11–20 of 82 posts
Off-topic: the publication is named "staradvertiser". (The adds do seem unusually well-targeted to me.) It's the first time I see a publication whose name is clearly trying to appeal to advertisers rather than viewers. Has anyone else seen any others? Any insights about their counter-intuitive decision?
Off-topic: the publication is named "staradvertiser". (The adds do seem unusually well-targeted to me.) It's the first time I see a publication whose name is clearly trying to appeal to advertisers rather than viewers. Has anyone else seen any others? Any insights about their counter-intuitive decision?
Off-topic: the publication is named "staradvertiser". (The adds do seem unusually well-targeted to me.) It's the first time I see a publication whose name is clearly trying to appeal to advertisers rather than viewers. Has anyone else seen any others? Any insights about their counter-intuitive decision?
Advertiser was a common name for newspapers at the time. It's an old publication (although I'm pretty sure it was called SomethingElse Advertiser). I'd guess it's using the older definition of advertiser "call attention to". The fact that the ads were well targeted was coincidence.
Off-topic: the publication is named "staradvertiser". (The adds do seem unusually well-targeted to me.) It's the first time I see a publication whose name is clearly trying to appeal to advertisers rather than viewers. Has anyone else seen any others? Any insights about their counter-intuitive decision?
[1] ie. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_newspapers_in_Alabama
Off-topic: the publication is named "staradvertiser". (The adds do seem unusually well-targeted to me.) It's the first time I see a publication whose name is clearly trying to appeal to advertisers rather than viewers. Has anyone else seen any others? Any insights about their counter-intuitive decision?
For what it's worth, as the only major newspaper, they don't have to go out of their way to appeal to advertisers. If you want to buy print ads, you don't have much choice.
On the other hand: some of the telescopes have been there many years and are probably somewhat obsolete by today's standards, producing little new science. Perhaps one of the existing structures could have been removed to make room for the TMT, to lessen conflict.
Off-topic: the publication is named "staradvertiser". (The adds do seem unusually well-targeted to me.) It's the first time I see a publication whose name is clearly trying to appeal to advertisers rather than viewers. Has anyone else seen any others? Any insights about their counter-intuitive decision?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thanks, that phrase, > or are actually infringing on the sovereignty of the Hawaiian kingdom made no sense to me, given that the Hawaiian Kingdom hasn't been a sovereign entity for 125 years.
I think that since it didn't voluntarily surrender its sovereignty, some might feel it should still have it, but I don't know too much about the subject, so maybe it's time for me to read up a bit.
The stuff about pollution and interruption of cultural practices is more about the idea that those things are being forced upon native Hawaiians, much like annexation was.
Not all native Hawaiians feel this way about the telescopes, but the ones that do are the ones protesting.
I think at least one of the points can be appealed in the federal courts, if the US Supreme Court would be down to hear it - so there would be several gambles.
> In any event, as held by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Navajo Nation v. U.S. Forest Serv. , 535 F.3d 1058, 1077 (9th Cir. 2008) RLUIPA “applies only to government land-use regulations of private land such as zoning laws not to the government’s management of its own land. Therefore, this point of error is without merit.
Not that the government would ever cede control over its own land, I just feel like the current Supreme Court would be more lenient to religious arguments.
All the rest of this particular case ignores the religious arguments and focuses on the procedural stuff, which was all done by the book and expected of a state and federal permitting agency, at least compared to arbitrary claims by religious folks.
Now on to the dissenting opinion:
I gather no real rebuttal, just a partial affirmation to "points I-III" and no comment on the other points. hm.
Applauds from me.
The actual legal issues in question are barely touched on in the article: > But some environmentalists and Native Hawaiian groups say the spread of observatories on the summit has polluted the mountain, interfering with traditional cultural and religious practices, or are actually infringing on the sovereignty of the Hawaiian kingdom. The links in the article to the actual decisions are broken (for me at least) The a…
Is there actually any legally recognized sovereignty for Hawaii or native Hawaiians? Tried doing a quick search but it all came back with an ongoing sovereignty movement but nothing similar to the Native American tribes.