Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This is the problem with socialism and communism...
It's a reference to the concept of "thinking outside the box", which is well-documented elsewhere.
With that as the basis, I parse this statement as meaning something like "The more of your tools for thinking about the world you get from inside the metaphorical box, the less capacity you have to understand ideas (including reality) from outside that box."
Where does that say that the only reasonable search is a search conducted with a warrant?
I don't see any such statement in the text of the Fourth Amendment, as you quoted it.
The text as given does seem to _assume_ that only a search conducted under a warrant will be considered reasonable (because without that assumption, sticking these two clauses together wouldn't seem to make much sense), but it doesn't seem to say it explicitly.
On such omissions of explicit statement are layers of intrusive precedent built.
The "well-regulated militia" clause is there for a reason, but in my assessment, that reason is not about limiting the right to bear arms to people who are members of such a militia.
My parsing of the Second Amendment into more modern language comes out as something like "because we need people to be experienced in using weapons so that they can be ready when they need to assemble into a militia for defense of the free state, and because we need to have weapons available for the militia to use and it's not practical to keep a stockpile ready all the time, the government may not restrict people from owning and using weapons".
If you look at it from a perspective that assumes that there is not and will not be any such thing as a standing army, and that therefore any military force will necessarily arise out of the civilian populace on demand, the whole thing makes a lot more sense IMO.
The damage of the election having been swung, if that happens. Which it hasn't yet, but "past performance is no indicator of future results"; just because we've been lucky thus far doesn't mean we should rely on continuing to be so.
This is the first time I've seen anyone claim that "selfie" is used to refer to anything other than "a photograph of one's self, taken with the camera built into a smartphone or similar portable computing device".
Any citations for the idea that it is also, in at least some cases, understood to include things that are not photographs?
Prior to the rise of Donald Trump, I had committed myself to voting third-party even if it meant the election of the Republican candidate (which it wouldn't, I'm in a heavy blue state).
In the primaries, I supported Bernie Sanders.
Donald Trump had managed the difficult feat of getting me to *look forward to* voting for Hillary Clinton.
After the last week or so, I'm no longer looking forward to that, but she's still by far the better choice than the catastrophe that would be a Trump presidency.
A Hillary Clinton presidency would almost certainly not be good. However, it would also almost certainly not be catastrophic; at worst, it would be some approximation of "more of the same".
A Trump presidency *might* do *some* good things, as part of a general sort of iconoclasm. It would also almost certainly do *many* *bad* things, to the point where I'm not sure we'd recognize our country afterwards.
My own guess is that in his mind, the logic is something like "I invented this program; this program is/was Email (because I named it that); therefore I clearly invented Email, and any claims otherwise fly in the face of the truth". With the fact that two things having the same name doesn't mean they're interchangeable or identical skipped over - i.e., not even entering his conscious mind - in the process.
>If this DMCA Contact is so damned important, why not just add it to the domain registration?
For one thing, because domain != Website. It's entirely possible to have many different sites, controlled (at least in terms of day-to-day publishing decisions, and most likely in terms of legal responsibility) by otherwise-unrelated people, hosted under the same domain.
It's true that most such services nowadays choose to implement the separate sites with URLs of the form 'site.domain.tld' rather than 'www.domain.tld/~site' or similar, but that doesn't erase the distinction; it just means it's less likely to be relevant in any given case.
Actually, no, this is wrong. To "toe the line" means to stand with your toes touching the designated straight line on the floor/ground, so that you are exactly in line with everyone else who is also toeing the same line. The form "toe the mark" has also been used.
The "tow the line" form represents a false etymology.
The suggestion I've seen floated is that we should pick the candidates for election to any given office randomly ("out of the phone book", as you say), let them campaign for a while as they will, then let the electorate vote on those candidates, with a "none of the above" option; if "none of the above" wins, or possibly if none of the options gets a (sufficient) majority, we discard that slate of candidates and repeat the process with a new random slate of candidates.
