No, they are pointing out that the right to bear arms at the time meant individual citizens owning, keeping, and using the most advanced military hardware available at the time. I'm not suggesting individuals own nukes, but why not a tank?
In the 1790s, "the most advanced military hardware available" would be a howitzer.
I'm not aware of individual citizens owning cannons in the 1790s. Do you have a citation for this?
The god-damned never-ending gun-control argument always takes over any thread. OK, let's do the legal analysis thing.
The plain reading of the second amendment says that the government can't take away the right of people to carry arms. It doesn't go into what kinds of arms. The initial clause (something which the writers thought necessary here, but not necessary in any of the rest of the bill of rights) complicates the sentence, but it does not cancel out the second part: the right of the people to bear arms has to be interpreted in the context of "a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State", but that statement adds context, it doesn't reverse the plain meaning.
Got that? OK so far. From that statement, you can say that the government has the right to regulate arms (it makes no sense for a militia to be "well regulated" without the ability to regulate), but not the right to "abridge" the right of citizens to bear arms, (where the plain meaning of "abridge" means "take away.") From other supreme court decisions, we can add that the government does not have the right to make regulations that are so strict as to de facto take away the right to bear arms (the court has already struck down other such attempts to take away rights by the back door.)
Thus. The government can regulate arms, but can't take them away. So the only issue is, at what point a particular regulation becomes de facto taking away the right to bear arms, and not merely regulating them?
My personal conclusion-- and I'm now shifting over to opinion, not analysis-- would be that the government is allowed to require a permit for a person to have a machine gun, but can't forbid it utterly.
I'm slightly puzzled as to why you think this was "fake news to benefit Hillary."
About the most you can say about the link you post is that it shows that it was a pretty small group of protestors holding signs, in which the camera angle of the clips shown on the news was chosen to minimize the fact that there were only about a dozen or so total. (The twits quoted in the link say that the "BBC provided the props" but there's no evidence of that). If your definition of "fake," however, is "the camera crew was telling them 'stand over here so we get a better shot; ok, now crowd closer together'"-- yeah, well, that's what camera crews do.
It is interesting to see how small the group of protestors was. But this is typical of news; if they cover it at all, they want to pump it up. (I remember seeing that for some of the Cassini protests)
[..]nobody would believe any of their shit if they had a grounding in logic and critical thinking[...]
I guess you are not familiar with the theological traditions of Abrahamic religions, which are not strangers to logic or critical thinking.
Some splinters are, but by no means all. The examples of "theological traditions of Abrahamic religions" that have been actively hostile to all critical thinking are far too numerous to list. And many of these run "schools."
The problem is not lacking those skills, it's the lack of domain knowledge. I used to believe a lot of bullshit (Who am I kidding? I still believe a lot of bullshit, I just don't know which ones are bs), but rarely have I got rid of false beliefs because I learned De Morgan's laws, or found out about yet another fallacy. If you don't know anything about chemistry and biology, “structured water” sounds as credible as quantum cryptography.
Until he said they could only do 10000 acres. Come on, that's nothing. Use a tractor.
From the summary: "the only way is to reach by air." The linked article states more specifically: "Hills are very funny. You can’t access those places, you need mountain climbers to get there."
If you need mountain climbers to get there, you can't plant with a tractor.
Just look at all the articles published by Huffington Post and CNN.com, so many were patently false. Millions was spent publishing fake news to benefit Hillary.
I'm not at all a fan of the Huff, but if you're going to state that they and CNN publish articles that are "patently false," some documentation showing specific examples (and more than one example: you said "articles") would be needed. Right now, my summary of what you said is "they published stories that don't support my pre-existing opinion, therefore I will state that these articles are patently false."
The actual answer is, some public schools (what you call "government schools") are exceptionally good, and some are extremely poor. Some private schools are very good, and some are extremely poor.
By picking and choosing which particular schools you want to focus on, you can support a conclusion that is anti- or is pro- public school, or anti- or pro- private school, as you like.
Good thing we have such awesome government schools. Without the top notch critical thinking skills these havens of learning provide, our population might be susceptible to these shallow disinformation campaigns. But who hasn't marveled at the near genius of the average government school student? Achievement, discernment, and wisdom is the true hallmark of a government school education. Fake news doesn't have a chance.
My suggestion would be that if you're looking for "near genius," that this is a characteristic of the student, not of the school.
By the way, it is very difficult to make sarcasm work on the internet, since your posts are always being read against a background noise of cluelessness. Have you considered just saying what you mean, instead of saying the opposite of what you mean and trying to let the reader decode it?
