After Operation Chastise, the Germans discovered an Upkeep bomb that had failed to explode lying in some woods and subsequently a 385 kg (850 pound) version of the bouncing bomb was also trialed by the Luftwaffe. Designed for use against British shipping, it was given the codename Kurt, and was built at the Luftwaffe Experimental Centre in Travemünde. Not being a cricket playing nation, they failed to understand the importance of backspin, and in trials, dropped by an Fw 190 it proved to be dangerous to the delivering planes as the bomb matched the speed at which it was dropped.
Was going to avoid posting, but since you asked for corrections - you are just about right.
Two things:
You are correct about the etymology of "Semitic" in the context of a language group, but because it carries a link to folk history and does carry ethnic implications, the term is somewhat deprecated in terms of linguistics. For example, the term "Hamito-Semitic" has largely been replaced by the "Afro-Asiatic group" - however, everyone (linguists, ANE scholars, etc.) still refers to a Semitic branch and its various regional divisions encompassing North Africa to Iraq. I've never met anyone involved in the actual academic study (i.e. grad students or professors), who really cares - though the actual structure of the branches in the group is something of a debate (see p.14).
Coining "Antisemitismus" was in line with the scientific racism that was popular in the late 19th century, and in some sense appropriate for the new "scientific" aspects to continental European hatred of Jews. The "I like Arabs, so I can't be an anti-Semite" defense is a casuistic canard (google, you'll find it a plenty), and leads to wonderful logical conclusions - say, claiming Hitler wasn't an anti-Semite.
And what makes you think the Second Amendment is about that, as opposed to, say, a perceived need for a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State or something.
Um, cause they said so, maybe?
Fed #46:
Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.
If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair. The usurpers, clothed with the forms of legal authority, can too often crush the opposition in embryo. The smaller the extent of the territory, the more difficult will it be for the people to form a regular or systematic plan of opposition, and the more easy will it be to defeat their early efforts. Intelligence can be more speedily obtained of their preparations and movements, and the military force in the possession of the usurpers can be more rapidly directed against the part where the opposition has begun. In this situation there must be a peculiar coincidence of circumstances to insure success to the popular resistance.
Actually, the only time I had to deal with this (as an American) was when living in Berlin with an ex. Moreover, it wasn't intentional on my part; I couldn't care less about the seat position - I just wouldn't remember to put it down all the time. So much for your pettiness theory. Of course, as parent noted, it's a battle of the sexes cliche in American film and television.
Reread my response - it is why I said "it is only an egregious fallacy if..." an appeal to authority is still a fallacy. However, I never asserted the "truth" of the Framers statements. My (one) normative statement is this: the Framers did a pretty good job and had experience to draw on; unless there is a clear problem, it is reasonable to follow their lead. So I hold that it is reasonable to take a statement made by Thomas Jefferson on liberty, governance, and individual rights seriously, because he is Thomas Jefferson: because his experience and intent (as demonstrated by his writing and actions) to my mind makes him a well intention expert in liberty, governance, and individual rights. If you don't agree that his qualifications make him an expert statesman, fine. If you don't think that he was well intentioned; that while his words promoted liberty, his actions were ultimately self serving and disingenuous, that's fine too. I don't believe that to be so; I'm pretty sure you don't believe that either.
Of course following their lead requires understanding. I never thought were were debating the value of understanding the writings of late 18th century American statesmen - you cannot on the one hand embrace their worth, while on the other dismissing the value of reading their words.
You should have read the wikipedia page closer. Appeal to authority is only an egregious fallacy when the expertise is misapplied (e.g. Chomsky, a brilliant linguist, said American is wrong) or presented as certainty (e.g. well, my doctor hasn't done a biopsy yet, but he's sure it's cancer so it must be).
Keep in mind that the fact that an argument is an appeal to authority doesn't make its conclusion untrue, nor does it make it unreasonable to believe the argument. An appeal to authority merely cannot guarantee the truth of the conclusion because the fact that an authority says something does not make it so (even if it makes it more likely to be so).
Which is why in a case of ambiguity, I am willing to default to the expertise of people who did a pretty good job of building a stable and free state. I also am not sure why you'd think I am taking this as a matter of faith: historical intent and motive are key in implementing and interpreting historical documents. Moreover, giving people accomplished in a certain field the benefit of the doubt is hardly the same as faith.
