I don't think it's possible to "prove" code is correct at all - it's all so arbitrary you'd pretty much have to boil down to the assembly language and specific processor model to prove anything works - otherwise you're just relying on your compiler working correctly and who's to say that it's without bugs itself?
It is possible to prove that code is correct for specific data, because a computer program is simply a mathematical algorithm, and any algorithm can be proven to be correct for any particular input. Now, the difficulty of the proof is hard to determine, and only valid input can be considered. (Note that once your program tests for "invalid" input and does something predictable, that input is now technically valid, though unreasonable, input.)
You are right, however, that a particular implementation of an algorithm on an actual machine is subject to problems with the machine itself, including design flaws and environmental effects. You may be able to prove your code is correct for a given input set, including all possible user input, but what happens when a bit gets flipped in a state register due to cosmic radiation?
Okay, so what you're saying is that anything that was legal when th constitution was written should be legal now, are you?
Right, let's see the 1787 law forbidding the use of nuclear weapons in populated areas to kill rats.
What, there isn't one? Oops. I guess that means I have a constitutional right to use a nuclear weapon to kill rats in your backyard, then. See you in hell.
Are you a complete dumbass, or what? You didn't read the entire post, obviously.
I also said this: (new emphasis added)
The courts have ruled that the use of a weapon can be regulated. In other words, you may be able to keep and bear a weapon, but pulling the trigger could be a crime. There are also limits to to what kind of weapon a person could reasonably be expected to be allowed to keep and bear in certain situations, just as there are court-upheld laws that forbid making certain kinds of speech in certain situations. ("Fire!" in a crowded theatre, etc.)
Would a person be reasonably expected to keep and bear a nuclear weapon? No.
Nice try, dipshit.
Re:Look north for proof how wrong you might be....
on
Smart Guns are Coming
·
· Score: 1
There rere more threats than just the British monarch. There were indians, rebelling slaves, wild animals, bandits, and other threats to individuals. Granted, most of those are no longer threats, but the simple fact is that most American gun owners see it as an inalienable right to be able to defend oneself with the exact same weapons that the criminals have. You can't take guns away from criminals by passing a law.
And just to make it clear, before anyone says something: I in no way mean this to be construed that indians or rebelling slaves were criminals in any ethical sense, nor are people criminals merely because of their population group. I was merely pointing out that at the time of the 2nd amendment, the general population that the Constitution was written for did consider these groups to be threats.
Re:Look north for proof how wrong you might be....
on
Smart Guns are Coming
·
· Score: 1
Are you suggesting that if there were less automatic guns and handguns around, just as many people would be shot and killed in the US??? Because that's was sort of my whole point in the previous post - If you had less guns in circulation that were built for only one purpose (ie shooting humans) you'd probably have less humans shot.
No, I'm suggesting that if you take our guns away, we'll find other ways to kill each other. Law abiding citizens like me will simply keep a crossbow at the ready. It'll work just as well as a gun in close quarters... not only that, but it will create an very unsanitary noncollapsed wound channel. It'll hurt and get infected very fast.
Why does the instrument of death matter so much? I'd rather be shot than beaten to death, really.
Such as the belief that an amendment made 200 years ago during times when reinvasion by a British monarch were a possiblity is somehow a justification to be able to carry concealed and/or automatic weaponry around today?
There rere more threats than just the British monarch. There were indians, rebelling slaves, wild animals, bandits, and other threats to individuals. Granted, most of those are no longer threats, but the simple fact is that most American gun owners see it as an inalienable right to be able to defend oneself with the exact same weapons that the criminals have. You can't take guns away from criminals by passing a law.
Oh, and correcting some information on your original post:
1. Fully automatic weapons are effectively banned by taxation, registration, licensing, and strict transfer laws. Since the enactment of this regulation in the 1930s, only two crimes have been committed using a lawfully owned machine gun, and one of those was committed by a cop. 2. So-called "converted automatics" are also illegal because it is illegal to modify the receiver of a gun in such a way as to make it fully automatic if it was manufactured as a semi-automatic, except under certain difficult-to-obtain licensing from the BATF. 3. Sawed-off shotguns an certain other easy-to-conceal modified weapons are also banned.
I shouldn't even get into the issue of a so-called "semi-automatic assault weapon". Such a thing did not exist until anti-gun people invented the term. Explain to me why a (civilian model) AR-15 is a "semi-automatic assault weapon", while a semi-automatic varmint gun routinely carried by farmers that shoots the same ammunition with the same basic load capacity is not.
The simple explanation (and the correct one) is because of the way it looks, not because of its capabilities. I can say with experience that they are both equally capable, but one of them happens to look like the current issue U.S. military rifle.
Which intrigues me. How would you know there was a rape being perpetrated if you witnessed it?
The "HELP ME PLEASE HELP HELP ME!" screams would tend to be a god indicator, wouldn't they?
