical issues and disabilities, determining the accommodation they require, and telling me "so-and-so needs an extra week, everything is legit" or whatever. Total privacy. And also sometimes you really don't want to know.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2017 07:20
|
|
|
Hello new thread title/corollary!
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2017 08:24
|
|
|
Gum posted:Oh yeah. Also the Conservatives launched their new youth movement I don't think it's actually approved by the Conservative Party. One of the organisers does nothing but talk poo poo about Conservative HQ but wants them to let the group affiliate with them. Even that Guido Fawkes guy - who's a real nasty piece of work - was making fun of them the other day.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2017 09:02
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:I am a college professor and I would never ask a student to explain what medical condition they have that might make them miss class. Specifically because it's none of my business, and also because we have offices at the school that are dedicated to evaluating students' medical issues and disabilities, determining the accommodation they require, and telling me "so-and-so needs an extra week, everything is legit" or whatever. Total privacy. Fellower lecturer here -- we have the same sorts of policies and procedures here for students, and yet they still send me emails detailing the minutiae of their ailments (colour, quantity, texture of output at either end, &c). I can't stop watching this one.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2017 10:46
|
|
|
Kittycats grumpily enduring water... :3
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2017 12:36
|
|
|
AlmightyBob posted:https://twitter.com/h3apspray/status/903044975813771264 yesssss that's the good stuff
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2017 13:03
|
|
|
hell, same
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2017 13:04
|
|
|
https://i.imgur.com/eyMaYJ7.mp4
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2017 13:22
|
|
|
Didn't even go for the pin after that. 2/10
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2017 13:31
|
|
|
I don't know if it will work but at least Arpaio's pardon itself is being challenged on constitutional grounds. https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2017/08/30/legal-challenge-to-arpaio-pardon-begins/ The idea is that "the president can’t use the pardon power to immunize lawless officials from consequences for violating people’s constitutional rights."
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2017 13:35
|
|
|
http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/video-surfaces-of-king-county-sheriffs-detective-pulling-gun-on-motorcyclist-hes-been-placed-on-leave/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YSNb6NPoCy0 The schadenfreude is on all of us that for blatant misconduct, this police officer will get some administrative leave (paid vacation) and then be reinstated with no repercussions. it's also on everyone in this thread who will now have to deal with a bunch of fuckwits saying things like the sheriff should have shot the guy or that he was justified in pulling a gun on someone for traffic offenses or some idiotic bullshit like that
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2017 13:36
|
|
|
Memento posted:http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle...laced-on-leave/  
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2017 13:43
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2017 13:45
|
|
|
Oh god the facial expressions
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2017 13:51
|
|
|
Data Graham posted:Oh god the facial expressions https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7yzBvHe4j9U
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2017 13:54
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2017 13:55
|
|
|
https://i.imgur.com/R1HJoFu.mp4
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2017 14:00
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2017 14:04
|
|
|
clearly 5 point palm poison oak technique
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2017 14:12
|
|
|
Whatever knows fear burns at the Man-Thing's touch!
