(a) Equipment authorization is not required for devices that are not marketed, are not constructed from a kit, and are built in quantities of five or less for personal use.
But they clearly aren't using them for "personal use"...
"But what I do have a problem with is how often a company acts in difference to the public. This is a great example."
Don't get me wrong. I'm not defending Starbucks, and I have no problem with community groups or hobbyists banding together to provide free or cheap wireless broadband. What I am saying is that the current rules, as they exist, say that we all, big and little, commercial and nonprofit, have to use certified configurations of equipment.
" I could go down to radio shack and for $100 buy an add on that would boost my power to equal the big companys, but somehow that's wrong?
Well, according to the way radio equipment is regulated, yes it is illegal if your radio-shack power-booster built a configuration that hadn't been tested and certified.
Like it or not, you can't just hack together a bunch of gear and start stomping on spectrum. You need to use configurations that have been certified, that is just how the game is played. Certification is how we insure that radio devices stay in the spectrum where they are supposed to be.
Maybe if you want to take an "open-source" approach to this, a consortium of these community groups could propose a "standard" hacked solution of a consumer AP and a cheap antennna, then take that configuration and submit it to the FCC for certification.
"If that's illegal, than so are most of these "Professional WISPs" you mention."
The legitimate WISPs use certified configurations for their radio gear.
"For a radio system to be certified, not only must each component be certified, but the FCC must approve of the system as a whole. That means each time you add or remove antennas, or reconfigure in any way, you've got to resubmit the layout for the FCC rubberstamp."
Bingo! You understand! If you go out and buy a Breezecom AP, you can ONLY use that AP with antennas that have been certified with it. You can't approach building a network like a catalog shopping exercise, where you mix-and-match radios, amplifiers, and antennas.
"Had it ever occured to you that for profit WISPs shouldn't be trying to make a buck on top of a free, unregulated public spectrum? "
The FCC specifically allows commercial use of this unregulated spectrum. Your argument is like saying that if I put up $10,000 worth of solar panels to convert the "free unregulated" sunlight into electricity, I shouldn't be allowed to sell that electricity.
"Companies already have access to a large chunk of the different radio spectrum that the common person can't touch."
A lot of the WISPs out there aren't much more than some linux geek with a T1 in his basement and an antenna on his roof. Just because someone wants to recoup his investment and make some money doesn't make him a bad person.
"When you start limiting modifications a person can do because it interfers with business running on the same public spectrum, you start down a slippery slope; Eventually we end up with some wisp setting up a tower at the shop accross the street, and I learn my $150 WAP I bought and put an antennea on is suddenly illegal."
Your $150 WAP that you modified with a new antenna isn't "suddenly illegal", it was illegal all along. Putting a bigger antenna on your WAP to get more power radiated is sort of like yanking all the smog control off your car to get more horsepower. You can get along with it for awhile, but you are polluting the public space and you can't base a business on illegal hardware.
The reason the FCC is so anal about this isn't just to keep you from interfering with people in the same part of the spectrum, it is also to keep you from interfering with people in different parts of the spectrum. As soon as you create a new transmitter/antenna combination you are now creating new harmonics. How do you know that you aren't now leaking into a part of the spectrum that you aren't supposed to be in?
So, pretend that you are just a cool hobbyist who thinks that wifi is neat and you want to roll out a wireless network. You are immediately faced with the choice of either using illegal homebrew configurations or legal certified configurations. If you go the illegal path, then you are basing your network on not getting caught. If you go the legal route, then you have to spend 2x to 5x as much for your equipment.
Which path do you take?
Pretend you decide to go legal, and start spending money on $1000 APs and $500 CPEs. Aren't you going to be a little pissed when the hobbyists come on with their homebrew $200 APs and $100 CPEs?
I think it is great that people out there want to build these networks and provide free bandwidth, I really do. But the attitude that you can just build whatever you want (hacked Linksys APs, Pringles can antennas) and deploy it is going to end up giving the hobby a black eye AND make it harder for people who seriously want to bring wireless broadband to their neighborhoods.
I don't understand your comment. I didn't accuse the hobbyists of "stealing" anything. What I pointed out they are doing is using an illegal combination of cheap equipment in a uncertified configuration.
He uses a directional to hit his base station, then a omni (Apple Airport) to radiate his local service.
