O.k Let's see an anti-gun FPS. You an (FBI agent) with a Tazer and sleeping gas are supposed to single handedly elminate a Wacoish compound of gun loving fanatics that are prepared to shoot you to preserve their rights.
Don't forget to "lose" or destroy all of the evidence of your failure when you start shooting people.
I read this as "because we need a militia to secure a free state, we will not take away the right to bear arms"
Then you read it wrong. There is a subordinate clause.
Are you still sure of the need of an armed militia to insure the security. Is this really necessary?
If you even need to ask this question, you must live in a neighborhood with a fast police response time. And you must not be a minority.
Many countries in the world are as free or even freer than the US even though thay have no armed militia.
This one is a matter of opinion.
Another thing i don't understand is many americans beleif that the constitution is flawless and must not be changed.
Most of us support amending the constitution, which amendments you support depends on what your politics are.
Why should it not be changed? If their reason for putting in fx the 2nd amendment are no longer valid why should it not be removed?
Are you saying that rights can change because of political changes? You are the reason why the bill of rights was written.
Personally i do not beleive that everybody should have the right to keep and bear arms. You are off course welcome to disagree.
You see, I don't need your permission to dissent. I have the right. That right is protected because I'm armed.
I only have a problem when a progun person justifies it by saying that some 200+ years old amendmendment in his interpretation gives him the right to bear arms.(fifty years ago you could also throw people in concentration camps according to another "constitution").
Two points here. The Constitution doesn't give anyone the right to anything. My right to bear arms, my right to free speech, my right to choose my own religion, and all the rest of my rights exist by virtue of my humanity. God grants rights, not men. The Constitution exists to restrict the government's ability to interfere with my God given rights.
Even in the event that you're an athiest or agnostic, those rights are innate. You have them by virtue of being born.
The only mention of "the people" is with regards to the right to free assembly, where it was used for obvious reasons.
Obvious to everyone without a political agenda that runs contrary to the constitution. Once you accept that "the people" in the 2nd amendment does not refer to the individual people, it's a small step to conclude that "the people" in the first amendment refers to properly licensed lobbyists or some other such idiocy.
I hope you're not including the NRA among "second amendment rights advocates," because they're literally always at one pole during debate of any gun-related issue, no matter what it is. They very much act as if they believe second amendment rights are completely unlimited, which is one of the reasons why political gun issue debates are always so idiotic in the US.
You completely missed the point. Second amendment rights advocates do not believe that the second amendment "confers" anything. People HAVE rights regardless of the constitution. The Constitution is to protect rights that we already have.
We are endowed by our creator with rights. The constitution exists to protect those rights, not create them.
You may not agree with it; but it is a perfectly valid position to take, and in no way inconsistent with their and praiseworthy longstanding defense of our civil liberties.
It's hypocritical in the extreme to claim that "the people" means each individual with one amendment but that the same phrase "the people" means only the state with another.
DAldredge, you ought to be ashamed of yourself. You're a partisan mudslinger first, and an American second. I doubt that there's any room in there for much appreciation of the Bill of Rights, and the affirmative good that the ACLU has brought to its defense.
The ACLU's position on the 2nd amenendment can be used to weaken their arguments for the others. If "the people" in the 2nd amendment only applies to states, what's to stop some fascist legislators from trying to claim that "the people" in the first amendment only applies to the states as well?
In every other part of the "Bill of Rights" the ACLU interprets "the people" to mean just that. For some reason with the 2nd amendment "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." doesn't apply to "the people" in the ACLU's opinion.
The ACLU therefore believes that the Second Amendment does not confer an unlimited right upon individuals to own guns or other weapons
Second amendment rights advocates do not believe this either. The ACLU knows that. They're using verbal gymnastics here. Second amendments rights advocates believe that rights exist independantly of the constitution, the constitution serves to limit the governments ability to infringe upon rights that the people HAVE, not to grant non-existant rights.
Because it violates "Kosher" rules to combine meat and dairy. Go to your nearest Kosher deli and ask for a corned beef and cheese sandwich. Ask if it's Kosher.
Note to Grandparent: Israel is predominately Jewish and Muslim you idiot, not Hindu.
Jews who keep Kosher don't eat cheeseburgers, you idiot. In the absence of Halal food products, Muslims will often eat Kosher because the rules are so similar.
You are correct in that Apple's DRM isn't overly intrusive. In fact, I believe that their DRM is one of the best current incarnations.
I do understand the fact that the vast majority of computer "users" have never even heard of an inode, or a hash, or XOR and they think that a "register" is where you pay for groceries. In the end I am thinking of what is good for them as well. Maintaining freedom is important, even for people who do not wish it or even understand why other people do.
