AuthorTopic: Knarf's Knewz Channel  (Read 1548351 times)

Offline knarf

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 12719
    • View Profile
District of Columbia v. Heller recognized an individual right to possess a firearm under the Constitution. Here’s why the case was wrongly decided.



District of Columbia v. Heller, which recognized an individual right to possess a firearm under the Constitution, is unquestionably the most clearly incorrect decision that the Supreme Court announced during my tenure on the bench.

The text of the Second Amendment unambiguously explains its purpose: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” When it was adopted, the country was concerned that the power of Congress to disarm the state militias and create a national standing army posed an intolerable threat to the sovereignty of the several states.

Throughout most of American history there was no federal objection to laws regulating the civilian use of firearms. When I joined the Supreme Court in 1975, both state and federal judges accepted the Court’s unanimous decision in United States v. Miller as having established that the Second Amendment’s protection of the right to bear arms was possessed only by members of the militia and applied only to weapons used by the militia. In that case, the Court upheld the indictment of a man who possessed a short-barreled shotgun, writing, “In the absence of any evidence that the possession or use of a ‘shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length’ has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.”

Colonial history contains many examples of firearm regulations in urban areas that imposed obstacles to their use for protection of the home. Boston, Philadelphia, and New York—the three largest cities in America at that time—all imposed restrictions on the firing of guns in the city limits. Boston enacted a law in 1746 prohibiting the “discharge” of any gun or pistol that was later revived in 1778; Philadelphia prohibited firing a gun or setting off fireworks without a governor’s special license; and New York banned the firing of guns for three days surrounding New Year’s Day. Those and other cities also regulated the storage of gunpowder. Boston’s gunpowder law imposed a 10-pound fine on any person who took any loaded firearm into any dwelling house or barn within the town. Most, if not all, of those regulations would violate the Second Amendment as it was construed in the 5–4 decision that Justice Antonin Scalia announced in Heller on June 26, 2008.
More Stories

    The Golden State Warriors guard Stephen Curry reacts after defeating the Houston Rockets on Friday.
    The Genius of Stephen Curry
    Peter Wehner
    Vladimir Putin
    Russia Has Americans’ Weaknesses All Figured Out
    Jim Sciutto
    An employee works on a mobile-phone production line at Huawei's factory campus in Dongguan, Guangdong province, China on March 25, 2019.
    Democrats Need to Place China at the Center of Their Foreign Policy
    Thomas Wright
    Donald Trump speaks while meeting with Chinese Vice Premier Liu He in the Oval Office on April 4, 2019.
    How Trump Thinks Tariffs Work (And How They Actually Work)
    Annie Lowrey

Until Heller, the invalidity of Second Amendment–based objections to firearms regulations had been uncontroversial. The first two federal laws directly restricting the civilian use and possession of firearms—the 1927 act prohibiting mail delivery of handguns and the 1934 act prohibiting the possession of sawed-off shotguns and machine guns—were enacted over minor Second Amendment objections that were dismissed by the vast majority of legislators participating in the debates. After reviewing many of the same sources that are discussed at greater length by Scalia in his majority opinion in Heller, the Miller Court unanimously concluded that the Second Amendment did not apply to the possession of a firearm that did not have “some relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.” And in 1980, in a footnote to an opinion upholding a conviction for receipt of a firearm, the Court effectively affirmed Miller, writing: “[T]he Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have ‘some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.’”

So well settled was the issue that, speaking on the PBS NewsHour in 1991, the retired Chief Justice Warren Burger described the National Rifle Association’s lobbying in support of an expansive interpretation of the Second Amendment in these terms: “One of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American public by special-interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.”

Even if the lobbyists who oppose gun-control regulation actually do endorse the dubious proposition that the Second Amendment was intended to limit the federal power to regulate the civilian use of handguns—that Burger incorrectly accused them of “fraud”—I find it incredible that policy makers in a democratic society have failed to impose more effective regulations on the ownership and use of firearms than they have.

