I agree with your principle, but I think the law has been settled for a long time, i.e. the Constitution does not generally apply to non-citizens outside the country. To answer your question, I think it's implied in "the people", meaning "the people of the United States", as stated in the preamble.
In this particular case, you may be able to make the argument that the US Congress cannot limit what people can say or what they can hear. Meaning to censor non-citizen foreigners on social media would violate the 1st Amendment Rights of Americans who might read it.
There is no agreed upon "number" of countries in the world, because not everyone agrees that everyone else is a country. You counting Taiwan? Palestine (Gaza and West Bank together or separate)? Is Crimea still a country or not? The Russians might say no, but others disagree.
The independent researchers cited in that article, Forensicator and Adam Carter, were talking about what Guccifer2.0 leaked in September, not what Wikileaks released in July.
[...] this was metadata from the 'leaked' files, which Guccifer 2.0 released in September of 2016 and had absolutely nothing to do with Wikileaks, this conflation of Wikileaks and Guccifer 2.0 is a mistake many in the MSM have made throughout 2016-2017 and one I had hoped some may have learned from but evidently they haven't.
The labor participation rate is not the "real" unemployment. It's useless to include, for example, babies when you want to track unemployment. The same is true for retirees, students, stay-at-home parents, etc.
Labor participation is dropping because the baby boomers are retiring. You know why they are called "baby boomers"? Because there are a lot of them, they were born during a "boom" of "babies".
Expect the labor participation to continue to decrease, because it will.
What is interesting about people investing in ICOs is that they get nothing real for their money. They are investing in something that they hope will be valuable for no other reason than that other people think it's valuable.
Maybe we could all take it in turns to act as a sort of... executive officer of the week? But all the decisions of that officer must be approved at bi-weekly meetings; by a simple majority in the case of purely internal affairs, but by a two-thirds majority in the case of more major affairs.
Or we just base our system of government on strange women lying in ponds distributing swords. Gotta be better than what we've got now.
It's called the Spoiler effect. It's why we need to scrap first-past-the-post and replace it with instant runoff voting. Then people are not punished in the way you describe by voting for a 3rd party candidate.
When approval ratings are historically low but the incumbency rate is historically high... something is seriously wrong.
Hillary Clinton panders to her base, but when the money rolled in and her position secured, what would she have really done?
She wouldn't be able to risk losing part of her base on an issue like that. And I don't think Net Neutrality is an issue that really gets conservatives to the polls, in general. So it wouldn't be like she was going to win over any moderates by scrapping it anyway.
While you could say that she would do it for the campaign donations... well she had more money than Trump but still lost, so how would more campaign contributions in the next election really help her? Especially if she's not going up against the only candidate less popular than her (ever), but a "normal" Republican. I doubt it would be worth demotivating her base. Particularly on an issue that is probably more important to younger voters, who are already hard to motivate (and many of whom probably preferred Sanders, if they voted for her at all).
So, even if I accept the premise that she would act only in her own best interest, she doesn't hold any integrity or ideology but merely "panders to her base" when convenient... no, I still don't think she would have scrapped NN.
The problem with those so-called Atheistic States is the despotic authoritarian system, not the lack of religion. Look at North Korea, a modern example that you would call "atheistic", but I would counter that it is an extremely Religious society. That Religion revolves around worshiping the Kim family, and by extension the state that they established.
Kim Jong Il's birth was "heralded by a swallow, caused winter to change to spring, a star to illuminate the sky, and a double rainbow spontaneously appeared". Could have come straight out of any religious text (wasn't someone else's birth heralded by a star?). He could also control the weather with his mood, because what religion is complete without miracles?
It's identical to the "Noble" Lie: elites propagate misinformation to placates the proles, allowing them to further some agenda. The difference is the agenda, not the technique. It matters who is telling the Lie and what they believe is "Noble". When the Saudis stone a rape victim to death and only whip the rapist, they probably believe they are doing the noble thing too.
Belief without evidence and a lack of skepticism are the cause of, not the solution to, authoritarianism.
