The second ammendment just says the people who participate in government-organized militias may carry their guns home so they may be able to train shooting in their farms.
Damn you're illiterate. Show me where it states that I must 'participate' in a militia to own a gun?
The second is the only Ammendment that starts with a conditional clause.
It's not a conditional clause, it is explanatory. What that means to me is that they wanted to make sure they got their message across even to idiots such as yourself. Let me boil it down for you: shall not be infringed.
Why dont we step back a bit and analyze this.... lazy people shouldn't vote ->a few steps-> white male only voters. Where did this come from? Who is making the sweeping generalizations?
I'm waiting...
What really scares me about this, is that it's not the government positing that certain types of people shouldn't do X (vote in this case) - I'd expect it from them. How in hell could you possibly oppose something that will ease the process of voting?!?!
Realistically, if someone can't take the 30 minutes it takes to go to the ballot box, and is too lazy to go to the Post Office or Library to fill out a Absentee Ballot form, they shouldn't vote. Is it that hard?
[sarcasm mode] Well, I agree, but I don't think that that is quite enough to prove one's worthiness. We should make sure that those that vote really mean it. Let's charge a few grand for the privilege of voting, then we'll know that those pesky voters are really committed. [/sarcasm mode]
And anyway, since when is laziness not a desirable trait in a voter? Who the hell determined that?
Which means you only have the right to keep and bear those Arms you received from the Government, as long as you are in the service of a Militia organized by the Government, with the purpose of defending the security of the State. The Militias organized by the Government to protect the security of the State are the National Guard and the Naval Militia. Keeping and bearing any other weapon is not a right, it's a priviledge which the Government may rescind at any time. That's why they won't let you carry a gun aboard a commercial airplane, for instance, or take your favorite assault rifle with you when you visit your dad or your sisters in prison.
You obviously don't understand what the word ammendment means. You can't possibly realize that what you just said equates the rest of the rights granted us by the ammendments to privileges which may be 'the Government may rescind at any time'.
I'm thinking the government should revoke your 'privilege' to spew this complete drivel.
"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."
Have you read that before??? It says nothing about giving "a well-organized militia the right to bear arms". It says that because the right to bear arms will not be infringed, the country will have a built-in militia.
What part of "shall not be infringed" do you and other gun-banners not understand?
How about your vote, are the votes of people who make snap judgements worth counting? Try to think a bit, and count how many steps your logic is away from restricting the right vote to white males again.
Completely wrong analogy. Commie Russia didn't collapse, and they'll keep electing communists for a while yet. As far as the Soviet Union is concerned, I think that once Poland gained Solidarity and (later) the Russians elected Gorbachev (who was very much a communist, by the way), one could plainly see that it was only a matter of time until the Soviet Union fell apart.
I understand where you're coming from, but your view leads in an extremely dangerous direction. Taken to its logical end it means that not only can politicians vote on their own salaries, they can also vote on who can put them in office.
The problem with living in a democratic republic is that you then have to live with the decisions made.
Unfortunately, if the country voted to eliminate violently all blond people, it would have to be accomplished if we are to harbor any feelings of democracy. (Obviously not that simple, first laws and the Constitution would need to change - all doable through voting however).
Freedom and democracy can not be matters of convenience! That attitude will train the government to think "we'll let you be absolutely free - do whatever you like, as long as it is what we want you to do"!!!
I ask not for something reminiscent of the old literacy tests, but the most simple of tests.. caring about the nation. If you don't care enough to get there, you probably have nothing good to say anyways.
Very noble of you, but completely beside the point. Why do I need to have something "good to say" in order to say something? Who defines "good"? Who defines "the most simple of tests"? I say that only those who have black hair, brown eyes, and are missing at least one toe pass the "test"!
You should have pointed out that you are a fascist (which is completely within your rights) in the first place... it would have saved everyone some time.
