Agreed, I think this is what they believed. However I also I think arguing over the meanings of the words feels more like a theological discussion, it shouldn't matter what they thought if they were mere men who were not divinely inspired. I can understand the courts arguing over this as that is the role of the courts to interpret the letter of the law when it is disputed. But I find it odd that people treat the words as special or express shock when someone dares suggest that it can be changed.
The founders were not supermen, and they lived in a different time. There are still archaic items left in the constitution (ie, electoral college for one). The government they imagined began changing immediately from the very first day, political parties formed, free speech was restricted, etc. We have moved away from an idealistic experiment into a pragmatic state that must govern.
Arguing what the constitution says will become moot if there is an amendment process for example, in which actual arguments on the merits will be needed. Any act of rebellion is obviously unlawful, and the founders surely knew this. Lincoln supposedly said that the constitution is not a suicide pact. Which makes the rationale about needing guns in case we need to fight tyranny at home more of an argument to the people rather than a legal argument.
True, it's easier to unload the gun and put it away out of reach. That's what my family did. But if you're keeping a loaded gun around in a drawer then the lock makes sense.
Of course you can get gay married. You just need to find the gay priest to perform the ceremony first. Come to think of it most weddings I've been to were pretty gay, with chiffon and taffeta and flowers all over the place followed by little tea sandwiches at the reception. It's tradition!
Veggie burgers aren't bad, speaking as a meat eater. At least the ones I like don't bother to pretend to be meat, they're not processed soy extract or things like that, they're oats and other grains pressed into a patty. I've had the fake hotdogs which are nasty pieces of dreck with an aftertaste that keeps going all day long, but the veggie burgers are nothing like that. I've even had both beef and veggie burgers at the same barbecue.
This is fine, but why would people in the category who think killing animals for meat is wrong want to have fake meat substitute? It's a bit like a reformed cannibal pining for the same tasty noshes his mother used to serve.
But it doesn't have to taste like meat. That part is pointless I feel. If they don't want to eat meat than that's fine. Veggie burgers are good too (not the tofu junk) and even meat eaters like them. It's just that the need to make faux meat seems strange to me. It's not like they're coming off of a lifetime of heroin and need something like methodone to keep themselves clean.
I know when I visit the veggie line for lunch the worst things they have are the meat substitutes, like seitan or tempeh.
That's like saying you shouldn't lose your gun when you go to jail, just your freedom... People do lose their rights under the law in certain circumstances, so why can't this be one of those cases? The person has proven to be unable to handle the responsibility that goes with that right.
Most of those other places where it would be talked about would degenerate into partisan battles. But that will happen on Slashdot too...
There was a time when gun safety was important, and the NRA was a big group that provided gun safety education. Thus always keep the safety on, lock up the gun if you have kids (big or small) in the house, add a trigger lock, etc. But these ideas are discouraged because it scares some people into thinking it's about gun control and the big bad government coming to confiscate them. What was once common sense is now a political action, and the NRA is driving this trend into politicizatoin of guns. People justify this by saying it takes too long to unlock the gun and you won't be able to use it when needed. Holding onto ideals is not much comfort when a toddler is dead though.
Art is in the mind of the beholder. A lot of the people who declare things art are somewhat snobbish, it's just like literature where they refuse to consider anything that's popular as being art. Games are popular, therefore they're not art. A movie may have the best cinematography, but the snobs don't consider it art if it was a popular movie rather than an art house movie from a tiny production company. Even "pop art" wasn't really popular art but a look at popular culture.
For games, I can see them having great designs for sure; in terms of the space, images, etc. But in terms of game play that's harder. Storytelling is too haphazard, most players miss the big story and don't bother reading the text. Many games even if intentionally created as art are more like performance art (most of which I don't really consider art myself despite superficial cultural appearances). Games like "Life Is Strange" may straddle the definitions though, that is more like a graphic novel that's been done in game format. If a graphic novel is "art" then I assume that game should be also.
