You don't have to wait until the gun is out of the holster.
Yes, you do.
Remember kids, its CONCEALED weapons that require a permit, not unconcealed ones. As I recall, the second amendment is quite explicit about our right to BEAR arms, and the courts have repeatedly upheld this right. It can be abridged in certain locations (ie, courthouses), but thats about it.
So sure, attack someone carrying an unconcealed firearm; if he doesnt shoot you, you'll probably be arrested on assault charges.
What do you think "bearing arms" means if not carrying it around on you?
Do people really think that the second amendment is so we can have, but never use or carry (except for hunting purposes), fire arms? I really fear for the state of education and our country's future, if so. Heres a hint: the second amendment is explicitly for the purpose of defense-- whether personal, or societal. It is explicit that we have the right to carry ("bear") arms. It is implicit that we have the right to use said arms when the situation calls for it.
Its notable that the supreme court has repeatedly struck down state laws attempting to curb the right to carry firearms, and its depressing that people keep calling for further attempts.
You see a random stranger walking up to your place of residence with a gun prominently displayed, holstered or not, --- that is a direct threat, and an indication that you are in immediate danger.
I would recommend that you acquaint yourself with the law surrounding the second amendment before you go attacking someone carrying a holstered gun; you will save yourself a lot of trouble.
Wow, so I might have reserved that word for something like "genocide" or "the holocaust", but if you want to use it for a license which you happen to have a dislike for, I guess that works.
After all this is slashdot, and perspective is SO passé.
Aside from the massive holes in your reasoning (ie, the dubious number "hundreds of millions"), youre picking a series of wars that were not onesided but two-sided and occurred over several centuries.
Mao killed 50+ million in a few years. Stalin killed 20+ million civilians in a few years. Hitler killed ~10 million civilians in a few years. Pol Pot killed 2 million in a few years.
Of those, one MIGHT be argued (again very dubiously) to have religious beliefs, and none of them did their killings in the name of religion. 4 of them were "devout" atheists. This idea that "if we just get rid of religion, genocide goes away" doesnt sound so great once you actually learn some history.
Actually, it's an obvious case of confrontation, because George Zimmerman chose to get out of his car, thereby putting Trayvon Martin at risk for his life.
Wait, what?
What sort of paranoid fantasy world do you live in?
Religion has done nothing but separate people from each other and act as an excuse for mass murder and repression.
Quick, name the religion of the 5 biggest perpetrators of mass murder in human history.
I think I spotted a flaw in your reasoning, if you meant to imply that religion is the cause of people killing one another (as opposed to a justification).
Unless someone has the price that Intel quoted to Apple, all of this speculation is worthless. One would assume that Apple is smart enough to understand the advantages of 20nm over 28nm, and the technical superiority of Intel's fabs.
One might reasonably assume that either Intel's terms, pricing, or both were the problem, not Apple understanding less about architectures than 'blogger Andy Patrizio'.
I have visited one (China), and witnessed police swarm a man who tried to spread political pamphlets. Those pamphlets that bystanders picked up were rapidly confiscated.
You are either ignorant or being deliberately obtuse; the abuses of China, Russia, 99% of Africa, and huge chunks of South America and eastern europe are well documented. To list some things which happen there which would never happen in the west:
Liu Xiaobo is under house arrest in China due to political speech. To my knowledge he has had no trial. Family members were detained for speaking about him online.
The well known censorship surrounding "Tiananmen square". We worry about NSA knowing details about us. They worry about internet disconnection or detainment for searching / posting the wrong political idea (we're not talking about leaks, we're talking about "I support candidate Wu"-- which is in fact how Tiananmen square happened)
To quote wikipedia: "On 17 August 2012 Garry Kasparov was arrested and beaten outside of the court while examining the court case involving the all-female punk band Pussy Riot". This doesnt seem to be terribly unusual, especially when you consider the courtcase he was attempting to follow (the Pussy Riot trials).
Those are two fairly large "alternatives", and their human rights issues have been well documented if you cared to do a 5 second search on google for "human rights issues in China / Russia". We take for granted that we can say terrible things about the opposition political party here (look at the comments section in any random DrudgeReport post) without disappearing; that is simply not a reality for more than half of the world's population.
But I suppose if your criteria for being able to criticize human rights issues like forced abortions in china is "you have to have lived there", then you can go on being ignorant about how privileged you are to live in the west.
This just in: The world sucks, there are no utopias, but western countries (including the US) are still a heck of a lot better than the alternatives.
That may be why "people still believe it is a dream country". This guy is in trouble for leaking state secrets. In most other countries (including the one Snowden is currently in) you get this star treatment just for speaking any ill of the government (see: Kasparov).
No, it was a stupid point. Apparently (according to the summary and the linked US law), that is a legal term which includes explosives. I would note that the term "explosives" can refer both to a common backyard bottle rocket, and to the Tsar Bomba, a 100MT warhead, which is several trillion times more powerful than said bottlerocket. Clearly there is a problem with the classification "explosive", right?
I was confused because I didnt think anyone would honestly be arguing the point. Just because you misunderstand the term, doesnt mean its a bad term.