And even if there were some merit to the legal arguments advanced in the Heller case, all could foresee the negative consequences of the decision, which should have provided my colleagues with the justification needed to apply stare decisis to Miller. At a minimum, it should have given them greater pause before announcing such a radical change in the law that would greatly tie the hands of state and national lawmakers endeavoring to find solutions to the gun problem in America. Their twin failure—first, the misreading of the intended meaning of the Second Amendment, and second, the failure to respect settled precedent—represents the worst self-inflicted wound in the Court’s history.

It also represents my greatest disappointment as a member of the Court. After the oral argument and despite the narrow vote at our conference about the case, I continued to think it possible to persuade either Justice Anthony Kennedy or Justice Clarence Thomas to change his vote. During the drafting process, I had frequent conversations with Kennedy, as well as occasional discussions with Thomas, about historical issues, because I thought each of them had an open mind about the case. In those discussions—particularly those with Kennedy—I now realize that I failed to emphasize sufficiently the human aspects of the issue as providing unanswerable support for the stare decisis argument for affirmance. After all, Kennedy had been one of the three decisive votes that had saved Roe v. Wade from being overruled in Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

Before the argument, I had decided that stare decisis provided a correct and sufficient basis for upholding the challenged gun regulation, but I nonetheless asked my especially competent law clerk, Kate Shaw, to make a thorough study of the merits of the argument that an independent review of the historical materials would lead to the same result. I wanted that specific study to help me decide which argument to feature in my dissent, which I planned to complete and circulate before Scalia completed his opinion for the majority. Shaw convinced me that Miller had been correctly decided; accordingly, I decided to feature both arguments in my dissent, which we were able to circulate on April 28, 2008, five weeks before Scalia circulated the majority opinion on June 2, 2008. In the cover memorandum for my probable dissent, I wrote:

    The enclosed memorandum explains the basis for my firm belief that the Second Amendment does not impose any limit whatsoever on the power of the federal government to regulate the non-military use or possession of firearms. I have decided to take the unusual step of circulating the initial draft of a probable dissent before [Scalia] circulates his majority because I fear the members of the majority have not yet adequately considered the unusual importance of their decision.

    While I think a fair reading of history provides overwhelming support for Warren Burger’s view of the merits, even if we assume that the present majority is correct, I submit that they have not given adequate consideration to the certain impact of their proposed decision on this Court’s role in preserving the rule of law. We have profound differences over our role in areas of the law such as the Eighth Amendment and substantive due process, but I believe we all agree that there are areas of policy-making in which judges have a special obligation to let the democratic process run the show …

    What has happened that could possibly justify such a massive change in the law? The text of the amendment has not changed. The history leading up to the adoption of the amendment has not changed … There has been a change in the views of some law professors, but I assume there are also some professors out there who think Congress does not have the authority to authorize a national bank, or to regulate small firms engaged in the production of goods for sale in other states, or to enact a graduated income tax. In my judgment, none of the arguments advanced by respondents or their numerous amici justify judicial entry into a quintessential area of policy-making in which there is no special need or justification for judicial supervision.

    This is not a case in which either side of the policy debate can be characterized as an “insular minority” in need of special protection from the judiciary. On the contrary, there is a special risk that the action of the judiciary will be perceived as the product of policy arguments advanced by an unusually powerful political force. Because there is still time to avoid a serious and totally unnecessary self-inflicted wound, I urge each of the members of the majority to give careful consideration to the impact of this decision on the future of this institution when weighing the strength of the arguments I have set forth in what I hope will not be a dissent.

In the end, of course, beating Scalia to the punch did not change the result, but I do think it forced him to significantly revise his opinion to respond to the points I raised in my dissent. And although I failed to persuade Kennedy to change his vote, I think our talks may have contributed to his insisting on some important changes before signing on to the Court’s opinion.

That’s cold comfort. I have written in other contexts that an amendment to the Constitution to overrule Heller is desperately needed to prevent tragedies such as the massacre of 20 grammar-school children at Sandy Hook Elementary School on December 14, 2012, from ever happening again. But such tragedies have indeed happened again. In the course of writing the chapter of my memoir that discusses Heller, on October 1, 2017, a gunman fired from the 32nd floor of a hotel in Las Vegas, killing at least 58 people and injuring more than 500 more who were attending an outdoor concert. I had not yet finished the chapter when another mass shooting occurred, this one involving the death of 26 people—including three generations of a single family—at a church on November 5, 2017, in Sutherland Springs, Texas. More shootings have happened since.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/05/john-paul-stevens-court-failed-gun-control/587272/
EARTH - "love it or leave it!"