Nice, too bad they are illegal.
on
War Car Offers Wi-Fi
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Reading the documents from tech superpowers shows that they are just one enforcement officer away from the FCC shutting them down.
Here is a prime example. From their technical document I found the following passage.
"We use an Airport Base Station, Lucent Pigtail connector, and Orinoco Wide-area Antenna. All of these parts are available on our online store, but be warned: the use of a Lucent Pigtail connector on an Airport requires the removal of the case and drilling of a hole. This will void your warranty and most resellers (including us) will not take back a product after it's been modified in this way."
Gee guys, I hate to break this to you, but these modifications don't just void your warranty. These modifications also convert the Apple Airport into a device that is illegal to use in the United States. Here are some relevant FCC regulations.
"15.204(b) - A transmission system consisting of an intentional radiator, an external radio frequency power amplifier, and an antenna, may be authorized, marketed and used under this part. However, when a transmission system is authorized as a system, it must always be marketed as a complete system and must always be used in the configuration in which it was authorized....
15.204(c) - Only the antenna with which an intentional radiator is authorized may be used with the intentional radiator."
In other words, Apple certified and sold the Airport as a system. When you drill it open, disconnect the internal antenna, and connect an external antenna you have built a new uncertified configuration which cannot legally be used.
This is the sort of thing that makes it hard for legitimate for-profit WISPs (who use legal equipment) to compete with these hobbyists networks. The gear that WISPs have to pay $1000 for, the hobbyists cobble together for $200.
If he wants to authenticate users on his network, good for him. But he assumes that everybody feels the same way as him. Authentication flies in the face of absolute anonymity, and anything that blocks anonymity is a Bad Thing (tm).
Not strange at all. The merger has barely been announced, while these products must have been in the pipeline for awhile.
Furthermore, even if the companies wanted to not step on each other's toes, the law requires that they continue to behave as competitors until the final merger goes through.
Wow! If HP really shipped this thing without any digital rights management, that would show that there is at least one company out there who understands and knows how to do things right.
With all the mismanagement and crappy products coming out of HP recently, I had all but given up on them. But this might show that there is a glimmer of hope after all.
The "technical description" of this product that I have read has been kind of vague. Can anyone confirm that it doesn't do anything whatsoever to restrict what you do with your music?
> On what grounds? It sounds like
> Microsoft has not harmed you, if
> anyone it is EBay who has.
eBay doesn't remove the auctions on their own. Microsoft gives eBay a sworn statement that I am infringing Microsoft's copyrights. eBay only acts because of this claim.
I've sold my share of Microsoft software on eBay, and had my share of auctions cancelled by the beast, so I think I know how this works.
I've considered suing Microsoft regarding all of this (seriously) but have put that on the back burner for now.
Microsoft is of the opinion that they never sell their software, they only license it. Most people who have some MS CDs sitting around got them in one of two ways, either bundled with hardware or in a retail transaction. Those two cases are handled differently.
In the case of bundled software, MS requires that it be resold with the orginal hardware. Since systems can be upgraded, they are pretty reasonable about what they will consider to be the original hardware. Since eBay can't police exactly what hardware is being sold with what software, you see people selling Microsoft Windows with broken hard drives and stuff like that. When I have to sell something and include some hardware, I usually tape a capacitor inside the envelope (no shit).
In the case of retail packages, Microsoft requires that you sell the software complete with everything that was originally in the box. So if you threw away the friendly pamplet on "ten reasons you will love the talking paperclip" then you have rendered the rest of the package unsellable in the eyes of MS.
One good way to get around all this is to use the "Buy-It-Now" feature of eBay. List your item with a reasonable BIN price and it can get snapped up quicker than MS can have it canceled.
Let me make this perfectly clear. I will never use any music format that has any sort of "Digital Rights Management" built in. I'll use mp3 forever if that is my only alternative.
I am coming to this thread too late, my comments will never get moderated up, and I doubt anyone will see them. Nonetheless, I will say what I feel.
I will never pay for content. Period. I will never click a banner ad. Period. And I will run ad-blocking software on all machines under my control. Period.
I have been using the internet since the days of bang paths. I have been using the web since the days when Yahoo was in the.edu domain. I remember the good old days when there were no ads, and I want them back.
I agree wholeheartedly with the recent editorial that argued that the failure of hundreds of dot-com companies is proof that the internet is thriving. The web is rejecting commercialism. The web is rejecting pay-for-content. And if you don't adapt to that reality, you will die with the rest of them.
