"President Trump recently ordered a ban on travel from six Muslim-majority countries, but Afghanistan was not included on the list."
But we are going to mention it in order to stir up shit.
I can't wait for someone from Canada to be denied entry for whatever reason and then some stupid fucker mention the Ban while explaining that Canada wasn't part of it.
Email addresses have almost become the equivalent of a physical address. All your bills can come to it,all your correspondence, almost every business asks for it, some even require it. This has been encouraged by internet providers in a sense (they'll want your email address too). I wouldn't be surprised t learn that there is significance legally in contracts and other agreements.
So now you have people who have setup much of their life around an email address in pretty much the same way they've done with their physical address and it has become an integral part of their life and business.
Forcing a user to relinquish an address for whatever reason is kind of like a city renaming your street or changing your house number. I wonder what that does to legal devices such as mortgages, etc. Is mail still delivered or does it come back as invalid address? How long does it take for the address change to percolate it's way through the system? Will SWAT show up at the wrong house (again)? Will emergency services not find your place?
Just wait...people who are attracted to "sex robots" will be classified as yet another sexual orientation and will insist on marrying them, parading them around in public, and demand that the robot maintenance be included in their health benefits.
The question was never should they, but by how much.
As usual, regulations like these are mere Trojan Horses. By setting limits to unreasonably low levels, production could be made too expensive or even brought to a halt. That's the kind of lever it is. A Democrat Administration would undoubtedly be able to use this in the same way Obama used regulations on coal to essentially kill the industry, as he promised.
At my employer...a VERY large Defense company, they had pushed out EMET.
It promptly broke almost all of our Java application (Kills the virtual machine). The third party desktop support people are authorized to disable or remove it.
Some would call it a well founded and empirically supported fear.
And the frequency is irrelevant. When it was found that Tylenol bottles were poisoned, literally billions of tablets were recalled. But only a few bottles were ever found.
An EO is not a crime. Hate Criems are mentioned to illustrate a parallel logic of Hate Crimes
In all examples of a Hate Crime, it is all circumstances, a crime. The Intent merely mitigates the punishment. It does not turn a crime into a non-crime.
While this may seem laudable, it seem to essentially a form of double jeopardy.
You commit a crime. You are prosecuted under a local ordnance, then you are prosecuted under a state law, then you are prosecuted under a federal law. What's next? Hauled before the Hague?
That puts you in a situation where if the intent is undiscovered, then something that is presumably Unconstitutional would be found Constitutional.
To me this smacks of the logic used in Hate Crimes. Someone who is killed by reason of some prohibited "hate" is just as dead as someone killed for hate that is not "prohibited".
I believe the legislation/orders should stand on their own.
The only other possible scheme would be "disparate impact". I have problems with that in general, but with respect to a travel ban, then any ban that affects any country that has any overwhelming majority of a demographic could be found to have a disparate impact.
For instance, if a ban was placed on nation for reasons of their international conduct, but that nation has a majority of Buddhists, then you could say it was an illegal ban on Buddhists as it has a disparate impact on Buddhists.
I'm not convinced, even in the Legislative process.
Does that not create a situation where a law or Order is OK as long as the "intent" remains undiscovered? Isn't that situation a complete Cluster Fuck where established law could suddenly become Unconstitutional, even after having previously being found Constitutional?
And even if he did say these things after becoming President, it still creates the ridiculous situation where the order is Constitutional if he kept his mouth shut, but later, after having expressed those opinion, it would suddenly be Unconstitutional.
The mindset of the executive has no bearing on the Constitutionality of the order. the actually LANGUAGE of the order is what must be judged.
Slashdot Mirror
Someone woke up with a dick in their ass it seems.
...many windows open when you are trying to see that school girl railed.
Who knows where they go.
"President Trump recently ordered a ban on travel from six Muslim-majority countries, but Afghanistan was not included on the list."
But we are going to mention it in order to stir up shit.
I can't wait for someone from Canada to be denied entry for whatever reason and then some stupid fucker mention the Ban while explaining that Canada wasn't part of it.
Email addresses have almost become the equivalent of a physical address. All your bills can come to it,all your correspondence, almost every business asks for it, some even require it. This has been encouraged by internet providers in a sense (they'll want your email address too). I wouldn't be surprised t learn that there is significance legally in contracts and other agreements.
So now you have people who have setup much of their life around an email address in pretty much the same way they've done with their physical address and it has become an integral part of their life and business.
