I'm not going to repeat what I already told you.
Which was precisely nothing. Thank you.
I'm not going to repeat what I already told you.
Which was precisely nothing. Thank you.
But “the First Amendment goes beyond protection of the press and the self-expression of individuals to prohibit government from limiting the stock of information from which members of the public may draw.” News-gathering, for example, “is entitled to first amendment protection, for ‘without some protection for seeking out the news, freedom of the press could be eviscerated,’” even though this right is not absolute.
We are making the full circle, but let's try one more time. If it is the gathering of information (meant for later publication) that places video-taping under the protective wing of the First Amendment, why was not this guy's activity under the same protection?
I don't understand what you think is so obscure.
What I do not understand — as should be obvious from the very title of my post — is how/why is filming considered in any way protected by (or even related to) the First Amendment.
Put another way, even Google with their near-bottomless buckets of money has said it's too hard for them.
Exactly the example I wanted to cite. Google can count. They know, what cables cost and how hard it is to run it. But the costs and, more importantly, the intangible difficulties of obtaining the permits can not be estimated in advance.
And so it follows, that it were these government-imposed costs and difficulties, that scuttled Google Fiber — because, had it been anything else, they wouldn't have even attempted. Indeed, we already know it quite well, that the real barrier for having nice Internet-connectivity is not the ISPs, who want your money, but the local mayors and city councils, who want free stuff and favors.
And you would notice too, that where they started (and continue to operate) is not exactly the thickly settled — and thus Illiberal-dominated — coastal city... Even though "thickly settled" is the most attractive part for an ISP.
As long as the government can throttle an upstart ISPs — such as by holding them to the letter of some regulation, however imprecise and unclear — the incumbent, who can take the President for a round of golf, will thrive. Thrive without improving service and lower prices.
It's worth noting that both the AN124 and 225 are operating in a market completely separated from Airbus and Boeing.
There is a different meaning to the word "separation". Firms like FedEx and UPS may be happy to use a giant plane like Mria for their own busy routes — still need the same crew, but can take a lot more load. A single such AN can replace a number of Boeings and/or Airbuses, which could be used for human travelers.
If only Antonov actually managed to move to actually building those planes, rather than merely designing them. Hopefully, the Saudi and the Chinese investments — as well as the reduced/eliminated Russian influence — will help.
I'm merely informing you that the definition of race has improved since the 19th century when everyone was either Caucasian, Negroid or Mongoloid
I don't believe in either of your claims: neither that the definition has actually changed, nor that the change you assert would've been for the better, had it actually happened.
Race is most certainly not a "social construct" — the very reason, discrimination based on it is wrong (and illegal) is that it is immutable. A human being does not choose to be of particular race.
Now, there has always been the other meaning for the same word — a homonym, really — which would, indeed, make any grouping of people, including fans of a particular sports team, or cat-lovers, or Emacs-users a "race". That meaning is not at all new — it certainly existed in the 19th century — but it, quite clearly and self-evidently, is not what the anti-discrimination laws mean. A FreeBSD-bigot like myself can not claim "racial discrimination" after being turned away from an all-Windows shop, for example.
I'm not too familiar with the case [of Rachel Dolezal -mi]
Of course, you aren't — Blacks are given a pass by all your news-sources, when they discriminate or even murder based on race.
she resigned from her job because she had been caught lying about her background
Obviously, had she not lied, they would not have hired her in the first place — even though she was, obviously, qualified — it is Ok, for some reason, for Blacks to discriminate against Whites.
We try to fix this over time, but some people think that going back to the 'good old days , whenever they were supposed to be, will solve all of this.
What? Does this, somehow, justify the discrimination against Whites and Asians manifested by NAACP?
The First Amendment protects him because any law that purported to prohibit what he was doing would be unconstitutional due to 1A protections of his rights.
Please, explain your line of reasoning. One-liners do not cut it.
Having screamed for anti-immigrant violence and sexual assault becoming common place because of Trump, Illiberals could never offer any actual evidence. Maybe, this guy is what they need. Finally...
Only if your definition of race comes from the 19th century, which in itself is a little racist.
If you wish to redefine the meaning of "race" (or "sex" for that matter), you need to change the law that bans discrimination based on it.
Because, unless the law has explicitly changed in between — as in, passed by Legislature and signed by the Executive — what was legal at one point shall remain legal at another.
These days race is a social or cultural construct
Funny, this argument — But I identify as Black! — didn't help certain Ms. Dolezal keep her job at, of all places, NAACP... Evidently, some races — whatever the term means — are more equal than others. Had she been fired for being Black while masquerading as White, she and her team of lawyers would've all been millionaires by now.
Then what is the advantage over living in an artificial environment in space?
Creating such an artificial environment in space "from scratch" may be much harder, than using the readily-made planet. The colonists may need to adapt it, but they may also find it easier to make some adaptations to themselves — meeting the planet half-way, as it were.
If Escimo and Inuit and related peoples adapted to the environment unlivable for their African predecessors naturally — even if they still can not live there naked, we may be able to make similar adaptations faster (in fewer generations) to make Martian environment suck less. But, as often point out, Antarctica ought to be first — much closer and much cosier for humans than Mars.
But, hey, adapting to life in space (low-to-no gravity, low air pressure) may take place in parallel. Stephenson — in SevenEves — explores this subject in some detail.
Ah, my favourite ukrainian dumbass strikes again.
Nazis are so out fashion, dumbass, you really should try to do a better job hiding it... Not that you can do a better job at anything, even
loose it for another couple weeks it will be worth 20!
How much looser could it get?
USPS DID loose the package!
They they also lose your elementary school text books in transit right at that critical moment when your teacher was trying to get you to understand the difference between "loose" and "lose?"
the box was sitting in a Atlanta for over a month
Which was probably the same week when you'd have been learning about using "an" in front of words that start with vowels, though that still doesn't help that sentence make any more sense. An Atlanta what?
the recipient who's address is on the box
The recipient who is address on the box? Or did you mean "whose?"
It's getting pretty bad out there. It's a good thing people are spending thousands of dollars and hours reviving old 8-bit video games! Whew!
the only reason police stopped the plaintiff was because he was recording video in a public place.
Sure. I accept and wholeheartedly agree, that the guy's recording is legal and should've been unmolested.
I just don't see, how the First Amendment protects him in the slightest. Doing, what is not expressly prohibited by law is legal in a free country — you do not need it to be expressly allowed by an Amendment or anything else.
The only possible charge I could see is disobeying a police order — had they ordered him to stop and he continued, they could've charged him with such disobeying, even if the order itself were later found invalid.
So which organism are you going to lift genes from which is comfortable (i.e. can breed) at Martian temperatures and pressures?
It does not have to be comfortable enough to breed — or even survive — unaided by other technology. But if it can be made more comfortable than an unmodified human — requiring a lesser oxygen tank and/or a lighter suit and/or an easier-to-build shelter — that'd be a win already.
"All my life I wanted to be someone; I guess I should have been more specific." -- Jane Wagner