If you don't believe that any congressperson has read it, do you then believe Scalia in his dissent when he says that he has read it?

This comes from page 5 of Scalia's dissent. Do you believe that he somehow found time to read the entire document in the time they had between arguments and writing of the judgement, even when they had other cases to decide on as well?

Except that if "State", only means individual states, then many of the constitutional amendments - including the second - fall apart on the federal level.

Even for Scalia - who has a reputation of holding no punches - this is intriguing stuff in his dissent (which is nearly as long as the verdict itself - pages 27 to 47 of 47 total are all his):

I particularly enjoy seeing him jump on the conspiracy bandwagon with this tasty morsel:

This little circular snippet is fun as well:

Considering he is a known fan of constitutional amendments where "state" means "federal government". Of course, here it doesn't matter because .... well, whatever.

Well, it is good to know that he clearly didn't have any strong opinions on the matter before the case made it to the bench. After all, a predetermined judiciary is what justice is all about in this country, is it not? I would say that he was posturing himself for a new career with Fox News, but there is no good reason for him to do that, being as he already has a job for life.

I guess all is well in the world, then, right?

Your refusal to accept facts that have been posted on slashdot previously is not my fault. You've shown you can use a search engine enough to fabricate a backstory for yourself, why can't you use it to look up information that pertains to this discussion?

It is faith because it is ignoring the enormous body of facts that counters the assumptions that your faith require. You are using faith because there is information out there that is well-known and contrary to your beliefs, but you are choosing to ignore those facts.

Which again, is your problem and not mine.

That was not an insult. That was an hypothesis based on the facts that you have provided us - such as the fact that you do not understand even the most basic and fundamental aspects of statistics.

I have no idea which school you went to. You present a very strong argument that you did not complete a CSci degree at UCLA, however.

You need to look up that word. An atheist is someone with no faith. You have clearly demonstrated faith in this argument. Just because it is not faith in an Abrahamic deity does not mean it is not faith.

If you could bother yourself to actually read what I have written here (you have spent plenty of time writing here it appears, yet very little time reading) you would know how far off you are on that statement.

You should indeed be well versed on zealousness. Unfortunately your faith seems to have completely blinded you to how to identify it.

You have already provided a solid argument that you did not complete a CSci degree at UCLA. I don't need to reinforce it when your own writing makes it clear.

You've made a really solid argument that you are almost certainly not a software engineer, based on several things (including the fact that you feel it necessary to lie about [amongst other things] your educational background).

You already provided me with some doozies just in this discussion. I really don't give a shit what lies you have spouted out in other discussions, I have more interesting things to do than that.

Let's review how you have fallen on your face repeatedly in this discussion, shall we?

I started by posting a fact-based argument that filters do not improve the overall situation in regards to spam.

You replied with a faith-based argument that you feel filters are great and will bring about an eventual end to spam.

I responded by challenging your faith-based argument, and you took it personally. You eventually allowed your end of the discussion to devolve into personal insults and complete lies.

The plain fact that you take your faith so personally - indeed so personally that you feel justified in insulting me personally when I challenge your faith - suggests that perhaps you went to a different school in Los Angeles. Did you perhaps go to BIOLA instead of UCLA? That could explain your demonstrated lack of knowledge on statistics and logic, as well as how tightly you hold on to your faith.

The biggest problem with that hypothesis though is why you would feel justified in lying about that. Really, that is not a very Christian thing to do. Furthermore, slashdot has an overwhelming Christian majority in the discussions, so you would be in comfortable company if you were to come out and say that you went to a 4-year bible camp.

But go ahead, keep insulting me. It is clear that you abandoned the discussion some time ago. We could have discussed the topic of this thread but when your faith was challenged you took it personally instead of actually discussing the matter. Few people ever learn anything by using that tactic.

I will admit I did not read that far in to the article; I read the summary and figured it was more front page clickbait. If this woman is indeed trying to force other people to do things for no good reason I would tell her she can go shop somewhere else. If someone from the town agrees that the lights are a problem and wants to open a new store with different lights, that's fine too but I don't see their freedom to ban WiFi in their town as being something that extends to being able to dictate how others in town do their business on a level as fundamental as lighting fixtures.

