I'd say it's your right to own a weapon that can turn Bambi into a black cloud of smoke, and you don't necessarily have a right to shoot at Bambi with your weapon.
Speaking as a leftist who isn't necessarily fond of widespread gun ownership but is less fond of ignoring the Constitution....
The Second Amendment has that odd tag clause in front, and that's confused things for years. The only thing I'm sure of there is the word "militia", which refers to a sort of military force. Therefore, the only thing I'm sure of about the Second Amendment is that it applies to military weapons. I am of the opinion that the Second is intended to allow private individuals to purchase and practice with current military weapons, which has not been legal (in the sense of laws Congress passes and the Supreme Court doesn't nullify) since the 1980s. There is no legal way I can purchase a modern infantry rifle.
I'm no longer a member of the Unorganized Militia of the United States, and haven't been for over fifteen years. My wife never was a member. I have no legal duty to come to the aid of a fellow citizen, except perhaps to call 911.
The problem with not calling out racism or sexism unless I'm absolutely sure it's part of a specific incident is that it's usually hard to tell for each individual incident.
People have made experiments by making up resumes and putting different names on them before sending them out. Without inside information, it's impossible to know whether a particular decision was racist or sexist, but when the results are in it turns out that there are different statistical responses depending on whether the name is male or female, and whether it's black-sounding or white-sounding. Obviously there is racism and sexism going on, because otherwise the reactions would not be statistically distinguishable.
So, what are we supposed to do? We shouldn't accuse any individual receiving the resumes of racism or sexism, because we can't tell. (We can tell in extreme circumstances, We do need to recognize that racism and sexism are occurring.
In the Berkeley riot I bothered reading about, apparently the left-wing demonstration was reasonably peaceful until masked people arrived as a group and started breaking things. Apparently, nobody got the political affiliation of the masked people.
Consider what happened with iTunes. It made it easier to buy music, and, for some inexplicable reason, people bought more music.
People who feel entitled to music and movies and stuff don't necessarily feel that they're entitled for them for free. Often they're willing to pay a reasonable amount for what they want. Make it impossible to buy and they'll torrent.
At least in the US, that's the idea behind patents and copyrights. They're both based on the part of the Constitution that allows temporary monopolies for the purpose of advancing science and the useful arts. When I was young, that's exactly how it worked. Copyright lengths were long enough that nobody would do anything creative because of what they'd earn after, say, 28 years, and they were reasonably temporary in that things would fall into public domain.
It's reasonable to figure that, if nothing after 1923 will ever again enter the public domain, that copyright is eternal and it doesn't matter when you pirate it. You can pirate it now, or you can pirate it after any reasonably Constitutional copyright law would have put it in public domain, and it'll still be piracy. Timelessness can be odd if you think about it in some ways.
What movies from the 2010s will stand the test of time? Can you name even one? I can't.
Sorry, my crystal ball is in the shop, so I can't answer that. I don't know what life will be like in the 2060s, and what people will like. In the 1920s, did people think Metropolis would eventually be one of the most-liked movies of the period? People of the time appear not to have thought so. It wasn't until recently that people have managed to scrape together most of the footage.
And I will assure you that there has been crappy music and crappy movies all my life. Survivor bias is real and active.
Etymology Man would like to note that that's the precise reason they're called "jerry cans", "Jerry" being a somewhat respectful slang term for "German" in the British Army, similar to "Charlie" in the Vietnam War.
Statistically speaking, is there a reliable way to win the lottery? Statistically speaking, does whatever Charlie's mom does (I haven't watched the video) work? I'm an empiricist. Give me some evidence, such as a comparatively better success rate.
Let's see.
- Person one thinks that a deeper expert understanding is a basic requisite.
- Person two intelligently defends other approaches by pointing to evidence that they sometimes work. Person two has also mentioned that the approach used doesn't always work, but does sometimes.
- Person one says that's impossible, misrepresents what person two said, and refuses to acknowledge that there is reason behind what person two said.
- Person two compares person one's behavior to religious belief, since empirical evidence doesn't, and apparently can't, matter to person one.
This conversation is going nowhere, and it's almost completely because you're stuck on your own beliefs about real-world affairs that can't possibly be shaken by something so mundane as evidence.