Forcing a user to relinquish an address for whatever reason is kind of like a city renaming your street or changing your house number. I wonder what that does to legal devices such as mortgages, etc. Is mail still delivered or does it come back as invalid address? How long does it take for the address change to percolate it's way through the system? Will SWAT show up at the wrong house (again)? Will emergency services not find your place?
I bet some lawyer could make a go at this.
Just wait...people who are attracted to "sex robots" will be classified as yet another sexual orientation and will insist on marrying them, parading them around in public, and demand that the robot maintenance be included in their health benefits.
The question was never should they, but by how much.
As usual, regulations like these are mere Trojan Horses. By setting limits to unreasonably low levels, production could be made too expensive or even brought to a halt. That's the kind of lever it is. A Democrat Administration would undoubtedly be able to use this in the same way Obama used regulations on coal to essentially kill the industry, as he promised.
"sure, here's mode code right here. I promise it's the real thing"
Regardless of the other arguments, who really thinks he will provide the real code?
All that centralized shit worked great in the Soviet Union, Mao's China, Venezuela, etc, didn't it?
When my code fails, people don't die
When my code fails, the only cost is my UNPAID overtime to fix it.
So, actually you need to fuck off and die in a car fire you sniveling piece of shit.
...according to the regulation...
And there is the problem right there. Regulations give cover to bad design.
Try to police speech and expression and you fuck it up every time.
You fucking tell that to the people trying to get quarterly financials out.
Fuck you.
Minimum wage jobs are for teenagers living with their parents.
What about when it IS Tesla's fault?
Will someone at Tesla go to jail for manslaughter, just like a driver would?
If I drive recklessly or carelessly, and kill someone, I'm going to jail for vehicular manslaughter.
If Tesla (or other company) has a bug in their software that kills someone, who goes to jail?
So this is a complete admission that the Vegan's issue with meat isn't health based, but rather politically based.
Vegetarians make a huge deal about how bad meat is for you, but now they are going to eat lab grown meat?
What bullshit. Just another group of pontificating, virtue signaling assholes.
At my employer...a VERY large Defense company, they had pushed out EMET.
It promptly broke almost all of our Java application (Kills the virtual machine). The third party desktop support people are authorized to disable or remove it.
Science says nothing can travel faster than the speed of light.
Yet some Scientists say that an argument against there being alien life is that they have never come to visit us.
I forget which president it was who said something along the lines of, "They've made their decision, now let them enforce it".
Some would call it a well founded and empirically supported fear.
And the frequency is irrelevant. When it was found that Tylenol bottles were poisoned, literally billions of tablets were recalled. But only a few bottles were ever found.
An EO is not a crime. Hate Criems are mentioned to illustrate a parallel logic of Hate Crimes
In all examples of a Hate Crime, it is all circumstances, a crime. The Intent merely mitigates the punishment. It does not turn a crime into a non-crime.
Are you suggesting that Judicial Abuse is any less egregious if suffered by someone considered by society to be worse?
Kinda goes against the whole equal protection thing, no?
While this may seem laudable, it seem to essentially a form of double jeopardy.
You commit a crime. You are prosecuted under a local ordnance, then you are prosecuted under a state law, then you are prosecuted under a federal law. What's next? Hauled before the Hague?
I have real problem with that.
That puts you in a situation where if the intent is undiscovered, then something that is presumably Unconstitutional would be found Constitutional.
To me this smacks of the logic used in Hate Crimes. Someone who is killed by reason of some prohibited "hate" is just as dead as someone killed for hate that is not "prohibited".
I believe the legislation/orders should stand on their own.
The only other possible scheme would be "disparate impact". I have problems with that in general, but with respect to a travel ban, then any ban that affects any country that has any overwhelming majority of a demographic could be found to have a disparate impact.
For instance, if a ban was placed on nation for reasons of their international conduct, but that nation has a majority of Buddhists, then you could say it was an illegal ban on Buddhists as it has a disparate impact on Buddhists.
I'm not convinced, even in the Legislative process.
Does that not create a situation where a law or Order is OK as long as the "intent" remains undiscovered? Isn't that situation a complete Cluster Fuck where established law could suddenly become Unconstitutional, even after having previously being found Constitutional?
And even if he did say these things after becoming President, it still creates the ridiculous situation where the order is Constitutional if he kept his mouth shut, but later, after having expressed those opinion, it would suddenly be Unconstitutional.
The mindset of the executive has no bearing on the Constitutionality of the order. the actually LANGUAGE of the order is what must be judged.