"The whole point about the US Bill Of Rights is that it was intended as a limitation on FEDERAL power, vs the States, and the second amendment therefore existed within the context of such State led, managed and regulated militias being something the FEDERAL government should have no power or influence over."
yeah... no.
US Constitution, Article 1, clause 8 "The Congress shall have Power.. ...To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;"
If you go through the late 18th and early 19th century litigation ont he topic, you'll see that the entire point of the militia was federal.
In fact the first use of the militia, just months after the 2ndA was passed, was a federal use under General St Clair. It was a disaster, and led to the first congressional investigation into Washington. He in response appointed the first secretary of War, then held the first ever Cabinet meeting, before holding off the congressional investigation by asserting the then-unknown 'executive priviledge'.
The response then was to basically abandon the whole idea of the 2nd Amendment, and reinstate the idea of a military (the army, navy and marines had been disbanded in 1783, except for a single regiment on the northwest frontier to act as a militia core, and a single battery of artillery troops to guard West Point armory (and presumably, instruct militiamen how to use the stuff when needed). That was followed by the establishment of the US Navy in 1894, and the US Marines in July 1798 (yeah, all those that celebrated the Marines birthday on Saturday, that was the completely unrelated Continental Marines birthday, it's a PR lie, much like 'the shores of tripoli' in the hymn, when they never went closer than Dasha, as far from the shores of Tripoli as Columbia SC is from Washington's crossing of the Delaware)
And the use of the 14th to apply the 2nd to the states, happened in the mid 19th century when it passed, not 2010.
Facts, they're lovely. Try em. You can have these for instance, I have lots more!
well, it might have something to do with him being a much higher target for attack than, say, your worthless self.
I mean who wants to target and attack a worthless anonymous coward, compared to the Governor of NY. It's all about profile, and you're too scared to log into yours.
Coincidentally, even cabinet officials generally wander around without much security in countries like the UK, probably because with a lack of guns, the most they'll be targeted with is an egg or two.
Tell you what though, with your piss-poor approach to risk assessment, I hope you don't have a gun (or are you an example of current NRA training - 'everyone's out to get me' coupled with 'my opponents are cowards'?)
you don't see it, because your baseline of 'normal' is different from that elsewhere.
Me and AC were in the original, the one that had the founding traditions set, and kept at that. you're in an offshoot, that kinda went its own way and has its own setup.
naturally, you think that the normal is ok, and its only the extremists that make you look bad, when I'm telling you, what you consider 'normal', are what we in the original already considered 'coming with a pomposity badge', and it's not even well earned, as most are somewhat behind other countries in their skills and abilities.
Masnik: Here's one Posner: I'm not dead! MORTICIAN: What? Masnik: Nothing -- here's your nine pence. Posner: I'm not dead! MORTICIAN: Here -- he says he's not dead! Masnik: Yes, he is. Posner: I'm not! Posner: He isn't. Masnik: Well, he will be soon, he's very ill. Posner: I'm getting better! Masnik: No, you're not -- you'll be stone dead in a moment. MORTICIAN: Oh, I can't take him like that -- it's against regulations. Posner: I don't want to go in the cart! Masnik: Oh, don't be such a baby. Posner: I can't take him... DEAD PERSON: I feel fine! Masnik: Oh, do us a favor... Posner: I can't. Masnik: Well, can you hang around a couple of minutes? He won't be long. Posner: Naaah, I got to go on to Prenda -- they've lost nine today. Masnik: Well, when is your next round? MORTICIAN: Thursday. Posner: I think I'll go for a walk. Masnik: You're not fooling anyone y'know. Look, isn't there something you can do? Posner: I feel happy... I feel happy. [whop] Masnik: Ah, thanks very much. MORTICIAN: Not at all. See you on Thursday.