According to details on the story, about 20 people had called in the rape to the police department after hearing the woman screaming, looking out the front window, and actually seeing her being raped right there in broad daylight. The cops were already on their way there when the shooting was called in.
What if you ended up shooting the male half of a couple who are into kinky sex, roleplaying, B&D?
If you are roleplaying a rape in broad daylight on the sidewalk, you take that risk.
The second amendment to the Constitution, only definitively guarantees the right to bear arms for the purpose of a well-organized militia. The right to bear arms beyond those purpsoes is unclear. In fact, one could very reasonably consider that the National Guard meets the legal criteria of a well-organized militia, and say that no one not associated with the Guard has the right to bear arms.
No. It says: 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. It does not say "well-organized".
The meaning of the word "regulated" is interesting. I can mean to place into order, it can also mean "To adjust for accurate and proper functioning." Interesting. In a military sense, it also means well-equipped or well-supplied, and well-trained. Regulars vs. irregulars.
Aside from that matter, and probably the main reason the courts have thus far stayed away from the posession issue, is that the latter part, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed", is not a dependent clause. The first part, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State", provides a sufficient condition for the second part to exist, but not a necessary condition.
The courts have ruled that the use of a weapon can be regulated. In other words, you may be able to keep and bear a weapon, but pulling the trigger could be a crime. There are also limits to to what kind of weapon a person could reasonably be expected to be allowed to keep and bear in certain situations, just as there are court-upheld laws that forbid making certain kinds of speech in certain situations. ("Fire!" in a crowded theatre, etc.)
That all being said, the anti gun-rights people often ignore another important amendment in the Bill of Rights, good old amendment number nine: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Even if the guarantee for the second amendment was for the right to form a militial, good old Nine specifically speaks to rights retained by the people, and when it was enacted, carrying weapons for self-defense and other lawful purposes was certainly a right.
Re:Look north for proof how wrong you might be....
on
Smart Guns are Coming
·
· Score: 1
[meaningless statistics not quoted]
Comparing the United States to Canada (or any other country) is like comparing apples and rocks. You completely left out a lot of things that affect the homicide rate in the United States.
1. Your death rate failed to distinguish accidents, lawful homicides, and unlawful homicides.
2. Drug-related violence and organized crime are resposible for a large portion of the gun-death rate in the U.S. As far as I know, Canada does not have the Crips and the Bloods, among others. I don't know about organized crime in Canada, but I imagine the opportunities are less in Canada.
3. Gun death rates are higher in major cities because cities tend to have higher crime rates than urban areas. (More opportunity, socioeconomic conditions, etc.) The U.S. has far more major cities than Canada.
4. Cultural conflicts. Canada (with the exception of the problems in Quebec) has largely a homogenous culture. In the United States, we have many hyphenated-Americans, and violence between cultural groups. This would account for for some of the increased death rate.
The simple fact is, it isn't just about gun availability, it's largely about culture and crime. Gun deaths are a symptom, the disease is something else.
You would also need to look at figures for non-gun homicides. Homicide is homicide no matter the weapon.
In short, your simplistic statistics don't say a damn thing about what is really going on.
You've been watching way too much Fox news. If you're really that scared of someone breaking into your house, buy some big steel doors and bars for your windows. Maybe even get an alarm system. Having a gun doesn't really stop anybody from breaking into your house. Unless you actually sleep with it under your pillow (bad idea), what are the odds that you are going to get to your gun faster than the raping gun toting burglar you described? Guns just give you a false sense of security without actually providing you with a sufficient level of protection.
Tell that to the woman whose rapist got shot yesterday by a neigbor who owned a gun and knew how to use it:
This happened not to far away from my home... I happened to be a block away from the location when the police responded. If I'd been there 5 minutes earlier and witnessed the rape happening in the middle of the day in front of a house, it just might have been me who shot the rapist.
Your personal experience undoubtably means a lot to you. Thanks for sharing. However, not everyone has parents as intellegent as yours, nor is every child as obiedient and intellegent as you were. So we can spend a lot of time and money trying to educate children and parents, or we can pass a law making smart guns the law. Which do you thing is easier and cheaper for the government to do?
By that logic:
It is a lot easier and cheaper to not give everyone an education and to declare their future occupation at birth by law. Which do you think we should do?
Found as an SSID in Eugene, Oregon during a wardrive. No, it wasn't my doing.
Incidentally, a kind neighbor with "linksys" provides me with free broadband. Wonder how long it'll be before someone discovers it and actually changes the password on the AP.
It might be different for you, but I'm a 28-year old U.S. Army veteran who is a college senior in a CIS program, and I can tell you the hardest thing about going back to school was realizing how much people just 10 years younger than me annoy the hell out me on a daily basis.
