"but to the well-regulated militias mentioned in the first part of the amendment."
As has been pointed out ad nauseam in the last gun posting on Slashdot, Congress has already passed legislation declaring that the militia is composed of all men over the age of 18 and younger than 35, and all women in the National Guard. And on top of that, no law has ever been passed restricting the right for men older than 35 or women not in the National Guard to own a gun.
Did you sign up for Selective Service? You can own a gun.
"In 1886, the Supreme Court ruled in Presser vs. Illinois that the Second Amendment only prevents the federal government from interfering with a state's ability to maintain a militia, and does nothing to limit the states' ability to regulate firearms."
First off, as I just said, the militia is already defined.
Secondly, the reading of the Fourteenth Amendment has changed dramatically since the Nineteenth Century. It has been interpreted as meaning "If the federal government is explicitly barred from interfering with a right, so are the states."
"Since then, both the Supreme and lesser courts have consistently interpreted the right to bear arms as a state's right, not an individual's right."
The interpretation is subject to change. Note the example of the Fourteenth Amendment.
"If the Constitution guaranteed an individual's right to unregulated gun ownership, the NRA would be challenging laws like this one and The Brady Bill in the Supreme Court. That is not happening because the NRA knows that they would lose any such challenge."
Why? By your own volition, the Second Amendment guarantees the right to regulate gun ownership to the states. The Brady Bill is a federal law.
"But if I knew a 5yo had the proper respect for what a gun can do, I'd not think twice about leaving a pistol on the nightstand."
And how will that five-year-old learn that proper respect? Have you seen all the flak the NRA catches when they try to push their "Eddie Eagle" gun education program? People don't want children to be educated about guns because they don't want children to think it's OK to own one. And thus you're left with a Catch-22.
And what is taught in this program? "Don't touch the gun, go tell an adult." It's not like they're being taken out for target practice.
Of course he wasn't a saint!
on
Linus Is A Hero
·
· Score: 2
"Too bad RMS or Saint Ignuciuis he wasn't chosen, even though he was recommended.""
Of course he wasn't! He's no lowly saint, he's nothing less than the Second Coming! He'll tell you himself!
"Nasa will not be able to convince all the "crackpots" until there is a viable station on the moon that people can go to for vacation."
Not even. We're talking about people who believe what they do in spite of all available evidence to the contrary. If we took them to the moon personally, if they do believe they're on the moon, they'll just point out that NASA can't "prove" that what they're looking at wasn't set up five minutes beforehand.
The way you define Fermi as Italian and Von Braun as German, you'd think you were extremely anti-immigration. While I admit Fermi wasn't a US citizen until two years after he helped builed the first nuclear reactor in Chicago (a city not in Italy), Von Braun gained his citizenship long before even Gagarin's flight.
They were about as American as you could get. The only thing they couldn't do is run for president. We're not exactly talking about Austria here.
I suppose next you'll try to tell me Nabakov was a Russian author.
"Businesses are knowingly paying some one to do something illegal, so they should be held culpable too."
You'd have to prove a connection between the two. Until then, the business can always say it was one of their competitors trying to slander them. Like political campaigns who have volunteers make campaign telephone solicitations for the competition.
"If they want to set their servers in Thailand and spam away, it's really not costing them any more than it would to have the servers sitting at a US facility (in fact, it might be cheaper)."
At least until the entire country of Thailand is blacklisted, a solution that is being talked about more and more.
(No, not Thailand in specific, spam-friendly countries or regions in general.)
"The vast majority of telemarketing companies are not using call centers internationally because the cost associated far outweighs the possible income generated by these cold calls."
You forget that the cost of the call is often offset by the cost of labor. English-speakers work for less in India than they do in the US. That, and I'm sure they can get some sort of bulk rate discount on their calls.
"a 72-mile 802.11b wireless link... the link power has been reduced by 75% to comply with FCC regulations for the 2.4-GHz band..."the personnel working [on it] primarily have expertise in computers and not radio technology.""
So how much power were they putting out in the 2.4 GHz band again? Could they pop microwave popcorn? Will they ever be able to have children?
"I can't believe how these archaic laws that are necessarily steeped in obsolete technology are being abused to limit online speech, which is by nature completely free and above the laws of any one nation."
Personally, I can't believe there are still idiots like you who believe that the internet is "special" and requires "special" laws that only apply to it. The only new questions the internet brings up are questions of jurisdiction. That's all.
"Regulation of print journalism was necessary because the barriers to entry were so high; it was not reasonable to expect Joe Sixpack to purchase his own printing press and retaliate against libellous allegations."
You missed the entire point. It has nothing to with whether or not "Joe Sixpack" can afford a printing press or not, it's about Joe Sixpack seeking compensation and/or retribution for damage to his character through outright lies and falsehoods.
If publication A (and "publication" does include publication on the internet) says "Joe Sixpack is a child molester!" what can he do? In your idiotic worldview, he'd publish something saying "No, I'm not," but where would that leave him? He'd be a child molester in denial, that's where (and him denying it only goes to prove publication A's point). The only thing that would have done for him is to take a bite out of his wallet (even web servers aren't free).
