It amuses me when people talk of Prince as some huge deal. Back in the day I thought he was just some guy they tried to push as a rival to Michael Jackson but didn't even come close.
I'm surprised that you see them as being similar in any way. Prince's third album, Dirty Mind, came out two years before Michael Jackson's Thriller, and both were pretty unique, in different ways. And Prince played all the instruments on his album.
The way I always saw it, Prince was R&B for people who already had pubic hair, and Michael was pop for those who hadn't grown any yet.
Personally, in 1980, I was listening to punk rock and so forth, but even then I could tell that Prince was something special.
It's about time. I fought in the 103rd Deskborne Division ("The Fighting Snowflakes) in the War on Christmas. Don't laugh, I was wounded twice and I'm still not quite the same. I am allowed a service gerbil, but it's still hard for me to find work. But I'm one of the lucky ones. I still have nightmares where I think I'm back at the Battle of the Macy's Parade. Lost lots of good people and at least two very large balloons that day.
The really worrisome part is not that Trump believes Google's search results are somehow biased against him. I can understand how he might feel this way, because of all the things that are coming to light about him, and he's probably feeling under siege from every direction. All he sees is bad news.
The problematic part is that he thinks it may be illegal for the news to be biased against him or for a company to be biased against him.
Not factual. The Supreme Court grabbed authority to interpret the constitution pretty much without authority to do so. The constitution itself certainly did not grant it. By now it has the element of precedence and is not likely to be challenged.
You're thinking of judicial review which is not the same thing. It's a common mistake, Terry. For example, did you know that "originalism" is a type of judicial interpretation? Various other types of judicial interpretation are Structuralism, Literalism, and the Doctrinal Approach.
The founders most definitely intended judicial interpretation, because they knew there would be instances where a set of rights actually came in conflict with one another. If there was no need for judicial interpretation, there would have been no need for a judiciary at all. The Constitution is not just some decision table where you plug in a question and it displays an answer. It is not a Magic 8-ball.
Of course the fact is the Supreme Court has on more than one occasion later overturned its own decisions, effectively meaning its original interpretation was wrong.
The efforts to fight Net Neutrality have really heated up here in California. There must be some huge money lining up to fight this thing, because there are non-stop anti-NN commercials showing up all over televised sports, on Hulu, and on every cable station and web video. These aren't cheap little local spots, but very slickly-made ads with dire music about how these rules will mean your bills will go way, way up, and your internet will slow down (!) and even how Net Neutrality is "bad for small business" and will probably give you flesh-eating disease. The ads are all paid for by organizations with anodyne-sounding names like, "California Families for Freedom and Morality", and it all smells to high heaven.
There happens to also be a very similar campaign being waged by PG&E here, who has been funding a shit-ton of commercials supposedly from an organization called, "The BRITE Coalition" (the acronym stands for Building Resilient Infrastructure for Tomorrow’s Economy). Every commercial tells you how wildfires are bad, m'kay? and if you don't want more wildfires, the solution is to a) give PG&E a hefty rate hike, and b) remove any liability PG&E has when their faulty equipment starts a wildfire. Again, the money being spent on this campaign is just huge. You can't watch anything without seeing one of their commercials about how these giveaways to PG&E will mean that you support those brave first responders, who gosh, are just trying to keep your kitty-cat safe from being burned the fuck alive. It's really something.
Further, I get the impression that the same ad agency is doing to spot buying for both of the above campaigns because they almost always run one after the other, and in some cases, fill every commercial slot in a 1-hour episode of Castle Rock.
So, in summary, fuck these guys. If your name is so toxic that you can't even use it on your own goddamn advocacy commercials, maybe you have more important issues to deal with as a company, you know?
If the line moves without changing the text what is the point of law?
That's the right question. There are four basic purposes for law: 1) keeping order, 2) establishing standards, 3) resolving disputes and 4) protecting rights. And all of these words are open to interpretation, as are all words, and that meanings would change with time. They understood that shit happens. The founders were bright enough to know that their words would be open to interpretation, and that's why they distributed government across several entities and among many people. Presidents, governors, legislators, judges, bureaucrats. The founders intended for these groups to struggle with the meaning of the law, because they believed that when these struggles are conducted in good faith, decisions would move toward good solutions. Not the best solutions, generally, but solutions that were good enough. And the solutions wouldn't come fast, but they would come eventually...if people acted in good faith.
And ultimately, (and this is something most people don't get), the law was never meant to be precise or absolute, or perfect in any way, but merely good enough.
I disagree. The Bill of Rights was clear. It has been muddied by Congressional and Judicial action.
And the Constitution explicitly created judicial interpretation of the Constitution and all laws. It was done that way for a reason. The founding fathers did not believe they were infallible, and certainly didn't believe the people were infallible. That's why they left so much in the Constitution vague.
What is so complicated about "[s]hall not be infringed?"
