Last time this topic went around, someone here CITED writings BY the framers of the 2nd Amendment, which made it crystal clear that it intent was indeed to allow armed citizens to overthrow a repressive government (the very act they'd recently accomplished, still very fresh in everyone's minds in that era). If I had all day I'd go find the cite for ya.
That the Amendment's framers didn't foresee tanks and tactical nukes and rocks dropped from space is not relevant. And do remember that our military are citizens too, and I'd guess if anything are MORE likely to take up arms against a repressive regime than are ordinary folks.
The numbers work out to between 0.00001 and 0.00012 percent. That's not even close to statistically significant, wrt numbers of deaths nor numbers of guns involved.
There are MILLIONS of guns in this country that are NOT involved in any death (homicide, suicide, or accident). Per these numbers, one can conclude that over 99.999% of all deaths, and all guns, have nothing to do with one another.
If the gov't is confined to an underground bunker, they won't be doing much ruling, unless they can convince the military to undertake illegal actions against U.S. citizens. And remember, military personnel are citizens too, with all the same concerns as you and me... and military personnel have an *obligation* to DISOBEY ILLEGAL ORDERS (such as "fire on those obstreperous citizens").
Or maybe "Shit, chances are EVERYONE in that store is armed, and that makes it 10 guns against my one gun. Hmm... odds not so good for me. Maybe I'll reconsider and not rob that store after all."
So who do you think should appoint the SCOTUS justices, if not the President? I have mixed feelings about that myself, but I think it worked better in the past than it has in the past couple decades.
Congress clearly should not have a direct hand in their appointment. The last thing we want is a(nother) rubber stamp for Congress.
Maybe state governors should put forth candidates, with a 2/3rds majority approval (by said governors) required to send a candidate on to the Senate for their approval?? (Somehow this reminds me of how the Pope is selected.) I'm thinking that while this would make a much bigger circus, it also should produce a broader pool of candidates, perhaps with a broader view of the issues too. (Or maybe not.)
Thoughts?
Re:The explanation is obvious
on
Terminal Chaos
·
· Score: 1
Nice... tho too bad it's limited to just one line. From TFA, "it is considered Amtrak's best-paying train in terms of income versus operating expenses." Hmmm...
I noticed the "hull loss" stats someone posted, and thought, Isn't that 40-some vs 30-some lost hulls (whatever that means) per BILLION flights?? a difference of less than 10 parts per billion -- that's not even statistically significant, regardless of which continent's number you pick!
Geez, that's the funniest thing I've read all day!
Tho given the state of today's waistlines, you could probably get away with *wearing* that tire, and no one would notice;)
Re:It's all because John Wayne is no lonvger with
on
Terminal Chaos
·
· Score: 1
You're sure right about that. We're raising a generation of 300 pound emotional-toddlers; how the hell do you EXPECT them to act any time their will is thwarted? especially since there are so many gov't agencies devoted to wasting everyone's time, thus setting off those toddler-tantrums.
Re:The explanation is obvious
on
Terminal Chaos
·
· Score: 1
You used to be able to take your car along, in a freight car, so when you got to wherever it was unloaded and you drove off. Presumably you could still do that if you cared to rent half of a flatbed car, or one berth in an auto-carrier car (whatever the railroads call them).
That's a good thought. If the TSA personnel have access to your lawfully stored movie, but then pass it among themselves... it'd be tough to prove without someone on the inside, but it wouldn't surprise me if it turned into a spectacular corruption case. [evil grin]
Good points -- nature is largely about the daily grind of filling your stomach. A certain amount of hunger is normal in that context.
And "normal hunger" involves a certain amount of telling your stomach to STFU when it's complaining merely because it's empty -- which is NOT a good or reliable indicator of when your BODY is hungry. Learn to ignore the stomach and listen to your body instead. Eventually your stomach will learn to make only a token protest, then stop pestering you.
Until your stomach is trained to the fact that it's not in charge here, you can bribe it with a couple of crackers or a bit of jerky, but never fruit or sweets (fruit is mostly fructose and water, ie. sugar water), except for dates, which seem to work well as a stomach-bribe.
Just a note about the multiple meals thing -- Something I've observed that's common among folks at their correct weight AND eating a protein based diet AND getting enough exercise, is that they only have real interest in one meal a day, and may not even feel a need for snacks beyond that. Might be a form of "predator appetite" -- as distinguished from "prey animal appetite" where (after the manner of grazers) one eats all day long.
"...one thing I noticed and found rather interesting was that overweight or otherwise unhealthy looking people usually bought the more expensive pre-made food while healthier people purchased instead a whole lot more of the items required to make their own food like flour and produce."