You also need to be able to explain why "their cloud" is less secure than "your cloud". The data / work is being stored on servers somewhere, and if students can access it there is ALWAYS the chance for some misconfiguration or breach that exposes their information. So with that understanding, you need to justify why storing stuff in house would be more secure than with google-- and the truth is, a lot of the time, its not.
No, its probably because the name is ambiguous, and a rather large percentage of tech industry folks are male.
Sort of like how if I said I was writing something, you would assume I was using paper, because the vast majority of writing is done on paper. That doesnt mean you have a gripe against stone tablets, its just unlikely thats what I was talking about.
There may be some validity with what youre saying, but in ANY court system any prosecutor can threaten to charge you with any crime.
The defense you have is that the legal system is designed to figure out which charges apply and you are guilty of. I guess you could make a prosecutor have a stake in the game by going after them if the defendent is ruled innocent, but that seems to create a system where noone wants to be a prosecutor.
Can you imagine a situation where noone wants to charge a mafia boss because theyre not 100% sure that he wont get off on a technicality, and the prosecution becomes liable for significant penalties?
I think it sounds stupid but I really dont understand why people are getting bent out of shape about it. Its a name, and not a particularly insulting one (unless youre choosing to be insulted for some reason), and the intent seems pretty clear-- to avoid creating an inaccurate association between democracy and the "dem" party. (there is, of course, nothing more democratic about the "democratic" party than there is about the republican party).
If it makes anyone feel better you can call my party the "republic party". Ill look at you a little strangely but I promise it wont upset me.
My understanding is that W3c EME would allow the vendor to create a single "drm module" which could be used by a W3c EME compliant browser to access the content stream.
Whether DRM "works" or "is good" is utterly irrelevant. Pandora, Amazon Video, Netflix, Hulu, etc are not going to move to a platform with no DRM; that is a reality of the world we live in.
Your moral assessment of the situation doesnt affect the reality one bit, nor does your attempt to paint me as some huge fan of DRM. For the record, im NOT a huge fan, but again: reality intrudes.
So please dont ask me to defend DRM; I never endorsed it. What im endorsing is the practical, workable idea of baking DRM capabilities directly into the browser since it is a VERY commonly requested feature on the modern web, and as such makes zero sense to exclude it from a industry standard for stupid political reasons.
Slashdot Mirror
You don't have to wait until the gun is out of the holster.
Yes, you do.
Remember kids, its CONCEALED weapons that require a permit, not unconcealed ones. As I recall, the second amendment is quite explicit about our right to BEAR arms, and the courts have repeatedly upheld this right. It can be abridged in certain locations (ie, courthouses), but thats about it.
So sure, attack someone carrying an unconcealed firearm; if he doesnt shoot you, you'll probably be arrested on assault charges.
What do you think "bearing arms" means if not carrying it around on you?
Do people really think that the second amendment is so we can have, but never use or carry (except for hunting purposes), fire arms? I really fear for the state of education and our country's future, if so. Heres a hint: the second amendment is explicitly for the purpose of defense-- whether personal, or societal. It is explicit that we have the right to carry ("bear") arms. It is implicit that we have the right to use said arms when the situation calls for it.
Its notable that the supreme court has repeatedly struck down state laws attempting to curb the right to carry firearms, and its depressing that people keep calling for further attempts.
You see a random stranger walking up to your place of residence with a gun prominently displayed, holstered or not, --- that is a direct threat, and an indication that you are in immediate danger.
I would recommend that you acquaint yourself with the law surrounding the second amendment before you go attacking someone carrying a holstered gun; you will save yourself a lot of trouble.
AGPL is horribly evil.
Wow, so I might have reserved that word for something like "genocide" or "the holocaust", but if you want to use it for a license which you happen to have a dislike for, I guess that works.
After all this is slashdot, and perspective is SO passé.
Aside from the massive holes in your reasoning (ie, the dubious number "hundreds of millions"), youre picking a series of wars that were not onesided but two-sided and occurred over several centuries.
Mao killed 50+ million in a few years. Stalin killed 20+ million civilians in a few years. Hitler killed ~10 million civilians in a few years. Pol Pot killed 2 million in a few years.
Of those, one MIGHT be argued (again very dubiously) to have religious beliefs, and none of them did their killings in the name of religion. 4 of them were "devout" atheists. This idea that "if we just get rid of religion, genocide goes away" doesnt sound so great once you actually learn some history.
Actually, it's an obvious case of confrontation, because George Zimmerman chose to get out of his car, thereby putting Trayvon Martin at risk for his life.
Wait, what?
What sort of paranoid fantasy world do you live in?
. If Zimmerman showed Martin he had a gun, that is all that is required for Martin to incapacitate Zimmerman.
Im pretty sure having an unconcealed firearm on your person is not justification for someone attacking you.
In fact I believe its a constitutional right to have one, I do believe I read that somewhere.
Religion has done nothing but separate people from each other and act as an excuse for mass murder and repression.
Quick, name the religion of the 5 biggest perpetrators of mass murder in human history.
I think I spotted a flaw in your reasoning, if you meant to imply that religion is the cause of people killing one another (as opposed to a justification).
