Re:Great for firearms training
on
Walk-thru Fog Screen
·
· Score: 3, Informative
This vapor+projector equipment must be way-way cheaper than cardboard used today.
There are systems in use today that are used to train police (and others) in live-fire simulations. A string of photoelectric sensors line the top/bottom and sides of the screen, allowing the system to identify the impact point.
However, the system typically uses a thin plastic screen for projection of the video image, which deteriorates after use. This system would be a good replacement for it, although I don't know how long it would take to break-even on the costs.
As I'm no longer in IT I don't need to maintain a massive network any more, but my modest home network of 3 computers of various architectures would have been very tedious to get into a useable state with Gentoo.
Actually, it's not that tedious. Once you come up with the list of applications you want to install, it's a single command (albeit a long one). I've found that most of what I want will be installed by installing a PHP application and Mozilla -- the former will build all the web-related dependencies and the latter will build all the X-related dependencies.
Since you have various architectures, you can't build once and install the resulting package on all of your systems (unless you will settle for the lowest common denominator like i386), but the Portage system does allow you to retain the packages for use later or elsewhere.
Heck, I can't figure out *why* we have to pay extra to have an unlisted number.
I scrolled down through the replies and didn't see the answer. Apparently, I'm the only one old enough to remember.
Back in the regulatory monopoly days, the phone company was able to justify the additional tariff for an unlisted line because your lack of listing in the phone boock would purportedly generate more calls to directory assistance -- which was a free call.
Now, directory assistance calls are revenue generators, so the rationale has disappeared. But, the regulatory process moves slowly.
How do you know there have been no false positives? Are you reading your spam?
As I have it configured, all mail classified as Spam is redirected to another folder. SpamAssassin actually attaches the original message to a new message that explains why it was classified as spam and provides a plain-text excerpt of the first few lines of the original.
Periodically (usually every couple of days), I review the folder to see if any were legitimate messages. The subject lines are usually sufficient to recognize them. If not, the excerpt is enough. By attaching the original to the message generated by SpamAssassin, I can look at the excerpt without worrying about triggering any HTML image "bugs" that validate receipt of the message.
It only takes 15-20 seconds to look through a list of subjects, and I'm not interrupted by spam for the rest of the day.
Some of the items the Museum can no longer accept include:
No Compaq in the list.
I have one of the original Compaq "luggable" computers (serial #1555) when they were still limited to two 5-1/4" floppy drives.
I subsequently upgraded it to an XT-clone, with a giant (at the time) 10 megabyte drive. It was one of the first 3-1/2" hard drives, shock-mounted (with big rubber "feet") within a 5-1/4" enclosure.
I still have it, complete with the nylon carrying case. I dig it out once in a while and boot up DOS 3.3, just to boggle the mind of people who have never seen one.
I can now build a complete near-top-of-the-line computer for about 15% of what I paid for that thing, and that's not even accounting for inflation since the early 80's.
I've been wondering if Intel or AMD will release a 4.77 GHz processor, to commemorate how far we have progressed since the original 4.77 MHz 8088 processor in the first IBM PC.
If I were a spammer, I would just download SpamAssassin and check the content analysis algorithms. I don't think it's too difficult for them to get their hands on anti-spam software.
If SpamAssassin did nothing but content analysis, that might work. But, SpamAssassin (by default) also checks several real-time blacklists and uses Bayesian filtering.
I've found that it's the combination of all of these factors that identifies almost every spam. I've had only two or three spams slip through in the 3-4 months since I installed SpamAssassin, with no false positives.
It gives you a unique number that's lets you obscure your identity.
No, Private Payments simply gives you a temporary American Express card number that expires at the end of the month in which it was issued.
The charge is still posted under your name and all the usual billing information is required. The amount is debited from your existing account.
The idea is that you give an on-line merchant a "throw-away" credit card number, without potentially compromising your primary credit card number. It cannot be used after the expiration date.
Of course, the temporary number is valid until then. So, it doesn't eliminate fraud -- it just puts a time limit on it.
My disbelief from your statement came from remembering seeing airphones on my last AA domestic (NY to Seattle) flight last December.
