Perhaps you should learn logic. It is true that the NK press release talked about unicorns. Their inability to translate to English makes them look foolish. It's got nothing to do with "western propaganda," as you claimed - anyone can read their own press release and see that they claimed to have found "a lair of the unicorn rode by King Tongmyong."
The North Korean test produced results similar in size to a past test they did of a fission bomb. Other than their claims, which have been known to be exaggerated (unicorns, anyone?) there's nothing to indicate that the latest was in fact a thermonuclear bomb.
Well, since you don't know the difference between buy and sell, there's no way to explain it in terms you'd understand. But I'll give you a big hint: straw purchases are already illegal and the recent Executive action wasn't related to them in any way.
"I would Prefer if they did require background checks at gun shows."
There is no "gun show loophole," the laws/regulations already apply without regard to where the sale is made. Background checks are already required at gun shows, if the seller is in the business. But if some guy sells his dead father's Rem 742 deer rifle in a garage sale or at a gun show (where he's likely to get a better price), there's no background check.
In fact, he couldn't run a background check even if he wanted to - you have to have a Federal Firearm License to do that. If Obama were to try and change things so all firearm sales/transfers had to go through FFLs, that would be an unconstitutional overreach. If a father wants to give his son a.22 on his 13th birthday, that's none of the government's business.
In this case, the only official result I've found is a new (or revised) publication from the BATF. If what it contains is the full extent, then you're right, I have no complaint because there is no substantive change. If you're aware of any other authoritative reference on any resulting changes, please provide a citation.
OTOH, Obama does have a history of unconstitutional overreach. Notably in delaying implementation (i.e. enforcement) of some sections of the health care bill he pushed. That was in direct violation of his oath and duty to uphold US law.
"The most controversial of the provisions requires licenses for those who sell guns at gun shows and on the internet, and forces background checks on buyers."
It's all bullshit. Those on the right hype it as an unconstitutional overreach. Obama hypes it as a significant change which will help close the "gun show loophole."
They're both exaggerating, extremely. The only thing Obama did was to emphasize already existing law/regulation. It has long been the case that anyone who is "in the business" of selling guns (i.e. regularly for profit) must have a Federal Firearms License, and do background checks on those they sell to. It's never mattered where the guns were sold, it's based solely on whether the seller is doing it as a business. What Obama did changes nothing, except perhaps serve notice that they'll be paying more attention to enforcing existing law/regulation.
"The story is that there is a stupid person on the internet"
And that person is the author of the very deliberately misleading (quoting out of context) and biased summary.
If you read the actual linked-to editorial, it's clear that he does in fact understand Google's role. From the original editorial:
If a store sells knockoff designer handbags, why is it okay for police to come in, confiscate the illegal merchandise, and arrest and fine the store owners? It's because the store is profiting from the sales of these illegal goods, in the same way Google can increase its advertising rates because these illegal sites increase the number of users it attracts.
He then goes on to make an insightful comparison to patent law, where a product manufacturer can be liable for infringement by using a part which violates a patent even if they didn't design or manufacture that part.
All the more reason to not require keeping that info. Someone votes in a primary, they're marked as having voted and can't vote in any other party's primary for that election. Requiring party declaration and paperwork to switch parties is antithetical to democracy, although the major parties like it.
"Without Government there is no 'right of way' as all ways are privately held..."
You're begging the question, for without government how are these "privately held" created, and how are they secured? Locke said "man looks for, and is willing to join in society with others for the mutual preservation of their lives, liberty and property." That government grants limited monopolies in some areas such as infrastructure rights-of-way in no way argues against those grants also resulting in other monopolies.
"Maybe you can explain how the U.S. created the Bell System (aka Ma Bell) and Standard Oil monopolies and then why they would dismantle what they created."
US laws created an environment where the Bell System could gain exclusive access to rights-of-way for building their system. The alternative would have been for Bell to negotiate rights-of-way with (millions?) of landowners. Their initial dominance was built upon government provided patent rights. Standard Oil was built on "mineral" rights granted by law, which allowed them to not simply own property for their own use, but to extract natural resources for sale to others. It also benefited from rights-of-way which were allowed to be used inequitably, both directly and indirectly.
Simply put, to the extent that they were monopolies, they also operated in an environment which was not a true free market due to government action.
Governments provide and enforce patents and copyrights. They can grant exclusive use of public resources (rights-of-way, spectrum, other natural resources). They can impose laws or regulations which set a high bar for market entry. Without those privileges and protections given by government, monopolies could not exist.
It begins by knowing what "affiliated" means. It doesn't have to mean an Amazon-like paid referral program. It can mean that the person is an employee of, or has some other link to, the website.
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps you should learn logic. It is true that the NK press release talked about unicorns. Their inability to translate to English makes them look foolish. It's got nothing to do with "western propaganda," as you claimed - anyone can read their own press release and see that they claimed to have found "a lair of the unicorn rode by King Tongmyong."
Really, you can't make up stuff as good as that.
So, an English language press release from the KCNA, North Korea's state news agency, is now "western propaganda?"
"There also is not a lot of reason for doubt."
