Vouchers do not eliminate public schools. Where education vouchers have been implemented,
He's saying his system would eliminate them. What has been done before was incomplete and biased towards failure.
Where education vouchers have been implemented, 80-90% of students stay in the public schools.
And in the proposed system, 100% of the students would be in vouchered schools. If the existing public school was good enough to keep 80-90% of the students, then it would keep 80-90% of the students when it was converted to voucher-based.
The threat of losing students (and revenue) causes the public schools to rapidly improve,
I think that was the point. Eliminate the public schools and make them all vouchered. If the threat of adding a vouchered school to an area made the public schools improve, then so would becoming a vouchered school. It's the threat of students leaving that forces improvements, and that happens either way.
and since they have the advantage of pre-existing infrastructure (buildings, teachers, curriculum, etc.) they usually end up keeping most of the students.
Oh, I see. You think the statement "eliminate public schools" meant "tear down the buildings, throw all the bits into the trash, and start over from scratch". Of course that wouldn't happen. "Eliminate public schools for a voucher system" means that the current public schools are converted, including all buildings and stuff inside them, and competition is created for new schools.
Actually, it's not so bad in most parts of the country.
"Historic Districts" are all over the place, and if you ever find yourself living in one you'll change your opinion of how much power NIMBYs have. When you can't replace your old rotted out windows with new high-tech energy conserving ones because they don't look the same as the old rotted out ones, you'll know. If you have a commercial building and want to get rid of a high-maintenance gable facade because it costs too much to keep safe, and the city tells you you can't because the building you allegedly own had a gable facade in 1911, you'll know.
San Francisco is just one (perhaps the most) pathological example.
Small town historical commissions are pretty pathological, too, and usually quite litigious.
The irony is when we finally get UBI, it will be the progressive left that takes the credit
No, when the economy tanks and everyone is poor because nobody has to work anymore and there is nobody left to pay the taxes to hand out UBI to everyone, the left will blame the right, just like they tried blaming Bush and the right for the inevitable banking disaster that came from CRA and Barney frank. The "progressive left" will start by denying there is a problem and then will switch to pointing fingers at the other side for the failure they themselves created.
Yes, that is the failure of every "but the right person would have won if the rules was different" argument. If the rules was different, the campaigns would be geared toward winning under those rules and not the existing ones.
We saw a bit of this in the 2004 Florida election, where the rules were "poke a hole in a piece of paper to indicate your vote" and the wrong guy won. The rules got changed to be "poke a hole or make a dent in a piece of paper, or leave a psychic impression on the paper that our psychic vote counters can detect as a vote" and the wrong guy STILL won. That's the problem with counting psychic votes -- the wrong guy's psychics might be better than yours.
The problem with changing to a "popular vote" system is, of course, that smaller states will get ignored because they will have proportionately fewer votes under a popular vote system than under the current electoral vote one.
All you can conclude from this is that Trump doesn't understand what a 3D printed gun is or how they are made or how they are distributed, and when the NRA tried to explain it to him he just got even more confused.
No, all YOU can conclude from that is what you said, because you have an implicit bias that has you wanting to conclude that.
The fact is, he said he was looking into this issue (which implies he's not an expert on 3D printing or how easy it is, not that he doesn't know what a 3D printed gun is), that he spoke with a national organization of gun owners (who one could assume have some expertise in a matter relating to guns, just like ARRL would have expertise in radio stuff and AMA for medical stuff), and that something about the issue doesn't make sense. He didn't specify what. I think it is reasonable to assume that he meant that the injunction doesn't make sense, but you want to assume that nothing at all makes sense to Trump so that is how you read it.
If Obama had said the same thing, would you have assumed Obama didn't understand anything at all, or would you have assumed he understood enough to realize that what the court (and plaintiff states) were doing didn't make sense?
By the way, I doubt that Trump tried to trademark the word "doesna", so your ability to accurately quote a tweet comes into question. Perhaps "preview" before you post and fix obvious stuff like this?
A representative Democracy would have results in Hillary winning the election because she had the majority vote.
When your argument for who would have won the US presidential election includes "majority vote", you've just admitted your ignorance of the presidential election process. You are not alone; the media feed this ignorance by reporting what they call the "popular" or "majority" vote. Lots of people are confused just like you are.