Offline RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 38865
    • View Profile
You would think a Coke Billionaire could have greased a few palms and imported the plants legally for "research".  Something is fishy here.

RE
Save As Many As You Can

Offline RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 38865
    • View Profile
Re: Venezuela exodus raises worries of babies being stateless
« Reply #12707 on: May 14, 2019, 06:25:30 AM »
In the current world, you MUST "belong" to a state.  Can't travel without a Passport of course.  This topic is very deep.  I'll do a CMWUC on it.  Thanks for posting it Knarf.

RE
Save As Many As You Can

Offline knarf

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 12719
    • View Profile
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/TUdgFOmmQ7U&fs=1" target="_blank" class="new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/TUdgFOmmQ7U&fs=1</a>

one minute video
« Last Edit: May 14, 2019, 06:52:38 AM by knarf »
EARTH - "love it or leave it!"

Offline Surly1

  • Administrator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 16287
    • View Profile
    • Doomstead Diner
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/TUdgFOmmQ7U&fs=1" target="_blank" class="new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/TUdgFOmmQ7U&fs=1</a>

one minute video

I watched this the other night in real time. It was quite impressive. Drove home the fact that there is no Planet B.

The end credits rolled over the burning globe.
"It is difficult to write a paradiso when all the superficial indications are that you ought to write an apocalypse." -Ezra Pound

Offline azozeo

  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 9152
    • View Profile
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/TUdgFOmmQ7U&fs=1" target="_blank" class="new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/TUdgFOmmQ7U&fs=1</a>

one minute video


Who's this kat taking mailbox money from ?
I know exactly what you mean. Let me tell you why you’re here. You’re here because you know something. What you know you can’t explain, but you feel it. You’ve felt it your entire life, that there’s something wrong with the world.
You don’t know what it is but its there, like a splinter in your mind

Offline azozeo

  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 9152
    • View Profile
You would think a Coke Billionaire could have greased a few palms and imported the plants legally for "research".  Something is fishy here.

RE


<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/5Kek3GqbsTk&fs=1" target="_blank" class="new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/5Kek3GqbsTk&fs=1</a>
I know exactly what you mean. Let me tell you why you’re here. You’re here because you know something. What you know you can’t explain, but you feel it. You’ve felt it your entire life, that there’s something wrong with the world.
You don’t know what it is but its there, like a splinter in your mind

Offline knarf

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 12719
    • View Profile
San Francisco Bans Facial Recognition Technology
« Reply #12712 on: May 14, 2019, 05:16:40 PM »

Attendees interacting with a facial recognition demonstration at this year’s CES in Las Vegas.

SAN FRANCISCO — The San Francisco Board of Supervisors on Tuesday enacted the first ban by a major city on the use of facial recognition technology by police and all other municipal agencies.

The vote was 8 to 1 in favor, with two members who support the bill absent. There will be an obligatory second vote next week, but it is seen as a formality.

Police forces across America have begun turning to facial recognition to search for both small-time criminal suspects and perpetrators of mass carnage: authorities used the technology to help identify the gunman in the mass killing at an Annapolis, Md., newspaper in June. But civil liberty groups have expressed unease about the technology’s potential abuse by government amid fears that it may shove the United States in the direction of an overly oppressive surveillance state.

Aaron Peskin, the city supervisor who announced the bill, said that it sent a particularly strong message to the nation, coming from a city transformed by tech.

“I think part of San Francisco being the real and perceived headquarters for all things tech also comes with a responsibility for its local legislators,” said Mr. Peskin, who represents neighborhoods on the northeast side of the city. “We have an outsize responsibility to regulate the excesses of technology precisely because they are headquartered here.”

Similar bans are under consideration in Oakland and in Somerville, Mass., outside of Boston. In Massachusetts, a bill in the state legislature would put a moratorium on facial recognition and other remote biometric surveillance systems. On Capitol Hill, a bill introduced last month would ban users of commercial face recognition technology from collecting and sharing data for identifying or tracking consumers without their consent, although it does not address the government’s uses of the technology.

