And by the way. No insult "implied" here, just a statement of pure (but evidence-based) opinion: I suspect you of sock-puppet modding. If that is true you should know that it is not socially acceptable, even here on Slashdot.
"If you think they're merely pretending instead of actually being a persecuted minority, you can test it for yourself. Just post as an Anonymous Coward the most reasonable argument you can find against AGW, and see if the people who disagree with you act like sciencists (convice and show disproving data) or religious fundamentalists (insults and censorship)."
That's the thing about hypotheses, isn't it? They're testable.
But if nobody bothers to test them, all you get is religion instead.
"Did you even notice that it was the tobacco companies that were the "organizations with an agenda" spreading misinformation in the media, in conflict with the science?"
I'm not going to be baited into this bullshit by you again. You have persistently implied baseless personal insults whenever you have "argued" with me, and it just isn't worth my time to bother with you.
With this reply, you just agreed with everything I wrote in my last reply, aside from side-stepping the point that you erred when you previously claimed that a "well-regulated militia" is a "standing army."
You again show that you did not understand my arguments, because in fact I "sidestepped" nothing. Your point actually constituted part of my own point. I do not understand where your failure to see this is, but it is YOUR misunderstanding, not mine.
I did read the page you cited, and it makes not the slightest bit of difference. Example: "Hamilton indicates a well-regulated militia is a state of preparedness obtained after rigorous and persistent training. Note the use of 'disciplining' which indicates discipline could be synonymous with well-trained. "
My point -- which I will repeat here because you still don't seem to get it -- is that the "general" militia, by definition, is NOT "well trained" or "disciplined". A "well-regulated" militia is one that, by your own argument, is disciplined and well-trained. So we are NOT in disagreement about the meaning of the phrase. The difference is that you do not seem to get that the "general" militia -- "everyman" -- is not well-regulated, and was no more so in those days than today. This "state of preparedness" comes from training that not everyone gets. You get that training in the military.
"You're simply wrong on this, and thus you're making things more difficult for rights advocates who engage in honest debate on the topic. While the general militia was regarded to consist of every man, the ready militia did not predominantly consist of men whose primary occupation was soldiering; these were men who gathered on an intermittent basis for drill and readiness purposes, but held other full time occupations. There was, and is, no requirement or intended meaning of a standing army in the amendment verbiage, nor the writings of Madison as they pertain to this topic."
NONE of this... not a single word... has any bearing whatsoever on what I was saying. I would thank you to take a step back and see where the misunderstanding is.
First, your bringing Madison into the subject simply proves that you did not understand what I was saying. I mentioned Madison only in the context that his notes of the Constitutional Convention of 1787 showed that the delegates "nearly" unanimously (there was apparently one curmudgeon or possibly as many as two) supported an INDIVIDUAL right to bear arms, in defense of their homes, property, and country. This is not a matter of dispute; it is a matter of crystal clear historical record.
That the INDIVIDUAL right to bear arms -- if necessary, against their own government -- was guaranteed by the Constitution is also a matter of crystal clear historical record, from the debates surrounding State ratification of the Constitution. Again: this is not a matter of dispute for anyone with an IQ over about 60; if you can read and understand, you can read the historical record, still preserved on actual paper in actual ink.
The words "well-regulated militia" appear in the historical record in places other than the Constitution. I repeat: "the militia" was considered to be all males "of age" (i.e., between about 14 and 50 or 55). WE KNOW THIS.
BUT... "the general militia" was NOT a "well-regulated militia". To think that they were is an error of the first order. Not ony is it semantic nonsens, to construe the Second Amendment in that light contrasts markedly (one might even day drastically) with the records describing what the founders were trying to achieve.
Nice of you to say "you are wrong", but sadly, in order to have any weight you would have to show me actual evidence that I am wrong.
Just to be clear: I didn't miss your point. I understand that focusable, aimable systems can do the job. Far more so than they could have, say, 10 years ago.
But they STILL can't do it as simply or cheaply as a basic parabolic antenna.
The more focused your "lens", the tighter your aim must be. And my whole point was the expense of accurate aiming equipment.
Fine, use a parabolic dish for your RADIO. But a pinpoint laser, today, is about the LEAST cost-effective solution you could come up with for cheap satellites.
"Can't they get the signal lasers working? Much better for max signal strength, bandwidth, power usage and transmitter size."
Signal lasers are WORK and EXPENSE. You have to accurately track your target both for transmission and reception. Far, far more expense than cubesats justify.