Come back when you're the head of an international commission tasked with figuring these things out.
The North Korean test produced results similar in size to a past test they did of a fission bomb. Other than their claims, which have been known to be exaggerated (unicorns, anyone?) there's nothing to indicate that the latest was in fact a thermonuclear bomb.
They popped a hydrogen filled balloon with a lit cigarette and declared success.
Well, since you don't know the difference between buy and sell, there's no way to explain it in terms you'd understand. But I'll give you a big hint: straw purchases are already illegal and the recent Executive action wasn't related to them in any way.
Not clear if you're a troll, ignorant or simply an idiot. Because, the Supremes never got involved in what I mentioned.
"I would Prefer if they did require background checks at gun shows."
.22 on his 13th birthday, that's none of the government's business.
There is no "gun show loophole," the laws/regulations already apply without regard to where the sale is made. Background checks are already required at gun shows, if the seller is in the business. But if some guy sells his dead father's Rem 742 deer rifle in a garage sale or at a gun show (where he's likely to get a better price), there's no background check.
In fact, he couldn't run a background check even if he wanted to - you have to have a Federal Firearm License to do that. If Obama were to try and change things so all firearm sales/transfers had to go through FFLs, that would be an unconstitutional overreach. If a father wants to give his son a
In this case, the only official result I've found is a new (or revised) publication from the BATF. If what it contains is the full extent, then you're right, I have no complaint because there is no substantive change. If you're aware of any other authoritative reference on any resulting changes, please provide a citation.
OTOH, Obama does have a history of unconstitutional overreach. Notably in delaying implementation (i.e. enforcement) of some sections of the health care bill he pushed. That was in direct violation of his oath and duty to uphold US law.
"The most controversial of the provisions requires licenses for those who sell guns at gun shows and on the internet, and forces background checks on buyers."
It's all bullshit. Those on the right hype it as an unconstitutional overreach. Obama hypes it as a significant change which will help close the "gun show loophole."
They're both exaggerating, extremely. The only thing Obama did was to emphasize already existing law/regulation. It has long been the case that anyone who is "in the business" of selling guns (i.e. regularly for profit) must have a Federal Firearms License, and do background checks on those they sell to. It's never mattered where the guns were sold, it's based solely on whether the seller is doing it as a business. What Obama did changes nothing, except perhaps serve notice that they'll be paying more attention to enforcing existing law/regulation.
Maybe someone can make a video and put it on YouTube.
I don't claim he has a valid argument, only that he does understand Google's role in the matter, contrary to the biased summary.
And that person is the author of the very deliberately misleading (quoting out of context) and biased summary.
If you read the actual linked-to editorial, it's clear that he does in fact understand Google's role. From the original editorial:
He then goes on to make an insightful comparison to patent law, where a product manufacturer can be liable for infringement by using a part which violates a patent even if they didn't design or manufacture that part.
All the more reason to not require keeping that info. Someone votes in a primary, they're marked as having voted and can't vote in any other party's primary for that election. Requiring party declaration and paperwork to switch parties is antithetical to democracy, although the major parties like it.
"A trove of all U.S. voter data could be valuable to criminals looking for lists of large numbers of targets for a variety of fraud schemes. "
Wait until the author discovers phone books!
"Without Government there is no 'right of way' as all ways are privately held..."
You're begging the question, for without government how are these "privately held" created, and how are they secured? Locke said "man looks for, and is willing to join in society with others for the mutual preservation of their lives, liberty and property." That government grants limited monopolies in some areas such as infrastructure rights-of-way in no way argues against those grants also resulting in other monopolies.
"Maybe you can explain how the U.S. created the Bell System (aka Ma Bell) and Standard Oil monopolies and then why they would dismantle what they created."
US laws created an environment where the Bell System could gain exclusive access to rights-of-way for building their system. The alternative would have been for Bell to negotiate rights-of-way with (millions?) of landowners. Their initial dominance was built upon government provided patent rights. Standard Oil was built on "mineral" rights granted by law, which allowed them to not simply own property for their own use, but to extract natural resources for sale to others. It also benefited from rights-of-way which were allowed to be used inequitably, both directly and indirectly.
Simply put, to the extent that they were monopolies, they also operated in an environment which was not a true free market due to government action.
Governments provide and enforce patents and copyrights. They can grant exclusive use of public resources (rights-of-way, spectrum, other natural resources). They can impose laws or regulations which set a high bar for market entry. Without those privileges and protections given by government, monopolies could not exist.
Thanks for providing the support for my argument.
Switzerland is not a pure direct democracy. They have a federal system, and a parliament. The federal budget is not subject to referendums.
Although you lose, thanks for playing "soundbites.".
Hint for the illiterate AC: John Stuart Mill.
It's only 2 letters. Learn what "or" means. If you study really hard, you can do it!
Disneyland/Disneyworld, whatever.
"Sometimes I have the mistaken belief that lawmakers make laws to help people."
They do. The problem is, it's not the people they're supposed to be representing.
It begins by knowing what "affiliated" means. It doesn't have to mean an Amazon-like paid referral program. It can mean that the person is an employee of, or has some other link to, the website.