Matt Cagle, an attorney with the ACLU of Northern California, summed up the broad concerns of critics Tuesday: Facial recognition technology, he said, “provides government with unprecedented power to track people going about their daily lives. That’s incompatible with a healthy democracy.”

The San Francisco proposal, he added, “is really forward-looking and looks to prevent the unleashing of this dangerous technology against the public.”

In one form or another, facial recognition is already being used in many U.S. airports and big stadiums, and by a number of other police departments. The pop star Taylor Swift has reportedly incorporated the technology at one of her shows, using it to help identify stalkers.

The issue has been particularly charged in San Francisco, a city with a rich history of incubating dissent and individual liberties, but one that has also suffered lately from high rates of property crime. A local group called Stop Crime SF asked supervisors to exclude local prosecutors, police and sheriffs from the ordinance when performing investigative duties, as well as an exemption for the airport.

The group had been encouraging residents to send a form letter to supervisors. It argued that the ordinance “could have unintended consequences that make us less safe by severely curtailing the use of effective traditional video surveillance by burying agencies like the police department in a bureaucratic approval process.”

The facial recognition fight in San Francisco is largely theoretical — the police department does not currently deploy facial recognition technology, except in its airport and ports that are under federal jurisdiction and are not impacted by the legislation.

Some local homeless shelters use biometric finger scans and photos to track shelter usage, said Jennifer Friedenbach, the executive director of the Coalition on Homelessness. The practice has driven undocumented residents away from the shelters, she added.

Mr. Cagle and other experts said that it was difficult to know exactly how widespread the technology was in the U.S. “Basically governments and companies have been very secretive about where it’s being used, so the public is largely in the dark about the state of play,” he said.

But Dave Maass, senior investigative researcher at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, offered a partial list of police departments that he said used the technology, including Las Vegas, Orlando, San Jose, San Diego, New York City, Boston, Detroit and Durham, N.C.

Other users, Mr. Maass said, include the Colorado Department of Public Safety, the Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office, the California Department of Justice and the Virginia State police.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection is now using facial recognition in many U.S. airports and ports of sea entry. At airports, international travelers stand before cameras, then have their pictures matched against photos provided in their passport applications. The agency says the process complies with privacy laws, but it has still come in for criticism from the Electronic Privacy Information Center, which argues that the government, though promising travelers that they may opt out, has made it increasingly difficult to do so.

But there is a broader concern. “When you have the ability to track people in physical space, in effect everybody becomes subject to the surveillance of the government,” said Marc Rotenberg, the group’s executive director.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/14/us/facial-recognition-ban-san-francisco.html?smprod=nytcore-ipad&smid=nytcore-ipad-share
EARTH - "love it or leave it!"

Offline knarf

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 12719
    • View Profile
Mexico City's residents are engulfed in a thick haze of air pollution
« Reply #12713 on: May 14, 2019, 05:21:55 PM »

A haze hangs over Mexico City on Tuesday.

MEXICO CITY — Residents in Mexico's capital are walking around with surgical masks on as their eyes water and they struggle to breathe.

Tuesday was the fourth straight day that the capital, which sits on a valley, has been engulfed in a thick haze of air pollution as forest fires rage across the country.

Authorities declared emergencies in 11 municipalities in the southern Mexico state of Oaxaca due to fires on Saturday, but there were also reports of fires in Valle de Bravo, Tepoztlán and Jalisco, according to The Associated Press.

Mexico City’s fire department reported 23 forest fires in total on Sunday.

Though the fires are on the outskirts of the capital, they’ve caused a decline in air quality in the city by emitting dangerous particles. For more than 48 hours, residents were exposed to PM2.5 particles, which have a similar structure to aerosols and can diminish a person’s ability to breathe as well as curtail the development of the respiratory system in children.

The heightened levels of air pollution have prompted the Megalópolis Environmental Commission (CAME), a Mexican government agency, to issue a warning for residents to remain indoors.

“In recent days the rates of contamination by fine particles have increased in the Valley of Mexico due to the influence of fires that are active in this atmospheric basin and its surroundings,” read a press release on CAME’s website. “The Environmental Commission of the Megalopolis has decided to apply an environmental alert in order to reduce the probability of affecting the health of the population, mainly of the groups most vulnerable to the effects of air pollution (infants, the elderly and patients with respiratory and cardiovascular diseases).”