Maybe one day it will be cheap and easy. Not today.
"No, its not indisputable, or proven beyond reasonable doubt. Its just been documented and argued about by people who specialize in the field for 30-40 years, and they keep saying the same thing. We're the problem."
I do not dispute any of this. Not that it has much to do with what I wrote.
"Shoving your head in the sand might keep you from seeing the tsunami coming, but it wont keep you from drowning."
I'm not "shoving my head in the sand." Quite the contrary: UNLIKE you, I've been looking at BOTH sides of the argument. And your "side" (i.e., that "climate change" is human-caused) is not winning.
It is people who only listen to, and believe, ONE side of the argument who have their heads shoved in the sand.
"To date, i've never seen any kind of scientific evidence that is any kind of strong indication that we're not causing significant change to weather paterns on the earth."
Admit it: you haven't been looking. If you want to ask me, I can show you lots.
"I think that's an insighful interpretation, yep."
I would like to add one thing, however. It may seem like splitting hairs, but it is actually quite important.
That is: it is not "an interpretation", in the common sense, at all. It is, rather, a historical analysis of the original meaning.
Why that distinction is important is beyond the scope of this discussion. But important, it is.
---
"The first and governing maxim in the 'interpretation' of a statute is to discover the meaning of those who made it." -- James Wilson, Founding Father
"The phrase "well-regulated" means properly functioning (i.e.: properly trained and equipped)."
Yes, it does mean, in part, "properly trained" (not "equipped", but that's irrelevant). But either you did not see the explanations in this thread as to WHY "properly trained" = "a standing army", or you are not capable of understanding it. I care not which; this argument has been made and shot down.
"The second amendment just needs to be rewritten at this point. What a firearm was in the 18th century bears no resemblence to what we call a firearm now."
That may be true, but it is 100% irrelevant.
The PURPOSE of the 2nd Amendment was to ensure that THE PEOPLE had access to military grade arms! The reason being (as has gone before in this thread) that THE PEOPLE are guaranteed to have force sufficient to resist a military takeover.
In few words, THAT is the purpose of the 2nd Amendment. If the military has laser sidearms, then the civilian populace has the right to own laser sidearms. And even if you don't know the historical arguments, the Supreme Court itself has agreed with me on this issue.
"But those reasons and that ruling is still their personal interpretation of history."
NO.
Again you err, by mistaking EVIDENCE as "personal interpretation".
There is no point in pursuing this further. You are wrong. I don't feel like spending hours proving it to you, but you could spend a few minutes proving it to yourself, if you wanted to bother.
"He's clearly joking around... and laughing at the technically clueless who think he's being serious."
True. But even if you ignore that, I think the Slashdotters here who thought he was serious have missed the big point.
If you sell your software for $2500 for limited-time use, your software is going to get cracked. Period.
Study after study after study, for at least the last 13 years, have shown that if users think your software is is both useful and reasonably priced, it will sell. End of story. Yes, there will be downloading but that would happen anyway.
Bottom line: downloading (Not "piracy". Downloading is not piracy.) is simply not a real, significant problem. It is BLAMED for problems, by copyright trolls and programmers who overvalue their product. But it has never proven to really, significantly, affect the bottom line for what the market thinks is useful, reasonably priced software. If anything, it has shown to lead to more sales.
Slashdot Mirror
"Thank you for being a friend
Traveled down the road and back again
Your heart is true, you're a pal and a cosmonaut."
Haha. I am pretty sure that word is "confidant", not "cosmonaut".
I think this is one for The Archive of Misheard Lyrics.
"All I need are some tasty waves, a cool buzz, anonymous currency and I'm fine. -- Jeff Spicoli"
As the article admits, right at the beginning: an address does not necessarily point to an individual.
This only shows that somebody using that address made that buy. It's evidence, but not very strong evidence.
Example: I run an open guest network. Anybody within a square block or even more could have been using my access point to make those transactions.
And by the way. No insult "implied" here, just a statement of pure (but evidence-based) opinion: I suspect you of sock-puppet modding. If that is true you should know that it is not socially acceptable, even here on Slashdot.
"There have been no insults in this thread. You're just avoiding."
Do you even know what an "implied" insult is?
When someone states something blatantly obvious, and asks if you "even noticed", there is an implied insult.
When did you stop beating your wife?
Hahahahahahaha! Somebody modded THAT "troll"!!???
Now I know, without a doubt, I really do have enemies on Slashdot who mark me down.
