DirectTV has no internet service and this would have no impact on that.
Picture this--your home phone line is good enough for outbound internet traffic via a DSL type hookup and your download comes in much faster via satellite, so instead of cable TV you go ahead with DirecTV over the satellite dish you need for fast internet anyway, and ATT/DirecTV gets your money and Comcast/TWC doesn't.
Because synergies
(and any other buzzwords that happen to be lying around)
"During the Oklahoma Land Run of 1889, there were no special "carve-outs" for people of wealth. Every participant started racing at the sound of the starter's gun."
You do know how Oklahoma got nicknamed "The Sooner State", right?
Mine was built in February 1988, just a few days after my younger cousin. Works like new, but there are times when I wish for proper USB hotplug and the extra 3 keys.
I'm just going by what I know about the military. If the military and/or police revised their standards to allow drugs other than alcohol, then of course civilians should be allowed too.
When the holy bleep did we start letting the cops and the military write our laws or tell us what had to be in them?
The judge wants to gut the 2nd, not fix it. What would be a true and proper fix? IMHO, we need to clarify "well regulated militia" as "those people who are fit for military service". IMHO that means it's within the right of the states, even the Feds to determine that some people are unfit (mentally unstable, etc.) and thus deprive them of this right. If it were argued that the State was declaring people unfit for political purposes, that would wind its way through the court just like anything else. There's no escaping the need for actual judgement in a court.
Thus, I think it might be reasonable for the state to compel you to give up your gun if you buy pot for any reason (medical or otherwise). A pot-head is not fit for military service. Your guns or your drugs, not both. We want sanity at the trigger end.
So marijuana is a dis-qualifier, but you got nothing to say about beverage alcohol?
Seriously?
Your reasoning on pot should mean a similar choice should have to be made so that if you own a gun you can never even have one beer.
Enact this, and as a former serviceman who swore an oath, I am obligated to stop you at all costs.
*** Your argument would a) do nothing to reduce crime or mass killings b) furthermore, since we have no militia, it is a de facto nullification of a primal right (and no, the National Guard is not a militia, sorry, you don't send a militia abroad to foriegn wars) c) with the increasing breaches of American civil liberties, we need our guns now, more than ever...
You swore an oath to The Constitution. If it's enacted, it becomes part of The Constitution to which you swore that oath.
If that oath included a "but only the version in existence right now" clause, then imagine the clash between military and the public when Prohibition was repealed.
People: "body of persons comprising a community". It is a singular noun. "Peoples is the plural." "People" is not the plural of "person" - that is "persons". The second amendment does not refer to the right of any individual person to keep and bear arms outside of membership in a militia. The language is already there, but almost everyone, including members of Supreme Court regularly misinterprets it.
In other places, The Constitution, and the various Amendments, are rather particular about using people or persons, and I'm starting to wonder if the Second wasn't written screwed up on purpose, so that no one could say for absolute certain what it means.
'A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, and the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.' Instead of applying revisionist views that have no Constitutional basis.
According to current rules of grammar, usage, and sentence construction, the Second Amendment (although it may have made sense at the time, according to the standards of that time) nowadays looks like the result of the collision of two different sentences, and your addition of that single word in that part of it doesn't make it any clearer, unless maybe you were trying to prevent the infringement of a well regulated militia.
The US Military has spent ten years wearing out its combat troops trying to pacify a country the size of Texas, opposed by goat herders and drug smugglers. You think that a military that is fractured by domestic conflict would be able to control an area 14x as large if there was a widely distributed insurgency sparked by some egregious violation of the constitution? Dream on.
The key word there is pacify. We certainly have the weapons technology to allow us to just kill everybody there (and let God sort them out, I suppose), it's trying to avoid collateral damage, human fatality-wise, that makes things problematic.
But we aren't as tribal here in the States, and in a situation where the actual military was unleashed domestically, neighbor would be more likely to give away neighbor, especially if the alternative was having the entire neighborhood reduced to dead bodies and smouldering rubble just to get the guys in one house.
And our military has the firepower to do that to an entire neighborhood, and then another, and then another....
If it gets to the point domestically that due process and all that is out the window, the civilians are outgunned, because they can't afford their own air force, or a navy that can sit offshore and bombard them from miles away, etc.
The whole point is for the citizens to be able to form a militia in order to defend themselves from their own government...
Are you quite certain that that was the intent of the authors, and not a viable alternative to a standing army, or some other reason? The whole point of the Constitution with the establishment of elected representation and restrictions on the powers of the federal government was to have a functional government from which the populace would not need to defend itself. Were they expecting that one amendment to deter a government which ignored the rest of the text?
No, because then they cease to be militia and have become regulars.
Oh, btw, why a well regulated militia? so that they were capable of holding their own against regulars. Just an FYI.