We did tell various governments to fuck off when they tried to control the internet though. It's international so the most they can do is try to curb it within their own borders.
And it's not anti-Russia propaganda, it's anti-Putin.
The courts ARE the government if they have the power to enforce decisions. If the court decisions can not be enforced then it's pointless and no better than non-binding arbitration and you have rule by whoever is stronger exerting their will over those who are weaker.
It is both fundamentally correct and fundamentally incorrect at the same time. People just have different ideas of what "government" and "freedom" are. You can't have freedom in an anarchy. Without a government people will always re-create a new government to create it, even if it's a local council of elders or a local warlord. Otherwise it is nearly impossible to resolve disputes peacefully.
The mathematics with metric only gets slightly easier. The fundamental math remains the same though. The metric system helps out students mostly, or removes a simple conversion process that scientists have to know how to do anyway. It's not like the English system involves complicated mathematics but with metric everything is easy.
Today, a system based on powers of two makes much more sense. But the French revolutionaries who invented the metric system were used to counting on fingers. A system based on powers of ten has much more to do with human foibles and culture than with physical properties. They also wanted ten day weeks but that never took off; does that mean those countries who did not adopt the "simpler" calendars are backwards and stupid in the same way that they call Americans backwards and stupid?
Those incidents were caused by lack of testing and verification. There should be no difference between getting a part sized incorrectly in feet versus a part sized incorrectly in meters, if you don't double check that it fits properly then you increase chances of failure. If you make astronomical calculcations then you need to verify them regardless of what units are used. If you bring together two complicated pieces of machinery designed by two groups who don't talk to each other then you need to validate them.
The use of metric would not have removed the cause of these incidents, though it might have masked some of the problems for a bit longer. If you're going to screw up because someone assumed meters when it was feet, then you will also screw up if someone assumes grams instead of micrograms. You should always pay attention to the units!
It's a non-issue. Those sorts of mistakes continue to happen even if using the same measurement systems, because the real problem was failing to double check the numbers and use proper testing. Everyone in the US involved in science or technology already uses metric anyway. We're generally smart enough to handle two measurement systems at the same time.
Actually I think a lot of physics students of a certain age do better than those who only used metric, because there were lots of word problems in college involving the conversion from one quantity to another. Foot pounds per fortnight, that sort of thing. If you can handle those problems then doing it in metric is a cinch.
They can use them, if they bother to think. However they prefer to laugh at Americans. I have seen Australians living in the US for decades who will express mock surprise every time they see something measured in quarts or ounces. The joke gets old...
I had a coworker that I just didn't like to ride with even when he was sober. He was brash and took risks, drove too fast, changed lanes quickly, etc. But he was absolutely confident that he was a great driver and that a couple drinks would not affect his ability to drive safely. He's absolutely fooling himself and I worry someday that someone else will get hurt over it.
I have noticed that all the people I've met in person who claim that a few drinks don't bother them correlate very highly with people whom I don't like behind the wheel even when they're sober. It's the basic reckless attitude they have all the time and their over confidence (alpha male syndrome).
Extremist Islamists is a small subset of Muslims; just like extremist Northern Ireland bombers were a small subset of Protestants and Catholic. If Extremist Islamists are a persistent long term threat then why only relatively recently has it become a problem? We have a rise in extremist hardline sectarians all across the board really, not just in one section.
Our attempt at countering Al Qaeda has served to increase it's numbers. American goofups do more for recruitment drives than any cassette tapes that Osama ever created. Al Qaeda was originally focused on opposition to the Saudis. The Mujahideen in Afghanistan were provided assistance by the US since they were fighting the Soviets. The US invasion of Iraq essentially created ISIS.
Slashdot Mirror
Agreed, I think this is what they believed. However I also I think arguing over the meanings of the words feels more like a theological discussion, it shouldn't matter what they thought if they were mere men who were not divinely inspired. I can understand the courts arguing over this as that is the role of the courts to interpret the letter of the law when it is disputed. But I find it odd that people treat the words as special or express shock when someone dares suggest that it can be changed.
