IHeartBadCode
I no longer want to be.
Hey also. Gopher is also getting a bit of a hit, but mostly due to a new protocol someone came up with called Gemini. It's like Gopher a lot but has some (and I cannot emphasize this enough) very basic markdown.
You can find out more about it here. I recommend Lagrange for your client. Two places I like to go to are Station (gemini://station.martinrue.com/) and Antenna (gemini://warmedal.se/~antenna/). BBS (gemini://bbs.geminispace.org/) is also a new one on the scene.
And the nice thing about Lagrange is that it also supports the Finger protocol which basically is a way to read the .project or .plan file on a given user for the indicated system. Those files for those that never used them allowed a user to type a short status update into them that folks could then poll at any given time. Basically "ye olde status update".
There's a person that serves a weather reporting system via a finger interface at (finger://graph.no/) and it works really well in Lagrange.
It's a motion to dismiss that was granted under rules of the court. The rules cited by the defendant (The Secretary of State) in the motion to dismiss:
- Rule 12(b)(1) — The plaintiff did not present enough evidence to show that they have standing to bring the matter before the courts.
- Rule 12(b)(6) — The plaintiff did not present sufficient factual matter to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face .
The court sided with the plaintiff that sufficient evidence was indeed presented before the court to indicate that the plaintiff did indeed have standing, BUT their argument brought before the court failed to state a claim under either the APA (the Administrative Procedure
Act) or the First Amendment. Thus the court has accepted the motion to dismiss the case, citing:
A concrete injury is “foremost” among the standing requirements
Plaintiff could state in concrete terms the injury to be suffered by those affected by the two avenues of injury they (the plaintiff) had indicated. The plaintiff is the one who brought up the first amendment and the APA but failed to follow through on the argument before the court in terms of actual injury (a court CANNOT assume injury even ones that sound pretty obvious).
More importantly the first amendment issue brought before the court couldn't be held. The court indicated that the Government has a vested interest (in the name of national security) to be all up in the business of people traveling here for work. But that the plaintiff did bring up a point about how that might also hurt their ability to work here, but failed to qualify it in their original argument (that basically means, "I don't think this is a first amendment issue but you've got a point if you want to try something else.")
The motion to dismiss is granted with perjury. The plaintiff cannot bring it back before the courts and cannot usually appeal the decision.
So yeah, the Judge sounds like he was interested in the issue being brought but the arguments that were critical to their case fell apart at the whole "for foreigners traveling here, the US has every right to monitor your social media accounts". The argument that seemed to pique the judge's interest was how that information might be used to remove business opportunities from people traveling here. Which is a good point because once a person is approved to work here in the US, the information obtained by the Visa application cannot be used to taint the work environment the person works in.
However, the plaintiff wasn't able to provide a concrete way of how that would happen (that was outside of the "we're arresting you and kicking you out" which the Government has a right to do). The thing is the plaintiff would need a way to connect the dots on how information obtained in the Visa might get back to their employer and then the employer keeps the person but alters their job based on that information released by the Government. If there is a manner by which that might happen, then yeah, that's a no-no.
There is not one ounce of honor or decency left in the Republican party
Oh that was already the case with buttery emails and before that birth certificate two, the long form-aroo. We all saw an exodus of long standing Republican Senators in middle of the road positions, because they saw the writing on the wall. Batshit crazy is the new GOP.
As a GenX myself, yes, I am a donkey.
Not only that Southern States are not uniformly composed. A lot of Republican power in the south comes from gerrymandering the large populations. That whole political border thing is less a thing when a particular group of citizens have just been given the green light to raze the State Capitol.
Seceding states themselves would have massive civil unrest, there’s just zero ways the States themselves would be sustainable. Not to mention that if say Texas tried it, it’s likely drug cartels would join in the looting and destruction of the State. So that State would be fighting something like a four prong war, by itself.
Citizens are a lot more educated today, especially in the large cities. They would absolutely take any secession as permission to burn the whole thing down. And a lot of the seats of Government in these States are in their largest city. Whatever political majority that MTG think she has to support her calls is fiction supported by electioneering.
You know really at this point, I blame God. Don't blame the ants, blame the person who picked out the location for the picnic.
I'm just curious where he's pulling the money for this legal team? It's definitely not from X's "profits" LOL.
— 28 USC 1446(b)(2)(A)
— Chief Judge Philip A. Brimmer ruling
The Secretary Griswold is joined and Trump did not have the Secretary sign on to the request to be removed. Therefore the request is deficient.