Every amendment in the Bill of Rights comes with explicit or implicit limitations. It's why you can't go down to the liquor store and buy a machine gun. The limitations, apparently, are somewhat mutable, according to the needs of society. The line moves. It always has, since 1789.
Nothings wrong with me. I just got back from the gun range.
Chris Kyle was also at a gun range, surrounded by 2nd Amendment activists who were all responsible gun owners. Patriots It was the least gun-free zone on Earth.
He was slaughtered in cold blood. All those guns and he ends up murdered.
Study the biographies of those who commit mass shootings. They are not part of gun culture, but usually loners with histories of anti-social behavior.
So, the guy with a bunch of guns and bump stocks who murdered 53 and injured like 900 innocent people was not part of "gun culture"? Sorry, friend, you're full of shit. The NRA was fund-raising off that mass shooting before the place stopped smelling of cordite.
By your logic, every jihadi attack was committed by a muslim, therefore all muslims are guilty of jihadi attacks. Check your emotion, it blocks logical thinking.
Gun culture means you can't help showing how sick you really are.
You stupid sonofabitch. 100%...every single one... of the jackoffs who committed mass shootings used guns. What do you think, mass shootings are committed by tropical fish enthusiasts?
Nobody commits a mass shooting with a baseball bat, or automobile, or any fucking other thing besides a gun.
Gun culture is even sicker than I thought, apparently.
Why not take it one step further and make murder illegal? Then he wouldn't have been able to murder at all.
If making something illegal doesn't make less of it, then why do so-called "Christian conservatives" want to make abortion illegal? Why have any laws at all?
Add it to the list of minority cultures that government targets for oppression and bullying.
I'd like to think bullying and oppressing minority cultures would be universally frowned upon, but instead many people cheerlead for bullying and oppression when they identify a particular culture as "the other".
Some of us would like the bullying and oppression of "out group" cultures to end.
Yes, by all means, let's add "mass shooters" to the list of people being oppressed by government.
I'm telling you, just read the pro-gun comments here to see just how sick gun culture really is.
You're being dishonest. I don't carry guns and never will but these lone shooters don't represent so-called "gun culture" by definition.
Actually, the "lone shooter" is very precisely the representative of gun culture in the United States. That is the very image that the NRA must promote in order to get people to buy more guns, which is goal at the very heart of "gun culture".
What's wrong with you? Are you a gayboi or something? Why don't you sew some doilies or something, homo. Put on some show tunes and swish and prance about your apartment wearing a G-string like one of Santa's gay reindeer.
Look. If I go into my local bookmaker, put a tenner on a horse and walk back out with eleven quid, he's lost money.
I didn't say he's paying you more than you bet. I said you're paying him.
I think I understand the confusion here. You're in the UK, and you're talking about state-sanctioned legal betting. I'm talking about the underground bookies in the United States. They work completely differently.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm surprised that you see them as being similar in any way. Prince's third album, Dirty Mind, came out two years before Michael Jackson's Thriller, and both were pretty unique, in different ways. And Prince played all the instruments on his album.
The way I always saw it, Prince was R&B for people who already had pubic hair, and Michael was pop for those who hadn't grown any yet.
Personally, in 1980, I was listening to punk rock and so forth, but even then I could tell that Prince was something special.
It's about time. I fought in the 103rd Deskborne Division ("The Fighting Snowflakes) in the War on Christmas. Don't laugh, I was wounded twice and I'm still not quite the same. I am allowed a service gerbil, but it's still hard for me to find work. But I'm one of the lucky ones. I still have nightmares where I think I'm back at the Battle of the Macy's Parade. Lost lots of good people and at least two very large balloons that day.
Thanks to Google for looking out for us.
I think I may have figured out what "bad news" may have set off the President today.
https://www.rawstory.com/2018/...
The really worrisome part is not that Trump believes Google's search results are somehow biased against him. I can understand how he might feel this way, because of all the things that are coming to light about him, and he's probably feeling under siege from every direction. All he sees is bad news.
The problematic part is that he thinks it may be illegal for the news to be biased against him or for a company to be biased against him.
You're thinking of judicial review which is not the same thing. It's a common mistake, Terry. For example, did you know that "originalism" is a type of judicial interpretation? Various other types of judicial interpretation are Structuralism, Literalism, and the Doctrinal Approach.
The founders most definitely intended judicial interpretation, because they knew there would be instances where a set of rights actually came in conflict with one another. If there was no need for judicial interpretation, there would have been no need for a judiciary at all. The Constitution is not just some decision table where you plug in a question and it displays an answer. It is not a Magic 8-ball.
You just make my point. Interpretations change.
The efforts to fight Net Neutrality have really heated up here in California. There must be some huge money lining up to fight this thing, because there are non-stop anti-NN commercials showing up all over televised sports, on Hulu, and on every cable station and web video. These aren't cheap little local spots, but very slickly-made ads with dire music about how these rules will mean your bills will go way, way up, and your internet will slow down (!) and even how Net Neutrality is "bad for small business" and will probably give you flesh-eating disease. The ads are all paid for by organizations with anodyne-sounding names like, "California Families for Freedom and Morality", and it all smells to high heaven.