I know because all the statistics I see tell me that women earn significantly less than men. That's a wage gap, OK? I don't know all the details and exactly what goes into it. Do you refuse to believe someone can talk intelligently about the Sun if they can't explain possible fusion paths?
If we're talking about the situation at present, then, yes, Muslims are a lot more violent on religious grounds. If we're talking about comparing religions as religions, I don't think there's that much inherent difference between Christianity and Islam.
People believing in young-Earth Creationism and similar stupid ideas does not itself harm me. When people start packing that crap into pubic school science classes, it harms all of us.
When I was young (get off my lawn!), we didn't have no compiling computers. However, it was possible to pre-set the lever-based voting machines with votes, and there were ways of disguising that fact.
Of course "welfare" in that clause did not specifically refer to giving money to the poor. It's broader than that. It does include that as a possibility. Moreover, unless you're going to pull a collectivist philosophy on me, the general welfare is the sum of the welfare of each citizen. Giving whatever to specific people would need a bill of attainder, IIRC. Giving money to people meeting certain qualifications doesn't.
In other words, since some people who act under the auspices of the "resist" movement break the law, the whole movement is despicable unless all the Democratic leaders denounce the violence somewhere you happen to notice? There are always lunatic fringes of movements, and as long as I've been following these things it's accepted that lunatic fringes will do bad things.
I said "act under the auspices" and meant it specifically. How many violent people are actually part of the resist movement, and how many are there to discredit the movement? Anyone can show up at a Pastafarian demonstration, mingle, and then commit violence.
The Obama quote, as reported (Snopes couldn't find video, but did find contemporaneous news reports) was not in the context of violence, but was rhetoric to call for a fight against the Republican campaign. In addition, it didn't call for violence, but a not entirely disproportionate response to some sort of attack. If I've got a gun and someone attacks me with a knife, I'm not going to abide by Barsoomian honor and refuse to use a more effective weapon, but it doesn't mean I'm going to shoot anyone who doesn't attack me. If you're going to wave away Trump's remarks about Second Amendment fans going after Clinton and offering to pay legal expenses to anyone attacking a protester at his rally, you're sounding awful picky about Obama, particularly since you have to reach back nine years to get a quote that more or less supports what you're saying.
I don't remember personally accusing him of treason. In peacetime, I doubt that it's possible to commit treason.
Trump is getting money from abroad, but as long as it's from strictly private sources that's constitutional. The question of illegality depends on whether he's getting money from foreign or domestic governments, as the law is pretty clear here. Obviously, that wouldn't be treason, which I don't remember ever accusing him of, but violating the Constitution in business dealings while President is certainly an impeachable offense.
The Constitution says that the electors will be selected according to the individual state's decision. However, once selected, is it legal for a state to constrain the vote? It's certainly legal to have parties supply slates, which will be selected according to the popular vote in the state. That doesn't necessarily mean an elector pledged to a candidate has to vote for that candidate. I haven't heard of any "faithless elector" cases getting into the courts. You mention the 2000 Florida election, but that court case was about how electors are selected, not about what they can legally do (or illegally do - it's conceivable that a vote cast for another candidate would be illegal but binding).
With regard as to who the EC was for, you're thinking of the two votes from the Senators. In fact, slave states had more representation in the House per free citizen, with slaves and other unfree persons counting as 3/5 of a person despite not being able to vote. Basing the number of electors on the Senate and House representation means that slave states got more electors per voter than free states.
As far as my comment on the electors using judgment, I got that from the Federalist Papers, I believe number 68, and I think that can be taken to be part of the original intent. The idea was that the electors would correct some of the popular vote mistakes, that they would not vote for a creature of a foreign government or a popular but unqualified candidate. You can see how well that worked in December 2016.
If they say not the same password as the last thousand, that might work. If they look for similarity, it means that they store the actual password in some form, and that's a bigger security problem than limited password reuse.
I have password reminders on Post-it notes. Nobody is going to be able to figure out the passwords from the reminders without a detailed knowledge of my on-line game and role-playing game characters or familiarity with the novels I've written on Nanowrimo.
And, then, five years later, an audit finds that there is data on AWS that needs to be better secured, and the company gets heavily fined with an unrealistic deadline for conforming to the (possibly unclear) rules.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd say it's your right to own a weapon that can turn Bambi into a black cloud of smoke, and you don't necessarily have a right to shoot at Bambi with your weapon.
