I wouldn't say far better or anything close to the sorts. You almost got there, you admitted it was hilarious but still couldn't get the joke. Of course the story about high school kids tearing out everything in the dictionary that starts with the letter i must be what you thought was intelligent and informed.
People like you sadden me. But I'm still in the Christmas spirit so I will just wish you and your family well into the new year.
There most certainly is intent. It is the reasons for why the constitution is implemented and how the usage of the powers granted by it are supposed to be used. However. it is covered by the US constitution already so I am still at a loss over what you think it means.
I don't think that's sustainable.
You don't have to think it's anything other than the reasons why the US constitution was made and why the powers granted to the government or restricted from the states are included.
Or maybe they did, just to spare argument. Ink, is in fact, very cheap. I do consider those particular phrases to be redundant myself, when you consider the Elastic Clause.
And if Section 8 was enough, we wouldn't have needed the Bill of Rights, but you see, we do have it, because others at the time, weren't convinced of the sufficiency of those limitations.
See how unconvincing you are? Even the people at the time didn't believe it. Yet now you expect us to do so?
If you read the federalist and antifederalist papers, as well as the notes on the constitutional convention, you will not assume it is contradictory at all. In fact, the arguments against the bill of rights was that they weren't needed and that it would somehow be construed that all other rights were fair game to yank away. That was the sole purpose of what is now the 9th and 10 amendments (originally the 11th and 12th amendments)- to clarify that isn't the case at all.
Not really, no. The Articles of Confederation were ratified by 1781.
The Treaty of Paris that ended the war was signed 1783.
The confederacy known as the United States of America predated the end of the war.
And even that treaty says the two countries, not 13, or 14 if you count the overall United States of America as a separate. At most, you'll get them recognized as free, sovereign states, but not countries.
What do you think the definition of a country is? Here is a hint, a state is a country, and article 2 of the confederation specifically listed that all sovereignty of the states were not lost except what was specifically given up in the confederation. In fact, state and country is synonymous for the most part with few exceptions.
And conversely, it wouldn't exist if States weren't having their autonomy limited. But that is the Constitutions very point, especially that section. They were expected to yield it up, regardless of what they wanted.
And thus the United States is governing over all the states.
No, they yielded up only the sovereignty that was needed to enact the constitution. That is the purpose of the 9th and 10th amendments and before those, the restrictions on the states all but directly acknowledged this to be the case as it is very specific in what the states cannot do that sovereign states could otherwise do.
I wish it were that easy, but it's really not. They're really just lucky Obama would go along with outright legalization if that was politically feasible across the country.
Instead we get a half-assed patchwork.
well, no. Even for cases of murder or such, the federal government does not have jurisdiction by default. Crimes on a federal level need to happen in ways that create jurisdiction for the federal government. The legalization of pot would survive a court challenge as long as it's implementation didn't cross into federal jurisdiction. And even then, there might not be enough constitutional authority to validate the federal drug laws on those levels. But that is another discussion. There is a reasons Colorado doesn't import pot from California or Cuba, Mexico, Oregon or wherever and only allows the manufacturing in state. Because if they did allow outside sources, you would end up with the interstate commerce clause giving the feds jurisdict
Yes I have read it. However, you seem to be ascribing intent and meaning where there is nothing of the sorts. I asked you to specifically spell that out and you seem to fail to mention what you think it means but somehow believe the federal government has fallen short on it.
Based on what? Certainly not the Supremacy Clause.
"2: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
Not a long read either.
Governance over the entire country seems pretty clear to me. The Nanny part? You can argue what that means till the end of time. We'd never get anywhere with that kind of discussion.
Wow.. Just wow.. How about article one section 8, To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof. It clearly lists the powers of congress and then says they can make law to do those powers. It limits congress to what the constitution allows it to do. This is why all amendments that give congress more power have wording that allows congress to make laws to bring the amendments into life. They certainly did not include those words because there was a surplus of ink in the nation's capitol.
Yes, there was a less centralized government before the Constitution was enacted. Maybe you should remember that. Except "a confederacy of different countries" wasn't really the case under the Articles of Confederation anyway, at least not as how you parsed it. But I'm willing to concur that they did have more sovereignty under them, so you're not entirely wrong, I just find your own expression to be ill-chosen.