Do you hold the Bill of Rights dear because the founding fathers wrote it, or because its a codification of freedoms that we as Americans hold dear?
I think you would answer no and yes.
Yes, and yes seems to be the right answer to me.
I am loathe to change the Constitution because of modern sensibilities. The Constitution should be a slow changing document (save in urgent need, e.g. the 15th Amendment) lest we end up with another Prohibition. So, for me, when it is unclear - or even merely possible - that there is abridgment of liberty, I will default to the position of the Founders. When their error (inequal voting rights) or oversight (allowing states to violate the bill of rights) is clearly manifest, then yes, a change is needed.
All true - in fact, we may be smarter. However, we might not be as experienced in understanding the core rights* needed to safeguard individual freedom - or allow for a revolution when all else fails. Look, they waged a campaign which succeeded by a hair, and then somehow put away enough of their biases to create a system better than they were. Not only is that worthy of respect, it is an act all too rare in human history. With that in mind, it is understandable to give their original intention a fairly big vote - not the sole deciding factor in interpreting or revising the Constitution, but their ideas should bear significant weight.
Appeals to the lens of "the modern" day neglects to recognize two things - 1)people have not changed all that much since the 18th century 2)modern Americans have not had to do what the Framers did, largely because of their success. Old ideas are not negated by "modernity" - nor cherished for their age - they stand or fall on their merits.
Except you can't preemptively sue to get rid of a bad law like this - someone has to be prosecuted and willing to forgo the plea offer and willing to be the object of a long long legal battle.
But if the summary includes a reference to sourceforge, you should disclose the business relationship through OSTG. No exceptions, no matter how tangential.
Yes, many people know, and there is a (small) link on the top of the page, but even the semblance of editing is appreciated.
Absolutely right - and I know why I messed up. Once upon a time I read this and then checked the sources (which is why I got that bit right) but forgot the wikipedia article was inaccurate.:-)
But as for the criminal charges, the second text I cited deals with a range of copyright infringements arising out of circumventing DRM (i.e. DMCA violations) which covers most video (and some audio) these days and seems pretty clear about that:
17 USC 1204:
(a) In General.-- Any person who violates section 1201 or 1202 willfully and for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain--
(1) shall be fined not more than $500,000 or imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or both, for the first offense; and
(2) shall be fined not more than $1,000,000 or imprisoned for not more than 10 years, or both, for any subsequent offense.
Though I admit that needs copyright violation+DRM breaking, and I could have been clearer.
You know what, in one day this woman has done more for my rights and the rights of others than you will in your life. If holding those who influence the law to actually abiding by them is pedantic, then I declare pedantry heroic.
Pong, Pac-man, absolutely. Space Invaders, maybe. Atari Adventure? Decent game but hardly in that company.
I just have to wonder where the hell Street Fighter 2 is. The genre may be taking
a rest but thats only because it was beaten to death (no pun intended) by imitators
through the 90s. Also, the polygon versions of the genre were a big aspect in the
rise of the PSX and helped bring about 3D gaming as a whole.
Also, I'm a bit suprised that the Carmen Sandiego series was snubbed. They are educational games which didn't suck, have been released for nearly 20 years, and proved to be something of a public phenomenon - spawning three television shows.
(apart from MS software, but lets be honest, if you're running a free NT clone, you aren't going to be running MS office are you?)
Why not? You could set up an Exchange Server (which is popular and useful despite the predictable/. "why would you want that") without having to pay for the underlying OS.
Slashdot Mirror
7? 'Cause thats how many cores it takes to boot!
You mean there is an emacs compatibility mode for vi?
Got to love wikipedian NPOV. From the aforelinked Bouncing Bomb page:
After Operation Chastise, the Germans discovered an Upkeep bomb that had failed to explode lying in some woods and subsequently a 385 kg (850 pound) version of the bouncing bomb was also trialed by the Luftwaffe. Designed for use against British shipping, it was given the codename Kurt, and was built at the Luftwaffe Experimental Centre in Travemünde. Not being a cricket playing nation, they failed to understand the importance of backspin, and in trials, dropped by an Fw 190 it proved to be dangerous to the delivering planes as the bomb matched the speed at which it was dropped.
Though, as an aside, NASA's predecessor, NACA, was pronounced letter by letter.
