I had to get fingerprinted to get my carry permit.
So is it justified there? To force me to submit to fingerprinting just to exercise my civil right to self defense under the second amendment?
What, they need to make sure criminals dont have access to a concealed weapon permit (legally)?
Normally I am against statist things like this, but in the instance of critical positons, an NCIC and fingerprint check are reasonable precautions. And unlike your suppositions, the prints are NOT retained after checking.
By the way, do you over exaggerate often?
I didnt find any tubercular bums, or other such things at the police station. It was more like an office with lots of normal people there (reporting a stolen watch, etc), and police officers working in the cubicles - the criminals tend to be kept in the back, you know, where the jail cells are. You've been watching way too much television.
What do you expect? Look at the editor who approved this. Kdawson. The biggest troll on Slashdot.
He uncritially and unthinkingly posts sensationalist bullshit like this all the time. Apparently he has the critical reasoning capacity equivalent to a bag of wet mice. Why or how Malda gave that idiot the job is a good question. If you want a left-leaning anti-government editor on/., go to Daily Kos or Huffington Post and get one of the better ones there. At least some of them can read and reason. Kdawson is an idiot and capable of neither. The article linked to is proof (as are many of his other past editorial decisions)
Look at the "editor". kdawson again. He's responsible for more troll and flambeiat crap than anyone else on slashdot. What I want to know is why they gave him editor powers - and why he stall has them after he blatantly abuses them time after time to promote his agenda? This article is from a personal log here by Theodp (again, seems to be a kdawson fave), and is so poorly written and poorly reasoned that its obviously carp. If kdawson keeps falling for this and posting irrelevant crap, they need to get rid of him as an editor.
If I want to red this kind of specious attack on capitalism, ebay or guns, I can go get it at indymedia or daily Kos.
Hey KDawson, keep it up, you'll enter Katz territory soon. Everyone: I advise tagging stories like this "kdawsontroll"
Bigtime agreement! My 16C still smokes anything out there in terms of ease of use, etc. Setting, testing, clearing bits, and masks, settingthe type of complement you want for the math, varyign the word size up to 64 bits (before there were even 64 bit CPUS around!) - and all in that small form factor wiht a clean display and fantastic keyfeel. Simply amazing. Especially for someone that has to deal with low level devices and their custom interfaces.
I wish they would remake that one or the 15C. I miss my 15C (lost in a move a long time ago), but would have to get medieval on somone if they took my 16C.
I still have my 48GX and a spare one of those, but they are overkill - the 16C is perfect combination of form and function.
Those "dont want the internet" folks in the survey said "money was not the issue". So poverty is OUT as a cause.
Secondly, the definition of "Poverty" you use is ridiculously malleable and political, thats why you have 28 million or more there. They define it as the bottom 10% more or less, so you will ALWAYS have millions "below the poverty line". But you apparentlyare ignorant about how they calculate it: "Poverty Line" calculations that you refer to do not count the significant charitable help most poor have (Habitat for Humanity, community shelters and halfway houses, food banks, soup kitchens, etc), as well as governmental programs like WIC, food stamps, Welfare, subsidised housing, Medicare/Medicaid, free school lunches, government food assistance, Social Security Disability, etc. That is why you have statistics like: you can be "Poor" according to the income based poverty line, and still have a phone, cell phone, car, 2 tvs, air conditioning, etc. And those items are quite common amongst the "poor".
You want to see *real* poverty go visit Mozambique (been there with the Red Cross - the suffering there is horrid), or some ghettos in central America (for example Nicaragua). Potable water, shelter and food are the issues there, not whether or not to trade the Government Cheese for cigarettes, or sell the food stamps to buy a Nintendo.
Get your head out of your ass - and get your ass out of the US political blinders and learn a bit about the world. Even better - go do something about it instead of preaching on slashdot. I have.
And thats the problem. You CANNOT say "if you use a pirated code, some files on your system will be deleted" and thnk that by having the user agree to that you are protected.
An illegal criminal act is always an illegal criminal act, no matter how much civil contract you wrap around it. Federal law doesnt look to see if there was a civil release for you to commit a crime. It looks at evidence: did you deliberately and maliciously (with harm intended) violate this law by damaging or deleting files that did not belong to you on this computer? The answer here is Yes for that author, so he is criminally liable.
PERIOD.
Don't mix up civil (EULA) and Criminal Law (CFSA) - that's your error.
Sorry, but civil tort (the EULA) does not override criminal law (The Fruad Act).
First there is the FACT that click-thru EULAs are of questionable legality.
