Actually, this whole thing is about what someone at AMD said regarding AMD's discontinuation of 32-bit chips by around the end of 2005. Another AMD person said he thought it would be more like 2007 before AMD completely stopped making 32-bit chips. Neither of them talked about the end of 32-bit anything; merely pointed out where they thought their product line would go based on customer demand. With 64-bit chips being about the same price as 32-bit chips, why would you want to buy the one based on older technology?
There was no prophesy here - just roadmap speculation.
Having read that, I had a vision quickly flash before my eyes of Daryl being bent over in a dingy cell getting ass-raped by a guy in a big penguin suit.
The funniest part was the silly smile on Tux's face.
"An HP Superdome with 64 Itaniums running Oracle 10g was the first ever system to do OVER 1 MILLION transactions per minute."
And how much does that cost? As I said, the Opteron isn't designed to compete with the Itanium at this level. When you're looking for a comparison, you really need to look at the sub-$25,000 market to see where Opteron's upper-end target resides. Where Opteron will really shine is in the blade market. The low-power chips due out shortly are going to bring a whole new level of performance to these types of servers in areas where space is nearly as important as speed.
Show me how a 1 - 4 CPU Opteron looks in a price/performance ratio with a 1 - 4CPU Itanium box; that's where AMD's upper-end target market is. The large cluster deals we're seeing here and there are fun and nice press, but the sub-$25,000 server (reasonably high volume while maintaining an excellent profit margin) is really what AMD's shooting for. Breaking into this market will pave the way for higher end stuff around 2008 or so. Until that time, it's going to be Opteron (K8) and Opteronx2 (multi-core, K9) that power AMD's vision of the do-it-all chip.
This is really the market Intel would be throwing away if Xeon got 64-bit extensions. Intel wouldn't see any sales of sub-$25,000 servers using Itaniums simply because customers would use Opterons or Xeons. This becomes a problem because Intel's going to face massive competition above $25,000 or so, what with mutli-core Power5s from IBM (8 cores?!), Sparcs, etc. Don't forget that this is still fairly new territory for Intel as well. Itanium has only been sold for about 3 years now, which makes it barely an infant to an enterprise looking into $100,000 systems. The problem Intel faces is that Itanium would be left sandwiched between Xeons/Opterons and Sparcs/Power5s. Right now, Itanium has the entire 64-bit market to itself once you're under the cost for a Power4 or Sparc box. Intel's margins on these babies are its financial counterpoint to the P4 market, which has been massively discounted to compete with AMD.
By the way, I haven't looked just yet, but I'm guessing a SunFire 15k would most certainly "touch that right now". Though, for $6 million or so, one would certainly hope so. Aside from that, I'd bet real money that a nice little cluster of Opterons could also match/beat that mark, at probably less cost. I'm not saying that Itanium is scrap silicon, only that 10 years of joint research with HP plus billions of dollars spent yielded a large, hot Opteron with poor 32-bit performance.:)
".....forgive me for being captain obvious, but my old A7M266 board runs just fine with XP 2000+....they can continue dropping the price on these suckers so that eventually I can max it out with 2600+s and also plop two MP 2600+s in my A7M266-D.....I don't even use half the capacity now...I'll be blown away when I plop those in for $50 each in a year or so.....keep predicting the demise AMD, it's all fine with me."
Wow, I'm not quite sure there are words to describe that kind of pretentiousness. Perhaps Ellison-like? Stallmanesque? I'm just not sure... To envision the entirity of a multi-billion dollar industry as a function of your own specific needs is just... truly beyond words. Wait a moment - are you Bill Gates? I mean, he has billions of dollars of buying power, and could very well shape the path of the microprocessor market for a couple of years.
You'll forgive me if I don't think the death knell has been sounded for AMD's 64-bit CPUs because of your apparent lack of immediate need.
"You can get a motherboard w. duron 2000 cpu for $100 CAN (about $75.US). Split the cost in 2 - half for mb, half for cpu, we are under the $40.00 price point already."
I'm sure you're getting a super board for that price too. What's it a 1/2 layer ECS fire-hazard? Perhaps something printed out by someone's inkjet printer?
The poster never said you couldn't possibly find any for under that price, they merely pointed out that it's no longer cost-efficient for a CPU manufacturer to produce processors that retail at under around $40. From what you've posted, it would seem as though AMD should continue producing and discounting Durons when they're $.25 each.
" Is the Itanium's (Itanic?) 64 bit setup faster or better then AMDs?"
Most of the performance comparisons you'll find would be at Ace's. The big problem with Itanium (aside from the price), is the hit you take when you try to do something with 32-bit code. Itanium requires heavy optimization on all fronts before it begins to perform reasonably well. Opteron will run whatever the hell you throw at it, and it'll run it quickly. Aside from that, why drop $10,000 on an Itanium when a faster Opteron can be had for $1,000? AMD's 64-bit platform was never really designed to compete with Itanium anyway. The Athlon64 competes with the higher-end P4s and low-end Xeons, where it offers excellent performance and 64-bit technology. The AthlonFX competes with low-end to high-end Xeons in workstations and gaming machines (think EE) where it, again, offers comparable or higher performance while sporting 64-bit instructions that allow for things like more addressable memory. The Opteron competes with mid to high-end Xeon single and multi-processor workstations and servers. Opteron also competes somewhat with the low-end Itanium market; those who want/need 64-bits but can't really afford Itanium's price tag. Once you get into the higher end of Itanium's spectrum, there's plenty of competition from Sun, IBM, and others. Opteron might do better here once AMD starts throwing multiple cores on each chip, but probably won't even try for these types of customers (except with clusters) with this generation of chips(K8/K9).
"For that matter, is WindowsXP 64bit compatible with BOTH 64bit chips or only with the AMD ones?"
My understanding is such that M$'s 64-bit Windows is still in development for both chips, but that the Itanium version is set to be released sooner. In any event, they're supposedly specifically optimizing 64-bit Windows for the AMD 64-bit instruction set, which should give us some outstanding performance boosts. Look for the 64-bit Windows for AMD64 to be released to the public some time around Q3 '04.
"This may have been true but the average user just wants it to look good on paper."
(Bob) "Hey, Bill. I just got a new computer!"
(Bill) "I was thinking about getting a new one myself. Did you get one of those new Pentium 5 ones?"
(Bob) "Nope, one of the tech guys at work was telling me how those are only 32 bits, so I got one of these Athlon ones. They're 64 bits."
In the battle of bigger vs better, AMD has 64, Intel has 32. AMD introduced the model numbers for precisely the reason you raised - the average user has no idea what actually influences performance. The new AMD CPUs are set to ramp up in clock frequency very quickly, which will cause the model numbers to shoot up fast as well. What you'll end up with is Average Joe Consumer looking at Athlon64 4400+ & Pentium(?) 4Ghz. AMD is likely to pump up the "Their's is 32, our's is 64!" marketing, and regardless of whether the consumer has any clue whatsoever what that means, it makes AMD look better on paper.
"I was sure that Intel had announced plans to integrate it's 64bit "Yamhill" extensions into the Prescott chip which should be launched early next year."
They haven't, and they wont, unless the Athlon64s begin to eat away at too much of Intel's market share. Intel's problem is that if it releases 64-bit extensions in Prescott, it will be forced to do so for the Xeon line as well. The problem with this is that it would send 10 years of research and development, along with countless Billions of dollars down the drain. Itanium relies on one thing and one thing only: a need for 64-bit processing. The few Itaniums that are selling will be the only ones sold if Intel's customers can get 64-bits on a Xeon.
Unless Intel is forced to, it's simply not going to do "64-bits on the cheap". Intel has nothing to gain by announcing or implementing 64-bit extensions now; we don't even know if the Athlon64s are going to sell. On the other hand, they have everything to lose if they do open up Prescott to 64-bit quickly. What Intel is probably doing now is scrambling to come up with ways to sell Itaniums to its customers once 64-bit Xeons are available. Itanium's miserable sales to date show that it has enough trouble just selling it as-is. Take away the one advantage it does have, and they may as well take it off the table now.
Aside from that, we have absolutely no idea how well Prescott's 64-bit extensions perform. We have no idea if they've been perfected, nor what kind of problems Intel has with them. We have no idea if bugs exist in the instructions, nor what sort of benefit we'd see from them. They could very well be based off of AMD's own 64-bit extensions (Intel has licensed the technology), which would make it rather embarassing to release them to the public. It would also constitute a huge and embarassing shift in position on the topic of 64-bits for home; something Intel has publicly stated is not something the market currently needs.