Why do I feel this way? I don't know, it is hard to put my finger on. I do know that there are places where advertising and commercialism do not belong. Church is one of them. Courtrooms are another. And the internet is a third. I know that the genie is out of the bottle. I know that we will never completly hoist capitalism by the balls. But will I give it the slightest bit of encouragement? Never!
You don't dye plastic, you paint it. He needs to go to a plastic supply house and talk to them. They can sell him a light solvent to soften the material, and then they can make him a jar of custom paint matched to any shade he wants. For a few extra dollars they will sell you a aerosol attachment so you can spray the paint.
Feed, suck, salon, Yeah I used to read all of them regularly. But over time, it seems like they all took on a leftward political slant and alienated me, so I stopped reading them. If they go belly up, it is their own damn fault for taking a political bent that is opposed to most hardcore internet users (who tend to be libertarian).
By taking a leftish slant, they decided to cater to lightweight internet users, and that don't pay the bills.
I really thought about paying to help keep salon alive. But the big thing they offered me for paying was daily Bush-bashing and some dirty pictures. Well, I happen to like Bush (better than the alternative), and get my dirty pictures for free.
So go cry me a river, but they get what they deserve.
Back when I was one of the early users of CDDB it wasn't uncommon at all for me to be the first user to play a specific CD. I recall that on a few of the entries I submitted, I did put a message in the notes stating that I held the copyright on that particular entry.
Take this with a grain of salt.
on
Pentium IV study
·
· Score: 5
You have to take anything that Bert McComas says regarding Intel with a grain of salt. He is probably one of their biggest critics and I've never heard him say anything positive about their technology.
I'll give you an example: He says that the chip will slow down when you try to extract useful performance from it. He bases this on his misunderstanding of the THERMTRIP circuitry. Yes, it is true that the P4 will dissapate more energy when you make it run a heavier load. Yes, it is true that if the die on the chip gets too hot, the chip will slow down to protect itself. But that completely ignores the fact that it is up to the system vendor to insure that the chip never gets too hot. Right now, I'm looking at a P4 system that I was a designer on. Not only do we have a fansink on the P4 itself, the chassis has four separate fans to dissapate heat, and one of them is a monster 5-incher. There is no way that one of our systems is going to overheat the P4 and cause it to slow down.
Unfortunately, customers don't seem to appreciate thermal management in their buying decisions. But keep in mind that all 1.5GHz P4 systems are not alike.
You are either making a vague attemt at sarcasm, or are babbling incoherently. NYC, Chicago, and DC have draconian gun laws, which have led to increased violent crime rates.
For reference, I am an ASIC design engineer with an advanced degree from a top university. My specialty is in demand, and there are no shortage of jobs in my field.
I am currently planning on relocating, and have been considering various locales. Do liquor laws make a difference? A little, but I don't really see turning down a job over them unless it was a completely dry county.
For me, what is much more important than liquor laws is gun laws. As it stands, I have basically struck California off of the list of places I would accept living and working in. It would take an extremely generous offer for me to even consider changing this opinion, on the order of double the salary I would command elsewhere. In speaking with other engineers and programmers, I know I am not alone in this opinion.
To begin with, I should point out that I believe that I am the person who suggested the Article II argument to Bush's attorneys.
There are two problems with Hemos's description of this article
One, the SCOTUS has not overturned the SCOFL ruling, instead they have "vacated" it. That is similar to annulling a marriage as the decision is basically wiped off the slate. The SCOTUS has asked the SCOFL to make a ruling that is consistent with the Article II limitations of the US Constitution, and the "safe harbor" provisions of the US Code.
Two, their has been zero power transferred from the States to the Federal Government. What has happened is we were reminded where the power really lays. The power to appoint electors for the US Presidency is granted specifically to the State Legislature. Not to the State Supreme Court, not to the People of the State, but only to the Legislature of the State.
My personal opinion is in agreement with yours, that the second amendment is clearly intended to respect an individual right.
However, what I want is to hear what the candidates have to say in their own words. If they want to provide some explanation for why the meaning of "The People" in the Second Amendment is somehow different than the rest of the Bill of Rights, then I will listen.
Slashdot Mirror
(a) Equipment authorization is not required for devices that are not marketed, are not constructed from a kit, and are built in quantities of five or less for personal use.
But they clearly aren't using them for "personal use"...