The phones appear to be still installed on most aircraft. American is apparently removing them during normal fleet maintenance of the cabin, rather than taking planes out of service to remove them.
I honestly don't remember seeing any signs although, granted, I probably paid no attention.
I misspoke: the sign is actually a "sticker", and a pretty small one at that. I've seen more than one with the sticker missing: perhaps they have been peeling off during cabin cleaning?
But even if the airlines decide that cell phones don't interfere with aircraft operation under (b)(5), the operation of a cell phone aboard any aircraft would still be prohibited by FCC rules.
I don't disagree with that, but you originally posted: "The restriction against using cell phones aboard aircraft is not an FAA rule, it's an FCC rule."
The implication is there is no FAA rule against using cell phones on aircraft. That's not true, and I posted a correction, with the appropriate citation.
If the FCC rule was the only constraining factor, there would be no grounds to restrict cell-phone usage while the plane is taxiing on the ground. But, most airlines currently require phones to be turned off while the plane is enroute between the gate and the runway.
There are exceptions: I've been on many planes in "ground hold" (waiting on a side taxiway for clearance to depart) in which cell phone usage was allowed. But, people are generally allowed to get out of their seat during that time, too.
Why don't you look at the American Airlines' onboard technology page?
Why don't you try using an airphone on an American Airlines flight?
They have signs on them stating they were decommissioned on March 31, 2002. See the announcement here
The only American planes that still have operating phones are 767's and 777's that operate on international routes (with the occasional ferry flight in the US) -- which is why I added the "domestic" qualifier to my statement. At $5.00 to connect and $10.00/minute, they aren't exactly a bargain, although I did use one while enroute back from Japan to inquire about a family emergency.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, no person may operate, nor may any operator or pilot in command of an aircraft allow the operation of, any portable electronic device on any U.S.-registered civil aircraft operating under this part.
(b) Paragraph (a) of this section does not apply to--
Portable voice recorders;
Hearing aids;
Heart pacemakers;
Electric shavers; or
Any other portable electronic device that the part 119 certificate holder has determined will not cause interference with the navigation or communication system of the aircraft on which it is to be used.
(c) The determination required by paragraph (b)(5) of this section shall be made by that part 119 certificate holder operating the particular device to be used.
The last provision is what gives the airline the option to allow you to use your electronic device during certain parts of the flight.
There are similar provisions in Part 91 (for general aviation) and Part 121 (charter) and Part 135 (commuter).
People can already talk on the phone while on the airplane...it's called the airphone.
American Airlines decommissioned their airphones on domestic flights about two years ago.
It's really expensive, but that's good because it keeps people from using it for anything other than important calls.
No, they just kept people from using it often enough so the service could earn enough revenue to support itself. I never understood why the phone operators charged so much money -- perhaps the system capacity was so small they didn't want to encourage use of it.
I've had years like that, flying home every weekend and returning to the client's office on Monday.
Are all your flights transatlantic, or even longer?
Typically, mine are about 4 hours, from gate to gate. I've known a few people that fly from east to west coast and back (or vice versa) every weekend. That's about six hours, gate to gate. And, that doesn't include the two+ hours on both ends of the flight.
Are you so indespensible to your company that it would be a disaster if you were out of reach for some hours?
I'm not indispensable, but those hours add up to a working day every week. I try to do something productive during that period, but sometimes it requires that I be able to talk to other people.
I've also had to schedule conference calls around participants that are getting on or off a plane. When you are working across four time zones (and that isn't even considering our European clients and employees), it can be hard to find a time that works for everyone.
Transit time can take a big bite out of my working day. Every thing I can accomplish (which includes phone calls) during that period is one less thing I have to do on my own time after I've landed.
So you see I have an SSL connection to a server, how do you know if I'm checking my webmail or checking my savings account?
Ah, I see your point. There are some well-known ports for SSL encyption of IMAP, SMTP, and POP3, but it's not always obvious that web access would be for webmail. However, the IP's are not encrypted by SSL, so they could have checked the server being referenced.
On the other hand, SSL/SSH tunneling and IPsec would conceal the IP addresses outside the tunnel, so it wouldn't be possible to conclusively identify the reason.