I'm not saying Intel wouldn't possibly announce 64-bit instructions in the near future - it could be tommorrow for all I know. All I'm saying is that everything points to Intel keeping the 64-bit extensions under wraps for as long as absolutely possible. As of right now, the only 64-bit instruction sets we know of (when it comes to Intel/AMD), are EPIC for Itanium and the ones from AMD. It's doubtful that Intel has secretly developed a whole brand new instruction set just for the P4, and it's even more doubtful that they somehow rigged the P4 to use Itanium's 64-bit instruction set. Thus, we're left with Intel banking on limited adoption of AMD's 64-bit CPUs, which does not appear to be the case thus far.
P.S. All signs point to Intel releasing the first handfull of Precotts around Feb of 2004, with volume closer to early Q2. Solving voltage leaks that push your operating temp to extremes isn't something you throw a bandaid on; it's something you design around. I just hope, for Intel's sake, that they aren't rushing Prescott out the door as they have on other chips (P3 1.13GHz).
What's that ticker symbol? Heh..
on
SCO News Roundup
·
· Score: 1
"I'm sure I can find many... uses, for it... **cough** SETI@HOME **cough**"
I think I could find some better uses for it, such as financing a massive Cocaine-smuggling operation. Now all I have to do is look up smuggling in an encyclopedia so I'll know how to go about my brilliant plan. (obligatory Office Space reference)
"These companies said that having a high-SAT score related in could job performance. If they said that, they better be able to prove it (which I doubt). SAT scores are used to determine the grades of freshman going to college, not a mark to determine your job skills. You complain that you did not get a job because of your SAT scores that you took 10 years ago, you can get money out of those companies."
If they're referring to the SAT-1 test, then they're simply referring to a logic test. If you'll read the actual testing documentation provided, you'll see that the test is, itself, labled the SAT-1 Logic Test. Logical abilities, while not intrinsically stagnant, generally remain within a reasonable range at any given point. Thus, someone who scores 800 on the SAT-1 is unlikely to match the logical abilities of someone who scores a 1400, regardless of how long after the SAT-1 you check. While there is never a 1:1 correlation for any given test (some people are simply poor test-takers), it is generally a good indicator of one's ability to think logically.
The big misconception with the SAT-1 exam is that it is a vocabular and math test. What truly makes this so silly is that most of the mathematics involved with the SAT-1 exam do not even require a high school education to understand and correctly complete. The difficulty inherent to the exam is the understanding of the question being asked. Once you understand the question, it becomes a rather elementary matter to answer correctly. The vocabulary portion of the exam assumes that you already know all of the words being used. Without knowing what the word means, the question being asked becomes nearly impossible to answer with any reasonable certainty. Indeed, a poor vocabular virtually assures poor performance on the verbal portion of the exam; another unavoidable flaw. Yet, at the core of the exam, is the test of logical ability which is sought after by colleges and, increasingly, businesses. If you know the meaning (or meanings) of every word in the verbal section, then it becomes a truly excellent test of your logical abilities.
As to whether a company can "prove" that the SAT-1 exam is related to your job, they need only show that the job requires some semblence of logical ability. Your job skills are inherently irrelevant if you're unable to deduce how they should be applied in a given situation. Thus, the logic of the hiree becomes of interest to the potential employer.
SAT-1 exams have never been used to "determine the grades..." of anything. Actually, colleges use the SAT-1 exam to decide the likelyhood of your success at their institution. One who scores a 500 on the SAT-1 is unlikely to succeed at Caltech, regardless of grades or other achievments.
The chances of you successfully suing a company for not hiring you because your SAT scores are too low are so slim that it's unlikely any decent lawyer would bother accepting the case.
Freenet nodes abound, the cute little 'monitoring boards' will be of no use. Freenet's development staff would increase by factors of 10 overnight, with the staff of many OSS projects chipping in to make things easier for the everyday users. Continued monitoring will simply result in better encryption and more secure software. The harder they push, the more resistance they'll find. China has no doubt tried to regulate and stop the use of Freenet, yet the freesites of Chinese dissidents continue to thrive, and the use of Freenet message boards by them continues.
To those who wish to control the internet: don't bother - you've already lost. Your continued efforts to increase your control merely expose your despotic aspirations. The mass criminalization of your countrymen will result only in your own downfall. You will never succeed with technological restraints, as there are far too many who will fight with a true passion to unyolk the minds of their peers; a passion your cold hearts could never comprehend, nor overcome. Look to the government of China for a spectacular mural of failure in the abuse of technology to restrain the use thereof.
I can't help but laugh at the prospect of a worldwide effort to outright control the flow of information through the internet. You can slow it down, make it more difficult to find, and even stop some from gaining access to it, but information can no longer be suppressed to the extent you'd like.
Name the website I'm quoting from which is "fictitious".
"And the website you linked to has never heard of the guns you claim it has--a pathetic bald faced lie!"
Name a single website I have linked to which "has never heard of...".
"Armalite makes an AR-15, not an AR-16, as you repeatedly claim. "
They do not currently product the AR-16, but it was designed and built. Here is the picture of the AR-16, hosted on Armalite's website, and here is the website on which you can find details of the AR-16's design down about 2/3 of the page.
"And you got the caliber wrong, its.223, not 7.62."
So you're trying to correct me on the calibre of a weapon which you claim does not exist? That's just classic. If you'll read the site I just posted from Armalite's site, you'll see the following line quoted: "The folding stock equipped AR-16 is a basic infantry rifle of 7.62mm NATO caliber".
And I guess you're also admitting that you were wrong about the AKS-74. Don't worry about my facts, I check them before I post them. If you want the site with the AKS-74 info, here it is. Just goes to show that you're so confused about the facts, your conclusions can't possibly have any bearing on reality.
"Oh, and I notice you repeated your claim that these "assault weapons" magically kill dozens of nearby people... but refused to give a difference between them an "hunting rifles"."
How about we ask the manufacturer of the weapon whether it's designed as an infantry assault weapon or a hunting weapon? How about we ban automatic weapons outright, because I've never seen a hunter say, "gee, I could have brought down that deer if only I had a gun capable of firing 600 rounds per minute".
"Fact of the matter is, there is no functional difference between a hunting rifle and an assault weapon."
So then you're now claiming that since the ban on assault weapons took effect, there hasn't been another hunter in the United States? No one has been able to go hunting since 1994? Or is it maybe that the ban on assault weapons somehow managed to distinguish between them and hunting rifles?
"You avoid this fact because it proves my case-- you just want to ban guns"
I do not want to ban weapons used for personal defense or hunting. I do want to ban automatic weapons, assault rifles, RPGs, and other such devices of mass death. I absolutely believe ever person is entitled to own a handgun or a hunting rifle if they so choose. I do not think that individuals should have access to weapons which could be used to wipe out an office building full of co-wokers. You seem to think that if everyone had an assault rifle at the ready, the world would be this magically peaceful place. You think that no bullets ever go astray and that every attack can be prevented if everyone were armed to the teeth. You seem to believe that no one would fire a weapon with malicious intent. And you further seem to believe that it is your god-given right to possess and use the most deadly weapons man has ever created.
The real fact in this case is that you are unable to provide any reason why anyone would need something beyond a hunting rifle or a hand gun. You are unable to tell me why you, or anyone else needs an AR-15, an AK-74, or anything like it. You're unable to tell me where you stand on where peoples' limits should rest when it comes to their possession of 'arms'.
You continue to avoid my question regarding where the right to bear arms ends. I will quote my question once again below, and will go no further in this discussion unless and until you answer it:
"You say that arms control is unconstitutional. Now you say that som
"You sure like to make up lies and declare victory."
To which "lies" are you referring? You appear too afraid to enumerate them so that I may once again take your argument apart piece by piece.
"You haven't proven anything, you've just knocked down a strawman."
If establishing that your base premise is false is "knocking down a strawman", then you've got me. If your premise is false, your argument has failed.
"Its unfortunate that you are so dishonest, it means I have no chance of reaching you with reason."
You talk of reason, yet see fit to launch personal attacks rather than rebut what I say with evidence. If you would care to address the argument, then perhaps you can "reach me with reason". So far you've accused me of being a 'socialist', called me a liar, a bigot, and an idiot, yet you've not stepped forward to even attempt to back up your own arguments. If I am as dumb and ignorant as you claim, then you should have little trouble bulldozing my arguments with facts, supporting evidence, and rock solid logic rather than launching personal attacks and sputtering out sentence fragments with keywords like "strawman".
Until such time as you can come up with a decent argument, you are hereby classified as a moderately successful troll.
"You just love a strawman, and to redefine words."
