Since an "arm" is defined as a "weapon", then you see no limit. The qualifier in "small arms" is there for a reason - because "arms" are unlimited. I don't think you will find much company. Your suggestion that maybe the 2nd Amendment needs to be qualified is well taken, although arguably a guy driving an M1A2 tank with a nuclear demolition charge aboard down the street is not "bearing arms", and a lot of us think it is plain enough that the clear intent is not to allow unlimited weapons in private ownership.
The Constitution is supposed to be interpreted with common sense. If it tried to spell everything out to the nth detail, it would be 100 times its size. It would probably be the size of the tax code or the Affordable Care Act, and nobody who finished reading the 5000th page could possible remember what it said on page 10.
Interesting that you phrase that control in the past tense. A two-bit IED kills you just as dead as a million dollar smart weapon. And you don't measure the victor by who suffers the least casualtes. The victor is the one left standing on scene after the fury ends. The one who, in the end, cares more about the outcome and is willing to endure. As such, the best it can possibly end for the US at this point is a draw. The worst is an outright loss.
So I'll tell you what happens when you pit guys with rifles and IEDs against a standing army and air force. A lot of people on both sides are killed and maimed, but eventually the standing army finds something else to do, or in the domestic case gets fed up and goes home, the indigenous people endure, and their aspirations have not been killed. Remember Vietnam?
If the purpose of the Afghanistan conflict was to punish and run off an evil regime supporting the civilized world's enemies, that was accomplished with stunning effectiveness and economy within a year. That was the time we should have declared victory, left a threat that the same devastatioin would be visited again if such an evil regime ever returned, and left the hellhole alone. The remaining 12 years were just dick-yanking - not the guys on the scene; the morons directing US policy. Leave the hubris of nation building entirely to those whose business it is - those who live there.
Much as I agree with your points a, b, and c, actually your oath to support and defend the Constitution would obligate you to honor this amendment, properly enacted, just like any other part of the Constitution. I don't think the oath restricts you after your term of enlistment ends, though. You fall back on the same love of country and countrymen, and if the Constitution were to be so corrupted, then the regime would become the enemy.
To a European, used to being able to walk down the street without being threatened by guns...
Baaa. Baaa. Get a clue. You are not free from being threatened by guns. Any terrorist or criminal willing to break the law can acquire a gun and threaten you with it. What you are free from is the opportunity for self defense in broadly equal terms, or being helped by other lawful citizens on the scene.
Oh, terrorists can run the US military out of Iraq and Afghanistan with its tail between its legs, but the US' own more numerous citizens could never hope to do the same? Really?
A 30-03 cartridge in a bolt action rifle, or a 38 special in a revolver, kills you just as dead as an AK-47 whether you are surrounded by artillery, tanks, and airplanes or not. Even if the military is all wearing body armor, I bet their faces and limbs are exposed.
I guess we should tell Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah and other non-state lethal actors they can disband because they can't hope to stand up to, or to tie up the most powerful and well-trained militaries in the world in protracted conflict.
Do you think there are ANY weapons which should be restricted in terms of private ownership? An M1A2 tank? A 155mm howitzer? How about a nuclear bomb? These are all well within the financial means of billionaires to acquire. I am asking seriously. I consider myself as strong a supporter of gun rights as anyone, but I see the need for SOME limits. Most likely I would draw the line roughly at machine guns - I mean machine guns should be fine, but the above examples should all be limited. Clearly, nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons are way over the line.
Remember, disarming people is to keep the strong in power.
Of course. That's because you CAN'T disarm "people". Only a moron thinks you can. All you can do is disarm the MEEK people. The PREDATORS will find a way to arm themselves. You fools out there, try to think. I know it's hard, but try. The police are not there to protect people. They are there to protect the State. The "protect and serve" is just fascist window dressing.
I understand very clearly the difference between accumulated debt and rate of growth of debt (which is what the deficit is).
At the same time, you should understand that you can't "inherit" a deficit. The idea is poppycock. The budget for each year stands fresh on its own. You can change a massive deficit to a surplus in a single year just by adjusting the numbers in your budget. Yes, interest on the debt (which IS inherited), and a piss poor economic climate (which is inherited to some extent) are burdens on the budget, but it within the power of the budgeters to counteract these. I don't claim it would be an easy choice to do it, or to live with, but it is in point of fact utterly trivial procedurally to do.
A final point I'll throw in just to make the whole discussion even more fun. No President has any control over the budget beyond: 1) Submitting one, which can be mutilated or just replaced by the legislature. 2) Signing off on whatever budget DOES get passed by the legislature (if there is one). 3) Using the bully pulpit, which is not trivial, but still it's just talk and persuasion.
In passing, I call attention to the point that those responsible for making a budget can subvert the whole process by just failing to execute their duty. Both the President and Congress have been guilty of that.
One could argue that a President can take unilateral action, like engaging the military in action, which necessarily leads to hemmorhage in the budget, so yes, that has to be mitigated. However, the legislature can still use the war powers act to limit the effect by limiting the time scale - IF, and it is a big IF, they are willing to stick their neck out.
There's also the fact that Fluorinert is potentially toxic, but it's also a greenhouse hazard. One would hope that 3M learned their lessons in the development of Novec and it's not an environmental hazard.
