813

From Bog Guns and Crimes

+264 Arguing After This New York Case

I do not intend to restrict myself from continuing to argue the meaning of the Second Amendment after the oral argument for the New York case even if that meaning was taken as one of the issues. Actually, I could really think that a case will be about deciding that meaning but still continue to argue even close to rendering a decision by the court. The intention for using the time for the separation emphasis I mentioned before is about me putting good effort to do things that way but it is not about compromising my argument if I fail to complete my work earlier. 

812

From Blog Guns and Crimes

+263: Weekly News Search

I have been wanting to say this for a long time but keep postponing it. This is related  to my auto google news search which I kept watching for probably years now. I made that search looking for normal search results. I, of course, still welcome artificial ones if the other side want them but I was not looking for them.

Yes, I once took the absence of results as indication for disapproval for something I said or did, but that came, again, because I thought the other side is the one who want that artificial creation of news. If this was not intended or no longer intended then the situation is very far from needing the other side to  modify its actions to fit my perception to reality here if that perception is wrong.        

And, by the way, I no longer as I was in the past looking for a case to be taken to argue things to the end. Although, seeing how this New York case look like a manufactured one, made me mistakenly think that the reason is the lack of filling for Second Amendment related cases.  

Related to that case, I do not care about how the upcoming argument look really about determining what should be done about the specific issue there. Instead I intend to check that argument carefully for Second Amendment inputs in general.   

811: This Is In Tolerable - 2

 At the beginning of this day of mine, I spent close to an hour trying to do something requiring only couple of clicks over the Internet because the connection kept going on and off. This is an hour of feeling my rights violated and helpless frustration at the hands of this guy and his corporate thugs until the corruption guy allowed me to use my Internet access. This is not an exceptional incident but general behaviour from Charter Communications. 

Things shouldn't be let loose like this. One should not need to fight the feeling of being humiliated for something that belongs to him like this. This is a joke and fake system. At least when it is not within their rights, thugs should not feel this safe from being prosecuted when they do crap like this. I have a contract with Charter. Behaving this way by an entity that offers to be engaged with the same kind of contract with anybody should be seen as fraud, if not against the person toward whom the bad action here was directed, at least against the nation as a whole. 

And if that is not enough, Charter also had done other things like, for example, taking my required input to access a website and replace it with different input to disable me from accessing that website, which I complained much about years ago (and I still consider it the worst thing Charter has done to me because it hides itself between you and the web page you want to access instead of directly seeing Charter causing the problem)

Here is a recent incident of Charter's readiness for malicious actions:

Trying to choose between two things, I spent sometime reading their reviews on Amazon. Those reviews made me inclined more to buy one and not the other but I did not complete the action until the next day and kept the web page on that thing in one of my windows . What happened on the next day was that the reviews link on that web page was replaced  with the reviews link for the thing that was less desirable to me. Even refreshing the page did not correct the problem until I started over and repeated the Amazon search that listed those two things. 

   

810: This Is Intolerable

This is intolerable. If seeing everything I do over the internet,  and have the choice to use that knowledge to mess anything I do there, and by a guy with connections and can pull things the way he wants like this guy, is not enough, even the access to the internet itself maybe taken away when he sees that I am trying to do something there. He and Charter are cooperating like criminal organization.

  

809

From Blog Guns and Crimes

+262

I probably felt it like a natural thing and did not pay sufficient attention when I made the preceding post to why should that reference be to another world instead of unknown world. However, whether I am wrong or right there, I do not intend to leave that argument as it is now.

808

From Blog Guns and Crimes:

+261 (second amendment interpretation 199: New Argument For Capitalized References-3)

Now I am more inclined to see that, unlike what I said in the preceding post, the earlier one had good enough depth but I needed to follow on that saying this which I now want to be my main argument:

Since a proper noun reference does not use a fitting in our shared world to refer to its target, it refers to the inside of that target as another world. Therefore, the inside of a proper noun reference target is out of our application domain. 

807: Google's Shopping Link

After depending on Google's Shopping for so long, I just knew that it may not or always do not bring you results Google can find on the internet for what you are looking to buy, if they are not sponsored. The notion of mixing what supposed to be providing information purely on the value of that information like what Google itself is supposedly doing, with something pushing that to secondary role like its Shopping link on the same page was far from me. I took the Shopping link as a focus of the search service provided by Google, on a specific category, not different kind of service. Should one also expect that, for example, Google's maps also may not show paths based on their quality first? With such situations something indicating a different kind of service is probably needed with the link on the main page and not just with the results when Google says that the shopping results were sponsored on the results page. Although to be fair, I doubt that this has not been a common behaviour among search engines in general.

806: Charter's Thuggery Actions

Based on reactions from other Americans in other matters, I wonder about them calling the police on Charter if it were to take away their internet access any time it wants without reason like it does to mine. Such reaction is not that far from being reasonable, given the thuggery nature of Charter's action in contract violation like that of, for example, if a seller does not give you something you just paid its price to him.

805

From Blog Guns and Crimes:

+260 (second amendment interpretation 198: New Argument For Capitalized References-2)

I probably did not go enough depth in the preceding post.
So let me add this update:

When there is a direct reference to a thing, as in a proper noun, the reference goes to the identity of that thing. Therefore we become under the restriction of how the structure of that thing was intended to be. That include the possibility that its elements were intended not to exist individually but only as parts of the whole. This restriction obligates us to take the thing only as a whole. On the other hand, with a common noun reference and even when there is only one thing that can fit, the reference do not target the identity of that thing and therefore we are not obligated to how it was structured beyond just fitting it in that container environment. 

804

From Blog Guns and Crimes:

+259 (second amendment interpretation 197: New Argument For Capitalized References)

Although the internal affectability of things is more common, it is not standing on its own without an enabling thing. It is more common because of the use of common nouns. Common nouns do not refer directly to things.  Instead they refer to fitting containers. Having those environments is what enables the internal affectability of things by constructing them according to those fitting environments. On the other hand, with proper nouns, the references go directly to the targeted things not to fitting environments containing them. Therefore we cannot affect those targeted things internally. 
In other words, we need access to the internal environment of things in order to be able to do internal effect on them. Common nouns give us that access but proper nouns do not.

Now, lets return to the capitalization rules of the language. We know that proper nouns should be capitalized. We also know that common nouns (like the word "state") should also be capitalized when attached to common nouns. Therefore, like how we take the word "state" as a general reference to any state, the word "State" is a general reference to what proper noun references of states target. Therefore, here, the words "free" and "security" are not internally applicable.

803

This is to the corruption guy:

So it is not enough for you to have companies act like thugs in your support that you additionally seek the help of cockroaches? Do you really think that the cockroach you are using can act in a way that I cannot detect if he is doing those things on his own or for you? I have already known this but I just decided to give you another sample of how I can detect your things without revealing that. I did the same when I only told you that I know you can detect what TV channels (and also radio stations) I watch over the air, even though my suspicion started years earlier (Although with this cockroach, this change of behaviour has been here for like months not years). 

802

I cant see a reason why in the preceding post I made seeing a history older than what it is, a consequence to seeing those people more on the primitive side, while things seems to fit better with the former causing the latter.