The warning instructed residents to avoid spending time outdoors, cooking with firewood and coal, smoking and lighting candles, as such actions could put them at risk and exacerbate overall air quality.

The agency also suggested placing wet towels under doors and by the windows of homes near fire zones to prevent the fires from spreading.

On Tuesday, the Mexican agency that monitors pollution levels recorded that the risk of the city’s air quality was a 10 — the most dangerous it can receive on its scale.

Mexico City has experienced 73 days of above average temperatures so far this year, and the heat and current conditions have contributed to more than 770 forest fires, according to Reforma, a Mexico City newspaper. The National Forest Commission says more than 100,000 acres of forest were destroyed by fire this year through March alone.

“The climate works against Mexico City and the area has a baseline of poor air quality from urban sources,” said Kevin Cromar, the director of the Air Quality Program and an associate professor at the NYU Marron Institute of Urban Management, which works with Mexican agencies on air quality and research.

“The particles travel deep into the lungs, which could cause respiratory difficulty and an increased risk of lung cancer,” Cromar told NBC News.

NASA satellite imagery that reveals dozens of hot spots with thick smoke across Mexico has been shared widely by social and local media. The images, which show the smoke billowing in Central America, confirm that the effects of the fire could be even more far-reaching.

Research published by AGU Journals in 2015 looked at how smoke from fires in Mexico and Central America in April 2011 helped influence a major tornado outbreak that killed 313 people in the U.S.

“Air pollution doesn’t recognize jurisdictional boundaries,” Cromar said. “There’s no question that these fires will impact Central America, and if the wind is blowing upward, the United States as well.”

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/mexico-city-s-residents-are-engulfed-thick-haze-air-pollution-n1005601
EARTH - "love it or leave it!"

Offline knarf

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 12719
    • View Profile
US Federal Agencies Are Spending Millions To Hack iPhones
« Reply #12714 on: May 14, 2019, 05:24:35 PM »


When people on the streets tell you that the government is spying on you, they might be right in saying that. Law enforcement and other federal agencies have been purchasing several technologies that would allow them to check up on Americans – even against their will.

A recent $1.2 million purchase was made by the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) for a technology that would essentially hack into a locked iPhone. The acquisition underscores how law enforcement and other federal agencies are using technology in violation of Americans’ rights to privacy.

The said contract has two components. The first one, valued at $384,000 and was made in September 2018, and another made this month for $819,000. Sources revealed that the said hacking equipment will go to the agency’s Homeland Security Investigation unit. The unit focuses on the investigation on immigration crimes, drug trafficking, child exploitation, and money laundering, according to Thomas Brewster from Forbes.

Nonetheless, the ICE refused to disclose how the equipment will be used and for what purpose will it serve, but according to Washington Post, the contract come amid heightened and pervasive concern about the warrantless searches of phones and laptops that ICE and Customs and Border Protection conduct at airports and other points of entry following the stringent immigration crackdown by the Trump administration.

The American Civil Liberties, who sued the US government over the warrantless searches in the airport by two federal agencies said that they found that “CBP and ICE are asserting near-unfettered authority to search and seize travelers’ devices at the border.” That includes “for purposes far afield from the enforcement of immigration and customs laws” including “investigating and enforcing bankruptcy, environmental, and consumer protection laws.”

The said contract of ICE is with a company known as Grayshift. The company is known for marketing tools to law enforcement specifically those that can hack into locked iPhones. They have been involved in so many conflicts with Apple as the tech company develops encryptions that would block Grayshift’s ability to hack into the device, but Grayshift seems always to find a new way to get in.

In the past, Grayshift has signed contracts with different federal agencies since 2017 including ICE, the Secret Service, the FBI, and the Drug Enforcement Administration. The total amount of deal the company inked with the U.S. government reaches $2.6 million according to the information on a government spending database.