I would think that well-regulated would include "could reasonably be trusted to obey the chain of command and not just decide for themselves who to fight when, where, and how, and to not be as big a threat to the general populace as any invading army".
Which is why the Second doesn't start out "A bunch o' likkerd up good ol' boys with shootin' irons, being necessary to the security of a free State..."
When the constitution was ratified, the militia was the only defense that the United States had, and all able bodied men were expected to be ready to serve.
Now, whether the militia is the intent of the second amendment is a question that we have been asking for a long time now. The wording of the second amendment is not particularly clear on that.
And yes, I know that this opinion is not popular on a site as conservative as slashdot. That is why we see this as a front page story bashing the person proposing the re-examination of the second amendment.
The wording of the Second Amendment is not particularly clear, period. Unfortunately.
But we do know that the authors were pro-militia in large part because they were very nervous about the alternative--a large standing army.
The world and technology have changed so much since then that I'd be very nervous about our not having a somewhat large standing army.
...My friend's mother dropped out of accounting and picked up web application design in her late fifties, and developed a small but successful consultancy...
If she was that old when web application design first became "a thing", then in her previous life as an accountant she no doubt had 10 if not 20 years of experience with computers.
If she'd spent that time as a migrant worker picking lettuce and strawberries and such, or painting houses, or working as a short order cook, it might not have been as easy to make the transition.
"I think you are confusing wisdom for intelligence." An artificial separation.
Wisdom is what an intelligent person may eventually acquire if they live long enough, but they don't automatically start out with it just because of being intelligent.
Slashdot Mirror
DirectTV has no internet service and this would have no impact on that.
Picture this--your home phone line is good enough for outbound internet traffic via a DSL type hookup and your download comes in much faster via satellite, so instead of cable TV you go ahead with DirecTV over the satellite dish you need for fast internet anyway, and ATT/DirecTV gets your money and Comcast/TWC doesn't.
Because synergies
(and any other buzzwords that happen to be lying around)
"During the Oklahoma Land Run of 1889, there were no special "carve-outs" for people of wealth. Every participant started racing at the sound of the starter's gun. "
You do know how Oklahoma got nicknamed "The Sooner State", right?
Mine was built in February 1988, just a few days after my younger cousin. Works like new, but there are times when I wish for proper USB hotplug and the extra 3 keys.
On the keyboard or on your cousin?
I'm just going by what I know about the military. If the military and/or police revised their standards to allow drugs other than alcohol, then of course civilians should be allowed too.
When the holy bleep did we start letting the cops and the military write our laws or tell us what had to be in them?
They work for us, not the other way around.
...addresses this issue
Unless this is another one of them there parody things.
The judge wants to gut the 2nd, not fix it. What would be a true and proper fix? IMHO, we need to clarify "well regulated militia" as "those people who are fit for military service". IMHO that means it's within the right of the states, even the Feds to determine that some people are unfit (mentally unstable, etc.) and thus deprive them of this right. If it were argued that the State was declaring people unfit for political purposes, that would wind its way through the court just like anything else. There's no escaping the need for actual judgement in a court.
Thus, I think it might be reasonable for the state to compel you to give up your gun if you buy pot for any reason (medical or otherwise). A pot-head is not fit for military service. Your guns or your drugs, not both. We want sanity at the trigger end.
So marijuana is a dis-qualifier, but you got nothing to say about beverage alcohol?
Seriously?
Your reasoning on pot should mean a similar choice should have to be made so that if you own a gun you can never even have one beer.
Enact this, and as a former serviceman who swore an oath, I am obligated to stop you at all costs.
***
Your argument would
a) do nothing to reduce crime or mass killings
b) furthermore, since we have no militia, it is a de facto nullification of a primal right (and no, the National Guard is not a militia, sorry, you don't send a militia abroad to foriegn wars)
c) with the increasing breaches of American civil liberties, we need our guns now, more than ever...
You swore an oath to The Constitution. If it's enacted, it becomes part of The
Constitution to which you swore that oath.
If that oath included a "but only the version in existence right now" clause, then imagine the clash between military and the public when Prohibition was repealed.
should be afraid of the armed populous
That's horrible...
It is horrible, misspelling "populace" like that.
People: "body of persons comprising a community". It is a singular noun. "Peoples is the plural." "People" is not the plural of "person" - that is "persons". The second amendment does not refer to the right of any individual person to keep and bear arms outside of membership in a militia. The language is already there, but almost everyone, including members of Supreme Court regularly misinterprets it.
In other places, The Constitution, and the various Amendments, are rather particular about using people or persons, and I'm starting to wonder if the Second wasn't written screwed up on purpose, so that no one could say for absolute certain what it means.