I don't doubt that most folks were using unencrypted POP3 connections, I just question the accuracy of the percentages they quote.
I think the percentages are probably correct (encrypted vs. non-encrypted). But, it may not be entirely correct to say that all of those people using end-to-end encryption were checking their email.
How can they tell how many people encrypted their email checking when you can't tell what goes over an encrypted link?
The WiFi links were unencrypted, having been provided by vendors at the show that set up open access points.
The question was whether the users implemented their own end-to-end encryption with their email servers, etc. via SSL, SSH, IPsec, or whatever. That's pretty easy to recognize.
GPS can't be used as a primary navigation device because it's not accurate or reliable enough.
Actually, GPS is accurate enough for navigation. It's accurate enough for an approach, but not necessarily a full landing landing. With differential GPS, it can be accurate enough for landing.
Reliability is another issue. That's the function of WAAS: monitor and ensure the integrity of the GPS signal, warning the user if it is out-of-spec.
There's a reason the autopilot cut-off switch is so prominent (by the pilot's thumb on a helicopter; big red button in a plane), which is because the pilot is the failsafe.
This is exactly right. Even in a non-autoland instrument approach, it's the non-flying pilot's job to monitor everything and call for an missed approach if all the criteria for a safe landing is not met.
Are there any situations where a real pilot would have a valid reason to override these controls ?
Yes.
In an emergency, a pilot needs all the options available, including landing at an airport that is not on the flight plan and near or in a large metropolitan city.
Once a major airport is built, a city usually springs up around it. Most of the major airports up and down the east coast would be closed to a pilot under these circumstances.
We already have enough trouble keeping the databases depicting prohibited and restricted airspace)in GPS's correct (and up-to-date. But, those are only used for advisories during navigation -- they don't control the airplane. Using an incorrect database to control the airplane would just compound the problem by an order of magnitude.
I've personally diverted from my flight plan several times and made precautionary landings, even without true emergencies. At least one of those was in a major metropolitan area.
This is a typical wet dream invented by people that don't know anything about flying an airplane. Some of them should spend some time talking to a professional pilot or even an instrument-rated private pilot and listen to their concerns, rather than discarding them as "hostile".
The redistricting attempt by the Republicans was an attempt to redraw the lines set by a Court a couple of years ago, because the Republicans and Democrats couldn't agree.
That's correct. At that time, the House was controlled by Democrats and the Senate by Republicans, so it went to court. A Democrat judge largely kept the current boundaries, adjusting them just enough to create two new Congressional districts.
Why is it ok for the Republicans to do it, if they think that it wasn't ok for the Democrats to do it?
It's politics. Democrats controlled Texas government for 130 years, since Reconstruction. However, Texas citizens didn't really become more Republican -- the Democrats (nationally) became less "Texan".
In 1964, there was only one elected Republican in the entire state government: a House Representative from Midland. Today, every statewide office holder is Republican, and Democrats are in the minority in both the House and the Senate. But, the Congressional delegation is still majority Democrat, due to the gerrymandering of districts engineered by Martin Frost in 1991.
I'm an independent. I think that gerrymandering districts by either party is outrageous. But, I also recognize that it's standard operating procedure by the party in power at the time. If the Democrats want to gerrymander the districts in their favor, they are going to have to win a bunch of elections.
However, the Democrats' tantrum certainly isn't going to help with that. There are about a dozen districts that voted majority Republican in the last election, but elected a Democrat to the Texas House -- usually a long-time incumbent. Popular opinion is heavily against the walkout, and those representatives are now vulnerable in the next election.
Stupid question. how on earth can any legislative system work if NOTHING is done for ALMOST TWO YEARS?!?!?!
The Texas Legislature convenes for approximately 5 months every two years. We like it that way. It limits the amount of potential damage.
If necessary, a special session can be called by the governor. We haven't had one since 1992, but it is almost certain there will be at least one special session (to address a specific issue) before the next election in 11/04.