Incidentally, the speech was presented in Bowling for Columbine (which I did see, in Germany of all places), and not F911 (which I did not).
I would encourage mods to knock down the AC, but s/he is an AC and the mod points are better spent on moving someone up.
Not the greatest source, but it jives with what I recall hearing, FWIW.
Of course, you could just google for yourself.
Was going to avoid posting, but since you asked for corrections - you are just about right.
Two things:
You are correct about the etymology of "Semitic" in the context of a language group, but because it carries a link to folk history and does carry ethnic implications, the term is somewhat deprecated in terms of linguistics. For example, the term "Hamito-Semitic" has largely been replaced by the "Afro-Asiatic group" - however, everyone (linguists, ANE scholars, etc.) still refers to a Semitic branch and its various regional divisions encompassing North Africa to Iraq. I've never met anyone involved in the actual academic study (i.e. grad students or professors), who really cares - though the actual structure of the branches in the group is something of a debate (see p.14).
Coining "Antisemitismus" was in line with the scientific racism that was popular in the late 19th century, and in some sense appropriate for the new "scientific" aspects to continental European hatred of Jews. The "I like Arabs, so I can't be an anti-Semite" defense is a casuistic canard (google, you'll find it a plenty), and leads to wonderful logical conclusions - say, claiming Hitler wasn't an anti-Semite.
Vegetables are what food eats!
And what makes you think the Second Amendment is about that, as opposed to, say, a perceived need for a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State or something.
Um, cause they said so, maybe?
Fed #46:
Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.
Or, Fed #28?
If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair. The usurpers, clothed with the forms of legal authority, can too often crush the opposition in embryo. The smaller the extent of the territory, the more difficult will it be for the people to form a regular or systematic plan of opposition, and the more easy will it be to defeat their early efforts. Intelligence can be more speedily obtained of their preparations and movements, and the military force in the possession of the usurpers can be more rapidly directed against the part where the opposition has begun. In this situation there must be a peculiar coincidence of circumstances to insure success to the popular resistance.
Christ, even liberal jurists, who once maintained that the 2nd amendment is a collective right fulfilled by the existence of state police and militias, have begun to concede that it is an individual right. This was the reasoning behind the recent overturning of the DC gun ban.
And no, despite your immediate assumptions, I own no guns nor am I (or have I ever been) a Christian.
How much for reactive armor? A GAU-19 option, perhaps?
Man, it's the extras that kill ya.
Actually, the only time I had to deal with this (as an American) was when living in Berlin with an ex. Moreover, it wasn't intentional on my part; I couldn't care less about the seat position - I just wouldn't remember to put it down all the time. So much for your pettiness theory. Of course, as parent noted, it's a battle of the sexes cliche in American film and television.
who are highly trained marksmen (due to their rare situation of having a gun on the streets of Britain)
I guess thats cause all the guns and untrained marksmen in England aren't on the streets, but Underground, I'd wager.
Reread my response - it is why I said "it is only an egregious fallacy if..." an appeal to authority is still a fallacy. However, I never asserted the "truth" of the Framers statements. My (one) normative statement is this: the Framers did a pretty good job and had experience to draw on; unless there is a clear problem, it is reasonable to follow their lead. So I hold that it is reasonable to take a statement made by Thomas Jefferson on liberty, governance, and individual rights seriously, because he is Thomas Jefferson: because his experience and intent (as demonstrated by his writing and actions) to my mind makes him a well intention expert in liberty, governance, and individual rights. If you don't agree that his qualifications make him an expert statesman, fine. If you don't think that he was well intentioned; that while his words promoted liberty, his actions were ultimately self serving and disingenuous, that's fine too. I don't believe that to be so; I'm pretty sure you don't believe that either.
Of course following their lead requires understanding. I never thought were were debating the value of understanding the writings of late 18th century American statesmen - you cannot on the one hand embrace their worth, while on the other dismissing the value of reading their words.
You should have read the wikipedia page closer. Appeal to authority is only an egregious fallacy when the expertise is misapplied (e.g. Chomsky, a brilliant linguist, said American is wrong) or presented as certainty (e.g. well, my doctor hasn't done a biopsy yet, but he's sure it's cancer so it must be).
Keep in mind that the fact that an argument is an appeal to authority doesn't make its conclusion untrue, nor does it make it unreasonable to believe the argument. An appeal to authority merely cannot guarantee the truth of the conclusion because the fact that an authority says something does not make it so (even if it makes it more likely to be so).