More importantly, you cannot sign away your rights to bring criminal actions, only civil ones. And a license does not allow criminal acts to suddenly become legal. For instance, no "EULA" in the world allows the Bank to break federal laws about your accounts no matter how much permission you personally give the Bank in a civil contract.
Add to that, the DELIBRATE and MALICIOUS act of deleting data and or functional parts of a person's computer system that are unrelated to the product... thats pure damage far outside the scope of the product, and is damaging to other functiona unrelated to the piece of software in question, and a clear violation of the CFSA.
Put it all together, it just spells out how wrong you are about this.
Its akin to saying "you put a stolen radio in your car, so Im making it short out your ignition system and ignite your gas tank".
I was there day 1. When wee petitioned to have it be an "RP" server.
FoH is who you are referring to in locking others out of the planes. Farming bastards.
Instances are a must - thats why I switche to WoW instead of EQ (well, after Mythic ruined Realm v. Realm on Camelot with the horrible Atlantic expansion grind).
I used to be Chumba of Clan MacLear in both places.
As fas as Van goes, no surprises there in terms of grinds and so on - its the same crew that did EQ1 and their horrible grindfests and got the title "Evercamp" for all the camping you had to do to get good items (how long did you camp for the Ancient Cyclops? Hah!)
Its Kdawson's incessant knee-jerk lefty trolling. He's becomingthe lft version of Rush Limbaugh for Slashdot - his articales are almost always biased, and almost always left. All he does is stir up the rabble on the left and reationaries on the right.
"And the Catholic bishop who told people that voting for Kerry was a sin deserves a nice visit from the IRS."
Wrong. If he had said "Do Not Vote For Kerry" then the IRS gets involved. Determination of sin is a religious act, not a political one. Pity that it appears the do not teach religion or morals in the shcools anymore (not "a" religion or specific morals, but religion as a survey of all the major world ones, and morality in general).
From the old-school hard-core Catholic point of view that Bishop has, elective abortion is an absolute and unconditional moral evil and the religious doctrine they have says one cannot aid and abet evil nor can one support/condone those who do. So a vote for Kerry, or Guliani (who are actively pro-choice and pro-abortion) *IS* a sin under that doctrine if there is an alternative candidate who does not stand against the Catholic doctrine of Human Vitae. And there is nothing the IRS can say about that.
Ii guess the Catholics do get bonus points in that they can vote for a pro-choice candidate, then go to confession and be absolved of the sin of doing so (the church giveth, the church taketh away), unlike Southern Baptists, etc, who don't have that confession thing built into their religion.
"And don't just say we need to increase security. That just does not work. We can't get security in Iraq even having the country overrun by military."
Completely wrong. Controllign a border is NOT like controlling a country. And Iraq is not a valid example. Learn your history. Historically it has taken a 1:20 or better ratio of occupiers to population to control part of a country that is in opposition to the occupiers/liberators (Bavaria, etc). Furthermore, most of those estimates are based on a country that has been decimated by the conquerer in the process prior to the occupation, unlike Iraq wich was trasehd before the occupation by its own government, and left relatively unscathed in historical terms, by the assauting forces. Given there is a "liberation" aspect, expecially in Kurdistan (I've been there its at peace - and very western), the ratio can be probably pushed closer to 1:25.
25 million people in Iraq, and there are mayb 130K US troops, 20K brits and about 20K other nations. 170K troops to control 25 million people? Not going to work. Barely 20% of what is needed under optimal assumptions based on history. Add in 250K Iraqi police and Army troops, and you're still at less than HALF of whats needed to control the country. So that's where Bush screwed up. He listened to Rumsfeld who told him the numbers needed to throw out the government but apparently never figured out how many it took to put in a new one.
So given your incorrect premise, your argument fails. Occupying Iraq is not at all similar to enforcing the US border.
Secondly, border security is far different from controlling the countryside. So your argument fails there too. Borders can be secured against the most determined and ingenious people. The East German and Czech "iron curtain" is proof of that.
Fences and patrols can stop all but the most determined crossers, and that is all that is needed. A deterrent. Especially when the decision to violate the border is being made *primarily* for economic cost, not fundamental issues, like personal freedom.
Third you dont understand the function of a barrier in terms of military security. Barriers are not there to stop the enemy as much as they are meant to slow him to where they can be reacted to, and acted against, effectively. A fence with patrollers would certainly slow the influx of illegals -and thier attempts top cross back and forth would be greatly curtailed. A secondary effect of a barrier (i.e. fence in civil world, minefield, etc in military) is to increase the cost of a particualr route, and force the opponent to go elsewhere. So even an incomplete fence, were it to cover a large enough contiguous area of the "best" routes, would be effective at canalizing the illegals into routes either less desirable (thus discouraging them from coming by greatly increasing the difficulty), or routes/terrain where they are easier to catch by the patrolling force.