In 2015, the FBI had waged a high-stakes lawsuit against Apple, the manufacturer of iPhones, because according to them, the security features in the phones make it hard for law enforcement and investigation agencies to bypass. According to the FBI, the advanced encryption systems in iPhones are hurting their investigations and are allowing criminals and terrorists to “go dark” online. They have been complaining that tech companies have been very uncooperative in helping them bypass those encryptions and now it seems that they are turning into another technology to avoid them without the permission of the user or the phone manufacturer.

Despite the hot water that federal agencies have been bathing in as the issue on hacking and encryption breaking becomes more public, the FBI, among other federal agencies in question, is yet to prove that their inability to bypass the said encryption systems thwarts their investigation.

In fact, in the 2015 lawsuit that FBI filed to compel Apple to help them decrypt the iPhone used by San Bernardino shooter Syed Farook, the bureau ultimately withdraw its demand due to the lack of proof of the necessity of decryption. Sources suggest that an unnamed third party offered to help the agency hack into the iPhone for a hefty price.

The specific “help” that the third party offered was to disable a safeguard that would have wiped the phone’s contents after too many wrong password guesses. Interestingly, this method is similar to what Grayshift is offering. When this safeguard is disabled, federal agencies can run a program that tries all possible password combinations until they finally land on the right one without the risk of the content being wiped out.

Critics argue that the rush to litigate their demands against Apple is aimed not to hack the specific iPhone used by the shooter in the case but instead to set a precedent that would make it easier for them to request from the court a similar demand in the future.

https://z6mag.com/technology/cybersecurity/us-federal-agencies-are-spending-millions-to-hack-iphones-1636522.html
EARTH - "love it or leave it!"

Offline knarf

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 12719
    • View Profile
He could really make me laugh.

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/7cUZhHS0PMM&fs=1" target="_blank" class="new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/7cUZhHS0PMM&fs=1</a>
EARTH - "love it or leave it!"

Offline knarf

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 12719
    • View Profile
Walmart launches free next-day delivery, taking aim at Amazon
« Reply #12716 on: May 14, 2019, 05:44:10 PM »
    Speedy free delivery is an increasingly high-stakes battleground for retailers.
    Just two weeks after Amazon expanded its free shipping for Prime members, Walmart is responding.
    The brick-and-mortar retail giant is starting free next-day delivery on 220,000 items.
    The move hikes pressure on other rivals already investing millions of dollars to shorten the delivery window. 


Walmart is rolling out free next-day delivery on its most popular items, increasing the stakes in the retail shipping wars. The nation's largest retailer said Tuesday it has been building a network of more efficient e-commerce distribution centers to make that happen.

The next-day service will cover 220,000 popular items from diapers and nonperishable food items to toys and electronics. That's nearly double the number of items Walmart carries in its stores.

Next-day delivery, which will require a minimum order of $35, will be available in Phoenix, Arizona and Las Vegas on Tuesday. In coming days, it will expand to Southern California. The discounter plans to roll out the service to 75 percent of the U.S. population by year-end. It will also be adding hundreds of thousands more products as the program expands.

The announcement comes just two weeks after online behemoth Amazon said it's upgrading its free shipping option to Prime members, who pay $119 a year, to one-day delivery from two-day delivery. Amazon has declined to say when the switch will happen, but it already offers one-day delivery for some items in certain areas.
"Trying to get ahead"

Walmart said its new delivery program has been in the works for a while. "Customer expectations continue to rise," Marc Lore, CEO of Walmart's U.S. e-commerce division, told The Associated Press in a phone interview. "We're trying to get ahead of that."

The move will only increase pressure on other rivals that are already investing millions of dollars to shorten the delivery window. Amazon changed consumer expectations when it launched its two-day delivery for Prime members back in 2005 and forced other retailers to step up their game. But analysts said Amazon then needed to cut the delivery time in half to make its membership more attractive because Walmart and other retailers offered free two-day deliveries without any membership.

Two years ago, Walmart began offering free two-day shipping on millions of items on its website for orders of at least $35. Target also offers free two-day shipping for those who spend at least $35 or use its RedCard loyalty card. Walmart has also been expanding same-day grocery delivery service fulfilled from its stores for a fee of about $10.