This year, Oregon and Texas legislators introduced house and senate bills respectively supporting open-source software. Both legislative bills made their way to committee hearings, but the results differed significantly. Oregon's HB 2892 died. In Texas, SB 1579 found favor in the Committee and remains pending due to a walkout by approximately 50 members of the House.
It was left pending in committee on 5/8/2003, before 55 Democrats fled to Oklahoma on 5/11/2003 to break the quorum and prevent Republican gerrymandering of Congressional districts and replace Democrat gerrymandering of Congressional districts back in 1991.
It's not clear that the exodus actually prevented further action on the bill, but the legislative session ended on 6/2/2003. The next regular session will not start until January, 2005.
In 1939, in the Miller case, the Supreme Court ruled that it was legal to restrict ownership of certain weapons (in this case, a sawed-off shotgun).
Not exactly. From US v. Miller:
In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a âoeshotgun having a barrel of less that eighteen inches in lengthâ at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that is use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State, 2 Humphreys (Tenn.) 154, 158.
Aymette v. State actually concerned a concealed knife, not a firearm. Interestingly enough, there was another decision about the same time from either Tennessee or Kentucky that found that a miniature shotgun was a useful weapon for a militia.
And, on top of that, Aymette v. State turned on the presence of the phrase "for the common defense" in the Tennessee Constitution at that time. That particular phrase had been proposed and explicitly rejected by the US Senate during debates on the Bill of Rights. So, even that qualifier is questionable.
We are unable to accept the conclusion of the court below and the challenged judgement must be reversed. The cause will be remanded for further proceedings.
There are two key phrases here: "not within judicial notice" and "remanded for further proceedings". The former phrase means that the Court would not conclude that a sawed-off shotgun was or was not part of the ordinary military equiopment, because no one presented evidence to support it. The reason? It's at the beginning of the decision:
No appearance for appellees.
No one showed up on behalf of the defendants, leaving the US government to present their case unopposed. Had there been even a semi-competent defense, it would have been a non-issue, because the US Army was using sawed-off shotguns as late as the Vietnam conflict. They were common in the trench warfare of WWI, which preceded this decision in 1939.
That brings us to the latter phrase: "remanded for further proceedings". The case was supposed to go back to the lower court to determine if the firearm in question did indeed meet the criteria established by the court. But by this time, Miller was dead (under suspicious circumstances) and apparently the US Attorney quickly cut a deal with his co-defendant, Frank Layton, to avoid the embarrassment of having the conviction thrown out after an evidentiary hearing.
So, while US v. Miller did indeed set the criteria for restricting ownership of certain weapons, the criteria very clearly permits the firearms that the government now prohibits.
An honest reading of US v. Miller doesn't yield the interpretation that most attribute to it.
Slashdot Mirror
There are systems in use today that are used to train police (and others) in live-fire simulations. A string of photoelectric sensors line the top/bottom and sides of the screen, allowing the system to identify the impact point.
However, the system typically uses a thin plastic screen for projection of the video image, which deteriorates after use. This system would be a good replacement for it, although I don't know how long it would take to break-even on the costs.
In Dallas, you can see and use one:
http://www.dfwgun.com/InteractiveSystem.htm
and you can find more info about the system at:
http://www.ais-sim.com/PRISim/overview.html
No, they didn't.
Clinton received 43.09% of the popular vote in 1992.
Clinton received 49.24% of the popular vote in 1996.
Bush received 47.89% of the popular vote in 2000.
Gore received 48.38% of the popular vote in 2000.
Sources:
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_el ection,_1992 l ection,_1996
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_e
http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/fe2000/prespop.htm
Actually, it's not that tedious. Once you come up with the list of applications you want to install, it's a single command (albeit a long one). I've found that most of what I want will be installed by installing a PHP application and Mozilla -- the former will build all the web-related dependencies and the latter will build all the X-related dependencies.
Since you have various architectures, you can't build once and install the resulting package on all of your systems (unless you will settle for the lowest common denominator like i386), but the Portage system does allow you to retain the packages for use later or elsewhere.
I scrolled down through the replies and didn't see the answer. Apparently, I'm the only one old enough to remember.
Back in the regulatory monopoly days, the phone company was able to justify the additional tariff for an unlisted line because your lack of listing in the phone boock would purportedly generate more calls to directory assistance -- which was a free call.