There happens to also be a very similar campaign being waged by PG&E here, who has been funding a shit-ton of commercials supposedly from an organization called, "The BRITE Coalition" (the acronym stands for Building Resilient Infrastructure for Tomorrow’s Economy). Every commercial tells you how wildfires are bad, m'kay? and if you don't want more wildfires, the solution is to a) give PG&E a hefty rate hike, and b) remove any liability PG&E has when their faulty equipment starts a wildfire. Again, the money being spent on this campaign is just huge. You can't watch anything without seeing one of their commercials about how these giveaways to PG&E will mean that you support those brave first responders, who gosh, are just trying to keep your kitty-cat safe from being burned the fuck alive. It's really something.
Further, I get the impression that the same ad agency is doing to spot buying for both of the above campaigns because they almost always run one after the other, and in some cases, fill every commercial slot in a 1-hour episode of Castle Rock.
So, in summary, fuck these guys. If your name is so toxic that you can't even use it on your own goddamn advocacy commercials, maybe you have more important issues to deal with as a company, you know?
That's the right question. There are four basic purposes for law: 1) keeping order, 2) establishing standards, 3) resolving disputes and 4) protecting rights. And all of these words are open to interpretation, as are all words, and that meanings would change with time. They understood that shit happens. The founders were bright enough to know that their words would be open to interpretation, and that's why they distributed government across several entities and among many people. Presidents, governors, legislators, judges, bureaucrats. The founders intended for these groups to struggle with the meaning of the law, because they believed that when these struggles are conducted in good faith, decisions would move toward good solutions. Not the best solutions, generally, but solutions that were good enough. And the solutions wouldn't come fast, but they would come eventually...if people acted in good faith.
And ultimately, (and this is something most people don't get), the law was never meant to be precise or absolute, or perfect in any way, but merely good enough.
And the Constitution explicitly created judicial interpretation of the Constitution and all laws. It was done that way for a reason. The founding fathers did not believe they were infallible, and certainly didn't believe the people were infallible. That's why they left so much in the Constitution vague.
Every amendment in the Bill of Rights comes with explicit or implicit limitations. It's why you can't go down to the liquor store and buy a machine gun. The limitations, apparently, are somewhat mutable, according to the needs of society. The line moves. It always has, since 1789.
And the rest of us hope that you stay in your bunker and off the streets.
Chris Kyle was also at a gun range, surrounded by 2nd Amendment activists who were all responsible gun owners. Patriots It was the least gun-free zone on Earth.
He was slaughtered in cold blood. All those guns and he ends up murdered.
Maybe at one time. Not for a long long time, though.
Oh, there are plenty of shooting deaths at gun ranges. Yee haw!
https://www.cnn.com/2013/02/03...
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/0...
https://lmgtfy.com/?q=gun+rang...
So, the guy with a bunch of guns and bump stocks who murdered 53 and injured like 900 innocent people was not part of "gun culture"? Sorry, friend, you're full of shit. The NRA was fund-raising off that mass shooting before the place stopped smelling of cordite.
Gun culture means you can't help showing how sick you really are.
You stupid sonofabitch. 100%...every single one... of the jackoffs who committed mass shootings used guns. What do you think, mass shootings are committed by tropical fish enthusiasts?
Nobody commits a mass shooting with a baseball bat, or automobile, or any fucking other thing besides a gun.
Gun culture is even sicker than I thought, apparently.
Nobody uses their home security system to go murder a bunch of kids.
If making something illegal doesn't make less of it, then why do so-called "Christian conservatives" want to make abortion illegal? Why have any laws at all?
Yes, by all means, let's add "mass shooters" to the list of people being oppressed by government.
I'm telling you, just read the pro-gun comments here to see just how sick gun culture really is.
Actually, the "lone shooter" is very precisely the representative of gun culture in the United States. That is the very image that the NRA must promote in order to get people to buy more guns, which is goal at the very heart of "gun culture".
Oh yeah. Here's one of your "incredibly polite" good people who have respect for themselves and others:
https://nypost.com/2018/05/09/...
Did I mention that gun culture is sick culture?
"Mentally immature and lacking proper coping skills" are two of the defining characteristics of US gun culture.
https://goo.gl/images/wxcjPh
Gun culture is sick culture.
Yes, he wouldn't have been able to shoot as many people with his Xbox One controller.
I guess our well-regulated militia is finally getting around to watering the Tree of Liberty with the blood of gamers.
Gun culture is sick culture.
I didn't say he's paying you more than you bet. I said you're paying him.
I think I understand the confusion here. You're in the UK, and you're talking about state-sanctioned legal betting. I'm talking about the underground bookies in the United States. They work completely differently.