Yelling fire isn't illegal because of the content of the speech, but because of the intent of the yelling (causing a riot). Strictly interpreted, while disallowing violent felons from owning a gun is a good idea, it may not be legal. The fact that the government is doing things like regulating the ownership of automatics differently from hunting rifles is no evidence of its legitimacy. They just happen to have more money and guns than any of us.
The bill of rights is irrelevant to what states may do about those rights specified. They are natural rights and it therefore follows that the states have no more right to impede them than does the fed. I view the 14th ammendment as a clarification. My point here is that the constitution doesn't so much say what you're allowed to do as tell the government what it may do. For instance, everyone has a right to buy a car or a turtle or whatever. The fact that it isn't in the Bill of Rights is not really relevant.
Read the other responses. The 14th ammendment applies 1-9 to the states, and the constitution itself only really grants power to the government. The government hasn't got the power to regulate speech or gun ownership, therefore it's illegal.
Nope. Compared to the cost of high activity on the box and the box itself, an extra 100G of old data is free. We partition our keys so it isn't even that big a deal.
Go read the base document: it doesn't tell the government what it may not do, it says what it may do. This means that the Bill of Rights is largely superfluous and a little bit dangerous, because people interpret it as if it were all we were allowed to do instead of a list of things that may not be infringed. The c'tion doesn't tell us what our rights are, it says what powers the fed has.
No, I grew up with a divorced mother who put herself through Nursing school and saw what ambition can allow. I also saw some very bright people go nowhere because that was okay with them.
The bill of rights was not supposed to originally apply to state laws.
Don't be an asshole, of course it applies. The constitution delineates what powers the government has - if the feds aren't allowed to do something to us, why should the states be allowed to?
It wasn't wanting to restrict access to the data center to which I objected. It was the "or else he wouldn't be a janitor" parenthetical.
Nothing wrong with that. If you're a janitor at 20, then maybe you're a college student. If you're still one at 30, then you're either mentally deficient or have no ambition at all. You can walk into this country speaking no English and work your way into a decent position (hell, manage a grocery store or something) in 10 years. All it takes is drive.
Whenever you think you are better than someone else because of what they do or because of who they are, that self-same thought makes it not so.
I'm not better than the cleaning staff, I'm more knowledgeable about the hardware. I stand by my statement - you knew more than the janitors we're talking about, so you moved on and likely never unplugged a server so you could plig in a vacuum. The guys who would are at their level of incompetence - they won't progress.
Today I use people's attitude toward janitorial or maintenance staff as a litmus test of their personal character and it has yet to let me down.
The people who clean our offices are nice people, but I wouldn't let them in the server room, sorry. They also don't pull stunts like turning off random machines.
If you're running a sql client that autocommits updates, you need to get a new client. If I found a client that did that on my systems, I'd probably delete it, or at least do a chmod 000 on it.
Are you going to trust someone who makes $7/hr running a vacuum with the fate of $Millions in hardware that he probably has no clue about (or else he wouldn't be a janitor)? I wouldn't - we let a cleaner into our secure room once a year (under supervision), only because it's mostly terminals. Yes, we take out our own trash.
They also have to prove that you attempted to actually get one, I would expect. I'd like a fake ID (just because), and I can probably go get one, but that isn't illegal.
Don't be a dumbass: when a republican controlled congress passes a law unanimously, you don't veto it - it just makes you look weak. The Republicans did pass this law. Thank them next November.
Similarly, if you're human, you're darn near certain to have a functioning reproductive system... so it makes no sense for insurance to pay for birth control.
Is that sarcasm? Birth control can prevent an expensive medical condition known as pregnancy. Why not pay for pills?
Until people stop whining like idiots every time someone brings up universal health care, we'll never have an honest discussion about its merits. You don't think people with no insurance just die in a gutter, do you? No, they wait until their problems are life threatening, and then go to a hospital. It's expensive, and they never pay, so we really already have UHC for anyone willing to go that route. Do ya think maybe it might be cheaper just to treat these people proactively?
The problem is: Insurance companies should be able to discriminate based on anything you're comfortable with them knowing.
Why? The whole point of insurance is to spread risk over a large population. With perfect information, all the healthy people would go to the cheap carrier and everybody else would pay through the nose because they lost the genetic lottery. That's no way to run a society.
In the first strip he talks about how hard it is to kill someone with a.22. A.22 is used in the Virginia Tech massacre.
Cho used a Walther P22, which is semi-auto. I have one, and I have no idea who Cho'd get it - it's finicky as hell and really not that great for shooting people with. It is cheap, though. Matt was talking about a.22 bolt action, which requires you to cycle the action after each shot. It's also long and unwieldy - not nearly as good as the P22. Basically, it's the sort of gun you hand to a cub scout and tell him to go shoot some cans.
Slashdot Mirror
You know, I don't like SUVs, but this penis compensation bullshit for every damn thing you don't approve of has got to stop.
Yelling fire isn't illegal because of the content of the speech, but because of the intent of the yelling (causing a riot). Strictly interpreted, while disallowing violent felons from owning a gun is a good idea, it may not be legal. The fact that the government is doing things like regulating the ownership of automatics differently from hunting rifles is no evidence of its legitimacy. They just happen to have more money and guns than any of us.
