The thing about suing, it's a spite reaction. One rarely gets out ahead financially, even when winning a civil lawsuit. It's more about killing parasites rather than letting them suck on you. It can also be used to force a set of future actions or agreement to the competitor that one is suing. And then there's the Streisand Effect. In other words, one doesn't bother suing even if they have a slam dunk case; they're still losing money prosecuting the suit.
In this case, it would be a reputation suit. Sometimes public legal vindication is worth the money you sink into the lawsuit. In this case, there are probably national security issues which make the suit outcome murky, what gets revealed in discovery may be more damaging than not suing, and they're suing the 4th estate, which is a difficult standard to beat in US courts.
Obviously, when you are using a radio frequency without paying for it, you are actually taking somebody's resource: nobody else can use this band in that area.
And why would a non-corporate person care??? Its an unused radio frequency. If it was a radio frequency used by a commercial entity (the only "people" who can legally obtain a radio frequency to propagate their positions/culture), they would blot out the pirate station with the kilowatts of electrical power used to broadcast.
Like all old organizations, the top folks get more interested in their own benefits, continuity, and titled positions.
Its worse than that. What you need to realize is that the radio spectrum allocated to amateur radio is a finite resource. Its currently threatened by corporate interests that would be interested in seizing those allocated frequencies to produce commercial products to be sold to consumers; wireless service X, sell marine band transmissions to marine users (who currently use marine radio frequencies for free), charge users to use DMR,.etc..Furthermore, government agencies, whether its FEMA, DHS, or the military may want more radio bandwidth, so they'll try to take amateur radio bands. Finally, the way new experimental radio services come into being, is by that elected board of amateur radio enthusiasts (like ARRL) mandating allocated frequencies it controls to a specific experimental service. Its not merely elected members looking to secure their "tenure".
No, its a competition for a business contract between SpaceX and Boeing (and Lockheed?). No aerospace company is competing against NASA. NASA is awarding a multi-billion dollar government contract to a corporation; they are the judge, not the competitor.
How is it easier or make more sense to have astronauts die on the Moon, rather than Mars? If there is an engineering deficiency that will be fatal to astronauts, it won't make a difference whether they die on Mars or the Moon. It takes roughly 3 days to get from Earth to the Moon. If a design flaw has been made, there's no way we will be sending a rescue craft to the Moon.
The only difference between having a human land on the Moon rather than Mars is that Mars has a slightly stronger gravity well, a sparse atmosphere, and it will take more time to send a manned craft to Mars rather than the Moon.
But humans have already landed on the Moon. There is nothing new to be learned engineering-wise by having a landing craft land on the Moon first. Returning Americans back to the Moon is a huge waste of time (and money), repeating everything that has been done back in 1969. I have yet to read anyone who can explain how it will be safer or more rewarding to send humans back to the Moon.
Originally, they only cared about being able to hire workers that could manage the basic tasks in a factory. They invested "leadership" in public schools to produce said workers. Eventually society decided that primary schools were most economically run training their children to be factory workers, because that would ensure they would be hired for a job. Now, capitalists are disgusted with the factory workers coming out of public education, because they're useless for their knowledge factories.
perhaps a thousand are still remembered by civilization.
Are you one of those people who completed a "useless" degree in philosophy, and can list a thousand philosophers off the top of your head? I'd guestimate there's probably less than 100 names that could be considered philosophers (and that's throwing in prominent religious figures) that actually had significance in the advancement of that field.
I guess no one explained to him that advanced education is an investment, and can be a bad investment from a practical standpoint. The reason why no one explained it to him was because the education system is a business which prioritizes completion of one's payments towards an advanced degree, but in no way ensures ROI.
There are a lot of people who say that public education must be killed, that we can't afford it.
What fucked up community do you hang out with? A lot of people may be saying that public education needs to radically change, but almost no one is saying the nation should stop funding public schooling to save tax dollars.
A nominal summary of the evolution of the concept of education, but your conclusion implies that the previous paradigm can still be applied in the near future.
Advancements in AI just means that there will be less entry level educational level jobs available, and even less blue collar level jobs. (e.g. - AI will remove the need for human MD degrees, and already is impacting the paralegal field; with more fields to come. When self-driving vehicles become reality, that's 15% of the overall employment economy.) Where public education used to certify the graduate to a basic reading and math level, and enough behavioral and vocational knowledge to manage an entry level job, future public schools will have to vastly exceed current academic levels, while educating children in basic critical thinking skills, autodidactic skills, and for lack of a better description, entrepreneurial skills. Specialized education (what you called "focused" education) will be pointless, because technology will make that specialization obsolete within a few years of completing an advanced degree in the field.
The most useful and rewarding skills that could be conveyed in primary schooling would be the ability to take on any new occupation or starting one's own business, with advanced degrees merely certifying a person is intellectually qualified to take on a more mentally challenging profession (or a unique position that would be resistant to knowledge automation).