I don't have any problem with Apple using technological means to try to keep people from breaking the DRM in this case. I take issue with using the threat of physical harm (which it is whenever someone invokes the law) to stop reverse engineering.
It's the equivalent of a big stupid kid planning to get into college by threatening to beat the crap out of anyone who blows the grading curve.
There are likely professional car thieves who also wonder out loud why the car manufacturers don't just give up because it's a losing battle, etc., but it's not going to happen, either.
Detroit isn't trying to keep the owners of cars from starting them though.
Alarm systems, starter kill switches, fuel pump kill relays, and laser cut keys are a lot different than, say cars that refuse to start in certain neighborhoods.
Has this auther ever considered the possibility that the consoles were designed with certain markets in mind?
Microsoft and Sony could have planned to make systems that would sell most heavily in the US while Nintendo planned to make the GameCube the champ in Asia.
From the introduction of the original PSX until the demise of the Dreamcast there were 3 big players in the console game market. They all did fairly well for most of that time. Because there are enough customers to go around. One could even argue that if a company tried too hard to get all of the customers, they'd lose the ones they already had by taking too many resources away from the things that they were doing well.
MS, Sony and Nintendo are each getting a slice of a really big pie. So what if they targeted their products towards different segments of the market?
What is inherently immoral about not stopping every time you see a red octagonal sign on the road? What is "wrong" with ignoring a red light at an empty intersection?
You have a valid point, but these are bad examples. One can argue that it is immoral because of the danger you present to society. Even if you THINK that an intersection is empty, you could be mistaken. You might have missed something.
I have a stack of DVDs that are my property. The movies on them are someone else's IP, but the discs themselves are mine.
Just try walking out of a Suncoast with a few DVDs in your pocket without paying for them and you'll find out quite quickly that someone in fact DOES own them.
Jack Valenti keeps saying that he's not talking about morality. He's trying to sidestep the issue because he knows he can't win on it. In America, or the rest of the free world for that matter, people aren't going to buy into the argument that you shouldn't be allowed to do something with your own property. It would be the equivalent of GM trying to make it illegal for you to use a Fram oil filter on your car instead of an AC Delco.
Jack keeps arguing in circles. It is illegal to watch DVDs on an unlicensed player because it's illegal.
How can one seriously respect that line of thinking?
Irregardless is nonstandard English, but it is built using a standard English root and prefix.
I just had a flashback to high school. During the 1991-1992 school year, Ice Cube released an album by the name of "Death Certificate" in that album he refers to female genitals as "The cock", overnight people started referring to female genitals as "The cock". During all of my previous english speaking experience "cock" was a term for male genitals.
Overnight the definition of a word, nonstandard or not, is supposed to change because one illiterate and a bunch of wannabes decide so? I rejected that notion then, I reject it now.
RedHat is showing itself to be a less reliable distribution vendor, by canning one distribution (free RedHat) and unleashing the unstable Fedora betas which one day will become a product which you must pay for.
I won't beta test Red Hat's distro for free.
Every day I am happier than the one before that I jumped ship back at Red Hat 6.2.
Finally, there are many Linux distributions, not just two. Gentoo has become a major player - I'll mention it even if you won't. Let us not forget Novell and SuSe, either. And Slackware will never die!
I think that it is fair, after all Rob appears in Revolution OS, the movie about GNU/Linux.
SCO's most viscious detractors are here. Remember the Iopener Linux hack? It got more popularity here than anywhere else. Being that this is a thread about Linux, at the very least, the submitter should make a nominal effort to prevent making the whole community look bad.
Slashdot Mirror
In all seriousness, you must be doing something wrong.
I can get two hours of good quality video onto a CD with DivX.
LK
O.k Let's see an anti-gun FPS. You an (FBI agent) with a Tazer and sleeping gas are supposed to single handedly elminate a Wacoish compound of gun loving fanatics that are prepared to shoot you to preserve their rights.
Don't forget to "lose" or destroy all of the evidence of your failure when you start shooting people.
LK
I read this as "because we need a militia to secure a free state, we will not take away the right to bear arms"
Then you read it wrong. There is a subordinate clause.
Are you still sure of the need of an armed militia to insure the security. Is this really necessary?
If you even need to ask this question, you must live in a neighborhood with a fast police response time. And you must not be a minority.
Many countries in the world are as free or even freer than the US even though thay have no armed militia.
This one is a matter of opinion.
Another thing i don't understand is many americans beleif that the constitution is flawless and must not be changed.
Most of us support amending the constitution, which amendments you support depends on what your politics are.
Why should it not be changed? If their reason for putting in fx the 2nd amendment are no longer valid why should it not be removed?
Are you saying that rights can change because of political changes? You are the reason why the bill of rights was written.