What it actaully does is allow uninformed, unmotivated people to shed their opinion on the future of the nation. The current system is set up so that only people who care enough to scoot their arses to the booth and cast their vote are allowed to vote. Internet voting allows people who don't really care and don't know much about the topics to not move but think to themselves, "Well, lets try some of this voting stuff."
Great, then we can institute an IQ test before people qualify to vote. After that, let's make sure every voter can do 100 push-ups before they can vote! We've got to make sure they REALLY want to vote!!!
Do you want them voting on issues they hardly care to comprehend...because they will.
Yes, I do. If you accept our political system as the one under which you wish to live, you should too. If you had written a few more sentences, you'd have arrived at the thought that we should create an aristocracy which would have the exclusive right to vote. A bit over to the wacky side lies Nazism.
Before any type of computerized system is rolled out, the system would have to develop some type of anti-fraud/identification system that goes beyond "enter your voter ID number". Webcams, fingerprint analysis, or even reverse dialups could be used to authenticate users and voting locations, and one of these must be in place before the politicos authorize anything like this.
Why?? None of these wild ID schemes are present now, so why suggest them only when the subject of Internet voting comes up?
Also, all of your ID suggestions would violate my right to have my vote remain secret.
Before any type of computerized system is rolled out, the system would have to develop some type of anti-fraud/identification system that goes beyond "enter your voter ID number". Webcams, fingerprint analysis, or even reverse dialups could be used to authenticate users and voting locations, and one of these must be in place before the politicos authorize anything like this.
Why?? None of these wild ID schemes are present now, so why suggest them only when the subject of Internet voting comes up?
Also, all of your ID suggestions would violate my right to have my vote remain secret.
It is my right to be ignorant of the bill of rights
It is my right to be uncommitted
It is my right to be lazy
For one who rants about knowledge of rights, you're get very close to saying that I shouldn't be allowed to vote at all if I match any of the above criteria.
I supposed this would be workable once the security aspects (spoofing, etc.) have been addressed. It'd be a problem for our household since our net access only allows a single IP address assigned via DHCP. If we all got IP addresses assigned at birth then we'd all have a unique ID that could be used for things like voting, email, IP telephony, etc. That's ridiculous, why use IP addresses to identify people?!?! That's completely insecure for one, and it is completely against the law as well -- voters must be anonymous with regard to the votes they cast. The simplest/best solution would be to just assign a random PIN when one registers to vote. This PIN would be known only to the computer system in use. The PIN would either handed to the person or mailed using the USPS (don't complain 'bout the USPS, I think it sucks too, but remember - its used for almost all government correspondence already). This PIN would then be used as the login password when voting. Simple, huh?
Mike Loukides approaches clarity when stating that the Java license provides developers with more options. I'm without complete comprehension of every Java license detail, but that initially seems the sanest legal jargon to date.
But I think Mike has forgotten a crucial point. If you want to go 'closed-source' Sun charges you some money. If the GPL were a 'chameleon' license, who would the money go to, and what would it buy a developer? If I wanted to pay for a commercial license for the [INSERT NAME] source, would a portion of the fee I pay go to each and every developer that has ever contributed code? If not, I think that would counter-act the usual incentive to contribute to open source projects, I know I would be hesitant to knowingly increase someone's salary in my free time.
I'm in agreement with him on companies making money on support, etc.; but I think Mike has over-simplified. He argues that the GPL has hampered acceptance by the business community, however, I believe that the Java license would have hampered acceptance by the developer community.
Slashdot Mirror
Cool. I'm glad to hear I'm in good company.
And as with him, no one will mistake you for a political genius.
The second ammendment just says the people who participate in government-organized militias may carry their guns home so they may be able to train shooting in their farms.
Damn you're illiterate. Show me where it states that I must 'participate' in a militia to own a gun?
The second is the only Ammendment that starts with a conditional clause.
It's not a conditional clause, it is explanatory. What that means to me is that they wanted to make sure they got their message across even to idiots such as yourself. Let me boil it down for you: shall not be infringed.