'A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, and the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.' Instead of applying revisionist views that have no Constitutional basis.
According to current rules of grammar, usage, and sentence construction, the Second Amendment (although it may have made sense at the time, according to the standards of that time) nowadays looks like the result of the collision of two different sentences, and your addition of that single word in that part of it doesn't make it any clearer, unless maybe you were trying to prevent the infringement of a well regulated militia.
The US Military has spent ten years wearing out its combat troops trying to pacify a country the size of Texas, opposed by goat herders and drug smugglers. You think that a military that is fractured by domestic conflict would be able to control an area 14x as large if there was a widely distributed insurgency sparked by some egregious violation of the constitution? Dream on.
The key word there is pacify. We certainly have the weapons technology to allow us to just kill everybody there (and let God sort them out, I suppose), it's trying to avoid collateral damage, human fatality-wise, that makes things problematic.
But we aren't as tribal here in the States, and in a situation where the actual military was unleashed domestically, neighbor would be more likely to give away neighbor, especially if the alternative was having the entire neighborhood reduced to dead bodies and smouldering rubble just to get the guys in one house.
And our military has the firepower to do that to an entire neighborhood, and then another, and then another....
If it gets to the point domestically that due process and all that is out the window, the civilians are outgunned, because they can't afford their own air force, or a navy that can sit offshore and bombard them from miles away, etc.
The whole point is for the citizens to be able to form a militia in order to defend themselves from their own government...
Are you quite certain that that was the intent of the authors, and not a viable alternative to a standing army, or some other reason? The whole point of the Constitution with the establishment of elected representation and restrictions on the powers of the federal government was to have a functional government from which the populace would not need to defend itself. Were they expecting that one amendment to deter a government which ignored the rest of the text?
No, because then they cease to be militia and have become regulars.
Oh, btw, why a well regulated militia? so that they were capable of holding their own against regulars. Just an FYI.
I would think that well-regulated would include "could reasonably be trusted to obey the chain of command and not just decide for themselves who to fight when, where, and how, and to not be as big a threat to the general populace as any invading army".
Which is why the Second doesn't start out "A bunch o' likkerd up good ol' boys with shootin' irons, being necessary to the security of a free State..."
When the constitution was ratified, the militia was the only defense that the United States had, and all able bodied men were expected to be ready to serve.
Now, whether the militia is the intent of the second amendment is a question that we have been asking for a long time now. The wording of the second amendment is not particularly clear on that.
And yes, I know that this opinion is not popular on a site as conservative as slashdot. That is why we see this as a front page story bashing the person proposing the re-examination of the second amendment.
The wording of the Second Amendment is not particularly clear, period. Unfortunately.
But we do know that the authors were pro-militia in large part because they were very nervous about the alternative--a large standing army.
The world and technology have changed so much since then that I'd be very nervous about our not having a somewhat large standing army.
Why is it that the ads in mags like Byte were a key part of the reason I bought the magazine...
Wasn't that pretty much the only reason to buy Computer Shopper?
(well, except for the Lab of Doom and Pepsi-Cola)
"What good print media is left?"
Yes.
Print is a medium, so yes, it is still there. A newspaper, or magazine, it's a publication, not a medium.
You mean "What good print publications are left?"
In that case, shouldn't it be "What good print media are left?", media being plural and all?
Of course the NYT is liberal, remember how liberally Judith Miller helped Cheney sell the war?
The Economist, and
The Christian Science Monitor
One of those titles is an oxymoron.
Nonsense! If there is such a thing as Christian Science, then it certainly should be closely monitored.
The Economist, and
The Christian Science Monitor
Didn't CSM shut down its print edition a while back?
Try different newspapers and see if she's expressing a political view.
Or tabloid versus traditional fold in the middle, see if it's a class thing.
Let me know how she feels about USA Today.
dead horses and vehicular entanglement
BAND NAME! Called it!
A bit long for a band name, but it could certainly be an album title.
For some reason I am unable to reciprocate.
The thingie to click ain't there.
I'd rather write
Host files at midnight
Than pass my days
Hacking at lignite
BURMA SHAVE
This is the kind of post I absolutely hate.
But only because I come across them just when I don't have mod points.
(for upmodding)
...My friend's mother dropped out of accounting and picked up web application design in her late fifties, and developed a small but successful consultancy...
If she was that old when web application design first became "a thing", then in her previous life as an accountant she no doubt had 10 if not 20 years of experience with computers.
If she'd spent that time as a migrant worker picking lettuce and strawberries and such, or painting houses, or working as a short order cook, it might not have been as easy to make the transition.
"I think you are confusing wisdom for intelligence." An artificial separation.
Wisdom is what an intelligent person may eventually acquire if they live long enough, but they don't automatically start out with it just because of being intelligent.