You enjoy false dilemmas and narrow definitions of words which have many meanings. What I have done is simply said that there are many sides to this argument, as opposed to your single-minded approach.
"Anyway, if you read the second amendment, you'd realize that even if your redefinition of the word militia, the ammendment protects the right, not the right of hte militia. The words do not limit the protection in any way--- let alone just to specific people."
When I read the second amendment, I realize that it was hoped a well-regulated militia would protect the people from both foreign invasion as well as the perils of a standing army (tyranny of the government enforced by the military). Assuming your definition for a moment, that it covers all people as opposed to those who are members of a militia organized by their state or colony, it still only says 'arms', which can mean anything from muskets, to handguns, to bazookas, to nuclear weapons. My only argument is that we limit what an individual may own and possess to reasonable limits, such as disallowing the possession of nuclear weapons or military-grade automatic weapons.
"Also, you should not talk about guns when you don't have a basic knowledge of them. There is no such thing as an "ar-16", nor an "aks-74"."
That's rather amusing considering the fact that I posted a link to pictures of the "non-existant" arms in question. That's a true feat of photoshop magic that the site I linked to had pictures of weapons which do not exist. From armalite's own webpage regarding the AR-16:
"The folding stock equipped AR-16 is a basic infantry rifle of 7.62mm NATO caliber and capable of launching rifle grenades "without modifications or attachments" to the rifle. "
As for the AKS-74, here's a bit of info from the US Army Field Manual 100-2-3 - The Soviet Army; Troops Organisation and Equipment published in June 1991:
"The Ak-74 is basically an AKM rechamebered and rebored to fire a 5.45-mm cartridge. Externally, it has the same general appearance as the AKM, with two noticable differences. It has a distinctive, two-port muzzle brake, giving it a slightly greater overall length than the AKM. It also has a smooth plastic magazine which is slightly shorter and is curved to a lesser extent than the grooved metal AKM magazine. It uses the same type of bayonet as the AK-series weapons.
There is also a folding stock version, designated AKS-74, which has a Y-shaped tubular stock. The stock has an extremely narrow buttplate, as opposed to the T-shaped, stamped-metal buttstock of the AKMS. "
Now, what was that about how people who don't know much about guns shouldn't talk about them? Truly amusing.
"And this absurd notion that you guys have that a rifle magically kills many dozens of people nearby with one shot is pure paranoia."
There's nothing magical about what happens when an automatic assault rifle starts spraying 600 rounds per minute (as in the case of the AKS-74). One doesn't use an automatic weapon for "one shot". If one wanted one shot, one would either use a hunting rifle or a handgun. This type of weapon is used for military assault. Unless the woman in your rape situation is commanding the 4th infantry division in an attempt to ward off an army of 20,000 rapists, I think she'll do fine with either a handgun, a scream, or a 9-1-1 cell phone call.
"Whether she defends herself with an AR-15, or a Glock, it is her choice."
And when she kills a dozen people around her with this massive assault rifle, whose choice is that? Will you praise this woman's courageous act as the bodybags of innocents who just happened to be in the wrong direction are zipped up? I ask again, just what is it she can't do with a handgun that she can with a 9mm? I truly don't understand what threat you could possibly think justifies an assault rifle for 'protection'. If yo
"you are going off on your standard issue bigoted hate speech "
I'm sorry; just which part of me quoting a Supreme Court decision that makes your comment moot is this 'bigoted hate speech'?
"Of course the pledge was written by a socialists-- you are the one who should be proud of it, it has done quite a lot of work toward indoctrinating kids to not think for themselves."
Our school system does that quite nicely already, without the help of the Pledge of Allegiance. This is not the fault of the socialist conspiracy in which you and former senator McCarthy seem to believe so strongly. Actually, if you want to blame anyone, blame the Freudian psycologists who 'reformed' our education system back in the 1930s. They're the ones who decided that the only skill children could possibly have is memorization, rather than actual thought. In terms of the Pledge, you can also thank your socialist-hunting comrad, the 'great' Joe McCarthy and his ilk for saving the kids from the godless commies by inserting the line 'under God' into the official Pledge back in the 50s, thus indocrinating them into the beliefs of an insignificant majority.
"Take your bullshit proud-of-your-ignorance hatred elsewhere."
Now this line is just outstanding. Having proven you completely wrong on the factual basis for your entire argument - that the Pledge is compulsory - you assert that my quoting Supreme Court decisions is me being 'proud of my ignorance'. That's just the kind of circular logic that just might get you elected to Congress.
Actually, it refers to the colonial militia, also known as Minutemen (referring to the short period of time they needed to be ready to fight). You would do well to read this for a bit of historical context.
"That's why they said militia and not army. An army would be an organized force. The militia is all the people who volunteer to be called whenever they are needed, or even those who do not volunteer."
An army refers to a permanent group of professional soldiers. A militia refers to a group of people (generally young, poor men) who either volunteer or are compelled to 'volunteer' to come together in time of need to defend their state or colony. A militia is still organized by the colony or state in which its members reside. You can think of militiamen as modern-day reserve soldiers, the so-called 'weekend warriors' who have some basic training, but are only called to active duty when needed.
"The second ammendment protects and individual right. Every examination of the historical documents shows that this was the intention... even the previous drafts of the bill of rights are consistent with that view."
What an interesting assertion. Now please provide evidence to support it.
"And the definition of the word is clear enough."
To a closed or simple mind, it most certainly is. To those of us who seek truth, it's rather ambiguous on its face, but becomes a bit clearer through contextual clues. The only thing called a 'militia' at the time was the colonial militias maintained by each colony. To extend that to all individuals is to say that everyone was in the colonial militia, which simply isn't true. The colonial militias were very specific fighting forces maintained (read: regulated) by their respective colonies.
"The idea that only the military and police should have guns"
When did I or anyone else (save Michael Moore) say that? The ACLU never said that all guns are bad. Does the woman you mention need an AR-16 to ward off her attacker? Who is this juggernaut? The Incredible Hulk? Just what is it that she could do with an AKS-74 that she couldn't do with a glock (besides kill the 50 people unlucky enough to be somewhere nearby)? I'm all in favor of having guns for self-defense and hunting, unless you're hunting deer in Bosnia, there doesn't seem to be a need to have an RPG-7 Saitan Truba 40mm Russian Grenade Launcher. Perhaps you live in a neighborhood dangerous enough to require such a device, but I'm afraid I know of no such place.
And you still fail to answer my question regarding arms controls. Is the government constitutionally allowed to prevent an individual from building nuclear weapons?
" WTF? Yeah, that you socialsits are putting forth loyalty oaths and making laws that force kids to say them is consistent with my assertions. You trying to be ironic? Or are you just ignorant of the history of the Pledge?"
The true irony here is that you should mention ignorance, as your own shines through like the Northern Star on a clear Winter night.
60 years ago, it was established by the Supreme Court in West Virginia State Board of Education v Barnette(1943) that a compulsory pledge of allegiance would be unconstitutional. Justice Jackson wrote for the majority that:
""[i]f there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein."[emph mine]
Ergo, your entire argument looks all the more amusing as you complain about something which does not exist. Perhaps you should complain to the government about the space aliens that keep beeming transmissions into your mind as well?
"The Pledge of Allegience has nothing to do with the constitution"
No, but I found it amusing that some people feel the need to slam socialists in the name of patriotism when it was a socialist who authored the words they're so proud to recite. What's even more amusing is that your own assertion that every citizen has the right to possess and use the same weapons as the government sounds an aweful lot like socialist rhetoric. If I were a socialist, I too would condemn any law which allowed my government to do something I couldn't do. Happily, I'm a bit more pragmatic, while still maintaining a reasonable amount of idealism just to keep me honest.
"The militia is all the people... not the national guard which was formed a hundred years later!"
The Constitution sets no timetable for the creation of the militia, nor does it set limits on the evolution of it. What it does do is say 'militia', which would have referred to the group of citizens who had come together to defend other citizens from attacks from Native Americans and other enemies of "the people" (as referred to collectively). Jefferson and company wasn't referring to individuals, but rather a group of people who could be called upon to defend the nation in time of need, thus, in theory, negating the need for a standing army, which was largely considered a threat to a free society.
"Arms means all arms in use to defend the country"
You would therefore defend a private citizen who was stockpiling Anthrax and Smallpox, and building nuclear devices? At what point has this citizen broken a constitutional law, in your view? When he loads the nuclear device into a truck? When he drives the truck to the D.C. city limits? When he parks it in the center of D.C.? When the arms the device? When he detonates it, thus killing millions and wiping out the elected government? Please, educate us simple masses as to where a constitutional line could be drawn in this case.
