Actually, it explicitly states in the U.S. Code (10 U.S.C. 311, 32 U.S.C. 313) that the militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and under 45 years of age, or under 64 years of age and former members of the Regular Army, Regular Navy, Regular Air Force, or Regular Marine Corps, who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
The classes of the militia are the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
That's a good point, but I think that the ACLU is doing the right thing politically, which makes their support for other issues much stronger. By avoiding the second amendment (which, it is true, is mostly covered by the NRA), they're getting a lot more support, financially and otherwise, from the huge number of people that support most civil liberties issues but not gun rights. While this conflicts with the principle of what the ACLU should do, it makes them much more effective as an organization for the issues that they do strongly advocate.
As for the particular case above, it seems like a case that they could have and should have taken even acknowledging redundancy with the NRA (which didn't do anything) and the political positions of its supporters. Even strong gun control advocates should recognize that the bills don't really have much to do with gun control, but instead simply manufacture punitive measures for illegal drug users, while doing nothing to help gun control. It's simply a bad law that conflicts with the principles of the Constitution, that the ACLU should have taken.
I don't think that's a real contradiction as long as he didn't buy it. He's not increasing demand for non-free software just by playing what's installed in a computer lab.
That's a good point, maybe the only reason they were smarter with creatine is because they had a creatine deficiency by not eating meat. Which would mean that anyone with normal levels of creatine might not have any advantage by taking more.
In this case, I think poop is funnier and more appropriate. Not being able to figure out dselect isn't something that scares the shit out of someone. The absolute worst-case scenario is that they have to use another distribution because they don't realize there are other tools. It's an interface that scares the poop out of you, but you still got your shit together.
The official policy seems to be that "unstable" is an unstable, insecure development branch, even though it is stable and secure enough for typical desktop use almost all of the time.
I've never had such a problem. It sounds like it's either a problem with your unofficial sources, or that the system is is trying to upgrade to a completely new stable release and is unable to because you're using the wrong command. Look into apt-get dist-upgrade and other packaging tools like dselect and aptitude.
It seems evident that the sign in your example is illegal under the town ordinances mentioned. From a constitutional perspective, it seems that this does not violate the free speech or religious expression of any natural person and, for a business it seems that because signs are still allowed, under certain parameters that do not degrade the content of the message, it still even allows free speech and religious expression for businesses.
I don't think that those rules are complex or difficult to understand. This is about whether an individual can understand the law such that he can avoid illegal activity, and defend himself in a court of law. As for this sign, the town ordinances, at least, are simple, despite there being 3 or 4 relevant ones.
The only amount of interpretation you need is to look up the word "steal" or "theft" in the dictionary. Simply, the above examples are fairly obvious if you know what the word "steal" means. Things like filesharing and penny-taking might fall under another body of law, like copyright violations or abandoned property, but it's definitely not stealing. I'm not even asking for the law to be clear enough that everyone can defend themselves. I think it would be reasonable if the 20% smartest of the population could defend themselves in regular, non-business, non-contractual (i.e.: You don't have to fully grasp what's in a massive, very specific, contract) legal cases. It's absurd that, say, a non-law student graduate of Cornell probably wouldn't even consider defending himself in a simple misdemeanor, even if they had the time to do so.
Well, technically speaking, he would have the vantage point that anything paranormal must be false because if something holds up to scientific testing, then it's not really a paranormal phenomenon, but rather a normal one.
Why wouldn't it be an accurate reflection of age? While there may not be a simple mathematical relationship between user id and how long the user has been a Slashdot member because people joined at different rates through the history of the site, that doesn't mean that there isn't a general relationship between user id's and "Slashdot age". I think you can still look at, say, user id 10,000 and say that everyone below that user id has been on slashdot as long as x number of years.
The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. A treaty does not supersede the constitution and it cannot legally grant additional rights to the government or take rights from the people. If a law is unconstitutional, it is unconstitutional and not legally forceful, regardless of any treaties to the contrary.
