I know this is offtopic, but in the interest of attempting to clarify a widely held misunderstanding on the Boston Tea Party:
The Boston Tea Party was a protest against the monopoly on tea importation granted to the East India Company, and was a response to the Tea Act, which *lowered* import duties so that the ailing Company could compete with smugglers. So, the Patriots were taking action against an act that far from raising taxes, was lowering them. You might take the view that they were acting on behalf of American tea smugglers.
I have heard that Sony's problem isn't with sale of virtual items for money, but the support headaches it causes. People will buy an EQ item on eBay, send the real money, get gipped, then complain to EverQuest's customer support.
There is also the subsidiary problem of people "farming" creatures who have attractive items to sell for real money.
Explain to me how taking away your ability to distribute encryption code that enables child pornographers to escape punishment infringes on your personal liberty.
This is something of a straw man argument. Take one possible consequence of many and say loudly, "who could be against this?" It's also loaded: "kill with a casual flick" conjurs up images of bored, jaded gunmen taking life with a yawn and a flick. Let me as a variant of the question: How is taking away the only practicable means of defense for an elderly woman against a violent robber a violation of personal liberty? After all, guns are only designed for killing, self-defense is not a right, and she would most likely only get killed with it anyway.
I hardly think the "right to kill anyone you want as easily as possible" is what the original poster was referring to as an inalienable personal liberty.
I forget where I read this (so I don't have any sources to quote), and I'm against frivolous lawsuits as much as the next guy, but....
The famous McDonald's incident where the lady sued McDonald's for scalding herself with a cup of coffee was not entirely frivolous. The coffee in question was ludicrously hot (enough to cause third degree burns), and a number of people had informed McDonald's of this and asked them to serve it at a lower temperature. McDonald's ignored these requests and continued to serve their coffee at a dangerous temperature. The lady was severely burned (i.e., it wasn't just a little scalding on her finger or something), and the multi-million dollar fine was handed down for negligent behavior on McDonald's part.
If anyone knows more about this case, I'd appreciate a source.
I took a one evening seminar in the law of self-defense given by the SigArms Academy. One of the points made was that a person carrying a concealed firearm should go out of their way to avoid situations and confrontations, MORE SO than you would if you were not carrying. The fact that you have, as a responsible adult, made the decision to arm yourself with an instrument of lethal force, makes it incumbent upon you to as much as possible make it unnecessary to use it.
Most gun owners are not weekend warriors and Rambo wannabes spoiling for a fight. Nor are they even mostly enraged, drunken wife beaters liable to go on a murderous rampage at any second.
Try this article for a look at how well a total handgun ban has worked for England. Crime involving weapons is actually increasing.
"But the rate of crime is much lower than in the US!," you might say. Not according to this study by the US Department of Justice.
Britain does not use the SAS as a routine policing force for anti-firearms violations.
I am somewhat surprised at the high level of anti-gun sentiment on slashdot. You would think that in a group with a large percentage of self-described nerds with a penchant for anti-government, libertarian thinking, there would be more people into firearms. Or at least that the detractors would be better informed.
Shall we just pick and choose from the Bill of Rights for just those amendments which please us, then? Yes on 1, no on 2? I bet the police and courts find 4 and 5 pretty pesky at times, let's get rid of those while we're at it.
While it is impossible to say with certainty what the Founding fathers would have thought of any of the changes this country has gone through in the last 200 years, the vast majority of Second Amendment scholarship agrees that it was intended as an individual, not a collective, right. In fact, this is even referred to as the "Standard Model." Check out this article for an interesting summary of the current state of Second Amendment scholarship. Here's a quote:
But in places where close attention is paid to what words actually say, the states'-rights reading of the Second Amendment has attracted surprisingly little support. After all, the Second Amendment does not say, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, shall not be infringed." Nor do the words of the amendment assert that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" is conditional upon membership in some sort of organized soldiery like the National Guard. Indeed, if there is conditional language in the Second Amendment at all, evidently the contingency runs the other way: "Because the people have a right to keep and bear arms, states will be assured of the well regulated militias that are necessary for their security." Some version of this reading is supported by almost all of the constitutional historians and lawyers who have published research on the subject. Indeed, this view is so dominant in the academy that Garry Wills, the lone dissenter among historians on the proper reading of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms," has dubbed it the Standard Model of the Second Amendment.