"You, the ACLU, and socialists of all stripes who oppose the Bill of Rights and the rest of the constitution can whine about "intepretation" but the fact of the matter is, if you don't; support the Bill of Rights, you oppose the foundation of our country."
The Pledge of Allegiance, as in the one you recite at school, was written by a socialist. Funny how things work out, isn't it?
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
"The second ammendment does not need to be interpreted... as with the rest of the constitution-- if you're "interpreting it" your violating its intention."
Ok, so when you find a "militia", specifically a "well-regulated" one, we can start talking about how it needs "arms" to protect a free "state".
Nevermind the fact that the word 'militia' could refer to an army, or a state-organized group of folks called upon only in times of need, or to a group of individuals who decide where and where to organize and train.
Nevermind the fact that the word 'regulated' has three seperate definitions according to Merriam-Webster; each of which changes the meaning of the entire amendment.
Nevermind the fact that arms could refer to knives, handguns, assault rifles, bazookas, F-15s, Panzer tanks, Anthrax, Sarin, Smallpox, or nuclear weapons. Hey, it "shall not be infringed", as you so accurately pointed out.
Nevermind the fact that the word state could refer to individual states, or the union as a whole, which is also a 'state'.
Nevermind the horrifying thought of thousands of convicted murders legally purchasing arsenals to come after every lawyer, judge, and juror involved in their cases.
None of this needs to be taken into account because there's only one possible meaning of the second amendment, and you've found it thanks to seances in which you've contacted Thomas Jefferson.
"You, the ACLU, and socialists of all stripes who oppose the Bill of Rights and the rest of the constitution can whine about "intepretation" but the fact of the matter is, if you don't; support the Bill of Rights, you oppose the foundation of our country."
You, Anne Coulter, and Joe McCarthy must look upon the current Republican Party with utter disgust. My Lord, those bunch of spineless liberals don't deserve to be called Republicans, eh? When you look at Rush Limbaugh and Strom Thurmond and see a couple of left-leaning traitors, don't you think you're leaning awefully far to the right? I'm not saying that liberal is better than conservative, nor the other way around. What I'm saying is that when you get to the extremes on either end, you never end up with good results.
"Without the second ammendment, the first ammendment is meaningless."
This almost makes me laugh. So let me guess: you and a few friends are going to stock up on 9mms, and you're going to take on the police, the national guard, the army, the navy, the air force, the marines, and the entire US nuclear arsenal in a firefight? You might have been right in 1776 when the army was using the same weapons as the farmers, but things have changed slightly since then. I have absolutely no problem with you keeping guns used to hunt or to protect your home and your family, but if you're trying to stockpile an arsenal large enough to take on the US Armed Forces, I think you're stepping a bit outside what any of the founding fathers would consider 'reasonable'. I'm sure you'd be way outside what the NRA considers reasonable.
As I said before, I have guns myself. The ACLU would be right up there with the NRA to head off any attempt by the government to ban all firearms. The NRA believes in restrictions on wearpons ownership just as the ACLU does. The only disagreement is on where those restrictions should end. I believe the NRA is continuing to do an excellent job ensuring that the government's gun control efforts remain within the realm of the reasonable. I'd prefer my ACLU dues go to defending areas that need more work. What good is your right to own a firearm if you're locked away in a military brig for the rest of your life without having been charged with a crime, let alone convicted? Ask Jose Padilla about that some time if he ever gets out alive.
"The logical argument from "all men are created equal [before the law]" does not lead to "No man can be another's property." Instead it leads to "No man can be BORN another's property."
You forget how that line continues,
"...that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."
Ergo, it is understood that no man is created better than another, that they are given rights by their creator which cannot be surrendered (such as the right to live, the right to liberty, and the right to persue happiness), and that the purpose of government is to ensure these rights remain secure. The purpose of government is to ensure the life and liberty of all Men which it governs. Liberty is freedom within a social context, which basically means your freedoms are restricted only insofar as they do not interfere with the rights or liberties of others. Thus, we conclude that the purpose of government is to end slavery, which is intrinsically counter to the principles of liberty.
"also banning temporary or permanent voluntary slavery "
Voluntary servitude is most certainly allowed under this amendment. Within the phrase 'voluntary servitude' is the idea that the individual is choosing to do as their dominant, master, etc orders them to do. What this amendment states is that the master, dominant, etc cannot use force or coercion to cause their will to be carried out by the 'slave'. If I order you to do something, you can make the choice to either do it or not do it. If you choose to do it, the government cannot step in and stop you on the grounds that it would constitute a violation of your 13th amendment rights. That much deals with the wording of what you said, but we must also look towards the meaning.
The military is a perfect example of proof that your statement is false. Forget about the draft for a moment, and let's simply look at the armed forces we currently have. As of right now, all US military personnel are engaged in a bit of temporary 'voluntary' slavery (as in they volunteered to become 'slaves' inasmuch as they take orders which they are forced to follow). If they do not follow the orders they're given in peacetime or in a peaceful area, they may face a court martial and jail time, along with loss of pay and benefits. If they fail to follow orders on the battlefield, they may find themselves being shot on site. Yet this is all perfectly legal and acceptable to virtually every American. Rather amazing, isn't it?
"Ditto irrevocable powers of attorney."
I assure you that any such 'irrevocable' powers of attorney can be dealt with rather swiftly in a courtroom. One must merely prove that one is of sound mind to revoke the powers.
"This shows that the ACLU is at the very least anti-second amendment."
No, this shows that the ACLU is anti- your interpretation of the second amendment.
"You claim that the ACLU is not anti-gun? Show me some proof."
From the ACLU's gun control site, "The national ACLU is neutral on the issue of gun control. We believe that the Constitution contains no barriers to reasonable regulations of gun ownership. If we can license and register cars, we can license and register guns."[emph mine]
I fail to see how endorsing "reasonable restrictions" on arms ownership makes them 'anti-gun'. The NRA also endorses reasonable restrictions on arms ownership; does that mean they're anti-gun also? Where the two lines of thinking diverge is on the definition of 'reasonable restrictions'. For the ACLU, banning automatic weapons which would be used only in combat is a reasonable restriction, whereas the NRA disagrees. On the other hand, the NRA is very likely to agree with the ACLU if you were to ask whether an individual may be enjoined from stockpiling Sarin gas, panzer tanks, or nuclear weapons. The NRA also agrees that convicted felons have no right whatsoever to own or possess a firearm. There is no question that gun control is both necessary and worthwhile - the only question is how much.
"Where have they ever said that they support gun ownership and use?"
The ACLU doesn't support the use of firearms any more than they support the use of free speech or right to assembly. The ACLU doesn't deal in actions, merely in civil liberties (ie the right to free speech). What the ACLU does support is a specific interpretation of the second amendment which has been aggreed upon by the Congress and the Supreme Court. The fact that the ACLU does not subscribe to your particular point of view on the second amendment does not mean that it's a hypocritical bunch of commie liberal traitors. Bob Barr has often said that while he disagrees with the ACLU on a great many subjects, it's quite simply ridiculous to not cooperate with them on the subjects on which they can agree. Quite simply, working with the ACLU toward a common goal produces far greater results than going at it seperately. The swarms of conservatives joining the ACLU to help protect the first, fourth, fifth, sixth, and other amendments shows just how vital it is that we all come together when we agree on such important topics. The ACLU isn't asking you to support them on a topic with which you disagree, so why are you and others demanding they subscribe to your particular belief regarding the second amendment?
What a terrible misconception this is. The ACLU is not 'anti-gun'; it simply has no problem with the actions taken thus far by Congress and the courts. It also acknowledges that the 2nd amendment has a slew of wealthy, powerful, and influencial advocates such as the NRA defending it. The NRA and the ACLU actually agree in principle with regards to second amendment interpretation. The NRA doesn't believe an individual's rights to bear arms includes such 'arms' as ICBMs, Panzer tanks, or nuclear weapons. The second amendment enjoins our government from removing the tools necessary for immediate and personal self-defense. It is not a blank check for individuals to stockpile the tools necessary to annihilate the nearest major city.
Show me the law passed by Congress and signed by the President which bans all firearms and I'll show you the ACLU lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of that law filed before the President's signature was dry.
The fact that some members of the ACLU are anti-gun nuts does not mean that the ACLU as a whole is a group of anti-gun nuts, nor that it promotes the views of anti-gun nuts. I am a 'card-carrying' member of the ACLU, and the day my government comes for my guns is the day my government finds out what the second amendment is all about.