This is how it is in a major public university in the United States:
You'd be surprised at the sheer number of these kids in college can't, don't, or won't clean up after themselves. They spill a creamed-and-sugared coffee on a table eating lunch, what do they do? Rather than getting a few paper towels and cleaning it up, they simply leave it there to become a sticky mess. (Janitorial service here comes every two nights.) Is it that fucking hard to do the right thing?
Be prepared to dodge skateboards and bicycles, despite posted signs saying where it is and is not okay to be riding them. And watch the vandalism start when your school takes measures to prevent skateboards from being used in places where it is dangerous, destructive, or inappropriate.
You'll find that most of the undergrads, especially in the lower division, can't seem to be able to read or follow simple instructions.
The number of cell phones that ring during lectures or even final exams is astonishing. How hard is it to remember to put the phone on silent mode, or better yet, turn it off. I've even seen people answer the phone in class during lecture.
If you've had any world experience that has caused you to mature over the bulk of the students at school, be prepared to feel like you've been shoved right back into high school. As a graduate student it will be better, but you still have to deal with it between classes and in class if your school combines 400- and 500-level courses into one class.
God forbid you wind up at a Pac-10 or other big NCAA school like mine. Nobody in the surrounding community gives a shit about your education. Most of them only care about how the are doing. Nobody blinks an eye when they jack up tuition and fees, they just want to see football and basketball.
Ahh, it's nice to be able to rant every now and then. I feel better.
2) AMD deserves the credit for killing 16bit, not MS.
Maybe some of the credit, but Microsoft still could have supported the code, as you pointed out, through full emulation. They are clearly willing to do this to support 32-bit software because they have implemented full emulation for 32-bit code in 64-bit Intel processors that don't include a 32-bit compatibility mode.
Historically, M$ has bent over backwards to provide legacy support. This is a definite change for them. No matter, as I pointed out in another post, a full Pentium emulator is available to anyone who needs to run 16-bit code (or any 32-bit code that doesn't seem to work on AMD64).
If there is truly a need to run software that old on AMD64, it can be done.
It seems that there is no NTVDM (WOW) for running DOS or Windows 3.x applications.
What 16-bit DOS or Windows applications are you running?
Is it possible install 16-bit subsystem manually using files from 32-bit Windows XP?
Probably not, but did you ever consider using virtualization software like VMware ($) or an emulator like bochs (free)? You could run your 16-bit code that way.
Now, I'm not one who normally defends Microsoft products, nor do I usually respond to trolls, but here goes:
Windows XP 64-bit edition has some major limitations. First, it uses a new driver model that means that all of the 32-bit drivers for your existing hardware will not work with the new Windows.
Given that almost all hardware manufacturers target Windows, I doubt this will be a problem for long for currently-supported hardware.
Second, it has no support implemented for legacy 16-bit DOS or Windows apps which will therefore not run on it. The x86-64 cpus have support for running 16-bit software but Micrsoft chose not to enable it.
Credit to Microsoft for finally taking the plunge and not supporting obsolete code. Nobody *has* to use 64-bit Windows, and frankly, using a 64-bit box to run 16-bit software is... a waste. Legacy support has bitten Microsoft in the ass more than a few times when it came to security problems with Windows. Besides, if you need to, you can always run old code using a product like VMware, as well.
These limitations don't exist for the 64-bit Linux versions.
This might be because the Linux kernel never "supported" 16-bit DOS or Windows apps by itself. (In fact, the Linux kernel can't run any 16-bit programs by itself, you needed a program like dosemu.)
Nice troll.
Microsoft ruled the 32-bit desktop but the 64-bit desktop should belong to Linux.
That may turn out to be true, but not for any reason you listed.
(Note to Starbucks victims---normal restaurants often provide "bottomless" cups of coffee for the price of a single cup, typically less than a dollar and a half).
You call that coffee? "normal restaurants" tend to provide weakly-brewed generic-brand coffee that is low on caffiene and weak on flavor. I'm not saying Starbucks is a shining example of the world's best coffee, but I'll take it any day over what you get in a Denny's, IHOP, Shari's (for my fellow Pacific Northwesterners), or any other "normal restaurant."
Personally, I prefer Dutch Bros. coffee on the road, and I do the Starbucks thing when I need a place to sit. Having an outlet for the laptop is a big bonus. Quite often I'll try a local coffee place in an area I visit, but they tend to be less computer-friendly.
The best coffee is brewed at home from freshly ground beans. It should be opaque and have a definite oil slick visible on top (from the bean oils, not from pollution of your coffee making supplies), but not too strong or overdone.
$35000000 - amount committed to help victims 100000 - conservative death toll = $350 - spent to aid each victim
You don't give aid to dead people, you moron. The aid is for the survivors. $35 million purchases a lot of food and clean drinking water.
Your other set of numbers is likewise flawed due to the fact that the purpose of the mission in Iraq is not to kill Iraqis. Another poster has calculated better numbers.
I'm ashamed to be an American. Call me a troll if you want, but these numbers are sickening.