USSR and China, while maybe technically "atheist" (although this is debatable whether that was just the position of the state or whether the people of the USSR and China actually abandoned their religions en-masse under Communism, but nevertheless), absolutely had state religions, where worship was directed to the leader, the party, past heroes of the revolution, etc.
Religion (that is, belief in something without evidence) was still the problem.
Still doesn't explain, from your premise that all morality derives from religion, why child fucking is bad? God made no mention of it in the commandments, so obviously he didn't care about children getting fucked (or rape in general for that matter). Had to make sure he saved room to protect his ego with the first 4. Even the commandment against murder only meant those of your own tribe, you were allowed to kill infidels and heretics all you wanted.
Yeah, I totally want to worship that psycho.
Just make sure not to make any graven images while you're fucking children.*
Any foreign company wanting to take advantage of China's cheap manufacturing services also need to hand over the related IP before being allowed to do so.
I have personally negotiated with Chinese CMs and there was never any such requirement. In fact there were many times where we took steps to ensure we retained our IP, e.g. we had the CM flash rudimentary firmware to test the hardware, with the real firmware flashed in-house later. Obviously some IP had to be sent so they could actually make the thing, but that's true no matter where your CM is based.
Maybe this can happen with very large companies where the Chinese government feels its worth it, but your claim that "any foreign company" must hand over all related IP is just not true.
Slashdot Mirror
Re-reading more carefully, "the people" part only applies to the peaceful assembly and petitioning the government. So you are completely right.
I agree with your principle, but I think the law has been settled for a long time, i.e. the Constitution does not generally apply to non-citizens outside the country. To answer your question, I think it's implied in "the people", meaning "the people of the United States", as stated in the preamble.
In this particular case, you may be able to make the argument that the US Congress cannot limit what people can say or what they can hear. Meaning to censor non-citizen foreigners on social media would violate the 1st Amendment Rights of Americans who might read it.
There is no agreed upon "number" of countries in the world, because not everyone agrees that everyone else is a country. You counting Taiwan? Palestine (Gaza and West Bank together or separate)? Is Crimea still a country or not? The Russians might say no, but others disagree.
Obligatory CGP Grey.
The independent researchers cited in that article, Forensicator and Adam Carter, were talking about what Guccifer2.0 leaked in September, not what Wikileaks released in July.
Adam Carter wrote this, where he said:
[...] this was metadata from the 'leaked' files, which Guccifer 2.0 released in September of 2016 and had absolutely nothing to do with Wikileaks , this conflation of Wikileaks and Guccifer 2.0 is a mistake many in the MSM have made throughout 2016-2017 and one I had hoped some may have learned from but evidently they haven't.
The emphasis is his.
If he was dying he wouldn't bother to carve 'Aggghh', he'd just say it.
The labor participation rate is not the "real" unemployment. It's useless to include, for example, babies when you want to track unemployment. The same is true for retirees, students, stay-at-home parents, etc.
Labor participation is dropping because the baby boomers are retiring. You know why they are called "baby boomers"? Because there are a lot of them, they were born during a "boom" of "babies".
Expect the labor participation to continue to decrease, because it will.
What is interesting about people investing in ICOs is that they get nothing real for their money. They are investing in something that they hope will be valuable for no other reason than that other people think it's valuable.
How is this any different from the stock market?
women, often say that they can lead a man by his cock. What's the difference?
One is sexual assault and the other isn't?
Tell you what, next time a woman says this (since you claim it happens "often", it shouldn't take long), grab her by the pussy.
Let me know if your argument holds up in court.
Oops wrong thread.
I've never seen it. Is that better or worse?
I ignored the ad-hominem in your last comment, but obviously I triggered you somehow since you clearly can't help yourself.
If you're so right and backed up by facts and history as you claim, why resort to insults?
Maybe we could all take it in turns to act as a sort of... executive officer of the week? But all the decisions of that officer must be approved at bi-weekly meetings; by a simple majority in the case of purely internal affairs, but by a two-thirds majority in the case of more major affairs.
Or we just base our system of government on strange women lying in ponds distributing swords. Gotta be better than what we've got now.
My guess is pretty difficult. You may not be able to even find the thing very easily.
At the very least I'd imagine that smashing the cell modem would trigger the immobilizer.