No, I'm completely right. After the revolutionary war, there was 13 countries. These countries quickly formed a confederacy and didn't want to limit their autonomy. The confederacy was too weak and the constitution was born to institute a republican union with stronger abilities as spelled out in the constitution. Article one section 10 would be unnecessary if the states weren't expected to maintain a level of sovereignty which is still alive and well today. In fact, this is exactly the principle at play with Colorado's legalization of marijuana laws- the supremacy clause doesn't supersede their laws as long as the laws in practice do not allow violations within federal jurisdiction. Everything is intrastate and thereby out of federal jurisdiction for the most part.
No, it doesn't. There is no provision in the Constitution that makes it as difficult as possible for wannabe-tyrants to grab enough power to rule over the people who would rather be LEFT ALONE.
There really isn't. Unless your idea of difficult as possible is a very low bar, in which case I am deeply disappointed in your standards.
If all laws are supposed to be constitutional, and the only ways to make a law is outlined in the constitution, then the only way someone could become a tyrant or dictator is to ignore the constitution in which the courts would put in check, or to convince 3/4 of the states to allow an amendment. Do you really think getting 3/4 of the states to agree to allow a tyrant to have power is a low bar? Do you think that is easy or something? If it is, then why hasn't it happened already?
You seem to think that you can read my mind, but the problem is that you cannot. Not from a single post. You don't know what I think of the limits of Federal power, my opinion of the 10th Amendment, or what I truly believe about t
I guess completely destroying a region and killing everything in sight is peanuts to you then? I mean despite your list of anatomically incorrect ramblings (9/11/2001 is before the election of 2000?), you sure do have a whacked sense of proportionality. Or did your knee jerk so hard that you couldn't read the part where I said some crap slipped through.
Ok, but it should at least have some ability to pursue the goals as stated in the Preamble.
What goals are those exactly? The US federal government was never originally intended to be a nanny government over the country. It was intended to be a united front for foreign relations and take care of a few domestic issues between the countries that became the United States of America. Remember, before the constitution, there was a confederacy of different countries.
It serves no means by which to effect that.
Why yes it does. It specifically describes the purpose and legitimate pursuits of the federal government, places limits on it, and sets a high bar for amending the constitution to pretty much guarantee that most of the country is behind the changes necessary.
Oh, you're one of the people who think that all sorts of woes can be blamed on those things. No, the income tax was not explicitly forbidden by the Constitution, it was merely interpreted as such by the Supreme Court, but as the effective taxation of a modern time needed to reflect a greater understanding of the benefits of an income tax versus the other means of taxation, it was considered desirable to overrule the Supreme Court's decision and simply legislating around it was considered less feasible.
I think you are the problem. The US constitution does not explicitly forbid government from doing most things. The amendments do. But the Constitution grants government powers which it never had and reserved those powers not granted to it for the states and the people. You seem to think the federal government can do anything it wants and however it wants but the problem is that it cannot. This is why you have to point out that the income tax was once found unconstitutional (the feds didn't have the authority to do it) and an amendment had to be made to allow that action.
In the case of the Senate, the very corruption of the state legislatures was the heart of that issue, and even that wouldn't begin to be addressed until Baker v. Carr and Reynolds v. Sims, though even today, it is still a flawed system, the people of Arizona might have lost Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, and the state of Florida's legislature can barely be arsed to pretend to comply with their own process requirements.
I have to ask, what does Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission have to do with the direct election of senators? You simply cannot gerrymander a senate seat.
Well, I do not remember hearing about us actually turning the middle east into a giant glass parking lot with a few of our nukes like I remember quite a bit of talk about after 9/11. I also do not remember going into Afghanistan or Iraq trying to kill them all and let God sort it out either. In fact, we took great pains to attempt to sort between good guys, bad guys, and innocent guys who wanted nothing to do with either. It wasn't always successful but it was attempted.
Just because some lunatic ideas slipped through doesn't mean all of them did.
Why would he want to google free speech zones? Nowhere in the constitution does it say your right to redress the government allows you to interrupt or forbid someone else' rights in the process. All the free speech zones do is stop that from happening.
Don't get too upset. He graduated from high school with Alanis Morissette. Evidently, the class to graduate the year before them thought they were too self centered so for the senior prank, they tore every page in the dictionaries out that defined any word starting with the letter i. Some seniors glued copies of other pages defining words like team, you, them and so on in their place. Some seniors drew pictures of spiders and stick figures in dunce hats thinking they would be funny or something.
Anyways, it left a generation not knowing the definition of Irony (no, it's not something that feels like metal or clothing your mom pressed).
The "online" portion of "your rights online" is only because we are discussing it, here, online -- but those rights STILL apply online AND offline.
