Right, and the reason you can conclude that is because foreigners clearly are not "people". There's some kind of typo in the Constitution. It really means that only some of the people should be secure in their houses, papers, and effects. And only then when they don't cross borders.
"Or people being afraid of food shipments (especially from the US) because they would use packaging designed to look exactly like unexploded bomblets."
Hold on, what? Are you asserting that the United States packages food aid to look like bomblets? I may be ignorant, but that seems far-fetched.
"In other words, I don't think they had the idea of people owning guns to protect their home and overthrow the government, but more for the idea of protecting the country against attack."
False. The "well regulated militia" part is a subordinate clause. And, if (as some scholars argue) you take "well regulated militia" to mean "all adult males, properly equipped to fight", the amendment still works.
If you read the supporting documents of the Founders, this becomes clear. It's quite explicit that the 2nd amendment is framed to be the final defense against tyranny.
The issue isn't really political correctness, but the traps you fall in by assuming that this or that person is smarter/faster/uglier than the average bear. Particularly when you're dealing with large numbers of people (like, say, the students in a classroom). How do you differentiate between a smart child who's performing poorly because they're intimidated, and a child that really isn't particularly smart?
(understanding that "smart" is a multifaceted characteristic, to say the least...)
I know I'm a pretty smart and capable person, but if I proceed from the assumption that I'm the smartest person in the room, I'm setting myself up for trouble.
On any given performance characteristic, one person may indeed be "better" than another. That does not make them a better person.
I wonder if there were some sort of method we could use, to determine which people have done bad things, and which ones haven't? Like, maybe, a court? With a judge? Who is responsible to follow laws, and conduct a fair hearing where the innocence of the accused is presumed?
Gosh, I don't know why I didn't think of becoming a politician as the next step after getting diagnosed with cancer. That's just brilliant!
I am a big believer in private charity. I do not think it's a substitute for an equitable health insurance system.
Look at the doctors, and look at the patients under the current system. Both parties are being bled dry. Why is that, do you suppose?
I would be 100% in favor of a fully private health insurance program, as long as insurers don't get to cherry pick. Health insurance doesn't work if you only insure healthy people. The risk pool in the US is about 300 million people, which is plenty big enough to share the load.
I'm not convinced a single-payer system is the way forward, but the system we have sucks.
Yes, it was absolutely a religious assertion, not a tongue-in-cheek parallel structure with the original post. You have laid bare my devious rhetorical machinations for all to see. Whatever would the/. community do were it not for your insight?
Depends entirely on the inflation rate. And what reindeer games get used to calculate the inflation rate. Here in the US, inflation looks FINE unless you count the two household expenses that are exploding (food and gas).
Slashdot Mirror
Right, and the reason you can conclude that is because foreigners clearly are not "people". There's some kind of typo in the Constitution. It really means that only some of the people should be secure in their houses, papers, and effects. And only then when they don't cross borders.
It's real clear...if you squint.
"The hardware is fine, but there's no software to do what I want to do with it."
Er, what do you want to do with it (he asks, fearing the answer...)?
"Burst my bubble"? You made my point!
Golly, I really didn't think I was being that abstruse. I was DISAGREEING with my parent poster in what I thought was a humorous, sarcastic way.
Clearly, my tongue was not far enough into my cheek.
Did you not realize that was exactly my point?
And here we have the classic Linux mentality: If you think it's complicated, you're not smart enough.
I'm plenty smart enough...to use a tool that makes my life easier, not harder.
It's going to be really funny to me if you wish to cast aspersions on my mechanical abilities.
I'm sorry, I thought my sarcastic question was unmistakable.
I was mistaken. : )
Can you think of any situation in history where a military force has been successfully resisted by armed locals?
"Or people being afraid of food shipments (especially from the US) because they would use packaging designed to look exactly like unexploded bomblets."
Hold on, what? Are you asserting that the United States packages food aid to look like bomblets? I may be ignorant, but that seems far-fetched.
"What does hardware that doesn't support Linux have to do with installing software that is supported?"
Because users don't care whether it's a hardware problem or a software problem: it's a problem, and they want the problem to go away.
"In other words, I don't think they had the idea of people owning guns to protect their home and overthrow the government, but more for the idea of protecting the country against attack."
False. The "well regulated militia" part is a subordinate clause. And, if (as some scholars argue) you take "well regulated militia" to mean "all adult males, properly equipped to fight", the amendment still works.
If you read the supporting documents of the Founders, this becomes clear. It's quite explicit that the 2nd amendment is framed to be the final defense against tyranny.
Because Microsoft broke the law, and DOJ is trying to prevent them from doing it again.
That's not to say that this isn't just a ridiculous situation, but it is a situation of Microsoft's choosing.
The issue isn't really political correctness, but the traps you fall in by assuming that this or that person is smarter/faster/uglier than the average bear. Particularly when you're dealing with large numbers of people (like, say, the students in a classroom). How do you differentiate between a smart child who's performing poorly because they're intimidated, and a child that really isn't particularly smart?
(understanding that "smart" is a multifaceted characteristic, to say the least...)
I know I'm a pretty smart and capable person, but if I proceed from the assumption that I'm the smartest person in the room, I'm setting myself up for trouble.
On any given performance characteristic, one person may indeed be "better" than another. That does not make them a better person.
I wonder if there were some sort of method we could use, to determine which people have done bad things, and which ones haven't? Like, maybe, a court? With a judge? Who is responsible to follow laws, and conduct a fair hearing where the innocence of the accused is presumed?
What a novel idea...what could we call it?
And everybody else should have the same priorities and values as you do. AND THAT'S LIBERTY, DAMMIT!
Right.
Look, Objectivism was great when I was 19 and thought I'd invented it myself. I'm much smarter now.
Gosh, I don't know why I didn't think of becoming a politician as the next step after getting diagnosed with cancer. That's just brilliant!
I am a big believer in private charity. I do not think it's a substitute for an equitable health insurance system.
Look at the doctors, and look at the patients under the current system. Both parties are being bled dry. Why is that, do you suppose?
I would be 100% in favor of a fully private health insurance program, as long as insurers don't get to cherry pick. Health insurance doesn't work if you only insure healthy people. The risk pool in the US is about 300 million people, which is plenty big enough to share the load.
I'm not convinced a single-payer system is the way forward, but the system we have sucks.
It's not possible to make a free choice when your alternatives are:
1) Pay for expensive treatments that your insurance has decided (arbitrarily) are not covered
2) Die
That's the very definition of "under duress".
You pretend that there is a continuum of medical care available at varying prices and efficacies. That's simply not true.
You certainly ARE new here if you think that /. has always been pro-Apple.
Sidewalks are not designed for vehicles that can travel 15-25 miles/hr.
Sorry, you're just wrong.
Indistinguishable, huh? What happens when I turn this dimmer knob?
People keep telling me that there are dimmable CFLs, but people keep telling me that there's Sasquatch too.
Yes, it was absolutely a religious assertion, not a tongue-in-cheek parallel structure with the original post. You have laid bare my devious rhetorical machinations for all to see. Whatever would the /. community do were it not for your insight?
Which, I think you'll agree, is a pretty thin pretext...
I think you mean "Humans have been waging war on other humans on the thinnest available pretexts since humans were invented."
It's not religion. It's human nature.
...even if you have to make more insurgents to do it! GENIUS!
Depends entirely on the inflation rate. And what reindeer games get used to calculate the inflation rate. Here in the US, inflation looks FINE unless you count the two household expenses that are exploding (food and gas).