M$ may be foolish enough to try new fees, but that will stop when a 5% market share drop occurs, which would be relatively quick.
M$ is angling to provide windows services through cloud accounts. That's when they'll go for the monthly fees. What you won't have access to, when the cutoff takes place, is a working, standalone Windows 10 (consumer) license. Any drop in standalone Windows will be irrelevant. If you want to run Windows, you'll have to have an azure account, and run your machine like a chromebook. If not, the consumer will eventually not be able to buy a machine with a standalone Windows OS license.
Point 2. The U.S.A. is Representative Democracy, not a direct democracy.
I would call the USA a Republic, not even a representative democracy, because there are rights structured to protect a minority of citizens against the wishes of the majority.
A president can launch a war without approval from any other branch of the government but the president has 90 days to justify his actions to congress at which time Congress could defund the military operation.
Not launch a war, initiate a military action. If it gets concluded within 90 days, nobody cares what the PotUS did. It could start a full fledged world war, but that's what happens when the Congress decided to delegate its war powers to the executive branch.
And all those who have hounded Trump since he was elected are ready and willing to break any law to remove him from office.
Break what law? Foaming at the mouth much?
The ends justify the means is the motto of the Trump protesters.
Said the party that refused to fill a Supreme Court vacancy for over a year because they didn't think they were being partisan when not executing their Constitutional duties.
In their world Trump doesn't deserve the same constitutional rights as everyone else.
Not every American is in the financial position to violate the Emoluments clause of the CotUS. And a PotUS that would choose to orphan 500 children to discourage refugees from seeking asylum has neither the character or discretion to be treated like a person of good standing in society. Unfortunately, that is not how the CotUS works either. Every scumbag in the US gets the same legal rights delinated in the CotUS.
Innocent until proven guilty doesn't apply to him.
That is a legal standard to be applied in the courts. OJ Simpson was acquited of murder, but that doesn't mean I have an ethical obligation to treat him as such.
The right to protect against self incrimination doesn't apply.
Compelling Trump to testify to a grand jury is not the courts compelling him to self-incriminate. He can invoke his 5th amendment rights at any time to the grand jury. The CotUS does not recognise an individual's right to lie in a criminal investigation.
And Trump will be gone within a few years
Assuming he steps down peaceably after showing gross contempt to the rule of law.
and the people who lost to him in the election have refused to examine the real reasons
This does stick in my craw...
They have also not reflected on the fact that as bad as Trump is just how bad did the other side need to be to lose?
The Democrats did nothing that justifies how the Republicans have abandoned their responsibilities to the CotUS and good governance. The Democrats lost both houses of Congress and the executive branch because their leaders are fucking incompetent.
Not really. Deep State connotes a huge conspiracy, mostly bureaucracy based, where the agenda of an unelected power group gets expressed in government operations.
This guy is more like a deluded member of an exclusive conspiracy, without an infrastructure which will exist long after elected politicians' terms run out, and specifically formulated to deal directly with problems posed by Trump's unstable policy diktats.
The Intelligence community can be "Deep State". The leftovers after McMasters, Cohen, and Tillerson are pretentious conspirators.
So much so I almost think Trump penned the op-ed - it certainly will do a great job of bringing in votes for the GOP
Eh. Its certainly a possibility. But I don't think it will do a "great" job of either bringing in votes or suppressing a 5th column.
The question is what did the "conspirator" expect to gain by exposing the existence of a conspiracy against Trump, and what did the NY Times gain by posting an anonymous source with a bedtime story on their Op Ed pages? The NYT isn't exactly based on the National Enquirer model of journalism.
Hardcore conspirators know the first rule of Fight Club. I'm inclined to think that whomever wrote it, if high level, is a dipshit for an idealist, and more likely lower level Walter Mitty.
Perhaps it was necessary to trigger some sort of signal to coalesce a cabal of Republican legislators to work towards an eventual Impeachment or 25A action. But its just as likely to appease the conscience of troubled Republicans to not take action ("Its okay, there's a plan in place...").
It could also be some Jedi mind trick to further unhinge Trump by stimulating his paranoia. I consider this highly likely.
and pushing anyone with even a tiny bit of ethics left in them away from the Democrats.
No chance of that. You must be one of those morons who think our current slate of Republican legislators have integrity.
Your arguments regarding privacy and Roe v. Wade are strawman fallacies.
No, not when one argues that the 2A doesn't defend an individual's right to possess firearms based on its specific wording! OP is claiming that the 2A only applies to a rigid interpretation of militia and has nothing to do with "self-defense". It should be quite obvious to anyone that's followed Supreme Court decisions that there is a difference between interpreting the document from an "Originalist" point of view (strict adherence to wording and the intent of someone dead two hundred years ago) or "Loose Construction" point of view. There is no wording about "self defense" in the 2A. There is no wording about "right to privacy" in Griswald vs CT. Is the latter decision "illegitimate" because no Originalist would consider it valid law? If its legitimate, how can you even argue the 2A is not about "self defense"? They are both based on concepts which have no basis in a strict wording interpretation of the CotUS.