Finally, with out a fence, why should an illegal enter your program? And how will we stopthe influx of the criminal elements? All the policy in the world will nto work if there is not an enforcement mechanism behind it.
So basically your arguements about fences and border enforcement are wrong - and worse, they are harmful because they encourage (irrational) abandonment of the best initial and inexpensive response we have.
Your problem is that you are basing your argument on a fallacious point. Yes we did absorb previous waves, but none this large, and NONE of them were completely unmonitored like this one.
Those waves came almost completely LEGALLY (recall the pictures of Ellis Island)- and there were rejects amongst the Irish, the Italians, the Chinese, etc. You need to read your history, not the propagnda that is passed out these days with a political objective. And the criminals are numerous - need I point out the numerous crimes comitted by illegals?
Yes the immigration system is broken, but without a fence it will not matter whether its working or not.
Well, then the NYT put a misleading headline in there. Were I to submit it, I'd have a different title suggested.
But I'm not surprised by that. They have been innacurate at best quite often over the past few years. Neither left nor right, but simply wrong. Sulzburg is destroying that paper, its a shame.
RTFA! Ciber is not banned from TESTING, but from certifying the machines as properly tested. This is due to Ciber not properly performing the tests, including completing the proper paperwork and observing the safeguards that ensure the tests are accurate. A better headline would be "Government Halts E-Voting Machine Certification - Testing is inadequate"
Sheesh. Come on/. Editors, you should at least *rad* the linked article you are posting and put a *proper* headline on it, rather than the misleading inflammatory crap that you used. KDawson proves yet again that he is an utter boob when it comes to editorial selection and headlines. Time to fire his ass.
Very true - same goes for turns and such, where your body give you clues that you can take in some situations, and must ignore in others. I don't see how they can reduce the stick time a whole lot in favor of a sim. You can learn to fly th instruments in a sim, but not fly the plane. Especially true in bad situations and in interface situations (takeoff landing) as you point out.
"Sounds like a brilliant idea to increase stock portfolio 20 fold. And Slashdot bought into it. Maybe they understand the concept of shorting."
Sheesh, Kneejerk slashbot response. Read the original. This is from a NONPROFIT research company that appears to be held privately. Not big Pharma, no stock involved. And on top of that, its a common substance they used, capsaicin. You know, like comes from hot peppers you can grow in your yard. Kinda hard to patent that.
Won't have a gun in your house? Put a sign out front to that effect if you truly beleive this to be proper.
Lets assume the rapist doesnt have a gun either - your "gun free" fantasy society.
You're away on business, he breaks in. Your wife has nothing to do but cower in the closet while trying to dial 911. And at 6'2 and 255 pounds, he slams your petite wife to the floor, then holds a knife to her throat and rapes her. Then cuts her caratoid and leaves.
Still feel safe, moron?
Add in a handgun. Loaded. In the bedside drawer, and you both go to the reange every month to be sure you can shoot it effectively and handle it safely.
Bad guy breaks in, wife grabs the gun and the phone and tries to hide in the closet. Bad guy flings door open, she pops him with 2-3 rounds (out of the 6 she fires in panic). Even if he is armed with a gun, she has the sdrop on him and will get the first shots in before he can even bring the firearm he has to bear. Bad guy topples. Dead or wounded. No rape happening.
Handguns are equalizers. They allow the less physical to defend themselves against the brute force criminal.
Violent criminals have been around since the first guy picked up a stick and beat another one to death with it and then took his stuff.
Handguns serve as a deterrent and as an equalizer. And they are used that way every years, especially by the elderly and by women, to defend themsleves against physically superior attackers.
Your "need" for a gun is NOT the result of guns for criminals, its the result of *criminals* PERIOD. Get your thinking straight - stop putting the violence on the instrument, and put it on the person using it.
You cannot state it by fiat - try addressing the errors pointed out by many here - especially in case law, and in the fundamental reading of the Amendment itself:
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.
Note the PROPER punctional at the Library of Congress - the extra commans after "Militia" and after "Arms" are rmoved, as they are absent in the proper rendering of the Amendment (LOC is authoritative on this).
Now its obvious that "milita" has to do with the security of a free state - but the "rights of the people..." are clearly what "shall not be infringed". Obvious.
As for "well regulated" - the proper meaning is from its usage at the time of the amendment:
The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:
1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."
1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."
1812: "The equation of time... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."