Read the Constitution. Look for the process defined therein for electing the US President. See for yourself if it creates a "popular vote" system or something different. (Hint: it's "something different".)
The truth is, the lowest political subdivision at which a "popular vote" for President is used is "the states", who use this result to allocate their electors to the Electoral College. There IS no "add all the state's popular vote results together and create a national "popular vote" system in the US Constitution. This is for a good reason, and those states that are stupid enough to join the effort to allocate all their electors bases on the results of the "national popular vote" are, well, really really stupid. They are letting some other state's voters determine the outcome of their own election. Will they let other states elect their Senators, too?
and will even get on a forum and double down in their ignorance despite there being a mountain of proof and evidence in the form of writing by the very founders of the nation.
Oh, the irony of this statement is too monumental to ignore, Mr. "majority vote".
I'm sure they're expensive to print... not many people have 3D printers,
My Uni library has a 3D printing service. They charge something like 10 to 17 cents an ounce to cover the materials. I don't know if they'd recognize the parts to a 3D printed gun or not, or what they would do if they did. You can go to a web page to submit your purchasing details and a printable file and they'll send you an email telling you when you can come pick it up.
Or, to avoid all the hassle, Amazon sells 3D printers, many of which are less then $200.
the results are likely to be lower quality durability and reliability than commercially available firearms.
Walmart makes a fortune selling products which are lower quality, durability, and reliability for less money than better stuff. People who 3D print guns are not doing it so they have a high quality, durable, reliable weapon, they are doing it for one of two reasons. Either it is a novelty item or because they cannot legally buy something they intend to use once and throw away. In either case, those three qualities are irrelevant.
The tenth just says that the federal government only has those powers stated in the Constitution and everything else is up to the states.
Almost. The 10th ALSO says that what is left to the states and the people cannot be something that is already prohibited by the constitution. "Shall not be infringed" is a prohibition. The "right to infringe" is not passed on to the states or the people. This also includes mundane things like ex-post-facto laws and bills of attainder.
is a phrase that appears in a descriptive clause in the 2nd amendment. It describes why one of the inalienable rights was considered important enough to enumerate in the bill of rights. It does not create the right nor does it limit it. The actual active part of the 2nd amendment is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." It's the right of "the people", not "militia members". Had the founders wanted it to apply only to members of "a well regulated militia", they would have said so.
What's to prevent that person from replacing the metal part(s) with plastic or ceramic parts to bypass the metal detectors?
Nothing in any law prevents any criminal from breaking the law. Laws cannot accomplish that magic feat, and thus aren't written to try.
Laws make certain acts illegal, so that if you commit that act and are caught you can be punished. In this case, if someone is caught with a completely plastic or ceramic gun that violates that law, they can be prosecuted for that act, whether or not they intended to use it to rob a bank or hijack an airplane. If they are caught breaking some other law (such as trying to sneak it past TSA), they get the additional charge added to the others. If they are caught before they try to sneak it past TSA, then they can at least be charged with that crime.
you will see a fair few metallic elements not limited to magnesium, tin, lead and titanium.
I count exactly two "metallic elements" in the list of possible smokeless powder components: tin and bismuth. Lead has been banned for environmental reasons. Tin and bismuth are noted as being more likely included as compounds. In any case, no, as you can clearly see in the wiki page for smokeless powers, metal components are not required.
No, the Bill of Rights does not apply to state governments, only the federal government.
It is a shame that you did not read the wikipedia article that you referenced. The 2nd amendment puts no limits on who is prohibited from making the laws infringing the right to keep and bear arms, the 10th amendment excludes prohibited actions when passing the powers on to the states, and the 14th doesn't need to mention firearms specifically because it covers the whole thing.
Please, stop. Rights is rights, and you yammering about how we don't have them is just painful to see.
How will kids call their parents when a shooter with automatic weapons bursts into the school?
Why would you expect them to? What do you expect Dad to do if Junior calls to tell him there is a shooter in the school? Drop what he's doing, pull the AK47 out of the closet, and run down to the school to help?