This structure delivers the equivalent of a large park with hundreds of trees worth of pollution control to a street corner.
Except it's not, and it doesn't. You are ignoring that weasel phrase "up to".
People in the thread above have already shot holes in that claim that it can remove 240 metric tons of carbon dioxide a year-- a ton every day and a half? Where does that carbon go? Who hauls it away?
You do realize that comments like yours is why Trump won, right? People don't like being called douche bags, and they will dig in their heels just to make a point.
A fair point, and I wish more people would pay attention to it.
The science is what it is regardless of what people think. But it's not helpful to insult people for not crediting the science.
well a few years ago the other planets in the solar system were increasing in temp around the same rate as us.
No, they weren't.
Check your data sources. First, find the actual papers, and verify that in fact other planets in the solar system were not increasing in temperature at around the same rate as us (they weren't, and aren't.)
Then, figure out who told you that and don't ever believe anything they tell you.
The cost of planting a tree for example in an american city is about $100-$150, not including the cost of the space they sit on. If it is true that these installations replace approximately 275 trees, that works out to be about $90 per "tree".
And if it is true instead that each of these replace "up to" 275 actual trees (which is what was stated), that works out to "at least" $90 per "tree."
"Up to." Yeah.
The amount of CO2 the thing can grab out of the air is going to be proportional to the sun absorbing area. Which, from the pictures, is not larger than a middling to small sized tree.
Science or not, funneling American wealth to third world countries via a non-binding agreement is enough of a reason to oppose participation in this treaty and to be glad it was never submitted to be potentially ratified.
The amount of "American wealth" that is "funneled to third world countries" is so small a number that you can't even see it in the pie chart of the government budget expenditures. It is absolutely and completely negligible.
If that's your objection, you are focussing on the trivial.
(The one exception here is American aid to Israel, if you want to call Israel a third-world country; totaling $127.4 billion. But most of that it military aid, not energy.)
...Did the study use a lot of jargon, confusing verbiage, and passive voice? Did it make clear and specific projections, or was everything couched in "if this scenario and those people do that then something might change here to cause this effect"?
I have never been paid for my blood donations. I found the use of my freely donated blood for cosmetic surgery to be unnerving, but acceptable. Now that profiteering has decided to dip into the game, I want a cut.
No problem: https://www.thepennyhoarder.co... http://www.bankrate.com/personal-finance/smart-money/7-legal-ways-to-make-money-with-your-body/#slide=1
There seem to be several "open source" journals, but I'm wondering how seriously they are taken, especially to the University Gods that dish out tenure?
Some are, some aren't.
The problem is, the entry barrier to putting up a website and giving it a prestigious journal title is pretty much zero. So there are literally thousands of "open source journals" that have no redeeming merit whatsoever, and the ones which are actually real tend to get buried in the clutter.
Sci-Hub is not the solution. The issue is twofold: First, scientists (still) believe they must publish; they don't -- do achieve something in your field of research, and the world will know.
It is the new researchers who need to publish. Yes, once you've established a reputation in your field, people will know who you are. But that very often takes decades. Until then, you need publications to show you have a track record of good work.
(And even then, the reputation is usually phrased in terms of what you published: "e.g., "X published one of the seminal papers on bismith selenide semiconductors." And it will be two decades between when you published your paper and when the rest of the world starts putting bismuth selenide in their high-end devices.)
I don't mind the idea of public authorities being able to take down drones that are behaving dangerously or interfering with firefighting or rescue missions. The part about "records of anti-drone actions would be exempt from public disclosure under freedom of information laws, and people's right to sue over damaged and seized drones would be limited," on the other hand, bothers me a bit.
I like to know that the government is doing, and if they're saying that they're protecting public safety, they shouldn't mind telling us what they did and why.
I am so happy! According to Hollywood, hacking into an iris-scan protected phone means ripping out somebody's eyeball.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
I'm glad to hear you can do it with a camera instead.
Slashdot Mirror
No, they are pointing out that the right to bear arms at the time meant individual citizens owning, keeping, and using the most advanced military hardware available at the time. I'm not suggesting individuals own nukes, but why not a tank?
In the 1790s, "the most advanced military hardware available" would be a howitzer. I'm not aware of individual citizens owning cannons in the 1790s. Do you have a citation for this?
who cares the method??? murder is still murder if its with a knife pressure cooker bomb or gun
It is, but it's a lot harder.
