Where in the 2nd Amendment do you read the phrase "state militia"? Those two words have some considerable verbage between them, and they're in a different order, in that Amendement.
Further, the amendment states "the right of the people to keep and bear arms", not "the right of the militia" etc.
But read the actual judgement in case cited. You'll find some words don't mean what you think they mean. (The language evolves.)
Here's your original claim: "the White House reduced anti-terrorism money on September 10, 2001"
Here's your revised claim: "'On September 10, 2001, Attorney-General John Ashcroft submitted a Justice Department budget that reduced by $58 million...' [...] then the intent of the Bush administration was to reduce resources to use against terrorism."
Intent to ask Congress to reduce funding for something is not the same thing as actually cutting that money. Furthermore, your quotes don't present the whole picture: is that $58M proposed reduction a reduction from previous year's budget, or a reduction of the increase in the next year's budget? I don't have the numbers in front of me, so I don't know -- but I do know that it's a common, sloppy, and sometimes intentionally misleading habit of the press and the left to paint a reduction in a proposed increase (which is still an increase) as simply "a reduction".
(Oh, and as for "Presidents often decide not to spend certain funds.", I think you'll find that in some (not all) cases that turns out to be against the law. Various congresscritters got tired of some Presidents not doling out all the pork they'd allocated.)
and have the City, County, State, Etc. case against you thrown out or dismissed?
And just what in the world do Federal laws have to do with anything the City, County or State is likely to take you to court for? You break Federal laws, you go to Federal court. Try that argument there and see how far you get.
Iv'e done it many times,
You seem to get yourself into trouble with the law quite a bit, it seems. You're either morally bankrupt or so stupid you get caught every time you break the law. And we should listen to you?
Kerry maybe liberal, but he is in no way the most liberal person in the senate.
I didn't say that. I said: "Kerry's voting record in the Senate is even further left than Ted Kennedy's." There are a couple of whackos in the senate even further left than Teddy K.
As for the left-leaning links you provide, they only mention the voting record for '03 -- when Kerry was admittedly on the campaign trail and perhaps sensitive to his voting record. He's been a Senator for a lot longer than just that one year. Check the whole record.
Yes. Before running the it the first way (stdout is the terminal), you need to wait until your system's process id counter is in the low 11100s -- check by using ps, top, or similar. That will ensure you get the "Returned 11111" output. (You might need to try it a few times.)
Similarly before running it with the output directed to tmp, wait for the highest PID numbers returned by ps to get up to around 22218 before running it.
Of course, if you don't care if your forked process IDs are exactly 11111 or 22222 as per the example, you can just ignore the actual values.
bypassing the fact that shooting someone was a crime punishable by death
"You can prove anything if you make up your facts."
Murder was a crime punishable by death. Shooting someone in defense of self or, in most cases, other people or property was considered entirely justified, and in some places, civic duty.
Heck, duelling was tolerated, if not strictly legal.
And you seem to be forgetting the little unpleasantness of 1861-1865, which came about in part because of several southern States attempting to adhere to that interpretation.
The ACLU agrees with the Supreme Court's long-standing interpretation of the Second Amendment [as set forth in the 1939 case, U.S. v. Miller] that the individual's right to bear arms applies only to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia.
They're being a bit disingenuous with that. IIRC, that case had to do with posession of a sawed-off shotgun, which the Supreme Court ruled had "no military use" (not strictly true, but we'll stipulate it for now) and so could be banned within the restrictions of the 2nd Amendment.
By that logic, however, the ban against "assault rifles" (or anything that looks like it might be one) is unconstitutional, since assault rifles clearly have a military use.
Of course, ACLU's whole interpretation of the 2nd as only allowing for a "collective right" is bogus: the phrase "the right of the people" in the 2nd's "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" refers exactly as much to individual rights as it does in the 4th's "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures".
Matter of fact, the White House reduced anti-terrorism money on September 10, 2001. Kinda funny that.