No, Dad would just be in the way, and more likely to get shot by the first responders as he walks in the door carrying a gun fifteen minutes after it is all over.
Junior is better served by paying attention to what is happening around him and protecting himself than in calling Dad or Mom for help. It's hard to Run, Hide, or Fight if one is busy calling Mommy and Daddy to complain about the situation.
AFTER it is all over, the school can call all the parents.
For something that happens maybe several times per year,
If your kid goes to a school with active shooter incidents several times per year, perhaps you ought to move. There aren't any such schools, at least in the US, so stop worrying. Is this an issue in France?
Having the "phone" processes is worse than all the network listening services desktop windows has (eg smb, rpc) which serve no purpose on 99% of desktops too?
Tell me which program to run on my tablet to disable "phone" and "location services", similar to the "local services" manager on Windows where I can disable just about anything.
If you know the right two services to disable you can even stop the "mandatory" Windows 10 updates, and even though there's a "don't check for updates" option on my tablet I was forced to update the last two times. Windows beats Android for this level of control hands-down.
I imagine emergency services will be told to buy redundant systems so that computer "A" can update while computer "B" maintains services - or something along those lines.
Who is this "emergency services" who will be ordered to buy and run duplicate systems, and how will these duplicate computers know that one should update while the other does not? Who pays the VOLUNTEERS who are using their own money to run these systems to provide this redundancy?
If Microsoft want control of your desktop, they can damn well pay for the consequences.
That's the funniest thing I've heard all month. Maybe all year. Maybe also the stupidest.
I will run Win 7 as a guest under Debian until the heat death of the universe.
Goody for you. What happens when the software that is providing emergency communications no longer runs under Win 7 and/or cannot get enough hardware control (or performance) while running under a VM, because the useful idiots toeing the Microsoft line provide code that won't run otherwise? You are irrelevant. You're brilliant and you'd never provide your time and money trying to help other people in distress. A lot of people are more generous, and they'll be roped in.
If I'm ever required to run software that will only run under Windows Managed Desktop, it too will run in a VM.
You have no concept of the problem. Your copy of the software running under Win 10 in your VM crashes and burns because of a
mandatory update to the DaaS OS. How nice.
thanks to the 10th Amendment giving it the right to be so!
The 10th amendment does not give the state of Washington the right to regulate gun ownership because the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT has already prohibited infringement upon the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms. Here, let's look at the 10th amendment in its entirety:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
The 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution PROHIBITS the states from infringing upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms. The 10th Amendment is SPECIFIC in excluding "powers... prohibited by [the Constitution] to the States".
Note further that the 2nd Amendment does not limit "Congress" as the 1st Amendment does. "Congress shall make no laws..." is not found in the 2nd, it says simply that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." This is the law of the land -- the entire country, including the various States therein.
The 2nd Amendment explains that the reason for "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" is for "A well regulated Militia"
NO, it does not. It says the right exists, period. It neither needs to provide a list of reasons for an inalienable right to exist, nor does it do so. It has one example of why the right is considered important enough to enumerate in the Bill of Rights, which is a descriptive clause, not a prescriptive one. I.e., it describes something, does not require it.
If you don't believe me, compare that with the 1st Amendment which places no conditions on freedom of speech.
I do not believe you, because I READ the 2nd amendment and see that it puts no conditions upon the RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE. It does not say "the right of people who are members of a well regulated militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." It mentions the importance of a well regulated militia, and THEN proclaims that the right of the PEOPLE shall not be infringed. Simple English.
The fact that they carefully and deliberately added these conditions to the 2nd Amendment should not be taken lightly.
Now it is "conditions" and not just one condition. The FACT is that there is no condition. Nothing in the 2nd Amendment says it is limited to "militia members". Not a single word. You're making that up. The fact that the 2nd Amendment says that the right OF THE PEOPLE shall not be infringed should not be taken lightly.
Switch to Android. Making a desktop version of Android would not be hard for Google.
Cool. A desktop computer with a few "phone" processes that you can't get rid of, just like I can't get rid of them on my tablet. And a "location manager" that runs 24/7.
No, I don't think Android will be the choice of people who flee Windows. I think I'll dig out my old CP/M disks...