Now, directory assistance calls are revenue generators, so the rationale has disappeared. But, the regulatory process moves slowly.
As I have it configured, all mail classified as Spam is redirected to another folder. SpamAssassin actually attaches the original message to a new message that explains why it was classified as spam and provides a plain-text excerpt of the first few lines of the original.
Periodically (usually every couple of days), I review the folder to see if any were legitimate messages. The subject lines are usually sufficient to recognize them. If not, the excerpt is enough. By attaching the original to the message generated by SpamAssassin, I can look at the excerpt without worrying about triggering any HTML image "bugs" that validate receipt of the message.
It only takes 15-20 seconds to look through a list of subjects, and I'm not interrupted by spam for the rest of the day.
No Compaq in the list.
I have one of the original Compaq "luggable" computers (serial #1555) when they were still limited to two 5-1/4" floppy drives.
I subsequently upgraded it to an XT-clone, with a giant (at the time) 10 megabyte drive. It was one of the first 3-1/2" hard drives, shock-mounted (with big rubber "feet") within a 5-1/4" enclosure.
I still have it, complete with the nylon carrying case. I dig it out once in a while and boot up DOS 3.3, just to boggle the mind of people who have never seen one.
I can now build a complete near-top-of-the-line computer for about 15% of what I paid for that thing, and that's not even accounting for inflation since the early 80's.
I've been wondering if Intel or AMD will release a 4.77 GHz processor, to commemorate how far we have progressed since the original 4.77 MHz 8088 processor in the first IBM PC.
If SpamAssassin did nothing but content analysis, that might work. But, SpamAssassin (by default) also checks several real-time blacklists and uses Bayesian filtering.
I've found that it's the combination of all of these factors that identifies almost every spam. I've had only two or three spams slip through in the 3-4 months since I installed SpamAssassin, with no false positives.
No, Private Payments simply gives you a temporary American Express card number that expires at the end of the month in which it was issued.
The charge is still posted under your name and all the usual billing information is required. The amount is debited from your existing account.
The idea is that you give an on-line merchant a "throw-away" credit card number, without potentially compromising your primary credit card number. It cannot be used after the expiration date.
Of course, the temporary number is valid until then. So, it doesn't eliminate fraud -- it just puts a time limit on it.
The phones appear to be still installed on most aircraft. American is apparently removing them during normal fleet maintenance of the cabin, rather than taking planes out of service to remove them.
I honestly don't remember seeing any signs although, granted, I probably paid no attention.
I misspoke: the sign is actually a "sticker", and a pretty small one at that. I've seen more than one with the sticker missing: perhaps they have been peeling off during cabin cleaning?
I don't disagree with that, but you originally posted: "The restriction against using cell phones aboard aircraft is not an FAA rule, it's an FCC rule."
The implication is there is no FAA rule against using cell phones on aircraft. That's not true, and I posted a correction, with the appropriate citation.
If the FCC rule was the only constraining factor, there would be no grounds to restrict cell-phone usage while the plane is taxiing on the ground. But, most airlines currently require phones to be turned off while the plane is enroute between the gate and the runway.
There are exceptions: I've been on many planes in "ground hold" (waiting on a side taxiway for clearance to depart) in which cell phone usage was allowed. But, people are generally allowed to get out of their seat during that time, too.
Continental has relaxed their policy a bit:
Under the new policy effective today, cellular phone use is permitted after landing when advised by the flight attendants. Previously, phone use was restricted until the aircraft door opened at the arrival gate. [...] The policy on telephone use at departure remains unchanged -- phone use must be discontinued when the cabin door is closed.
Why don't you try using an airphone on an American Airlines flight?
They have signs on them stating they were decommissioned on March 31, 2002. See the announcement here
The only American planes that still have operating phones are 767's and 777's that operate on international routes (with the occasional ferry flight in the US) -- which is why I added the "domestic" qualifier to my statement. At $5.00 to connect and $10.00/minute, they aren't exactly a bargain, although I did use one while enroute back from Japan to inquire about a family emergency.