"But what I do have a problem with is how often a company acts in difference to the public. This is a great example."
Don't get me wrong. I'm not defending Starbucks, and I have no problem with community groups or hobbyists banding together to provide free or cheap wireless broadband. What I am saying is that the current rules, as they exist, say that we all, big and little, commercial and nonprofit, have to use certified configurations of equipment.
" I could go down to radio shack and for $100 buy an add on that would boost my power to equal the big companys, but somehow that's wrong?
Well, according to the way radio equipment is regulated, yes it is illegal if your radio-shack power-booster built a configuration that hadn't been tested and certified.
Like it or not, you can't just hack together a bunch of gear and start stomping on spectrum. You need to use configurations that have been certified, that is just how the game is played. Certification is how we insure that radio devices stay in the spectrum where they are supposed to be.
Maybe if you want to take an "open-source" approach to this, a consortium of these community groups could propose a "standard" hacked solution of a consumer AP and a cheap antennna, then take that configuration and submit it to the FCC for certification.
"If that's illegal, than so are most of these "Professional WISPs" you mention."
The legitimate WISPs use certified configurations for their radio gear.
"For a radio system to be certified, not only must each component be certified, but the FCC must approve of the system as a whole. That means each time you add or remove antennas, or reconfigure in any way, you've got to resubmit the layout for the FCC rubberstamp."
Bingo! You understand! If you go out and buy a Breezecom AP, you can ONLY use that AP with antennas that have been certified with it. You can't approach building a network like a catalog shopping exercise, where you mix-and-match radios, amplifiers, and antennas.
"Had it ever occured to you that for profit WISPs shouldn't be trying to make a buck on top of a free, unregulated public spectrum? "
The FCC specifically allows commercial use of this unregulated spectrum. Your argument is like saying that if I put up $10,000 worth of solar panels to convert the "free unregulated" sunlight into electricity, I shouldn't be allowed to sell that electricity.
"Companies already have access to a large chunk of the different radio spectrum that the common person can't touch."
A lot of the WISPs out there aren't much more than some linux geek with a T1 in his basement and an antenna on his roof. Just because someone wants to recoup his investment and make some money doesn't make him a bad person.
"When you start limiting modifications a person can do because it interfers with business running on the same public spectrum, you start down a slippery slope; Eventually we end up with some wisp setting up a tower at the shop accross the street, and I learn my $150 WAP I bought and put an antennea on is suddenly illegal."
Your $150 WAP that you modified with a new antenna isn't "suddenly illegal", it was illegal all along. Putting a bigger antenna on your WAP to get more power radiated is sort of like yanking all the smog control off your car to get more horsepower. You can get along with it for awhile, but you are polluting the public space and you can't base a business on illegal hardware.
The reason the FCC is so anal about this isn't just to keep you from interfering with people in the same part of the spectrum, it is also to keep you from interfering with people in different parts of the spectrum. As soon as you create a new transmitter/antenna combination you are now creating new harmonics. How do you know that you aren't now leaking into a part of the spectrum that you aren't supposed to be in?
So, pretend that you are just a cool hobbyist who thinks that wifi is neat and you want to roll out a wireless network. You are immediately faced with the choice of either using illegal homebrew configurations or legal certified configurations. If you go the illegal path, then you are basing your network on not getting caught. If you go the legal route, then you have to spend 2x to 5x as much for your equipment.
Which path do you take?
Pretend you decide to go legal, and start spending money on $1000 APs and $500 CPEs. Aren't you going to be a little pissed when the hobbyists come on with their homebrew $200 APs and $100 CPEs?
I think it is great that people out there want to build these networks and provide free bandwidth, I really do. But the attitude that you can just build whatever you want (hacked Linksys APs, Pringles can antennas) and deploy it is going to end up giving the hobby a black eye AND make it harder for people who seriously want to bring wireless broadband to their neighborhoods.
I don't understand your comment. I didn't accuse the hobbyists of "stealing" anything. What I pointed out they are doing is using an illegal combination of cheap equipment in a uncertified configuration.
He uses a directional to hit his base station, then a omni (Apple Airport) to radiate his local service.
Reading the documents from tech superpowers shows that they are just one enforcement officer away from the FCC shutting them down.
...
Here is a prime example. From their technical document I found the following passage.