Right, and the only way to know if this was dumb would be to know Intel's prices and terms.
As opposed to altruism, which we enlightened ones understand is what truly drives business and economy.
One day, Apple will learn. Till then they will have to be content with earning gobs of money and being fairly successful.
Unless someone has the price that Intel quoted to Apple, all of this speculation is worthless. One would assume that Apple is smart enough to understand the advantages of 20nm over 28nm, and the technical superiority of Intel's fabs.
One might reasonably assume that either Intel's terms, pricing, or both were the problem, not Apple understanding less about architectures than 'blogger Andy Patrizio'.
I have visited one (China), and witnessed police swarm a man who tried to spread political pamphlets. Those pamphlets that bystanders picked up were rapidly confiscated.
You are either ignorant or being deliberately obtuse; the abuses of China, Russia, 99% of Africa, and huge chunks of South America and eastern europe are well documented. To list some things which happen there which would never happen in the west:
Those are two fairly large "alternatives", and their human rights issues have been well documented if you cared to do a 5 second search on google for "human rights issues in China / Russia". We take for granted that we can say terrible things about the opposition political party here (look at the comments section in any random DrudgeReport post) without disappearing; that is simply not a reality for more than half of the world's population.
But I suppose if your criteria for being able to criticize human rights issues like forced abortions in china is "you have to have lived there", then you can go on being ignorant about how privileged you are to live in the west.
This just in: The world sucks, there are no utopias, but western countries (including the US) are still a heck of a lot better than the alternatives.
That may be why "people still believe it is a dream country". This guy is in trouble for leaking state secrets. In most other countries (including the one Snowden is currently in) you get this star treatment just for speaking any ill of the government (see: Kasparov).
That lets you get a fully functional Microsoft Hyper V / Active Directory / Microsoft SQL lab? Amazing!
Im pretty sure I played that game, the key is to use your ocarina to get another 3 days every time the moon tries to ruin things.
The most commonly ignored factor in most theories is human nature.
No, it was a stupid point. Apparently (according to the summary and the linked US law), that is a legal term which includes explosives. I would note that the term "explosives" can refer both to a common backyard bottle rocket, and to the Tsar Bomba, a 100MT warhead, which is several trillion times more powerful than said bottlerocket. Clearly there is a problem with the classification "explosive", right?
I was confused because I didnt think anyone would honestly be arguing the point. Just because you misunderstand the term, doesnt mean its a bad term.
You also need to be able to explain why "their cloud" is less secure than "your cloud". The data / work is being stored on servers somewhere, and if students can access it there is ALWAYS the chance for some misconfiguration or breach that exposes their information. So with that understanding, you need to justify why storing stuff in house would be more secure than with google-- and the truth is, a lot of the time, its not.
No, its probably because the name is ambiguous, and a rather large percentage of tech industry folks are male.
Sort of like how if I said I was writing something, you would assume I was using paper, because the vast majority of writing is done on paper. That doesnt mean you have a gripe against stone tablets, its just unlikely thats what I was talking about.
Lighten up, dude.
Of course, we were at war, and a war that we didnt even start and took pains to stay out of, so I think there might be some difference there.
There may be some validity with what youre saying, but in ANY court system any prosecutor can threaten to charge you with any crime.
The defense you have is that the legal system is designed to figure out which charges apply and you are guilty of. I guess you could make a prosecutor have a stake in the game by going after them if the defendent is ruled innocent, but that seems to create a system where noone wants to be a prosecutor.
Can you imagine a situation where noone wants to charge a mafia boss because theyre not 100% sure that he wont get off on a technicality, and the prosecution becomes liable for significant penalties?
I think it sounds stupid but I really dont understand why people are getting bent out of shape about it. Its a name, and not a particularly insulting one (unless youre choosing to be insulted for some reason), and the intent seems pretty clear-- to avoid creating an inaccurate association between democracy and the "dem" party. (there is, of course, nothing more democratic about the "democratic" party than there is about the republican party).
If it makes anyone feel better you can call my party the "republic party". Ill look at you a little strangely but I promise it wont upset me.
Yes, Im quite sure Romney is oblivious to economic trends and topics, and that everyone in Tennessee has no technical prowess whatsoever.
How exactly did you get modded insightful for an idiotic jab at an entire state's residents?
Yes, Im sure that creating less work for them by insisting on "US ONLY" goods will help to elevate them out of their life of stifling poverty.
My understanding is that W3c EME would allow the vendor to create a single "drm module" which could be used by a W3c EME compliant browser to access the content stream.
Whether DRM "works" or "is good" is utterly irrelevant. Pandora, Amazon Video, Netflix, Hulu, etc are not going to move to a platform with no DRM; that is a reality of the world we live in.
Your moral assessment of the situation doesnt affect the reality one bit, nor does your attempt to paint me as some huge fan of DRM. For the record, im NOT a huge fan, but again: reality intrudes.
So please dont ask me to defend DRM; I never endorsed it. What im endorsing is the practical, workable idea of baking DRM capabilities directly into the browser since it is a VERY commonly requested feature on the modern web, and as such makes zero sense to exclude it from a industry standard for stupid political reasons.