Funny. I'll have to grab a kleenex to wipe off the xeroxes on my desk after that one. Good thing I was only drinking water and not a coke at the time (of any brand).
The biggest problem with Avatar is that the Na'Vi are morally irreproachable, and by morally irreproachable I mean beyond any Saturday morning cartoon good. The humans were over the top the bad guys, the kind who enjoy kicking kittens (I think I should mention something about the Na'Vi's appearance).
I have to disagree with your assessment. Some of the Na'Vi were reactionary and eager to kill. Most of the humans were just doing their jobs and following orders, as most European Americans did while "the West was won" from the Native Americans. In both cases it was largely the leaders who made the "evil" decisions.
That is only considered "open to interpretation" by those who wish it to be interpreted differently than the English language would require. The word "arms" is synonymous with "weapons." That is not open to interpretation.
"bear Arms" (this phrase historically means to be part of an army; does this amendment protect your right to join a militia, or apply to individuals acting alone?)
"Bear arms" means "carry weapons." That is not open to interpretation. It historically means "carry weapons", not "be part of an army." Where did you get that rubbish? If they were trying to protect the people's right to join a militia, they would have said so. The only reference to a militia is in a descriptive add-on.
Do you understand sentence structure in the English language? Consider the following: "Because the road was icy and the driver was going too fast, he was unable to brake in time when a fox ran into the road in front of him." When you break off all the description, you have "He was unable to break in time." The phrase "Because the road was icy and the driver was going too fast," adds more information, but does not change the fact that "He was unable to break in time". "when a fox ran into the road in front of him." also supplies more information, but still doesn't change the fact that "He was unable to break in time."
Now take what we've learned and apply it to "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." Strip off the extra description and we have "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." "Arms" means "weapons." "Bear" means "carry." You'll have a hard time disputing those. So in more modern terms we have "The right of the people to keep and carry weapons shall not be infringed." The rest is description, offering a reason. Even if one were to disagree with the reason offered, which is that a well trained militia is necessary to the security of a free state ("regulated" meant "trained" at the time), it would not invalidate the direct statement that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. There is also the matter that a militia is NOT a standing army; it is an armed populace rising to a cause. Bearing this in mind, it is obvious that the Framers intended that the populace maintain the ability to overthrow the government by force as they did.
does the Constitution guarantee a fundamental right for all US citizens to wield personal nuclear weapons? Where is the limit?
Yes, the constitution guarantees the right of the people to own and wield ANY kind of weapon they're able to. There are no limits. If there were limits, you would see something like "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms capable of killing less than 1000 people at a time, shall not be infringed." or "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, except for Weapons of Mass Destruction, shall not be infringed." Therefore, if society wishes a limit to be placed on the right to bear arms, an additional amendment would be required. Any attempt to "interpret" in a limit which is not stated, just because you think such a limit is a good idea, would be a falsification.
(The oath requires the signer to "support and defend" the California and U.S,. constitutions;
If I had signed an oath like that I would be forced to attempt to overthrow those who claim to be the government, and reinstate a government that actually follows the constitution.
And don't tell me that Nature regularly collides gold nuclei together in this fashion; they're not cosmic rays!
Consider the particle collisions near the event horizon of a black hole; they're likely to occur at much higher energies.
"Energies at the Large Hadron Collider are likely to peak at 14 teraelectronvolts. In contrast, the energies around a black hole would theoretically be limitless, says West. However, you needn't go beyond the so-called "Planck energy" - the point at which our mathematical understanding of particle interactions, in particular gravity, breaks down at the quantum level. This energy is in the order of 1018 gigaelectronvolts - 100 trillion times more energetic than the LHC." - http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327253.800-black-holes-are-the-ultimate-particle-smashers.html
Then they'll target both genders equally. Then the mosquitos will get a little tougher, perhaps reflective in the appropriate frequency, and learn to play dead and fall to the ground when hit with a laser that doesn't quite kill them.
I thought of this about a decade ago and have been wanting one ever since. Of course I've never had the time or money to build one... Sure, sell them for $50 a pop and I'll buy at least two.
What's living in the interpretation of the Constitution. Any sufficiently vague legal document is going to be open to interpretation which is going to change as society goes on. I guarantee your mortgage is not as open to interpretation as the constitution.
What's open to interpretation about "shall not be infringed"?
This is why we have checks and balances. The executive can't enforce a law that doesn't exist. The idea is to make it so that a would-be tyrant has to capture all three branches of government before he can actually become a tyrant, not to leave all the tools of oppression in the hands of whoever happens to be the next executive.
I agree with you in principle. If the US is to be used as a guide, however, those checks and balances are fragile. A balance of power is a precarious thing, because once one branch gets a little more power, it will use that power to leverage more power.
The evilness of orbital death lasers is in the fact that they could be used anonymously with plausible deniability. Foreign leader X is overcome with heatstroke while vacationing, and suffers irreparable brain damage. Was it an orbital laser on low power? Only a "Conspiracy Theorist" would make such a claim! Political adversary Y is flying to campaign in another state when his plane malfunctions and crashes. Was it hit with an orbital laser? No one knows, but the official story is "Of course not. It's an outrage to suggest that we would do such a thing!"
Slashdot Mirror
No, you leave them there, bound and gaged, to slowly dehydrate and starve, then be eaten by wild animals and insects.
They'd say "Stick it up your onus."
Funny. I'll have to grab a kleenex to wipe off the xeroxes on my desk after that one. Good thing I was only drinking water and not a coke at the time (of any brand).
That's because they hired Wolfram and Hart.
And the lawyers will be rolling in dough at everyone else's expense.
I'd pitch in for that.
it really captures the 3dy'ness.
