Did he seriously tell a journalist and the entire world that he would sign an executive order to effectively repel the 14th amendement (sic) of the Constitution of the United States ?
My guess is that he is trying to set up a court case to challenge the previous interpretation of the 14th Amendment. The full text of the citizenship clause reads as follows:
All person born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
The Dred Scott case ruled that slaves were not citizens of the U.S., but they were still under the jurisdiction of the U.S. So when the 14th amendment was written, this was taken into consideration. The argument Trump could make is that illegal aliens are not under the jurisdiction of the U.S. The author of this clause, Senator Jacob Howard is on the Congressional record, stating
The first amendment is to section one, declaring that all "persons born in the United States and Subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside. I do not propose to say anything on that subject except that the question of citizenship has been fully discussed in this body as not to need any further elucidation, in my opinion. This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.
So if the court were to use original intent (emphasized above) as opposed to relying on precedence, there's a good chance it could be overturned.
- hear the doorbell
- see when the dog/cat wants to go out / get fed
- see when the wife/spouse/etc wants attention
- see when the babies/children wake
- have a conversation with anyone else in the room.
- see when you get a message/notification/etc from friends
A. Release software updates that can slow older phones down
B. Release software updates only for newer phones
It seems to me that they would get in trouble for "planned obsolescence" either way. I'm sure some are thinking "What about 'C. Release software that doesn't slow down older phones'?", but that may not be possible based on the hardware. The only other realistic option is "D. Don't release software updates".
But I just don't get these seemingly increasing number of folks in the US promoting full blown open borders, with no control of who gets in here.
It's easy to understand if you see it from the Democrat perspective. Uneducated, low skill workers have a number of benefits. They come here, have an "anchor" babies that have birthright citizenship. They're called anchor babies because the mothers are now securely anchored to the country--you can't easily deport the mothers without causing a huge outcry. Those babies (U.S. citizens) now qualify for benefits: free schooling, free health care, food stamps, and eventually, free college. When those babies are old enough to vote, who are they going to vote for, the Santa Claus Democrats who gave them everything, or the Grinch Republicans who want to deport their parents?
Also, the fathers are often working under the table, usually for low wages, which helps suppress wages in general, and also contributes to unemployment of U.S. workers. That makes even more people dependent on the government. And guess what else? Many of the fathers never marry the mothers. Typically, if you have a child out of wedlock, and the child qualifies for benefits, the state is going to charge the father some amount to help recoup the costs. You can't do that if the father is a migrant worker and can't be located.
So in a nutshell, illegal immigrants are a boon to Democrats because it results in more people dependent on the government, which translates to more Democrat voters.
I'm pro-legal immigrant. I think it should be very easy for anyone to become a U.S. citizen, even low educated, low-skill people. For the most part, people who immigrate here are hard working and want the "American Dream" for them and their families. I don't care about their race, their country of origin, etc., but I do think there needs to be some restrictions. They should be able to pass a criminal background check, they should be employable, and they should be able to pass a basic written English exam--enough to be conversational, but not necessarily fluent. That is for the immigrant's benefit. Not speaking the primary language of the place you're living in is a severe disadvantage.
I think the best solution to the whole mess would be to end all federal welfare benefits and turn those over to the states. If California for instance wants to have 10 million low-skilled, non-English speaking immigrants that will need California tax-payer funded benefits, more power to them.
For the record, freedom of religion doesn't mean you can perform human sacrifices or polygamy and the right to bear arms doesn't include nuclear weapons.
Well, there goes my weekend plans! Got any more bad news for me?
The truly scary people are the people who think that atheists should have no morality.
I think atheists can live moral lives, it's just that they don't have any objective reason for living moral lives. From an atheistic worldview, it has to come down to personal preference.
That's an amazing feat for someone who is dead, and if he can do that while dead, I don't see a reason to use past tense. Who knows what else he can do now that he's dead!
Travel back in time can't be ruled out according to our present understanding.
I might actually consider this or one of the Samsung competitors. I don't go hiking/canoeing all that often but when I do, carrying a phone is PITA. And I feel compelled to carry one for emergency situations. Also at the water park with my kid. Although I may still go with a cheaper GSM watch that can receive texts and make a 911 call in an emergency. It means a higher monthly fee. But even with the IP68 rating, I'm still scared to submerge an expensive device.
You could just get one of these. and keep your current phone. Not just waterproof, but floats, and the touch screen & camera still work.