When saying you rely on evidence-based science gets you marked "troll", somebody is being malicious.
"If you think they're merely pretending instead of actually being a persecuted minority, you can test it for yourself. Just post as an Anonymous Coward the most reasonable argument you can find against AGW, and see if the people who disagree with you act like sciencists (convice and show disproving data) or religious fundamentalists (insults and censorship)."
That's the thing about hypotheses, isn't it? They're testable.
But if nobody bothers to test them, all you get is religion instead.
"Like religious fundamentalists, denialists pretending they're a persecuted minority are simultaneously pathetic and hilarious."
I'd just like to ask: where in this exchange was there ANYTHING about "denying" ANYTHING?
Methinks thou dost protest too much. Thanks for proving my point.
"t's business as usual in AGW-land."
Hey, careful. This is Slashdot. When it comes to AGW, stating the obvious truth can get you lots of negative mod points.
"Did you even notice that it was the tobacco companies that were the "organizations with an agenda" spreading misinformation in the media, in conflict with the science?"
I'm not going to be baited into this bullshit by you again. You have persistently implied baseless personal insults whenever you have "argued" with me, and it just isn't worth my time to bother with you.
With this reply, you just agreed with everything I wrote in my last reply, aside from side-stepping the point that you erred when you previously claimed that a "well-regulated militia" is a "standing army."
You again show that you did not understand my arguments, because in fact I "sidestepped" nothing. Your point actually constituted part of my own point. I do not understand where your failure to see this is, but it is YOUR misunderstanding, not mine.
I did read the page you cited, and it makes not the slightest bit of difference. Example: "Hamilton indicates a well-regulated militia is a state of preparedness obtained after rigorous and persistent training. Note the use of 'disciplining' which indicates discipline could be synonymous with well-trained. "
My point -- which I will repeat here because you still don't seem to get it -- is that the "general" militia, by definition, is NOT "well trained" or "disciplined". A "well-regulated" militia is one that, by your own argument, is disciplined and well-trained. So we are NOT in disagreement about the meaning of the phrase. The difference is that you do not seem to get that the "general" militia -- "everyman" -- is not well-regulated, and was no more so in those days than today. This "state of preparedness" comes from training that not everyone gets. You get that training in the military.
The sig.
There is a difference between "interpretation" of something, and evidence of what it actually meant.
"Interpretation" implies subjectivity: somebody's impression or opinion.
Evidence is far more solid... and if I may say so without causing confusion: not subject to "interpretation".
"You're simply wrong on this, and thus you're making things more difficult for rights advocates who engage in honest debate on the topic. While the general militia was regarded to consist of every man, the ready militia did not predominantly consist of men whose primary occupation was soldiering; these were men who gathered on an intermittent basis for drill and readiness purposes, but held other full time occupations. There was, and is, no requirement or intended meaning of a standing army in the amendment verbiage, nor the writings of Madison as they pertain to this topic."
NONE of this... not a single word... has any bearing whatsoever on what I was saying. I would thank you to take a step back and see where the misunderstanding is.
First, your bringing Madison into the subject simply proves that you did not understand what I was saying. I mentioned Madison only in the context that his notes of the Constitutional Convention of 1787 showed that the delegates "nearly" unanimously (there was apparently one curmudgeon or possibly as many as two) supported an INDIVIDUAL right to bear arms, in defense of their homes, property, and country. This is not a matter of dispute; it is a matter of crystal clear historical record.
That the INDIVIDUAL right to bear arms -- if necessary, against their own government -- was guaranteed by the Constitution is also a matter of crystal clear historical record, from the debates surrounding State ratification of the Constitution. Again: this is not a matter of dispute for anyone with an IQ over about 60; if you can read and understand, you can read the historical record, still preserved on actual paper in actual ink.
The words "well-regulated militia" appear in the historical record in places other than the Constitution. I repeat: "the militia" was considered to be all males "of age" (i.e., between about 14 and 50 or 55). WE KNOW THIS.
BUT... "the general militia" was NOT a "well-regulated militia". To think that they were is an error of the first order. Not ony is it semantic nonsens, to construe the Second Amendment in that light contrasts markedly (one might even day drastically) with the records describing what the founders were trying to achieve.
Nice of you to say "you are wrong", but sadly, in order to have any weight you would have to show me actual evidence that I am wrong.
Just to be clear: I didn't miss your point. I understand that focusable, aimable systems can do the job. Far more so than they could have, say, 10 years ago.
