The militia is not the nation's military, they are two separate bodies. The language of the second amendment reads:
"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."
While I agree that a "regulated militia" may refer to a state run militia (ie. National Guard in modern terms); it does not indicate that simply the militia should be allowed to keep and bear arms. They could have worded it as such if that was their intent. However, they specifically say "the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms." - which to me is extraordinarily clear language. Again, given the context of the Bill of Rights; given the context of the political and social climate of the time of the framing; given the words of the Founding Fathers themselves (which are VERY clear on this issue); and given that the PEOPLE themselves are the power of the Constitution - I see no other way to interpret this other than to say that the PEOPLE should be allowed to keep and bear arms - again, as a hedge against government tyranny and to provide for a good national defense. A state run militia is still a government run military entity. And while that may provide a hedge against federal tyranny, it does not protect the people themselves against potential tyranny from the state government - why would they provide protection in one sense but still not solve the problem of governmental tyranny as a whole? So again it would seem somewhat against the grain for anything other than the PEOPLE being allowed to keep and bear arms to be the intended meaning of the Second Amendment.
What kind of military WOULDN'T bear arms? I can't imagine what the founding fathers would have been thinking by including language to ensure that the nation's military had arms. They included this in the Bill of Rights which, to me anyway, would make sense to be for regular, ordinary citizens - not specifically for individuals involved in the military. It makes better sense given the social and political climate of the time that they intended for the citizens themselves to be armed as a hedge against government tyranny. After all, it's harder for a government to oppress a people if those people are armed. Meanings other than that one don't seem to fit the overall mood of the rest of the Constitution as it was originally written. Nor do they fit in a purely historical sense. I just don't see precedent for a mindset in the founding fathers that would indicate that they DIDN'T intend average citizens to keep and bear arms.
This assertion being made by these lawyers seems a bit ridiculous to me.
*This message not endorsed by the NRA or its affiliates*
If we stick to that kind of methodology and thinking about our Presidents, Clinton will have been the first in a long line of impeached Presidents. Hang on for the ride. Also, we should retroactively condemn every other previous President that took similar measures during their time in office. I have no idea why we start here with Bush on this stuff while none of the past Presidents are crucified in the same light. Not liking him is no reason for impeachment. If you're going to find something that other presidents have done without persecution to impeach Bush for then you can expect the same game to go down in 2009 and probably on from there. Anytime one group of people doesn't like the person in office, it's impeachment time. It happened to Clinton; it's happening to Bush; why not make it a standing order. Sounds like a real blast to me. There will always be a current president. There will always be someething to impeach them for. There will always be some group who wants them impeached. Sounds like a recipe for fun.
It seems pretty clear that people would rather act like terrorism doesn't exist and that 9/11 was simply a fluke. Nothing like that will ever happen again. We don't have to take any action - none is necessary.
Funny how even though they were actually capturing voice conversations and full email contents under Clinton, it was totally fine. In fact, the NY Times lauded it as a necessary measure during this day and age. But now that Bush is simply watching the numbers we dial and receive phone calls from it's an impeachable offense. Check THIS out: http://cryptome.org/echelon-60min.htm It's a transcript of a 60 minutes segment on Project Echelon from 2000 - which was obviously before Bush took office in January of 2001. Somehow I imagine that people are going to draw the amazing conclusion that Bush is responsible for Echelon as well as Carnivore during the 90's even though he wasn't President...
So with Clinton it's ok... with Bush it's impeachment and all the while people are allowed to show blatant disregard for the law leaking our national secrets with no fear of imprisonment. Apparently it's our wonderful members of Congress who are above the law (yes I'm talking to you Jay Rockefeller) - not the President. In fact I'd be impressed for someone to prove to me that the powers given to the Executive branch don't allow for the President to approve warrantless wiretaps as a matter of national security. And remember - this is not the first time that the President of our country has chosen to impede on individual privacy for the sake of national security. Ask the Japanese Americans thrown into concentration camps during WWII under Roosevelt. Clinton, Carter, Roosevelt, even Washington and others have taken these kinds of steps.