The spirit of the 2nd as envisioned by the Founders was a selfless right to defend your neighbors against tyranny, foreign, domestic, either. Justice Scalia's reinterpretation made it a selfish right, every man for himself. See the difference?
Yes I do. Charming. You (actually the anti-gun rights philosopher) make up a differentiation between of "selfless" and "selfish" rights, and yet support laws that are utterly in conflict with a basic interpretation of the 2A, because you rationalize about concepts not even mentioned in the CotUS. You are the Queen of Ideological Rationalization.
Let me know when you consider "right to privacy" CotUS interpretations as legally invalid, then you can proceed to argue with me whether individual self-defense is irrelevant to the 2A. You can't have one without the other, because they use the same philosophical mechanism to argue justification for their resulting decisions. Otherwise, lets not waste each other's time.
The problem here is not that people have just not bothered trying to make programming easier. The problem is that the problems that need solving are HARD.
Actually, no, I disagree there. Yes, there are computing problems that are hard to solve and requires experienced, talented developers. The real problem is that the overwhelming majority of programmers do not understand the theory of programming to the point they can make optimally intelligent decisions on how to implement a computer solution.
The real problem is that programmers are captives of the current software development ideologies; the commercial environment. There is actually only one relevant computer language; that is machine code. Its the only code that hardware devices can execute and return meaningful results. We have (abstract) programming languages because assembler is too challenging for the majority of software developers to produce working, bug free programs. So programming languages actually exist to act as a buffer between less talented humans and computing machines.
Our modern programming languages now actually exist supposedly so other human beings can understand the programming another human being did, and be able to modify it for some new function or correct some old bug, and yet still function properly when translated to machine code so a computer can execute it and produce desirable results.
So why is the current software development industry so problematic and dysfunctional?
1) Languages are a reflection of human extensibility and execution speed. The more abstract the language (from the machine), the less efficient it is in execution. Its taking abstracted data structures, methods, concepts and converting it to machine code. The more support it provides for human comprehension, the more machine code it has to construct to emulate human concepts on the computer. There definitely is a breaking point where a language requires too many resources that is economically available to a computing device.
2) There is little consensus over what is the "ideal" sets and levels of abstractions to be expressed in a language that would make it an "ideal" language for the commercial industry to adopt. One consensus event was the adoption of COBOL by the business industry. The industry is evolving away from COBOL, because there are new database technologies businesses want to adopt, and other technologies (like AI) which are not expressed in COBOL.
The next consensus point was the widespread adoption of the C language. This is because industry wanted optimally efficient machine code that could utilize abstractions (like data structures, pointers, etc.) for humans. FORTRAN produces faster executable code than C, but FORTRAN does not lend itself to huge APIs or as bugfree, correctable code as C.
For a while, computer scientists thought that incorporating a set of human abstractions labelled "object oriented" programming would result in more productive (less talented) programmers, but that paradigm is being moved on from for newer paradigms. Meanwhile, the capitalist industry only cares about faster code, useful for commercial purposes, and even cheaper programmers, so it popularized bastard languages like javascript and php (web languages), and VM based languages (like java) to supplant C. Today, computer scientists look to even more abstract languages like "functional" based languages to be the "holy grail".
The reality is that there is no universal language that is powerful, fast, and cheap (programmers). The less a programmer needs to do to make a useful program (utilizing prepackaged function libraries and APIs), the more desirable it is to the business market and less talented programmers, but inevitably it will run slower and require more expensive computing hardware.
Today all these varieties in language are cliques of programming intelligentsia wanting to push their personal agendas and perspectives. Academics have no interest in develo
You are incorrect. The Constitution never even gets close to addressing self-defense.
So, you are against the Roe v Wade decision because there is no specific "right to privacy" spelled out in the CotUS? (Which was the whole point of my statement.) Are you also suggesting there was no intent for militias to defend the state citizenry from federal tyranny?
Their intent was for actual well-regulated citizen militias, which for the most part disappeared over a century ago making the 2nd Amendment, in most aspects today, inapplicable.
I consider a gun club sponsored by a local politician to satisfy the definition of a well-regulated militia. The National Guard ceased to be a true (state) militia when it could be federalized. The 2A is not specifically limited to foreign threats.
Our Founders did not intend for the US citizenship to be as armed as they are today.
Actually, if anything, the Founding Fathers were more likely to have intended citizens to be as abundantly armed as they are today; what they didn't believe in was a permanent standing army!
Making self-defense inclusive in the 2nd is redundant,
The 2A is not merely about enshrining self-defense as a concept (as you pointed out, is redundant). Its about the right for all citizens to possess firearms, ostensibly for self-defense, although the founding fathers were more concerned about enabling its citizens to resist outside threats (including potential federal tyranny).