I've noticed the same thing. And it applies to meat as well. Butcher-cut meat that you actually have to cook yourself is bought by the lean and healthy; pre-packed pre-cooked meat-and-prepared-meal products are bought by the overweight.
I have friends who live almost entirely off "Lean Cuisine" and similar frozen diet meals. They don't eat a great deal (usually a small breakfast and one of these frozen diet meals per day) yet they are both overweight, and losing that battle. One of 'em also suffers from "chronic fatigue syndrome". Funny thing, whenever I stay at their house and eat what they do, I wake up the next day feeling tired and with no energy at all. Hmm...
I was going to say something similar... not everyone is a 5'4" backcountry build that is never more than 30" around the waist, even in Japan. You can't legislate body type, and some are thicker built than others -- that has a lot to do with the inherited shape of your rib cage, and very little to do with your body fat.
And I find it's the other way round. In dollars per useful unit of protein, the low-carb, better quality foods tend to be cheaper. Meat is a much more concentrated protein source than bread; if you weight the price on cents per gram of protein, this becomes evident.
And [putting on 95% of a biochem degree hat] you are right, the key to long-term weight control *without abnormal hunger* is simply cut back carbs, and make your body revert to the biochemical behaviours it evolved for. When you get enough *balanced* protein AND fat, you won't crave all the substitute building blocks, either (ie. junk foods).
"And I'd note that it likely wouldn't be considered "unwitting" if the case went to court, since any reasonable person would know or should have known that this would occur."
Well, not necessarily. FTP servers can be stable for years, then disappear overnight, and if you don't have a reason to check the links regularly, it can be a LONG time before you notice. Remember FTP.CDROM.COM?? It happened there. No warning at all** when everything that had been hosted for free for most of a decade went *POOF* literally from one day to the next. That was ~8 years ago, and I *still* see occasional dead links pointing to that server.
Personally I don't think prosecution and pariahdom should be the first move against such an incident, tho some zealots have wanted that. Notify 'em, confirm that someone IN CHARGE read it (don't just assume evil intent if you don't get an instant response; corporations move slowly, and one-man-bands can move even more slowly just for lack of office staff to handle such stuff), and give 'em a chance to find hosting, or better yet, HELP OUT by pointing 'em at current live access points. Wouldn't that make YOU feel more favourable toward the FOSS community, if it helps you solve the problem rather than looking for reasons to jump all over you?
** Unless you happened across the backdoor on Digital River's webserver, where their financial woes were displayed for all the world to see, and became suspicious something was up.
Thanks... I'd missed/forgotten the relevant section:) but you're right, it does appear to mean that any access to the source is acceptable, so long as *someone* hosts it and you point to it.
My brain insists on looking at the corner case of "hosted on 3rd party server which goes away without notice" resulting in unwitting GPL violations (source no longer available, but you might not know this for a Long Time, ie. til someone complains). I see an unfortunate opportunity for GPL-ambulance-chasers.
If I use *and distribute* some GPL'd app, UNCHANGED from how I received it, and the source code is still available from the original distributor, do I have to distribute source code too?? Can I just point at the original distribution point? Ie. is that the code is available *somewhere* adequate, or do I have to become an additional source distribution point?
Remember, this question is about distributing UNALTERED binaries. NOT about binaries with new and different code in them, which would of course require distribution of the new and different source, too.
"If I went to Alice's bank, and demanded that they give me all of her money, because Alice died and left it to me, it would be a great hardship for me to have to show that Alice actually died, and actually willed the money as I claimed. Why, with the onerous burden of proof in my lap, I might not be able to collect anything! Just because there's an outside chance that she's still alive and doesn't know me from Adam doesn't mean that the bank shouldn't take my word for it."
The solution is simple: Kill Alice. Mail the corpse to the bank.
What? gaining the required proof involves blatantly criminal acts? No worse than what the RIAA does, and they suffer no penalties...
Indeed... there is no proof that you owe me rent for taking up space on my computer screen, but since having to prove that you did so would be an onerous burden on myself, we'll just find a judgment of $150,000 in my favour and be done with it. Fork it over!!
And it'd be tough to prove that you aren't squatting in my rental house, but having to come up with such proof is depriving me of revenue. So we'll just find in my favour and now it's up to you to cough it up!!
To reword the MPAA quote in terms of the above,
"Mandating such proof could thus have the pernicious effect of depriving rental owners of a practical remedy against massive squatter infringement in many instances."
I did RTFA, all of it, and just went back and looked again... the AC seems to be talking about something else, or perhaps some provision of this bill which isn't therein discussed.
Slashdot Mirror
Hmm. I'm wondering how California's system gets around "restraint of trade" regulations.
