Slashdot Mirror
How Kernel Hackers Boosted the Speed of Desktop Linux
chromatic writes "Kernel hackers Arjan van de Ven and Auke Kok showed off Linux booting in five seconds at last month's Linux Plumbers Conference. Arjan and other hackers have already improved the Linux user experience by reducing power consumption and latency. O'Reilly News interviewed him about his work on improving the Linux experience with PowerTOP, LatencyTOP, and Five-Second Boot."
http://bp0.blogger.com/_Q8OWC_n6WMU/SGQ3FBUapPI/AAAAAAAABEg/60TP2sxd_8I/s1600-h/bear+arms.bmp
vi +
There are a variety of possible explanations, the simplest being "Because that's the reasoning", ie "Because we want to have well regulated militias, we must allow the people to bear arms." Another is that it's actually a separate right - the first amendment contains at least five (free exercise of religion, freedom of speech, a free press, right to peaceably assemble, and to petition the government), though the wording is a tad all over the place for this to be likely with the second. But certainly I've heard it argued that the intent was to ensure the states had the right to have militias, it was an argument used at the time.
I think the first is the more likely. The point is that as an English sentence, the second amendment specifically does not make the second dependent upon the first. Insofar as you can tie the things together, it's as an explanation - that because we need well regulated militias, the people must be allowed to bear arms.
If you take the language too far, as you're doing, and say that it actually introduces a dependency, it's quite possible to interpret it in exactly the opposite way those who do this do: that a militia is necessary, therefore the government must arm the people. Another way, which the courts have actually used, is to determine the meaning of the second part - ie, if the intent is to make a militia possible, then you can't say "Everyone's allowed to own spears. Guns are banned" and expect that to satisfy the amendment because, technically, people can bear arms, they just have to be spears.
But there is no dependency; in plain English, it's a justification followed by the clause that's being justified.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
I can't believe I'm going to respond to an off-topic post that is responding to an off-topic post but I'll make it simple for you.
The right to bear arms stems from a basic thinking that we no longer have in the United States today. We are afraid of our government. That should not be the case. They should be afraid of us. The NEED for a militia is not to protect the citizens from an invasion from something outside our soil. It is there to protect the citizens from the erosion of rights, to ensure the government does its job (by the people, for the people) and has now been media spun to seem as if every militia is a bunch of racist crackpots running around sending their kids to school with automatic weapons.
The reality couldn't be further from the truth. I have had weapons, loaded in many cases, either on my person or within easy access for most of my entire life. Even as a child. I have never harmed anyone with a firearm. I'm well trained and can actually hit an opponent from a mile away with both an effective weapon and an accurately dialed in scope. (U.S.M.C. btw so that you're aware of why I am comfortable making that claim.) Yet, even sitting there with a U.S.M.C. (Ret.) father who had everything from an M1 to an M14 in the home as a CHILD, I've never once had the urge to harm someone with a firearm.
You can't take a bullet back. You only fire when your intent is to risk killing. There are times when you use suppressive fire or fire to wound, even then your willingness is an intent to kill. I've killed many things with a firearm. I eat them. Nom nom nom... I like 'em a lot.
Fear. Respect. Trust. Love. Attentive. Admiration. Understanding. Those are feelings I have regarding my rifles. They also extend to guns and sidearms. "This is my rifle, there are many like it but this one is mine. Without me my rifle is nothing. Without my rifle I am nothing..." (I could go on.)
We have this kneejerk reaction about firearms. WTF? Look at the statistics, look at the facts. Far fewer people are killed with firearms than they are with automobiles. Do we have a movement (other than some crazy whackjobs who think anything techy is bad) attempting to ban automobiles? Do we run around telling parents to lock up their car keys and keep them out of the reach of children? Or do we try to TEACH them that they are dangerous, they need respect, that they should be able to trust in the reliability of their automobile, that it is okay to have a love of driving within reason, that they have to be attentive on the road, that they can have admiration of the automobile, and that they need to understand the dangers and risks involved in driving? Responsible people do the latter.
Anyhow, to get to the point. Gun ownership is there, in this country, to protect you. Most of us don't do it because it is our "constitutional right." Most of us do it for a perceived need or a desire to use a tool that enables us to provide for our family more easily than hitting a moose with a car. (That is harder than you think. It is instinct to try to avoid the moose. Silly human instincts.) There are a few of us that carry openly, even in banks, for a higher reason. Those of us who do that generally do it not to make a show but because we want to be ready to stand up for ourselves in the case of true oppression or to defend the rights of another. There's nothing more humanitarian than that.
That's why there's a constitutionally protected right to bear arms and form a militia. It isn't about crazy fucked whackjobs who think that they're going to save the nation from Osama Bin Laden. It is about affording you (who is probably unwilling given the response you made) to have the rights that you have. Unfortunately there are only a few of us and they have, well, you know... Tanks and stuff.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Over the years I've gradually moved away from the "guns are bad" view.
It's just annoying how stupid people can be with them.
How about a system for guns similar to the system for cars.
People should damn well have to prove they know the fucking basic safety rules before being allowed own a gun.
As for keeping a gun around the house- use common sense. If you live alone in a bad neighbourhood above a crack house and below another crack house then sleeping with a loaded gun on a hair trigger is a good idea and that shadowy figure climbing in your window is almost certainly someone trying to rob you. Here it will keep you safe.
If on the other hand you live in a low crime, gated community with a large family then sleeping with a gun is paranoid, failing to keep it in a gun cabbinet is foolish. That shadowy figure climbing in the window is probably your teenager or their girlfiend/boyfriend. A gun here will make very little difference to your safety. If you can't resist shooting at anything suspicious then you're best off not keeping a gun around.
Guns are just a tool.
Question:
If you take the view that guns are for dealing with your own government shouldn't it be perfectly legal for people to own fully working military grade weapons? Should you not also have a right to brew your own expolsives or buy materials for bombs?
("I never go anywhere without my weaponised anthrax! For duck hunting... :D")