But Justice Scalia shit all over the Founders because the propaganda machine that is the NRA told him.
Just like SCotUS shat over the CotUS with their Roe v Wade decision. Either you believe the CotUS to be an (inevitably) interpreted document, or you're a strict Originalist, in which case very little about today's CotUS resembles the original founders intent.
BTW, you're arguing with the wrong guy when it comes to the specifics of Scalia's interpretations of the 2A. I do believe states (and localities) can regulate or restrict access to firearms (in line with Scalia), but I also believe the CotUS can intervene when any gov't body passes arbitrary laws to undermine the use of firearms for self defense (gun locks, limitations on ammo purchase, etc.). I do not believe the 2A enshrines the access of firearms for individual self-defense, but I believe in its original intent to enable the citizenry to defend itself and its community from all threats, including the federal gov't. So whether its community defense or individual defense, the issue is moot. The CotUS enshrines the citizens' right to possess firearms (until the 2A is modified or repealed). The 2A is a failsafe for potential tyranny and abrogation of the Rule of Law by fiat. It also means I can be elderly or lacking physical prowess, but still be able to access a tool to kill anything or anyone I consider a threat; it does not mean that I am immune to the consequences of my decisions or my responsibilities inherent to firearm possession.
I don't live in 1840 or in Florida today. I'm just pointing out how SYG applies to the querant's question. I do not support SYG laws or incestuous procreation.
So it's not ok to defend my girlfriend whom I might consider in eminent danger,
With a firearm? Hell no. Except in a SYG state, where you possess a firearm, decide to get into a shoving match with a deadly weapon, and either party decides to shoot the other first and claim "I thought my life was in jeopardy".
How did we become so callous and stupid?
Speak for yourself, callous and stupid. I don't favor SYG laws.
It says every man has the right to bear arms to form a MILITIA, it says nothing about Joey 45 shooting someone cause he's mad.
The 2A about the implied right to self defense, from any threat (foreign invader, federal agent, town lynch mob, etc.) which necessitated the right to possess firearms uninfringed. But look, the right to own killing weapons for self defense is as spelled out in the CotUS as the "right to privacy". The CotUS doesn't give individuals the right to shoot other individuals, that's why murder is a prosecutable crime. Its also quite clear that it means the federal gov't cannot prevent any law abiding citizen from possessing firearms, and arbitrary regulation/registration of firearms on the federal level would be "infringement".
be against clearly reasonable stand your ground laws
There's no such thing as reasonable SYG laws. It basically lowers a shooter's responsibility for the death they chose to inflict. They're out in the public, they're not held responsible to avoid situations potentially "requiring" the use of their firearm, and they basically state "I thought my life was in jeopardy at that moment", and it doesn't matter whether the potential threat was armed.
We live in a legal system where the state must prove guilty "beyond reasonable doubt", "presumed innocent" until proven otherwise, and cannot be prosecuted for the same crime once rendered "not guilty" by the jury, regardless whether the jury, judge, or prosecutors erred. That standard should readily acquit any person firing in actual self defense. What SYG does is excuse the shooter for contributing to the shooting situation, and make any doubt argument a credible legal defense against conviction. Forget the fact that any clueless jackass can now carry a killing device, play LEO, drive a 1/4 of a mile, put himself in a dangerous situation, and kill an unarmed teen. SYG basically gives any person the right to act belligerently towards another person, in a state that gives him the right to carry a killing weapon, use it to kill the person, and then claim "I thought my life was in peril so I fired first rather than avoid a situation where I may need to kill".
Inside one's home in most states you're fine shooting an intruder without that person having committed an overt act against you because breaking in is overt act enough.
No one is getting shot accidentally when the perpetrator is breaking into a house they don't belong there. If they're too mentally compromised to avoid breaking into a house, the benefit of the doubt should be given to the homeowner. Even LEOs aren't supposed to be breaking into houses without a warrant; they're fair game to be shot by the homeowner as well.
The alternative is that you believe it's OK to have the state require you to attempt to run away from, say, an armed robber or even just one who out-muscles you. Such an action is akin to the state requiring you to attempt suicide because that's what it is.
No, it is not. In every mugging, overwhelmingly both the perp and the victim survive the encounter. Apparently, you seem to feel you have the right to shoot dead someone who attempts to mug you. Fine, but now the perpetrator can shoot you first in the parking lot if they know you're packing a gun, and say "he pulled the gun on me, so I shot him first. SYG". As long as there were no witnesses, and he didn't try to take your credit cards, he gets off scot free for murder. I'm not going to even waste my time explaining how this law gets applied for KKK members.
Slashdot Mirror
You win the Internets! Too bad I don't have any mod points.
I would however not be surprised to see SuperMicro go full on lawsuit, they can easily show a lot of financial harm.
What would SuperMicro gain from the lawsuit after the National Security Apparatus bans SuperMicro from US markets?
