You know, if the 800,000 dead in Rwanda had been armed with rifles, pistols, and shotguns they might not have all been killed.
But hell, we don't need to protect ourselves, the state will do it for us. Just like the way they protected us from that 97 year old Highland Park, Texas resident who had a traffic ticket. You know, they one they handcuffed because they thought she was a 'threat'
The current exec in the white house and the GOP isn't conservative. They are about as far from being conservative as is possible with out being struck by lighting for lying.:->
Hell, if Bush followed his beliefs (like he says he does) he would not be so cosy with China. But, since it helps him, he ignores the treatment of Christians, other religious people, and workers.
Judging from a quick check of your posting history, not all your posts are on topic according to your above reasoning.
Just because you don't agree with a fucking post doesn't make it a troll.
-0-0-0- But wouldn't this apply equally to speech? Can you imagine the ACLU making this its basic position on the 1st Amendment?
Unless the Constitution protects the individual's right to engage in all kinds of speech, there is no principled way to oppose reasonable restrictions on newspapers, protests, or flag burning. If indeed the First Amendment provides an absolute, constitutional protection for the right to freedom of speech, then it must allow individuals to cry fire in a crowded theater, commit libel and defamation, and threaten and harass with impunity. Yet few, if any, would argue that the First Amendment gives individiuals the unlimited right to freedom of speech. But as soon as we allow governmental regulation of any speech, we have broken the dam of Constitutional protection. Once that dam is broken, we are not talking about whether the government can constitutionally restrict speech, but rather what constitutes a reasonable restriction.
That sounds about right, but you don't see the ACLU giving up its strident defense of the 1st Amendment. I think there's obviously something else going on here.
-0-0- I did not write the above, I got it from http://www.unlearnedhand.com/archives/000096.html
But wouldn't this apply equally to speech? Can you imagine the ACLU making this its basic position on the 1st Amendment?
Unless the Constitution protects the individual's right to engage in all kinds of speech, there is no principled way to oppose reasonable restrictions on newspapers, protests, or flag burning. If indeed the First Amendment provides an absolute, constitutional protection for the right to freedom of speech, then it must allow individuals to cry fire in a crowded theater, commit libel and defamation, and threaten and harass with impunity. Yet few, if any, would argue that the First Amendment gives individiuals the unlimited right to freedom of speech. But as soon as we allow governmental regulation of any speech, we have broken the dam of Constitutional protection. Once that dam is broken, we are not talking about whether the government can constitutionally restrict speech, but rather what constitutes a reasonable restriction.
That sounds about right, but you don't see the ACLU giving up its strident defense of the 1st Amendment. I think there's obviously something else going on here.
-0-0- I did not write the above, I got it from http://www.unlearnedhand.com/archives/000096.html
Text of the Second Amendment and Related Contemporaneous Provisions
Second Amendment: 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.
English Bill of Rights: That the subjects which are protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law (1689). 1
Connecticut: Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state (1818). 2
Kentucky: [T]he right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned (1792). 3
Massachusetts: The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence (1780). 4
North Carolina: [T]he people have a right to bear arms, for the defence of the State; and, as standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power (1776). 5
Pennsylvania: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination, to, and governed by, the civil power (1776). 6
The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned (1790). 7
Rhode Island: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed (1842). 8
Tennessee: [T]he freemen of this State have a right to keep and bear arms for their common defence (1796). 9
Vermont: [T]he people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State -- and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power (1777). 10
Virginia: That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power. 11
Hope you don't post much. The apple mods will track you down and 'punish' you for not praising apple. I know this is their mindset because some of them have emailed me saying it.
I don't. I biched about the subscription not being worth paying for because they didn't edit the site and someone gave me a sub, I guess to shut me up.:->
I have ran Windows 2000 pro on it in the past with A Nvidia GF3 Ti 200. I don't know what revision they board is and my written docs for it are at the bottom of a 6 foot tall stack of boxes full of books.:->
Yes, it does. You see those that make the decisions (SUNW and it's execs) get a total pass on their mistakes and those who did what they where told get fired.
Perhaps if you looked at people as more than just numbers on a spreadsheet you would understand.
That's because the editors have went on a crusade and removed mod privilages from a large number of posters. I haven't gotten mod privilages in over 4 months.
The right cuts should start with those that made the decisions so they don't make them again. Not once did I say that SUNW should not fire people, I said they should fire all that are involved. This includes those in the exec suite.
I don't see the high level execs being fired because of the mistakes they made. Perhaps if the exec got canned for their mistakes people would not get so upset.
Does anyone know what you have to do to get the NVidia 3d accelerated drives working? Evertime I start X with the nvidia driver it hangs my system, the nv driver doesn't exhibit this behavior. This is on a dual athlon Tyan s2460 system.
Slashdot Mirror
Do you have a point or am I responding to the outpout of /dev/urandom?
The NRA doesn't claim to support the Bill of Rights, they only claima to support gun rights.
It appears one is being 'less truthful' than the other, now doesn't it?
You know, if the 800,000 dead in Rwanda had been armed with rifles, pistols, and shotguns they might not have all been killed.
But hell, we don't need to protect ourselves, the state will do it for us. Just like the way they protected us from that 97 year old Highland Park, Texas resident who had a traffic ticket. You know, they one they handcuffed because they thought she was a 'threat'
The current exec in the white house and the GOP isn't conservative. They are about as far from being conservative as is possible with out being struck by lighting for lying. :->
Hell, if Bush followed his beliefs (like he says he does) he would not be so cosy with China. But, since it helps him, he ignores the treatment of Christians, other religious people, and workers.