Slashdot Mirror
"1. Prophet end of 32"
Actually, this whole thing is about what someone at AMD said regarding AMD's discontinuation of 32-bit chips by around the end of 2005. Another AMD person said he thought it would be more like 2007 before AMD completely stopped making 32-bit chips. Neither of them talked about the end of 32-bit anything; merely pointed out where they thought their product line would go based on customer demand. With 64-bit chips being about the same price as 32-bit chips, why would you want to buy the one based on older technology?
There was no prophesy here - just roadmap speculation.
"3. .. ..... PRISON!!!!!"
Having read that, I had a vision quickly flash before my eyes of Daryl being bent over in a dingy cell getting ass-raped by a guy in a big penguin suit.
The funniest part was the silly smile on Tux's face.
"An HP Superdome with 64 Itaniums running Oracle 10g was the first ever system to do OVER 1 MILLION transactions per minute."
:)
And how much does that cost? As I said, the Opteron isn't designed to compete with the Itanium at this level. When you're looking for a comparison, you really need to look at the sub-$25,000 market to see where Opteron's upper-end target resides. Where Opteron will really shine is in the blade market. The low-power chips due out shortly are going to bring a whole new level of performance to these types of servers in areas where space is nearly as important as speed.
Show me how a 1 - 4 CPU Opteron looks in a price/performance ratio with a 1 - 4CPU Itanium box; that's where AMD's upper-end target market is. The large cluster deals we're seeing here and there are fun and nice press, but the sub-$25,000 server (reasonably high volume while maintaining an excellent profit margin) is really what AMD's shooting for. Breaking into this market will pave the way for higher end stuff around 2008 or so. Until that time, it's going to be Opteron (K8) and Opteronx2 (multi-core, K9) that power AMD's vision of the do-it-all chip.
This is really the market Intel would be throwing away if Xeon got 64-bit extensions. Intel wouldn't see any sales of sub-$25,000 servers using Itaniums simply because customers would use Opterons or Xeons. This becomes a problem because Intel's going to face massive competition above $25,000 or so, what with mutli-core Power5s from IBM (8 cores?!), Sparcs, etc. Don't forget that this is still fairly new territory for Intel as well. Itanium has only been sold for about 3 years now, which makes it barely an infant to an enterprise looking into $100,000 systems. The problem Intel faces is that Itanium would be left sandwiched between Xeons/Opterons and Sparcs/Power5s. Right now, Itanium has the entire 64-bit market to itself once you're under the cost for a Power4 or Sparc box. Intel's margins on these babies are its financial counterpoint to the P4 market, which has been massively discounted to compete with AMD.
By the way, I haven't looked just yet, but I'm guessing a SunFire 15k would most certainly "touch that right now". Though, for $6 million or so, one would certainly hope so. Aside from that, I'd bet real money that a nice little cluster of Opterons could also match/beat that mark, at probably less cost. I'm not saying that Itanium is scrap silicon, only that 10 years of joint research with HP plus billions of dollars spent yielded a large, hot Opteron with poor 32-bit performance.
" .....forgive me for being captain obvious, but my old A7M266 board runs just fine with XP 2000+....they can continue dropping the price on these suckers so that eventually I can max it out with 2600+s and also plop two MP 2600+s in my A7M266-D.....I don't even use half the capacity now...I'll be blown away when I plop those in for $50 each in a year or so.....keep predicting the demise AMD, it's all fine with me."
Wow, I'm not quite sure there are words to describe that kind of pretentiousness. Perhaps Ellison-like? Stallmanesque? I'm just not sure... To envision the entirity of a multi-billion dollar industry as a function of your own specific needs is just... truly beyond words. Wait a moment - are you Bill Gates? I mean, he has billions of dollars of buying power, and could very well shape the path of the microprocessor market for a couple of years.
You'll forgive me if I don't think the death knell has been sounded for AMD's 64-bit CPUs because of your apparent lack of immediate need.
"You can get a motherboard w. duron 2000 cpu for $100 CAN (about $75.US). Split the cost in 2 - half for mb, half for cpu, we are under the $40.00 price point already."
I'm sure you're getting a super board for that price too. What's it a 1/2 layer ECS fire-hazard? Perhaps something printed out by someone's inkjet printer?
The poster never said you couldn't possibly find any for under that price, they merely pointed out that it's no longer cost-efficient for a CPU manufacturer to produce processors that retail at under around $40. From what you've posted, it would seem as though AMD should continue producing and discounting Durons when they're $.25 each.
" Is the Itanium's (Itanic?) 64 bit setup faster or better then AMDs?"
Most of the performance comparisons you'll find would be at Ace's. The big problem with Itanium (aside from the price), is the hit you take when you try to do something with 32-bit code. Itanium requires heavy optimization on all fronts before it begins to perform reasonably well. Opteron will run whatever the hell you throw at it, and it'll run it quickly. Aside from that, why drop $10,000 on an Itanium when a faster Opteron can be had for $1,000? AMD's 64-bit platform was never really designed to compete with Itanium anyway. The Athlon64 competes with the higher-end P4s and low-end Xeons, where it offers excellent performance and 64-bit technology. The AthlonFX competes with low-end to high-end Xeons in workstations and gaming machines (think EE) where it, again, offers comparable or higher performance while sporting 64-bit instructions that allow for things like more addressable memory. The Opteron competes with mid to high-end Xeon single and multi-processor workstations and servers. Opteron also competes somewhat with the low-end Itanium market; those who want/need 64-bits but can't really afford Itanium's price tag. Once you get into the higher end of Itanium's spectrum, there's plenty of competition from Sun, IBM, and others. Opteron might do better here once AMD starts throwing multiple cores on each chip, but probably won't even try for these types of customers (except with clusters) with this generation of chips(K8/K9).
"For that matter, is WindowsXP 64bit compatible with BOTH 64bit chips or only with the AMD ones?"
My understanding is such that M$'s 64-bit Windows is still in development for both chips, but that the Itanium version is set to be released sooner. In any event, they're supposedly specifically optimizing 64-bit Windows for the AMD 64-bit instruction set, which should give us some outstanding performance boosts. Look for the 64-bit Windows for AMD64 to be released to the public some time around Q3 '04.
"This may have been true but the average user just wants it to look good on paper."
(Bob) "Hey, Bill. I just got a new computer!"
(Bill) "I was thinking about getting a new one myself. Did you get one of those new Pentium 5 ones?"
(Bob) "Nope, one of the tech guys at work was telling me how those are only 32 bits, so I got one of these Athlon ones. They're 64 bits."
In the battle of bigger vs better, AMD has 64, Intel has 32. AMD introduced the model numbers for precisely the reason you raised - the average user has no idea what actually influences performance. The new AMD CPUs are set to ramp up in clock frequency very quickly, which will cause the model numbers to shoot up fast as well. What you'll end up with is Average Joe Consumer looking at Athlon64 4400+ & Pentium(?) 4Ghz. AMD is likely to pump up the "Their's is 32, our's is 64!" marketing, and regardless of whether the consumer has any clue whatsoever what that means, it makes AMD look better on paper.
"I was sure that Intel had announced plans to integrate it's 64bit "Yamhill" extensions into the Prescott chip which should be launched early next year."
They haven't, and they wont, unless the Athlon64s begin to eat away at too much of Intel's market share. Intel's problem is that if it releases 64-bit extensions in Prescott, it will be forced to do so for the Xeon line as well. The problem with this is that it would send 10 years of research and development, along with countless Billions of dollars down the drain. Itanium relies on one thing and one thing only: a need for 64-bit processing. The few Itaniums that are selling will be the only ones sold if Intel's customers can get 64-bits on a Xeon.
Unless Intel is forced to, it's simply not going to do "64-bits on the cheap". Intel has nothing to gain by announcing or implementing 64-bit extensions now; we don't even know if the Athlon64s are going to sell. On the other hand, they have everything to lose if they do open up Prescott to 64-bit quickly. What Intel is probably doing now is scrambling to come up with ways to sell Itaniums to its customers once 64-bit Xeons are available. Itanium's miserable sales to date show that it has enough trouble just selling it as-is. Take away the one advantage it does have, and they may as well take it off the table now.
Aside from that, we have absolutely no idea how well Prescott's 64-bit extensions perform. We have no idea if they've been perfected, nor what kind of problems Intel has with them. We have no idea if bugs exist in the instructions, nor what sort of benefit we'd see from them. They could very well be based off of AMD's own 64-bit extensions (Intel has licensed the technology), which would make it rather embarassing to release them to the public. It would also constitute a huge and embarassing shift in position on the topic of 64-bits for home; something Intel has publicly stated is not something the market currently needs.