Personally i do not beleive that everybody should have the right to keep and bear arms. You are off course welcome to disagree.
You see, I don't need your permission to dissent. I have the right. That right is protected because I'm armed.
I only have a problem when a progun person justifies it by saying that some 200+ years old amendmendment in his interpretation gives him the right to bear arms.(fifty years ago you could also throw people in concentration camps according to another "constitution").
Two points here. The Constitution doesn't give anyone the right to anything. My right to bear arms, my right to free speech, my right to choose my own religion, and all the rest of my rights exist by virtue of my humanity. God grants rights, not men. The Constitution exists to restrict the government's ability to interfere with my God given rights.
Even in the event that you're an athiest or agnostic, those rights are innate. You have them by virtue of being born.
LK
s Gentoo gearing up to be the third major enterprise distro?
Maybe after they update the install process. Some scripts, a GUI or even a text menu would go a long way towards making Gentoo a bigger player.
I have been using Linux for 6 years and Gentoo was a pain in the ass the first time I installed it.
Then again, so was Red Hat 4.x my first time installing...
LK
And that's why you're a moron. You're such an ass that you think that everyone else is an ass.
I think that people who try to re-interpret the constitution to limit individual rights are either lying or ignorant.
So what are you going to do? Put everyone you disagree with up against the wall?
No you idiot. My support of the 2nd amendment is about making sure that they don't put all of us against the wall.
LK
What makes you think that you are right and everyone else is wrong?
That's what members of the herd said to Galileo. But to answer your question, the words of the men who wrote the constitution.
they have the right to think anything they want,
And I have the right to call them hypocrites.
The 2nd ammendment really has an ambiguous wording, and to not acknowlege that is dishonest.
In a vacuum, you'd be correct. There are reams of pages from the men who wrote the constitution that support my interpretation.
Good people can interpret it either way.
No. They can't.
LK
The only mention of "the people" is with regards to the right to free assembly, where it was used for obvious reasons.
Obvious to everyone without a political agenda that runs contrary to the constitution. Once you accept that "the people" in the 2nd amendment does not refer to the individual people, it's a small step to conclude that "the people" in the first amendment refers to properly licensed lobbyists or some other such idiocy.
LK
My mistake
I'm sure that it's not your first and is far from your last.
LK
I hope you're not including the NRA among "second amendment rights advocates," because they're literally always at one pole during debate of any gun-related issue, no matter what it is. They very much act as if they believe second amendment rights are completely unlimited, which is one of the reasons why political gun issue debates are always so idiotic in the US.
You completely missed the point. Second amendment rights advocates do not believe that the second amendment "confers" anything. People HAVE rights regardless of the constitution. The Constitution is to protect rights that we already have.
We are endowed by our creator with rights. The constitution exists to protect those rights, not create them.
LK
Why don't you take the them to task for ignoring the other 9/10ths of the Bill of Rights? Seems like the ACLU's up about 8 ammendments on them.
The NRA doesn't claim to be anything other than a group to promote the causes of gun owners. The ACLU claimes to be a "Civil Liberties" organization.
The NRA is doing precisely what they say that they do. Why take them to task for that?
LK
You may not agree with it; but it is a perfectly valid position to take, and in no way inconsistent with their and praiseworthy longstanding defense of our civil liberties.
It's hypocritical in the extreme to claim that "the people" means each individual with one amendment but that the same phrase "the people" means only the state with another.
LK
DAldredge, you ought to be ashamed of yourself. You're a partisan mudslinger first, and an American second. I doubt that there's any room in there for much appreciation of the Bill of Rights, and the affirmative good that the ACLU has brought to its defense.
The ACLU's position on the 2nd amenendment can be used to weaken their arguments for the others. If "the people" in the 2nd amendment only applies to states, what's to stop some fascist legislators from trying to claim that "the people" in the first amendment only applies to the states as well?
LK
I call bullshit.
In every other part of the "Bill of Rights" the ACLU interprets "the people" to mean just that. For some reason with the 2nd amendment "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." doesn't apply to "the people" in the ACLU's opinion.
The ACLU therefore believes that the Second Amendment does not confer an unlimited right upon individuals to own guns or other weapons
Second amendment rights advocates do not believe this either. The ACLU knows that. They're using verbal gymnastics here. Second amendments rights advocates believe that rights exist independantly of the constitution, the constitution serves to limit the governments ability to infringe upon rights that the people HAVE, not to grant non-existant rights.
LK
I was expecting to see someone quote Al Gore as saying that HE created BASIC.
LK
Why wouldn't they? They are beef, not pork.
Because it violates "Kosher" rules to combine meat and dairy. Go to your nearest Kosher deli and ask for a corned beef and cheese sandwich. Ask if it's Kosher.