How do you pronounce that?
Yeah, I'm in CADCAM. That means Windows.
What was that? Your signal was a bit weak...
The biggest problem with Avatar is that the Na'Vi are morally irreproachable, and by morally irreproachable I mean beyond any Saturday morning cartoon good. The humans were over the top the bad guys, the kind who enjoy kicking kittens (I think I should mention something about the Na'Vi's appearance).
I have to disagree with your assessment. Some of the Na'Vi were reactionary and eager to kill. Most of the humans were just doing their jobs and following orders, as most European Americans did while "the West was won" from the Native Americans. In both cases it was largely the leaders who made the "evil" decisions.
Open to interpretation has been "Arms"
That is only considered "open to interpretation" by those who wish it to be interpreted differently than the English language would require. The word "arms" is synonymous with "weapons." That is not open to interpretation.
"bear Arms" (this phrase historically means to be part of an army; does this amendment protect your right to join a militia, or apply to individuals acting alone?)
"Bear arms" means "carry weapons." That is not open to interpretation. It historically means "carry weapons", not "be part of an army." Where did you get that rubbish? If they were trying to protect the people's right to join a militia, they would have said so. The only reference to a militia is in a descriptive add-on. Do you understand sentence structure in the English language? Consider the following: "Because the road was icy and the driver was going too fast, he was unable to brake in time when a fox ran into the road in front of him." When you break off all the description, you have "He was unable to break in time." The phrase "Because the road was icy and the driver was going too fast," adds more information, but does not change the fact that "He was unable to break in time". "when a fox ran into the road in front of him." also supplies more information, but still doesn't change the fact that "He was unable to break in time." Now take what we've learned and apply it to "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." Strip off the extra description and we have "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." "Arms" means "weapons." "Bear" means "carry." You'll have a hard time disputing those. So in more modern terms we have "The right of the people to keep and carry weapons shall not be infringed." The rest is description, offering a reason. Even if one were to disagree with the reason offered, which is that a well trained militia is necessary to the security of a free state ("regulated" meant "trained" at the time), it would not invalidate the direct statement that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. There is also the matter that a militia is NOT a standing army; it is an armed populace rising to a cause. Bearing this in mind, it is obvious that the Framers intended that the populace maintain the ability to overthrow the government by force as they did.
does the Constitution guarantee a fundamental right for all US citizens to wield personal nuclear weapons? Where is the limit?
Yes, the constitution guarantees the right of the people to own and wield ANY kind of weapon they're able to. There are no limits. If there were limits, you would see something like "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms capable of killing less than 1000 people at a time, shall not be infringed." or "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, except for Weapons of Mass Destruction, shall not be infringed." Therefore, if society wishes a limit to be placed on the right to bear arms, an additional amendment would be required. Any attempt to "interpret" in a limit which is not stated, just because you think such a limit is a good idea, would be a falsification.
Why the F@#$% would you mod parent down? It's relevant, factual, and provides reference. That should be rated +5 Informative!
It can only fly on a GeV (Ground-effect Vehicle).
(The oath requires the signer to "support and defend" the California and U.S,. constitutions;
If I had signed an oath like that I would be forced to attempt to overthrow those who claim to be the government, and reinstate a government that actually follows the constitution.
And don't tell me that Nature regularly collides gold nuclei together in this fashion; they're not cosmic rays!
Consider the particle collisions near the event horizon of a black hole; they're likely to occur at much higher energies.
"Energies at the Large Hadron Collider are likely to peak at 14 teraelectronvolts. In contrast, the energies around a black hole would theoretically be limitless, says West. However, you needn't go beyond the so-called "Planck energy" - the point at which our mathematical understanding of particle interactions, in particular gravity, breaks down at the quantum level. This energy is in the order of 1018 gigaelectronvolts - 100 trillion times more energetic than the LHC." - http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327253.800-black-holes-are-the-ultimate-particle-smashers.html
Unless they got it backwards and what we call matter is really antimatter... (sarcasm)
Yeah, but you can recycle. For example, I use my old cars as drink coasters.
ROFL. Wish I had mod points for you today.
Then they'll target both genders equally. Then the mosquitos will get a little tougher, perhaps reflective in the appropriate frequency, and learn to play dead and fall to the ground when hit with a laser that doesn't quite kill them.
Heck, mount it on the roomba to patrol.
I thought of this about a decade ago and have been wanting one ever since. Of course I've never had the time or money to build one... Sure, sell them for $50 a pop and I'll buy at least two.
What's living in the interpretation of the Constitution. Any sufficiently vague legal document is going to be open to interpretation which is going to change as society goes on. I guarantee your mortgage is not as open to interpretation as the constitution.
What's open to interpretation about "shall not be infringed"?
And The day before the election a news channel can run stories that are complete lies
You mean they don't?
This is why we have checks and balances. The executive can't enforce a law that doesn't exist. The idea is to make it so that a would-be tyrant has to capture all three branches of government before he can actually become a tyrant, not to leave all the tools of oppression in the hands of whoever happens to be the next executive.
I agree with you in principle. If the US is to be used as a guide, however, those checks and balances are fragile. A balance of power is a precarious thing, because once one branch gets a little more power, it will use that power to leverage more power.
The evilness of orbital death lasers is in the fact that they could be used anonymously with plausible deniability. Foreign leader X is overcome with heatstroke while vacationing, and suffers irreparable brain damage. Was it an orbital laser on low power? Only a "Conspiracy Theorist" would make such a claim! Political adversary Y is flying to campaign in another state when his plane malfunctions and crashes. Was it hit with an orbital laser? No one knows, but the official story is "Of course not. It's an outrage to suggest that we would do such a thing!"