Shootings here in the US aren't exactly a regular part of our lives. Neither I, nor anyone I know, has ever even heard a gunshot (outside of a shooting range) in my entire life. They may not be as rare as they are in Europe, but they are still exceedingly rare here, too. Besides the recent school shootings, the vast majority of shootings happen by (and to) the criminal element in the terribly seedy parts of town. Our crime here seems to be more of a social problem (wealth inequality and drug laws) and less of a technical problem (access to guns). Ordinary citizens rarely, if ever, see gun crime.
The MD, PhD program is a popular way now of "legitimizing" an MD's role in science. In these programs, the PhD part of the degree is typically a joke involving no more actual research than than would be involved in an MS. They also get no more rigorous science classwork than they incidentally receive in the training for their MD. While they probably make great doctors, they don't seem to make very impressive scientists, and it's sad that they are seen as adequate replacements for properly trained scientists. (If you're willing to risk substandard science, they are great as a cost-saving measure: in medical research, you get the required MD and PhD in the same package. They can also see patients when not "doing research", which makes the hospital money.)
I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?
Statements like yours are why Hamilton was so against the Bill of Rights from the beginning. In no way is the purpose of the Constitution to enumerate the rights of the citizens. It's sad to see that he was right.
Oh, I see what you mean... If you redefine the "gun" that we're talking about to mean "things that aren't guns" then your point holds true. Yeah, a BB gun or a fake gun can't easily hurt people. Congratulations, you've made an even more useless distinction.
One does not need a gun that can kill people for sport shooting or target practice. Hunting -- maybe, sometimes. (I think this is a horrible thing to do in the first place, but this is another story). We are only talking about restricting the guns that were *designed to kill people*.
Any gun can kill people. Just like any car or any hammer can kill people. You're making a useless distinction here.
Also, it's hard to understand how hunting can be a horrible thing to do if you intend to eat meat. Hunting for meat allows an animal to live a full free life as it pleases in nature up to the point where you (if you aren't a total ass) quickly kill it for food. That's considerably more ethical than any scenario where an animal is raised in captivity only to be slaughtered by its keepers. Doubly so for modern methods of antibiotic-doused high density operations.
For your further amusement, it might be noted that the 1832 Colt Revolving Shotgun fits one of the definitions on that second list, so a four-shot frontloading black powder (it's not really a muzzleloader, since you load from the front of the cylinder, not the muzzle of the barrel) shotgun is an "assault weapon". On the other hand, my Browning semiauto shotgun is NOT an assault weapon.
Well, anything that old is exempted as a relic or curio. You're right that functionally it fits the definition, but is exempted for a reason not related to its functionality (which is ridiculous).
Here's an idea: if one of your employees can't tell the difference between British and American idioms and sacks people for their own shortcomings, fire them.
Well, if you read on you'd see that only four of those parts are needed to reconstruct the key. That's one of the key benefits to key splitting. You can divide the key into an arbitrary number of parts and allow any combination of an subset of those keys to reconstruct the original. In your scenario, if one person died the whole shebang would be up.
In may ways, though, reverse engineering a design is more difficult than starting from scratch. To re-engineer a design and continue production without notes explaining the design rationale, you basically end up recapitulating their entire design process. You have to try to rationalize design errors that they made and decide whether you can fix (what appear to be) suboptimal design choices. Major design decisions may have been based around materials deficiencies that we don't have today, but if you don't have their notes, it's difficult to decide if there were other reasons behind their choices. Aside from the materials aspect (which has seen vast improvements since the 40's), "THE BOMB" is a relatively simple concept. Rebuilding the Manhattan Project bombs would be harder than just designing a new one from scratch.
Re-engineering an extremely complex project is not much simpler, it's an incredibly convoluted and frustrating process.
You get proteins (not DNA) of bigger and bigger size forming from the same basic building blocks. Like Prions and the normal proteins of our bodies. Now get one that is by accident capable of self-reproducing (probably with the environment and other simpler proteins already doing most of job), and voila, you have something alive enough to fit your arbitrary (and varying with the mood of the day) lower limit.
I would tend to bet that RNA is of the oldest in the development of life. RNA is capable of providing structure (like protein), catalysis (like protein), and information storage (like DNA). Some of the oldest enzymes in our body still use RNA in the active site, too, like the ribosome. Mutation of RNA sequences for information storage is very likely, too, making it a good substrate for finding sequences that "work" in the huge space of possible sequences.