...no ambiguity at all surrounds the attitude of the constitutional generation concerning "the right of the people to keep and bear arms." To put the matter bluntly, the Founders of the United States were what we would nowadays call gun nuts. "One loves to possess arms," Thomas Jefferson wrote to President Washington (whose own gun collection, Don Kates notes, contained more than 50 specimens). And to his teenage nephew, the author of the Declaration of Independence had this to say: "A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives a moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks."
They took from Locke the principle that people have a right to defend themselves, with arms if necessary, and from both Hobbes and Locke--to say nothing of their own experience with the Crown --the principle that central governments have a tendency, which requires systematic mitigation, to become overmighty with those subject to their power. The purpose of an armed population was to guarantee that the central government could not possess a monopoly of violence (no wonder modern-day liberals find the Second Amendment so hateful) and to assure that citizens would have the wherewithal to defend themselves and their communities against tyrants and wrongdoers.
And as to the question of what the Founding Fathers thought of guns, check out this article about a gun law recently overturned on second amendment grounds, which also speaks to the point of the intent of the authors of the Bill of Rights.
One of the quotes from the sidebar:
Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined...The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun. -Patrick Henry
One can argue that they might be "dismayed" by the proliferation of guns, or that they didn't intend for everyone to be able to carry a gun, but I don't think that view is well supported. They intended the Second Amendment to act as a preventative towards tyranny. Not particularly so that people can shoot at targets or go hunting, although those tend to be what most people use guns for.
A lot of people would like to make the Second Amendment irrelevant to these times, and ignore it. You can't just ignore Constitutional Amendments, especially one on the Bill of Rights! If it is not relevant, it should be repealed. If allowed to remain, it should not be ignored.
The problem with X11 isn't in the implementation details. I mean, sure, there are a lot of quirks to the implementation, the protocol is a pig, the ICCCM is incomprehensible, but as a user, who gives a shit, leave all that to the programmers. What needs to be improved is the user interface.
Some people have suggested different window managers, even a 3D window manager. You need to think bigger. What we need is an immersive, FUN interface. Check out QuakeFM, the first-person-shooter file manager.
It takes the example of ash (the adventure shell), and takes it to the extreme. You wander around a fully-realized 3D environment corresponding to your file system. Directories are rooms, with files represented as objects according to their type. wav files are big stereos, mp3s are boom boxes, image files are pictures hanging on the wall. Symbolic links are transporters. Armed with various large caliber weapons of your choice, you wander around your file system with a massive capacity for destruction. But mostly, you engage in mundane tasks, such as carting files around from place to place, playing the stereos, viewing the pictures. And from time to time, if need be, you choose a file for destruction and let loose with your rocket launcher or railgun. If the destruction of an entire room is what is desired, stand outside and toss in a grenade, which will rid you of the room as well as all those pesky files.
Sure, an accidental click of the mouse can remove some files by accident, but Unix is well known for giving you the heady power to shoot yourself in the foot. Only in QuakeFM is that literal.
I find Siegel endlessly amusing, not for only for his opinions on web page design (and, having recreated himself as an e-business consultant, his Internet punditry), but also for his inimitable, self-important writing style.
Check out this article for what makes David Siegel important.
I find Siegel endlessly amusing, not for only for his opinions on web page design (and, having recreated himself as an e-business consultant, his Internet punditry), but also for his inimitable, self-important writing style.
Check out this article for what makes David Siegel important.