Note to Grandparent: Israel is predominately Jewish and Muslim you idiot, not Hindu.
Jews who keep Kosher don't eat cheeseburgers, you idiot. In the absence of Halal food products, Muslims will often eat Kosher because the rules are so similar.
LK
You are correct in that Apple's DRM isn't overly intrusive. In fact, I believe that their DRM is one of the best current incarnations.
I do understand the fact that the vast majority of computer "users" have never even heard of an inode, or a hash, or XOR and they think that a "register" is where you pay for groceries. In the end I am thinking of what is good for them as well. Maintaining freedom is important, even for people who do not wish it or even understand why other people do.
I don't have any problem with Apple using technological means to try to keep people from breaking the DRM in this case. I take issue with using the threat of physical harm (which it is whenever someone invokes the law) to stop reverse engineering.
It's the equivalent of a big stupid kid planning to get into college by threatening to beat the crap out of anyone who blows the grading curve.
LK
There are likely professional car thieves who also wonder out loud why the car manufacturers don't just give up because it's a losing battle, etc., but it's not going to happen, either.
Detroit isn't trying to keep the owners of cars from starting them though.
Alarm systems, starter kill switches, fuel pump kill relays, and laser cut keys are a lot different than, say cars that refuse to start in certain neighborhoods.
LK
either. So what?
Has this auther ever considered the possibility that the consoles were designed with certain markets in mind?
Microsoft and Sony could have planned to make systems that would sell most heavily in the US while Nintendo planned to make the GameCube the champ in Asia.
From the introduction of the original PSX until the demise of the Dreamcast there were 3 big players in the console game market. They all did fairly well for most of that time. Because there are enough customers to go around. One could even argue that if a company tried too hard to get all of the customers, they'd lose the ones they already had by taking too many resources away from the things that they were doing well.
MS, Sony and Nintendo are each getting a slice of a really big pie. So what if they targeted their products towards different segments of the market?
LK
What is inherently immoral about not stopping every time you see a red octagonal sign on the road? What is "wrong" with ignoring a red light at an empty intersection?
You have a valid point, but these are bad examples. One can argue that it is immoral because of the danger you present to society. Even if you THINK that an intersection is empty, you could be mistaken. You might have missed something.
LK
Well see its NOT your property.
I have a stack of DVDs that are my property. The movies on them are someone else's IP, but the discs themselves are mine.
Just try walking out of a Suncoast with a few DVDs in your pocket without paying for them and you'll find out quite quickly that someone in fact DOES own them.
LK
Jack Valenti keeps saying that he's not talking about morality. He's trying to sidestep the issue because he knows he can't win on it. In America, or the rest of the free world for that matter, people aren't going to buy into the argument that you shouldn't be allowed to do something with your own property. It would be the equivalent of GM trying to make it illegal for you to use a Fram oil filter on your car instead of an AC Delco.
Jack keeps arguing in circles. It is illegal to watch DVDs on an unlicensed player because it's illegal.
How can one seriously respect that line of thinking?
LK
Irregardless is nonstandard English, but it is built using a standard English root and prefix.
I just had a flashback to high school. During the 1991-1992 school year, Ice Cube released an album by the name of "Death Certificate" in that album he refers to female genitals as "The cock", overnight people started referring to female genitals as "The cock". During all of my previous english speaking experience "cock" was a term for male genitals.
Overnight the definition of a word, nonstandard or not, is supposed to change because one illiterate and a bunch of wannabes decide so? I rejected that notion then, I reject it now.
LK
1. Norton Anti Virus
2. XP SP1
3. Opera
4. Yahoo Messenger
5. Half Life+Counter Strike
6. Bit Torrent
7. Ad Aware
8. Spybot Search & Destroy
9. Acrobat Reader
10. Palm Desktop
LK
RedHat is showing itself to be a less reliable distribution vendor, by canning one distribution (free RedHat) and unleashing the unstable Fedora betas which one day will become a product which you must pay for.
I won't beta test Red Hat's distro for free.
Every day I am happier than the one before that I jumped ship back at Red Hat 6.2.
Finally, there are many Linux distributions, not just two. Gentoo has become a major player - I'll mention it even if you won't. Let us not forget Novell and SuSe, either. And Slackware will never die!
Ahem...Mandrake...
LK
Whether this is fair or not is beside the point.
I think that it is fair, after all Rob appears in Revolution OS, the movie about GNU/Linux.
SCO's most viscious detractors are here. Remember the Iopener Linux hack? It got more popularity here than anywhere else. Being that this is a thread about Linux, at the very least, the submitter should make a nominal effort to prevent making the whole community look bad.
LK