The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it. That means for a militia, each individual is properly armed. And further in the Constitution, "militia" back then meant what we mean now by "citizenry"
So where do you see the DC lawyers being a "correcct" reading - it blatently contravenes the quite obvious meaning of the law as written. So no - as I have pointed out (and you lack any presentment of evidence to back up your bald assumption) their reading is NOT a "correct" reading at all - its egregiously wrong. And so is your assumption absent any proof to the contrary.
"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."
The problem for you and 99% of the posters here is the extra commas in your citations - they are simply wrong and mislead you.
As seen above, they were NOT part of the original bill of rights - and you should take them OUT. The "well regulated militia" can be seen clearly above as a justifying clause (i.e. reaons for this amendment), and the "right of the people... not infringed" is clearly seen as the establishing clause (i.e. the law).
Plus, you misconstrue "well regulated". That terminology in those days had nothing to do with law or organization - but with it being functional - i.e. properly equipped for its function.
The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:
1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."
1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."
1812: "The equation of time... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."
In the case of the [unorganized] "militia" (all otherwise unburdened full citizens of proper age) that means "well equipped and competent" - that is "properly armed".
If you translate that into modern usage, the 2nd Amendment becomes much more clear:
A properly armed citizenry being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Now where does that allow for handgun *bans*? Nowhere. However it does allow for limitations on the "proper" armaments available for the citizen. So no howitzers or machine guns or chemical weapons. No sawed off shotguns or claymore mines. But Knives, nun-chucks, mace, properly functioning pistols, shotguns and rifles are reasonable.
Why are people so thick headed about this?
Its a huge stretch to see it characterized this way for gun control. It would be requiring petition for grievences to only be legal if they were assembled directly at the peron in government to whom you were petitioning - so no rallies, etc.
Aside from that, if you want to rouse the really hard conservatives from their slumber that Bush has put them in, this is a sure fire way to get a very large number of well monied and highly motivated one-issue voters out there and run the Democrats out of office in 2008. It worked back in 1994. I think Newt Gingrich is probably cheering these foolish lawyers on - I know Rove coulndt ask for more if he wants to fire up his base. Come on Democrats, smarten up! This issue is a political loser - and on top of that, in the bigger scheme, its not all that important compared to other social justice issues that can and should be taken on with the time and talent at hand.
"The only way to defeat "terrorism" is by getting rid of interventionism and changing the foreign policy"
And how would that placate those violent Salafists who wish a world-wide Caliphate, and are prepared to inflict mass casualties to obtain it?
You seem to be woefully ignorant of the "causes of the issue" if you are imply they are economic - and remember that the 9/11 terrorists were middle-class Saudis. No poverty issue there. They were not flying into the buildings screaming "Gimme More Money", nope it was "God is Great".
Wake up - its too late for trying to talk people around, and bribe them with foreign aid. The hatred that has been bred and fed over the past 2 decades in the fundamentalist Islamist world can no longer be dealt with by appeasing it, nor by ignoring it.
I dont know what the answer is, because I don't know how to put the pin back in the handgrenade that are the religious fanatics (of all religions, from clinic bombers in Carolina to car bombers in Chechnya).
But it damn sure isnt more of the same that we tried in the 80's (supporting "our" dictators) and 90's (treating it as a socio-economic and police issue).
"I most certainly do not want the NSA to have any software at all."
Too bad you are so close-minded (and actually pretty stupid given that absolute statment about an agency which you know little of, other than inaccurate press reports). The NSA does do good work amongst all its tasks, need I remind you of SE-Linux?
And besides, the GPL means to make software Free - and that means *anyone* can use it.
He is not advocating that the first amendment and net be shut - he is PREDICTING that after a large destructive terror attack, the first casualty will be the First Amendment.
He is basically warning we have to get on the ball now fighting terrorist organization, or else our society will suffer in the backlash of an attack. And the other point which was made was that there is no appeasing the terroist - they are religious fanatics who will attack without provocation. Our mere refusal to submit the the Calihpate (as the Salafists and Wahabists demand) and Sharia law are provocation enough under their warped view of Islam.
The rest of it (and the typical knee-jerk mischaracterizations on both side here, but especially the typical lefty/.-er who doest read the article) is politics.
Don't shoot the messenger, look at the message.
There is some scary truth there - and we shoudl act now to prevent far worse abuses (and deaths) later.
Slashdot Mirror
I had to get fingerprinted to get my carry permit.
So is it justified there? To force me to submit to fingerprinting just to exercise my civil right to self defense under the second amendment?
What, they need to make sure criminals dont have access to a concealed weapon permit (legally)?
Normally I am against statist things like this, but in the instance of critical positons, an NCIC and fingerprint check are reasonable precautions. And unlike your suppositions, the prints are NOT retained after checking.