There might also be some cyclical stuff going on. It seems like every year it's something different at my house. Last year, it was Box Elders, the year before that, it was Yellow Jackets. This year, it looks like Ladybugs, which aren't anywhere near as annoying as the other two. I remember one year we had a "plague" of frogs. For several weeks we had heavy rain, and I had frogs in the lawn for a couple of weeks after that. I'd be out mowing, and the frogs would be fleeing out ahead of my lawn mower. Never saw that before or after that year. In any case, life is resilient, and if some bugs die out, others will fill in the gaps.
I fail to see what value a blockchain adds here over, say, signed certificates. Can someone explain the added value to either content creator, copyright holder or consumer that requires blockchain?
Buzzwords. They'll probably figure out how to jam AI in there in the near future as well.
No thanks for me at least. I remember when I got my first Palm Pilot. I learned graffiti & got pretty good at it. Then I had to write a check & struggled to remember how to print properly. The largest problem of course was that I don't do a lot of hand printing in the first place, so that really threw me off.
The government claims that encrypted communications are "increasingly being used by terrorist groups and organized criminals to avoid detection and disruption," without citing evidence
I know it isn't popular to say that a claim should be accepted without evidence, but I think it would be ignorant to assume that more and more terrorist groups and organized criminals are not using encrypted communications.
Isn't it also ignorant to assume that terrorist groups and organized criminals are going to stop using encrypted communications just because somebody passed a law? And that they won't jailbreak their phones, install encryption software that circumvents "back doors", and then the tech companies will still be helpless to assist in any case? It doesn't take a genius to see that one coming.
No one(that matters) has said that Russia put Trump in office.
Plenty of people in the media have said it and continue to say it, from late night TV hosts & SNL, to newspaper & TV journalists. They may not be in the government, but they certainly shape public opinion.
And why not? Trump has done nothing but lick Putins boots since even before being sworn in.
Yes, other groups such as Russia. This is how we wound up with Trump.
The whole Russia false narrative is getting really old, and I can't believe how many people have fallen for it. Hot off the press: Obama Had a Secret Plan in Case Trump Rejected 2016 Election Results It's pretty easy to see that when Trump won instead of lost, they decided to go forward with the false narrative anyway, and their useful idiot friends in the media helped to perpetuate it.
For my money I want to see voting made mandatory, like Jury Duty.
Nothing says freedom like compulsion! Have you ever considered that many people who don't vote do so consciously because they don't like any of the available choices? Or that they don't believe in government in the first place (i.e. anarchists, Amish, some pacifists)? Or how about sortitionists, who don't even believe in elections?
Then there's Jury Duty. I think jury duty would be better if they allowed people to voluntarily sign up. There's probably no shortage of retirees and unemployed that wouldn't mind making a few extra bucks.
The "Horse-manure panic" was caused, at the end of the 19th century, by the "predictions" that "By the late 1800s, large cities all around the world were âoedrowning in horse manureâ.
/.'s full of doom-mongering Malthusians. They remain committed to ceteris paribus analysis, not even contemplating that the market could possibly respond to this stimulus.
Democrats fail to understand right-wing anger. They think the Brett Kavanaugh hearings helped them, but polls are showing the opposite: it is the right that is riled up and angry, because... umm... their guy won again.
No, they're riled up because of the underhanded way the Democrats--especially Dianne Feinstein--handled the entire debacle. There was ample time to investigate the claims during the confirmation hearings, but they decided to wait until the very end to bring it up after the hearings were finished and right before the vote. I don't buy that she wanted to remain anonymous because she had contacted the Washington Post at the same time she contacted her congresswoman. If her claim had been considered credible, it would have been brought up during the hearings, but they decided to hold onto it thinking they would sink the nomination and rile up their base. They tried to be sneaky, and now it looks like it backfired.
Slashdot Mirror
Did he seriously tell a journalist and the entire world that he would sign an executive order to effectively repel the 14th amendement (sic) of the Constitution of the United States ?
My guess is that he is trying to set up a court case to challenge the previous interpretation of the 14th Amendment. The full text of the citizenship clause reads as follows:
All person born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
The Dred Scott case ruled that slaves were not citizens of the U.S., but they were still under the jurisdiction of the U.S. So when the 14th amendment was written, this was taken into consideration. The argument Trump could make is that illegal aliens are not under the jurisdiction of the U.S. The author of this clause, Senator Jacob Howard is on the Congressional record, stating
The first amendment is to section one, declaring that all "persons born in the United States and Subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside. I do not propose to say anything on that subject except that the question of citizenship has been fully discussed in this body as not to need any further elucidation, in my opinion. This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.