And, of course, the original Domesday Book probably isn't sitting on someone's desk; it's being maintained in a carefully-controlled environment.
How is that different from the new Domesday Book, which isn't sitting on someone's desk, but being maintained in a carefully controlled environment? What were you trying to imply, that the reason the new Domesday Book doesn't last as long as the old one because the old one was in a carefully controlled environment for 900 years (which it is now, but hasn't been for 900 years straight) whereas the new one is what, being used as a baseball?
But the sound, moving pictures, photographs, cross-linked statistics and intense lookup system are all useless if you can't even get it to work in 20 years.
This is not to say that this strategy wouldn't make you money online because there's so many players, and there's so many bad players. However, it wouldn't be difficult to lose big because an opponent figures your "perfect strategy" out, and it's not going to work against good players. You put your computer program at the final table of any tournament and it would probably fail miserably.
You're playing against other people. If you did play "perfectly" you would never lose at poker, but it's impossible to play perfectly, because perfectly means that you would have to know whether other players that are after you would bet/call/fold/raise (thus you would always know the exact pot odds), which means that already with this perfect play you must analyze the individual player. With this, actually, the computer can do fairly well if it can see a huge amount of the previous hands that a person has played and thus they will be able to know the person's general strategy. But, then again, part of the game is changing how you play. If the computer, or another person, has you pegged with a specific playing style, and either the evaluation is inaccurate for whatever reason (players do get incomplete information) or the player varies his playing strategy, which good players do. But what I mean by all this is that, in order to play "perfectly", the computer would have to have an algorithm that defines the perfect play at each point in the game. Statistically, there can exist a perfect way of playing particular hands so that you will win money in the long-run. However, you probably have to integrate a certain amount of randomness into your own play so that you're not predictable (because, otherwise you're only playing hands where you have a good hand already or a good draw, thus everyone knows what you have by what you bet and will fold when you have a hand, and bet when you do not bet, thus causing you to lose money or at least not make money) and human behavior analysis of other people so that you can look at a person's behavior and their betting, correlate it with the person's past behavior, and use that to help you to decide what to do. This is a big task, with a lot of human so-called "intuition" and mathematical analysis based on a person's past performance.
The other part of this is that even if you're playing in a statistically perfect manner and it's working (probably because you're against bad players, or you switch tables enough), it's not necessarily the best way to play against you're opponents. Because it's statistically perfect, you might be making money from your opponents. However, with another strategy, one that's tailored to your opponents rather than tailored to the statistics of the card, you could devise a strategy that can net you a lot more money than the statistically perfect strategy. And, of course, you're also not varying your strategy, so someone can pick up on it totally and play so as to not give you any money, or someone might pick up on little things that lower the amount of money you make off of hands.
You can't play "perfectly" because you're playing against people, and you're playing against them in a game with, literally, gazillions of combinations, both in card possibilities, in the betting of a particular hand, and in how your opponents act.
How's the site going to know that someone is not using one of those cards that has the statistically appropriate play for each possible blackjack hand? Or do you mean that it will somehow detect if a program is making the perfect plays based on counting cards...which again wouldn't happen because presumably the blackjack site is playing with a computer-generated pseudorandom shuffle where every hand is a new deck.
That's absurd, a "corporation" does not have an obligation to, or even the right to, maximize its profits in any way possible. A corporation consists of people anyway, who have an obligation to act morally above acting to maximize profits and failing to do so is those person's moral turpitude. Anyway, the people that work at a corporation have as much obligation to maximize the corporation's profits in any way as I have an obligation to reproduce prolifically as much as possible; there is no duty to achieve, at all costs, the apparent purpose of an agency--in a person or corporation.
They may deserve it but it doesn't mean it's "fair" to everyone else. There are many other jobs that are more demanding and dangerous where people get less than $300k a year, and much of the time more like around $20-30k a year
Slashdot Mirror
Where has the ACLU taken this position on the Second Amendment, rather than just ignoring the issue?