Which excellently enlightened and patriotic state is this??
Seriously, good for them!!
Last time this topic went around, someone here CITED writings BY the framers of the 2nd Amendment, which made it crystal clear that it intent was indeed to allow armed citizens to overthrow a repressive government (the very act they'd recently accomplished, still very fresh in everyone's minds in that era). If I had all day I'd go find the cite for ya.
That the Amendment's framers didn't foresee tanks and tactical nukes and rocks dropped from space is not relevant. And do remember that our military are citizens too, and I'd guess if anything are MORE likely to take up arms against a repressive regime than are ordinary folks.
The numbers work out to between 0.00001 and 0.00012 percent. That's not even close to statistically significant, wrt numbers of deaths nor numbers of guns involved.
There are MILLIONS of guns in this country that are NOT involved in any death (homicide, suicide, or accident). Per these numbers, one can conclude that over 99.999% of all deaths, and all guns, have nothing to do with one another.
If the gov't is confined to an underground bunker, they won't be doing much ruling, unless they can convince the military to undertake illegal actions against U.S. citizens. And remember, military personnel are citizens too, with all the same concerns as you and me... and military personnel have an *obligation* to DISOBEY ILLEGAL ORDERS (such as "fire on those obstreperous citizens").
Or maybe "Shit, chances are EVERYONE in that store is armed, and that makes it 10 guns against my one gun. Hmm... odds not so good for me. Maybe I'll reconsider and not rob that store after all."
So who do you think should appoint the SCOTUS justices, if not the President? I have mixed feelings about that myself, but I think it worked better in the past than it has in the past couple decades.
Congress clearly should not have a direct hand in their appointment. The last thing we want is a(nother) rubber stamp for Congress.
Maybe state governors should put forth candidates, with a 2/3rds majority approval (by said governors) required to send a candidate on to the Senate for their approval?? (Somehow this reminds me of how the Pope is selected.) I'm thinking that while this would make a much bigger circus, it also should produce a broader pool of candidates, perhaps with a broader view of the issues too. (Or maybe not.)
Thoughts?
Nice... tho too bad it's limited to just one line. From TFA, "it is considered Amtrak's best-paying train in terms of income versus operating expenses." Hmmm...
I noticed the "hull loss" stats someone posted, and thought, Isn't that 40-some vs 30-some lost hulls (whatever that means) per BILLION flights?? a difference of less than 10 parts per billion -- that's not even statistically significant, regardless of which continent's number you pick!
Geez, that's the funniest thing I've read all day!
Tho given the state of today's waistlines, you could probably get away with *wearing* that tire, and no one would notice ;)
You're sure right about that. We're raising a generation of 300 pound emotional-toddlers; how the hell do you EXPECT them to act any time their will is thwarted? especially since there are so many gov't agencies devoted to wasting everyone's time, thus setting off those toddler-tantrums.
You used to be able to take your car along, in a freight car, so when you got to wherever it was unloaded and you drove off. Presumably you could still do that if you cared to rent half of a flatbed car, or one berth in an auto-carrier car (whatever the railroads call them).
It sounds like the courts have interpreted it as "Never take anything out of your house unless you're okay with it being searched and/or seized". :(
That's a good thought. If the TSA personnel have access to your lawfully stored movie, but then pass it among themselves... it'd be tough to prove without someone on the inside, but it wouldn't surprise me if it turned into a spectacular corruption case. [evil grin]
Good points -- nature is largely about the daily grind of filling your stomach. A certain amount of hunger is normal in that context.
And "normal hunger" involves a certain amount of telling your stomach to STFU when it's complaining merely because it's empty -- which is NOT a good or reliable indicator of when your BODY is hungry. Learn to ignore the stomach and listen to your body instead. Eventually your stomach will learn to make only a token protest, then stop pestering you.
Until your stomach is trained to the fact that it's not in charge here, you can bribe it with a couple of crackers or a bit of jerky, but never fruit or sweets (fruit is mostly fructose and water, ie. sugar water), except for dates, which seem to work well as a stomach-bribe.
Just a note about the multiple meals thing --
Something I've observed that's common among folks at their correct weight AND eating a protein based diet AND getting enough exercise, is that they only have real interest in one meal a day, and may not even feel a need for snacks beyond that. Might be a form of "predator appetite" -- as distinguished from "prey animal appetite" where (after the manner of grazers) one eats all day long.
"...one thing I noticed and found rather interesting was that overweight or otherwise unhealthy looking people usually bought the more expensive pre-made food while healthier people purchased instead a whole lot more of the items required to make their own food like flour and produce."