Oops, I came late into the conversation and didn't do my homework. I apologize.
It's interesting that you use Belgium as an example, though. I have many Belgian friends and they have been quite dismissive of their politicians. It seems that, beyond supporting someone who champions a pet cause, they described them as constantly bickering over trifles or as just flat-out idiots. These reports may be biased, of course, because I was only talking to expats.
I'm curious what aspect of your society you think leads to having better representation. I really like the idea of compulsory voting. Do you generally like that practice? Your government structure is quite convoluted; perhaps there is some kernel of goodness buried in there. The multicultural, multilingual aspect of Belgium only seems to be a source of strife.
I'm genuinely interested in conversation if you are. I had a post with better discussion, but I lost it to a gesture-based browser and an annoyingly dusty trackpad. I hope this will do.
Does the 2nd amendment give my drones the right to bear arms? Can I have armed drones patrolling my property?
If it fires without user interaction, it is probably illegal in the way a spring-gun or booby trap is. Otherwise, it's probably as legal to own as any other firearm. Actually shooting someone with it, though, is probably harder to justify. It's hard to claim self-defense if you're far away and safe behind a keyboard. (Though I could think of some legitimate scenarios, too.)
So where do you live? I've traveled quite a bit and conversed with people from all over the world and I've yet to find someone who truly feels that their government is free of corruption and consistently represents them. I'd love to know about this magical land where there is no greed.
So small companies trying to make it through the initial lean years pay a third party to make their prices go down? I bet they make it up in volume, right? (and that volume is an insane spike that generates loads of unhappy customers)
I think Groupon showed how bad of a strategy this was. These "Local"-targeting companies' business model seems to be to siphon money out of failing small businesses. I can't imagine there's really that much money to be had there.
Ph.Ds are ENTIRELY ACADEMIC EXERCISES with VERY LITTLE PRACTICAL VALUE in almost every case when they don't entirely revolve around an almost unhealthy obsession with learning more about a specific subject for your own personal enjoyment. A precious few people are actually doing PhD programs that will be more than a way for the school to rape them.
You obviously don't know anything about STEM PhD programs in the US, but you are so eager to shoot your mouth off. Why don't you take a few breaths, calm down, and shut the fuck up?
Which is why these police raids need to happen less often instead of more and more often. There's no need to kick down somebody's door and shoot their dog (and possibly them or their neighbor if they got the wrong house) over the piddly crap that they're raiding people's houses for anyway. If you can flush the evidence in the time that it takes for the police to show you the warrant and push past you, then it likely wasn't that big of a crime anyway. And the vast majority of people are not going to start shooting at police when they knock on the door (and frankly, if they are, a little investigation should reveal this).
These raids are extremely dangerous for everybody: the police, the suspect, and the neighbors. Mostly for everybody except the police, though, which is why they'll continue.
Absolutely. With incredibly cheap backup MX services and the ease of using your ISP's SMTP server as a relay, there's no reason not to run your own, even if you're on a residential link.
You mean like a cooperative? Wow, what a great invention of yours.
Anyway, I didn't say capital and management added no value. The permanent concentration of capital in a few hands adds no value. This concentration is what leads to a rent-seeking class. The concentration of capital in a few hands and the malicious behavior of these people are where I was directing my ire. I'm not railing against capitalism, I'm railing against unmitigated greed and rent-seeking. They are not productive aspects in an economy.
Even if the system is broken, inertia makes it hard to fix and people's inevitable stupidity and greed make it even harder. Just because this is the way things are don't mean that this is the ideal situation.
Oh yeah, the tax-dodging rent-seekers who siphon profit off of others who do the actual labor are really the source of the golden eggs. Back in reality, the "golden goose" [sic] is the middle and working classes who are powering the economy and providing these parasites with a life of luxury with the sweat of their brows. The wealthy think they are the "job creators" and "pillars of society", and just like the parable, they want to liquidate the middle and working classes, not realizing that the gravy train will then end. It's good for them that there's no scarcity of sycophants like you, though.