I'm not saying Intel wouldn't possibly announce 64-bit instructions in the near future - it could be tommorrow for all I know. All I'm saying is that everything points to Intel keeping the 64-bit extensions under wraps for as long as absolutely possible. As of right now, the only 64-bit instruction sets we know of (when it comes to Intel/AMD), are EPIC for Itanium and the ones from AMD. It's doubtful that Intel has secretly developed a whole brand new instruction set just for the P4, and it's even more doubtful that they somehow rigged the P4 to use Itanium's 64-bit instruction set. Thus, we're left with Intel banking on limited adoption of AMD's 64-bit CPUs, which does not appear to be the case thus far.
P.S. All signs point to Intel releasing the first handfull of Precotts around Feb of 2004, with volume closer to early Q2. Solving voltage leaks that push your operating temp to extremes isn't something you throw a bandaid on; it's something you design around. I just hope, for Intel's sake, that they aren't rushing Prescott out the door as they have on other chips (P3 1.13GHz).
Daryl ... loves ... the SCOX.
(obligator J&SB Ref)
Think I saw that somewhere else...
"I'm sure I can find many... uses, for it... **cough** SETI@HOME **cough**"
I think I could find some better uses for it, such as financing a massive Cocaine-smuggling operation. Now all I have to do is look up smuggling in an encyclopedia so I'll know how to go about my brilliant plan. (obligatory Office Space reference)
"These companies said that having a high-SAT score related in could job performance. If they said that, they better be able to prove it (which I doubt). SAT scores are used to determine the grades of freshman going to college, not a mark to determine your job skills. You complain that you did not get a job because of your SAT scores that you took 10 years ago, you can get money out of those companies."
If they're referring to the SAT-1 test, then they're simply referring to a logic test. If you'll read the actual testing documentation provided, you'll see that the test is, itself, labled the SAT-1 Logic Test. Logical abilities, while not intrinsically stagnant, generally remain within a reasonable range at any given point. Thus, someone who scores 800 on the SAT-1 is unlikely to match the logical abilities of someone who scores a 1400, regardless of how long after the SAT-1 you check. While there is never a 1:1 correlation for any given test (some people are simply poor test-takers), it is generally a good indicator of one's ability to think logically.
The big misconception with the SAT-1 exam is that it is a vocabular and math test. What truly makes this so silly is that most of the mathematics involved with the SAT-1 exam do not even require a high school education to understand and correctly complete. The difficulty inherent to the exam is the understanding of the question being asked. Once you understand the question, it becomes a rather elementary matter to answer correctly. The vocabulary portion of the exam assumes that you already know all of the words being used. Without knowing what the word means, the question being asked becomes nearly impossible to answer with any reasonable certainty. Indeed, a poor vocabular virtually assures poor performance on the verbal portion of the exam; another unavoidable flaw. Yet, at the core of the exam, is the test of logical ability which is sought after by colleges and, increasingly, businesses. If you know the meaning (or meanings) of every word in the verbal section, then it becomes a truly excellent test of your logical abilities.
As to whether a company can "prove" that the SAT-1 exam is related to your job, they need only show that the job requires some semblence of logical ability. Your job skills are inherently irrelevant if you're unable to deduce how they should be applied in a given situation. Thus, the logic of the hiree becomes of interest to the potential employer.
SAT-1 exams have never been used to "determine the grades..." of anything. Actually, colleges use the SAT-1 exam to decide the likelyhood of your success at their institution. One who scores a 500 on the SAT-1 is unlikely to succeed at Caltech, regardless of grades or other achievments.
The chances of you successfully suing a company for not hiring you because your SAT scores are too low are so slim that it's unlikely any decent lawyer would bother accepting the case.
Freenet nodes abound, the cute little 'monitoring boards' will be of no use. Freenet's development staff would increase by factors of 10 overnight, with the staff of many OSS projects chipping in to make things easier for the everyday users. Continued monitoring will simply result in better encryption and more secure software. The harder they push, the more resistance they'll find. China has no doubt tried to regulate and stop the use of Freenet, yet the freesites of Chinese dissidents continue to thrive, and the use of Freenet message boards by them continues.
To those who wish to control the internet: don't bother - you've already lost. Your continued efforts to increase your control merely expose your despotic aspirations. The mass criminalization of your countrymen will result only in your own downfall. You will never succeed with technological restraints, as there are far too many who will fight with a true passion to unyolk the minds of their peers; a passion your cold hearts could never comprehend, nor overcome. Look to the government of China for a spectacular mural of failure in the abuse of technology to restrain the use thereof.
I can't help but laugh at the prospect of a worldwide effort to outright control the flow of information through the internet. You can slow it down, make it more difficult to find, and even stop some from gaining access to it, but information can no longer be suppressed to the extent you'd like.
"you're quoting fictitious websites!"
.223, not 7.62."
Name the website I'm quoting from which is "fictitious".
"And the website you linked to has never heard of the guns you claim it has--a pathetic bald faced lie!"
Name a single website I have linked to which "has never heard of...".
"Armalite makes an AR-15, not an AR-16, as you repeatedly claim. "
They do not currently product the AR-16, but it was designed and built. Here is the picture of the AR-16, hosted on Armalite's website, and here is the website on which you can find details of the AR-16's design down about 2/3 of the page.
"And you got the caliber wrong, its
So you're trying to correct me on the calibre of a weapon which you claim does not exist? That's just classic. If you'll read the site I just posted from Armalite's site, you'll see the following line quoted: "The folding stock equipped AR-16 is a basic infantry rifle of 7.62mm NATO caliber".
And I guess you're also admitting that you were wrong about the AKS-74. Don't worry about my facts, I check them before I post them. If you want the site with the AKS-74 info, here it is. Just goes to show that you're so confused about the facts, your conclusions can't possibly have any bearing on reality.
"Oh, and I notice you repeated your claim that these "assault weapons" magically kill dozens of nearby people... but refused to give a difference between them an "hunting rifles"."
How about we ask the manufacturer of the weapon whether it's designed as an infantry assault weapon or a hunting weapon? How about we ban automatic weapons outright, because I've never seen a hunter say, "gee, I could have brought down that deer if only I had a gun capable of firing 600 rounds per minute".
"Fact of the matter is, there is no functional difference between a hunting rifle and an assault weapon."
So then you're now claiming that since the ban on assault weapons took effect, there hasn't been another hunter in the United States? No one has been able to go hunting since 1994? Or is it maybe that the ban on assault weapons somehow managed to distinguish between them and hunting rifles?
"You avoid this fact because it proves my case-- you just want to ban guns"
I do not want to ban weapons used for personal defense or hunting. I do want to ban automatic weapons, assault rifles, RPGs, and other such devices of mass death. I absolutely believe ever person is entitled to own a handgun or a hunting rifle if they so choose. I do not think that individuals should have access to weapons which could be used to wipe out an office building full of co-wokers. You seem to think that if everyone had an assault rifle at the ready, the world would be this magically peaceful place. You think that no bullets ever go astray and that every attack can be prevented if everyone were armed to the teeth. You seem to believe that no one would fire a weapon with malicious intent. And you further seem to believe that it is your god-given right to possess and use the most deadly weapons man has ever created.
The real fact in this case is that you are unable to provide any reason why anyone would need something beyond a hunting rifle or a hand gun. You are unable to tell me why you, or anyone else needs an AR-15, an AK-74, or anything like it. You're unable to tell me where you stand on where peoples' limits should rest when it comes to their possession of 'arms'.
You continue to avoid my question regarding where the right to bear arms ends. I will quote my question once again below, and will go no further in this discussion unless and until you answer it:
"You say that arms control is unconstitutional. Now you say that som
"You sure like to make up lies and declare victory."
To which "lies" are you referring? You appear too afraid to enumerate them so that I may once again take your argument apart piece by piece.
"You haven't proven anything, you've just knocked down a strawman."
If establishing that your base premise is false is "knocking down a strawman", then you've got me. If your premise is false, your argument has failed.
"Its unfortunate that you are so dishonest, it means I have no chance of reaching you with reason."
You talk of reason, yet see fit to launch personal attacks rather than rebut what I say with evidence. If you would care to address the argument, then perhaps you can "reach me with reason". So far you've accused me of being a 'socialist', called me a liar, a bigot, and an idiot, yet you've not stepped forward to even attempt to back up your own arguments. If I am as dumb and ignorant as you claim, then you should have little trouble bulldozing my arguments with facts, supporting evidence, and rock solid logic rather than launching personal attacks and sputtering out sentence fragments with keywords like "strawman".
Until such time as you can come up with a decent argument, you are hereby classified as a moderately successful troll.
"You just love a strawman, and to redefine words."