Kinda bullshit, that.
The Congress controls the purse strings, not the White House, and indeed can force the Administration to spend money it doesn't want to. The President does not have a line-item veto.
John Kerry is "Bush Lite". Conservatives shouldn't have any trouble voting for him.
So sayeth the official party line.
The truth is that Kerry's voting record in the Senate is even further left than Ted Kennedy's. Conservatives may not like Bush, but they'd definitely not like Kerry. Conservatives screwed themselves in '92 by voting against Bush the Elder (pissed at him for reneging on his "no new taxes" pledge) and letting Perot split the vote, with Clinton winning the election (with less than half the vote).
At first I just copied para C, then decided to add text to clarify where it came from -- and goofed that up. It's actually Section 2, Para C.
Here's the section 2 intro:
2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion
of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and
distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1
above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions:
3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it,
under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
[a & b skipped]
c) If the modified program normally reads commands interactively
when run, you must cause it, when started running for such
interactive use in the most ordinary way, to print or display an
announcement including an appropriate copyright notice and a
notice that there is no warranty (or else, saying that you provide
a warranty) and that users may redistribute the program under
these conditions, and telling the user how to view a copy of this
License.
I don't know if Sun is violating the letter of the GPL, but it sounds like they might be violating the spirit.
That's more-or-less true for high radiation doses. For lower doses, you body can repair some of the damage caused so you can survive (X - (Y-R)) where R is the amount repaired.
Heck, there's evidence that low dose radiation (up to a point) is more beneficial than zero radiation, because it cranks up the body's repair mechanisms which also go to work on other problems (viruses, toxins, etc).
Not that any of this is very precise -- the effects of a given dose of radiation, like other things, will vary on the mass and general health of the individual, how well their body handles damage, level of antioxidants in their system, etc.
the Pons-Fleischman experiment was simple enough to replicate,
Ah, but that was the catch. It sounded simple to replicate -- stick a palladium electrode electrolysis setup in some heavy water and run the whole thing in a calorimeter -- but the devil turned out to be in the details.
For one, precise calorimetry at that level is actually pretty hard -- Pons & Fleischman were old hands at it but it's not something your typical physicist does much of.
More significantly, it may be (judging by the replication attempts that seem to show results) that the setup is far more sensitive to uncontrolled variables like the manufacture method, exact composition (impurities, crystal structure etc) and the like of the electrode than P-F were aware.
There have been a lot of interesting results with various setups reported over the years, just not in the premier journals. The whole field acquired a bit of a stigma after the P&F furor.
One proposed explanation at the time for the missing neutrons (or as Jerry Pournelle put it, the "dead graduate student problem" -- the problem being that there weren't any dead grad students) was that the reaction path was largely the one that doesn't produce neutrons (I forget the exact pathway now - haven't finished morning coffee). Of course, since in normal fusion this path is taken only a small fraction of the time, that leaves the question of how the reaction pathway is being influenced.
If the latter were really possible, it'd be more exciting than just cold fusion.
It's per unit of power. In fact, were the extraction process easy, we'd get more energy out of coal by using its thorium content in a nuclear reactor than we do by burning the carbon. As it is, the thorium ends up as part of the coal ash (and the flue gases).
Per KWH, coal plants are far dirtier than nuke plants -- in all senses of the word "dirtier".
No reason why not. There are already Perl and Python bindings for Qt (PerlQt and PyQt), as well as Ruby and Java bindings. Dropping it down to the Parrot level does make some sense (use a subclassed PyQt object from Perl, say?)
Re:Qt is almost a like a language
on
A Taste of Qt 4
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
The 'moc' tool even brings extra features to C++ that normally don't exist.
This of course also means total unportability.
Shrug.
Once a body of application code is married to a GUI toolkit or class library, it's pretty tough to port it to anything else (different toolkit or classlib) anyway. A few extra keywords like slots, signals and the new foreach don't make that much difference, they're just syntactic sugar (but oh so sweet) for stuff that can be implemented in other ways.