He will say and do anything to stay in power.
Judging from a quick check of your posting history, not all your posts are on topic according to your above reasoning.
Just because you don't agree with a fucking post doesn't make it a troll.
-0-0-0- But wouldn't this apply equally to speech? Can you imagine the ACLU making this its basic position on the 1st Amendment?
Unless the Constitution protects the individual's right to engage in all kinds of speech, there is no principled way to oppose reasonable restrictions on newspapers, protests, or flag burning. If indeed the First Amendment provides an absolute, constitutional protection for the right to freedom of speech, then it must allow individuals to cry fire in a crowded theater, commit libel and defamation, and threaten and harass with impunity. Yet few, if any, would argue that the First Amendment gives individiuals the unlimited right to freedom of speech. But as soon as we allow governmental regulation of any speech, we have broken the dam of Constitutional protection. Once that dam is broken, we are not talking about whether the government can constitutionally restrict speech, but rather what constitutes a reasonable restriction.
That sounds about right, but you don't see the ACLU giving up its strident defense of the 1st Amendment. I think there's obviously something else going on here.
-0-0-
I did not write the above, I got it from http://www.unlearnedhand.com/archives/000096.html
But wouldn't this apply equally to speech? Can you imagine the ACLU making this its basic position on the 1st Amendment?
Unless the Constitution protects the individual's right to engage in all kinds of speech, there is no principled way to oppose reasonable restrictions on newspapers, protests, or flag burning. If indeed the First Amendment provides an absolute, constitutional protection for the right to freedom of speech, then it must allow individuals to cry fire in a crowded theater, commit libel and defamation, and threaten and harass with impunity. Yet few, if any, would argue that the First Amendment gives individiuals the unlimited right to freedom of speech. But as soon as we allow governmental regulation of any speech, we have broken the dam of Constitutional protection. Once that dam is broken, we are not talking about whether the government can constitutionally restrict speech, but rather what constitutes a reasonable restriction.
That sounds about right, but you don't see the ACLU giving up its strident defense of the 1st Amendment. I think there's obviously something else going on here.
-0-0-
I did not write the above, I got it from http://www.unlearnedhand.com/archives/000096.html
Text of the Second Amendment and Related Contemporaneous Provisions
Second Amendment: 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.
English Bill of Rights: That the subjects which are protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law (1689). 1
Connecticut: Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state (1818). 2
Kentucky: [T]he right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned (1792). 3
Massachusetts: The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence (1780). 4
North Carolina: [T]he people have a right to bear arms, for the defence of the State; and, as standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power (1776). 5
Pennsylvania: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination, to, and governed by, the civil power (1776). 6
The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned (1790). 7
Rhode Island: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed (1842). 8
Tennessee: [T]he freemen of this State have a right to keep and bear arms for their common defence (1796). 9
Vermont: [T]he people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State -- and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power (1777). 10
Virginia: That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power. 11
Perhaps while the ACLU is in court that could pick up a copy of the Bill of Rights, not their edited 9 adm one, one that has all the adms in it.
Hope you don't post much. The apple mods will track you down and 'punish' you for not praising apple. I know this is their mindset because some of them have emailed me saying it.
:->
Sad, so so sad.
I don't. I biched about the subscription not being worth paying for because they didn't edit the site and someone gave me a sub, I guess to shut me up. :->
I would think that the parent post being moded up 3 times shows just how broken and biased the moderating system on /. has become.
I have ran Windows 2000 pro on it in the past with A Nvidia GF3 Ti 200. I don't know what revision they board is and my written docs for it are at the bottom of a 6 foot tall stack of boxes full of books. :->
They still have patent licenses and other liceness that make it easier on them. It isn't as clear cut a case as the Compaq/IBM BIOS job.
Says who?
AMD had a license. They where an official second source for 286 and 368 processors.
Yes, it does. You see those that make the decisions (SUNW and it's execs) get a total pass on their mistakes and those who did what they where told get fired.
Perhaps if you looked at people as more than just numbers on a spreadsheet you would understand.
Nope. It stoped when I got a post modded up to +5 complaining about /. not being worth subscribing to.
Next thing I know, I have a subscription (that I didn't request/pay for) and I am removed from the mod pool.
That's because the editors have went on a crusade and removed mod privilages from a large number of posters. I haven't gotten mod privilages in over 4 months.
The right cuts should start with those that made the decisions so they don't make them again. Not once did I say that SUNW should not fire people, I said they should fire all that are involved. This includes those in the exec suite.
I don't see the high level execs being fired because of the mistakes they made. Perhaps if the exec got canned for their mistakes people would not get so upset.
Thank you. Guess no HQ bzflag tonight. :-
I have, didn't work. I made the exact changes as specified in the readme and it still crashes. The nvidia drivers worked perfectly under FC1.
Does anyone know what you have to do to get the NVidia 3d accelerated drives working? Evertime I start X with the nvidia driver it hangs my system, the nv driver doesn't exhibit this behavior. This is on a dual athlon Tyan s2460 system.
If they have no loyality to their own employees, what makes you think they will have any loyality to you?
If only there where more people like us. :-