Last I heard, the total that all countries had so far pledged was about $100 million. Of that, our government is contributing over a third.
You will also find that your fellow Americans will donate to private relief efforts quite generously, which is how it should be (rather than tax dollars). Have you donated your $10 yet? If you haven't and you aren't pitifully poor, then I am ashamed you even call yourself an American.
As far as you being ashamed of being an American, do me a favor and move to Canada. This will solve your problem with America, and my problem with you.
Copyright violation is NOT a felony, and is thus a matter for a civil case.
No matter how much you repeat that, in this case it is simply not true. Why don't we just take a look at the relevant federal laws here and here.
Now, the definition of "felony" is a crime that is punishable by more than one year of imprisonment (or death). Since this person distributed more than $1000 retail value of copyrighted materials in a 180-day period they are in violation of the title 17 law referenced above, and committed "criminal infringement". By the letter of the law, a crime. Since the title 18 law referenced specifies a punishment of up to three to five years imprisonment for said crime, it is a a felony by definition.
Leave it to an anonymous coward to not only spout 'facts' that haven't been checked, but also to fail to know (or check) the definitions of words.
Because our law enforcement is acting on the behalf of private companies (who should be filing civil suits against these people) instead of going after the rapists/murders/terrorists of the World.
You're a moron. Law enforcement works on behalf of private citizens and companies all the time. There are plenty of criminal offenses that require someone to notify law enforcement before anything can be done. They wouldn't chase the rapist if the victim never reported it, to use one of your examples.
By your logic, if someone broke into my house (let's say that they didn't cause any damage and didn't steal anything, just to make it fair), I should have to file a civil suit against this person, rather than call the police.
You might be arguing that all copyright infringement should be a civil matter, not a criminal matter, but in this case, it was a criminal matter and those arrested were charged with a crime.
Myth TV and Tivo are all about aquiring media and playing it back later. But I already have aquired quite a bit, and it is sitting on my computer hard drive. Now, I just want to watch it on my TV from the couch. Tivo excells at recording shows off of TV. It is not good at playing my XVID files off my WIFI network. MythTV seems like maybe it could do what I want, but it's WAY overkill -- I'd want to put it on a computer with no DVD drive, no TV card, and with no Myth backend on my network, etc.
Try GeeXboX. It can be booted off CD or installed on a hard drive, automatically finds network shares with media files on them, among other features. It is Linux- and Mplayer-based, and is easily customized.
There's a large difference between devaluing someone's work and stealing from that person.
True, but:
There's a large difference between negligent manslaughter (due to an accident) and first degree murder (wanton killing), but try explaining the difference to the victim's family.
It's not the best analogy, but the point is that infringement is damaging *someone*, at the very least it cheapens someone's labor. The person who made the original work still feels cheated (which is true) and victimized (under the law, also true), even if the person posessing the copy would never have bought the original.
The online equivalent of stealing should be a crime. But copyright infringment is not stealing. It's reproducing duplicates.
No, it isn't stealing, but it is damaging to the copyright owner all the same.
It's very similar to counterfieting money, only in the case of copyright infringement, it's not everyone being hurt, it's just a "bad" and "evil" corporation. And/Or artist.
The argument that nobody lost a sale to infringement ("piracy") is misleading at best, or a plain lie at worst. On average, people will go out of their way to obtain something of value for the minimum cost. It's simple human nature. I have seen people who obtain 100% of their music by infringement. To say that these people would simply not buy music if they couldn't get it for free is wishful thinking.
However, even if the argument were true, and every case of infringement was not a lost potential sale, merely having unauthorized copies in circulation reduces the overall value of the thing being copied, and this doesn't just apply to movies, music, and software, but also to paintings, photographs, sculptures, etc. Especially when the copy is *perfect*. If there were 200 Mona Lisas in the world, and nobody could tell which one was the original, they'd all be worth a lot less than the one original. This would be true even if the 199 fakes were owned by people who would never have bought the original Mona Lisa anyway.
At the very least, when you infringe someone's copyright, quite often you are benefiting from someone's work without paying them for their labor.
Anyone who shops at WalMart is party to the destruction of the american middle class, the 40 hour work week, and employer paid health care.
Funny, my wife's uncle works at wall mart, is paid just fine (he and his wife live off the income), works a 40-hour work week and has health benefits.
But, you bring up something... why should an employer pay for your health insurance? What's wrong with them *not* paying for your health insurance and perhaps giving the money to you in the form of a higher wage?
Perhaps it is pro government health care folks say, and you are too stupid to evaluate your own health care and insurance needs...
Just remember, nobody makes anyone work at Wal*Mart, McDonald's, or anywhere else.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think it's possible to "prove" code is correct at all - it's all so arbitrary you'd pretty much have to boil down to the assembly language and specific processor model to prove anything works - otherwise you're just relying on your compiler working correctly and who's to say that it's without bugs itself?