Aren't the girl scouts just a front for Wilford Brimley's diabetus supply company? You buy those samosas until it's too late, then his moustache has you by the blood-sugar tester.
i basically grew up around scoutign (the proper scouting, not the religious fundamentalist circle-jerk that is the US scouting) all my life. I met the chief scout when I was 9, and 11, and 13. My summer holidays most years were the family campout that the scout troop my dad ran (well, he ran the group, his best friend was the group treasurer, his other best friend was the scout leader, his wife was the cub leader, her best friend was the assistant cub leader, and her husband was the beaver leader. Later my dad started dating the assistant commissioner - and good friend, also our barber -'s ex wife, who was a scout leader for a neighbouring troop, and ended up marrying the cub leader from another pack in the district. Even today, 15 years after I left the UK, I still find old CD copies of P-O-R - the basic rulebook for running a group - in various old boxes/bags. I know scouting...)
US scouting was deemed a backwards group. one where the focus was on looking good and pious, and not on the ideals of Lord Baden Powell. Even now, I live near one of the biggest scout campsites/bases in the US, and I find them.. a bit vapid. I spent a few hours assisting a friend the other day supervising some 8th and 9th graders (he's the equipment manager for the marching band, as well as chair of the county board of education, while I assist with everything with the band, from first aid to loading, fixing instruments, and anything technological) and they were discussing 'eagle scout projects', where it was seen more as a chore to be done, than anything else, just something you go through the motions on to put on a college transcript.
putting all that aside for now, the scout movement was started by Lord Robert Baden Powell. You know what his wife did? Started the Girl Guides. They're partner organisations. Except in the US, where it seems they're in competition. And I have to say, that these days, the Girl Scouts seem to be less a scouting organisation, and more a cookie-sales apprenticeship scheme.
The US orgs have gotten too full of their own self-import, and are completely up their own woggle. both of them are so desperate to try and keep to the puritan ways of their foundings (remember, the GSA was started by a high class-lady from Savannah in 1912, looking for something for the bored girl-childs of the well-to-do of the area to do.
Or to put it another way, I may have a wood badge (a proper one, not that american knockoff) but my kids never joined the scouts (boys or girls) - instead we ended up forming a navigators (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navigators_USA) group int he city, because in 2015, the BSA was more regressive than the UK Scouting Association was in 1980.
If you've reached this part, congrats, have a BSA merit badge. I get quite ranty sometimes. I'll probably post some pithy comments in another post to try for funniest comment of the week to counteract this.
When you're searching for an evaluation on public involvement, removing those that take only a few clicks and have a significantly non-zero chance of being fraudulent or otherwise non-representative is a good way to remove the flotsam.
those that have anything other than the most minor of interests in the topic one way or another would be motivated to do more than just click a half dozen buttons. So call it a minimum barrier to activity.
If there was strong opposition, it'd show in a lot of opposing comments (which there were) while strong support would show in strong supporting comments. Additionally, by focusing on the non-form comments, you can then see what the general understanding of the topic is. In this case, from reading a few thousand, the majority seemed to be fairly well informed on both the generality and the overall specifics on the case at issue. This was not the case for a lot of the form submissions, especially the ones against which often veered into lunacy and irrelevancy.
In short, eliminating the minimum effort responses (and yes, they also excluded the high-end comments, by experts on the topic, see my comment above) is not only scientifically valid, it also gives a statistically better overview of general public sentiment and the depth of knowledge behind that.
easy enough to tell. did you include your address/zip or just state?
at the end is links to the datafiles by congressional district and state. Look up the appropriate file, then search for your name, or hometown or something unique to your comments, and see if it's there.
parts of the requirements for rulemaking is that the rules are based on evidence and fact. These rules weren't.
In fact they made almost identical arguments that were made in 05 for the LAST time they took ISPs from Title 2 to Title 1. And those claims were proven invalid by 10 years of title 1 activities.
Now you could claim exemption to that based on 'public interest', and thats where the content of the comments comes in - the comments were overwhelmingly in favor of the rules, thus that's what the public interest is.
"If it was an attached file, it wasn't included in the comments that were analyzed. That's an advanced method usually used by groups / companies. Sorry to have missed yours"
so, not a biggie, it was what I thought it would be.
and my comment response (where I dismantle the claims of the 3 biggest form submissions, which is what a comment-response is for, commenting on other comments) https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1083022614992 (22 pages)
That was the second time they'd used that plot, the first was two seasons earlier in Booby Trap, where it was the A plot (whereas it was the B-plot in hero worship) (http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/Booby_Trap_(episode)).