Don't get your panties all in wad... I've read 1984 too. And believe me, I'm not interested in a police state either. I understand the whole "frog boiling in water" premise in that over time things can be eroded to the point that they are totally gone. But let's not take the slightest movement in that direction as doom and gloom. The President is responsible for protecting the security of this country. Not you. He is the one who we will point to if and when terrorists attack us again. From what I've heard of these programs in the NSA, I think they are the best balance we can hope for between finding terrorists in his country *before* they commit another attack and our individual rights as citizens. It's been almost five years since 9/11. I don't think that the terrorists just gave up. I think they would love to continue to terrorize us and our way of life. And I think these NSA programs and whatever else Bush has been doing have obviously led to these discussions over privacy vs security instead of discussions about the latest terrorist attack and when the next one will come.
If you really really have a problem with the government doing anything to impede on your privacy you can always move somewhere else. Unlike other countries, you are free to leave this one at any time.
This experiment sounds very much like an experiment used to show that light not only acts like a particle but also as a wave. I have not performed this experiment myself but it sounds as if the patterns produced on the wall are produced by the light being bent as it passes through the slits and displaying a wave pattern. Much like the way water would behave if a wave passed through a narrow opening into a broader area - it would spread out. Perhaps what is happening in this experiment is simply two of the waves cancelling each other out completely. That would explain why two of the patterns disappear.
But of course, I'm not a physicist nor have I ever studied particle theory or quantum mechanics. So maybe I'm off-base.
http://www.onamerica.com has an article on intellectual property that may be of interest to this discussion. Perhaps the author could appear to represent Napster.
Let's assume this is completely true. What bearing should it have on Bush's campaign?
I have a problem with things like this popping up during elections. This story happened 29 years ago. I think it would be absurd to think that people don't have changes of opinion over time. And 29 years is a lot of time.
If someone runs for office, must we impose that they must have had their current beliefs for their entire lives? There are a myriad of things that could have led him to this type of decision ranging from her insistance on not having it to him just selfishly not wanting to have a baby. We will never know the truth. Never.
So how should voters treat it then? It's completely possible that this exact experience is what led him to have a pro-life stance on abortion. Or perhaps he did believe in pro-choice during that time and then later after he "cleaned" his life up he changed to pro-life. Isn't he allowed to change over 29 years? Or did he lose the right to his own opinion when we announced his intentions to run for President?
This is the kind of bullshit that really annoys me about election campaigns. Sure, if he's saying he's pro-life and then get's some girl pregnant and makes her get an abortion DURING the campaign or sometime after he's announced that he's pro-life then that's a serious issue. But stop this crap of bringing up every little thing about a person's history to try and smear a candidate.
In my opinion this type of story has no relevance on Mr. Bush's campaign.
Do NOT forget to vote tomorrow. Do NOT skip voting and give some tired old excuse as to why you didn't do so. Do NOT wait until the last minute. Do NOT pass go. Do NOT collect $200. Get out and VOTE!
Write in Mickey Mouse if you have to, but VOTE!
Look, I don't care about your piddly little excuses. Giving up your right to vote is a disservice to this country, it dishonors those who gave their LIVES so YOU would even have the right to vote, and it undermines your very essence as an American. America is a democracy and YOU are a citizen of that democracy. So VOTE!
In my eyes, choosing NOT to vote is akin to treason. It would be selfish of someone given such a powerful gift as voting and for them to sit around and reap it's many benefits only to purposely avoid it when the opportunity comes.
If November 7, 2000 comes and goes and you chose not to vote, you better not even breathe a complaint about anything regarding your city, state, or this country for the next four years. You gave up your right to complain when you gave up your right to vote.
There seems to be a lot of discussion about the media's portrayal of the candidate's in the election. Those whose candidates are slanted against are always the most sensitive to it of course.
But here's the thing that bothers me. This election is close... VERY close. And it's entirely possible that the media slant could actually determine the winner of the election. Does that sound like like too much power? Where's the democracy in that? Certainly publications that are tradionally rooted to the left or to the right would be expected to continue so during the election. But what about the powerhouses like CNN, USA Today, The NY Times, and Fox? They have the power to sway millions of votes simply by how they report things like the debates. Should they have this kind of power? What could be done to stop it from happening? Should anything be done? Shouldn't they be held accountable if they are going to choose our President for us?