No, the online portion means rights on activities you do online not just talking about them online. For instance, this entire topic is off topic but trying to stop people from talking about the topic would be on topic. See the similarities there but notice the differences. It has never been a blanket your rights category.
Regardless if you call it "your rights" or "your rights online", *nothing* changes.
Sure it does. That is because both are specific statements and while one might contain the other, the inverse is not true at all. I understand you are failing to distinguish that difference but that doesn't make your lack of knowledge the way reality is.
Now I don't a see a category for "Your Privileges Online"; the closest match is "Your Rights Online" so nitpicking means fucks all.
No, nitpicking means this entire story is offtopic and belongs on topix or rededit or whatever other shit site where people make things up and bitch about it in some virtual attempt to save the world as they think they know it.
The family _already_ got permission and were fraudulently denied without any explanation.
How were they fraudulently denied? Neither you nor anyone else has presented any valid reasons to why they were denied. The article does it's best to point out they were Muslim but no proof of that being true or even the reasoning for the denial is ever tendered. The VISA waivier program is only to see if they qualify for a visa wavier not to see if they are allowed into the country. So not only did you get the entire online thing wrong, you have gotten the entire process they were trying to enter on wrong to boot.
Use some rubbing alcohol and a qtip and clean the tape head. That or check for a bad capacitor and change as necessary.
Hissing is a sign of badly maintained or failing equipment. True that digital "can" carry better quality. But i doubt high fidelity is what the modern usages of cassette tapes is about.
That's not Firefox 's roots. Firefox originated as the stand alone browser without all the other crap. In its inception, it was separate from seamonkey or the Netscape stile internet suite.
If he said back to its Netscape roots, you would be accurate. But since the entire concept of Firefox was a standalone browser , the association to seamonkey is a bit off.
I just want to point out that the group here seems to be in consensus that groupthink is a problem. Or to put it another way, the groupthink is that groupthink is a problem to be avoided. Except in this case groupthink is probably right.
Now if that makes sense to you, you should realize that i have no idea what a reputation engine is (other than a means to validate information) or how that could be implemented without authoritative answers around the latest information). I'm not sure it could be reliably done for any complex issue outside of hard facts either.
Consumer level drones doesn't really mean just off the shelf ready to fly. Hobby drones can have thier entire flight plan loaded before taking off, fly the route, and return without even transmitting or receiving radio signals in flight. The control computer can also encrypt its communication and take updates in flight encrypted so jamming a signal or broadcasting a stronger one will not be enough in all cases.
You will basically need to jam a signal so powerful that it floods the circuitry and interrupts the control signals in the drone itself. And it will also need to defeat shielding in the process too.
Because established policies route around singling specific people out or explain actions that if independent could create liability. It doesn't always remove liability but that is the intent. It is more or less establishing plausible deniability.
So suppose you have a business in the inner city and don't want to hire the locals. You create a policy of requiring a hogh school diploma and drug testing. Either one will stop a lot of people from applying for the jobs. If someone is qualified, you institute another policy like working swing shift or weekends to disinterest others. Or let's say you think all minorities are shoplifters, you make a policy where people follow them around while in the store except your policy is to pick random people of all types. Or suppose you're a government of some town and you want to pull over people for driving while black. You create a policy to stop people and give them gift certificates or something for good driving - except now that questionable lawful contact is made, you you can ask what they are doing in your town or question about drugs and so on.
A policy also shifts blame from those following it and places it on the organization which created it.
You have absolutely no evidence that such things have taken place. No reason was given for denying their travel and everything including the terrorist and criminal reasoning is all speculation. For all we know it could be because someone in the family posted something about going to live in America on their Facebook profile and they were blocked from travel to the US because it appeared they would become illegal aliens if given the chance.
But it doesn't matter anyways. Any infraction of what you think should apply in any civilized society is pure speculation at this point.
It's a little more than 100 years ago with the US anyways. The constitution actually talks about congress making rules for naturalization and bars congress from making laws banning people from entering the states (importation) until after 1808.
So even with some sense of an inalienable right, the founding of the USA was of the premise that this right could be controlled or removed altogether.
Your rights online is about the tech angles of rights - that is how rights are affected online. It is not and never was a general rights discussion group. It was always about a tech presence at the meat of the story.
This story does not belong here. There is no tech angles whatsoever at all. As for the fraudulent denial, no it was not. Any country can at any time deny entrance to foreign people for any reason not prohibited by their law. No reason to which why the denial is illegal can be given. There are two parts to the visa waiver program and all that has happened is they got past one part but not the other. It happens all the time.