What guns change is that they can turn a momentary poor decision-- or simple hot-headed stupidity-- into dead bystanders in about a second.
Few people use pressure cookers in bar fights, or during incidents of road-rage.
The god-damned never-ending gun-control argument always takes over any thread. OK, let's do the legal analysis thing.
The plain reading of the second amendment says that the government can't take away the right of people to carry arms. It doesn't go into what kinds of arms. The initial clause (something which the writers thought necessary here, but not necessary in any of the rest of the bill of rights) complicates the sentence, but it does not cancel out the second part: the right of the people to bear arms has to be interpreted in the context of "a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State", but that statement adds context, it doesn't reverse the plain meaning.
Got that? OK so far. From that statement, you can say that the government has the right to regulate arms (it makes no sense for a militia to be "well regulated" without the ability to regulate), but not the right to "abridge" the right of citizens to bear arms, (where the plain meaning of "abridge" means "take away.") From other supreme court decisions, we can add that the government does not have the right to make regulations that are so strict as to de facto take away the right to bear arms (the court has already struck down other such attempts to take away rights by the back door.)
Thus. The government can regulate arms, but can't take them away. So the only issue is, at what point a particular regulation becomes de facto taking away the right to bear arms, and not merely regulating them?
My personal conclusion-- and I'm now shifting over to opinion, not analysis-- would be that the government is allowed to require a permit for a person to have a machine gun, but can't forbid it utterly.
I'm slightly puzzled as to why you think this was "fake news to benefit Hillary."
About the most you can say about the link you post is that it shows that it was a pretty small group of protestors holding signs, in which the camera angle of the clips shown on the news was chosen to minimize the fact that there were only about a dozen or so total. (The twits quoted in the link say that the "BBC provided the props" but there's no evidence of that). If your definition of "fake," however, is "the camera crew was telling them 'stand over here so we get a better shot; ok, now crowd closer together'"-- yeah, well, that's what camera crews do.
It is interesting to see how small the group of protestors was. But this is typical of news; if they cover it at all, they want to pump it up. (I remember seeing that for some of the Cassini protests)
[..]nobody would believe any of their shit if they had a grounding in logic and critical thinking[...]
I guess you are not familiar with the theological traditions of Abrahamic religions, which are not strangers to logic or critical thinking.
Some splinters are, but by no means all. The examples of "theological traditions of Abrahamic religions" that have been actively hostile to all critical thinking are far too numerous to list. And many of these run "schools."
The problem is not lacking those skills, it's the lack of domain knowledge. I used to believe a lot of bullshit (Who am I kidding? I still believe a lot of bullshit, I just don't know which ones are bs), but rarely have I got rid of false beliefs because I learned De Morgan's laws, or found out about yet another fallacy. If you don't know anything about chemistry and biology, “structured water” sounds as credible as quantum cryptography.
You have a point there.
Until he said they could only do 10000 acres. Come on, that's nothing. Use a tractor.
From the summary: "the only way is to reach by air." The linked article states more specifically: "Hills are very funny. You can’t access those places, you need mountain climbers to get there."
If you need mountain climbers to get there, you can't plant with a tractor.
the link: https://factordaily.com/iisc-b...
Just look at all the articles published by Huffington Post and CNN.com, so many were patently false. Millions was spent publishing fake news to benefit Hillary.
I'm not at all a fan of the Huff, but if you're going to state that they and CNN publish articles that are "patently false," some documentation showing specific examples (and more than one example: you said "articles") would be needed. Right now, my summary of what you said is "they published stories that don't support my pre-existing opinion, therefore I will state that these articles are patently false."
Or, to quote wikipedia: citation needed.
By picking and choosing which particular schools you want to focus on, you can support a conclusion that is anti- or is pro- public school, or anti- or pro- private school, as you like.
Good thing we have such awesome government schools. Without the top notch critical thinking skills these havens of learning provide, our population might be susceptible to these shallow disinformation campaigns. But who hasn't marveled at the near genius of the average government school student? Achievement, discernment, and wisdom is the true hallmark of a government school education. Fake news doesn't have a chance.
My suggestion would be that if you're looking for "near genius," that this is a characteristic of the student, not of the school.
By the way, it is very difficult to make sarcasm work on the internet, since your posts are always being read against a background noise of cluelessness. Have you considered just saying what you mean, instead of saying the opposite of what you mean and trying to let the reader decode it?
This structure delivers the equivalent of a large park with hundreds of trees worth of pollution control to a street corner.
Except it's not, and it doesn't. You are ignoring that weasel phrase "up to".