Plain and simple... no pagan beliefs here. I guess it's always been that way with me. I will say that of my friends in the geek community amazingly about 50% are Christian while the other 50% appear to be Atheists or Gnostics. I would have expected there to be fewer Christians amongst Geeks for some reason... I have no logical reason why - just seems right I guess. Of course this is only my personal experience and I live in the Bible Belt so maybe elsewhere the number is closer to like 20% Christian and the other mostly pagan religions accounting for the other 80%. It would be interesting to see a scientific study of such including demographic information.
This looks like a very cool product. Cooler still is the fact that Nokia based it around open source software. This certainly raises my already high opinion of Nokia as a company. I've always like their products. Now I just need to figure out how to get my hands on one of these...
This is exactly what I was getting at in my original post. Basically, if Fraunhofer does get agressive with MP3 patents and licensing or the RIAA buys them out or whatever, this would be the kind of catalyst that could fuel an alternative format (Ogg Vorbis for instance) to overthrow MP3. However, if no such catalysts exist, then there is very little chance that any other formats will be able to replace MP3 as the standard for digital music.
As a side note, SDMI will have the same uphill battle. MP3 will be likely be around for a long time. Pretty much every piece of copyrighted music is availble right now on CD - and therefore is also available as an MP3. CD players are everywhere, so even if new music begins shipping in the new SDMI format, new players will be required to play it. The record labels will have to sell it in CD format to stay compatible with existing hardware in the market (if they plan to sell any music, they'll have to do this). Hence even new music will be available in the MP3 format. And cassette tapes are still available today. So how many years would it take for SDMI to become the standard?
You have to wonder, even if it's technologically superior, is there any shot of it beating out.mp3 as the standard for digital music? I just don't think it has much of a chance. MP3 is just too embedded into society. It's going to take another leap forward in technology to dethrone it - not just some nice enhancements.
It's funny you bring this up now. I work for a large cell phone manufacturer and I was speaking with a representative of a nationwide cell carrier yesterday. We were talking about the different technologies and where we're heading in the US.
TDMA (Time Division Multiple Access) is the hands-down digital favorite in the US. TDMA's cousin GSM is the hands-down favorite globally.
TDMA (and GSM) allows multiple users to basically occupy the same bandwidth space by splitting the calls up into time slices. Much more efficient than analog. But it does have it's problems.
My area in particular is wreaked with problems due mostly to an overburdened network. Yet they continue to sell more phones and add more users to the system. Personally, and this is just my personal opinion, I don't think the cellular engineers in the US are that good at creating cellular networks capable of handling large numbers of users. The representative I spoke with talked of their engineers 'overlaying' additional bandwidth from the 1900 Mhz(PCS) spectrum to the 850 Mhz spectrum here in the local area to essentially give more bandwidth to users in that range and hopefully relieve it's bandwidth problems. Sounds like a band-aid to me. One that doesn't really address the issue properly. They're still going to run out of bandwidth because of the high volume of phones that are being sold. What happens then?
CDMA (Code Division Multiple Access) is a little better at handling bandwidth than TDMA or GSM because users aren't assigned a specific frequency. Instead, it uses spread spectrum technology to place them anywhere in it's allocated range of frequencies that is necessary. CDMA has it's own set of problems though... like having less coverage from it's cell sites so more have to be built. And as the number of users on a particular cell site goes up, so does the noise floor. So if you're the only one on that cell, your call is crystal clear. But if the cell is loaded, then you're likely to hear noise in the background. As CDMA is used more I imagine other issues may come out.
As we move forward towards broadband data access over wireless networks with technologies like TDMA EDGE and WCDMA, I can't help but wonder what will happen to the US's already overburdened cell networks. Hopefully the wonderful minds at the large cellular manufacturers and carriers will be able to address this before we go much farther down the road.
Wow, lots of good suggestions in this thread. Thanks to all who posted information on alternative labels to RIAA affiliates.
At least now I feel that I can participate in the boycott and not feel like I'm putting myself totally in the cold (musically speaking of course).
I plan on participating in the boycott but had assumed this would mean buying NO music since pretty much all labels seem to be tied to the RIAA in some way. I'd be real interested in finding some that aren't.
Slashdot Mirror
"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."