By the way, do you over exaggerate often?
I didnt find any tubercular bums, or other such things at the police station. It was more like an office with lots of normal people there (reporting a stolen watch, etc), and police officers working in the cubicles - the criminals tend to be kept in the back, you know, where the jail cells are. You've been watching way too much television.
What do you expect? Look at the editor who approved this. Kdawson. The biggest troll on Slashdot.
/., go to Daily Kos or Huffington Post and get one of the better ones there. At least some of them can read and reason. Kdawson is an idiot and capable of neither. The article linked to is proof (as are many of his other past editorial decisions)
He uncritially and unthinkingly posts sensationalist bullshit like this all the time. Apparently he has the critical reasoning capacity equivalent to a bag of wet mice. Why or how Malda gave that idiot the job is a good question. If you want a left-leaning anti-government editor on
What do you expect?
Look at the "editor". kdawson again. He's responsible for more troll and flambeiat crap than anyone else on slashdot. What I want to know is why they gave him editor powers - and why he stall has them after he blatantly abuses them time after time to promote his agenda? This article is from a personal log here by Theodp (again, seems to be a kdawson fave), and is so poorly written and poorly reasoned that its obviously carp. If kdawson keeps falling for this and posting irrelevant crap, they need to get rid of him as an editor.
If I want to red this kind of specious attack on capitalism, ebay or guns, I can go get it at indymedia or daily Kos.
Hey KDawson, keep it up, you'll enter Katz territory soon. Everyone: I advise tagging stories like this "kdawsontroll"
I dunno, I think its the fault of whoever is making a cell phone small enough for the bees to use.
Bigtime agreement! My 16C still smokes anything out there in terms of ease of use, etc. Setting, testing, clearing bits, and masks, settingthe type of complement you want for the math, varyign the word size up to 64 bits (before there were even 64 bit CPUS around!) - and all in that small form factor wiht a clean display and fantastic keyfeel. Simply amazing. Especially for someone that has to deal with low level devices and their custom interfaces.
I wish they would remake that one or the 15C. I miss my 15C (lost in a move a long time ago), but would have to get medieval on somone if they took my 16C.
I still have my 48GX and a spare one of those, but they are overkill - the 16C is perfect combination of form and function.
Sorry, try reading the article.
Those "dont want the internet" folks in the survey said "money was not the issue". So poverty is OUT as a cause.
Secondly, the definition of "Poverty" you use is ridiculously malleable and political, thats why you have 28 million or more there. They define it as the bottom 10% more or less, so you will ALWAYS have millions "below the poverty line". But you apparentlyare ignorant about how they calculate it: "Poverty Line" calculations that you refer to do not count the significant charitable help most poor have (Habitat for Humanity, community shelters and halfway houses, food banks, soup kitchens, etc), as well as governmental programs like WIC, food stamps, Welfare, subsidised housing, Medicare/Medicaid, free school lunches, government food assistance, Social Security Disability, etc. That is why you have statistics like: you can be "Poor" according to the income based poverty line, and still have a phone, cell phone, car, 2 tvs, air conditioning, etc. And those items are quite common amongst the "poor".
You want to see *real* poverty go visit Mozambique (been there with the Red Cross - the suffering there is horrid), or some ghettos in central America (for example Nicaragua). Potable water, shelter and food are the issues there, not whether or not to trade the Government Cheese for cigarettes, or sell the food stamps to buy a Nintendo.
Get your head out of your ass - and get your ass out of the US political blinders and learn a bit about the world. Even better - go do something about it instead of preaching on slashdot. I have.
And thats the problem. You CANNOT say "if you use a pirated code, some files on your system will be deleted" and thnk that by having the user agree to that you are protected.
An illegal criminal act is always an illegal criminal act, no matter how much civil contract you wrap around it. Federal law doesnt look to see if there was a civil release for you to commit a crime. It looks at evidence: did you deliberately and maliciously (with harm intended) violate this law by damaging or deleting files that did not belong to you on this computer? The answer here is Yes for that author, so he is criminally liable.
PERIOD.
Don't mix up civil (EULA) and Criminal Law (CFSA) - that's your error.
Sorry, but civil tort (the EULA) does not override criminal law (The Fruad Act).
First there is the FACT that click-thru EULAs are of questionable legality.
More importantly, you cannot sign away your rights to bring criminal actions, only civil ones. And a license does not allow criminal acts to suddenly become legal. For instance, no "EULA" in the world allows the Bank to break federal laws about your accounts no matter how much permission you personally give the Bank in a civil contract.
