Hence my use of "stupid". If I recall correctly, there was nothing stopping you from exporting a cryptography algorithm if it was PRINTED as that was decided to be a form of free speech.
There's been arguments over that for a long time. But, as has been pointed out many times, by the writing style of the time, the 1st part would definitely have been a restriction or condition for the second clause.
Let's hope so. I'm very disgusted with the attitude of most who slavishly defend the 2nd amendment; they typically are also the champions of "personal responsibility", except where their own actions are concerned, it would appear.
You're the one who threw in the towel while accusing me of hand-waving. Go re-read your own post, if your short-term memory is deficient: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2934847&cid=40432491 I've been on Slashdot a LONG time - even longer than my UID suggests. I'm not the one, er, pulling out.
Even if the basis for the law is sound, it's still stupid ( and I'm not picking on Apple). These devices are widely available all over the world and I don't think proof of citizenship has ever been required to purchase one.
How covenient of you to point to a recent 5-4 SCOTUS ruling that went your way.
Why aren't mentioning the 1997 decision that went 5-4 against or the 1939 decision, also against, that voted 8-0?
It's ludicrous that the top court, after 200 years hasn't given a completely clear definition of well-regulated militia.
If the military is such a staunch defender of individual freedom then a bunch of open-carrying yahoos isn't going to save society.
The military at least meets the definition of a well-regulated militia.
Arizona's easy acces to guns didn't help Gabby Giffords or the others who were killed or wounded by Jared Loughner. There were more than a few armed among the bystanders but the only one, Joe Zamudio, with the prescence of mind to actually take out his weapon nearly shot the wrong man - an UNARMED civilian who'd wrested away the shooter's weapon.
In my opinion ( and others), the 2nd amendment is wildly and widely misunderstood.
I'm including in parentheses the part that gets dropped by most supporters when they point to its constitutionality
(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.
That 1st part is as important as the much-touted 2nd part.
A bunch of Rambo wannabes packing heat and shouting about their rights does NOT constitute a well-regulated militia.
I agree that an armed citizenry has a somewhat better chance of toppling a government but it's been done without guns before. But even if the government were to turn tyrannical, open-carrying doesn't pass the smell-test.
Let's say Obama woke up tomorrow fully possessed by Hitler, Stalin and Attila, how will your pistol or shotgun help in the short term? They have helicopters, tanks, control of the ulitities, etc. Hacker skills would go a lot further fighting against the gov't than trying to pit your Magnum against a 50-cal.
Remember the attack helicopter footage from Iraq, where they shot up a bunch of civilians who they thought were armed? Those guys were a MILE away at several hundred feet (or more) difference in elevation and just ONE chopper took them all out in seconds.
To go up against Obama's communist regime, you'll need a lot more than what the law currently permits. Also, the 2nd amendment doesn't specify GUNS or even FIREarms. The gov't could restrict you to only clubs, crossbows and slingshots - or muskets without "infringing your rights"
My point was not to answer your question but to point out that this man should never have been taken seriously.
Now, for your question about climate models, do you mean predict "past WEATHER" or "past CLIMATE". Please clarify.
In any case, it's a difficult subject and I'm not an expert. I'll start you off with one link and you can befriend Google for the rest - but I suspect you already know where to look.
I've been on this site for much longer than you. If anything, the amount of radical rightwingnuttiness is a primary contributing factor in Slashdot's decline.
There is not a confirmed single cause for the Little Ice Age which started before and finished well after the Sporer and Maunder Minima. Volcanos are likely factors as well as reduced insolation.
If there ZERO GHGs in the atmosphere, the Earth would be too cold for life as we know it ( well, too cold for us ), even if our orbit were perfectly regular and if insolation was constant at the max irradiation we've experienced in the last few millennia. If we are able to cause a significant change to the concentration of GHGs, partcularly long-lived ones, we are potentially capable of affecting global climate.
Who is liable if we RAISE the temp by several degrees?
Lovelock was always out on the far extremes and the serious, thoughtful scientists were never in his camp. Not Hansen, not Schneider, not Santer, not Alley nor even Jones and Mann.
Slashdot Mirror
We need spice!! Call me when we find a desert planet populated by giant worms.
Have you ever heard Hansen speak? He's not a comedian; very deliberate and morose.
Hence my use of "stupid". If I recall correctly, there was nothing stopping you from exporting a cryptography algorithm if it was PRINTED as that was decided to be a form of free speech.
Yet they couldn't prevent a bunch of hardline towelheads from dragging their country back to the Stone Age and abusing their wives and daughters?
Just sayin'......
There's been arguments over that for a long time. But, as has been pointed out many times, by the writing style of the time, the 1st part would definitely have been a restriction or condition for the second clause.