As far as I know, an national security letter cannot compel a person to sue another person for something truthfully reported.
The thing about suing, it's a spite reaction. One rarely gets out ahead financially, even when winning a civil lawsuit. It's more about killing parasites rather than letting them suck on you. It can also be used to force a set of future actions or agreement to the competitor that one is suing. And then there's the Streisand Effect. In other words, one doesn't bother suing even if they have a slam dunk case; they're still losing money prosecuting the suit.
In this case, it would be a reputation suit. Sometimes public legal vindication is worth the money you sink into the lawsuit. In this case, there are probably national security issues which make the suit outcome murky, what gets revealed in discovery may be more damaging than not suing, and they're suing the 4th estate, which is a difficult standard to beat in US courts.
Obviously, when you are using a radio frequency without paying for it, you are actually taking somebody's resource: nobody else can use this band in that area.
And why would a non-corporate person care??? Its an unused radio frequency. If it was a radio frequency used by a commercial entity (the only "people" who can legally obtain a radio frequency to propagate their positions/culture), they would blot out the pirate station with the kilowatts of electrical power used to broadcast.
Animal husbandry is not considered a "geek" concentration. Go hang out with the backyard gardeners.
Like all old organizations, the top folks get more interested in their own benefits, continuity, and titled positions.
Its worse than that. What you need to realize is that the radio spectrum allocated to amateur radio is a finite resource. Its currently threatened by corporate interests that would be interested in seizing those allocated frequencies to produce commercial products to be sold to consumers; wireless service X, sell marine band transmissions to marine users (who currently use marine radio frequencies for free), charge users to use DMR,.etc. .Furthermore, government agencies, whether its FEMA, DHS, or the military may want more radio bandwidth, so they'll try to take amateur radio bands. Finally, the way new experimental radio services come into being, is by that elected board of amateur radio enthusiasts (like ARRL) mandating allocated frequencies it controls to a specific experimental service. Its not merely elected members looking to secure their "tenure".
Sigh.
No, its a competition for a business contract between SpaceX and Boeing (and Lockheed?). No aerospace company is competing against NASA. NASA is awarding a multi-billion dollar government contract to a corporation; they are the judge, not the competitor.
How is it easier or make more sense to have astronauts die on the Moon, rather than Mars? If there is an engineering deficiency that will be fatal to astronauts, it won't make a difference whether they die on Mars or the Moon. It takes roughly 3 days to get from Earth to the Moon. If a design flaw has been made, there's no way we will be sending a rescue craft to the Moon.
The only difference between having a human land on the Moon rather than Mars is that Mars has a slightly stronger gravity well, a sparse atmosphere, and it will take more time to send a manned craft to Mars rather than the Moon.
But humans have already landed on the Moon. There is nothing new to be learned engineering-wise by having a landing craft land on the Moon first. Returning Americans back to the Moon is a huge waste of time (and money), repeating everything that has been done back in 1969. I have yet to read anyone who can explain how it will be safer or more rewarding to send humans back to the Moon.
Capitalists.
Originally, they only cared about being able to hire workers that could manage the basic tasks in a factory. They invested "leadership" in public schools to produce said workers. Eventually society decided that primary schools were most economically run training their children to be factory workers, because that would ensure they would be hired for a job. Now, capitalists are disgusted with the factory workers coming out of public education, because they're useless for their knowledge factories.
perhaps a thousand are still remembered by civilization.
Are you one of those people who completed a "useless" degree in philosophy, and can list a thousand philosophers off the top of your head? I'd guestimate there's probably less than 100 names that could be considered philosophers (and that's throwing in prominent religious figures) that actually had significance in the advancement of that field.
I guess no one explained to him that advanced education is an investment, and can be a bad investment from a practical standpoint. The reason why no one explained it to him was because the education system is a business which prioritizes completion of one's payments towards an advanced degree, but in no way ensures ROI.
There are a lot of people who say that public education must be killed, that we can't afford it.
What fucked up community do you hang out with? A lot of people may be saying that public education needs to radically change, but almost no one is saying the nation should stop funding public schooling to save tax dollars.
A nominal summary of the evolution of the concept of education, but your conclusion implies that the previous paradigm can still be applied in the near future.
Advancements in AI just means that there will be less entry level educational level jobs available, and even less blue collar level jobs. (e.g. - AI will remove the need for human MD degrees, and already is impacting the paralegal field; with more fields to come. When self-driving vehicles become reality, that's 15% of the overall employment economy.) Where public education used to certify the graduate to a basic reading and math level, and enough behavioral and vocational knowledge to manage an entry level job, future public schools will have to vastly exceed current academic levels, while educating children in basic critical thinking skills, autodidactic skills, and for lack of a better description, entrepreneurial skills. Specialized education (what you called "focused" education) will be pointless, because technology will make that specialization obsolete within a few years of completing an advanced degree in the field.