Which is why in a case of ambiguity, I am willing to default to the expertise of people who did a pretty good job of building a stable and free state. I also am not sure why you'd think I am taking this as a matter of faith: historical intent and motive are key in implementing and interpreting historical documents. Moreover, giving people accomplished in a certain field the benefit of the doubt is hardly the same as faith.
We almost agree.
Do you hold the Bill of Rights dear because the founding fathers wrote it, or because its a codification of freedoms that we as Americans hold dear?
I think you would answer no and yes.
Yes, and yes seems to be the right answer to me.
I am loathe to change the Constitution because of modern sensibilities. The Constitution should be a slow changing document (save in urgent need, e.g. the 15th Amendment) lest we end up with another Prohibition. So, for me, when it is unclear - or even merely possible - that there is abridgment of liberty, I will default to the position of the Founders. When their error (inequal voting rights) or oversight (allowing states to violate the bill of rights) is clearly manifest, then yes, a change is needed.
All true - in fact, we may be smarter. However, we might not be as experienced in understanding the core rights* needed to safeguard individual freedom - or allow for a revolution when all else fails. Look, they waged a campaign which succeeded by a hair, and then somehow put away enough of their biases to create a system better than they were. Not only is that worthy of respect, it is an act all too rare in human history. With that in mind, it is understandable to give their original intention a fairly big vote - not the sole deciding factor in interpreting or revising the Constitution, but their ideas should bear significant weight.
/..
Appeals to the lens of "the modern" day neglects to recognize two things - 1)people have not changed all that much since the 18th century 2)modern Americans have not had to do what the Framers did, largely because of their success. Old ideas are not negated by "modernity" - nor cherished for their age - they stand or fall on their merits.
*Yes, I understand the problem with enumerated rights. Both sides are right, and I do not plan to rewrite or reargue the Federalist Papers on
Except you can't preemptively sue to get rid of a bad law like this - someone has to be prosecuted and willing to forgo the plea offer and willing to be the object of a long long legal battle.
Agree or disagree with the reasoning, that's the way it is.
Just 450K? Meh, post it when they steal at least a couple hundred megabytes.
But if the summary includes a reference to sourceforge, you should disclose the business relationship through OSTG. No exceptions, no matter how tangential.
Yes, many people know, and there is a (small) link on the top of the page, but even the semblance of editing is appreciated.
Absolutely right - and I know why I messed up. Once upon a time I read this and then checked the sources (which is why I got that bit right) but forgot the wikipedia article was inaccurate. :-)
:-)
But as for the criminal charges, the second text I cited deals with a range of copyright infringements arising out of circumventing DRM (i.e. DMCA violations) which covers most video (and some audio) these days and seems pretty clear about that:
17 USC 1204:
(a) In General.-- Any person who violates section 1201 or 1202 willfully and for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain--
(1) shall be fined not more than $500,000 or imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or both, for the first offense; and
(2) shall be fined not more than $1,000,000 or imprisoned for not more than 10 years, or both, for any subsequent offense.
Though I admit that needs copyright violation+DRM breaking, and I could have been clearer.
Unless I am totally wrong again
I pick this nit, because it affects your comment.
Innocent infringement already carries a maximum of $150,000
Willful infringement carries a maximum of $300,000.
See for yourself.
Criminal penalties are even higher.
Yeah. Why not guzzle caffeinated beverages? On Passover, Coke is real.
Look for the yellow cap, while they last.
You know what, in one day this woman has done more for my rights and the rights of others than you will in your life. If holding those who influence the law to actually abiding by them is pedantic, then I declare pedantry heroic.
I just have to wonder where the hell Street Fighter 2 is. The genre may be taking a rest but thats only because it was beaten to death (no pun intended) by imitators through the 90s. Also, the polygon versions of the genre were a big aspect in the rise of the PSX and helped bring about 3D gaming as a whole.
Also, I'm a bit suprised that the Carmen Sandiego series was snubbed. They are educational games which didn't suck, have been released for nearly 20 years, and proved to be something of a public phenomenon - spawning three television shows.
Why not? You could set up an Exchange Server (which is popular and useful despite the predictable /. "why would you want that") without having to pay for the underlying OS.