That's godawful - instead of a mess with a credit card that probably has a zero dollar liability for fraud, you get a stack of NSFs, and the bank might decide to be helpful and transfer your money back to satisfy the charges anyway.
Photomultipliers are really cool, but then so are transistors (yeah, so that happened 6 months after roswell, so what?). Ascribing them to alien tech just reminds me of all the people who think they also built the pyramids. 9147 so happens to be 2 years after the end of WW2, and thanks to the manhattan project, a lot of the world's top scientists knew each other and suddenly didn't have to fight anyone.
I think the problem is that you're confusing the political branches with the military; the military is very good at secrets - witness their record keeping the SR71 quiet, the specifics of satellite imagery, and the NSA's contribution to DES. Contrast that with Watergate and you'll see who sucks at secrets.
yeah, but they have restrictions on what they can do - they can't boot only the people against the mayor unless they're also the ones being rowdy (speaks to discrimination of speech content), while I am free to do so in my house.
Did you never try to fly on a plane with nail clippers prior to 9-11?
Yeah, so what? Before the current madness, my toiletries bag was just fine as carryon. Now, the toothpaste and shampoo is banned. Clippers are still fine, as well as a 6" screwdriver (which can't be used as a weapon, no sir)
The airline restrictions passed in response to 9-11 were that you couldn't bring box-cutters on the plane, which is considered perfectly reasonable by most people.
They also made airline security federal and spent a couple years working out what to hassle people over. They still aren't consistent, and the security line is godawful. It's also the sort of thing you can attack with a stick of dynamite and some ball bearings, so it's counterproductive. The only reasonable thing they did was the locking cockpit doors.
But if you would rather have 9000 people die each year just so you can pack your pair of box cutters in your carry on, well I guess we have vastly different belief systems.
Yeah, I recognize that freedom isn't safe, and neither is what we've got now. I don't recall bomb scares over lite brites and free speech zones before 9/11.
Oh, and 9000 isn't that much - more people suicide with handguns every year. 5000 kids are killed by water. 44000 people die while driving. It's really not that many people, especially when you consider that this sort of event is actually exceedingly rare.
Where in the constitution (1st Amendment, 14th Amendment, or anywhere else) does it say these freedoms are only valid in public places?
Nowhere. SCOTUS has ruled that filming where there is an expectation of privacy is not a protected activity, and if you're in my house, I can restrict your right to free speech on pain of being booted, as I am not a government agency.
What's frivolous about being hassled and denied a film permit based on regulations that aren't even written down? Is it too much to expect the city to write down the laws it operates under?
Well, duh. Whenever people pass dumbass laws restricting the photography of buildings or carrying liquid onto airplanes, you usually find "in a post 9/11 world" stuck in there somewhere. Have you even read the thread? Before 9/11, security didn't hassle people for taking pictures, nor did we imagine every little thing could be of use to a terr'ist.I'd rather have a 9/11 3 times a year than deal with the laws passed under its colors.
The $40k toilet was possibly a NASA thing, but they also use that to hide black budgets. You don't want to publish how much you're spending on espionage or give any sort of detailed breakdown.
No, the cause of global terrorism (as we call it) is way more complex than the US Gub fucking with its citizens. We've been sticking our dick into the mideast for a century now - you suppose that might cause some problems? The people that live there can't mount an offensive, so they do what they can, which is blow up shopping malls and airplanes. It's really hard to blame them for attacking us once you get the historical context (although we still have to defend ourselves and, perhaps, GTFO of their business).
So, I disagree that it's clear, and I'm pro-gun. I don't think your point B applies, because I don't want to "win the debate", I just want some of you rigid idealogues to loosen up and realize the world is about more than just you, and that there is, in fact, room for reasonable people to disagree.