They aren't targeting corporate users they are targeting the mass market idiot consumer,
Unfortunately a lot of people will get roped in because idiots who aren't targeted for this will happily ride along.
I participate in a system that is intended to provide emergency communications via radio, with something that looks like email. I say "looks like" because it isn't, and doesn't obey many of the RFC for email. This system is based on... Windows. It only runs on Windows 7 now because they haven't figured out how to break it like they broke it on Windows XP. Windows 10 is the preferred platform.
The people in charge of this platform are die-hard zealots for Windows, including every patch and update as soon as it comes out. If you mention that you have disabled Win 10 updates you will be set upon as if you are a bear raiding their honey hive. You will be branded as an outlaw who is setting them up for bots and attacks and personal assaults, even if you are a computer professional who knows how to defend a system against such things without needing Microsoft controlling your devices.
There are REPEATED stories of how Win 10 updates break this system for users, many of whom are providing the gateways between radio and the network. Some of them are unattended, distant sites that can become critical communications resources in a disaster or emergency, and yet it's ok if they crash and burn because Microsoft issued a patch that changes how the sound system works (just one example of failure).
Once Desktop As A Service becomes standard, these folks will leap upon it and cling to it like it's a liferaft and they're drowning rats. It won't matter if they've given complete control of their system on a large scale to a company that does not care if their updates break it, and break it in a way that it cannot recover without significant time and effort on the part of the users. ("Reinstall windows, then reinstall the software..." is a common "fix". Or just "uninstall and then delete the root directory that contains the software, then reinstall from scratch" is the most common "fix". The fact that the software installs in the root directory of the boot disk isn't an issue for them... the computer is theirs once you install their software. It has no other use. Oh, "install teamviewer and I'll remote in and fix it for you" is the standard op for minor fixes.)
There are some open-source helpers to this system. You can run a gateway on linux. There's not much to a gateway, after all. It's just a pipeline to the visual basic code now running in the AWS cloud. When you know that the INTERNET side of the "email" system was written entirely in VB you'll understand how Microsoft-locked it is.
They'll be right on board with DaaS. And anyone who wants to participate in that emergency services system will get dragged into the mud with them.
4) Please don't ask me about printed guns. I have no interest in the subject.
It's pretty clear you have an interest in the subject if you put up a sign like this. You have no understanding of the subject, but you do have an interest.
As you can see, it puts the right to keep and bear arms within the context of a well-regulated militia,
No, it clearly does not. It lists ONE of many possible reasons why the right of THE PEOPLE (not "the militia") to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Descriptive clause.
The U.S. Constitution is silent about any right to keep and bear arms outside of a well-regulated militia
You quoted it and then claim it is silent? Are you paid to spread disinformation, or do you do it just for yucks?
and is therefore left up to the states as per the 10th Amendment.
The power to infringe upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not a prohibition limited specifically to the federal government. The prohibition is blanket, and thus applies to the states, too. The powers prohibited to the states are not suddenly granted back by the 10th. The 14th has the "equal protection" clause you need to get past, as well.
This is solved law. The right belongs to the people, and the people are not the same thing as "the militia". Even when male adults were expected to be participants, there were people who could not, and they, too, are covered by the 2nd amendment since they are people.
If you're criticizing and not taking legal action, it makes precisely no difference at all.
Of course it makes a difference. The solution is different. For a "government-granted monopoly" for a cable company, you send the information to the federal DOJ and they can prosecute. Also, as specifically mentioned in the law, if YOU are denied a competing franchise, YOU can sue. I cannot sue on your behalf. You cannot sue on behalf of anyone else.
If it is a de facto monopoly, there is no lawsuit. No law is being broken. If nobody wants to compete, that's their FREE CHOICE. You can't force another company to come compete against an incumbent. Who are YOU going to sue because nobody else wants to run a cable company in Rochester, NY, for example? What legal action do you think is possible?
Slashdot Mirror
Vouchers do not eliminate public schools. Where education vouchers have been implemented,
He's saying his system would eliminate them. What has been done before was incomplete and biased towards failure.
Where education vouchers have been implemented, 80-90% of students stay in the public schools.