Actually, it explicitly states in the U.S. Code (10 U.S.C. 311, 32 U.S.C. 313) that the militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and under 45 years of age, or under 64 years of age and former members of the Regular Army, Regular Navy, Regular Air Force, or Regular Marine Corps, who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
The classes of the militia are the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
That's a good point, but I think that the ACLU is doing the right thing politically, which makes their support for other issues much stronger. By avoiding the second amendment (which, it is true, is mostly covered by the NRA), they're getting a lot more support, financially and otherwise, from the huge number of people that support most civil liberties issues but not gun rights. While this conflicts with the principle of what the ACLU should do, it makes them much more effective as an organization for the issues that they do strongly advocate.
As for the particular case above, it seems like a case that they could have and should have taken even acknowledging redundancy with the NRA (which didn't do anything) and the political positions of its supporters. Even strong gun control advocates should recognize that the bills don't really have much to do with gun control, but instead simply manufacture punitive measures for illegal drug users, while doing nothing to help gun control. It's simply a bad law that conflicts with the principles of the Constitution, that the ACLU should have taken.
I don't think that's a real contradiction as long as he didn't buy it. He's not increasing demand for non-free software just by playing what's installed in a computer lab.
That's a good point, maybe the only reason they were smarter with creatine is because they had a creatine deficiency by not eating meat. Which would mean that anyone with normal levels of creatine might not have any advantage by taking more.
In this case, I think poop is funnier and more appropriate. Not being able to figure out dselect isn't something that scares the shit out of someone. The absolute worst-case scenario is that they have to use another distribution because they don't realize there are other tools. It's an interface that scares the poop out of you, but you still got your shit together.
The official policy seems to be that "unstable" is an unstable, insecure development branch, even though it is stable and secure enough for typical desktop use almost all of the time.
I've never had such a problem. It sounds like it's either a problem with your unofficial sources, or that the system is is trying to upgrade to a completely new stable release and is unable to because you're using the wrong command. Look into apt-get dist-upgrade and other packaging tools like dselect and aptitude.
It seems evident that the sign in your example is illegal under the town ordinances mentioned. From a constitutional perspective, it seems that this does not violate the free speech or religious expression of any natural person and, for a business it seems that because signs are still allowed, under certain parameters that do not degrade the content of the message, it still even allows free speech and religious expression for businesses.
I don't think that those rules are complex or difficult to understand. This is about whether an individual can understand the law such that he can avoid illegal activity, and defend himself in a court of law. As for this sign, the town ordinances, at least, are simple, despite there being 3 or 4 relevant ones.
The only amount of interpretation you need is to look up the word "steal" or "theft" in the dictionary. Simply, the above examples are fairly obvious if you know what the word "steal" means. Things like filesharing and penny-taking might fall under another body of law, like copyright violations or abandoned property, but it's definitely not stealing. I'm not even asking for the law to be clear enough that everyone can defend themselves. I think it would be reasonable if the 20% smartest of the population could defend themselves in regular, non-business, non-contractual (i.e.: You don't have to fully grasp what's in a massive, very specific, contract) legal cases. It's absurd that, say, a non-law student graduate of Cornell probably wouldn't even consider defending himself in a simple misdemeanor, even if they had the time to do so.
For all intents and purposes, it is impossible to die due to the consumption of cannabis.
Well, technically speaking, he would have the vantage point that anything paranormal must be false because if something holds up to scientific testing, then it's not really a paranormal phenomenon, but rather a normal one.
Why wouldn't it be an accurate reflection of age? While there may not be a simple mathematical relationship between user id and how long the user has been a Slashdot member because people joined at different rates through the history of the site, that doesn't mean that there isn't a general relationship between user id's and "Slashdot age". I think you can still look at, say, user id 10,000 and say that everyone below that user id has been on slashdot as long as x number of years.