Slashdot Mirror
Shootings here in the US aren't exactly a regular part of our lives. Neither I, nor anyone I know, has ever even heard a gunshot (outside of a shooting range) in my entire life. They may not be as rare as they are in Europe, but they are still exceedingly rare here, too. Besides the recent school shootings, the vast majority of shootings happen by (and to) the criminal element in the terribly seedy parts of town. Our crime here seems to be more of a social problem (wealth inequality and drug laws) and less of a technical problem (access to guns). Ordinary citizens rarely, if ever, see gun crime.
The MD, PhD program is a popular way now of "legitimizing" an MD's role in science. In these programs, the PhD part of the degree is typically a joke involving no more actual research than than would be involved in an MS. They also get no more rigorous science classwork than they incidentally receive in the training for their MD. While they probably make great doctors, they don't seem to make very impressive scientists, and it's sad that they are seen as adequate replacements for properly trained scientists. (If you're willing to risk substandard science, they are great as a cost-saving measure: in medical research, you get the required MD and PhD in the same package. They can also see patients when not "doing research", which makes the hospital money.)
Really, that's what you got from this? You need to learn to read better. (Or did you mean to respond to someone else?)
I know. And he never saw it coming! Sucker!
From Federalist Papers #84:
I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?
Statements like yours are why Hamilton was so against the Bill of Rights from the beginning. In no way is the purpose of the Constitution to enumerate the rights of the citizens. It's sad to see that he was right.
Oh, I see what you mean... If you redefine the "gun" that we're talking about to mean "things that aren't guns" then your point holds true. Yeah, a BB gun or a fake gun can't easily hurt people. Congratulations, you've made an even more useless distinction.
One does not need a gun that can kill people for sport shooting or target practice. Hunting -- maybe, sometimes. (I think this is a horrible thing to do in the first place, but this is another story). We are only talking about restricting the guns that were *designed to kill people*.
Any gun can kill people. Just like any car or any hammer can kill people. You're making a useless distinction here.
Also, it's hard to understand how hunting can be a horrible thing to do if you intend to eat meat. Hunting for meat allows an animal to live a full free life as it pleases in nature up to the point where you (if you aren't a total ass) quickly kill it for food. That's considerably more ethical than any scenario where an animal is raised in captivity only to be slaughtered by its keepers. Doubly so for modern methods of antibiotic-doused high density operations.
For your further amusement, it might be noted that the 1832 Colt Revolving Shotgun fits one of the definitions on that second list, so a four-shot frontloading black powder (it's not really a muzzleloader, since you load from the front of the cylinder, not the muzzle of the barrel) shotgun is an "assault weapon". On the other hand, my Browning semiauto shotgun is NOT an assault weapon.
Well, anything that old is exempted as a relic or curio. You're right that functionally it fits the definition, but is exempted for a reason not related to its functionality (which is ridiculous).
Here's an idea: if one of your employees can't tell the difference between British and American idioms and sacks people for their own shortcomings, fire them.
Since the mods didn't find it, I must say "well done!"
Well, if you read on you'd see that only four of those parts are needed to reconstruct the key. That's one of the key benefits to key splitting. You can divide the key into an arbitrary number of parts and allow any combination of an subset of those keys to reconstruct the original. In your scenario, if one person died the whole shebang would be up.
In may ways, though, reverse engineering a design is more difficult than starting from scratch. To re-engineer a design and continue production without notes explaining the design rationale, you basically end up recapitulating their entire design process. You have to try to rationalize design errors that they made and decide whether you can fix (what appear to be) suboptimal design choices. Major design decisions may have been based around materials deficiencies that we don't have today, but if you don't have their notes, it's difficult to decide if there were other reasons behind their choices. Aside from the materials aspect (which has seen vast improvements since the 40's), "THE BOMB" is a relatively simple concept. Rebuilding the Manhattan Project bombs would be harder than just designing a new one from scratch.
Re-engineering an extremely complex project is not much simpler, it's an incredibly convoluted and frustrating process.
Because the permissions are too coarse grained. Weren't you paying attention? That's what this whole thread has been about!
You get proteins (not DNA) of bigger and bigger size forming from the same basic building blocks. Like Prions and the normal proteins of our bodies. Now get one that is by accident capable of self-reproducing (probably with the environment and other simpler proteins already doing most of job), and voila, you have something alive enough to fit your arbitrary (and varying with the mood of the day) lower limit.