"We use an Airport Base Station, Lucent Pigtail connector, and Orinoco Wide-area Antenna. All of these parts are available on our online store, but be warned: the use of a Lucent Pigtail connector on an Airport requires the removal of the case and drilling of a hole. This will void your warranty and most resellers (including us) will not take back a product after it's been modified in this way."
Gee guys, I hate to break this to you, but these modifications don't just void your warranty. These modifications also convert the Apple Airport into a device that is illegal to use in the United States. Here are some relevant FCC regulations.
"15.204(b) - A transmission system consisting of an intentional radiator, an external radio frequency power amplifier, and an antenna, may be authorized, marketed and used under this part. However, when a transmission system is authorized as a system, it must always be marketed as a complete system and must always be used in the configuration in which it was authorized.
15.204(c) - Only the antenna with which an intentional radiator is authorized may be used with the intentional radiator."
In other words, Apple certified and sold the Airport as a system. When you drill it open, disconnect the internal antenna, and connect an external antenna you have built a new uncertified configuration which cannot legally be used.
This is the sort of thing that makes it hard for legitimate for-profit WISPs (who use legal equipment) to compete with these hobbyists networks. The gear that WISPs have to pay $1000 for, the hobbyists cobble together for $200.
ackthpt wrote "You've got to, er - ah, admire, um, Walter Hewlett's Gore-like pluck."
Let's see - Fiorina has announced herself the winner, while Hewlett is saying "now just you wait until the votes are counted, missy!"
If anything, Fiorina is playing the role of Gore, while Hewlett is playing Bush.
If he wants to authenticate users on his network, good for him. But he assumes that everybody feels the same way as him. Authentication flies in the face of absolute anonymity, and anything that blocks anonymity is a Bad Thing (tm).
Oh man, I'm laughing out loud. I just had a GREAT idea.
What HP needs to do to make this a must-have home appliance is to embed a Gnutella client in the box. That would be hilarious!
Not strange at all. The merger has barely been announced, while these products must have been in the pipeline for awhile.
Furthermore, even if the companies wanted to not step on each other's toes, the law requires that they continue to behave as competitors until the final merger goes through.
Wow! If HP really shipped this thing without any digital rights management, that would show that there is at least one company out there who understands and knows how to do things right.
With all the mismanagement and crappy products coming out of HP recently, I had all but given up on them. But this might show that there is a glimmer of hope after all.
The "technical description" of this product that I have read has been kind of vague. Can anyone confirm that it doesn't do anything whatsoever to restrict what you do with your music?
> On what grounds? It sounds like
> Microsoft has not harmed you, if
> anyone it is EBay who has.
eBay doesn't remove the auctions on their own. Microsoft gives eBay a sworn statement that I am infringing Microsoft's copyrights. eBay only acts because of this claim.
I've sold my share of Microsoft software on eBay, and had my share of auctions cancelled by the beast, so I think I know how this works.
I've considered suing Microsoft regarding all of this (seriously) but have put that on the back burner for now.
Microsoft is of the opinion that they never sell their software, they only license it. Most people who have some MS CDs sitting around got them in one of two ways, either bundled with hardware or in a retail transaction. Those two cases are handled differently.
In the case of bundled software, MS requires that it be resold with the orginal hardware. Since systems can be upgraded, they are pretty reasonable about what they will consider to be the original hardware. Since eBay can't police exactly what hardware is being sold with what software, you see people selling Microsoft Windows with broken hard drives and stuff like that. When I have to sell something and include some hardware, I usually tape a capacitor inside the envelope (no shit).
In the case of retail packages, Microsoft requires that you sell the software complete with everything that was originally in the box. So if you threw away the friendly pamplet on "ten reasons you will love the talking paperclip" then you have rendered the rest of the package unsellable in the eyes of MS.
One good way to get around all this is to use the "Buy-It-Now" feature of eBay. List your item with a reasonable BIN price and it can get snapped up quicker than MS can have it canceled.
Asta!
Let me make this perfectly clear. I will never use any music format that has any sort of "Digital Rights Management" built in. I'll use mp3 forever if that is my only alternative.
I am coming to this thread too late, my comments will never get moderated up, and I doubt anyone will see them. Nonetheless, I will say what I feel.
.edu domain. I remember the good old days when there were no ads, and I want them back.
I will never pay for content. Period. I will never click a banner ad. Period. And I will run ad-blocking software on all machines under my control. Period.