The most useful and rewarding skills that could be conveyed in primary schooling would be the ability to take on any new occupation or starting one's own business, with advanced degrees merely certifying a person is intellectually qualified to take on a more mentally challenging profession (or a unique position that would be resistant to knowledge automation).
M$ may be foolish enough to try new fees, but that will stop when a 5% market share drop occurs, which would be relatively quick.
M$ is angling to provide windows services through cloud accounts. That's when they'll go for the monthly fees. What you won't have access to, when the cutoff takes place, is a working, standalone Windows 10 (consumer) license. Any drop in standalone Windows will be irrelevant. If you want to run Windows, you'll have to have an azure account, and run your machine like a chromebook. If not, the consumer will eventually not be able to buy a machine with a standalone Windows OS license.
Point 2. The U.S.A. is Representative Democracy, not a direct democracy.
I would call the USA a Republic, not even a representative democracy, because there are rights structured to protect a minority of citizens against the wishes of the majority.
A president can launch a war without approval from any other branch of the government but the president has 90 days to justify his actions to congress at which time Congress could defund the military operation.
Not launch a war, initiate a military action. If it gets concluded within 90 days, nobody cares what the PotUS did. It could start a full fledged world war, but that's what happens when the Congress decided to delegate its war powers to the executive branch.
And all those who have hounded Trump since he was elected are ready and willing to break any law to remove him from office.
Break what law? Foaming at the mouth much?
The ends justify the means is the motto of the Trump protesters.
Said the party that refused to fill a Supreme Court vacancy for over a year because they didn't think they were being partisan when not executing their Constitutional duties.
In their world Trump doesn't deserve the same constitutional rights as everyone else.
Not every American is in the financial position to violate the Emoluments clause of the CotUS. And a PotUS that would choose to orphan 500 children to discourage refugees from seeking asylum has neither the character or discretion to be treated like a person of good standing in society. Unfortunately, that is not how the CotUS works either. Every scumbag in the US gets the same legal rights delinated in the CotUS.
Innocent until proven guilty doesn't apply to him.
That is a legal standard to be applied in the courts. OJ Simpson was acquited of murder, but that doesn't mean I have an ethical obligation to treat him as such.
The right to protect against self incrimination doesn't apply.
Compelling Trump to testify to a grand jury is not the courts compelling him to self-incriminate. He can invoke his 5th amendment rights at any time to the grand jury. The CotUS does not recognise an individual's right to lie in a criminal investigation.
And Trump will be gone within a few years
Assuming he steps down peaceably after showing gross contempt to the rule of law.
and the people who lost to him in the election have refused to examine the real reasons
This does stick in my craw...
They have also not reflected on the fact that as bad as Trump is just how bad did the other side need to be to lose?
The Democrats did nothing that justifies how the Republicans have abandoned their responsibilities to the CotUS and good governance. The Democrats lost both houses of Congress and the executive branch because their leaders are fucking incompetent.
I mean this is as Deep State as Deep State gets
Not really. Deep State connotes a huge conspiracy, mostly bureaucracy based, where the agenda of an unelected power group gets expressed in government operations.
This guy is more like a deluded member of an exclusive conspiracy, without an infrastructure which will exist long after elected politicians' terms run out, and specifically formulated to deal directly with problems posed by Trump's unstable policy diktats.
The Intelligence community can be "Deep State". The leftovers after McMasters, Cohen, and Tillerson are pretentious conspirators.
So much so I almost think Trump penned the op-ed - it certainly will do a great job of bringing in votes for the GOP
Eh. Its certainly a possibility. But I don't think it will do a "great" job of either bringing in votes or suppressing a 5th column.
The question is what did the "conspirator" expect to gain by exposing the existence of a conspiracy against Trump, and what did the NY Times gain by posting an anonymous source with a bedtime story on their Op Ed pages? The NYT isn't exactly based on the National Enquirer model of journalism.
Hardcore conspirators know the first rule of Fight Club. I'm inclined to think that whomever wrote it, if high level, is a dipshit for an idealist, and more likely lower level Walter Mitty.
Perhaps it was necessary to trigger some sort of signal to coalesce a cabal of Republican legislators to work towards an eventual Impeachment or 25A action. But its just as likely to appease the conscience of troubled Republicans to not take action ("Its okay, there's a plan in place...").
It could also be some Jedi mind trick to further unhinge Trump by stimulating his paranoia. I consider this highly likely.
and pushing anyone with even a tiny bit of ethics left in them away from the Democrats.
No chance of that. You must be one of those morons who think our current slate of Republican legislators have integrity.
Your arguments regarding privacy and Roe v. Wade are strawman fallacies.