And in the proposed system, 100% of the students would be in vouchered schools. If the existing public school was good enough to keep 80-90% of the students, then it would keep 80-90% of the students when it was converted to voucher-based.
The threat of losing students (and revenue) causes the public schools to rapidly improve,
I think that was the point. Eliminate the public schools and make them all vouchered. If the threat of adding a vouchered school to an area made the public schools improve, then so would becoming a vouchered school. It's the threat of students leaving that forces improvements, and that happens either way.
and since they have the advantage of pre-existing infrastructure (buildings, teachers, curriculum, etc.) they usually end up keeping most of the students.
Oh, I see. You think the statement "eliminate public schools" meant "tear down the buildings, throw all the bits into the trash, and start over from scratch". Of course that wouldn't happen. "Eliminate public schools for a voucher system" means that the current public schools are converted, including all buildings and stuff inside them, and competition is created for new schools.
Actually, it's not so bad in most parts of the country.
"Historic Districts" are all over the place, and if you ever find yourself living in one you'll change your opinion of how much power NIMBYs have. When you can't replace your old rotted out windows with new high-tech energy conserving ones because they don't look the same as the old rotted out ones, you'll know. If you have a commercial building and want to get rid of a high-maintenance gable facade because it costs too much to keep safe, and the city tells you you can't because the building you allegedly own had a gable facade in 1911, you'll know.
San Francisco is just one (perhaps the most) pathological example.
Small town historical commissions are pretty pathological, too, and usually quite litigious.
The irony is when we finally get UBI, it will be the progressive left that takes the credit
No, when the economy tanks and everyone is poor because nobody has to work anymore and there is nobody left to pay the taxes to hand out UBI to everyone, the left will blame the right, just like they tried blaming Bush and the right for the inevitable banking disaster that came from CRA and Barney frank. The "progressive left" will start by denying there is a problem and then will switch to pointing fingers at the other side for the failure they themselves created.
We saw a bit of this in the 2004 Florida election, where the rules were "poke a hole in a piece of paper to indicate your vote" and the wrong guy won. The rules got changed to be "poke a hole or make a dent in a piece of paper, or leave a psychic impression on the paper that our psychic vote counters can detect as a vote" and the wrong guy STILL won. That's the problem with counting psychic votes -- the wrong guy's psychics might be better than yours.
The problem with changing to a "popular vote" system is, of course, that smaller states will get ignored because they will have proportionately fewer votes under a popular vote system than under the current electoral vote one.
And when he decided to commit mass murder he first killed her in order to take those weapons.
But if only we made murder illegal then he wouldn't have murdered her and been able to steal her guns and kill other people with them.
Oh. wait.
All you can conclude from this is that Trump doesn't understand what a 3D printed gun is or how they are made or how they are distributed, and when the NRA tried to explain it to him he just got even more confused.
No, all YOU can conclude from that is what you said, because you have an implicit bias that has you wanting to conclude that.
The fact is, he said he was looking into this issue (which implies he's not an expert on 3D printing or how easy it is, not that he doesn't know what a 3D printed gun is), that he spoke with a national organization of gun owners (who one could assume have some expertise in a matter relating to guns, just like ARRL would have expertise in radio stuff and AMA for medical stuff), and that something about the issue doesn't make sense. He didn't specify what. I think it is reasonable to assume that he meant that the injunction doesn't make sense, but you want to assume that nothing at all makes sense to Trump so that is how you read it.
If Obama had said the same thing, would you have assumed Obama didn't understand anything at all, or would you have assumed he understood enough to realize that what the court (and plaintiff states) were doing didn't make sense?
By the way, I doubt that Trump tried to trademark the word "doesna", so your ability to accurately quote a tweet comes into question. Perhaps "preview" before you post and fix obvious stuff like this?
A representative Democracy would have results in Hillary winning the election because she had the majority vote.
When your argument for who would have won the US presidential election includes "majority vote", you've just admitted your ignorance of the presidential election process. You are not alone; the media feed this ignorance by reporting what they call the "popular" or "majority" vote. Lots of people are confused just like you are.
Read the Constitution. Look for the process defined therein for electing the US President. See for yourself if it creates a "popular vote" system or something different. (Hint: it's "something different".)