1st hand - we agree protection is needed in this instance (i've had it happen myself)
3rd hand - this is basically the same as the first, although most don't realise it. there's all kinds of crazies out there that can take umbridge (or worse, infatuation) with someone.
the 2nd hand is completely different, as in not even relevant. I've an IoT fridge, it's spewing shit online. Well, it's using my home connection, rather than my personal domain. doesn't matter what is or isn't in my WHOIS, because the two are unrelated. The reverse lookup for my IP is of use, because that tells you my ISP, and MAYBE you can contact them with the info, and the ISP can forward it on to the customer, but it's nothing to do with domains, ICANN and WHOIS'.
Well, Usually/originally it's K'Tetch. However, a lot of software (IRC servers, for instance) take K'Tetch and turn it into just K. so it's become more normal to use ` as it's accepted as an actual characterrather than punctuation, and it's become habit to use it. I guess you could call it a typographic trick.
also, while I'm a robotic engineer, I'm FAR from a programmer, I've not coded in almost 20 years (since University) }}}:-{>
I covered this topic at length with Nominet (.uk domain admin) 4 years ago.
They suddenly changed their WHOIS policy, saying they're now going to check all WHOIS details through government databases, and suspend all those who weren't accurate.
In short, they wanted to suddenly collect a bunch of data, and then use government databases to verify, and remove anyone that didn't adhere to those databases. My domain (ktetch.co.uk) was under my working professional name (K`Tetch Dureek) which is perfectly legal under UK law (pseudonyms are perfectly legal for use if the aim is not to obscure or hide the identity of the person, and there's no such thing as a 'legal name' in the UK). I objected to the requirement, and then they decided that the content of my site was not 'personal' enough. See, Nominet had free domain privacy for personal domains, but prohibited it for commercial ones. Commercial accounts according to them were any with any sort of commercial activity - including google ad banners, a link to my book on Amazon, or an email subscription signup) - or 'too many links to commercial sites', which would be any site as a business, including wikipedia, techdirt, Google, etc.
Their argument was just as yours was, that 'people need to know who they're doing business with'. Thing is, no-one's doing business with me on anything. They're doing it with other companies acting on my behalf, or they're not doing any business at all.
I appealed, got nothing, they made my address public, even while I was appealing to their director, and then to the ICO. I had to VERY quickly go out and get a PO box, and change the address.
Then the story hit the Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jun/11/nominet-new-rules-uk-domain-end-privacy), and Jimmy Wales started sending them angry tweets, and all of a sudden they decided my site was private, and NOT a commercial site.
Thing is, I've been targeted in the past. I've been doxxed by Jeremy Hammond and his supporters, and I've had a few Assange supporters threaten me now for exposing his... plot holes. Keeping my address private is important. I moved within a month, which is lucky because 5 months later some Anon's tried using WHOIS info to harass me (luckily, they were dumb, and went for ktech.co.uk and not ktetch.co.uk) but you could find that address cached at the time if you looked.
This isn't the world of 30 years ago. was was the 'domain' [heh] of a rarefied few then, is now normal for many, and the malicious uses for that info are now widespread.
gawker was less about the law, and more about a vindictive judge, requiring satisfaction of a judgement, before appeal. A judge that had already had multiple decisions in the case overturned on appeal during the case.
Odds are, had she not imposed that burdensome restriction, on appeal it would have been overturned.
On the post: Judge Lets NRA's 1st Amendment Lawsuit Against Andrew Cuomo Move Forward
Re: Note:
yeah... no.
US Constitution, Article 1, clause 8
"The Congress shall have Power..
...To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;"
If you go through the late 18th and early 19th century litigation ont he topic, you'll see that the entire point of the militia was federal.
In fact the first use of the militia, just months after the 2ndA was passed, was a federal use under General St Clair. It was a disaster, and led to the first congressional investigation into Washington. He in response appointed the first secretary of War, then held the first ever Cabinet meeting, before holding off the congressional investigation by asserting the then-unknown 'executive priviledge'.