The dialog at the end of your parent message is from the end of Jeff Wayne's musical version of "The War Of The Worlds". (Which has had mixed reviews but I rather enjoy.)
That's one sillyass way of doing it, the way you'd expect ancient telco engineers steeped in the way of old electromechanical switches to come up with.
Another way to handle it is, if user A at telco T switches to telco Q, set A's number in T to forward the call to some new (but unrevealed to the world at large) number in Q's domain, which broadcasts to A's phone. It's not like the phone number is actually stored in the phone.
Okay, you chew through phone numbers faster that way, but that's a known quantity.
Think of it as setting up a.forward in my old IBM email address to send to MCI. Phone numbers haven't mapped directly to physical wire connections in years -- and never for wireless phones.
Not 256 chars, like most *nix systems, but 14 chars, which is enough for most uses.
Actually Unix filenames were originally limited to 14 chars too. 14 chars for filename plus 2 bytes for an inode number gave a nice 16-byte size chunk so you could fit an integral number of them into a block of a directory file. Stuff like that was important back in the day when disk drives of more than a few megabytes were both physically and fiscally huge.
In fact, rammed earth walls are so durable that some of them are still standing after 5000 years of rain/wind/hail etc. (emphasis added)
What you don't see after 5000 years is all the hundreds of thousands of mud (rammed earth, etc) buildings that didn't stand up to five millenia of rain/wind/hail etc. There are some mud hills in the middle east that were pretty amazing structures in their day.
I've heard similar marvelling over how the stone work of the Incas has amazingly survived some pretty severe earthquakes. Yes, the stuff that's still standing is pretty darn impressive (I've seen quite a bit of it first hand), what you don't see or hear about is the rubble where some of that stonework didn't stand up to the quakes.
Don't judge any technology by its successes unless you also know of its failures.
Slashdot Mirror
Where in the 2nd Amendment do you read the phrase "state militia"? Those two words have some considerable verbage between them, and they're in a different order, in that Amendement.
Further, the amendment states "the right of the people to keep and bear arms", not "the right of the militia" etc.
But read the actual judgement in case cited. You'll find some words don't mean what you think they mean. (The language evolves.)
So you admit your original claim was bullshit.
...' [...] then the intent of the Bush administration was to reduce resources to use against terrorism."
Here's your original claim: "the White House reduced anti-terrorism money on September 10, 2001"
Here's your revised claim: "'On September 10, 2001, Attorney-General John Ashcroft submitted a Justice Department budget that reduced by $58 million
Intent to ask Congress to reduce funding for something is not the same thing as actually cutting that money. Furthermore, your quotes don't present the whole picture: is that $58M proposed reduction a reduction from previous year's budget, or a reduction of the increase in the next year's budget? I don't have the numbers in front of me, so I don't know -- but I do know that it's a common, sloppy, and sometimes intentionally misleading habit of the press and the left to paint a reduction in a proposed increase (which is still an increase) as simply "a reduction".
(Oh, and as for "Presidents often decide not to spend certain funds.", I think you'll find that in some (not all) cases that turns out to be against the law. Various congresscritters got tired of some Presidents not doling out all the pork they'd allocated.)
and have the City, County, State, Etc. case against you thrown out or dismissed?
And just what in the world do Federal laws have to do with anything the City, County or State is likely to take you to court for? You break Federal laws, you go to Federal court. Try that argument there and see how far you get.
Iv'e done it many times,
You seem to get yourself into trouble with the law quite a bit, it seems. You're either morally bankrupt or so stupid you get caught every time you break the law. And we should listen to you?
so laugh all you want.
Thank you, I shall.
Kerry maybe liberal, but he is in no way the most liberal person in the senate.
I didn't say that. I said: "Kerry's voting record in the Senate is even further left than Ted Kennedy's." There are a couple of whackos in the senate even further left than Teddy K.