The truth is, the lowest political subdivision at which a "popular vote" for President is used is "the states", who use this result to allocate their electors to the Electoral College. There IS no "add all the state's popular vote results together and create a national "popular vote" system in the US Constitution. This is for a good reason, and those states that are stupid enough to join the effort to allocate all their electors bases on the results of the "national popular vote" are, well, really really stupid. They are letting some other state's voters determine the outcome of their own election. Will they let other states elect their Senators, too?
and will even get on a forum and double down in their ignorance despite there being a mountain of proof and evidence in the form of writing by the very founders of the nation.
Oh, the irony of this statement is too monumental to ignore, Mr. "majority vote".
The cheapest 3d printer I can find (which I'm not 100% sure can even make the appropriate size pieces) is something like $220.
Let Me Amazon That For You (LMATFY, vs. lmgtfy): $149.99
I'm sure they're expensive to print... not many people have 3D printers,
My Uni library has a 3D printing service. They charge something like 10 to 17 cents an ounce to cover the materials. I don't know if they'd recognize the parts to a 3D printed gun or not, or what they would do if they did. You can go to a web page to submit your purchasing details and a printable file and they'll send you an email telling you when you can come pick it up.
Or, to avoid all the hassle, Amazon sells 3D printers, many of which are less then $200.
the results are likely to be lower quality durability and reliability than commercially available firearms.
Walmart makes a fortune selling products which are lower quality, durability, and reliability for less money than better stuff. People who 3D print guns are not doing it so they have a high quality, durable, reliable weapon, they are doing it for one of two reasons. Either it is a novelty item or because they cannot legally buy something they intend to use once and throw away. In either case, those three qualities are irrelevant.
The tenth just says that the federal government only has those powers stated in the Constitution and everything else is up to the states.
Almost. The 10th ALSO says that what is left to the states and the people cannot be something that is already prohibited by the constitution. "Shall not be infringed" is a prohibition. The "right to infringe" is not passed on to the states or the people. This also includes mundane things like ex-post-facto laws and bills of attainder.
A well regulated Militia
is a phrase that appears in a descriptive clause in the 2nd amendment. It describes why one of the inalienable rights was considered important enough to enumerate in the bill of rights. It does not create the right nor does it limit it. The actual active part of the 2nd amendment is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." It's the right of "the people", not "militia members". Had the founders wanted it to apply only to members of "a well regulated militia", they would have said so.
What's to prevent that person from replacing the metal part(s) with plastic or ceramic parts to bypass the metal detectors?
Nothing in any law prevents any criminal from breaking the law. Laws cannot accomplish that magic feat, and thus aren't written to try.
Laws make certain acts illegal, so that if you commit that act and are caught you can be punished. In this case, if someone is caught with a completely plastic or ceramic gun that violates that law, they can be prosecuted for that act, whether or not they intended to use it to rob a bank or hijack an airplane. If they are caught breaking some other law (such as trying to sneak it past TSA), they get the additional charge added to the others. If they are caught before they try to sneak it past TSA, then they can at least be charged with that crime.
you will see a fair few metallic elements not limited to magnesium, tin, lead and titanium.
I count exactly two "metallic elements" in the list of possible smokeless powder components: tin and bismuth. Lead has been banned for environmental reasons. Tin and bismuth are noted as being more likely included as compounds. In any case, no, as you can clearly see in the wiki page for smokeless powers, metal components are not required.
and I proposed in a plastic gun the bullet counts
No, the bullet does not count as part of a gun.
Las Vegas
Las Vegas what? I google for "school shooting las vegas" and find nothing relevant.
What school in Las Vegas had a shooter with an automatic weapon? Cite a link.
No, the Bill of Rights does not apply to state governments, only the federal government.
It is a shame that you did not read the wikipedia article that you referenced. The 2nd amendment puts no limits on who is prohibited from making the laws infringing the right to keep and bear arms, the 10th amendment excludes prohibited actions when passing the powers on to the states, and the 14th doesn't need to mention firearms specifically because it covers the whole thing.
Please, stop. Rights is rights, and you yammering about how we don't have them is just painful to see.
How will kids call their parents when a shooter with automatic weapons bursts into the school?