But they STILL can't do it as simply or cheaply as a basic parabolic antenna.
Huh? No, I'm not the one who is wrong here.
The more focused your "lens", the tighter your aim must be. And my whole point was the expense of accurate aiming equipment.
Fine, use a parabolic dish for your RADIO. But a pinpoint laser, today, is about the LEAST cost-effective solution you could come up with for cheap satellites.
Don't take my word for it. Try it.
Considering that you don't even know what"piracy" really is (maybe look it up? hint: it's a legal term over 100 years old) should we pay attention?
What, you thought people who know their shit don't pay attention?
"Yeah, because what's interpreted one way today could be interpreted another tomorrow. So... good sig."
Jeez... talk about WHOOSH. I hope you know how to swim.
"Can't they get the signal lasers working? Much better for max signal strength, bandwidth, power usage and transmitter size."
Signal lasers are WORK and EXPENSE. You have to accurately track your target both for transmission and reception. Far, far more expense than cubesats justify.
Maybe one day it will be cheap and easy. Not today.
No dispute here, though that wan't my point.
"As a matter of interest, at what stage did you accept that smoking was carcinogenic, as an indisputable fact, proven beyond all reasonable doubt?"
When the EVIDENCE, not the media or organizations with an agenda, said so.
"No, its not indisputable, or proven beyond reasonable doubt. Its just been documented and argued about by people who specialize in the field for 30-40 years, and they keep saying the same thing. We're the problem."
I do not dispute any of this. Not that it has much to do with what I wrote.
"Shoving your head in the sand might keep you from seeing the tsunami coming, but it wont keep you from drowning."
I'm not "shoving my head in the sand." Quite the contrary: UNLIKE you, I've been looking at BOTH sides of the argument. And your "side" (i.e., that "climate change" is human-caused) is not winning.
It is people who only listen to, and believe, ONE side of the argument who have their heads shoved in the sand.
"To date, i've never seen any kind of scientific evidence that is any kind of strong indication that we're not causing significant change to weather paterns on the earth."
Admit it: you haven't been looking. If you want to ask me, I can show you lots.
"I think that's an insighful interpretation, yep."
I would like to add one thing, however. It may seem like splitting hairs, but it is actually quite important.
That is: it is not "an interpretation", in the common sense, at all. It is, rather, a historical analysis of the original meaning.
Why that distinction is important is beyond the scope of this discussion. But important, it is.
---
"The first and governing maxim in the 'interpretation' of a statute is to discover the meaning of those who made it." -- James Wilson, Founding Father
"The phrase "well-regulated" means properly functioning (i.e.: properly trained and equipped)."
Yes, it does mean, in part, "properly trained" (not "equipped", but that's irrelevant). But either you did not see the explanations in this thread as to WHY "properly trained" = "a standing army", or you are not capable of understanding it. I care not which; this argument has been made and shot down.
"The second amendment just needs to be rewritten at this point. What a firearm was in the 18th century bears no resemblence to what we call a firearm now."
That may be true, but it is 100% irrelevant.
The PURPOSE of the 2nd Amendment was to ensure that THE PEOPLE had access to military grade arms! The reason being (as has gone before in this thread) that THE PEOPLE are guaranteed to have force sufficient to resist a military takeover.
In few words, THAT is the purpose of the 2nd Amendment. If the military has laser sidearms, then the civilian populace has the right to own laser sidearms. And even if you don't know the historical arguments, the Supreme Court itself has agreed with me on this issue.
"But those reasons and that ruling is still their personal interpretation of history."
NO.
Again you err, by mistaking EVIDENCE as "personal interpretation".
There is no point in pursuing this further. You are wrong. I don't feel like spending hours proving it to you, but you could spend a few minutes proving it to yourself, if you wanted to bother.
"He's clearly joking around... and laughing at the technically clueless who think he's being serious."
True. But even if you ignore that, I think the Slashdotters here who thought he was serious have missed the big point.
If you sell your software for $2500 for limited-time use, your software is going to get cracked. Period.
Study after study after study, for at least the last 13 years, have shown that if users think your software is is both useful and reasonably priced, it will sell. End of story. Yes, there will be downloading but that would happen anyway.
Bottom line: downloading (Not "piracy". Downloading is not piracy.) is simply not a real, significant problem. It is BLAMED for problems, by copyright trolls and programmers who overvalue their product. But it has never proven to really, significantly, affect the bottom line for what the market thinks is useful, reasonably priced software. If anything, it has shown to lead to more sales.