The founders were not supermen, and they lived in a different time. There are still archaic items left in the constitution (ie, electoral college for one). The government they imagined began changing immediately from the very first day, political parties formed, free speech was restricted, etc. We have moved away from an idealistic experiment into a pragmatic state that must govern.
Arguing what the constitution says will become moot if there is an amendment process for example, in which actual arguments on the merits will be needed. Any act of rebellion is obviously unlawful, and the founders surely knew this. Lincoln supposedly said that the constitution is not a suicide pact. Which makes the rationale about needing guns in case we need to fight tyranny at home more of an argument to the people rather than a legal argument.
True, it's easier to unload the gun and put it away out of reach. That's what my family did. But if you're keeping a loaded gun around in a drawer then the lock makes sense.
Agreed, it's not ironic. But to many of those outside the US they find it strange because they think we're all backwards cave dwellers.
Of course you can get gay married. You just need to find the gay priest to perform the ceremony first. Come to think of it most weddings I've been to were pretty gay, with chiffon and taffeta and flowers all over the place followed by little tea sandwiches at the reception. It's tradition!
Veggie burgers aren't bad, speaking as a meat eater. At least the ones I like don't bother to pretend to be meat, they're not processed soy extract or things like that, they're oats and other grains pressed into a patty. I've had the fake hotdogs which are nasty pieces of dreck with an aftertaste that keeps going all day long, but the veggie burgers are nothing like that. I've even had both beef and veggie burgers at the same barbecue.
This is fine, but why would people in the category who think killing animals for meat is wrong want to have fake meat substitute? It's a bit like a reformed cannibal pining for the same tasty noshes his mother used to serve.
But it doesn't have to taste like meat. That part is pointless I feel. If they don't want to eat meat than that's fine. Veggie burgers are good too (not the tofu junk) and even meat eaters like them. It's just that the need to make faux meat seems strange to me. It's not like they're coming off of a lifetime of heroin and need something like methodone to keep themselves clean.
I know when I visit the veggie line for lunch the worst things they have are the meat substitutes, like seitan or tempeh.
I can't understand how you equate "necessary" to "not desirable". It just does not follow from any reading I can get out of that.
That's like saying you shouldn't lose your gun when you go to jail, just your freedom... People do lose their rights under the law in certain circumstances, so why can't this be one of those cases? The person has proven to be unable to handle the responsibility that goes with that right.
Most of those other places where it would be talked about would degenerate into partisan battles. But that will happen on Slashdot too...
There was a time when gun safety was important, and the NRA was a big group that provided gun safety education. Thus always keep the safety on, lock up the gun if you have kids (big or small) in the house, add a trigger lock, etc. But these ideas are discouraged because it scares some people into thinking it's about gun control and the big bad government coming to confiscate them. What was once common sense is now a political action, and the NRA is driving this trend into politicizatoin of guns. People justify this by saying it takes too long to unlock the gun and you won't be able to use it when needed. Holding onto ideals is not much comfort when a toddler is dead though.
Art is in the mind of the beholder. A lot of the people who declare things art are somewhat snobbish, it's just like literature where they refuse to consider anything that's popular as being art. Games are popular, therefore they're not art. A movie may have the best cinematography, but the snobs don't consider it art if it was a popular movie rather than an art house movie from a tiny production company. Even "pop art" wasn't really popular art but a look at popular culture.
For games, I can see them having great designs for sure; in terms of the space, images, etc. But in terms of game play that's harder. Storytelling is too haphazard, most players miss the big story and don't bother reading the text. Many games even if intentionally created as art are more like performance art (most of which I don't really consider art myself despite superficial cultural appearances). Games like "Life Is Strange" may straddle the definitions though, that is more like a graphic novel that's been done in game format. If a graphic novel is "art" then I assume that game should be also.
We did tell various governments to fuck off when they tried to control the internet though. It's international so the most they can do is try to curb it within their own borders.