While I agree that a "regulated militia" may refer to a state run militia (ie. National Guard in modern terms); it does not indicate that simply the militia should be allowed to keep and bear arms. They could have worded it as such if that was their intent. However, they specifically say "the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms." - which to me is extraordinarily clear language. Again, given the context of the Bill of Rights; given the context of the political and social climate of the time of the framing; given the words of the Founding Fathers themselves (which are VERY clear on this issue); and given that the PEOPLE themselves are the power of the Constitution - I see no other way to interpret this other than to say that the PEOPLE should be allowed to keep and bear arms - again, as a hedge against government tyranny and to provide for a good national defense. A state run militia is still a government run military entity. And while that may provide a hedge against federal tyranny, it does not protect the people themselves against potential tyranny from the state government - why would they provide protection in one sense but still not solve the problem of governmental tyranny as a whole? So again it would seem somewhat against the grain for anything other than the PEOPLE being allowed to keep and bear arms to be the intended meaning of the Second Amendment.
What kind of military WOULDN'T bear arms? I can't imagine what the founding fathers would have been thinking by including language to ensure that the nation's military had arms. They included this in the Bill of Rights which, to me anyway, would make sense to be for regular, ordinary citizens - not specifically for individuals involved in the military. It makes better sense given the social and political climate of the time that they intended for the citizens themselves to be armed as a hedge against government tyranny. After all, it's harder for a government to oppress a people if those people are armed. Meanings other than that one don't seem to fit the overall mood of the rest of the Constitution as it was originally written. Nor do they fit in a purely historical sense. I just don't see precedent for a mindset in the founding fathers that would indicate that they DIDN'T intend average citizens to keep and bear arms.
This assertion being made by these lawyers seems a bit ridiculous to me.
*This message not endorsed by the NRA or its affiliates*
If we stick to that kind of methodology and thinking about our Presidents, Clinton will have been the first in a long line of impeached Presidents. Hang on for the ride. Also, we should retroactively condemn every other previous President that took similar measures during their time in office. I have no idea why we start here with Bush on this stuff while none of the past Presidents are crucified in the same light. Not liking him is no reason for impeachment. If you're going to find something that other presidents have done without persecution to impeach Bush for then you can expect the same game to go down in 2009 and probably on from there. Anytime one group of people doesn't like the person in office, it's impeachment time. It happened to Clinton; it's happening to Bush; why not make it a standing order. Sounds like a real blast to me. There will always be a current president. There will always be someething to impeach them for. There will always be some group who wants them impeached. Sounds like a recipe for fun.
It seems pretty clear that people would rather act like terrorism doesn't exist and that 9/11 was simply a fluke. Nothing like that will ever happen again. We don't have to take any action - none is necessary.
There's nothing to see here, carry on.
Funny how even though they were actually capturing voice conversations and full email contents under Clinton, it was totally fine. In fact, the NY Times lauded it as a necessary measure during this day and age. But now that Bush is simply watching the numbers we dial and receive phone calls from it's an impeachable offense. Check THIS out: http://cryptome.org/echelon-60min.htm It's a transcript of a 60 minutes segment on Project Echelon from 2000 - which was obviously before Bush took office in January of 2001. Somehow I imagine that people are going to draw the amazing conclusion that Bush is responsible for Echelon as well as Carnivore during the 90's even though he wasn't President...
So with Clinton it's ok... with Bush it's impeachment and all the while people are allowed to show blatant disregard for the law leaking our national secrets with no fear of imprisonment. Apparently it's our wonderful members of Congress who are above the law (yes I'm talking to you Jay Rockefeller) - not the President. In fact I'd be impressed for someone to prove to me that the powers given to the Executive branch don't allow for the President to approve warrantless wiretaps as a matter of national security. And remember - this is not the first time that the President of our country has chosen to impede on individual privacy for the sake of national security. Ask the Japanese Americans thrown into concentration camps during WWII under Roosevelt. Clinton, Carter, Roosevelt, even Washington and others have taken these kinds of steps.