Let's hope so.
I'm very disgusted with the attitude of most who slavishly defend the 2nd amendment; they typically are also the champions of "personal responsibility", except where their own actions are concerned, it would appear.
They are 2 of the 5 permanent members on the Security Council; I'll let you find out for yourself exactly what that means.
iPads are made in China and sold in Russia - neither of these countries can be strong-armed by America or Apple.
Everyone's deserves to have their say. I can't dismiss him until I establish where he's coming from.
It's amusing how quick some are to resort to that as a defense, when the ruling goes their way.
You're the one who threw in the towel while accusing me of hand-waving. Go re-read your own post, if your short-term memory is deficient:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2934847&cid=40432491
I've been on Slashdot a LONG time - even longer than my UID suggests.
I'm not the one, er, pulling out.
Don't agree. The meaning is clear.
You're welcome.
Try to be more adept next time before conceding.
Even if the basis for the law is sound, it's still stupid ( and I'm not picking on Apple).
These devices are widely available all over the world and I don't think proof of citizenship has ever been required to purchase one.
How covenient of you to point to a recent 5-4 SCOTUS ruling that went your way.
Why aren't mentioning the 1997 decision that went 5-4 against or the 1939 decision, also against, that voted 8-0?
It's ludicrous that the top court, after 200 years hasn't given a completely clear definition of well-regulated militia.
If the military is such a staunch defender of individual freedom then a bunch of open-carrying yahoos isn't going to save society.
The military at least meets the definition of a well-regulated militia.
Arizona's easy acces to guns didn't help Gabby Giffords or the others who were killed or wounded by Jared Loughner. There were more than a few armed among the bystanders but the only one, Joe Zamudio, with the prescence of mind to actually take out his weapon nearly shot the wrong man - an UNARMED civilian who'd wrested away the shooter's weapon.
Read my followup comment below
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2934847&cid=40431787
In my opinion ( and others), the 2nd amendment is wildly and widely misunderstood.
I'm including in parentheses the part that gets dropped by most supporters when they point to its constitutionality
(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.
That 1st part is as important as the much-touted 2nd part.
A bunch of Rambo wannabes packing heat and shouting about their rights does NOT constitute a well-regulated militia.
I agree that an armed citizenry has a somewhat better chance of toppling a government but it's been done without guns before.
But even if the government were to turn tyrannical, open-carrying doesn't pass the smell-test.
Let's say Obama woke up tomorrow fully possessed by Hitler, Stalin and Attila, how will your pistol or shotgun help in the short term?
They have helicopters, tanks, control of the ulitities, etc. Hacker skills would go a lot further fighting against the gov't than trying to pit your Magnum against a 50-cal.
Remember the attack helicopter footage from Iraq, where they shot up a bunch of civilians who they thought were armed?
Those guys were a MILE away at several hundred feet (or more) difference in elevation and just ONE chopper took them all out in seconds.
To go up against Obama's communist regime, you'll need a lot more than what the law currently permits.
Also, the 2nd amendment doesn't specify GUNS or even FIREarms. The gov't could restrict you to only clubs, crossbows and slingshots - or muskets without "infringing your rights"
My point was not to answer your question but to point out that this man should never have been taken seriously.
Now, for your question about climate models, do you mean predict "past WEATHER" or "past CLIMATE". Please clarify.
In any case, it's a difficult subject and I'm not an expert. I'll start you off with one link and you can befriend Google for the rest - but I suspect you already know where to look.
http://blogs.edf.org/climate411/2007/07/18/models_how_good/
You're cherrypicking.
Try posting the entire sentence, not just part of it, e.g.:
"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"
I've been on this site for much longer than you. If anything, the amount of radical rightwingnuttiness is a primary contributing factor in Slashdot's decline.
You haven't heard of the 1st amendment?
Hint: It precedes the 2nd amendment you're so zealous about.
There is not a confirmed single cause for the Little Ice Age which started before and finished well after the Sporer and Maunder Minima. Volcanos are likely factors as well as reduced insolation.
If there ZERO GHGs in the atmosphere, the Earth would be too cold for life as we know it ( well, too cold for us ), even if our orbit were perfectly regular and if insolation was constant at the max irradiation we've experienced in the last few millennia.
If we are able to cause a significant change to the concentration of GHGs, partcularly long-lived ones, we are potentially capable of affecting global climate.
Who is liable if we RAISE the temp by several degrees?
Getting rid of all the ACs would be a good 1st step.
Lovelock was always out on the far extremes and the serious, thoughtful scientists were never in his camp. Not Hansen, not Schneider, not Santer, not Alley nor even Jones and Mann.
I wouldn't be so quick to sound the death knell for GM. Some of the companies in the industry have been producing killer crap for a long time.