As for the left-leaning links you provide, they only mention the voting record for '03 -- when Kerry was admittedly on the campaign trail and perhaps sensitive to his voting record. He's been a Senator for a lot longer than just that one year. Check the whole record.
Am i doing something wrong?
Yes. Before running the it the first way (stdout is the terminal), you need to wait until your system's process id counter is in the low 11100s -- check by using ps, top, or similar. That will ensure you get the "Returned 11111" output. (You might need to try it a few times.)
Similarly before running it with the output directed to tmp, wait for the highest PID numbers returned by ps to get up to around 22218 before running it.
Of course, if you don't care if your forked process IDs are exactly 11111 or 22222 as per the example, you can just ignore the actual values.
(Which I assume (hope!) you knew.)
bypassing the fact that shooting someone was a crime punishable by death
"You can prove anything if you make up your facts."
Murder was a crime punishable by death. Shooting someone in defense of self or, in most cases, other people or property was considered entirely justified, and in some places, civic duty.
Heck, duelling was tolerated, if not strictly legal.
And you seem to be forgetting the little unpleasantness of 1861-1865, which came about in part because of several southern States attempting to adhere to that interpretation.
Oh yeah, they lost.
The ACLU agrees with the Supreme Court's long-standing interpretation of the Second Amendment [as set forth in the 1939 case, U.S. v. Miller] that the individual's right to bear arms applies only to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia.
They're being a bit disingenuous with that. IIRC, that case had to do with posession of a sawed-off shotgun, which the Supreme Court ruled had "no military use" (not strictly true, but we'll stipulate it for now) and so could be banned within the restrictions of the 2nd Amendment.
By that logic, however, the ban against "assault rifles" (or anything that looks like it might be one) is unconstitutional, since assault rifles clearly have a military use.
Of course, ACLU's whole interpretation of the 2nd as only allowing for a "collective right" is bogus: the phrase "the right of the people" in the 2nd's "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" refers exactly as much to individual rights as it does in the 4th's "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures".
Matter of fact, the White House reduced anti-terrorism money on September 10, 2001. Kinda funny that.
Kinda bullshit, that.
The Congress controls the purse strings, not the White House, and indeed can force the Administration to spend money it doesn't want to. The President does not have a line-item veto.
John Kerry is "Bush Lite". Conservatives shouldn't have any trouble voting for him.
So sayeth the official party line.
The truth is that Kerry's voting record in the Senate is even further left than Ted Kennedy's. Conservatives may not like Bush, but they'd definitely not like Kerry. Conservatives screwed themselves in '92 by voting against Bush the Elder (pissed at him for reneging on his "no new taxes" pledge) and letting Perot split the vote, with Clinton winning the election (with less than half the vote).
Clarke's Second Law: "The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible."
At first I just copied para C, then decided to add text to clarify where it came from -- and goofed that up. It's actually Section 2, Para C.
Here's the section 2 intro:
Sorry about that.
I don't know if Sun is violating the letter of the GPL, but it sounds like they might be violating the spirit.
That's more-or-less true for high radiation doses. For lower doses, you body can repair some of the damage caused so you can survive (X - (Y-R)) where R is the amount repaired.
Heck, there's evidence that low dose radiation (up to a point) is more beneficial than zero radiation, because it cranks up the body's repair mechanisms which also go to work on other problems (viruses, toxins, etc).
Not that any of this is very precise -- the effects of a given dose of radiation, like other things, will vary on the mass and general health of the individual, how well their body handles damage, level of antioxidants in their system, etc.
the Pons-Fleischman experiment was simple enough to replicate,
Ah, but that was the catch. It sounded simple to replicate -- stick a palladium electrode electrolysis setup in some heavy water and run the whole thing in a calorimeter -- but the devil turned out to be in the details.
For one, precise calorimetry at that level is actually pretty hard -- Pons & Fleischman were old hands at it but it's not something your typical physicist does much of.