Speaking as a leftist who isn't necessarily fond of widespread gun ownership but is less fond of ignoring the Constitution....
The Second Amendment has that odd tag clause in front, and that's confused things for years. The only thing I'm sure of there is the word "militia", which refers to a sort of military force. Therefore, the only thing I'm sure of about the Second Amendment is that it applies to military weapons. I am of the opinion that the Second is intended to allow private individuals to purchase and practice with current military weapons, which has not been legal (in the sense of laws Congress passes and the Supreme Court doesn't nullify) since the 1980s. There is no legal way I can purchase a modern infantry rifle.
I'm no longer a member of the Unorganized Militia of the United States, and haven't been for over fifteen years. My wife never was a member. I have no legal duty to come to the aid of a fellow citizen, except perhaps to call 911.
The problem with not calling out racism or sexism unless I'm absolutely sure it's part of a specific incident is that it's usually hard to tell for each individual incident.
People have made experiments by making up resumes and putting different names on them before sending them out. Without inside information, it's impossible to know whether a particular decision was racist or sexist, but when the results are in it turns out that there are different statistical responses depending on whether the name is male or female, and whether it's black-sounding or white-sounding. Obviously there is racism and sexism going on, because otherwise the reactions would not be statistically distinguishable.
So, what are we supposed to do? We shouldn't accuse any individual receiving the resumes of racism or sexism, because we can't tell. (We can tell in extreme circumstances, We do need to recognize that racism and sexism are occurring.
In the Berkeley riot I bothered reading about, apparently the left-wing demonstration was reasonably peaceful until masked people arrived as a group and started breaking things. Apparently, nobody got the political affiliation of the masked people.
Care to prove that the violent ones are actual leftists and not agents provocateur?
Consider what happened with iTunes. It made it easier to buy music, and, for some inexplicable reason, people bought more music.
People who feel entitled to music and movies and stuff don't necessarily feel that they're entitled for them for free. Often they're willing to pay a reasonable amount for what they want. Make it impossible to buy and they'll torrent.
At least in the US, that's the idea behind patents and copyrights. They're both based on the part of the Constitution that allows temporary monopolies for the purpose of advancing science and the useful arts. When I was young, that's exactly how it worked. Copyright lengths were long enough that nobody would do anything creative because of what they'd earn after, say, 28 years, and they were reasonably temporary in that things would fall into public domain.
It's reasonable to figure that, if nothing after 1923 will ever again enter the public domain, that copyright is eternal and it doesn't matter when you pirate it. You can pirate it now, or you can pirate it after any reasonably Constitutional copyright law would have put it in public domain, and it'll still be piracy. Timelessness can be odd if you think about it in some ways.
Sorry, my crystal ball is in the shop, so I can't answer that. I don't know what life will be like in the 2060s, and what people will like. In the 1920s, did people think Metropolis would eventually be one of the most-liked movies of the period? People of the time appear not to have thought so. It wasn't until recently that people have managed to scrape together most of the footage.
And I will assure you that there has been crappy music and crappy movies all my life. Survivor bias is real and active.
The Beatles made some darn good music, although I don't consider it the best music ever.
Etymology Man would like to note that that's the precise reason they're called "jerry cans", "Jerry" being a somewhat respectful slang term for "German" in the British Army, similar to "Charlie" in the Vietnam War.
Statistically speaking, is there a reliable way to win the lottery? Statistically speaking, does whatever Charlie's mom does (I haven't watched the video) work? I'm an empiricist. Give me some evidence, such as a comparatively better success rate.
Let's see.
- Person one thinks that a deeper expert understanding is a basic requisite.
- Person two intelligently defends other approaches by pointing to evidence that they sometimes work. Person two has also mentioned that the approach used doesn't always work, but does sometimes.
- Person one says that's impossible, misrepresents what person two said, and refuses to acknowledge that there is reason behind what person two said.
- Person two compares person one's behavior to religious belief, since empirical evidence doesn't, and apparently can't, matter to person one.
This conversation is going nowhere, and it's almost completely because you're stuck on your own beliefs about real-world affairs that can't possibly be shaken by something so mundane as evidence.
I know because all the statistics I see tell me that women earn significantly less than men. That's a wage gap, OK? I don't know all the details and exactly what goes into it. Do you refuse to believe someone can talk intelligently about the Sun if they can't explain possible fusion paths?