Add to that, the DELIBRATE and MALICIOUS act of deleting data and or functional parts of a person's computer system that are unrelated to the product... thats pure damage far outside the scope of the product, and is damaging to other functiona unrelated to the piece of software in question, and a clear violation of the CFSA.
Put it all together, it just spells out how wrong you are about this.
Its akin to saying "you put a stolen radio in your car, so Im making it short out your ignition system and ignite your gas tank".
Xegony?
I was there day 1. When wee petitioned to have it be an "RP" server.
FoH is who you are referring to in locking others out of the planes. Farming bastards.
Instances are a must - thats why I switche to WoW instead of EQ (well, after Mythic ruined Realm v. Realm on Camelot with the horrible Atlantic expansion grind).
I used to be Chumba of Clan MacLear in both places.
As fas as Van goes, no surprises there in terms of grinds and so on - its the same crew that did EQ1 and their horrible grindfests and got the title "Evercamp" for all the camping you had to do to get good items (how long did you camp for the Ancient Cyclops? Hah!)
Its Kdawson's incessant knee-jerk lefty trolling. He's becomingthe lft version of Rush Limbaugh for Slashdot - his articales are almost always biased, and almost always left. All he does is stir up the rabble on the left and reationaries on the right.
He's the worst editor here since Katz.
What blackmail info does he have on Malda?
"And the Catholic bishop who told people that voting for Kerry was a sin deserves a nice visit from the IRS."
Wrong. If he had said "Do Not Vote For Kerry" then the IRS gets involved. Determination of sin is a religious act, not a political one. Pity that it appears the do not teach religion or morals in the shcools anymore (not "a" religion or specific morals, but religion as a survey of all the major world ones, and morality in general).
From the old-school hard-core Catholic point of view that Bishop has, elective abortion is an absolute and unconditional moral evil and the religious doctrine they have says one cannot aid and abet evil nor can one support/condone those who do. So a vote for Kerry, or Guliani (who are actively pro-choice and pro-abortion) *IS* a sin under that doctrine if there is an alternative candidate who does not stand against the Catholic doctrine of Human Vitae. And there is nothing the IRS can say about that.
Ii guess the Catholics do get bonus points in that they can vote for a pro-choice candidate, then go to confession and be absolved of the sin of doing so (the church giveth, the church taketh away), unlike Southern Baptists, etc, who don't have that confession thing built into their religion.
'The "From the one-hat-to-bind-them dept" probably wont help with that cause.'
/. editorial troll since Katz.
What did you expect?
Its Kdawson - the biggest
WRONG!
"And don't just say we need to increase security. That just does not work. We can't get security in Iraq even having the country overrun by military."
Completely wrong. Controllign a border is NOT like controlling a country. And Iraq is not a valid example. Learn your history. Historically it has taken a 1:20 or better ratio of occupiers to population to control part of a country that is in opposition to the occupiers/liberators (Bavaria, etc). Furthermore, most of those estimates are based on a country that has been decimated by the conquerer in the process prior to the occupation, unlike Iraq wich was trasehd before the occupation by its own government, and left relatively unscathed in historical terms, by the assauting forces. Given there is a "liberation" aspect, expecially in Kurdistan (I've been there its at peace - and very western), the ratio can be probably pushed closer to 1:25.
25 million people in Iraq, and there are mayb 130K US troops, 20K brits and about 20K other nations. 170K troops to control 25 million people? Not going to work. Barely 20% of what is needed under optimal assumptions based on history. Add in 250K Iraqi police and Army troops, and you're still at less than HALF of whats needed to control the country. So that's where Bush screwed up. He listened to Rumsfeld who told him the numbers needed to throw out the government but apparently never figured out how many it took to put in a new one.
So given your incorrect premise, your argument fails. Occupying Iraq is not at all similar to enforcing the US border.
Secondly, border security is far different from controlling the countryside. So your argument fails there too. Borders can be secured against the most determined and ingenious people. The East German and Czech "iron curtain" is proof of that.
Fences and patrols can stop all but the most determined crossers, and that is all that is needed. A deterrent. Especially when the decision to violate the border is being made *primarily* for economic cost, not fundamental issues, like personal freedom.
Third you dont understand the function of a barrier in terms of military security. Barriers are not there to stop the enemy as much as they are meant to slow him to where they can be reacted to, and acted against, effectively. A fence with patrollers would certainly slow the influx of illegals -and thier attempts top cross back and forth would be greatly curtailed. A secondary effect of a barrier (i.e. fence in civil world, minefield, etc in military) is to increase the cost of a particualr route, and force the opponent to go elsewhere. So even an incomplete fence, were it to cover a large enough contiguous area of the "best" routes, would be effective at canalizing the illegals into routes either less desirable (thus discouraging them from coming by greatly increasing the difficulty), or routes/terrain where they are easier to catch by the patrolling force.