No, you can't send other messages over GPS. There is no exploit, and GPS is completely irrelevant to this story.
Presumably there is a cell modem in the car, which was used to remotely trigger the immobilizer.
It's called the Spoiler effect. It's why we need to scrap first-past-the-post and replace it with instant runoff voting. Then people are not punished in the way you describe by voting for a 3rd party candidate.
When approval ratings are historically low but the incumbency rate is historically high... something is seriously wrong.
Hillary Clinton panders to her base, but when the money rolled in and her position secured, what would she have really done?
She wouldn't be able to risk losing part of her base on an issue like that. And I don't think Net Neutrality is an issue that really gets conservatives to the polls, in general. So it wouldn't be like she was going to win over any moderates by scrapping it anyway.
While you could say that she would do it for the campaign donations... well she had more money than Trump but still lost, so how would more campaign contributions in the next election really help her? Especially if she's not going up against the only candidate less popular than her (ever), but a "normal" Republican. I doubt it would be worth demotivating her base. Particularly on an issue that is probably more important to younger voters, who are already hard to motivate (and many of whom probably preferred Sanders, if they voted for her at all).
So, even if I accept the premise that she would act only in her own best interest, she doesn't hold any integrity or ideology but merely "panders to her base" when convenient... no, I still don't think she would have scrapped NN.
The problem with those so-called Atheistic States is the despotic authoritarian system, not the lack of religion. Look at North Korea, a modern example that you would call "atheistic", but I would counter that it is an extremely Religious society. That Religion revolves around worshiping the Kim family, and by extension the state that they established.
Kim Jong Il's birth was "heralded by a swallow, caused winter to change to spring, a star to illuminate the sky, and a double rainbow spontaneously appeared". Could have come straight out of any religious text (wasn't someone else's birth heralded by a star?). He could also control the weather with his mood, because what religion is complete without miracles?
It's identical to the "Noble" Lie: elites propagate misinformation to placates the proles, allowing them to further some agenda. The difference is the agenda, not the technique. It matters who is telling the Lie and what they believe is "Noble". When the Saudis stone a rape victim to death and only whip the rapist, they probably believe they are doing the noble thing too.
Belief without evidence and a lack of skepticism are the cause of, not the solution to, authoritarianism.
USSR and China, while maybe technically "atheist" (although this is debatable whether that was just the position of the state or whether the people of the USSR and China actually abandoned their religions en-masse under Communism, but nevertheless), absolutely had state religions, where worship was directed to the leader, the party, past heroes of the revolution, etc.
Religion (that is, belief in something without evidence) was still the problem.
Still doesn't explain, from your premise that all morality derives from religion, why child fucking is bad? God made no mention of it in the commandments, so obviously he didn't care about children getting fucked (or rape in general for that matter). Had to make sure he saved room to protect his ego with the first 4. Even the commandment against murder only meant those of your own tribe, you were allowed to kill infidels and heretics all you wanted.
Yeah, I totally want to worship that psycho.
Just make sure not to make any graven images while you're fucking children.*
*My name is Yahweh and I approve this message.
You make a good point. God forgetting to put "Thou shalt not fuck children" explains the Catholic Church pretty well.
Then you are not using the Android SDK. You are using the NDK, a game engine, or some other development environment.
If you're using the Android SDK you are writing in Java.
Even if that was the sole remaining use-case it would be far from dead.
Did you ignore my last paragraph? It looks like you ignored my last paragraph...
Any foreign company wanting to take advantage of China's cheap manufacturing services also need to hand over the related IP before being allowed to do so.
I have personally negotiated with Chinese CMs and there was never any such requirement. In fact there were many times where we took steps to ensure we retained our IP, e.g. we had the CM flash rudimentary firmware to test the hardware, with the real firmware flashed in-house later. Obviously some IP had to be sent so they could actually make the thing, but that's true no matter where your CM is based.
Maybe this can happen with very large companies where the Chinese government feels its worth it, but your claim that "any foreign company" must hand over all related IP is just not true.
Does that mean Washington and Oregon are actually the Pacific Northeast?
Yep. Liberals are the violent ones.