The bill of rights is irrelevant to what states may do about those rights specified. They are natural rights and it therefore follows that the states have no more right to impede them than does the fed. I view the 14th ammendment as a clarification. My point here is that the constitution doesn't so much say what you're allowed to do as tell the government what it may do. For instance, everyone has a right to buy a car or a turtle or whatever. The fact that it isn't in the Bill of Rights is not really relevant.
Read the other responses. The 14th ammendment applies 1-9 to the states, and the constitution itself only really grants power to the government. The government hasn't got the power to regulate speech or gun ownership, therefore it's illegal.
Nope. Compared to the cost of high activity on the box and the box itself, an extra 100G of old data is free. We partition our keys so it isn't even that big a deal.
Go read the base document: it doesn't tell the government what it may not do, it says what it may do. This means that the Bill of Rights is largely superfluous and a little bit dangerous, because people interpret it as if it were all we were allowed to do instead of a list of things that may not be infringed. The c'tion doesn't tell us what our rights are, it says what powers the fed has.
No, I grew up with a divorced mother who put herself through Nursing school and saw what ambition can allow. I also saw some very bright people go nowhere because that was okay with them.
Actually, it's my VP that says 'storage is free'. He's a former DBA and he's right.
The bill of rights was not supposed to originally apply to state laws.
Don't be an asshole, of course it applies. The constitution delineates what powers the government has - if the feds aren't allowed to do something to us, why should the states be allowed to?
It wasn't wanting to restrict access to the data center to which I objected. It was the "or else he wouldn't be a janitor" parenthetical.
Nothing wrong with that. If you're a janitor at 20, then maybe you're a college student. If you're still one at 30, then you're either mentally deficient or have no ambition at all. You can walk into this country speaking no English and work your way into a decent position (hell, manage a grocery store or something) in 10 years. All it takes is drive.
Whenever you think you are better than someone else because of what they do or because of who they are, that self-same thought makes it not so.
I'm not better than the cleaning staff, I'm more knowledgeable about the hardware. I stand by my statement - you knew more than the janitors we're talking about, so you moved on and likely never unplugged a server so you could plig in a vacuum. The guys who would are at their level of incompetence - they won't progress.
Today I use people's attitude toward janitorial or maintenance staff as a litmus test of their personal character and it has yet to let me down.
The people who clean our offices are nice people, but I wouldn't let them in the server room, sorry. They also don't pull stunts like turning off random machines.
Funny, I'd settle for some oversize snips used on the power cable; can't blow up the equipment if your plug's gone.
If you're running a sql client that autocommits updates, you need to get a new client. If I found a client that did that on my systems, I'd probably delete it, or at least do a chmod 000 on it.
Are you going to trust someone who makes $7/hr running a vacuum with the fate of $Millions in hardware that he probably has no clue about (or else he wouldn't be a janitor)? I wouldn't - we let a cleaner into our secure room once a year (under supervision), only because it's mostly terminals. Yes, we take out our own trash.
It's not really whoosh, so much as a sputter.
They also have to prove that you attempted to actually get one, I would expect. I'd like a fake ID (just because), and I can probably go get one, but that isn't illegal.
It's certainly enabling it. Remove a negative consequence of a choice makes that choice much more attractive.
If you remove all the negative consequences, what then? If 12 year olds could go off and play like that, would you let them?
Where have you been? Rational behavior in humans is so rare as to be an aberration.
Don't be a dumbass: when a republican controlled congress passes a law unanimously, you don't veto it - it just makes you look weak. The Republicans did pass this law. Thank them next November.
Similarly, if you're human, you're darn near certain to have a functioning reproductive system... so it makes no sense for insurance to pay for birth control.
Is that sarcasm? Birth control can prevent an expensive medical condition known as pregnancy. Why not pay for pills?
Until people stop whining like idiots every time someone brings up universal health care, we'll never have an honest discussion about its merits. You don't think people with no insurance just die in a gutter, do you? No, they wait until their problems are life threatening, and then go to a hospital. It's expensive, and they never pay, so we really already have UHC for anyone willing to go that route. Do ya think maybe it might be cheaper just to treat these people proactively?
The problem is: Insurance companies should be able to discriminate based on anything you're comfortable with them knowing.
Why? The whole point of insurance is to spread risk over a large population. With perfect information, all the healthy people would go to the cheap carrier and everybody else would pay through the nose because they lost the genetic lottery. That's no way to run a society.
Still, it's pretty hard to shoot a paper target without a gun...
Maybe if you throw the bullet really hard...
Nukes have no strategic value beyond deterrence. Guns are way different.
I dunno, that sounds pretty reasonable. I don't recall a gun ever shooting someone all by itself.
In the first strip he talks about how hard it is to kill someone with a .22. A .22 is used in the Virginia Tech massacre.
Cho used a Walther P22, which is semi-auto. I have one, and I have no idea who Cho'd get it - it's finicky as hell and really not that great for shooting people with. It is cheap, though. Matt was talking about a .22 bolt action, which requires you to cycle the action after each shot. It's also long and unwieldy - not nearly as good as the P22. Basically, it's the sort of gun you hand to a cub scout and tell him to go shoot some cans.