It is possible to prove that code is correct for specific data, because a computer program is simply a mathematical algorithm, and any algorithm can be proven to be correct for any particular input. Now, the difficulty of the proof is hard to determine, and only valid input can be considered. (Note that once your program tests for "invalid" input and does something predictable, that input is now technically valid, though unreasonable, input.)
For an example of proving certain code correct, this is an example proving the correctness of a loop using loop invariant theorem (which follows mathematical induction).
You are right, however, that a particular implementation of an algorithm on an actual machine is subject to problems with the machine itself, including design flaws and environmental effects. You may be able to prove your code is correct for a given input set, including all possible user input, but what happens when a bit gets flipped in a state register due to cosmic radiation?
Okay, so what you're saying is that anything that was legal when th constitution was written should be legal now, are you?
Right, let's see the 1787 law forbidding the use of nuclear weapons in populated areas to kill rats.
What, there isn't one? Oops. I guess that means I have a constitutional right to use a nuclear weapon to kill rats in your backyard, then. See you in hell.
Are you a complete dumbass, or what? You didn't read the entire post, obviously.
I also said this: (new emphasis added)
The courts have ruled that the use of a weapon can be regulated. In other words, you may be able to keep and bear a weapon, but pulling the trigger could be a crime. There are also limits to to what kind of weapon a person could reasonably be expected to be allowed to keep and bear in certain situations, just as there are court-upheld laws that forbid making certain kinds of speech in certain situations. ("Fire!" in a crowded theatre, etc.)
Would a person be reasonably expected to keep and bear a nuclear weapon? No.
Nice try, dipshit.
There rere more threats than just the British monarch. There were indians, rebelling slaves, wild animals, bandits, and other threats to individuals. Granted, most of those are no longer threats, but the simple fact is that most American gun owners see it as an inalienable right to be able to defend oneself with the exact same weapons that the criminals have. You can't take guns away from criminals by passing a law.
And just to make it clear, before anyone says something: I in no way mean this to be construed that indians or rebelling slaves were criminals in any ethical sense, nor are people criminals merely because of their population group. I was merely pointing out that at the time of the 2nd amendment, the general population that the Constitution was written for did consider these groups to be threats.
Are you suggesting that if there were less automatic guns and handguns around, just as many people would be shot and killed in the US??? Because that's was sort of my whole point in the previous post - If you had less guns in circulation that were built for only one purpose (ie shooting humans) you'd probably have less humans shot.
No, I'm suggesting that if you take our guns away, we'll find other ways to kill each other. Law abiding citizens like me will simply keep a crossbow at the ready. It'll work just as well as a gun in close quarters... not only that, but it will create an very unsanitary noncollapsed wound channel. It'll hurt and get infected very fast.
Why does the instrument of death matter so much? I'd rather be shot than beaten to death, really.
Such as the belief that an amendment made 200 years ago during times when reinvasion by a British monarch were a possiblity is somehow a justification to be able to carry concealed and/or automatic weaponry around today?
There rere more threats than just the British monarch. There were indians, rebelling slaves, wild animals, bandits, and other threats to individuals. Granted, most of those are no longer threats, but the simple fact is that most American gun owners see it as an inalienable right to be able to defend oneself with the exact same weapons that the criminals have. You can't take guns away from criminals by passing a law.
Oh, and correcting some information on your original post:
Canada: Banned guns: Fully automatics; Converted automatics; Semi-automatic assault weapons; Some handguns
U.S. Banned guns: some guns in some states
Not exactly true. In the U.S.:
1. Fully automatic weapons are effectively banned by taxation, registration, licensing, and strict transfer laws. Since the enactment of this regulation in the 1930s, only two crimes have been committed using a lawfully owned machine gun, and one of those was committed by a cop.
2. So-called "converted automatics" are also illegal because it is illegal to modify the receiver of a gun in such a way as to make it fully automatic if it was manufactured as a semi-automatic, except under certain difficult-to-obtain licensing from the BATF.
3. Sawed-off shotguns an certain other easy-to-conceal modified weapons are also banned.
I shouldn't even get into the issue of a so-called "semi-automatic assault weapon". Such a thing did not exist until anti-gun people invented the term. Explain to me why a (civilian model) AR-15 is a "semi-automatic assault weapon", while a semi-automatic varmint gun routinely carried by farmers that shoots the same ammunition with the same basic load capacity is not.
The simple explanation (and the correct one) is because of the way it looks, not because of its capabilities. I can say with experience that they are both equally capable, but one of them happens to look like the current issue U.S. military rifle.
Which intrigues me. How would you know there was a rape being perpetrated if you witnessed it?
The "HELP ME PLEASE HELP HELP ME!" screams would tend to be a god indicator, wouldn't they?
According to details on the story, about 20 people had called in the rape to the police department after hearing the woman screaming, looking out the front window, and actually seeing her being raped right there in broad daylight. The cops were already on their way there when the shooting was called in.