There's an FCC rule explicitly addressing cell-phones, but that's not why the airlines are requiring you to turn off your phone during flight.
The FAA rule (for part 121 operations, i.e. the airlines):
Section 121.306
Portable electronic devices
The last provision is what gives the airline the option to allow you to use your electronic device during certain parts of the flight.
There are similar provisions in Part 91 (for general aviation) and Part 121 (charter) and Part 135 (commuter).
American Airlines decommissioned their airphones on domestic flights about two years ago.
It's really expensive, but that's good because it keeps people from using it for anything other than important calls.
No, they just kept people from using it often enough so the service could earn enough revenue to support itself. I never understood why the phone operators charged so much money -- perhaps the system capacity was so small they didn't want to encourage use of it.
I've had years like that, flying home every weekend and returning to the client's office on Monday.
Are all your flights transatlantic, or even longer?
Typically, mine are about 4 hours, from gate to gate. I've known a few people that fly from east to west coast and back (or vice versa) every weekend. That's about six hours, gate to gate. And, that doesn't include the two+ hours on both ends of the flight.
Are you so indespensible to your company that it would be a disaster if you were out of reach for some hours?
I'm not indispensable, but those hours add up to a working day every week. I try to do something productive during that period, but sometimes it requires that I be able to talk to other people.
I've also had to schedule conference calls around participants that are getting on or off a plane. When you are working across four time zones (and that isn't even considering our European clients and employees), it can be hard to find a time that works for everyone.
Transit time can take a big bite out of my working day. Every thing I can accomplish (which includes phone calls) during that period is one less thing I have to do on my own time after I've landed.
You just answered your question. I'm not particularly concerned about the contents of my email, either. But, POP3 sends the password in the clear.
That password is typically also the account password, giving the interceptor access to all of your services, while masquerading as you.
Ah, I see your point. There are some well-known ports for SSL encyption of IMAP, SMTP, and POP3, but it's not always obvious that web access would be for webmail. However, the IP's are not encrypted by SSL, so they could have checked the server being referenced.
On the other hand, SSL/SSH tunneling and IPsec would conceal the IP addresses outside the tunnel, so it wouldn't be possible to conclusively identify the reason.
I don't doubt that most folks were using unencrypted POP3 connections, I just question the accuracy of the percentages they quote.
I think the percentages are probably correct (encrypted vs. non-encrypted). But, it may not be entirely correct to say that all of those people using end-to-end encryption were checking their email.
http://www.washington.edu/imap/documentation/SSLBU ILD.html
I don't think it uses stunnel. I've also done forwarding of port 110 over SSH.
The WiFi links were unencrypted, having been provided by vendors at the show that set up open access points.
The question was whether the users implemented their own end-to-end encryption with their email servers, etc. via SSL, SSH, IPsec, or whatever. That's pretty easy to recognize.
Actually, GPS is accurate enough for navigation. It's accurate enough for an approach, but not necessarily a full landing landing. With differential GPS, it can be accurate enough for landing.
Reliability is another issue. That's the function of WAAS: monitor and ensure the integrity of the GPS signal, warning the user if it is out-of-spec.
There's a reason the autopilot cut-off switch is so prominent (by the pilot's thumb on a helicopter; big red button in a plane), which is because the pilot is the failsafe.
This is exactly right. Even in a non-autoland instrument approach, it's the non-flying pilot's job to monitor everything and call for an missed approach if all the criteria for a safe landing is not met.
Yes.
In an emergency, a pilot needs all the options available, including landing at an airport that is not on the flight plan and near or in a large metropolitan city.
Once a major airport is built, a city usually springs up around it. Most of the major airports up and down the east coast would be closed to a pilot under these circumstances.
We already have enough trouble keeping the databases depicting prohibited and restricted airspace)in GPS's correct (and up-to-date. But, those are only used for advisories during navigation -- they don't control the airplane. Using an incorrect database to control the airplane would just compound the problem by an order of magnitude.
I've personally diverted from my flight plan several times and made precautionary landings, even without true emergencies. At least one of those was in a major metropolitan area.