So if the court were to use original intent (emphasized above) as opposed to relying on precedence, there's a good chance it could be overturned.
...the PS4 Pro just isn't powerful enough.
How so? I use a PSVR on a PS4, and it works just fine. Seems like it would be even better on the Pro.
I.e. in VR I can't...
- hear the doorbell - see when the dog/cat wants to go out / get fed
- see when the wife/spouse/etc wants attention
- see when the babies/children wake
- have a conversation with anyone else in the room.
- see when you get a message/notification/etc from friends
Perfect!
The implications are that if we don't teach robots to kills us all, they won't kill us all?
They will "largely" avoid killing us all:
... Pac-Man went from seriously chowing down on ghosts to largely avoiding them.
Still, that doesn't sound like completely.
It seems to me that they would get in trouble for "planned obsolescence" either way. I'm sure some are thinking "What about 'C. Release software that doesn't slow down older phones'?", but that may not be possible based on the hardware. The only other realistic option is "D. Don't release software updates".
How was 1985 stressful in a way that 1975 was not?
M.A.D.?
But I just don't get these seemingly increasing number of folks in the US promoting full blown open borders, with no control of who gets in here.
It's easy to understand if you see it from the Democrat perspective. Uneducated, low skill workers have a number of benefits. They come here, have an "anchor" babies that have birthright citizenship. They're called anchor babies because the mothers are now securely anchored to the country--you can't easily deport the mothers without causing a huge outcry. Those babies (U.S. citizens) now qualify for benefits: free schooling, free health care, food stamps, and eventually, free college. When those babies are old enough to vote, who are they going to vote for, the Santa Claus Democrats who gave them everything, or the Grinch Republicans who want to deport their parents?
Also, the fathers are often working under the table, usually for low wages, which helps suppress wages in general, and also contributes to unemployment of U.S. workers. That makes even more people dependent on the government. And guess what else? Many of the fathers never marry the mothers. Typically, if you have a child out of wedlock, and the child qualifies for benefits, the state is going to charge the father some amount to help recoup the costs. You can't do that if the father is a migrant worker and can't be located.
So in a nutshell, illegal immigrants are a boon to Democrats because it results in more people dependent on the government, which translates to more Democrat voters.
I'm pro-legal immigrant. I think it should be very easy for anyone to become a U.S. citizen, even low educated, low-skill people. For the most part, people who immigrate here are hard working and want the "American Dream" for them and their families. I don't care about their race, their country of origin, etc., but I do think there needs to be some restrictions. They should be able to pass a criminal background check, they should be employable, and they should be able to pass a basic written English exam--enough to be conversational, but not necessarily fluent. That is for the immigrant's benefit. Not speaking the primary language of the place you're living in is a severe disadvantage.
I think the best solution to the whole mess would be to end all federal welfare benefits and turn those over to the states. If California for instance wants to have 10 million low-skilled, non-English speaking immigrants that will need California tax-payer funded benefits, more power to them.
Clean the inside of the nozzle with a metal brush after each print. The micro-scratches it creates should throw it off enough that you can't ID it.
For the record, freedom of religion doesn't mean you can perform human sacrifices or polygamy and the right to bear arms doesn't include nuclear weapons.
Well, there goes my weekend plans! Got any more bad news for me?
You can object all you like. Morality and its enforcement is the most fundemental power of the body politic.
I was asking you personally what you base your objections on.
The truly scary people are the people who think that atheists should have no morality.
I think atheists can live moral lives, it's just that they don't have any objective reason for living moral lives. From an atheistic worldview, it has to come down to personal preference.
In what you might call spiritual terms, yes. Morality is largely a human construct.
If morality is a human construct, then it is arbitrary.
As a social species we need rules of conduct, but the nature of those rules has varied wildly in time and space.
Surely there are some rules you like and some you don't. If morality is arbitrary, on what do you base your objections to the rules you don't like?
It comes down to my view, as unscientific as it may be, that I simply cannot see a necessity for such a being to exist.
So to be logically consistent, do you also reject the concepts of good and evil?
Without God there's less chance you'll be dragged out of your house and strapped to a stone altar to be mutilated.
But there's an increased chance to be dragged out of your house and stood up next to a wall to be shot for wrong thinking.
That's an amazing feat for someone who is dead, and if he can do that while dead, I don't see a reason to use past tense. Who knows what else he can do now that he's dead!
Travel back in time can't be ruled out according to our present understanding.