People in the thread above have already shot holes in that claim that it can remove 240 metric tons of carbon dioxide a year-- a ton every day and a half? Where does that carbon go? Who hauls it away?
You do realize that comments like yours is why Trump won, right? People don't like being called douche bags, and they will dig in their heels just to make a point.
A fair point, and I wish more people would pay attention to it.
The science is what it is regardless of what people think. But it's not helpful to insult people for not crediting the science.
well a few years ago the other planets in the solar system were increasing in temp around the same rate as us.
No, they weren't.
Check your data sources. First, find the actual papers, and verify that in fact other planets in the solar system were not increasing in temperature at around the same rate as us (they weren't, and aren't.)
Then, figure out who told you that and don't ever believe anything they tell you.
The cost of planting a tree for example in an american city is about $100-$150, not including the cost of the space they sit on. If it is true that these installations replace approximately 275 trees, that works out to be about $90 per "tree".
And if it is true instead that each of these replace "up to" 275 actual trees (which is what was stated), that works out to "at least" $90 per "tree."
"Up to." Yeah.
The amount of CO2 the thing can grab out of the air is going to be proportional to the sun absorbing area. Which, from the pictures, is not larger than a middling to small sized tree.
The phrase "up to 275" translates to "one."
one of these is supposedly equal to 250 trees worth of carbon sink/air pollution scrub.
No-- equal to "up to" 275 actual trees.
What does the word "up to" mean? This is a weasel word. It means "less than or equal."
I expect "less than". I expect a lot less than.
By the way, surface area is irrelevant if there isn't air flow past the surface, like there would be for an actual tree.
Science or not, funneling American wealth to third world countries via a non-binding agreement is enough of a reason to oppose participation in this treaty and to be glad it was never submitted to be potentially ratified.
The amount of "American wealth" that is "funneled to third world countries" is so small a number that you can't even see it in the pie chart of the government budget expenditures. It is absolutely and completely negligible.
If that's your objection, you are focussing on the trivial.
(The one exception here is American aid to Israel, if you want to call Israel a third-world country; totaling $127.4 billion. But most of that it military aid, not energy.)
...Did the study use a lot of jargon, confusing verbiage, and passive voice? Did it make clear and specific projections, or was everything couched in "if this scenario and those people do that then something might change here to cause this effect"?
The study summary is here: http://meetingorganizer.copern...
The MIT press release summarizing results is here: http://energy.mit.edu/news/how...
I don't think Trump "misunderstood" the science; he didn't have any understanding of the science in the first place.
It's illegal to sell your own blood, but
It's not illegal to sell your own blood.
https://www.thepennyhoarder.com/jobs-making-money/selling-plasma-great-college-gig/
http://www.bankrate.com/personal-finance/smart-money/7-legal-ways-to-make-money-with-your-body/#slide=1
I have never been paid for my blood donations. I found the use of my freely donated blood for cosmetic surgery to be unnerving, but acceptable. Now that profiteering has decided to dip into the game, I want a cut.
No problem: https://www.thepennyhoarder.co...
http://www.bankrate.com/personal-finance/smart-money/7-legal-ways-to-make-money-with-your-body/#slide=1
Why not just make a single standard NFC Pay that any phone with NFC can implement?
That question was addressed by the first post: https://xkcd.com/927/
I'd bet that a month after the rating system was announced, people would start setting up sock puppet robots and selling ratings.
There seem to be several "open source" journals, but I'm wondering how seriously they are taken, especially to the University Gods that dish out tenure?
Some are, some aren't.
The problem is, the entry barrier to putting up a website and giving it a prestigious journal title is pretty much zero. So there are literally thousands of "open source journals" that have no redeeming merit whatsoever, and the ones which are actually real tend to get buried in the clutter.
Sci-Hub is not the solution. The issue is twofold: First, scientists (still) believe they must publish; they don't -- do achieve something in your field of research, and the world will know.
It is the new researchers who need to publish. Yes, once you've established a reputation in your field, people will know who you are. But that very often takes decades. Until then, you need publications to show you have a track record of good work.
(And even then, the reputation is usually phrased in terms of what you published: "e.g., "X published one of the seminal papers on bismith selenide semiconductors." And it will be two decades between when you published your paper and when the rest of the world starts putting bismuth selenide in their high-end devices.)
I like to know that the government is doing, and if they're saying that they're protecting public safety, they shouldn't mind telling us what they did and why.
I'm glad to hear you can do it with a camera instead.