I have been using the internet since the days of bang paths. I have been using the web since the days when Yahoo was in the
I agree wholeheartedly with the recent editorial that argued that the failure of hundreds of dot-com companies is proof that the internet is thriving. The web is rejecting commercialism. The web is rejecting pay-for-content. And if you don't adapt to that reality, you will die with the rest of them.
Why do I feel this way? I don't know, it is hard to put my finger on. I do know that there are places where advertising and commercialism do not belong. Church is one of them. Courtrooms are another. And the internet is a third. I know that the genie is out of the bottle. I know that we will never completly hoist capitalism by the balls. But will I give it the slightest bit of encouragement? Never!
You don't dye plastic, you paint it. He needs to go to a plastic supply house and talk to them. They can sell him a light solvent to soften the material, and then they can make him a jar of custom paint matched to any shade he wants. For a few extra dollars they will sell you a aerosol attachment so you can spray the paint.
Feed, suck, salon, Yeah I used to read all of them regularly. But over time, it seems like they all took on a leftward political slant and alienated me, so I stopped reading them. If they go belly up, it is their own damn fault for taking a political bent that is opposed to most hardcore internet users (who tend to be libertarian).
By taking a leftish slant, they decided to cater to lightweight internet users, and that don't pay the bills.
I really thought about paying to help keep salon alive. But the big thing they offered me for paying was daily Bush-bashing and some dirty pictures. Well, I happen to like Bush (better than the alternative), and get my dirty pictures for free.
So go cry me a river, but they get what they deserve.
Back when I was one of the early users of CDDB it wasn't uncommon at all for me to be the first user to play a specific CD. I recall that on a few of the entries I submitted, I did put a message in the notes stating that I held the copyright on that particular entry.
You have to take anything that Bert McComas says regarding Intel with a grain of salt. He is probably one of their biggest critics and I've never heard him say anything positive about their technology.
I'll give you an example: He says that the chip will slow down when you try to extract useful performance from it. He bases this on his misunderstanding of the THERMTRIP circuitry. Yes, it is true that the P4 will dissapate more energy when you make it run a heavier load. Yes, it is true that if the die on the chip gets too hot, the chip will slow down to protect itself. But that completely ignores the fact that it is up to the system vendor to insure that the chip never gets too hot. Right now, I'm looking at a P4 system that I was a designer on. Not only do we have a fansink on the P4 itself, the chassis has four separate fans to dissapate heat, and one of them is a monster 5-incher. There is no way that one of our systems is going to overheat the P4 and cause it to slow down.
Unfortunately, customers don't seem to appreciate thermal management in their buying decisions. But keep in mind that all 1.5GHz P4 systems are not alike.
You are either making a vague attemt at sarcasm, or are babbling incoherently. NYC, Chicago, and DC have draconian gun laws, which have led to increased violent crime rates.
For reference, I am an ASIC design engineer with an advanced degree from a top university. My specialty is in demand, and there are no shortage of jobs in my field.
I am currently planning on relocating, and have been considering various locales. Do liquor laws make a difference? A little, but I don't really see turning down a job over them unless it was a completely dry county.
For me, what is much more important than liquor laws is gun laws. As it stands, I have basically struck California off of the list of places I would accept living and working in. It would take an extremely generous offer for me to even consider changing this opinion, on the order of double the salary I would command elsewhere. In speaking with other engineers and programmers, I know I am not alone in this opinion.
There are two problems with Hemos's description of this article
One, the SCOTUS has not overturned the SCOFL ruling, instead they have "vacated" it. That is similar to annulling a marriage as the decision is basically wiped off the slate. The SCOTUS has asked the SCOFL to make a ruling that is consistent with the Article II limitations of the US Constitution, and the "safe harbor" provisions of the US Code.
Two, their has been zero power transferred from the States to the Federal Government. What has happened is we were reminded where the power really lays. The power to appoint electors for the US Presidency is granted specifically to the State Legislature. Not to the State Supreme Court, not to the People of the State, but only to the Legislature of the State.
--
DiStan
I wonder when the first mirrors of the source code will start popping up? I know I'll make sure to make a private copy ASAP.
My personal opinion is in agreement with yours, that the second amendment is clearly intended to respect an individual right. However, what I want is to hear what the candidates have to say in their own words. If they want to provide some explanation for why the meaning of "The People" in the Second Amendment is somehow different than the rest of the Bill of Rights, then I will listen.