Based on the common meaning at the time and SCOTUS rulings, the militia is composed of all able bodied males 18-50, more or less. The part before the comma describes a reason why the 2nd ammendment is important, but doesn't constitute a condition. This is also part of SCOTUS precedent. Arguing that it's somehow different ignores the way the law is written and is a common prelude to making reasonable sounding proposals that violate the 2A, which is why I reject them as a matter of course. I'm not an idealogue - I'll debate the necessity of legal gun ownership on a philosophical level - I just demand that any discussion of the 2A stay within the bounds of case history or else propose a modification.
As a counterexample, I regard corporate personhood as an abomination, but I don't pretend that it doesn't exist.
But there is legitimate room for disagreement on this wording, and if you cannot even agree to that... no matter how strongly you favor one interpetation of that wording... then you are simply an idealogue.
That's crap. It says something fairly clearly, and the main reason for disagreeing over the meaning is that a) you don't like what it says and wish to pretend it's not there or b) you wish to win the debate by defining the other position out of existence. Calling someone an idealogue for not hewing to your interpretation is a fairly shady debate tactic, but fairly common, too.
What would you have done differently, if presented with a drunk driver who had zero command of the common language of your country? How do you expect the cops to behave in a situation like this? Really, I'm curious.
So they are. According to the amazon comments, the 1DS should survive some mild droppage. Of course, a pro with a rebel xti (at $750) beats some douche with a 1DS:).
To be honest, if they want to be consistent, how about banning woodburning, which is far worse than any car I've even known. Oh, right, that's a winter tradition, so it gets a free pass.
How much wood is burnt compared to gasoline in a given year? Most people that burn it don't use it to heat their houses.
Slashdot Mirror
That's godawful - instead of a mess with a credit card that probably has a zero dollar liability for fraud, you get a stack of NSFs, and the bank might decide to be helpful and transfer your money back to satisfy the charges anyway.
If it's up to the states to handle, then federalizing it is actually illegal. Besides, if it's already consistent, what do you gain?
If you're poor and not a spendthrift, it's also easy. All you have to do is not spend money you don't have.
Don't forget RSI from remote sex0rz!
Photomultipliers are really cool, but then so are transistors (yeah, so that happened 6 months after roswell, so what?). Ascribing them to alien tech just reminds me of all the people who think they also built the pyramids. 9147 so happens to be 2 years after the end of WW2, and thanks to the manhattan project, a lot of the world's top scientists knew each other and suddenly didn't have to fight anyone.
I think the problem is that you're confusing the political branches with the military; the military is very good at secrets - witness their record keeping the SR71 quiet, the specifics of satellite imagery, and the NSA's contribution to DES. Contrast that with Watergate and you'll see who sucks at secrets.
If I were having equipment failure, I'd probably aim for something that gave me a chance at survival - deserts are really flat, unlike the rockies.
I'm going to repeat myself: we're talking about public photography only. Your tangent about home invasion photography is irrelevant, so plese STFU.
yeah, but they have restrictions on what they can do - they can't boot only the people against the mayor unless they're also the ones being rowdy (speaks to discrimination of speech content), while I am free to do so in my house.
Perhaps they could pair this with the XD9 and XD45 datacenter security system.
Did you never try to fly on a plane with nail clippers prior to 9-11?
Yeah, so what? Before the current madness, my toiletries bag was just fine as carryon. Now, the toothpaste and shampoo is banned. Clippers are still fine, as well as a 6" screwdriver (which can't be used as a weapon, no sir)
The airline restrictions passed in response to 9-11 were that you couldn't bring box-cutters on the plane, which is considered perfectly reasonable by most people.
They also made airline security federal and spent a couple years working out what to hassle people over. They still aren't consistent, and the security line is godawful. It's also the sort of thing you can attack with a stick of dynamite and some ball bearings, so it's counterproductive. The only reasonable thing they did was the locking cockpit doors.
But if you would rather have 9000 people die each year just so you can pack your pair of box cutters in your carry on, well I guess we have vastly different belief systems.
Yeah, I recognize that freedom isn't safe, and neither is what we've got now. I don't recall bomb scares over lite brites and free speech zones before 9/11.