Why dont we step back a bit and analyze this.... lazy people shouldn't vote ->a few steps-> white male only voters. Where did this come from? Who is making the sweeping generalizations?
I'm waiting...
What really scares me about this, is that it's not the government positing that certain types of people shouldn't do X (vote in this case) - I'd expect it from them. How in hell could you possibly oppose something that will ease the process of voting?!?!
Realistically, if someone can't take the 30 minutes it takes to go to the ballot box, and is too lazy to go to the Post Office or Library to fill out a Absentee Ballot form, they shouldn't vote. Is it that hard?
[sarcasm mode] Well, I agree, but I don't think that that is quite enough to prove one's worthiness. We should make sure that those that vote really mean it. Let's charge a few grand for the privilege of voting, then we'll know that those pesky voters are really committed. [/sarcasm mode]
And anyway, since when is laziness not a desirable trait in a voter? Who the hell determined that?
Which means you only have the right to keep and bear those Arms you received from the Government, as long as you are in the service of a Militia organized by the Government, with the purpose of defending the security of the State. The Militias organized by the Government to protect the security of the State are the National Guard and the Naval Militia. Keeping and bearing any other weapon is not a right, it's a priviledge which the Government may rescind at any time. That's why they won't let you carry a gun aboard a commercial airplane, for instance, or take your favorite assault rifle with you when you visit your dad or your sisters in prison.
You obviously don't understand what the word ammendment means. You can't possibly realize that what you just said equates the rest of the rights granted us by the ammendments to privileges which may be 'the Government may rescind at any time'.
I'm thinking the government should revoke your 'privilege' to spew this complete drivel.
"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."
Have you read that before??? It says nothing about giving "a well-organized militia the right to bear arms". It says that because the right to bear arms will not be infringed, the country will have a built-in militia.
What part of "shall not be infringed" do you and other gun-banners not understand?
How about your vote, are the votes of people who make snap judgements worth counting? Try to think a bit, and count how many steps your logic is away from restricting the right vote to white males again.
Completely wrong analogy. Commie Russia didn't collapse, and they'll keep electing communists for a while yet. As far as the Soviet Union is concerned, I think that once Poland gained Solidarity and (later) the Russians elected Gorbachev (who was very much a communist, by the way), one could plainly see that it was only a matter of time until the Soviet Union fell apart.
The "bomb" (actually bomba) was built by Polish scientists before WWII.
I understand where you're coming from, but your view leads in an extremely dangerous direction. Taken to its logical end it means that not only can politicians vote on their own salaries, they can also vote on who can put them in office.
The problem with living in a democratic republic is that you then have to live with the decisions made.
Unfortunately, if the country voted to eliminate violently all blond people, it would have to be accomplished if we are to harbor any feelings of democracy. (Obviously not that simple, first laws and the Constitution would need to change - all doable through voting however).
Freedom and democracy can not be matters of convenience! That attitude will train the government to think "we'll let you be absolutely free - do whatever you like, as long as it is what we want you to do"!!!
Deutsch Mark
I ask not for something reminiscent of the old literacy tests, but the most simple of tests.. caring about the nation. If you don't care enough to get there, you probably have nothing good to say anyways.
Very noble of you, but completely beside the point. Why do I need to have something "good to say" in order to say something? Who defines "good"? Who defines "the most simple of tests"? I say that only those who have black hair, brown eyes, and are missing at least one toe pass the "test"!
Hope this helps.
... it would have saved everyone some time.
Absolutely, clears everything up.
You should have pointed out that you are a fascist (which is completely within your rights) in the first place
Plonk.
What it actaully does is allow uninformed, unmotivated people to shed their opinion on the future of the nation. The current system is set up so that only people who care enough to scoot their arses to the booth and cast their vote are allowed to vote. Internet voting allows people who don't really care and don't know much about the topics to not move but think to themselves, "Well, lets try some of this voting stuff."