More significantly, it may be (judging by the replication attempts that seem to show results) that the setup is far more sensitive to uncontrolled variables like the manufacture method, exact composition (impurities, crystal structure etc) and the like of the electrode than P-F were aware.
There have been a lot of interesting results with various setups reported over the years, just not in the premier journals. The whole field acquired a bit of a stigma after the P&F furor.
One proposed explanation at the time for the missing neutrons (or as Jerry Pournelle put it, the "dead graduate student problem" -- the problem being that there weren't any dead grad students) was that the reaction path was largely the one that doesn't produce neutrons (I forget the exact pathway now - haven't finished morning coffee). Of course, since in normal fusion this path is taken only a small fraction of the time, that leaves the question of how the reaction pathway is being influenced.
If the latter were really possible, it'd be more exciting than just cold fusion.
All senses of the word? Do coal plants make obscene gestures?
More than nuke plants do, anyway. Ever notice how that smokestack looks like a raised middle finger?
It's per unit of power. In fact, were the extraction process easy, we'd get more energy out of coal by using its thorium content in a nuclear reactor than we do by burning the carbon. As it is, the thorium ends up as part of the coal ash (and the flue gases).
Per KWH, coal plants are far dirtier than nuke plants -- in all senses of the word "dirtier".
i remember in the good old days of the internet, we used 2 cans and some string
You had string?! We used to dream of string. We had to do wi' avian carriers, and be glad of it.
No reason why not. There are already Perl and Python bindings for Qt (PerlQt and PyQt), as well as Ruby and Java bindings. Dropping it down to the Parrot level does make some sense (use a subclassed PyQt object from Perl, say?)
The 'moc' tool even brings extra features to C++ that normally don't exist.
This of course also means total unportability.
Shrug.
Once a body of application code is married to a GUI toolkit or class library, it's pretty tough to port it to anything else (different toolkit or classlib) anyway. A few extra keywords like slots, signals and the new foreach don't make that much difference, they're just syntactic sugar (but oh so sweet) for stuff that can be implemented in other ways.
The dialog at the end of your parent message is from the end of Jeff Wayne's musical version of "The War Of The Worlds". (Which has had mixed reviews but I rather enjoy.)
That's one sillyass way of doing it, the way you'd expect ancient telco engineers steeped in the way of old electromechanical switches to come up with.
.forward in my old IBM email address to send to MCI. Phone numbers haven't mapped directly to physical wire connections in years -- and never for wireless phones.
Another way to handle it is, if user A at telco T switches to telco Q, set A's number in T to forward the call to some new (but unrevealed to the world at large) number in Q's domain, which broadcasts to A's phone. It's not like the phone number is actually stored in the phone.
Okay, you chew through phone numbers faster that way, but that's a known quantity.
Think of it as setting up a
Not 256 chars, like most *nix systems, but 14 chars, which is enough for most uses.
Actually Unix filenames were originally limited to 14 chars too. 14 chars for filename plus 2 bytes for an inode number gave a nice 16-byte size chunk so you could fit an integral number of them into a block of a directory file. Stuff like that was important back in the day when disk drives of more than a few megabytes were both physically and fiscally huge.
In fact, rammed earth walls are so durable that some of them are still standing after 5000 years of rain/wind/hail etc. (emphasis added)
What you don't see after 5000 years is all the hundreds of thousands of mud (rammed earth, etc) buildings that didn't stand up to five millenia of rain/wind/hail etc. There are some mud hills in the middle east that were pretty amazing structures in their day.
I've heard similar marvelling over how the stone work of the Incas has amazingly survived some pretty severe earthquakes. Yes, the stuff that's still standing is pretty darn impressive (I've seen quite a bit of it first hand), what you don't see or hear about is the rubble where some of that stonework didn't stand up to the quakes.
Don't judge any technology by its successes unless you also know of its failures.