Lore said it will be cheaper for the company to do next-day delivery versus two-day service because eligible items will come from a single fulfillment center located closest to the customer. This means orders will ship in one box, or in as few as possible, unlike two-day deliveries that come in multiple boxes from multiple locations.
Amazon hikes self-delivery

Still, Walmart sells far fewer products than Amazon, and its online U.S. sales are only a fraction of Amazon's online global merchandise empire. Amazon has also been delivering more packages itself rather than relying on the U.S. Postal Service and other carriers like UPS and FedEx. The company expects to spend $800 million in the second quarter to speed up deliveries and has expanded its fleet of jets. On Monday, Amazon announced it will be expanding an incentive program to its employees so they can quit their jobs and start their own Amazon package delivery businesses.

Walmart has one big advantage over Amazon: It has more than 4,700 stores. Walmart and Target have been turning their physical stores into shipping hubs, speeding up deliveries and helping defray costs for services like curbside delivery and in-store pickup. Walmart has also been expanding the use of robots in its stores, which keep tabs on what's on and not on the shelves. And Target has redesigned its staging area for packages to help speed up fulfilling curbside deliveries.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/walmart-next-day-delivery-will-be-free-taking-aim-at-amazon/

EARTH - "love it or leave it!"

Offline knarf

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 12719
    • View Profile
    The Revolutionary Communist Party, USA distributed manifestos and featured displays at the University of California, Los Angeles.
    The group called for the formation of “organized fighting forces," claiming the group must be ready to “continually train and deploy new forces and leaders."


Members of the Revolutionary Communist Party of America launched an advertising campaign at the University of California-Los Angeles in early May by chalking and distributing signage in an apparent effort to recruit college students to subscribe to their communist ideology.

The group set up signs, handed out flyers, and wrote out chalk markings, as seen in photos obtained by Campus Reform, even after being asked by staff and housing officials to stop their activities. The group’s distributed manifesto condemned capitalism, as well as “jokes” based on race, gender, nationality, etc. Chalked markings on the ground and walls asked students to speak.

The Communists remained in the campus dorms, known as “The Hill”, for several hours before leaving.

Sections D3, D8, and D10 of UCLA’s On-Campus Housing Regulations forbid using housing spaces without permission, chalking and signing on The Hill without UCLA approval -- the failure of the group’s signage to be in Residential Life display cases indicates this was not obtained -- and advertising a non-university organization without approval, respectively. However, according to UCLA’s On Campus Conduct Policy, there exists no process for sanctioning non-resident violations.

A whiteboard displayed by the group bore the message "Revolution is the only solution."

The Revolutionary Communist Party passed out flyers urging revolution -- but saying it will not provoke violence “at this stage” -- calling for the formation of “organized fighting forces," claiming the group must be ready to “continually train and deploy new forces and leaders,” and called for the establishment of a “New Socialist Republic of North America."

"We are going for an actual overthrow of the system and a whole better way beyond the destructive, vicious conflicts of today between the people," one flyer stated.

“Do not attempt to openly control and govern territory, until the necessary ‘favorable balance of forces’ has been achieved,” one part of the manifesto warns potential recruits.

These flyers are nothing new for the Revolutionary Communists, which boasts affiliates including Stop Patriarchy and Refuse Fascism.

“The fury of women can and must be fully unleashed as a mighty force for proletarian revolution,” Revolutionary Communist Party Chairman Bob Avakian says on an official party page referencing the former affiliate.

The Communists have gained notoriety at UCLA, largely due to frequent flyering and event disruptions, such as last year’s invasion of an “Indigenous People’s Event”.

UCLA students have pushed back against the group, often claiming that the group is almost entirely composed of non-students and preach a strain of Marxism far too radical for the left-leaning college.

“I'm a Democrat and I absolutely cannot stand the Trump/Pence administration but these people are out of their minds!” Jenai Blazina, a second-year Biochemistry major, told Campus Reform. “The United States is a democracy and if they truly want them gone, they should be advocating for impeachment or helping candidates that align with their own values. I'm not an expert in politics but this kind of sounds like treason.”

18 U.S. Code §?2385. Advocating overthrow of Government criminalizes knowingly advocating for the destruction of the U.S. Government, including forming groups and spreading information for that purpose. It is unknown if the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) is currently monitoring the Revolutionary Communists, but Avakian claims to have been put under surveillance back in the 1970s.