Great, then we can institute an IQ test before people qualify to vote. After that, let's make sure every voter can do 100 push-ups before they can vote! We've got to make sure they REALLY want to vote!!!
Do you want them voting on issues they hardly care to comprehend...because they will.
Yes, I do. If you accept our political system as the one under which you wish to live, you should too. If you had written a few more sentences, you'd have arrived at the thought that we should create an aristocracy which would have the exclusive right to vote. A bit over to the wacky side lies Nazism.
Before any type of computerized system is rolled out, the system would have to develop some type of anti-fraud/identification system that goes beyond "enter your voter ID number". Webcams, fingerprint analysis, or even reverse dialups could be used to authenticate users and voting locations, and one of these must be in place before the politicos authorize anything like this.
Why?? None of these wild ID schemes are present now, so why suggest them only when the subject of Internet voting comes up?
Also, all of your ID suggestions would violate my right to have my vote remain secret.
Before any type of computerized system is rolled out, the system would have to develop some type of anti-fraud/identification system that goes beyond "enter your voter ID number". Webcams, fingerprint analysis, or even reverse dialups could be used to authenticate users and voting locations, and one of these must be in place before the politicos authorize anything like this.
Why?? None of these wild ID schemes are present now, so why suggest them only when the subject of Internet voting comes up?
Also, all of your ID suggestions would violate my right to have my vote remain secret.
Ahhh, so we should allow you to vote because you're so very smart?
Pardon us stupes, how could we dare to think we're smart enuf to vote.
Here's the point(s)
- It is my right to be apathetic
- It is my right to be a knee-jerk reactionary
- It is my right to be ignorant of the bill of rights
- It is my right to be uncommitted
- It is my right to be lazy
For one who rants about knowledge of rights, you're get very close to saying that I shouldn't be allowed to vote at all if I match any of the above criteria.Reminds me of the Christian Coalition rather.
I supposed this would be workable once the security aspects (spoofing, etc.) have been addressed. It'd be a problem for our household since our net access only allows a single IP address assigned via DHCP. If we all got IP addresses assigned at birth then we'd all have a unique ID that could be used for things like voting, email, IP telephony, etc.
That's ridiculous, why use IP addresses to identify people?!?! That's completely insecure for one, and it is completely against the law as well -- voters must be anonymous with regard to the votes they cast.
The simplest/best solution would be to just assign a random PIN when one registers to vote. This PIN would be known only to the computer system in use. The PIN would either handed to the person or mailed using the USPS (don't complain 'bout the USPS, I think it sucks too, but remember - its used for almost all government correspondence already). This PIN would then be used as the login password when voting.
Simple, huh?
IBM is already offering Visual Age for Java betas for Linux.
Mike Loukides approaches clarity when stating that the Java license provides developers with more options. I'm without complete comprehension of every Java license detail, but that initially seems the sanest legal jargon to date.
But I think Mike has forgotten a crucial point. If you want to go 'closed-source' Sun charges you some money. If the GPL were a 'chameleon' license, who would the money go to, and what would it buy a developer? If I wanted to pay for a commercial license for the [INSERT NAME] source, would a portion of the fee I pay go to each and every developer that has ever contributed code? If not, I think that would counter-act the usual incentive to contribute to open source projects, I know I would be hesitant to knowingly increase someone's salary in my free time.
I'm in agreement with him on companies making money on support, etc.; but I think Mike has over-simplified. He argues that the GPL has hampered acceptance by the business community, however, I believe that the Java license would have hampered acceptance by the developer community.
--Voytek
I left the AF recently, and IMHO ;) the DII/COE is about the biggest load of crap ever to suck tax-payer dollars...
Full info is at :
http://spider.osfl.disa.mil/cm/general.html
Nt is one of the DII/COE OS's, as are several flavors of 'NIX. HP/UX...
Full DII/COE Info at:
http://spider.osfl.disa.mil/cm/general.html