What if you ended up shooting the male half of a couple who are into kinky sex, roleplaying, B&D?
If you are roleplaying a rape in broad daylight on the sidewalk, you take that risk.
The second amendment to the Constitution, only definitively guarantees the right to bear arms for the purpose of a well-organized militia. The right to bear arms beyond those purpsoes is unclear. In fact, one could very reasonably consider that the National Guard meets the legal criteria of a well-organized militia, and say that no one not associated with the Guard has the right to bear arms.
No. It says: 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. It does not say "well-organized".
The meaning of the word "regulated" is interesting. I can mean to place into order, it can also mean "To adjust for accurate and proper functioning." Interesting. In a military sense, it also means well-equipped or well-supplied, and well-trained. Regulars vs. irregulars.
Aside from that matter, and probably the main reason the courts have thus far stayed away from the posession issue, is that the latter part, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed", is not a dependent clause. The first part, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State", provides a sufficient condition for the second part to exist, but not a necessary condition.
The courts have ruled that the use of a weapon can be regulated. In other words, you may be able to keep and bear a weapon, but pulling the trigger could be a crime. There are also limits to to what kind of weapon a person could reasonably be expected to be allowed to keep and bear in certain situations, just as there are court-upheld laws that forbid making certain kinds of speech in certain situations. ("Fire!" in a crowded theatre, etc.)
That all being said, the anti gun-rights people often ignore another important amendment in the Bill of Rights, good old amendment number nine: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Even if the guarantee for the second amendment was for the right to form a militial, good old Nine specifically speaks to rights retained by the people, and when it was enacted, carrying weapons for self-defense and other lawful purposes was certainly a right.
[meaningless statistics not quoted]
Comparing the United States to Canada (or any other country) is like comparing apples and rocks. You completely left out a lot of things that affect the homicide rate in the United States.
1. Your death rate failed to distinguish accidents, lawful homicides, and unlawful homicides.
2. Drug-related violence and organized crime are resposible for a large portion of the gun-death rate in the U.S. As far as I know, Canada does not have the Crips and the Bloods, among others. I don't know about organized crime in Canada, but I imagine the opportunities are less in Canada.
3. Gun death rates are higher in major cities because cities tend to have higher crime rates than urban areas. (More opportunity, socioeconomic conditions, etc.) The U.S. has far more major cities than Canada.
4. Cultural conflicts. Canada (with the exception of the problems in Quebec) has largely a homogenous culture. In the United States, we have many hyphenated-Americans, and violence between cultural groups. This would account for for some of the increased death rate.
The simple fact is, it isn't just about gun availability, it's largely about culture and crime. Gun deaths are a symptom, the disease is something else.
You would also need to look at figures for non-gun homicides. Homicide is homicide no matter the weapon.
In short, your simplistic statistics don't say a damn thing about what is really going on.
You've been watching way too much Fox news. If you're really that scared of someone breaking into your house, buy some big steel doors and bars for your windows. Maybe even get an alarm system. Having a gun doesn't really stop anybody from breaking into your house. Unless you actually sleep with it under your pillow (bad idea), what are the odds that you are going to get to your gun faster than the raping gun toting burglar you described? Guns just give you a false sense of security without actually providing you with a sufficient level of protection.
Tell that to the woman whose rapist got shot yesterday by a neigbor who owned a gun and knew how to use it:
Eugene - One man is dead, another is being questioned and a woman says she was raped.
This happened not to far away from my home... I happened to be a block away from the location when the police responded. If I'd been there 5 minutes earlier and witnessed the rape happening in the middle of the day in front of a house, it just might have been me who shot the rapist.
Your personal experience undoubtably means a lot to you. Thanks for sharing. However, not everyone has parents as intellegent as yours, nor is every child as obiedient and intellegent as you were. So we can spend a lot of time and money trying to educate children and parents, or we can pass a law making smart guns the law. Which do you thing is easier and cheaper for the government to do?
By that logic:
It is a lot easier and cheaper to not give everyone an education and to declare their future occupation at birth by law. Which do you think we should do?
Found as an SSID in Eugene, Oregon during a wardrive. No, it wasn't my doing.
Incidentally, a kind neighbor with "linksys" provides me with free broadband. Wonder how long it'll be before someone discovers it and actually changes the password on the AP.
It might be different for you, but I'm a 28-year old U.S. Army veteran who is a college senior in a CIS program, and I can tell you the hardest thing about going back to school was realizing how much people just 10 years younger than me annoy the hell out me on a daily basis.
This is how it is in a major public university in the United States:
You'd be surprised at the sheer number of these kids in college can't, don't, or won't clean up after themselves. They spill a creamed-and-sugared coffee on a table eating lunch, what do they do? Rather than getting a few paper towels and cleaning it up, they simply leave it there to become a sticky mess. (Janitorial service here comes every two nights.) Is it that fucking hard to do the right thing?
