How can I just delete my profile for Apple Communities?

Except that doesn't really answer my question. What are you sharing if there's no information in the profile that's personally identifiable? Records of machines that were used to access that account, if they are kept, could, conceivably be problematic.

I understand what you are saying, but it's probably mostly a psychological reaction - (guessing). If I don't want any info out there, then there shouldn't be any (guessing again).

And, it didn't take long (was curious myself): here is a Wikipedia article on the personal right to one's image:

Das Recht am eigenen Bild oder Bildnisrecht ist eine besondere Ausprägung des allgemeinen Persönlichkeitsrechts. Es besagt, dass jeder Mensch grundsätzlich selbst darüber bestimmen darf, ob überhaupt und in welchem Zusammenhang Bilder von ihm veröffentlicht werden. Im anglo-amerikanischen Raum ist das Recht am eigenen Bild weitaus freier gestaltet als im deutschen Rechtsraum.[1]

Google translate is notoriously bad with German; the salient part is that you have the basic human right to determine if or when and how a picture of you can be published or not. It also adds that this right is interpreted far more liberally in anglo-american areas.

From this article:

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pers%C3%B6nlichkeitsrecht_(Deutschland)

I'm not sure what the Texas legislature has to do with the OPs question, but now that political discussions are allowed in the ASC public forums I'll feebly present the other side of the issue. While I was not a supporter of the voter ID law as written (primarily for budget considerations, there was no "huge" problem and any new policing law costs money to someone) I don't see it as being "crazy". And it was not struck down (along with the other 20 or so states that passed them, with some having them for decades) it was declared overly restrictive (which I thought it was and I told my local representative and state senator that) and has to be modified prior to the catastrophe in November to offer more options for identification.

...and speaking of voting. I would think since we are moving towards electronic voting we would want to ensure that our elections are true and accurate. I think Mr. Snowden would agree. But as far as your statement about phones, that was from a VICE piece (they just love Mr. Snowden) and yes during the piece he wowed them by being able to use a spider and soldering iron. WOW, I'm sure he is the only one who can do this, well other than about 3 million people in this country alone, including the recent postings of 3rd party repair people and just about everyone who follows the iFixit forums. But they were impressed. And just by taking apart the phone and adding items he claimed (he didn't actually do it) that he could commandeer the iPhone. Amazing. I'll be sure not to lend him my iPhone. But he was handed "a basic iPhone" by VICE, whatever that is, so we don't know if it had the security enclave or not. But since the FBI had to pay someone to get into a 5c (no enclave) no one reading this should really worry about Mr. Snowden's claims. And the various claims he makes, including the PBS appearance, concern items done under the current administration.

Crazy because "voting fraud" is non-existent to VERY rare = not worthy of a second thought much less legislation to "prevent" it.

7 papers, 4 government inquiries, 2 news investigations and 1 court ruling proving voter fraud is mostly a myth - The Washington Post

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/07/09/7-papers-4-government-inq uiries-2-news-investigations-and-1-court-ruling-proving-voter-fraud-is-mostly-a- myth/

I already said there was no such huge problem. Obviously worth a second thought since half the states considered it and some already had it on the books. And it doesn't mean it won't happen in the future. But it will be an interim feature anyway as we move towards electronic voting.

It has nothing to do with gerrymandering which is an entirely different subject. And it isn't unusual across the US to have zip codes cut up by congressional districts since zip codes are not used in drawing voting districts. And you can argue and present as many articles as you want but I already agreed with you on no past significant discrepancies...unless you go back to LBJ's congressional election.

And history doesn't mean it will not happen in the future.

Still doesn't qualify as "crazy", just means some have a different idea than you. If you search around a bit you can also find an article saying that in the last 30 years the attitudes of a significant portions of the two major parties have radically changed. Prior to then polls would show that one party supported certain issues but they understood the views and arguments of the other party. Now it is to the extreme, my party is sane and has the right idea the other party is crazy.

crazy is "not normal" - thinking that the Constitution does not apply to you is a "sociopath" - crazy

I disagree that voting rights can be separated - they gerrymander THEN restrict WITHIN the bounds - crazy... = infinite loop (see how I got Apple's address in there?)

That's America!

Sorry, that is not crazy and the court did not rule the Voter ID law was unconstitutional, they ruled it was overly restrictive. I don't believe that is "crazy" I believe it was a mistake and believed so at the time it was being considered.

Drawing voting districts and deciding who can vote and the means for determining who can vote are not the same thing. You have been around long enough (I think) to remember in Texas when there was almost no Republican presence and every district in the state was designed to be held by Democrats. In other words they were gerrymandered. The other side comes along and attempts the same thing in order to maintain their majority. And sometimes the courts get involved (as was the case with our most recent fight on this...and 35 years ago). And the biggest problem in drawing districts that result in some of the crazy shapes is trying to draw them to make sure all groups are included in accordance with the voting rights act. But still zip codes are not included.

And still not crazy.

deggie wrote:

Sorry, that is not crazy and the court did not rule the Voter ID law was unconstitutional, they ruled it was overly restrictive. I don't believe that is "crazy" I believe it was a mistake and believed so at the time it was being considered.

Drawing voting districts and deciding who can vote and the means for determining who can vote are not the same thing. You have been around long enough (I think) to remember in Texas when there was almost no Republican presence and every district in the state was designed to be held by Democrats. In other words they were gerrymandered. The other side comes along and attempts the same thing in order to maintain their majority. And sometimes the courts get involved (as was the case with our most recent fight on this...and 35 years ago). And the biggest problem in drawing districts that result in some of the crazy shapes is trying to draw them to make sure all groups are included in accordance with the voting rights act. But still zip codes are not included.

And still not crazy.

Wasn't it Texas that all the legislators from one party (Dems?) decamp to Arkansas to avoid a vote on redistricting?

Did not say the "same" - I said that restrictive actions are related - a one-two punch

What Does the Constitution Actually Say About Voting Rights? - The Atlantic

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/08/what-does-the-constitution-a ctually-say-about-voting-rights/278782/

the common concept is (in all mentions) "shall not restrict" = UN-Constitutional to do so

END

Texas politics is HOOT - at all times! 😢

Yes indeed it was, the Bees left. That is the most famous one but there are others and I'm sure it will repeat in the future when Texas tilts the other way again. Which leads to the old adage, "what comes around goes around."

No, you pretty much related them and now you have moved arguments. We could also go off on at what age should you be allowed to vote.

And no it isn't that simple and people interpret the constitution differently. Should you be able to restrict voting ability based upon conviction of a felony?

And if you think Texas is a hoot you should try California. At least we are safe every other year.

back to front

So folks know... our legislature only CONVENES every other year - a State Constitution written in the 1800s when the population was low and problems were straighforward

According to the 14th Amendment - yes - "... or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime." Let me go on record to say that I am in favor of reinstating voting right after sentence served.

I related them by saying that ANY restriction is a restriction - how can you SEPARATE them? They are both designed to deny the right in some way.
How many 18 year olds do you know that are 'mature' enough to even WANT to vote, much less be intelligently informed enough to cast a vote that actually represents their interests?

If I were to offer criteria for granting the privilege, I would start with a High School diploma or equivalency. Privilege criteria are State's Rights.

The state constitution was rewritten during reconstruction along with all the other confederate states. The state constitution where Meg lives, and others to the east, are older than ours.

After being stuck with a bunch of belligerent Trump supporters, attending a Sanders rally, and attending meetings with local tea party members I might also support an upper age limit. Privilege criteria are within the purview of states with limitations. Would your stance on reinstating be after the sentence was fully served or would it also include end of parole? Would it be for all crimes?