I have personally lost files many times in office when I took a file from one PC to another, even when they are running the same version. Powerpoint is the worst offender, but I have lost Word documents as well. Recently my boss sent me a Powerpoint presentation that he made in Powerpoint for Mac and I had to deliver it in the latest version of Powerpoint for windows at a departmental seminar; I ended up with the distinction of being the first person to crash Powerpoint that day.

That distinction might not have been so awful had I not been the first presenter of the morning.

Your allegation of this being a "troll" is just silly. People lose files this way all the time. I can't even tell you how many presentations I've had destroyed by this. I don't know how you want me to give a "concrete example" but if you ask anyone who has used powerpoint or word for more than a couple years - particularly anyone who has used it across multiple versions or platforms - you're bound to not need to ask long before you find someone else who has had their files eat shit.

Are you off your meds? ICANN is independent and doesn't give a crap what any government wants or demands (at least, without a warrant). This has nothing to do with any government or powerful non-profit / not-for-profit entity. Indeed, they will rule in favor of anoymized registration precisely to make sure that more registration money is coming in for themselves and for their lower-level registrar buddies.

The summary stated this was about domains

Is your personal webpage involved in such activities? If not, it would be exempt. No worries though, ICANN knows they will make more money if they do allow anonymous registrations to continue, hence they will. This is just ICANN trying to get some publicity - after all, all press is good press, right?

That said

Happens so rarely it is pretty much a non-issue. Out of how many hundreds of millions of registered domains, such things have happened how many dozens of times? These deranged people could have found other ways to harass their targets in meatspace had the registration data been anonymized.

ICANN has been pro-profit for some time now. They make more money by allowing registrars to sell anonymized domains than if they do not. The privacy question is just window dressing.

In the end, though, it doesn't make much of a difference. I used to take the time to do WHOIS lookups on particularly egregious spamvertised domains (specifically ones selling counterfeit or contraband products) and contact their registrars and hosting providers. Did it make a difference? No. I even found that specific registrars were notably complacent and willing to do business with the characters behind such operations, so I reported said registrars to ICANN. Did ICANN do anything? No.

I also pointed out to ICANN that selling gTLDs would be a bad idea as it opened the floodgates to more such doings. Did they care? No.

In other words, if you are concerned that ICANN might start to prohibit anonymized registration, don't be. They are just trying to drum up some PR to make it look like they care about more than their bottom line. It will all pass soon.

I noticed you tended to be most proud of it when you got it in as FP. I wasn't watching the pattern closely enough to see that it was a Tuesday thing. And frankly, yesterday felt kinda Tuesday-ish at work for me :)

No. Conspiracy comes in when you try to claim that the absence of the facts you are looking for indicates that your hypothesis is the only possible explanation.

For example, I admit that the private email server was a bone-headed move by Hillary. But you amp it up to 11 by claiming that she personally managed it and intentionally destroyed it.

I acknowledge that the Benghazi attacks (which used to be your favorite conspiracy of all - what happened to this?) occurred and cost the lives of several Americans. You however are still desperately looking for a way to make Hillary, Obama, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi the causative agents of the attacks. Apparently you still believe that there is a time machine in the oval office, even if Nicholas Cage couldn't find it in National Treasure.

Why do you feel the need to try to make up for your failings by lying about your past? You would have been much better off just admitting your giant statistical failure from a few comments ago and moving on. Now you are making up more nonsense and cursing at me to try to seal the deal.

Listen kid, you are way out of your league here. Digging in your heels won't help your situation. We get that you are too emotionally fragile to admit to being wrong. If you want to just walk away at this point and lick your wounds that is fine, the probability of anyone else seeing you throwing a fit and lying like crazy this deep in this thread is exceptionally low. It is clear you have decided some time ago that you don't want to learn anything from this discussion.

Congrats though on suddenly deciding to use google to try to support your argument - even though it is not in any way attached to the discussion. Maybe some day you will use it to acquire knowledge that is important to the topic of this discussion.