And why should he have to do this? It's not like it's his fault that publication A lied about him. If anything, publication A should be held responsible for the damage their actions have caused.
Libel and slander laws have nothing to do with freedom of speech and everything to do with personal responsibility. Just as the Second Amendment doesn't give you the right to shoot people, the First Amendment doesn't give you the right to slander. It does nothing more than give you enough rope to hang yourself with.
And when all is said and done, I'd much rather deal with slanderous allegations in a civil trial than in the court of public opinion. Especially when the court of public opinion includes "people" who would write that last paragraph in your post.
Another nice thing about DSS is that, unlike UHF and cable broadcasters, it's quite easy for them to add extra bandwidth to support HD broadcasts without eliminating their "analog" signals. There are only so many channels in the UHF spectrum and coax can only move so much data, but space always has room for more satellites.
"This is related to the "Megaton" announcement from Nintendo coming soon. Some sites say it's Capcom being bought by Nintendo, some sites say it's Sony paying Nintendo money for the PS brand, some sites have equally ridiculous stories"
Except that Nintendo buying Capcom is somewhat believable. At the very least, it's a hell of a lot more believable than the Square/Enix merger...
Slashdot Mirror
Not to toot my own horn or anything, but perhaps Boris & Natasha would be a good icon for a new MPAA/RIAA category.
"boris and natasha are going to be pissed."
Nah. After the collapse of the communist bloc, they had their names legally changed to "Jack Valenti" and "Hillary Rosen."
"but to the well-regulated militias mentioned in the first part of the amendment."
As has been pointed out ad nauseam in the last gun posting on Slashdot, Congress has already passed legislation declaring that the militia is composed of all men over the age of 18 and younger than 35, and all women in the National Guard. And on top of that, no law has ever been passed restricting the right for men older than 35 or women not in the National Guard to own a gun.
Did you sign up for Selective Service? You can own a gun.
"In 1886, the Supreme Court ruled in Presser vs. Illinois that the Second Amendment only prevents the federal government from interfering with a state's ability to maintain a militia, and does nothing to limit the states' ability to regulate firearms."
First off, as I just said, the militia is already defined.
Secondly, the reading of the Fourteenth Amendment has changed dramatically since the Nineteenth Century. It has been interpreted as meaning "If the federal government is explicitly barred from interfering with a right, so are the states."
"Since then, both the Supreme and lesser courts have consistently interpreted the right to bear arms as a state's right, not an individual's right."
The interpretation is subject to change. Note the example of the Fourteenth Amendment.
"If the Constitution guaranteed an individual's right to unregulated gun ownership, the NRA would be challenging laws like this one and The Brady Bill in the Supreme Court. That is not happening because the NRA knows that they would lose any such challenge."
Why? By your own volition, the Second Amendment guarantees the right to regulate gun ownership to the states. The Brady Bill is a federal law.
"But if I knew a 5yo had the proper respect for what a gun can do, I'd not think twice about leaving a pistol on the nightstand."
And how will that five-year-old learn that proper respect? Have you seen all the flak the NRA catches when they try to push their "Eddie Eagle" gun education program? People don't want children to be educated about guns because they don't want children to think it's OK to own one. And thus you're left with a Catch-22.
And what is taught in this program? "Don't touch the gun, go tell an adult." It's not like they're being taken out for target practice.
"Too bad RMS or Saint Ignuciuis he wasn't chosen, even though he was recommended.""
Of course he wasn't! He's no lowly saint, he's nothing less than the Second Coming! He'll tell you himself!
Oh, wait... GNU/Second Coming.
"Nasa will not be able to convince all the "crackpots" until there is a viable station on the moon that people can go to for vacation."
Not even. We're talking about people who believe what they do in spite of all available evidence to the contrary. If we took them to the moon personally, if they do believe they're on the moon, they'll just point out that NASA can't "prove" that what they're looking at wasn't set up five minutes beforehand.
The way you define Fermi as Italian and Von Braun as German, you'd think you were extremely anti-immigration. While I admit Fermi wasn't a US citizen until two years after he helped builed the first nuclear reactor in Chicago (a city not in Italy), Von Braun gained his citizenship long before even Gagarin's flight.
They were about as American as you could get. The only thing they couldn't do is run for president. We're not exactly talking about Austria here.
I suppose next you'll try to tell me Nabakov was a Russian author.
"Businesses are knowingly paying some one to do something illegal, so they should be held culpable too."
You'd have to prove a connection between the two. Until then, the business can always say it was one of their competitors trying to slander them. Like political campaigns who have volunteers make campaign telephone solicitations for the competition.
"If they want to set their servers in Thailand and spam away, it's really not costing them any more than it would to have the servers sitting at a US facility (in fact, it might be cheaper)."
At least until the entire country of Thailand is blacklisted, a solution that is being talked about more and more.