Slashdot Mirror
"Sextium" would be mixing Latin and Latin! Sex- is a latin prefix for six, as in sextuplets, and "ium" is a Latinate prefix.
"Pentium" and "Hextium" are the bastard offspring of Greek prefix and Latin suffix here....
I know this is offtopic, but in the interest of attempting to clarify a widely held misunderstanding on the Boston Tea Party:
The Boston Tea Party was a protest against the monopoly on tea importation granted to the East India Company, and was a response to the Tea Act, which *lowered* import duties so that the ailing Company could compete with smugglers. So, the Patriots were taking action against an act that far from raising taxes, was lowering them. You might take the view that they were acting on behalf of American tea smugglers.
There are more per capita murders in major cities today than there were in "the Old West."
Branimir Dolicki made an Interbase port some time ago; it was announced on Freshmeat.
I have heard that Sony's problem isn't with sale of virtual items for money, but the support headaches it causes. People will buy an EQ item on eBay, send the real money, get gipped, then complain to EverQuest's customer support.
There is also the subsidiary problem of people "farming" creatures who have attractive items to sell for real money.
This is something of a straw man argument. Take one possible consequence of many and say loudly, "who could be against this?" It's also loaded: "kill with a casual flick" conjurs up images of bored, jaded gunmen taking life with a yawn and a flick. Let me as a variant of the question: How is taking away the only practicable means of defense for an elderly woman against a violent robber a violation of personal liberty? After all, guns are only designed for killing, self-defense is not a right, and she would most likely only get killed with it anyway.
I hardly think the "right to kill anyone you want as easily as possible" is what the original poster was referring to as an inalienable personal liberty.
I forget where I read this (so I don't have any sources to quote), and I'm against frivolous lawsuits as much as the next guy, but....
The famous McDonald's incident where the lady sued McDonald's for scalding herself with a cup of coffee was not entirely frivolous. The coffee in question was ludicrously hot (enough to cause third degree burns), and a number of people had informed McDonald's of this and asked them to serve it at a lower temperature. McDonald's ignored these requests and continued to serve their coffee at a dangerous temperature. The lady was severely burned (i.e., it wasn't just a little scalding on her finger or something), and the multi-million dollar fine was handed down for negligent behavior on McDonald's part.
If anyone knows more about this case, I'd appreciate a source.
I took a one evening seminar in the law of self-defense given by the SigArms Academy. One of the points made was that a person carrying a concealed firearm should go out of their way to avoid situations and confrontations, MORE SO than you would if you were not carrying. The fact that you have, as a responsible adult, made the decision to arm yourself with an instrument of lethal force, makes it incumbent upon you to as much as possible make it unnecessary to use it.
Most gun owners are not weekend warriors and Rambo wannabes spoiling for a fight. Nor are they even mostly enraged, drunken wife beaters liable to go on a murderous rampage at any second.
Try this article for a look at how well a total handgun ban has worked for England. Crime involving weapons is actually increasing.
"But the rate of crime is much lower than in the US!," you might say. Not according to this study by the US Department of Justice.
Britain does not use the SAS as a routine policing force for anti-firearms violations.
I am somewhat surprised at the high level of anti-gun sentiment on slashdot. You would think that in a group with a large percentage of self-described nerds with a penchant for anti-government, libertarian thinking, there would be more people into firearms. Or at least that the detractors would be better informed.
Shall we just pick and choose from the Bill of Rights for just those amendments which please us, then? Yes on 1, no on 2? I bet the police and courts find 4 and 5 pretty pesky at times, let's get rid of those while we're at it.
Which of the current nine planets doesn't actually count as a planet?