You enjoy false dilemmas and narrow definitions of words which have many meanings. What I have done is simply said that there are many sides to this argument, as opposed to your single-minded approach.
"Anyway, if you read the second amendment, you'd realize that even if your redefinition of the word militia, the ammendment protects the right, not the right of hte militia. The words do not limit the protection in any way--- let alone just to specific people."
When I read the second amendment, I realize that it was hoped a well-regulated militia would protect the people from both foreign invasion as well as the perils of a standing army (tyranny of the government enforced by the military). Assuming your definition for a moment, that it covers all people as opposed to those who are members of a militia organized by their state or colony, it still only says 'arms', which can mean anything from muskets, to handguns, to bazookas, to nuclear weapons. My only argument is that we limit what an individual may own and possess to reasonable limits, such as disallowing the possession of nuclear weapons or military-grade automatic weapons.
"Also, you should not talk about guns when you don't have a basic knowledge of them. There is no such thing as an "ar-16", nor an "aks-74"."
That's rather amusing considering the fact that I posted a link to pictures of the "non-existant" arms in question. That's a true feat of photoshop magic that the site I linked to had pictures of weapons which do not exist. From armalite's own webpage regarding the AR-16:
"The folding stock equipped AR-16 is a basic infantry rifle of 7.62mm NATO caliber and capable of launching rifle grenades "without modifications or attachments" to the rifle. "
As for the AKS-74, here's a bit of info from the US Army Field Manual 100-2-3 - The Soviet Army; Troops Organisation and Equipment published in June 1991:
"The Ak-74 is basically an AKM rechamebered and rebored to fire a 5.45-mm cartridge. Externally, it has the same general appearance as the AKM, with two noticable differences. It has a distinctive, two-port muzzle brake, giving it a slightly greater overall length than the AKM. It also has a smooth plastic magazine which is slightly shorter and is curved to a lesser extent than the grooved metal AKM magazine. It uses the same type of bayonet as the AK-series weapons.
There is also a folding stock version, designated AKS-74, which has a Y-shaped tubular stock. The stock has an extremely narrow buttplate, as opposed to the T-shaped, stamped-metal buttstock of the AKMS. "
Now, what was that about how people who don't know much about guns shouldn't talk about them? Truly amusing.
"And this absurd notion that you guys have that a rifle magically kills many dozens of people nearby with one shot is pure paranoia."
There's nothing magical about what happens when an automatic assault rifle starts spraying 600 rounds per minute (as in the case of the AKS-74). One doesn't use an automatic weapon for "one shot". If one wanted one shot, one would either use a hunting rifle or a handgun. This type of weapon is used for military assault. Unless the woman in your rape situation is commanding the 4th infantry division in an attempt to ward off an army of 20,000 rapists, I think she'll do fine with either a handgun, a scream, or a 9-1-1 cell phone call.
"Whether she defends herself with an AR-15, or a Glock, it is her choice."
And when she kills a dozen people around her with this massive assault rifle, whose choice is that? Will you praise this woman's courageous act as the bodybags of innocents who just happened to be in the wrong direction are zipped up? I ask again, just what is it she can't do with a handgun that she can with a 9mm? I truly don't understand what threat you could possibly think justifies an assault rifle for 'protection'. If yo
"you are going off on your standard issue bigoted hate speech "
I'm sorry; just which part of me quoting a Supreme Court decision that makes your comment moot is this 'bigoted hate speech'?
"Of course the pledge was written by a socialists-- you are the one who should be proud of it, it has done quite a lot of work toward indoctrinating kids to not think for themselves."
Our school system does that quite nicely already, without the help of the Pledge of Allegiance. This is not the fault of the socialist conspiracy in which you and former senator McCarthy seem to believe so strongly. Actually, if you want to blame anyone, blame the Freudian psycologists who 'reformed' our education system back in the 1930s. They're the ones who decided that the only skill children could possibly have is memorization, rather than actual thought. In terms of the Pledge, you can also thank your socialist-hunting comrad, the 'great' Joe McCarthy and his ilk for saving the kids from the godless commies by inserting the line 'under God' into the official Pledge back in the 50s, thus indocrinating them into the beliefs of an insignificant majority.
"Take your bullshit proud-of-your-ignorance hatred elsewhere."
Now this line is just outstanding. Having proven you completely wrong on the factual basis for your entire argument - that the Pledge is compulsory - you assert that my quoting Supreme Court decisions is me being 'proud of my ignorance'. That's just the kind of circular logic that just might get you elected to Congress.
"False. Militia means individuals."
Actually, it refers to the colonial militia, also known as Minutemen (referring to the short period of time they needed to be ready to fight). You would do well to read this for a bit of historical context.
"That's why they said militia and not army. An army would be an organized force. The militia is all the people who volunteer to be called whenever they are needed, or even those who do not volunteer."
An army refers to a permanent group of professional soldiers. A militia refers to a group of people (generally young, poor men) who either volunteer or are compelled to 'volunteer' to come together in time of need to defend their state or colony. A militia is still organized by the colony or state in which its members reside. You can think of militiamen as modern-day reserve soldiers, the so-called 'weekend warriors' who have some basic training, but are only called to active duty when needed.
"The second ammendment protects and individual right. Every examination of the historical documents shows that this was the intention... even the previous drafts of the bill of rights are consistent with that view."
What an interesting assertion. Now please provide evidence to support it.
"And the definition of the word is clear enough."
To a closed or simple mind, it most certainly is. To those of us who seek truth, it's rather ambiguous on its face, but becomes a bit clearer through contextual clues. The only thing called a 'militia' at the time was the colonial militias maintained by each colony. To extend that to all individuals is to say that everyone was in the colonial militia, which simply isn't true. The colonial militias were very specific fighting forces maintained (read: regulated) by their respective colonies.
"The idea that only the military and police should have guns"
When did I or anyone else (save Michael Moore) say that? The ACLU never said that all guns are bad. Does the woman you mention need an AR-16 to ward off her attacker? Who is this juggernaut? The Incredible Hulk? Just what is it that she could do with an AKS-74 that she couldn't do with a glock (besides kill the 50 people unlucky enough to be somewhere nearby)? I'm all in favor of having guns for self-defense and hunting, unless you're hunting deer in Bosnia, there doesn't seem to be a need to have an RPG-7 Saitan Truba 40mm Russian Grenade Launcher. Perhaps you live in a neighborhood dangerous enough to require such a device, but I'm afraid I know of no such place.
And you still fail to answer my question regarding arms controls. Is the government constitutionally allowed to prevent an individual from building nuclear weapons?
" WTF? Yeah, that you socialsits are putting forth loyalty oaths and making laws that force kids to say them is consistent with my assertions. You trying to be ironic? Or are you just ignorant of the history of the Pledge?"
The true irony here is that you should mention ignorance, as your own shines through like the Northern Star on a clear Winter night.
60 years ago, it was established by the Supreme Court in West Virginia State Board of Education v Barnette(1943) that a compulsory pledge of allegiance would be unconstitutional. Justice Jackson wrote for the majority that:
""[i]f there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein."[emph mine]
Ergo, your entire argument looks all the more amusing as you complain about something which does not exist. Perhaps you should complain to the government about the space aliens that keep beeming transmissions into your mind as well?
"The Pledge of Allegience has nothing to do with the constitution"
No, but I found it amusing that some people feel the need to slam socialists in the name of patriotism when it was a socialist who authored the words they're so proud to recite. What's even more amusing is that your own assertion that every citizen has the right to possess and use the same weapons as the government sounds an aweful lot like socialist rhetoric. If I were a socialist, I too would condemn any law which allowed my government to do something I couldn't do. Happily, I'm a bit more pragmatic, while still maintaining a reasonable amount of idealism just to keep me honest.
"The militia is all the people... not the national guard which was formed a hundred years later!"
The Constitution sets no timetable for the creation of the militia, nor does it set limits on the evolution of it. What it does do is say 'militia', which would have referred to the group of citizens who had come together to defend other citizens from attacks from Native Americans and other enemies of "the people" (as referred to collectively). Jefferson and company wasn't referring to individuals, but rather a group of people who could be called upon to defend the nation in time of need, thus, in theory, negating the need for a standing army, which was largely considered a threat to a free society.
"Arms means all arms in use to defend the country"
You would therefore defend a private citizen who was stockpiling Anthrax and Smallpox, and building nuclear devices? At what point has this citizen broken a constitutional law, in your view? When he loads the nuclear device into a truck? When he drives the truck to the D.C. city limits? When he parks it in the center of D.C.? When the arms the device? When he detonates it, thus killing millions and wiping out the elected government? Please, educate us simple masses as to where a constitutional line could be drawn in this case.