Finally, with out a fence, why should an illegal enter your program? And how will we stopthe influx of the criminal elements? All the policy in the world will nto work if there is not an enforcement mechanism behind it.
So basically your arguements about fences and border enforcement are wrong - and worse, they are harmful because they encourage (irrational) abandonment of the best initial and inexpensive response we have.
Sorry, nice try though.
Your problem is that you are basing your argument on a fallacious point. Yes we did absorb previous waves, but none this large, and NONE of them were completely unmonitored like this one.
Those waves came almost completely LEGALLY (recall the pictures of Ellis Island)- and there were rejects amongst the Irish, the Italians, the Chinese, etc. You need to read your history, not the propagnda that is passed out these days with a political objective. And the criminals are numerous - need I point out the numerous crimes comitted by illegals?
Yes the immigration system is broken, but without a fence it will not matter whether its working or not.
Fence First. The rest will follow.
Well, then the NYT put a misleading headline in there. Were I to submit it, I'd have a different title suggested.
But I'm not surprised by that. They have been innacurate at best quite often over the past few years. Neither left nor right, but simply wrong. Sulzburg is destroying that paper, its a shame.
"you should at least *rad* the linked "
And I should READ rather than just spellcheck my posts. "rad" apparently is a properly spelled word; LOL!
RTFA! Ciber is not banned from TESTING, but from certifying the machines as properly tested. This is due to Ciber not properly performing the tests, including completing the proper paperwork and observing the safeguards that ensure the tests are accurate. A better headline would be "Government Halts E-Voting Machine Certification - Testing is inadequate"
/. Editors, you should at least *rad* the linked article you are posting and put a *proper* headline on it, rather than the misleading inflammatory crap that you used. KDawson proves yet again that he is an utter boob when it comes to editorial selection and headlines. Time to fire his ass.
Sheesh. Come on
Very true - same goes for turns and such, where your body give you clues that you can take in some situations, and must ignore in others. I don't see how they can reduce the stick time a whole lot in favor of a sim. You can learn to fly th instruments in a sim, but not fly the plane. Especially true in bad situations and in interface situations (takeoff landing) as you point out.
"Sounds like a brilliant idea to increase stock portfolio 20 fold. And Slashdot bought into it. Maybe they understand the concept of shorting."
Sheesh, Kneejerk slashbot response. Read the original. This is from a NONPROFIT research company that appears to be held privately. Not big Pharma, no stock involved. And on top of that, its a common substance they used, capsaicin. You know, like comes from hot peppers you can grow in your yard. Kinda hard to patent that.
Won't have a gun in your house? Put a sign out front to that effect if you truly beleive this to be proper.
Lets assume the rapist doesnt have a gun either - your "gun free" fantasy society.
You're away on business, he breaks in. Your wife has nothing to do but cower in the closet while trying to dial 911. And at 6'2 and 255 pounds, he slams your petite wife to the floor, then holds a knife to her throat and rapes her. Then cuts her caratoid and leaves.
Still feel safe, moron?
Add in a handgun. Loaded. In the bedside drawer, and you both go to the reange every month to be sure you can shoot it effectively and handle it safely.
Bad guy breaks in, wife grabs the gun and the phone and tries to hide in the closet. Bad guy flings door open, she pops him with 2-3 rounds (out of the 6 she fires in panic). Even if he is armed with a gun, she has the sdrop on him and will get the first shots in before he can even bring the firearm he has to bear. Bad guy topples. Dead or wounded. No rape happening.
Handguns are equalizers. They allow the less physical to defend themselves against the brute force criminal.
Violent criminals have been around since the first guy picked up a stick and beat another one to death with it and then took his stuff.
Handguns serve as a deterrent and as an equalizer. And they are used that way every years, especially by the elderly and by women, to defend themsleves against physically superior attackers.
Your "need" for a gun is NOT the result of guns for criminals, its the result of *criminals* PERIOD. Get your thinking straight - stop putting the violence on the instrument, and put it on the person using it.
And how is this correct?
f ileName=001/llsl001.db&recNum=144
... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."
You cannot state it by fiat - try addressing the errors pointed out by many here - especially in case law, and in the fundamental reading of the Amendment itself:
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&
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.
Note the PROPER punctional at the Library of Congress - the extra commans after "Militia" and after "Arms" are rmoved, as they are absent in the proper rendering of the Amendment (LOC is authoritative on this).
Now its obvious that "milita" has to do with the security of a free state - but the "rights of the people..." are clearly what "shall not be infringed". Obvious.