I would tend to bet that RNA is of the oldest in the development of life. RNA is capable of providing structure (like protein), catalysis (like protein), and information storage (like DNA). Some of the oldest enzymes in our body still use RNA in the active site, too, like the ribosome. Mutation of RNA sequences for information storage is very likely, too, making it a good substrate for finding sequences that "work" in the huge space of possible sequences.
Oops, I came late into the conversation and didn't do my homework. I apologize.
It's interesting that you use Belgium as an example, though. I have many Belgian friends and they have been quite dismissive of their politicians. It seems that, beyond supporting someone who champions a pet cause, they described them as constantly bickering over trifles or as just flat-out idiots. These reports may be biased, of course, because I was only talking to expats.
I'm curious what aspect of your society you think leads to having better representation. I really like the idea of compulsory voting. Do you generally like that practice? Your government structure is quite convoluted; perhaps there is some kernel of goodness buried in there. The multicultural, multilingual aspect of Belgium only seems to be a source of strife.
I'm genuinely interested in conversation if you are. I had a post with better discussion, but I lost it to a gesture-based browser and an annoyingly dusty trackpad. I hope this will do.
Does the 2nd amendment give my drones the right to bear arms? Can I have armed drones patrolling my property?
If it fires without user interaction, it is probably illegal in the way a spring-gun or booby trap is. Otherwise, it's probably as legal to own as any other firearm. Actually shooting someone with it, though, is probably harder to justify. It's hard to claim self-defense if you're far away and safe behind a keyboard. (Though I could think of some legitimate scenarios, too.)
So where do you live? I've traveled quite a bit and conversed with people from all over the world and I've yet to find someone who truly feels that their government is free of corruption and consistently represents them. I'd love to know about this magical land where there is no greed.
So small companies trying to make it through the initial lean years pay a third party to make their prices go down? I bet they make it up in volume, right? (and that volume is an insane spike that generates loads of unhappy customers)
I think Groupon showed how bad of a strategy this was. These "Local"-targeting companies' business model seems to be to siphon money out of failing small businesses. I can't imagine there's really that much money to be had there.
Ph.Ds are ENTIRELY ACADEMIC EXERCISES with VERY LITTLE PRACTICAL VALUE in almost every case when they don't entirely revolve around an almost unhealthy obsession with learning more about a specific subject for your own personal enjoyment. A precious few people are actually doing PhD programs that will be more than a way for the school to rape them.
You obviously don't know anything about STEM PhD programs in the US, but you are so eager to shoot your mouth off. Why don't you take a few breaths, calm down, and shut the fuck up?
Which is why these police raids need to happen less often instead of more and more often. There's no need to kick down somebody's door and shoot their dog (and possibly them or their neighbor if they got the wrong house) over the piddly crap that they're raiding people's houses for anyway. If you can flush the evidence in the time that it takes for the police to show you the warrant and push past you, then it likely wasn't that big of a crime anyway. And the vast majority of people are not going to start shooting at police when they knock on the door (and frankly, if they are, a little investigation should reveal this).
These raids are extremely dangerous for everybody: the police, the suspect, and the neighbors. Mostly for everybody except the police, though, which is why they'll continue.
to run your own mail server.
Absolutely. With incredibly cheap backup MX services and the ease of using your ISP's SMTP server as a relay, there's no reason not to run your own, even if you're on a residential link.
Good deals, too. That's where I get all of my discount used nail clippers!
You mean like a cooperative? Wow, what a great invention of yours.
Anyway, I didn't say capital and management added no value. The permanent concentration of capital in a few hands adds no value. This concentration is what leads to a rent-seeking class. The concentration of capital in a few hands and the malicious behavior of these people are where I was directing my ire. I'm not railing against capitalism, I'm railing against unmitigated greed and rent-seeking. They are not productive aspects in an economy.
Even if the system is broken, inertia makes it hard to fix and people's inevitable stupidity and greed make it even harder. Just because this is the way things are don't mean that this is the ideal situation.
You mean "kill the golden goose".
Oh yeah, the tax-dodging rent-seekers who siphon profit off of others who do the actual labor are really the source of the golden eggs. Back in reality, the "golden goose" [sic] is the middle and working classes who are powering the economy and providing these parasites with a life of luxury with the sweat of their brows. The wealthy think they are the "job creators" and "pillars of society", and just like the parable, they want to liquidate the middle and working classes, not realizing that the gravy train will then end. It's good for them that there's no scarcity of sycophants like you, though.