The response then was to basically abandon the whole idea of the 2nd Amendment, and reinstate the idea of a military (the army, navy and marines had been disbanded in 1783, except for a single regiment on the northwest frontier to act as a militia core, and a single battery of artillery troops to guard West Point armory (and presumably, instruct militiamen how to use the stuff when needed). That was followed by the establishment of the US Navy in 1894, and the US Marines in July 1798 (yeah, all those that celebrated the Marines birthday on Saturday, that was the completely unrelated Continental Marines birthday, it's a PR lie, much like 'the shores of tripoli' in the hymn, when they never went closer than Dasha, as far from the shores of Tripoli as Columbia SC is from Washington's crossing of the Delaware)
And the use of the 14th to apply the 2nd to the states, happened in the mid 19th century when it passed, not 2010.
Facts, they're lovely. Try em. You can have these for instance, I have lots more!
On the post: Judge Lets NRA's 1st Amendment Lawsuit Against Andrew Cuomo Move Forward
Re: Re: Re: Delusional
I mean who wants to target and attack a worthless anonymous coward, compared to the Governor of NY. It's all about profile, and you're too scared to log into yours.
Coincidentally, even cabinet officials generally wander around without much security in countries like the UK, probably because with a lack of guns, the most they'll be targeted with is an egg or two.
Tell you what though, with your piss-poor approach to risk assessment, I hope you don't have a gun (or are you an example of current NRA training - 'everyone's out to get me' coupled with 'my opponents are cowards'?)
On the post: The Girl Scouts Sues The Boy Scouts Over Trademark
Re: Re: Re: Fun history
Me and AC were in the original, the one that had the founding traditions set, and kept at that. you're in an offshoot, that kinda went its own way and has its own setup.
naturally, you think that the normal is ok, and its only the extremists that make you look bad, when I'm telling you, what you consider 'normal', are what we in the original already considered 'coming with a pomposity badge', and it's not even well earned, as most are somewhat behind other countries in their skills and abilities.
On the post: The Girl Scouts Sues The Boy Scouts Over Trademark
Re: Re: Fun history
On the post: Judge Lets NRA's 1st Amendment Lawsuit Against Andrew Cuomo Move Forward
Re: "Late" Judge Posner?
Posner: I'm not dead!
MORTICIAN: What?
Masnik: Nothing -- here's your nine pence.
Posner: I'm not dead!
MORTICIAN: Here -- he says he's not dead!
Masnik: Yes, he is.
Posner: I'm not!
Posner: He isn't.
Masnik: Well, he will be soon, he's very ill.
Posner: I'm getting better!
Masnik: No, you're not -- you'll be stone dead in a moment.
MORTICIAN: Oh, I can't take him like that -- it's against regulations.
Posner: I don't want to go in the cart!
Masnik: Oh, don't be such a baby.
Posner: I can't take him...
DEAD PERSON: I feel fine!
Masnik: Oh, do us a favor...
Posner: I can't.
Masnik: Well, can you hang around a couple of minutes? He won't be long.
Posner: Naaah, I got to go on to Prenda -- they've lost nine today.
Masnik: Well, when is your next round?
MORTICIAN: Thursday.
Posner: I think I'll go for a walk.
Masnik: You're not fooling anyone y'know. Look, isn't there something you can do?
Posner: I feel happy... I feel happy.
[whop]
Masnik: Ah, thanks very much.
MORTICIAN: Not at all. See you on Thursday.
On the post: The Girl Scouts Sues The Boy Scouts Over Trademark
On the post: The Girl Scouts Sues The Boy Scouts Over Trademark
Re: Just a bit of history
or as it was always called when we spotted one in the UK - "the self-importance badge"
On the post: The Girl Scouts Sues The Boy Scouts Over Trademark
Fun history
I met the chief scout when I was 9, and 11, and 13. My summer holidays most years were the family campout that the scout troop my dad ran (well, he ran the group, his best friend was the group treasurer, his other best friend was the scout leader, his wife was the cub leader, her best friend was the assistant cub leader, and her husband was the beaver leader. Later my dad started dating the assistant commissioner - and good friend, also our barber -'s ex wife, who was a scout leader for a neighbouring troop, and ended up marrying the cub leader from another pack in the district. Even today, 15 years after I left the UK, I still find old CD copies of P-O-R - the basic rulebook for running a group - in various old boxes/bags. I know scouting...)