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2017 14:17
|
|
|
WrenP-Complete posted:I don't know if it will work but at least Arpaio's pardon itself is being challenged on constitutional grounds. More lovely reporting. That's the reporter's idea, not the judge's idea or the court's idea. The oral arguments were requested by Arpaio's lawyers. There is absolutely nobody arguing the validity of the pardon before the court. Phanatic has a new favorite as of 14:41 on Aug 31, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2017 14:39
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:More lovely reporting. That's the reporter's idea, not the judge's idea or the court's idea. The oral arguments were requested by Arpaio's lawyers. There is absolutely nobody arguing the validity of the pardon before the court. I'm not a lawyer, so I'm very not sure about what's going on. It seems like this article is discussing something different/separate from the oral arguments/vacating. These other groups are asking for an injunction, not arguing before the court. It says they "sent a letter to Raymond N. Hulser and John Dixon Keller of the Public Integrity Section, Criminal Division of the Justice Department, arguing that the pardon goes beyond constitutional limits." Definitely please clarify, I'm not arguing, just trying to understand.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2017 14:45
|
|
|
WrenP-Complete posted:I'm not a lawyer, so I'm very not sure about what's going on. It seems like this article is discussing something different/separate from the oral arguments/vacating. These other groups are asking for an injunction, not arguing before the court. It says they "sent a letter to Raymond N. Hulser and John Dixon Keller of the Public Integrity Section, Criminal Division of the Justice Department, arguing that the pardon goes beyond constitutional limits." Okay. Here's what's going on inside the court, which is what matters here: Arpaio was given a court order by a Federal judge to stop doing some things. He did not stop doing some things. He was charged with contempt of court for violating that order, and he was prosecuted on that charge and found guilty of a Federal crime (401(3) USC 18, "Disobedience or resistance to its lawful writ, process, order, rule, decree, or command."). After he was found guilty, but before he was sentenced, Trump issued an executive grant of clemency in the case. At this point, Arpaio filed a motion to vacate the conviction, and all other orders in the case, and requested oral argument on the motion. So the court issued an order scheduling those oral arguments and giving the government a chance to respond. https://www.scribd.com/document/357623060/Joseph-Arpaio-Order-Vacating-Sentencing-Dates-and-Request-for-Briefing-8-29-2017 quote:"The Court has received notice from the Department of Justice, Office of the Pardon Attorney of the August 25, 2017 Pardon of the Defendant. The notice also attached a copy of the Full and Unconditional Pardon of Defendant. Defendant has also filed a Motion for Vacatur and Dismissal with Prejudice [Docket #220]. In the motion the Defendant asks that the Court rule promptly. The motion cannot be considered ex parte because it requests more than vacating the sentencing date and dismissal with prejudice. The Court cannot rule on the motion until the Government has had an opportunity to respond [to the Motion] and Defendant an opportunity to file a reply [to the Government's response]. Defendant also requested that the motion be set for argument... The criminal case is *over*. The judge has already issued an order canceling the sentencing aspect of the case. What's going on is that Arpaio is asking the courts for a thing, and the judge is giving the DoJ an opportunity to raise arguments against what Arpaio is asking for. Here's what's going on outside the court, which is everything else in that article: An activist group that is not a party to the case at all has written a letter to some organization in the Department of Justice that is also not a party to the case at all expressing its opinion of dislike about the pardon. This opinion, the letter, the sender, and the recipient, all have nothing whatsoever to do with the matter before the court and will not be involved in the outcome of it at all.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2017 15:05
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:The criminal case is *over*. The judge has already issued an order canceling the sentencing aspect of the case. What's going on is that Arpaio is asking the courts for a thing, and the judge is giving the DoJ an opportunity to raise arguments against what Arpaio is asking for. I thought the reason for Arpaio attempting to vacate the conviction is that it would keep the civil suits off him.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2017 15:34
|
|
|
DandyLion posted:I thought the reason for Arpaio attempting to vacate the conviction is that it would keep the civil suits off him. Why would it keep the civil suits off him?
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2017 15:43
|
|
|
If anything, shouldn't it make is easier to sue him? Accepting a pardon means admitting guilt, right?
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2017 16:05
|
|
|
Gorilla Salad posted:If anything, shouldn't it make is easier to sue him? It's not a particularly well-settled area, but the case that discusses it indicates that accepting the pardon is admissible as an implication of guilt. It's not a formal admission, or fully dispositive. It does, however, make civil cases way way easier if everything about getting it admitted goes accordingly.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2017 16:12
|
|
|
Does it matter if he admits guilt? He was already convicted.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2017 16:53
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:Why would it keep the civil suits off him? I thought if the conviction was vacated then the civil suits couldn't piggyback the assumptive guilt of those charges to levy financial remunerations, but would additionally have to make that case themselves again. Then again Perry Mason didn't teach me this exact situation, so I may be slightly off.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2017 17:48
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/ticki_/status/903272442839355392 https://twitter.com/ticki_/status/903277030736875520 I love this. I love this so much.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2017 17:56
|
|
|
He sounds like trump
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2017 18:04
|
|
|
Is that site owned by pewdiepie or whatever?
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2017 18:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 02:30 |
|
|
MisterBibs posted:https://twitter.com/ticki_/status/903272442839355392 
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2017 18:13
|
|