Don't get your panties all in wad... I've read 1984 too. And believe me, I'm not interested in a police state either. I understand the whole "frog boiling in water" premise in that over time things can be eroded to the point that they are totally gone. But let's not take the slightest movement in that direction as doom and gloom. The President is responsible for protecting the security of this country. Not you. He is the one who we will point to if and when terrorists attack us again. From what I've heard of these programs in the NSA, I think they are the best balance we can hope for between finding terrorists in his country *before* they commit another attack and our individual rights as citizens. It's been almost five years since 9/11. I don't think that the terrorists just gave up. I think they would love to continue to terrorize us and our way of life. And I think these NSA programs and whatever else Bush has been doing have obviously led to these discussions over privacy vs security instead of discussions about the latest terrorist attack and when the next one will come.
For those of you who are so scared about the government listening to whatever you're saying on the phone, I suggest the following: http://www.gizmoproject.com/ coupled with http://www.philzimmermann.com/EN/zfone/index.html
If you really really have a problem with the government doing anything to impede on your privacy you can always move somewhere else. Unlike other countries, you are free to leave this one at any time.
This experiment sounds very much like an experiment used to show that light not only acts like a particle but also as a wave. I have not performed this experiment myself but it sounds as if the patterns produced on the wall are produced by the light being bent as it passes through the slits and displaying a wave pattern. Much like the way water would behave if a wave passed through a narrow opening into a broader area - it would spread out. Perhaps what is happening in this experiment is simply two of the waves cancelling each other out completely. That would explain why two of the patterns disappear.
But of course, I'm not a physicist nor have I ever studied particle theory or quantum mechanics. So maybe I'm off-base.
http://www.onamerica.com has an article on intellectual property that may be of interest to this discussion. Perhaps the author could appear to represent Napster.
Let's assume this is completely true. What bearing should it have on Bush's campaign?
I have a problem with things like this popping up during elections. This story happened 29 years ago. I think it would be absurd to think that people don't have changes of opinion over time. And 29 years is a lot of time.
If someone runs for office, must we impose that they must have had their current beliefs for their entire lives? There are a myriad of things that could have led him to this type of decision ranging from her insistance on not having it to him just selfishly not wanting to have a baby. We will never know the truth. Never.
So how should voters treat it then? It's completely possible that this exact experience is what led him to have a pro-life stance on abortion. Or perhaps he did believe in pro-choice during that time and then later after he "cleaned" his life up he changed to pro-life. Isn't he allowed to change over 29 years? Or did he lose the right to his own opinion when we announced his intentions to run for President?
This is the kind of bullshit that really annoys me about election campaigns. Sure, if he's saying he's pro-life and then get's some girl pregnant and makes her get an abortion DURING the campaign or sometime after he's announced that he's pro-life then that's a serious issue. But stop this crap of bringing up every little thing about a person's history to try and smear a candidate.
In my opinion this type of story has no relevance on Mr. Bush's campaign.
Do NOT forget to vote tomorrow. Do NOT skip voting and give some tired old excuse as to why you didn't do so. Do NOT wait until the last minute. Do NOT pass go. Do NOT collect $200. Get out and VOTE!
Write in Mickey Mouse if you have to, but VOTE!
Look, I don't care about your piddly little excuses. Giving up your right to vote is a disservice to this country, it dishonors those who gave their LIVES so YOU would even have the right to vote, and it undermines your very essence as an American. America is a democracy and YOU are a citizen of that democracy. So VOTE!
In my eyes, choosing NOT to vote is akin to treason. It would be selfish of someone given such a powerful gift as voting and for them to sit around and reap it's many benefits only to purposely avoid it when the opportunity comes.
If November 7, 2000 comes and goes and you chose not to vote, you better not even breathe a complaint about anything regarding your city, state, or this country for the next four years. You gave up your right to complain when you gave up your right to vote.
'Nuff said,
-Travis
You know you've hit the big time when Colin Powell visits your site. ;)
Wonder if he uses Linux as well...
There seems to be a lot of discussion about the media's portrayal of the candidate's in the election. Those whose candidates are slanted against are always the most sensitive to it of course.
But here's the thing that bothers me. This election is close... VERY close. And it's entirely possible that the media slant could actually determine the winner of the election. Does that sound like like too much power? Where's the democracy in that? Certainly publications that are tradionally rooted to the left or to the right would be expected to continue so during the election. But what about the powerhouses like CNN, USA Today, The NY Times, and Fox? They have the power to sway millions of votes simply by how they report things like the debates. Should they have this kind of power? What could be done to stop it from happening? Should anything be done? Shouldn't they be held accountable if they are going to choose our President for us?