There's some difficulty trying to mesh that with offices where there's a good argument to be made that direct election leads to undesirable incentives on the part of the office-holder, and I don't have an immediate solution to suggest for that, but I did think the initial idea was interesting.
Don't feed the trolls, folks. Just hit Report/Flag and move on.
(And, yes, he's trolling, even if he is somehow sincere about his positions. The fact that he replies to *every* post criticizing his posting style (or very nearly so) with another post which doubles down on that posting style doesn't leave much room for any other possibility.)
In most cases, apparently the city already does own the poles. What the company owns is the equipment on the poles; what the companies are objecting to is people being allowed to move that equipment without their permission.
Looks like that doesn't actually get styled the same way, though. I want a blockquote to be styled indented, but otherwise unchanged, and prior to the introduction of markdown here (was that actually announced?), that's what I got.
With markdown, the '>' prefix on a line which that linked page indicates as being the way to mark a blockquote seems to get styled with italics - which not only doesn't do the "unchanged" part, but (presumably) stomps over any italics which may already be present.
Re: Re: Re: Re: No more head in the sand for the left?
"jumping the citizenship line in front of others going through the legal route"
That's a new one. They're not simply taking jobs, they're actually using illegal routes to citizenship? Please explain that one...
I think this is talking about the "come in illegally, then get citizenship under amnesty programs" path, in some of its many conceptual variants.
Not sure how common becoming a citizen that way is in reality, but it does fit with "jumping the line", in that a person who just waited in the legal-immigration queues instead of coming in illegally would presumably have been further back in the order of "who gets citizenship first?".
I _could_ see it being possible that this procedure would be necessary for some types of documents, given certain "wow, how far behind the times are they?" assumptions.
For example, if the request were for information which is used and accessed in the company only through an archaic system with a clunky, 1980s-or-earlier interface (think AS/400, or suchlike), it might indeed be possible that the only "output" mode that such a system has is to print to paper. (While developing a method to extract the information by other means would certainly be possible, it would also cost money, and that's the sort of thing that could justify either added fees or an "undue burden" claim.)
For the type of information the FOIA request involved here was actually seeking, however, it seems exceedingly unlikely that such a system would be involved at all.
I don't think Geller is misreading "permits" as "orders". I think she's using it in place of something like "empowers", and while she's wrong about the law and the consequences of her winning would be dreadful, I think her logic has some foundation to it. She still shouldn't be suing the DOJ, as such; I think what she should be doing, by the logic of her arguments, is suing to overturn Section 230 as being unconstitutional under the First Amendment.
I think the logic is something like this:
In the absence of Section 230, the platform would not be immune to lawsuit over actions taken in moderating user-posted content - e.g., disabling user accounts.
With Section 230 in place, the platform is immune to such lawsuit.
Thus, government intervention (in the form of enacting Section 230) is enabling the platform to shut down speech (by disabling accounts) with an impunity that would not have existed in the absence of that intervention.
Thus, the platform is functioning as a state actor in shutting down speech.
Thus, the law which provides them with the impunity which renders them a state actor in this context is in violation of the First Amendment.
...or something like that. The weak point of that logic is in the idea that the immunity provided by the law transforms the immunized entity into a state actor, and that idea is what would have to be argued and defended in court. The rest of the logic seems sound enough, however.
Not all paper ballots are punch-type ballots. The ones used in MD in the 2000 election involved the "feathers" of an arrow on the left, and the "head" on the right, and the way you marked the ballot was to draw a thick line (with a provided black marker) from the left to the right on the choice you wanted to vote for.
When the "hanging chads" recount problem in Florida started to hit the news after that year's election, I looked at the MD ballot and thought "they should have used this instead, it would have avoided the problem entirely".
Then of course MD switched over to electronic voting machines (with some kind of paper print-out, I think, although exactly how it's handled I don't know anymore), and abandoned that seemingly-superior paper-ballot design anyway...