Oh, and 9000 isn't that much - more people suicide with handguns every year. 5000 kids are killed by water. 44000 people die while driving. It's really not that many people, especially when you consider that this sort of event is actually exceedingly rare.
Where in the constitution (1st Amendment, 14th Amendment, or anywhere else) does it say these freedoms are only valid in public places?
Nowhere. SCOTUS has ruled that filming where there is an expectation of privacy is not a protected activity, and if you're in my house, I can restrict your right to free speech on pain of being booted, as I am not a government agency.
What's frivolous about being hassled and denied a film permit based on regulations that aren't even written down? Is it too much to expect the city to write down the laws it operates under?
No they aren't. Laws are a tool, but the cops aren't required to enforce every law completely - that'd be insane.
First point: the first ammendment does apply to states through the addition of the 14th. I think you're just looking for a fight.
Second point: we're talking about public places. Please stay on topic.
We're all in the militia, and you'll notice that there's a comma there - the bit you quoted is an illustrative example, not the only reason.
Well, duh. Whenever people pass dumbass laws restricting the photography of buildings or carrying liquid onto airplanes, you usually find "in a post 9/11 world" stuck in there somewhere. Have you even read the thread? Before 9/11, security didn't hassle people for taking pictures, nor did we imagine every little thing could be of use to a terr'ist.I'd rather have a 9/11 3 times a year than deal with the laws passed under its colors.
The $40k toilet was possibly a NASA thing, but they also use that to hide black budgets. You don't want to publish how much you're spending on espionage or give any sort of detailed breakdown.
No, the cause of global terrorism (as we call it) is way more complex than the US Gub fucking with its citizens. We've been sticking our dick into the mideast for a century now - you suppose that might cause some problems? The people that live there can't mount an offensive, so they do what they can, which is blow up shopping malls and airplanes. It's really hard to blame them for attacking us once you get the historical context (although we still have to defend ourselves and, perhaps, GTFO of their business).
So, I disagree that it's clear, and I'm pro-gun. I don't think your point B applies, because I don't want to "win the debate", I just want some of you rigid idealogues to loosen up and realize the world is about more than just you, and that there is, in fact, room for reasonable people to disagree.
Based on the common meaning at the time and SCOTUS rulings, the militia is composed of all able bodied males 18-50, more or less. The part before the comma describes a reason why the 2nd ammendment is important, but doesn't constitute a condition. This is also part of SCOTUS precedent. Arguing that it's somehow different ignores the way the law is written and is a common prelude to making reasonable sounding proposals that violate the 2A, which is why I reject them as a matter of course. I'm not an idealogue - I'll debate the necessity of legal gun ownership on a philosophical level - I just demand that any discussion of the 2A stay within the bounds of case history or else propose a modification.
As a counterexample, I regard corporate personhood as an abomination, but I don't pretend that it doesn't exist.
But there is legitimate room for disagreement on this wording, and if you cannot even agree to that... no matter how strongly you favor one interpetation of that wording... then you are simply an idealogue.
That's crap. It says something fairly clearly, and the main reason for disagreeing over the meaning is that a) you don't like what it says and wish to pretend it's not there or b) you wish to win the debate by defining the other position out of existence. Calling someone an idealogue for not hewing to your interpretation is a fairly shady debate tactic, but fairly common, too.
What would you have done differently, if presented with a drunk driver who had zero command of the common language of your country? How do you expect the cops to behave in a situation like this? Really, I'm curious.
I would have, I dunno, not been a dick.
It is the definition of censorship. That you agree with censoring CP is immaterial.
So they are. According to the amazon comments, the 1DS should survive some mild droppage. Of course, a pro with a rebel xti (at $750) beats some douche with a 1DS :).
To be honest, if they want to be consistent, how about banning woodburning, which is far worse than any car I've even known. Oh, right, that's a winter tradition, so it gets a free pass.
How much wood is burnt compared to gasoline in a given year? Most people that burn it don't use it to heat their houses.