It's sad that they found out after spending a ton of money but they had no rights violated here.
So you are saying that the government pays for this access and Facebook is charging people?
Change your public library for a book store and change your republican partisanship for owners and it might make a little more sense. But then it just sounds silly.
Foreigners have the same rights, to travel and enter their own country. There is no difference in this right except their country. No US citizen has a right to enter any other country of their choosing.
This story is about foreign nationals trying to enter a country not their own. As far as I know, that is a privilege even if attempted by a US citizen.
I mistook the original for being able to see without corrective lenses. I read it completely wrong and took it to mean that using binoculars or similar lenses in order to see the aircraft was not permissible.
Yeah I reread it and it makes much more sense now. Thanks for pointing my error out.
Not looking for a target of opportunity, looking for a payout. You get in the same amount of trouble for a $50 payout as you would for a $50,000 payout. I doubt you would score 50k, but you are more than likely to score above $50.
They sure could. Or they could just use this database, look for people in their area, use google maps and street view to case the joint, then pounce with little effort or public exposure.
The list of drone owners narrows this process down a bit. Homes and cars are purchased on loans, drones are usually purchased with cash/credit cards. Loans can absorb all your disposable income making the potential score limited, knowing you have the income for a drone could weed this out.
Slashdot Mirror
I wouldn't say far better or anything close to the sorts. You almost got there, you admitted it was hilarious but still couldn't get the joke. Of course the story about high school kids tearing out everything in the dictionary that starts with the letter i must be what you thought was intelligent and informed.
People like you sadden me. But I'm still in the Christmas spirit so I will just wish you and your family well into the new year.
There most certainly is intent. It is the reasons for why the constitution is implemented and how the usage of the powers granted by it are supposed to be used. However. it is covered by the US constitution already so I am still at a loss over what you think it means.
You don't have to think it's anything other than the reasons why the US constitution was made and why the powers granted to the government or restricted from the states are included.
If you read the federalist and antifederalist papers, as well as the notes on the constitutional convention, you will not assume it is contradictory at all. In fact, the arguments against the bill of rights was that they weren't needed and that it would somehow be construed that all other rights were fair game to yank away. That was the sole purpose of what is now the 9th and 10 amendments (originally the 11th and 12th amendments)- to clarify that isn't the case at all.
What do you think the definition of a country is? Here is a hint, a state is a country, and article 2 of the confederation specifically listed that all sovereignty of the states were not lost except what was specifically given up in the confederation. In fact, state and country is synonymous for the most part with few exceptions.
No, they yielded up only the sovereignty that was needed to enact the constitution. That is the purpose of the 9th and 10th amendments and before those, the restrictions on the states all but directly acknowledged this to be the case as it is very specific in what the states cannot do that sovereign states could otherwise do.
well, no. Even for cases of murder or such, the federal government does not have jurisdiction by default. Crimes on a federal level need to happen in ways that create jurisdiction for the federal government. The legalization of pot would survive a court challenge as long as it's implementation didn't cross into federal jurisdiction. And even then, there might not be enough constitutional authority to validate the federal drug laws on those levels. But that is another discussion. There is a reasons Colorado doesn't import pot from California or Cuba, Mexico, Oregon or wherever and only allows the manufacturing in state. Because if they did allow outside sources, you would end up with the interstate commerce clause giving the feds jurisdict
Yes I have read it. However, you seem to be ascribing intent and meaning where there is nothing of the sorts. I asked you to specifically spell that out and you seem to fail to mention what you think it means but somehow believe the federal government has fallen short on it.
Wow.. Just wow.. How about article one section 8, To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof. It clearly lists the powers of congress and then says they can make law to do those powers. It limits congress to what the constitution allows it to do. This is why all amendments that give congress more power have wording that allows congress to make laws to bring the amendments into life. They certainly did not include those words because there was a surplus of ink in the nation's capitol.
No, I'm completely right. After the revolutionary war, there was 13 countries. These countries quickly formed a confederacy and didn't want to limit their autonomy. The confederacy was too weak and the constitution was born to institute a republican union with stronger abilities as spelled out in the constitution. Article one section 10 would be unnecessary if the states weren't expected to maintain a level of sovereignty which is still alive and well today. In fact, this is exactly the principle at play with Colorado's legalization of marijuana laws- the supremacy clause doesn't supersede their laws as long as the laws in practice do not allow violations within federal jurisdiction. Everything is intrastate and thereby out of federal jurisdiction for the most part.