“I want to think they're harmless fools but they keep recruiting more and more people and now I don't know,” Blazina continued.

However, other students find the Communists a laughingstock, unable to take their claims seriously.

“They’re suicidal for thinking they can take on the military of a country that literally spends more money on the military than the next seven countries combined, but at least they’re following true Marxist thought,” one undergraduate who wished to remain anonymous told Campus Reform. “It reminds me of Sparta, in that the state has a highly trained army entirely due to fear of a Helot revolution. Except replace ‘Helot’ with ‘communist’, and replace ‘fear’ with ‘not that much fear.’”

Despite the large amount of opposition, the Revolutionaries show no sign of abandoning recruitment efforts in UCLA, continuing to disseminate their literature regularly.

UCLA campus officials did not respond to requests for comment in time for publication.

https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=12223
EARTH - "love it or leave it!"

Offline RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 38865
    • View Profile
Re: San Francisco Bans Facial Recognition Technology
« Reply #12718 on: May 14, 2019, 06:57:02 PM »
Hard to see how that is possible.  The DMV here in AK now submits all Driver's License and Non-Driver ID photos to the FBI for inclusion into a national database.  That began around 2 or 3 years after I moved here, prior to that you got your DL right on the spot after filling out your forms and passing your tests.  The next DL I got I had to wait 2 weeks for it to come in the mail, same for the most recent one.  They also now started offering a license which complies with Federal standards to use as an ID to fly domestically in lieu of a passport.  I don't need one of those because I do have a passport, recently renewed in 2018.  Pasport photos also now included in the national database.

So say some crime occurs within the SF city limits which the FBI is investigating.  Can they be stopped by the SF City Council fromusing facial recognition software to try and ID a suspected criminal?  I hardly think so.

Much like Fingerprinting, it's about impossible nowadays not to get yourself included in these databases.  You would have to go your whole life without ever getting fingerprinted or having an official ID photograph taken of yourself.  I was fingerprinted at least 4 times that I remember over the course of my life, most recently when I took the job at the first gym up here in Alaska where the owner did a full background check when you got employed.  No fingerprinting, no job.  Few people also now go through life in the FSoA without a DL, and if you wanna buy cigarettes or booze you have to have at least a non-driver state ID.  Anybody who goes to college has to get a college ID, and anyone who serves in the military has to get one of course.  All those pics go in the databases now.

This horse left the barn quite some time back.  SF passing a toothless ordinance like this won't do a damn thing about it.

RE
Save As Many As You Can

Offline K-Dog

  • Global Moderator
  • Sous Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 3169
    • View Profile
    • K-Dog
Re: Knarf's Knewz Channel
« Reply #12719 on: May 14, 2019, 11:20:45 PM »
All facial recognition means is g-men do some work using a computer program instead of the old fashioned way.

So I'm dancing with the trolls at Clusterfuck Nation a few years ago and one of them starts asking me questions about the Revolutionary Communist Party.  Bob Avakian's club.  As the questions mount I realize these fuckers have me on video going into the Revolutionary Communist Bookstore which used to be on Capital Hill in Seattle but later moved Downtown before it closed.  Maybe Soros was funding it, I have no idea.  I did go in there a few times and was always disappointed they did not have basic literature on theory.  I do have, let me find it,



which I bought there.

But here is what really churns my butter.  My visits to the 'Revolutionary Bookstore' that is what it was called, all happened before there was a K-Dog.  I went into this bookstore in the 80's or 90's before the net.  So I'll concur that Avakian has been under surveillance since the 70s.

Asking me questions in JHK's blog space spilled the beans and I realized I have been under surveillance for most of my adult life.  Probably all the way back to when I claimed conscientious objector status when I had to register for the Vietnam draft.  My application was not accepted and got round filed.  Then it all became moot because the draft ended.
Quote
18 U.S. Code §?2385. Advocating overthrow of Government criminalizes knowingly advocating for the destruction of the U.S. Government, including forming groups and spreading information for that purpose. It is unknown if the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) is currently monitoring the Revolutionary Communists, but Avakian claims to have been put under surveillance back in the 1970s.
Under ideal conditions of temperature and pressure the organism will grow without limit.