Plain and simple... no pagan beliefs here. I guess it's always been that way with me. I will say that of my friends in the geek community amazingly about 50% are Christian while the other 50% appear to be Atheists or Gnostics. I would have expected there to be fewer Christians amongst Geeks for some reason... I have no logical reason why - just seems right I guess. Of course this is only my personal experience and I live in the Bible Belt so maybe elsewhere the number is closer to like 20% Christian and the other mostly pagan religions accounting for the other 80%. It would be interesting to see a scientific study of such including demographic information.
This looks like a very cool product. Cooler still is the fact that Nokia based it around open source software. This certainly raises my already high opinion of Nokia as a company. I've always like their products. Now I just need to figure out how to get my hands on one of these...
This is exactly what I was getting at in my original post. Basically, if Fraunhofer does get agressive with MP3 patents and licensing or the RIAA buys them out or whatever, this would be the kind of catalyst that could fuel an alternative format (Ogg Vorbis for instance) to overthrow MP3. However, if no such catalysts exist, then there is very little chance that any other formats will be able to replace MP3 as the standard for digital music.
As a side note, SDMI will have the same uphill battle. MP3 will be likely be around for a long time. Pretty much every piece of copyrighted music is availble right now on CD - and therefore is also available as an MP3. CD players are everywhere, so even if new music begins shipping in the new SDMI format, new players will be required to play it. The record labels will have to sell it in CD format to stay compatible with existing hardware in the market (if they plan to sell any music, they'll have to do this). Hence even new music will be available in the MP3 format. And cassette tapes are still available today. So how many years would it take for SDMI to become the standard?
You have to wonder, even if it's technologically superior, is there any shot of it beating out .mp3 as the standard for digital music? I just don't think it has much of a chance. MP3 is just too embedded into society. It's going to take another leap forward in technology to dethrone it - not just some nice enhancements.
How could you possibly expect us to standardize anything else worth a crap?
It's funny you bring this up now. I work for a large cell phone manufacturer and I was speaking with a representative of a nationwide cell carrier yesterday. We were talking about the different technologies and where we're heading in the US. TDMA (Time Division Multiple Access) is the hands-down digital favorite in the US. TDMA's cousin GSM is the hands-down favorite globally. TDMA (and GSM) allows multiple users to basically occupy the same bandwidth space by splitting the calls up into time slices. Much more efficient than analog. But it does have it's problems. My area in particular is wreaked with problems due mostly to an overburdened network. Yet they continue to sell more phones and add more users to the system. Personally, and this is just my personal opinion, I don't think the cellular engineers in the US are that good at creating cellular networks capable of handling large numbers of users. The representative I spoke with talked of their engineers 'overlaying' additional bandwidth from the 1900 Mhz(PCS) spectrum to the 850 Mhz spectrum here in the local area to essentially give more bandwidth to users in that range and hopefully relieve it's bandwidth problems. Sounds like a band-aid to me. One that doesn't really address the issue properly. They're still going to run out of bandwidth because of the high volume of phones that are being sold. What happens then? CDMA (Code Division Multiple Access) is a little better at handling bandwidth than TDMA or GSM because users aren't assigned a specific frequency. Instead, it uses spread spectrum technology to place them anywhere in it's allocated range of frequencies that is necessary. CDMA has it's own set of problems though... like having less coverage from it's cell sites so more have to be built. And as the number of users on a particular cell site goes up, so does the noise floor. So if you're the only one on that cell, your call is crystal clear. But if the cell is loaded, then you're likely to hear noise in the background. As CDMA is used more I imagine other issues may come out. As we move forward towards broadband data access over wireless networks with technologies like TDMA EDGE and WCDMA, I can't help but wonder what will happen to the US's already overburdened cell networks. Hopefully the wonderful minds at the large cellular manufacturers and carriers will be able to address this before we go much farther down the road.
Wow, lots of good suggestions in this thread. Thanks to all who posted information on alternative labels to RIAA affiliates. At least now I feel that I can participate in the boycott and not feel like I'm putting myself totally in the cold (musically speaking of course).
I plan on participating in the boycott but had assumed this would mean buying NO music since pretty much all labels seem to be tied to the RIAA in some way. I'd be real interested in finding some that aren't.