If all laws are supposed to be constitutional, and the only ways to make a law is outlined in the constitution, then the only way someone could become a tyrant or dictator is to ignore the constitution in which the courts would put in check, or to convince 3/4 of the states to allow an amendment. Do you really think getting 3/4 of the states to agree to allow a tyrant to have power is a low bar? Do you think that is easy or something? If it is, then why hasn't it happened already?
I guess completely destroying a region and killing everything in sight is peanuts to you then? I mean despite your list of anatomically incorrect ramblings (9/11/2001 is before the election of 2000?), you sure do have a whacked sense of proportionality. Or did your knee jerk so hard that you couldn't read the part where I said some crap slipped through.
What goals are those exactly? The US federal government was never originally intended to be a nanny government over the country. It was intended to be a united front for foreign relations and take care of a few domestic issues between the countries that became the United States of America. Remember, before the constitution, there was a confederacy of different countries.
Why yes it does. It specifically describes the purpose and legitimate pursuits of the federal government, places limits on it, and sets a high bar for amending the constitution to pretty much guarantee that most of the country is behind the changes necessary.
I think you are the problem. The US constitution does not explicitly forbid government from doing most things. The amendments do. But the Constitution grants government powers which it never had and reserved those powers not granted to it for the states and the people. You seem to think the federal government can do anything it wants and however it wants but the problem is that it cannot. This is why you have to point out that the income tax was once found unconstitutional (the feds didn't have the authority to do it) and an amendment had to be made to allow that action.
I have to ask, what does Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission have to do with the direct election of senators? You simply cannot gerrymander a senate seat.
Well, I do not remember hearing about us actually turning the middle east into a giant glass parking lot with a few of our nukes like I remember quite a bit of talk about after 9/11. I also do not remember going into Afghanistan or Iraq trying to kill them all and let God sort it out either. In fact, we took great pains to attempt to sort between good guys, bad guys, and innocent guys who wanted nothing to do with either. It wasn't always successful but it was attempted.
Just because some lunatic ideas slipped through doesn't mean all of them did.
Why would he want to google free speech zones? Nowhere in the constitution does it say your right to redress the government allows you to interrupt or forbid someone else' rights in the process. All the free speech zones do is stop that from happening.
Don't get too upset. He graduated from high school with Alanis Morissette. Evidently, the class to graduate the year before them thought they were too self centered so for the senior prank, they tore every page in the dictionaries out that defined any word starting with the letter i. Some seniors glued copies of other pages defining words like team, you, them and so on in their place. Some seniors drew pictures of spiders and stick figures in dunce hats thinking they would be funny or something.
Anyways, it left a generation not knowing the definition of Irony (no, it's not something that feels like metal or clothing your mom pressed).
No, the online portion means rights on activities you do online not just talking about them online. For instance, this entire topic is off topic but trying to stop people from talking about the topic would be on topic. See the similarities there but notice the differences. It has never been a blanket your rights category.
Sure it does. That is because both are specific statements and while one might contain the other, the inverse is not true at all. I understand you are failing to distinguish that difference but that doesn't make your lack of knowledge the way reality is.
No, nitpicking means this entire story is offtopic and belongs on topix or rededit or whatever other shit site where people make things up and bitch about it in some virtual attempt to save the world as they think they know it.
How were they fraudulently denied? Neither you nor anyone else has presented any valid reasons to why they were denied. The article does it's best to point out they were Muslim but no proof of that being true or even the reasoning for the denial is ever tendered. The VISA waivier program is only to see if they qualify for a visa wavier not to see if they are allowed into the country. So not only did you get the entire online thing wrong, you have gotten the entire process they were trying to enter on wrong to boot.
How does it feed to be wrong on so many levels?
Use some rubbing alcohol and a qtip and clean the tape head. That or check for a bad capacitor and change as necessary.
Hissing is a sign of badly maintained or failing equipment. True that digital "can" carry better quality. But i doubt high fidelity is what the modern usages of cassette tapes is about.
That's not Firefox 's roots. Firefox originated as the stand alone browser without all the other crap. In its inception, it was separate from seamonkey or the Netscape stile internet suite.
If he said back to its Netscape roots, you would be accurate. But since the entire concept of Firefox was a standalone browser , the association to seamonkey is a bit off.