US scouting was deemed a backwards group. one where the focus was on looking good and pious, and not on the ideals of Lord Baden Powell. Even now, I live near one of the biggest scout campsites/bases in the US, and I find them.. a bit vapid. I spent a few hours assisting a friend the other day supervising some 8th and 9th graders (he's the equipment manager for the marching band, as well as chair of the county board of education, while I assist with everything with the band, from first aid to loading, fixing instruments, and anything technological) and they were discussing 'eagle scout projects', where it was seen more as a chore to be done, than anything else, just something you go through the motions on to put on a college transcript.
putting all that aside for now, the scout movement was started by Lord Robert Baden Powell. You know what his wife did? Started the Girl Guides. They're partner organisations. Except in the US, where it seems they're in competition. And I have to say, that these days, the Girl Scouts seem to be less a scouting organisation, and more a cookie-sales apprenticeship scheme.
The US orgs have gotten too full of their own self-import, and are completely up their own woggle. both of them are so desperate to try and keep to the puritan ways of their foundings (remember, the GSA was started by a high class-lady from Savannah in 1912, looking for something for the bored girl-childs of the well-to-do of the area to do.
Or to put it another way, I may have a wood badge (a proper one, not that american knockoff) but my kids never joined the scouts (boys or girls) - instead we ended up forming a navigators (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navigators_USA) group int he city, because in 2015, the BSA was more regressive than the UK Scouting Association was in 1980.
If you've reached this part, congrats, have a BSA merit badge. I get quite ranty sometimes. I'll probably post some pithy comments in another post to try for funniest comment of the week to counteract this.
On the post: 99.7% Of Original Comments Opposed FCC Repeal Of Net Neutrality
Re:
those that have anything other than the most minor of interests in the topic one way or another would be motivated to do more than just click a half dozen buttons. So call it a minimum barrier to activity.
If there was strong opposition, it'd show in a lot of opposing comments (which there were) while strong support would show in strong supporting comments. Additionally, by focusing on the non-form comments, you can then see what the general understanding of the topic is. In this case, from reading a few thousand, the majority seemed to be fairly well informed on both the generality and the overall specifics on the case at issue. This was not the case for a lot of the form submissions, especially the ones against which often veered into lunacy and irrelevancy.
In short, eliminating the minimum effort responses (and yes, they also excluded the high-end comments, by experts on the topic, see my comment above) is not only scientifically valid, it also gives a statistically better overview of general public sentiment and the depth of knowledge behind that.
On the post: 99.7% Of Original Comments Opposed FCC Repeal Of Net Neutrality
Re: But what if...
did you include your address/zip or just state?
at the end is links to the datafiles by congressional district and state.
Look up the appropriate file, then search for your name, or hometown or something unique to your comments, and see if it's there.
On the post: 99.7% Of Original Comments Opposed FCC Repeal Of Net Neutrality
Re: This is irrelevant
These rules weren't.
In fact they made almost identical arguments that were made in 05 for the LAST time they took ISPs from Title 2 to Title 1.
And those claims were proven invalid by 10 years of title 1 activities.
Now you could claim exemption to that based on 'public interest', and thats where the content of the comments comes in - the comments were overwhelmingly in favor of the rules, thus that's what the public interest is.
On the post: 99.7% Of Original Comments Opposed FCC Repeal Of Net Neutrality
Re:
"If it was an attached file, it wasn't included in the comments that were analyzed. That's an advanced method usually used by groups / companies. Sorry to have missed yours"
so, not a biggie, it was what I thought it would be.
And for anyone interested, here's my comment https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10718674924132 (30 pages)
and my comment response (where I dismantle the claims of the 3 biggest form submissions, which is what a comment-response is for, commenting on other comments)
https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1083022614992 (22 pages)
On the post: 99.7% Of Original Comments Opposed FCC Repeal Of Net Neutrality
Neither one of mine are there.
Pretty sure they're not form letters, since they're 25+pages each. So, wonder why they weren't included.