No, not when one argues that the 2A doesn't defend an individual's right to possess firearms based on its specific wording! OP is claiming that the 2A only applies to a rigid interpretation of militia and has nothing to do with "self-defense". It should be quite obvious to anyone that's followed Supreme Court decisions that there is a difference between interpreting the document from an "Originalist" point of view (strict adherence to wording and the intent of someone dead two hundred years ago) or "Loose Construction" point of view. There is no wording about "self defense" in the 2A. There is no wording about "right to privacy" in Griswald vs CT. Is the latter decision "illegitimate" because no Originalist would consider it valid law? If its legitimate, how can you even argue the 2A is not about "self defense"? They are both based on concepts which have no basis in a strict wording interpretation of the CotUS.
The spirit of the 2nd as envisioned by the Founders was a selfless right to defend your neighbors against tyranny, foreign, domestic, either. Justice Scalia's reinterpretation made it a selfish right, every man for himself. See the difference?
Yes I do. Charming. You (actually the anti-gun rights philosopher) make up a differentiation between of "selfless" and "selfish" rights, and yet support laws that are utterly in conflict with a basic interpretation of the 2A, because you rationalize about concepts not even mentioned in the CotUS. You are the Queen of Ideological Rationalization.
Let me know when you consider "right to privacy" CotUS interpretations as legally invalid, then you can proceed to argue with me whether individual self-defense is irrelevant to the 2A. You can't have one without the other, because they use the same philosophical mechanism to argue justification for their resulting decisions. Otherwise, lets not waste each other's time.
The problem here is not that people have just not bothered trying to make programming easier. The problem is that the problems that need solving are HARD.
Actually, no, I disagree there. Yes, there are computing problems that are hard to solve and requires experienced, talented developers. The real problem is that the overwhelming majority of programmers do not understand the theory of programming to the point they can make optimally intelligent decisions on how to implement a computer solution.
The real problem is that programmers are captives of the current software development ideologies; the commercial environment. There is actually only one relevant computer language; that is machine code. Its the only code that hardware devices can execute and return meaningful results. We have (abstract) programming languages because assembler is too challenging for the majority of software developers to produce working, bug free programs. So programming languages actually exist to act as a buffer between less talented humans and computing machines.
Our modern programming languages now actually exist supposedly so other human beings can understand the programming another human being did, and be able to modify it for some new function or correct some old bug, and yet still function properly when translated to machine code so a computer can execute it and produce desirable results.
So why is the current software development industry so problematic and dysfunctional?
1) Languages are a reflection of human extensibility and execution speed. The more abstract the language (from the machine), the less efficient it is in execution. Its taking abstracted data structures, methods, concepts and converting it to machine code. The more support it provides for human comprehension, the more machine code it has to construct to emulate human concepts on the computer. There definitely is a breaking point where a language requires too many resources that is economically available to a computing device.
2) There is little consensus over what is the "ideal" sets and levels of abstractions to be expressed in a language that would make it an "ideal" language for the commercial industry to adopt. One consensus event was the adoption of COBOL by the business industry. The industry is evolving away from COBOL, because there are new database technologies businesses want to adopt, and other technologies (like AI) which are not expressed in COBOL.
The next consensus point was the widespread adoption of the C language. This is because industry wanted optimally efficient machine code that could utilize abstractions (like data structures, pointers, etc.) for humans. FORTRAN produces faster executable code than C, but FORTRAN does not lend itself to huge APIs or as bugfree, correctable code as C.
For a while, computer scientists thought that incorporating a set of human abstractions labelled "object oriented" programming would result in more productive (less talented) programmers, but that paradigm is being moved on from for newer paradigms. Meanwhile, the capitalist industry only cares about faster code, useful for commercial purposes, and even cheaper programmers, so it popularized bastard languages like javascript and php (web languages), and VM based languages (like java) to supplant C. Today, computer scientists look to even more abstract languages like "functional" based languages to be the "holy grail".
The reality is that there is no universal language that is powerful, fast, and cheap (programmers). The less a programmer needs to do to make a useful program (utilizing prepackaged function libraries and APIs), the more desirable it is to the business market and less talented programmers, but inevitably it will run slower and require more expensive computing hardware.
Today all these varieties in language are cliques of programming intelligentsia wanting to push their personal agendas and perspectives. Academics have no interest in develo
You are incorrect. The Constitution never even gets close to addressing self-defense.
So, you are against the Roe v Wade decision because there is no specific "right to privacy" spelled out in the CotUS? (Which was the whole point of my statement.) Are you also suggesting there was no intent for militias to defend the state citizenry from federal tyranny?
Their intent was for actual well-regulated citizen militias, which for the most part disappeared over a century ago making the 2nd Amendment, in most aspects today, inapplicable.
I consider a gun club sponsored by a local politician to satisfy the definition of a well-regulated militia. The National Guard ceased to be a true (state) militia when it could be federalized. The 2A is not specifically limited to foreign threats.
Our Founders did not intend for the US citizenship to be as armed as they are today.
Actually, if anything, the Founding Fathers were more likely to have intended citizens to be as abundantly armed as they are today; what they didn't believe in was a permanent standing army!