Why would you expect them to? What do you expect Dad to do if Junior calls to tell him there is a shooter in the school? Drop what he's doing, pull the AK47 out of the closet, and run down to the school to help? No, Dad would just be in the way, and more likely to get shot by the first responders as he walks in the door carrying a gun fifteen minutes after it is all over.
Junior is better served by paying attention to what is happening around him and protecting himself than in calling Dad or Mom for help. It's hard to Run, Hide, or Fight if one is busy calling Mommy and Daddy to complain about the situation.
AFTER it is all over, the school can call all the parents.
For something that happens maybe several times per year,
If your kid goes to a school with active shooter incidents several times per year, perhaps you ought to move. There aren't any such schools, at least in the US, so stop worrying. Is this an issue in France?
Having the "phone" processes is worse than all the network listening services desktop windows has (eg smb, rpc) which serve no purpose on 99% of desktops too?
Tell me which program to run on my tablet to disable "phone" and "location services", similar to the "local services" manager on Windows where I can disable just about anything.
If you know the right two services to disable you can even stop the "mandatory" Windows 10 updates, and even though there's a "don't check for updates" option on my tablet I was forced to update the last two times. Windows beats Android for this level of control hands-down.
I imagine emergency services will be told to buy redundant systems so that computer "A" can update while computer "B" maintains services - or something along those lines.
Who is this "emergency services" who will be ordered to buy and run duplicate systems, and how will these duplicate computers know that one should update while the other does not? Who pays the VOLUNTEERS who are using their own money to run these systems to provide this redundancy?
If Microsoft want control of your desktop, they can damn well pay for the consequences.
That's the funniest thing I've heard all month. Maybe all year. Maybe also the stupidest.
I will run Win 7 as a guest under Debian until the heat death of the universe.
Goody for you. What happens when the software that is providing emergency communications no longer runs under Win 7 and/or cannot get enough hardware control (or performance) while running under a VM, because the useful idiots toeing the Microsoft line provide code that won't run otherwise? You are irrelevant. You're brilliant and you'd never provide your time and money trying to help other people in distress. A lot of people are more generous, and they'll be roped in.
If I'm ever required to run software that will only run under Windows Managed Desktop, it too will run in a VM.
You have no concept of the problem. Your copy of the software running under Win 10 in your VM crashes and burns because of a mandatory update to the DaaS OS. How nice.
I'm learning a lot about iptables these days.
Iptables is irrelevant.
thanks to the 10th Amendment giving it the right to be so!
The 10th amendment does not give the state of Washington the right to regulate gun ownership because the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT has already prohibited infringement upon the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms. Here, let's look at the 10th amendment in its entirety:
The 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution PROHIBITS the states from infringing upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms. The 10th Amendment is SPECIFIC in excluding "powers ... prohibited by [the Constitution] to the States".
Note further that the 2nd Amendment does not limit "Congress" as the 1st Amendment does. "Congress shall make no laws..." is not found in the 2nd, it says simply that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." This is the law of the land -- the entire country, including the various States therein.
The 2nd Amendment explains that the reason for "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" is for "A well regulated Militia"
NO, it does not. It says the right exists, period. It neither needs to provide a list of reasons for an inalienable right to exist, nor does it do so. It has one example of why the right is considered important enough to enumerate in the Bill of Rights, which is a descriptive clause, not a prescriptive one. I.e., it describes something, does not require it.
If you don't believe me, compare that with the 1st Amendment which places no conditions on freedom of speech.
I do not believe you, because I READ the 2nd amendment and see that it puts no conditions upon the RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE. It does not say "the right of people who are members of a well regulated militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." It mentions the importance of a well regulated militia, and THEN proclaims that the right of the PEOPLE shall not be infringed. Simple English.
The fact that they carefully and deliberately added these conditions to the 2nd Amendment should not be taken lightly.
Now it is "conditions" and not just one condition. The FACT is that there is no condition. Nothing in the 2nd Amendment says it is limited to "militia members". Not a single word. You're making that up. The fact that the 2nd Amendment says that the right OF THE PEOPLE shall not be infringed should not be taken lightly.
Switch to Android. Making a desktop version of Android would not be hard for Google.