(No, not Thailand in specific, spam-friendly countries or regions in general.)
"The vast majority of telemarketing companies are not using call centers internationally because the cost associated far outweighs the possible income generated by these cold calls."
You forget that the cost of the call is often offset by the cost of labor. English-speakers work for less in India than they do in the US. That, and I'm sure they can get some sort of bulk rate discount on their calls.
"a 72-mile 802.11b wireless link... the link power has been reduced by 75% to comply with FCC regulations for the 2.4-GHz band..."the personnel working [on it] primarily have expertise in computers and not radio technology.""
So how much power were they putting out in the 2.4 GHz band again? Could they pop microwave popcorn? Will they ever be able to have children?
"Rather, persons reading others's personal writings should compelled to know better."
No, people publishing their "personal" writings should know better. It's not like somebody's diary was broken in to.
"I simply don't believe that they can't bust you because you don't own the computer it's on."
Say it ain't so! Next you'll be telling me that it's illegal to download MP3s and ROMs even if I do delete them after 24 hours!
Could be worse. Could be all those Latin American teenagers that insist on ICQing me to practice their English on.
Which means it's the first article of amendment. It's written right under the phrase (emphasis mine):
- People are held personally accountable for their own actions
- "Equal protection under the law" means just that
- The phrase "except on the internet" to be found nowhere in US Constitution
Why do so many people here have such a problem with this?Publish your writings (on the internet or otherwise)? Don't want to get sued for slander? Use the five magic words:
"I believe..."
"In my opinion..."
It's not that difficult!
"I can't believe how these archaic laws that are necessarily steeped in obsolete technology are being abused to limit online speech, which is by nature completely free and above the laws of any one nation."
Personally, I can't believe there are still idiots like you who believe that the internet is "special" and requires "special" laws that only apply to it. The only new questions the internet brings up are questions of jurisdiction. That's all.
"Regulation of print journalism was necessary because the barriers to entry were so high; it was not reasonable to expect Joe Sixpack to purchase his own printing press and retaliate against libellous allegations."
You missed the entire point. It has nothing to with whether or not "Joe Sixpack" can afford a printing press or not, it's about Joe Sixpack seeking compensation and/or retribution for damage to his character through outright lies and falsehoods.
If publication A (and "publication" does include publication on the internet) says "Joe Sixpack is a child molester!" what can he do? In your idiotic worldview, he'd publish something saying "No, I'm not," but where would that leave him? He'd be a child molester in denial, that's where (and him denying it only goes to prove publication A's point). The only thing that would have done for him is to take a bite out of his wallet (even web servers aren't free).
And why should he have to do this? It's not like it's his fault that publication A lied about him. If anything, publication A should be held responsible for the damage their actions have caused.
Libel and slander laws have nothing to do with freedom of speech and everything to do with personal responsibility. Just as the Second Amendment doesn't give you the right to shoot people, the First Amendment doesn't give you the right to slander. It does nothing more than give you enough rope to hang yourself with.
And when all is said and done, I'd much rather deal with slanderous allegations in a civil trial than in the court of public opinion. Especially when the court of public opinion includes "people" who would write that last paragraph in your post.
Another nice thing about DSS is that, unlike UHF and cable broadcasters, it's quite easy for them to add extra bandwidth to support HD broadcasts without eliminating their "analog" signals. There are only so many channels in the UHF spectrum and coax can only move so much data, but space always has room for more satellites.
"obligatory credit due to Ghostbusters for this quotationary moment"
You just demonstrated the kind of flagrant copyright violations Jack Valenti (God bless him) is fighting so hard against!
"or a new version of the Gameboy (most likely)."
Damn them! Do they have any idea how long it took me to figure out what color Game Boy Advance to get?!?
Speaking of which, though, it seems to be about time for them to release a re-designed N64.
And releasing a new Game Boy now seems... premature. Pokemon Ruby and Saphire have yet to be released in Japan.
"I am in total disbalief that an upstanding bullshit free site such as slashdot as posted this article."
Now now, this is only one article. Hold your complaints until it's posted for the second or third time.
"This is related to the "Megaton" announcement from Nintendo coming soon. Some sites say it's Capcom being bought by Nintendo, some sites say it's Sony paying Nintendo money for the PS brand, some sites have equally ridiculous stories"
Except that Nintendo buying Capcom is somewhat believable. At the very least, it's a hell of a lot more believable than the Square/Enix merger...
... the 2.80 that came with Netscape 7 is safe? HAH HAH! :)
Why not You've Got Bad Grammar?
You have mail...
Oh, wait, this is AOL/TW. Gotta remember it's the media industry's ultimate goal to achieve duckspeak.
Security for the people too lazy to practice good security habits. Yay. Although I suppose this will make life easier for certain sysadmins...
At any rate, my question is "When will this be used to make smart guns?"
"There are *some* disadvantages to having a girlfriend."
Shh! Don't admit you won't see it because of a girlfriend, call it an MPAA boycott!