If we're talking about the situation at present, then, yes, Muslims are a lot more violent on religious grounds. If we're talking about comparing religions as religions, I don't think there's that much inherent difference between Christianity and Islam.
People believing in young-Earth Creationism and similar stupid ideas does not itself harm me. When people start packing that crap into pubic school science classes, it harms all of us.
When I was young (get off my lawn!), we didn't have no compiling computers. However, it was possible to pre-set the lever-based voting machines with votes, and there were ways of disguising that fact.
Of course "welfare" in that clause did not specifically refer to giving money to the poor. It's broader than that. It does include that as a possibility. Moreover, unless you're going to pull a collectivist philosophy on me, the general welfare is the sum of the welfare of each citizen. Giving whatever to specific people would need a bill of attainder, IIRC. Giving money to people meeting certain qualifications doesn't.
In other words, since some people who act under the auspices of the "resist" movement break the law, the whole movement is despicable unless all the Democratic leaders denounce the violence somewhere you happen to notice? There are always lunatic fringes of movements, and as long as I've been following these things it's accepted that lunatic fringes will do bad things.
I said "act under the auspices" and meant it specifically. How many violent people are actually part of the resist movement, and how many are there to discredit the movement? Anyone can show up at a Pastafarian demonstration, mingle, and then commit violence.
The Obama quote, as reported (Snopes couldn't find video, but did find contemporaneous news reports) was not in the context of violence, but was rhetoric to call for a fight against the Republican campaign. In addition, it didn't call for violence, but a not entirely disproportionate response to some sort of attack. If I've got a gun and someone attacks me with a knife, I'm not going to abide by Barsoomian honor and refuse to use a more effective weapon, but it doesn't mean I'm going to shoot anyone who doesn't attack me. If you're going to wave away Trump's remarks about Second Amendment fans going after Clinton and offering to pay legal expenses to anyone attacking a protester at his rally, you're sounding awful picky about Obama, particularly since you have to reach back nine years to get a quote that more or less supports what you're saying.
I don't remember personally accusing him of treason. In peacetime, I doubt that it's possible to commit treason.
Trump is getting money from abroad, but as long as it's from strictly private sources that's constitutional. The question of illegality depends on whether he's getting money from foreign or domestic governments, as the law is pretty clear here. Obviously, that wouldn't be treason, which I don't remember ever accusing him of, but violating the Constitution in business dealings while President is certainly an impeachable offense.
The Constitution says that the electors will be selected according to the individual state's decision. However, once selected, is it legal for a state to constrain the vote? It's certainly legal to have parties supply slates, which will be selected according to the popular vote in the state. That doesn't necessarily mean an elector pledged to a candidate has to vote for that candidate. I haven't heard of any "faithless elector" cases getting into the courts. You mention the 2000 Florida election, but that court case was about how electors are selected, not about what they can legally do (or illegally do - it's conceivable that a vote cast for another candidate would be illegal but binding).
With regard as to who the EC was for, you're thinking of the two votes from the Senators. In fact, slave states had more representation in the House per free citizen, with slaves and other unfree persons counting as 3/5 of a person despite not being able to vote. Basing the number of electors on the Senate and House representation means that slave states got more electors per voter than free states.
As far as my comment on the electors using judgment, I got that from the Federalist Papers, I believe number 68, and I think that can be taken to be part of the original intent. The idea was that the electors would correct some of the popular vote mistakes, that they would not vote for a creature of a foreign government or a popular but unqualified candidate. You can see how well that worked in December 2016.
No, but the compiler would make a difference. If you were compiling twice, once for 32 bits and once for 64, the meaning of "long" could change.
If they say not the same password as the last thousand, that might work. If they look for similarity, it means that they store the actual password in some form, and that's a bigger security problem than limited password reuse.
I have password reminders on Post-it notes. Nobody is going to be able to figure out the passwords from the reminders without a detailed knowledge of my on-line game and role-playing game characters or familiarity with the novels I've written on Nanowrimo.
And, then, five years later, an audit finds that there is data on AWS that needs to be better secured, and the company gets heavily fined with an unrealistic deadline for conforming to the (possibly unclear) rules.
Do you work at the same place my wife does?