I've noticed the same thing. And it applies to meat as well. Butcher-cut meat that you actually have to cook yourself is bought by the lean and healthy; pre-packed pre-cooked meat-and-prepared-meal products are bought by the overweight.
I have friends who live almost entirely off "Lean Cuisine" and similar frozen diet meals. They don't eat a great deal (usually a small breakfast and one of these frozen diet meals per day) yet they are both overweight, and losing that battle. One of 'em also suffers from "chronic fatigue syndrome". Funny thing, whenever I stay at their house and eat what they do, I wake up the next day feeling tired and with no energy at all. Hmm...
I was going to say something similar ... not everyone is a 5'4" backcountry build that is never more than 30" around the waist, even in Japan. You can't legislate body type, and some are thicker built than others -- that has a lot to do with the inherited shape of your rib cage, and very little to do with your body fat.
And I find it's the other way round. In dollars per useful unit of protein, the low-carb, better quality foods tend to be cheaper. Meat is a much more concentrated protein source than bread; if you weight the price on cents per gram of protein, this becomes evident.
And [putting on 95% of a biochem degree hat] you are right, the key to long-term weight control *without abnormal hunger* is simply cut back carbs, and make your body revert to the biochemical behaviours it evolved for. When you get enough *balanced* protein AND fat, you won't crave all the substitute building blocks, either (ie. junk foods).
"And I'd note that it likely wouldn't be considered "unwitting" if the case went to court, since any reasonable person would know or should have known that this would occur."
Well, not necessarily. FTP servers can be stable for years, then disappear overnight, and if you don't have a reason to check the links regularly, it can be a LONG time before you notice. Remember FTP.CDROM.COM?? It happened there. No warning at all** when everything that had been hosted for free for most of a decade went *POOF* literally from one day to the next. That was ~8 years ago, and I *still* see occasional dead links pointing to that server.
Personally I don't think prosecution and pariahdom should be the first move against such an incident, tho some zealots have wanted that. Notify 'em, confirm that someone IN CHARGE read it (don't just assume evil intent if you don't get an instant response; corporations move slowly, and one-man-bands can move even more slowly just for lack of office staff to handle such stuff), and give 'em a chance to find hosting, or better yet, HELP OUT by pointing 'em at current live access points. Wouldn't that make YOU feel more favourable toward the FOSS community, if it helps you solve the problem rather than looking for reasons to jump all over you?
** Unless you happened across the backdoor on Digital River's webserver, where their financial woes were displayed for all the world to see, and became suspicious something was up.
Thanks... I'd missed/forgotten the relevant section :) but you're right, it does appear to mean that any access to the source is acceptable, so long as *someone* hosts it and you point to it.
My brain insists on looking at the corner case of "hosted on 3rd party server which goes away without notice" resulting in unwitting GPL violations (source no longer available, but you might not know this for a Long Time, ie. til someone complains). I see an unfortunate opportunity for GPL-ambulance-chasers.
If I use *and distribute* some GPL'd app, UNCHANGED from how I received it, and the source code is still available from the original distributor, do I have to distribute source code too?? Can I just point at the original distribution point? Ie. is that the code is available *somewhere* adequate, or do I have to become an additional source distribution point?
Remember, this question is about distributing UNALTERED binaries. NOT about binaries with new and different code in them, which would of course require distribution of the new and different source, too.
"If I went to Alice's bank, and demanded that they give me all of her money, because Alice died and left it to me, it would be a great hardship for me to have to show that Alice actually died, and actually willed the money as I claimed. Why, with the onerous burden of proof in my lap, I might not be able to collect anything! Just because there's an outside chance that she's still alive and doesn't know me from Adam doesn't mean that the bank shouldn't take my word for it."
The solution is simple: Kill Alice. Mail the corpse to the bank.
What? gaining the required proof involves blatantly criminal acts? No worse than what the RIAA does, and they suffer no penalties...
Indeed... there is no proof that you owe me rent for taking up space on my computer screen, but since having to prove that you did so would be an onerous burden on myself, we'll just find a judgment of $150,000 in my favour and be done with it. Fork it over!!
And it'd be tough to prove that you aren't squatting in my rental house, but having to come up with such proof is depriving me of revenue. So we'll just find in my favour and now it's up to you to cough it up!!
To reword the MPAA quote in terms of the above,
"Mandating such proof could thus have the pernicious effect of depriving rental owners of a practical remedy against massive squatter infringement in many instances."
I did RTFA, all of it, and just went back and looked again... the AC seems to be talking about something else, or perhaps some provision of this bill which isn't therein discussed.
However, I thank the AC for the informative link about credit card interest rate abuse: http://levin.senate.gov/newsroom/release.cfm?id=288169