- But in places where close attention is paid to what words actually say, the states'-rights reading of the Second Amendment has attracted surprisingly little support. After all, the Second Amendment does not say, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, shall not be infringed." Nor do the words of the amendment assert that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" is conditional upon membership in some sort of organized soldiery like the National Guard. Indeed, if there is conditional language in the Second Amendment at all, evidently the contingency runs the other way: "Because the people have a right to keep and bear arms, states will be assured of the well regulated militias that are necessary for their security." Some version of this reading is supported by almost all of the constitutional historians and lawyers who have published research on the subject. Indeed, this view is so dominant in the academy that Garry Wills, the lone dissenter among historians on the proper reading of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms," has dubbed it the Standard Model of the Second Amendment.
- ...no ambiguity at all surrounds the attitude of the constitutional generation concerning "the right of the people to keep and bear arms." To put the matter bluntly, the Founders of the United States were what we would nowadays call gun nuts. "One loves to possess arms," Thomas Jefferson wrote to President Washington (whose own gun collection, Don Kates notes, contained more than 50 specimens). And to his teenage nephew, the author of the Declaration of Independence had this to say: "A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives a moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks."
- They took from Locke the principle that people have a right to defend themselves, with arms if necessary, and from both Hobbes and Locke--to say nothing of their own experience with the Crown --the principle that central governments have a tendency, which requires systematic mitigation, to become overmighty with those subject to their power. The purpose of an armed population was to guarantee that the central government could not possess a monopoly of violence (no wonder modern-day liberals find the Second Amendment so hateful) and to assure that citizens would have the wherewithal to defend themselves and their communities against tyrants and wrongdoers.
And as to the question of what the Founding Fathers thought of guns, check out this article about a gun law recently overturned on second amendment grounds, which also speaks to the point of the intent of the authors of the Bill of Rights.One of the quotes from the sidebar:
One can argue that they might be "dismayed" by the proliferation of guns, or that they didn't intend for everyone to be able to carry a gun, but I don't think that view is well supported. They intended the Second Amendment to act as a preventative towards tyranny. Not particularly so that people can shoot at targets or go hunting, although those tend to be what most people use guns for.A lot of people would like to make the Second Amendment irrelevant to these times, and ignore it. You can't just ignore Constitutional Amendments, especially one on the Bill of Rights! If it is not relevant, it should be repealed. If allowed to remain, it should not be ignored.
It's pretty clear that nobody actually bothers to read anything linked to from slashdot these days.
The article covers in some detail his plans for getting the bear plasma. None of it involves crawling around inside any den.
Here's an alternative viewpoint on the merits of graduate school for computer science. I think it's very telling.
Dammit, slashdot keeps messing up links. Here is the correct link.
Some people have suggested different window managers, even a 3D window manager. You need to think bigger. What we need is an immersive, FUN interface. Check out QuakeFM, the first-person-shooter file manager.
It takes the example of ash (the adventure shell), and takes it to the extreme. You wander around a fully-realized 3D environment corresponding to your file system. Directories are rooms, with files represented as objects according to their type. wav files are big stereos, mp3s are boom boxes, image files are pictures hanging on the wall. Symbolic links are transporters. Armed with various large caliber weapons of your choice, you wander around your file system with a massive capacity for destruction. But mostly, you engage in mundane tasks, such as carting files around from place to place, playing the stereos, viewing the pictures. And from time to time, if need be, you choose a file for destruction and let loose with your rocket launcher or railgun. If the destruction of an entire room is what is desired, stand outside and toss in a grenade, which will rid you of the room as well as all those pesky files.
Sure, an accidental click of the mouse can remove some files by accident, but Unix is well known for giving you the heady power to shoot yourself in the foot. Only in QuakeFM is that literal.
Anyway, check it out.
here is a review of NAS, subtitled "Why the Netscape Application Server (Kiva) Sucks".
It would come in real handy at those Star Trek conventions for people who don't want to go to the trouble of learning Klingon.
I wonder if it does a better job than AltaVista's babelfish.
Check out the explanation for the de-featuring on the AOLServer development forum here
Check out this article for what makes David Siegel important.
Internet punditry), but also for his inimitable, self-important writing style.
Check out this article for what makes David Siegel important.