Making self-defense inclusive in the 2nd is redundant,
The 2A is not merely about enshrining self-defense as a concept (as you pointed out, is redundant). Its about the right for all citizens to possess firearms, ostensibly for self-defense, although the founding fathers were more concerned about enabling its citizens to resist outside threats (including potential federal tyranny).
But Justice Scalia shit all over the Founders because the propaganda machine that is the NRA told him.
Just like SCotUS shat over the CotUS with their Roe v Wade decision. Either you believe the CotUS to be an (inevitably) interpreted document, or you're a strict Originalist, in which case very little about today's CotUS resembles the original founders intent.
BTW, you're arguing with the wrong guy when it comes to the specifics of Scalia's interpretations of the 2A. I do believe states (and localities) can regulate or restrict access to firearms (in line with Scalia), but I also believe the CotUS can intervene when any gov't body passes arbitrary laws to undermine the use of firearms for self defense (gun locks, limitations on ammo purchase, etc.). I do not believe the 2A enshrines the access of firearms for individual self-defense, but I believe in its original intent to enable the citizenry to defend itself and its community from all threats, including the federal gov't. So whether its community defense or individual defense, the issue is moot. The CotUS enshrines the citizens' right to possess firearms (until the 2A is modified or repealed). The 2A is a failsafe for potential tyranny and abrogation of the Rule of Law by fiat. It also means I can be elderly or lacking physical prowess, but still be able to access a tool to kill anything or anyone I consider a threat; it does not mean that I am immune to the consequences of my decisions or my responsibilities inherent to firearm possession.
I don't live in 1840 or in Florida today. I'm just pointing out how SYG applies to the querant's question. I do not support SYG laws or incestuous procreation.
So it's not ok to defend my girlfriend whom I might consider in eminent danger,
With a firearm? Hell no. Except in a SYG state, where you possess a firearm, decide to get into a shoving match with a deadly weapon, and either party decides to shoot the other first and claim "I thought my life was in jeopardy".
How did we become so callous and stupid?
Speak for yourself, callous and stupid. I don't favor SYG laws.
It says every man has the right to bear arms to form a MILITIA, it says nothing about Joey 45 shooting someone cause he's mad.
The 2A about the implied right to self defense, from any threat (foreign invader, federal agent, town lynch mob, etc.) which necessitated the right to possess firearms uninfringed. But look, the right to own killing weapons for self defense is as spelled out in the CotUS as the "right to privacy". The CotUS doesn't give individuals the right to shoot other individuals, that's why murder is a prosecutable crime. Its also quite clear that it means the federal gov't cannot prevent any law abiding citizen from possessing firearms, and arbitrary regulation/registration of firearms on the federal level would be "infringement".
be against clearly reasonable stand your ground laws
There's no such thing as reasonable SYG laws. It basically lowers a shooter's responsibility for the death they chose to inflict. They're out in the public, they're not held responsible to avoid situations potentially "requiring" the use of their firearm, and they basically state "I thought my life was in jeopardy at that moment", and it doesn't matter whether the potential threat was armed.
We live in a legal system where the state must prove guilty "beyond reasonable doubt", "presumed innocent" until proven otherwise, and cannot be prosecuted for the same crime once rendered "not guilty" by the jury, regardless whether the jury, judge, or prosecutors erred. That standard should readily acquit any person firing in actual self defense. What SYG does is excuse the shooter for contributing to the shooting situation, and make any doubt argument a credible legal defense against conviction. Forget the fact that any clueless jackass can now carry a killing device, play LEO, drive a 1/4 of a mile, put himself in a dangerous situation, and kill an unarmed teen. SYG basically gives any person the right to act belligerently towards another person, in a state that gives him the right to carry a killing weapon, use it to kill the person, and then claim "I thought my life was in peril so I fired first rather than avoid a situation where I may need to kill".
Inside one's home in most states you're fine shooting an intruder without that person having committed an overt act against you because breaking in is overt act enough.
No one is getting shot accidentally when the perpetrator is breaking into a house they don't belong there. If they're too mentally compromised to avoid breaking into a house, the benefit of the doubt should be given to the homeowner. Even LEOs aren't supposed to be breaking into houses without a warrant; they're fair game to be shot by the homeowner as well.
The alternative is that you believe it's OK to have the state require you to attempt to run away from, say, an armed robber or even just one who out-muscles you. Such an action is akin to the state requiring you to attempt suicide because that's what it is.
No, it is not. In every mugging, overwhelmingly both the perp and the victim survive the encounter. Apparently, you seem to feel you have the right to shoot dead someone who attempts to mug you. Fine, but now the perpetrator can shoot you first in the parking lot if they know you're packing a gun, and say "he pulled the gun on me, so I shot him first. SYG". As long as there were no witnesses, and he didn't try to take your credit cards, he gets off scot free for murder. I'm not going to even waste my time explaining how this law gets applied for KKK members.