It's a fairly basic principle that, while a law can be written in such a way that changing context is relevant to its application, it's meaning doesn't change unless a legislative act changes the law itself. So, no, when it comes to laws passed in 1789, we can't stop looking to what it meant in 1789.
Considering even just the slice of human history that contained both written history and structured government, the 18th century is very recent. Personally I find it more 'blind' that we don't cite older sources.
Time is relevant. It should not be treated like a footnote in considering the importance of certain laws. If Thomas Jefferson were alive today, I think he would have used military force against Apple, or at the very least threatened Tim Cook to a duel.
To answer your question, the judges should cite their own judgement.
So your argument is that, because a lot of time has passed since the All Writs Law was passed, judges should take it to mean whatever they want it to mean.
On that bit about you seeing what all others fail to see, I suggest that you look up "The Dunning-Kruger Effect".
Being the only one who sees something is an almost certain indication of being in error. In this case, your errors are remarkably numerous for such a short comment.
That's a relatively recent development in terms of systemizing knowledge discovery. Prior, people literally just mixed stuff together to see what happened.
I've bought crappy but running cars before for $200 (outright, no loan). If I were you, I would spend all day today on craigslist for a little junk car that you can sleep in. Shoplift food from supermarkets that will fit in your pocket. Beg on the street for spare change. Clean your body in public restrooms. Try to find drunk women at night who will let you sleep over in exchange for sex (and conversely, if you're a woman, this whole homelessness problem is much easier).
That would be the American way. The Western European way is probably going to the welfare office and getting a 1000€ check.
Insurance, gas money, possible smog check requirements, city restrictions on sleeping in one's car, and registration transfer fees make your proposal impossible for pretty much all of 21st century America.
(Also, Germans don’t use personal checks. They use the postal giro model, not the banking model.)
Walking in to a Southeastern CT convenience store off I-95, there was a hairy young man playing the guitar. You never see buskers at a place like this.
I dug it, and told the guy he made my day. We got to talking, he told me he had grown up in CT, and just got back from his trip discovering America.
The owner of the store was trying to chase him out. "I'm a regular customer here, this man is bringing culture to this rest stop, let him stay" I said.
He had gone west on I-80, stopped in Colorado for a couple years, then headed down to New Orleans, living in his hatchback and playing the guitar.
"I've been all over the country" He said. "But this is the place to be!"
I knew how he felt, because I had made a very similar trip in my car upon college graduation, and felt the same way. I had gone to Austin, TX after Colorado.
I however had to pay high rents, and obsessively scale online dating campaigns taking big risk to keep the money monster constantly fed.
This guy claimed to love living in the car. He said he slept very comfortably in the front seat. He seemed really happy.
I thought I was pretty free, working for myself. But this guy was free in a way I will probably never know.
You just have to be comfortable sleeping in the reclined front seat of a 1995 hatchback and be pretty good at the guitar I guess, or have a trust fund.
Why doesn't Google et al provide a shim for web servers to proxy ads off their own domains, with the same URI routes as the actual content? That way, an adblocker would also prevent the content from being served. (Why waste your networking load on non-paying customers?)
The main obstacle is that this introduces a middleman---so Google et al should only offer this service to the BIG money-makers (like nytimes.com) until they can ship something secure. Adblocking "problem" solved.
WHY don't Ad companies do this? I can see this as an Apache/nginx module or middleware libraries for whatever web server is used, without having to change anything else. How long would this take for the army of 140 IQ Google codemonkeys…like 1 day lol?
Adblockers may use more than the URI, but it starts with the URI and if it does not match, then it does not block.
If a video file is served from cdn.example.com/video/?file=3w0rjwo, then have a DoubleClick ad serve from cdn.example.com/video/?file=0239fjad with phony HTTP headers including mime type.
How is this _not_ exactly what I said it was though? The author even says in the readme that it's a NIH version of Haskell.
I love PL mental masturbation as much as anyone else, but stuff like this is equivalent to an oil spill in a freshwater lake with 20 endangered species.
The problem is the genre of the snarky dismissal. Perhaps there was a solid point behind what you said, but you didn't express it that way.
It's a tragedy of the commons. Posting such coments never feels harmful, but once they get above a certain level the whole community becomes filled with toxic fumes. This threshold is lower than it seems—the damage isn't only in the fumes your comment gives off, but in the encouragement it gives others to do the same.
Tragedy of the commons plus broken windows theory is not an auspicious combination, so we try to be proactive about asking people not to do this.
I usually come here to defend the language designer, but I think this particular submission is worthy of brief, critical and vague criticism because there's not a lot to criticize.
The user guide and language reference is very thin and it's missing the two critically distinctive features of Go, namely goroutines and channels.
It's a nice idea, but there's not a lot here to talk about.
So any new functional language with static types is now a bug-ridden, half implementation of Haskell? Wow, that's arrogance. Haskell was one of this language's three named influences (along with Lisp and Go).
Anyway, very cool project. I look forward to trying it out.
Yeah, I'm aware of what's he's riffing off (note that Greenspun's had nothing to do with Haskell). It's still an annoying attitude to have toward any new functional language that happens to share a syntax with Haskell.
Is that the gp's attitude toward PureScript, for example? Or Idris?
If that's the case, it must be nice/"interesting"/boring having found a "forever language". Look forward to seeing how that's going for him in 2030.
https://gist.github.com/zelcon5/7dc42bf91ea958132a0d
- "padding" can go either left or right.
- generic function
- minimal lines of code
Wow so great, make me a dependency for Windows11, Apache, Firefox, and toasters.