> 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
Yep. I know of a both a private company and a police department in my area that require applicants to log in to their Facebook accounts during the interview and then step away from the computer while they peruse your account.
If you tell them you don't have a Facebook account, they assume that you deleted it in anticipation of the interview so that they wouldn't find anything negative about you. (Or that you're not socialized properly for the modern era, i.e., weird.)
> Unfortunately, the court is limited to what it can do in response to > the DOJ's misconduct.
Not as limited as you imply. The court could hold the lawyers in contempt, make them serve some time in jail and fine them personally for their dishonesty, and it could refer them all to their various bar associations for disciplinary action, to include disbarment.
The fact that court chose to do none of this in favor of some in-service ethics classes, which the attendees will spending either sleeping through or playing on their smart-phones, indicates the court didn't actually find outright lying by the government to be very troubling at all.
This article is very messily written, which makes figuring out the facts difficult.
First, there's the inclusion of ridiculous hyperbole, which seems to be a requirement for all media these days:
"...an attempt to disguise the true purpose of the cameras mounted up front, which are high-powered automatic license plate readers."
So what exactly is the difference between a high-powered LPR and a low- or medium-powered LPR? What function does "high-powered" serve here other than to increase the drama factor of the article?
Then we're told this:
"Blaze also spotted a Pennsylvania State Police parking placard on the dash."
"The city's fleet manager denied the vehicle belonged to the State Police."
If the placard said state police, why would you go to the *city*'s fleet manager to track it down. Wouldn't you make inquiries with the state?
And in the end, it turns out that the vehicle was a city vehicle after all, which makes the initial claim that it had a state police placard on the dash suspect.
Then there are the assumptions the author makes that are unwarranted. In criticizing the attempt to disguise an SUV, we get this:
"Google tends to use vehicles with lower profiles, better gas mileage, and very distinctive branding/camera setups. Anyone stupid enough to believe a hulking SUV with a city parking permit was a Google Maps vehicle..."
Here a clue to the author: not everyone is as immersed in the tech world as you are and don't know (or care) what kind of vehicles Google uses, so an average Joe or Jane who sees an SUV on street with a Google logo on the side is not "stupid" for not realizing that's not the type of vehicle Google employs.