Cool. A desktop computer with a few "phone" processes that you can't get rid of, just like I can't get rid of them on my tablet. And a "location manager" that runs 24/7.
No, I don't think Android will be the choice of people who flee Windows. I think I'll dig out my old CP/M disks ...
They aren't targeting corporate users they are targeting the mass market idiot consumer,
Unfortunately a lot of people will get roped in because idiots who aren't targeted for this will happily ride along.
I participate in a system that is intended to provide emergency communications via radio, with something that looks like email. I say "looks like" because it isn't, and doesn't obey many of the RFC for email. This system is based on ... Windows. It only runs on Windows 7 now because they haven't figured out how to break it like they broke it on Windows XP. Windows 10 is the preferred platform.
The people in charge of this platform are die-hard zealots for Windows, including every patch and update as soon as it comes out. If you mention that you have disabled Win 10 updates you will be set upon as if you are a bear raiding their honey hive. You will be branded as an outlaw who is setting them up for bots and attacks and personal assaults, even if you are a computer professional who knows how to defend a system against such things without needing Microsoft controlling your devices.
There are REPEATED stories of how Win 10 updates break this system for users, many of whom are providing the gateways between radio and the network. Some of them are unattended, distant sites that can become critical communications resources in a disaster or emergency, and yet it's ok if they crash and burn because Microsoft issued a patch that changes how the sound system works (just one example of failure).
Once Desktop As A Service becomes standard, these folks will leap upon it and cling to it like it's a liferaft and they're drowning rats. It won't matter if they've given complete control of their system on a large scale to a company that does not care if their updates break it, and break it in a way that it cannot recover without significant time and effort on the part of the users. ("Reinstall windows, then reinstall the software ..." is a common "fix". Or just "uninstall and then delete the root directory that contains the software, then reinstall from scratch" is the most common "fix". The fact that the software installs in the root directory of the boot disk isn't an issue for them ... the computer is theirs once you install their software. It has no other use. Oh, "install teamviewer and I'll remote in and fix it for you" is the standard op for minor fixes.)
There are some open-source helpers to this system. You can run a gateway on linux. There's not much to a gateway, after all. It's just a pipeline to the visual basic code now running in the AWS cloud. When you know that the INTERNET side of the "email" system was written entirely in VB you'll understand how Microsoft-locked it is.
They'll be right on board with DaaS. And anyone who wants to participate in that emergency services system will get dragged into the mud with them.
4) Please don't ask me about printed guns. I have no interest in the subject.
It's pretty clear you have an interest in the subject if you put up a sign like this. You have no understanding of the subject, but you do have an interest.
As you can see, it puts the right to keep and bear arms within the context of a well-regulated militia,
No, it clearly does not. It lists ONE of many possible reasons why the right of THE PEOPLE (not "the militia") to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Descriptive clause.
The U.S. Constitution is silent about any right to keep and bear arms outside of a well-regulated militia
You quoted it and then claim it is silent? Are you paid to spread disinformation, or do you do it just for yucks?
and is therefore left up to the states as per the 10th Amendment.
The power to infringe upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not a prohibition limited specifically to the federal government. The prohibition is blanket, and thus applies to the states, too. The powers prohibited to the states are not suddenly granted back by the 10th. The 14th has the "equal protection" clause you need to get past, as well.
This is solved law. The right belongs to the people, and the people are not the same thing as "the militia". Even when male adults were expected to be participants, there were people who could not, and they, too, are covered by the 2nd amendment since they are people.
If you're criticizing and not taking legal action, it makes precisely no difference at all.
Of course it makes a difference. The solution is different. For a "government-granted monopoly" for a cable company, you send the information to the federal DOJ and they can prosecute. Also, as specifically mentioned in the law, if YOU are denied a competing franchise, YOU can sue. I cannot sue on your behalf. You cannot sue on behalf of anyone else.
If it is a de facto monopoly, there is no lawsuit. No law is being broken. If nobody wants to compete, that's their FREE CHOICE. You can't force another company to come compete against an incumbent. Who are YOU going to sue because nobody else wants to run a cable company in Rochester, NY, for example? What legal action do you think is possible?