On the post: After Fielding Third Case On Point, Court Finally Decides Curtilage-Violating 'Knock And Talks' Are Clearly Unconstitutional
clearly settled law
Sure they can. It's called 'the 4th amendment', and I'm pretty sure it's been long settled (like 200+ years long settled)
I think what they mean is 'they can't overcome their burden of showing why law enforcement should have been aware that the 4th Amendment exists"
I mean, when you get down to it, isn't that what they're saying?
On the post: Wherein Jean Luc Picard Learns How Not To Moderate Twitter
On the post: Bruce Lee's Estate Gets Stiff Roundhouse Kick After Trying To Block Theater Company's Trademark
On the post: ICANN Loses Yet Again In Its Quixotic Quest To Obtain A Special Exemption From The EU's GDPR
Re: Solutions to anonymity...
3rd hand - this is basically the same as the first, although most don't realise it. there's all kinds of crazies out there that can take umbridge (or worse, infatuation) with someone.
the 2nd hand is completely different, as in not even relevant. I've an IoT fridge, it's spewing shit online. Well, it's using my home connection, rather than my personal domain. doesn't matter what is or isn't in my WHOIS, because the two are unrelated. The reverse lookup for my IP is of use, because that tells you my ISP, and MAYBE you can contact them with the info, and the ISP can forward it on to the customer, but it's nothing to do with domains, ICANN and WHOIS'.
On the post: ICANN Loses Yet Again In Its Quixotic Quest To Obtain A Special Exemption From The EU's GDPR
Re: Re: Re:
However, a lot of software (IRC servers, for instance) take K'Tetch and turn it into just K.
so it's become more normal to use ` as it's accepted as an actual characterrather than punctuation, and it's become habit to use it. I guess you could call it a typographic trick.
also, while I'm a robotic engineer, I'm FAR from a programmer, I've not coded in almost 20 years (since University) }}}:-{>
On the post: ICANN Loses Yet Again In Its Quixotic Quest To Obtain A Special Exemption From The EU's GDPR
Re:
I covered this topic at length with Nominet (.uk domain admin) 4 years ago.
They suddenly changed their WHOIS policy, saying they're now going to check all WHOIS details through government databases, and suspend all those who weren't accurate.
In short, they wanted to suddenly collect a bunch of data, and then use government databases to verify, and remove anyone that didn't adhere to those databases.
My domain (ktetch.co.uk) was under my working professional name (K`Tetch Dureek) which is perfectly legal under UK law (pseudonyms are perfectly legal for use if the aim is not to obscure or hide the identity of the person, and there's no such thing as a 'legal name' in the UK). I objected to the requirement, and then they decided that the content of my site was not 'personal' enough.
See, Nominet had free domain privacy for personal domains, but prohibited it for commercial ones. Commercial accounts according to them were any with any sort of commercial activity - including google ad banners, a link to my book on Amazon, or an email subscription signup) - or 'too many links to commercial sites', which would be any site as a business, including wikipedia, techdirt, Google, etc.
Their argument was just as yours was, that 'people need to know who they're doing business with'. Thing is, no-one's doing business with me on anything. They're doing it with other companies acting on my behalf, or they're not doing any business at all.
I appealed, got nothing, they made my address public, even while I was appealing to their director, and then to the ICO. I had to VERY quickly go out and get a PO box, and change the address.
Then the story hit the Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jun/11/nominet-new-rules-uk-domain-end-privacy), and Jimmy Wales started sending them angry tweets, and all of a sudden they decided my site was private, and NOT a commercial site.
Thing is, I've been targeted in the past. I've been doxxed by Jeremy Hammond and his supporters, and I've had a few Assange supporters threaten me now for exposing his... plot holes. Keeping my address private is important. I moved within a month, which is lucky because 5 months later some Anon's tried using WHOIS info to harass me (luckily, they were dumb, and went for ktech.co.uk and not ktetch.co.uk) but you could find that address cached at the time if you looked.
This isn't the world of 30 years ago. was was the 'domain' [heh] of a rarefied few then, is now normal for many, and the malicious uses for that info are now widespread.
On the post: Court Says Comey And Other DOJ Officials Must Answer BuzzFeed's Questions About The Steele Dossier
Re: Yeah, this is what GAWKER thought too!
Odds are, had she not imposed that burdensome restriction, on appeal it would have been overturned.
Next >>