And it's not anti-Russia propaganda, it's anti-Putin.
The courts ARE the government if they have the power to enforce decisions. If the court decisions can not be enforced then it's pointless and no better than non-binding arbitration and you have rule by whoever is stronger exerting their will over those who are weaker.
It is both fundamentally correct and fundamentally incorrect at the same time. People just have different ideas of what "government" and "freedom" are. You can't have freedom in an anarchy. Without a government people will always re-create a new government to create it, even if it's a local council of elders or a local warlord. Otherwise it is nearly impossible to resolve disputes peacefully.
The mathematics with metric only gets slightly easier. The fundamental math remains the same though. The metric system helps out students mostly, or removes a simple conversion process that scientists have to know how to do anyway. It's not like the English system involves complicated mathematics but with metric everything is easy.
Today, a system based on powers of two makes much more sense. But the French revolutionaries who invented the metric system were used to counting on fingers. A system based on powers of ten has much more to do with human foibles and culture than with physical properties. They also wanted ten day weeks but that never took off; does that mean those countries who did not adopt the "simpler" calendars are backwards and stupid in the same way that they call Americans backwards and stupid?
Those incidents were caused by lack of testing and verification. There should be no difference between getting a part sized incorrectly in feet versus a part sized incorrectly in meters, if you don't double check that it fits properly then you increase chances of failure. If you make astronomical calculcations then you need to verify them regardless of what units are used. If you bring together two complicated pieces of machinery designed by two groups who don't talk to each other then you need to validate them.
The use of metric would not have removed the cause of these incidents, though it might have masked some of the problems for a bit longer. If you're going to screw up because someone assumed meters when it was feet, then you will also screw up if someone assumes grams instead of micrograms. You should always pay attention to the units!
It's a non-issue. Those sorts of mistakes continue to happen even if using the same measurement systems, because the real problem was failing to double check the numbers and use proper testing. Everyone in the US involved in science or technology already uses metric anyway. We're generally smart enough to handle two measurement systems at the same time.
Actually I think a lot of physics students of a certain age do better than those who only used metric, because there were lots of word problems in college involving the conversion from one quantity to another. Foot pounds per fortnight, that sort of thing. If you can handle those problems then doing it in metric is a cinch.
They can use them, if they bother to think. However they prefer to laugh at Americans. I have seen Australians living in the US for decades who will express mock surprise every time they see something measured in quarts or ounces. The joke gets old...
The irony is that the (US) National Bureau of Standards is involved with helping this effort to define the Kilogram.
Very naughty, a spanking is in order. Bring out the yardstick.
I had a coworker that I just didn't like to ride with even when he was sober. He was brash and took risks, drove too fast, changed lanes quickly, etc. But he was absolutely confident that he was a great driver and that a couple drinks would not affect his ability to drive safely. He's absolutely fooling himself and I worry someday that someone else will get hurt over it.
I have noticed that all the people I've met in person who claim that a few drinks don't bother them correlate very highly with people whom I don't like behind the wheel even when they're sober. It's the basic reckless attitude they have all the time and their over confidence (alpha male syndrome).
Get a designated driver. If you're having more than one glass of wine when dining out then you should NOT be driving.
Does social media make people more stupid, or is it just a viewing device that lets stupid people become more visible?
When I was at elementary school, girls did better at math. I didn't even hear about the meme of girls hating math until I got to college.
Extremist Islamists is a small subset of Muslims; just like extremist Northern Ireland bombers were a small subset of Protestants and Catholic.
If Extremist Islamists are a persistent long term threat then why only relatively recently has it become a problem? We have a rise in extremist hardline sectarians all across the board really, not just in one section.
Our attempt at countering Al Qaeda has served to increase it's numbers. American goofups do more for recruitment drives than any cassette tapes that Osama ever created. Al Qaeda was originally focused on opposition to the Saudis. The Mujahideen in Afghanistan were provided assistance by the US since they were fighting the Soviets. The US invasion of Iraq essentially created ISIS.