I just want to point out that the group here seems to be in consensus that groupthink is a problem. Or to put it another way, the groupthink is that groupthink is a problem to be avoided. Except in this case groupthink is probably right.
Now if that makes sense to you, you should realize that i have no idea what a reputation engine is (other than a means to validate information) or how that could be implemented without authoritative answers around the latest information). I'm not sure it could be reliably done for any complex issue outside of hard facts either.
Consumer level drones doesn't really mean just off the shelf ready to fly. Hobby drones can have thier entire flight plan loaded before taking off, fly the route, and return without even transmitting or receiving radio signals in flight. The control computer can also encrypt its communication and take updates in flight encrypted so jamming a signal or broadcasting a stronger one will not be enough in all cases.
You will basically need to jam a signal so powerful that it floods the circuitry and interrupts the control signals in the drone itself. And it will also need to defeat shielding in the process too.
Because established policies route around singling specific people out or explain actions that if independent could create liability. It doesn't always remove liability but that is the intent. It is more or less establishing plausible deniability.
So suppose you have a business in the inner city and don't want to hire the locals. You create a policy of requiring a hogh school diploma and drug testing. Either one will stop a lot of people from applying for the jobs. If someone is qualified, you institute another policy like working swing shift or weekends to disinterest others. Or let's say you think all minorities are shoplifters, you make a policy where people follow them around while in the store except your policy is to pick random people of all types. Or suppose you're a government of some town and you want to pull over people for driving while black. You create a policy to stop people and give them gift certificates or something for good driving - except now that questionable lawful contact is made, you you can ask what they are doing in your town or question about drugs and so on.
A policy also shifts blame from those following it and places it on the organization which created it.
You have absolutely no evidence that such things have taken place. No reason was given for denying their travel and everything including the terrorist and criminal reasoning is all speculation. For all we know it could be because someone in the family posted something about going to live in America on their Facebook profile and they were blocked from travel to the US because it appeared they would become illegal aliens if given the chance.
But it doesn't matter anyways. Any infraction of what you think should apply in any civilized society is pure speculation at this point.
It's a little more than 100 years ago with the US anyways. The constitution actually talks about congress making rules for naturalization and bars congress from making laws banning people from entering the states (importation) until after 1808.
So even with some sense of an inalienable right, the founding of the USA was of the premise that this right could be controlled or removed altogether.
Your rights online is about the tech angles of rights - that is how rights are affected online. It is not and never was a general rights discussion group. It was always about a tech presence at the meat of the story.
This story does not belong here. There is no tech angles whatsoever at all. As for the fraudulent denial, no it was not. Any country can at any time deny entrance to foreign people for any reason not prohibited by their law. No reason to which why the denial is illegal can be given. There are two parts to the visa waiver program and all that has happened is they got past one part but not the other. It happens all the time.
It's sad that they found out after spending a ton of money but they had no rights violated here.
So you are saying that the government pays for this access and Facebook is charging people?
Change your public library for a book store and change your republican partisanship for owners and it might make a little more sense. But then it just sounds silly.
Foreigners have the same rights, to travel and enter their own country. There is no difference in this right except their country. No US citizen has a right to enter any other country of their choosing.
This story is about foreign nationals trying to enter a country not their own. As far as I know, that is a privilege even if attempted by a US citizen.
It's not "your rights " the category is "your rights online "
This story still doesn't fit. Even if it was just your rights, a foreigner has a privilege - not a right to enter another country.
Yes, The privilege was revoked and people where inconvenienced but the only rights in play here is the sovereign rights of the U.S..
Trump is no politician. He is aspiring to become one but he has never held any elected office of any government that i can find.
I mistook the original for being able to see without corrective lenses. I read it completely wrong and took it to mean that using binoculars or similar lenses in order to see the aircraft was not permissible.
Yeah I reread it and it makes much more sense now. Thanks for pointing my error out.
Corrective lenses. Does that mean eyeglasses too? I mean i doubt it but I wouldn't put it past some authoritarian enforcer to push the idea.
Not looking for a target of opportunity, looking for a payout. You get in the same amount of trouble for a $50 payout as you would for a $50,000 payout. I doubt you would score 50k, but you are more than likely to score above $50.
They sure could. Or they could just use this database, look for people in their area, use google maps and street view to case the joint, then pounce with little effort or public exposure.
The list of drone owners narrows this process down a bit. Homes and cars are purchased on loans, drones are usually purchased with cash/credit cards. Loans can absorb all your disposable income making the potential score limited, knowing you have the income for a drone could weed this out.