As for "well regulated" - the proper meaning is from its usage at the time of the amendment:
The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:
1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."
1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."
1812: "The equation of time
The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it. That means for a militia, each individual is properly armed. And further in the Constitution, "militia" back then meant what we mean now by "citizenry"
So where do you see the DC lawyers being a "correcct" reading - it blatently contravenes the quite obvious meaning of the law as written. So no - as I have pointed out (and you lack any presentment of evidence to back up your bald assumption) their reading is NOT a "correct" reading at all - its egregiously wrong. And so is your assumption absent any proof to the contrary.
As a coder - I say read the source and you'll understand the program better.
f ileName=001/llsl001.db&recNum=144
... not infringed" is clearly seen as the establishing clause (i.e. the law).
... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."
From the Library of Congress:
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&
"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."
The problem for you and 99% of the posters here is the extra commas in your citations - they are simply wrong and mislead you.
As seen above, they were NOT part of the original bill of rights - and you should take them OUT. The "well regulated militia" can be seen clearly above as a justifying clause (i.e. reaons for this amendment), and the "right of the people
Plus, you misconstrue "well regulated". That terminology in those days had nothing to do with law or organization - but with it being functional - i.e. properly equipped for its function.
The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:
1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."
1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."
1812: "The equation of time
In the case of the [unorganized] "militia" (all otherwise unburdened full citizens of proper age) that means "well equipped and competent" - that is "properly armed".
If you translate that into modern usage, the 2nd Amendment becomes much more clear:
A properly armed citizenry being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Now where does that allow for handgun *bans*? Nowhere. However it does allow for limitations on the "proper" armaments available for the citizen. So no howitzers or machine guns or chemical weapons. No sawed off shotguns or claymore mines. But Knives, nun-chucks, mace, properly functioning pistols, shotguns and rifles are reasonable.
Why are people so thick headed about this?
Its a huge stretch to see it characterized this way for gun control. It would be requiring petition for grievences to only be legal if they were assembled directly at the peron in government to whom you were petitioning - so no rallies, etc.
Aside from that, if you want to rouse the really hard conservatives from their slumber that Bush has put them in, this is a sure fire way to get a very large number of well monied and highly motivated one-issue voters out there and run the Democrats out of office in 2008. It worked back in 1994. I think Newt Gingrich is probably cheering these foolish lawyers on - I know Rove coulndt ask for more if he wants to fire up his base. Come on Democrats, smarten up! This issue is a political loser - and on top of that, in the bigger scheme, its not all that important compared to other social justice issues that can and should be taken on with the time and talent at hand.
"The only way to defeat "terrorism" is by getting rid of interventionism and changing the foreign policy"
And how would that placate those violent Salafists who wish a world-wide Caliphate, and are prepared to inflict mass casualties to obtain it?
You seem to be woefully ignorant of the "causes of the issue" if you are imply they are economic - and remember that the 9/11 terrorists were middle-class Saudis. No poverty issue there. They were not flying into the buildings screaming "Gimme More Money", nope it was "God is Great".
Wake up - its too late for trying to talk people around, and bribe them with foreign aid. The hatred that has been bred and fed over the past 2 decades in the fundamentalist Islamist world can no longer be dealt with by appeasing it, nor by ignoring it.
I dont know what the answer is, because I don't know how to put the pin back in the handgrenade that are the religious fanatics (of all religions, from clinic bombers in Carolina to car bombers in Chechnya).
But it damn sure isnt more of the same that we tried in the 80's (supporting "our" dictators) and 90's (treating it as a socio-economic and police issue).
"I most certainly do not want the NSA to have any software at all."
Too bad you are so close-minded (and actually pretty stupid given that absolute statment about an agency which you know little of, other than inaccurate press reports). The NSA does do good work amongst all its tasks, need I remind you of SE-Linux?
And besides, the GPL means to make software Free - and that means *anyone* can use it.
RTFA - the go and read the "Gingrinch".
/.-er who doest read the article) is politics.
He is not advocating that the first amendment and net be shut - he is PREDICTING that after a large destructive terror attack, the first casualty will be the First Amendment.
He is basically warning we have to get on the ball now fighting terrorist organization, or else our society will suffer in the backlash of an attack. And the other point which was made was that there is no appeasing the terroist - they are religious fanatics who will attack without provocation. Our mere refusal to submit the the Calihpate (as the Salafists and Wahabists demand) and Sharia law are provocation enough under their warped view of Islam.
The rest of it (and the typical knee-jerk mischaracterizations on both side here, but especially the typical lefty
Don't shoot the messenger, look at the message.
There is some scary truth there - and we shoudl act now to prevent far worse abuses (and deaths) later.