The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. A treaty does not supersede the constitution and it cannot legally grant additional rights to the government or take rights from the people. If a law is unconstitutional, it is unconstitutional and not legally forceful, regardless of any treaties to the contrary.
steal? I'm sorry, you must mean "violate copyright laws"
How is that different from the new Domesday Book, which isn't sitting on someone's desk, but being maintained in a carefully controlled environment? What were you trying to imply, that the reason the new Domesday Book doesn't last as long as the old one because the old one was in a carefully controlled environment for 900 years (which it is now, but hasn't been for 900 years straight) whereas the new one is what, being used as a baseball?
But the sound, moving pictures, photographs, cross-linked statistics and intense lookup system are all useless if you can't even get it to work in 20 years.
Isn't it used for the new make xconfig?
This is not to say that this strategy wouldn't make you money online because there's so many players, and there's so many bad players. However, it wouldn't be difficult to lose big because an opponent figures your "perfect strategy" out, and it's not going to work against good players. You put your computer program at the final table of any tournament and it would probably fail miserably.
You're playing against other people. If you did play "perfectly" you would never lose at poker, but it's impossible to play perfectly, because perfectly means that you would have to know whether other players that are after you would bet/call/fold/raise (thus you would always know the exact pot odds), which means that already with this perfect play you must analyze the individual player. With this, actually, the computer can do fairly well if it can see a huge amount of the previous hands that a person has played and thus they will be able to know the person's general strategy. But, then again, part of the game is changing how you play. If the computer, or another person, has you pegged with a specific playing style, and either the evaluation is inaccurate for whatever reason (players do get incomplete information) or the player varies his playing strategy, which good players do. But what I mean by all this is that, in order to play "perfectly", the computer would have to have an algorithm that defines the perfect play at each point in the game. Statistically, there can exist a perfect way of playing particular hands so that you will win money in the long-run. However, you probably have to integrate a certain amount of randomness into your own play so that you're not predictable (because, otherwise you're only playing hands where you have a good hand already or a good draw, thus everyone knows what you have by what you bet and will fold when you have a hand, and bet when you do not bet, thus causing you to lose money or at least not make money) and human behavior analysis of other people so that you can look at a person's behavior and their betting, correlate it with the person's past behavior, and use that to help you to decide what to do. This is a big task, with a lot of human so-called "intuition" and mathematical analysis based on a person's past performance.
The other part of this is that even if you're playing in a statistically perfect manner and it's working (probably because you're against bad players, or you switch tables enough), it's not necessarily the best way to play against you're opponents. Because it's statistically perfect, you might be making money from your opponents. However, with another strategy, one that's tailored to your opponents rather than tailored to the statistics of the card, you could devise a strategy that can net you a lot more money than the statistically perfect strategy. And, of course, you're also not varying your strategy, so someone can pick up on it totally and play so as to not give you any money, or someone might pick up on little things that lower the amount of money you make off of hands.
You can't play "perfectly" because you're playing against people, and you're playing against them in a game with, literally, gazillions of combinations, both in card possibilities, in the betting of a particular hand, and in how your opponents act.
How's the site going to know that someone is not using one of those cards that has the statistically appropriate play for each possible blackjack hand? Or do you mean that it will somehow detect if a program is making the perfect plays based on counting cards...which again wouldn't happen because presumably the blackjack site is playing with a computer-generated pseudorandom shuffle where every hand is a new deck.
That's absurd, a "corporation" does not have an obligation to, or even the right to, maximize its profits in any way possible. A corporation consists of people anyway, who have an obligation to act morally above acting to maximize profits and failing to do so is those person's moral turpitude. Anyway, the people that work at a corporation have as much obligation to maximize the corporation's profits in any way as I have an obligation to reproduce prolifically as much as possible; there is no duty to achieve, at all costs, the apparent purpose of an agency--in a person or corporation.
lienucks isn't closer to his name, leenucks or linnucks is. That's how he pronounces his name and Linux on the audio file.
Were those the Shia uprisings that happened when the U.S. encouraged them to revolt and then abandoned them?
They may deserve it but it doesn't mean it's "fair" to everyone else. There are many other jobs that are more demanding and dangerous where people get less than $300k a year, and much of the time more like around $20-30k a year