This is a typical wet dream invented by people that don't know anything about flying an airplane. Some of them should spend some time talking to a professional pilot or even an instrument-rated private pilot and listen to their concerns, rather than discarding them as "hostile".
That's correct. At that time, the House was controlled by Democrats and the Senate by Republicans, so it went to court. A Democrat judge largely kept the current boundaries, adjusting them just enough to create two new Congressional districts.
Why is it ok for the Republicans to do it, if they think that it wasn't ok for the Democrats to do it?
It's politics. Democrats controlled Texas government for 130 years, since Reconstruction. However, Texas citizens didn't really become more Republican -- the Democrats (nationally) became less "Texan".
In 1964, there was only one elected Republican in the entire state government: a House Representative from Midland. Today, every statewide office holder is Republican, and Democrats are in the minority in both the House and the Senate. But, the Congressional delegation is still majority Democrat, due to the gerrymandering of districts engineered by Martin Frost in 1991.
I'm an independent. I think that gerrymandering districts by either party is outrageous. But, I also recognize that it's standard operating procedure by the party in power at the time. If the Democrats want to gerrymander the districts in their favor, they are going to have to win a bunch of elections.
However, the Democrats' tantrum certainly isn't going to help with that. There are about a dozen districts that voted majority Republican in the last election, but elected a Democrat to the Texas House -- usually a long-time incumbent. Popular opinion is heavily against the walkout, and those representatives are now vulnerable in the next election.
The Texas Legislature convenes for approximately 5 months every two years. We like it that way. It limits the amount of potential damage.
If necessary, a special session can be called by the governor. We haven't had one since 1992, but it is almost certain there will be at least one special session (to address a specific issue) before the next election in 11/04.
The status of SB 1579 can be found here.
It was left pending in committee on 5/8/2003, before 55 Democrats fled to Oklahoma on 5/11/2003 to break the quorum and prevent Republican gerrymandering of Congressional districts and replace Democrat gerrymandering of Congressional districts back in 1991.
It's not clear that the exodus actually prevented further action on the bill, but the legislative session ended on 6/2/2003. The next regular session will not start until January, 2005.
I knew one a number of years ago. However, she thought she was God's gift to engineers.
I worked with another a few years ago. A nice lady, but way too young for me (unless I wanted a trophy wife).
Not exactly. From US v. Miller:
In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a âoeshotgun having a barrel of less that eighteen inches in lengthâ at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that is use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State, 2 Humphreys (Tenn.) 154, 158.
Aymette v. State actually concerned a concealed knife, not a firearm. Interestingly enough, there was another decision about the same time from either Tennessee or Kentucky that found that a miniature shotgun was a useful weapon for a militia.
And, on top of that, Aymette v. State turned on the presence of the phrase "for the common defense" in the Tennessee Constitution at that time. That particular phrase had been proposed and explicitly rejected by the US Senate during debates on the Bill of Rights. So, even that qualifier is questionable.
We are unable to accept the conclusion of the court below and the challenged judgement must be reversed. The cause will be remanded for further proceedings.
There are two key phrases here: "not within judicial notice" and "remanded for further proceedings". The former phrase means that the Court would not conclude that a sawed-off shotgun was or was not part of the ordinary military equiopment, because no one presented evidence to support it. The reason? It's at the beginning of the decision:
No appearance for appellees.
No one showed up on behalf of the defendants, leaving the US government to present their case unopposed. Had there been even a semi-competent defense, it would have been a non-issue, because the US Army was using sawed-off shotguns as late as the Vietnam conflict. They were common in the trench warfare of WWI, which preceded this decision in 1939.
That brings us to the latter phrase: "remanded for further proceedings". The case was supposed to go back to the lower court to determine if the firearm in question did indeed meet the criteria established by the court. But by this time, Miller was dead (under suspicious circumstances) and apparently the US Attorney quickly cut a deal with his co-defendant, Frank Layton, to avoid the embarrassment of having the conviction thrown out after an evidentiary hearing.
So, while US v. Miller did indeed set the criteria for restricting ownership of certain weapons, the criteria very clearly permits the firearms that the government now prohibits.
An honest reading of US v. Miller doesn't yield the interpretation that most attribute to it.