Be prepared to dodge skateboards and bicycles, despite posted signs saying where it is and is not okay to be riding them. And watch the vandalism start when your school takes measures to prevent skateboards from being used in places where it is dangerous, destructive, or inappropriate.
You'll find that most of the undergrads, especially in the lower division, can't seem to be able to read or follow simple instructions.
The number of cell phones that ring during lectures or even final exams is astonishing. How hard is it to remember to put the phone on silent mode, or better yet, turn it off. I've even seen people answer the phone in class during lecture.
If you've had any world experience that has caused you to mature over the bulk of the students at school, be prepared to feel like you've been shoved right back into high school. As a graduate student it will be better, but you still have to deal with it between classes and in class if your school combines 400- and 500-level courses into one class.
God forbid you wind up at a Pac-10 or other big NCAA school like mine. Nobody in the surrounding community gives a shit about your education. Most of them only care about how the are doing. Nobody blinks an eye when they jack up tuition and fees, they just want to see football and basketball.
Ahh, it's nice to be able to rant every now and then. I feel better.
Well, when you upgrade to 64-bit, it sounds like Bochs might be something you'll be interested in.
2) AMD deserves the credit for killing 16bit, not MS.
Maybe some of the credit, but Microsoft still could have supported the code, as you pointed out, through full emulation. They are clearly willing to do this to support 32-bit software because they have implemented full emulation for 32-bit code in 64-bit Intel processors that don't include a 32-bit compatibility mode.
Historically, M$ has bent over backwards to provide legacy support. This is a definite change for them. No matter, as I pointed out in another post, a full Pentium emulator is available to anyone who needs to run 16-bit code (or any 32-bit code that doesn't seem to work on AMD64).
If there is truly a need to run software that old on AMD64, it can be done.
It seems that there is no NTVDM (WOW) for
running DOS or Windows 3.x applications.
What 16-bit DOS or Windows applications are you running?
Is it possible install 16-bit
subsystem manually using files
from 32-bit Windows XP?
Probably not, but did you ever consider using virtualization software like VMware ($) or an emulator like bochs (free)? You could run your 16-bit code that way.
Now, I'm not one who normally defends Microsoft products, nor do I usually respond to trolls, but here goes:
Windows XP 64-bit edition has some major limitations. First, it uses a new driver model that means that all of the 32-bit drivers for your existing hardware will not work with the new Windows.
Given that almost all hardware manufacturers target Windows, I doubt this will be a problem for long for currently-supported hardware.
Second, it has no support implemented for legacy 16-bit DOS or Windows apps which will therefore not run on it. The x86-64 cpus have support for running 16-bit software but Micrsoft chose not to enable it.
Credit to Microsoft for finally taking the plunge and not supporting obsolete code. Nobody *has* to use 64-bit Windows, and frankly, using a 64-bit box to run 16-bit software is... a waste. Legacy support has bitten Microsoft in the ass more than a few times when it came to security problems with Windows. Besides, if you need to, you can always run old code using a product like VMware, as well.
These limitations don't exist for the 64-bit Linux versions.
This might be because the Linux kernel never "supported" 16-bit DOS or Windows apps by itself. (In fact, the Linux kernel can't run any 16-bit programs by itself, you needed a program like dosemu.)
Nice troll.
Microsoft ruled the 32-bit desktop but the 64-bit desktop should belong to Linux.
That may turn out to be true, but not for any reason you listed.
(Note to Starbucks victims---normal restaurants often provide "bottomless" cups of coffee for the price of a single cup, typically less than a dollar and a half).
You call that coffee? "normal restaurants" tend to provide weakly-brewed generic-brand coffee that is low on caffiene and weak on flavor. I'm not saying Starbucks is a shining example of the world's best coffee, but I'll take it any day over what you get in a Denny's, IHOP, Shari's (for my fellow Pacific Northwesterners), or any other "normal restaurant."
Personally, I prefer Dutch Bros. coffee on the road, and I do the Starbucks thing when I need a place to sit. Having an outlet for the laptop is a big bonus. Quite often I'll try a local coffee place in an area I visit, but they tend to be less computer-friendly.
The best coffee is brewed at home from freshly ground beans. It should be opaque and have a definite oil slick visible on top (from the bean oils, not from pollution of your coffee making supplies), but not too strong or overdone.
yay for ham! KB3HLJ :-D
I'll join you with that cheer!!
KD7ILU
This is a troll. Those are NOT the top three games.
:(.
Just goes to show one man's (-1, Troll) is another man's (+1, Funny).
Personally I was in the latter category.
I've never heard of any of these games, though
$35000000 - amount committed to help victims
100000 - conservative death toll
= $350 - spent to aid each victim
You don't give aid to dead people, you moron. The aid is for the survivors. $35 million purchases a lot of food and clean drinking water.