I might actually consider this or one of the Samsung competitors. I don't go hiking/canoeing all that often but when I do, carrying a phone is PITA. And I feel compelled to carry one for emergency situations. Also at the water park with my kid. Although I may still go with a cheaper GSM watch that can receive texts and make a 911 call in an emergency. It means a higher monthly fee. But even with the IP68 rating, I'm still scared to submerge an expensive device.
You could just get one of these. and keep your current phone. Not just waterproof, but floats, and the touch screen & camera still work.
There might also be some cyclical stuff going on. It seems like every year it's something different at my house. Last year, it was Box Elders, the year before that, it was Yellow Jackets. This year, it looks like Ladybugs, which aren't anywhere near as annoying as the other two. I remember one year we had a "plague" of frogs. For several weeks we had heavy rain, and I had frogs in the lawn for a couple of weeks after that. I'd be out mowing, and the frogs would be fleeing out ahead of my lawn mower. Never saw that before or after that year. In any case, life is resilient, and if some bugs die out, others will fill in the gaps.
I fail to see what value a blockchain adds here over, say, signed certificates. Can someone explain the added value to either content creator, copyright holder or consumer that requires blockchain?
Buzzwords. They'll probably figure out how to jam AI in there in the near future as well.
Barring that, can we bring back Palm's Graffiti?
No thanks for me at least. I remember when I got my first Palm Pilot. I learned graffiti & got pretty good at it. Then I had to write a check & struggled to remember how to print properly. The largest problem of course was that I don't do a lot of hand printing in the first place, so that really threw me off.
The government claims that encrypted communications are "increasingly being used by terrorist groups and organized criminals to avoid detection and disruption," without citing evidence
I know it isn't popular to say that a claim should be accepted without evidence, but I think it would be ignorant to assume that more and more terrorist groups and organized criminals are not using encrypted communications.
Isn't it also ignorant to assume that terrorist groups and organized criminals are going to stop using encrypted communications just because somebody passed a law? And that they won't jailbreak their phones, install encryption software that circumvents "back doors", and then the tech companies will still be helpless to assist in any case? It doesn't take a genius to see that one coming.
No one(that matters) has said that Russia put Trump in office.
Plenty of people in the media have said it and continue to say it, from late night TV hosts & SNL, to newspaper & TV journalists. They may not be in the government, but they certainly shape public opinion.
And why not? Trump has done nothing but lick Putins boots since even before being sworn in.
You mean like this: Trump launches military strike against Syria, or like this: Trump signs bill approving new sanctions against Russia ? Those don't strike me as boot licking...
Yes, other groups such as Russia. This is how we wound up with Trump.
The whole Russia false narrative is getting really old, and I can't believe how many people have fallen for it. Hot off the press: Obama Had a Secret Plan in Case Trump Rejected 2016 Election Results It's pretty easy to see that when Trump won instead of lost, they decided to go forward with the false narrative anyway, and their useful idiot friends in the media helped to perpetuate it.
For my money I want to see voting made mandatory, like Jury Duty.
Nothing says freedom like compulsion! Have you ever considered that many people who don't vote do so consciously because they don't like any of the available choices? Or that they don't believe in government in the first place (i.e. anarchists, Amish, some pacifists)? Or how about sortitionists, who don't even believe in elections?
Then there's Jury Duty. I think jury duty would be better if they allowed people to voluntarily sign up. There's probably no shortage of retirees and unemployed that wouldn't mind making a few extra bucks.
The "Horse-manure panic" was caused, at the end of the 19th century, by the "predictions" that "By the late 1800s, large cities all around the world were âoedrowning in horse manureâ.
/.'s full of doom-mongering Malthusians. They remain committed to ceteris paribus analysis, not even contemplating that the market could possibly respond to this stimulus.
Democrats fail to understand right-wing anger. They think the Brett Kavanaugh hearings helped them, but polls are showing the opposite: it is the right that is riled up and angry, because ... umm ... their guy won again.
No, they're riled up because of the underhanded way the Democrats--especially Dianne Feinstein--handled the entire debacle. There was ample time to investigate the claims during the confirmation hearings, but they decided to wait until the very end to bring it up after the hearings were finished and right before the vote. I don't buy that she wanted to remain anonymous because she had contacted the Washington Post at the same time she contacted her congresswoman. If her claim had been considered credible, it would have been brought up during the hearings, but they decided to hold onto it thinking they would sink the nomination and rile up their base. They tried to be sneaky, and now it looks like it backfired.