Sorry, I forgot one more titillating tidbit.
"You, the ACLU, and socialists of all stripes who oppose the Bill of Rights and the rest of the constitution can whine about "intepretation" but the fact of the matter is, if you don't; support the Bill of Rights, you oppose the foundation of our country."
The Pledge of Allegiance, as in the one you recite at school, was written by a socialist. Funny how things work out, isn't it?
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
"The second ammendment does not need to be interpreted... as with the rest of the constitution-- if you're "interpreting it" your violating its intention."
Ok, so when you find a "militia", specifically a "well-regulated" one, we can start talking about how it needs "arms" to protect a free "state".
Nevermind the fact that the word 'militia' could refer to an army, or a state-organized group of folks called upon only in times of need, or to a group of individuals who decide where and where to organize and train.
Nevermind the fact that the word 'regulated' has three seperate definitions according to Merriam-Webster; each of which changes the meaning of the entire amendment.
Nevermind the fact that arms could refer to knives, handguns, assault rifles, bazookas, F-15s, Panzer tanks, Anthrax, Sarin, Smallpox, or nuclear weapons. Hey, it "shall not be infringed", as you so accurately pointed out.
Nevermind the fact that the word state could refer to individual states, or the union as a whole, which is also a 'state'.
Nevermind the horrifying thought of thousands of convicted murders legally purchasing arsenals to come after every lawyer, judge, and juror involved in their cases.
None of this needs to be taken into account because there's only one possible meaning of the second amendment, and you've found it thanks to seances in which you've contacted Thomas Jefferson.
"You, the ACLU, and socialists of all stripes who oppose the Bill of Rights and the rest of the constitution can whine about "intepretation" but the fact of the matter is, if you don't; support the Bill of Rights, you oppose the foundation of our country."
You, Anne Coulter, and Joe McCarthy must look upon the current Republican Party with utter disgust. My Lord, those bunch of spineless liberals don't deserve to be called Republicans, eh? When you look at Rush Limbaugh and Strom Thurmond and see a couple of left-leaning traitors, don't you think you're leaning awefully far to the right? I'm not saying that liberal is better than conservative, nor the other way around. What I'm saying is that when you get to the extremes on either end, you never end up with good results.
"Without the second ammendment, the first ammendment is meaningless."
This almost makes me laugh. So let me guess: you and a few friends are going to stock up on 9mms, and you're going to take on the police, the national guard, the army, the navy, the air force, the marines, and the entire US nuclear arsenal in a firefight? You might have been right in 1776 when the army was using the same weapons as the farmers, but things have changed slightly since then. I have absolutely no problem with you keeping guns used to hunt or to protect your home and your family, but if you're trying to stockpile an arsenal large enough to take on the US Armed Forces, I think you're stepping a bit outside what any of the founding fathers would consider 'reasonable'. I'm sure you'd be way outside what the NRA considers reasonable.
As I said before, I have guns myself. The ACLU would be right up there with the NRA to head off any attempt by the government to ban all firearms. The NRA believes in restrictions on wearpons ownership just as the ACLU does. The only disagreement is on where those restrictions should end. I believe the NRA is continuing to do an excellent job ensuring that the government's gun control efforts remain within the realm of the reasonable. I'd prefer my ACLU dues go to defending areas that need more work. What good is your right to own a firearm if you're locked away in a military brig for the rest of your life without having been charged with a crime, let alone convicted? Ask Jose Padilla about that some time if he ever gets out alive.
"The logical argument from "all men are created equal [before the law]" does not lead to "No man can be another's property." Instead it leads to "No man can be BORN another's property."
You forget how that line continues,
"...that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."
Ergo, it is understood that no man is created better than another, that they are given rights by their creator which cannot be surrendered (such as the right to live, the right to liberty, and the right to persue happiness), and that the purpose of government is to ensure these rights remain secure. The purpose of government is to ensure the life and liberty of all Men which it governs. Liberty is freedom within a social context, which basically means your freedoms are restricted only insofar as they do not interfere with the rights or liberties of others. Thus, we conclude that the purpose of government is to end slavery, which is intrinsically counter to the principles of liberty.
"also banning temporary or permanent voluntary slavery "
Voluntary servitude is most certainly allowed under this amendment. Within the phrase 'voluntary servitude' is the idea that the individual is choosing to do as their dominant, master, etc orders them to do. What this amendment states is that the master, dominant, etc cannot use force or coercion to cause their will to be carried out by the 'slave'. If I order you to do something, you can make the choice to either do it or not do it. If you choose to do it, the government cannot step in and stop you on the grounds that it would constitute a violation of your 13th amendment rights. That much deals with the wording of what you said, but we must also look towards the meaning.
The military is a perfect example of proof that your statement is false. Forget about the draft for a moment, and let's simply look at the armed forces we currently have. As of right now, all US military personnel are engaged in a bit of temporary 'voluntary' slavery (as in they volunteered to become 'slaves' inasmuch as they take orders which they are forced to follow). If they do not follow the orders they're given in peacetime or in a peaceful area, they may face a court martial and jail time, along with loss of pay and benefits. If they fail to follow orders on the battlefield, they may find themselves being shot on site. Yet this is all perfectly legal and acceptable to virtually every American. Rather amazing, isn't it?
"Ditto irrevocable powers of attorney."
I assure you that any such 'irrevocable' powers of attorney can be dealt with rather swiftly in a courtroom. One must merely prove that one is of sound mind to revoke the powers.
"This shows that the ACLU is at the very least anti-second amendment."
No, this shows that the ACLU is anti- your interpretation of the second amendment.
"You claim that the ACLU is not anti-gun? Show me some proof."
From the ACLU's gun control site, "The national ACLU is neutral on the issue of gun control. We believe that the Constitution contains no barriers to reasonable regulations of gun ownership. If we can license and register cars, we can license and register guns."[emph mine]
I fail to see how endorsing "reasonable restrictions" on arms ownership makes them 'anti-gun'. The NRA also endorses reasonable restrictions on arms ownership; does that mean they're anti-gun also? Where the two lines of thinking diverge is on the definition of 'reasonable restrictions'. For the ACLU, banning automatic weapons which would be used only in combat is a reasonable restriction, whereas the NRA disagrees. On the other hand, the NRA is very likely to agree with the ACLU if you were to ask whether an individual may be enjoined from stockpiling Sarin gas, panzer tanks, or nuclear weapons. The NRA also agrees that convicted felons have no right whatsoever to own or possess a firearm. There is no question that gun control is both necessary and worthwhile - the only question is how much.
"Where have they ever said that they support gun ownership and use?"
The ACLU doesn't support the use of firearms any more than they support the use of free speech or right to assembly. The ACLU doesn't deal in actions, merely in civil liberties (ie the right to free speech). What the ACLU does support is a specific interpretation of the second amendment which has been aggreed upon by the Congress and the Supreme Court. The fact that the ACLU does not subscribe to your particular point of view on the second amendment does not mean that it's a hypocritical bunch of commie liberal traitors. Bob Barr has often said that while he disagrees with the ACLU on a great many subjects, it's quite simply ridiculous to not cooperate with them on the subjects on which they can agree. Quite simply, working with the ACLU toward a common goal produces far greater results than going at it seperately. The swarms of conservatives joining the ACLU to help protect the first, fourth, fifth, sixth, and other amendments shows just how vital it is that we all come together when we agree on such important topics. The ACLU isn't asking you to support them on a topic with which you disagree, so why are you and others demanding they subscribe to your particular belief regarding the second amendment?
" Uh, just because the ACLU is anti-gun..."
What a terrible misconception this is. The ACLU is not 'anti-gun'; it simply has no problem with the actions taken thus far by Congress and the courts. It also acknowledges that the 2nd amendment has a slew of wealthy, powerful, and influencial advocates such as the NRA defending it. The NRA and the ACLU actually agree in principle with regards to second amendment interpretation. The NRA doesn't believe an individual's rights to bear arms includes such 'arms' as ICBMs, Panzer tanks, or nuclear weapons. The second amendment enjoins our government from removing the tools necessary for immediate and personal self-defense. It is not a blank check for individuals to stockpile the tools necessary to annihilate the nearest major city.
Show me the law passed by Congress and signed by the President which bans all firearms and I'll show you the ACLU lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of that law filed before the President's signature was dry.
The fact that some members of the ACLU are anti-gun nuts does not mean that the ACLU as a whole is a group of anti-gun nuts, nor that it promotes the views of anti-gun nuts. I am a 'card-carrying' member of the ACLU, and the day my government comes for my guns is the day my government finds out what the second amendment is all about.