Your other set of numbers is likewise flawed due to the fact that the purpose of the mission in Iraq is not to kill Iraqis. Another poster has calculated better numbers.
I'm ashamed to be an American. Call me a troll if you want, but these numbers are sickening.
Last I heard, the total that all countries had so far pledged was about $100 million. Of that, our government is contributing over a third.
You will also find that your fellow Americans will donate to private relief efforts quite generously, which is how it should be (rather than tax dollars). Have you donated your $10 yet? If you haven't and you aren't pitifully poor, then I am ashamed you even call yourself an American.
As far as you being ashamed of being an American, do me a favor and move to Canada. This will solve your problem with America, and my problem with you.
Copyright violation is NOT a felony, and is thus a matter for a civil case.
No matter how much you repeat that, in this case it is simply not true. Why don't we just take a look at the relevant federal laws here and here.
Now, the definition of "felony" is a crime that is punishable by more than one year of imprisonment (or death). Since this person distributed more than $1000 retail value of copyrighted materials in a 180-day period they are in violation of the title 17 law referenced above, and committed "criminal infringement". By the letter of the law, a crime. Since the title 18 law referenced specifies a punishment of up to three to five years imprisonment for said crime, it is a a felony by definition.
Leave it to an anonymous coward to not only spout 'facts' that haven't been checked, but also to fail to know (or check) the definitions of words.
Because our law enforcement is acting on the behalf of private companies (who should be filing civil suits against these people) instead of going after the rapists/murders/terrorists of the World.
You're a moron. Law enforcement works on behalf of private citizens and companies all the time. There are plenty of criminal offenses that require someone to notify law enforcement before anything can be done. They wouldn't chase the rapist if the victim never reported it, to use one of your examples.
By your logic, if someone broke into my house (let's say that they didn't cause any damage and didn't steal anything, just to make it fair), I should have to file a civil suit against this person, rather than call the police.
You might be arguing that all copyright infringement should be a civil matter, not a criminal matter, but in this case, it was a criminal matter and those arrested were charged with a crime.
Myth TV and Tivo are all about aquiring media and playing it back later. But I already have aquired quite a bit, and it is sitting on my computer hard drive. Now, I just want to watch it on my TV from the couch. Tivo excells at recording shows off of TV. It is not good at playing my XVID files off my WIFI network. MythTV seems like maybe it could do what I want, but it's WAY overkill -- I'd want to put it on a computer with no DVD drive, no TV card, and with no Myth backend on my network, etc.
Try GeeXboX. It can be booted off CD or installed on a hard drive, automatically finds network shares with media files on them, among other features. It is Linux- and Mplayer-based, and is easily customized.
There's a large difference between devaluing someone's work and stealing from that person.
True, but:
There's a large difference between negligent manslaughter (due to an accident) and first degree murder (wanton killing), but try explaining the difference to the victim's family.
It's not the best analogy, but the point is that infringement is damaging *someone*, at the very least it cheapens someone's labor. The person who made the original work still feels cheated (which is true) and victimized (under the law, also true), even if the person posessing the copy would never have bought the original.
The online equivalent of stealing should be a crime. But copyright infringment is not stealing. It's reproducing duplicates.
No, it isn't stealing, but it is damaging to the copyright owner all the same.
It's very similar to counterfieting money, only in the case of copyright infringement, it's not everyone being hurt, it's just a "bad" and "evil" corporation. And/Or artist.
The argument that nobody lost a sale to infringement ("piracy") is misleading at best, or a plain lie at worst. On average, people will go out of their way to obtain something of value for the minimum cost. It's simple human nature. I have seen people who obtain 100% of their music by infringement. To say that these people would simply not buy music if they couldn't get it for free is wishful thinking.
However, even if the argument were true, and every case of infringement was not a lost potential sale, merely having unauthorized copies in circulation reduces the overall value of the thing being copied, and this doesn't just apply to movies, music, and software, but also to paintings, photographs, sculptures, etc. Especially when the copy is *perfect*. If there were 200 Mona Lisas in the world, and nobody could tell which one was the original, they'd all be worth a lot less than the one original. This would be true even if the 199 fakes were owned by people who would never have bought the original Mona Lisa anyway.
At the very least, when you infringe someone's copyright, quite often you are benefiting from someone's work without paying them for their labor.
Anyone who shops at WalMart is party to the destruction of the american middle class, the 40 hour work week, and employer paid health care.
Funny, my wife's uncle works at wall mart, is paid just fine (he and his wife live off the income), works a 40-hour work week and has health benefits.
But, you bring up something... why should an employer pay for your health insurance? What's wrong with them *not* paying for your health insurance and perhaps giving the money to you in the form of a higher wage?
Perhaps it is pro government health care folks say, and you are too stupid to evaluate your own health care and insurance needs...
Just remember, nobody makes anyone work at Wal*Mart, McDonald's, or anywhere else.