All right, I'll bite. Aside from "OMG, it is, gasp, a CHEMICAL", if it is inert, how can it be toxic? From the MSDS for Fluorinert FC-40:
"Not classified as hazardous according to OSHA Hazard Communication Standard, 29 CFR 1910.1200." "No occupational exposure limit values exist for any of the components listed in Section 3 of this SDS." "Skin protection is not required." "Inhalation: Vapors from heated material may cause irritation of the respiratory system. Signs/symptoms may include cough, sneezing, nasal discharge, headache, hoarseness, and nose and throat pain." "Skin Contact: Contact with the skin during product use is not expected to result in significant irritation." "Eye Contact: Vapors from heated material may cause eye irritation. Signs/symptoms may include redness, swelling, pain, tearing, and blurred or hazy vision."
Note, when they are talking about "heated", they are talking about heating to well above any proper operating temperature - greater than 200 C. The stuff CAN break down chemically under such conditions, and noxious/toxic products result. More or less the same as any fluorocarbon, including the refrigerant in your refrigerator.
It is non flammable, period. There is no flash point.
As for the GHG designation, absolutely true. However, essentially no evaporation of Fluorinert into the open should occur in a properly designed and maintained system.
Bubbles will appear on each wire, the negative side is hydrogen and the positive side is oxygen
Using NaCl as you describe to make the water conductive also results in the evolution of Cl - chlorine gas - more than oxygen. If your wires are bare copper, the metal also migrates from the positive wire to the negative wire, turning the solution nasty blue-green in the process.
Some caution is advised. Chlorine gas is toxic. It was used in shells to poison troops in WW1. Of course the amount is quite slight in the experiment.
Been a long time since I've bought Seagate as I've had great reliability from WD but out of curiosity, what's the cost?
We won't know shit until Newegg begins to stock them, maybe in about 5 years. Cost data from manufacturers, even when you can get it, is always useless because in the real world nobody pays anywhere near list price.
Remote control [anything] should always be set up to fail in a "safe" manner, for various definitions of safe.
You can't make a remote-controlled or autonomous flying vehicle which cannot endanger anyone. You can mitigate the likelihood of endangerment, but ten seconds of thought will make it obvious you can never ensure it will always fail "safe".
OK. Your time costs more than 10 MB of RAM. But does it cost more than 10 MB of RAM times 100 apps times one million users? In the latter case, the guys who collectively write the 100 apps are costing the users collectively an extremely large amount of resources (think money).
It depends on how the app is going to be used. I program with C, C++, and Python, as appropriate.
Then again, you could just pick full C++ 11, which has the advantages of both the higher level of abstractions like C#, and the low level capabilities of C.
Anticipating the "but... but... it doesn't have garbage collection" - correct; it's not for brain dead idiots who can't program with proper technique and have to have something "managing" their code.
Your understanding of SSD speed advantage appears to be thin. Sure, the sustained sequential transfer speed is faster than an HD, but both are more than satisfactory. The huge gain is in random IO. The 4k random IO of an SSD is VASTLY faster than an HD, no matter if the SSD is operating at SATA (1.5 Gbps), SATA-2 (3 GBps) or SATA-3 (6 GBps) interface speed. This is because of the elementary fact that the SSD has essentially ZERO SEEK TIME.
If your SSD upgrade disappoints you, maybe you are fixated too much on sustained sequential transfer speed, something that doesn't matter much in typical use. Also, it's possible you managed to get the SSD partitioned offset from the proper SSD block size. That will absolutely kill performance due to the necessary blocking/deblocking of 512 byte logical sectors.
Slashdot Mirror
Since an "arm" is defined as a "weapon", then you see no limit. The qualifier in "small arms" is there for a reason - because "arms" are unlimited. I don't think you will find much company. Your suggestion that maybe the 2nd Amendment needs to be qualified is well taken, although arguably a guy driving an M1A2 tank with a nuclear demolition charge aboard down the street is not "bearing arms", and a lot of us think it is plain enough that the clear intent is not to allow unlimited weapons in private ownership.
The Constitution is supposed to be interpreted with common sense. If it tried to spell everything out to the nth detail, it would be 100 times its size. It would probably be the size of the tax code or the Affordable Care Act, and nobody who finished reading the 5000th page could possible remember what it said on page 10.
We're on pretty exactly the same page.
Interesting that you phrase that control in the past tense. A two-bit IED kills you just as dead as a million dollar smart weapon. And you don't measure the victor by who suffers the least casualtes. The victor is the one left standing on scene after the fury ends. The one who, in the end, cares more about the outcome and is willing to endure. As such, the best it can possibly end for the US at this point is a draw. The worst is an outright loss.
So I'll tell you what happens when you pit guys with rifles and IEDs against a standing army and air force. A lot of people on both sides are killed and maimed, but eventually the standing army finds something else to do, or in the domestic case gets fed up and goes home, the indigenous people endure, and their aspirations have not been killed. Remember Vietnam?
If the purpose of the Afghanistan conflict was to punish and run off an evil regime supporting the civilized world's enemies, that was accomplished with stunning effectiveness and economy within a year. That was the time we should have declared victory, left a threat that the same devastatioin would be visited again if such an evil regime ever returned, and left the hellhole alone. The remaining 12 years were just dick-yanking - not the guys on the scene; the morons directing US policy. Leave the hubris of nation building entirely to those whose business it is - those who live there.
Much as I agree with your points a, b, and c, actually your oath to support and defend the Constitution would obligate you to honor this amendment, properly enacted, just like any other part of the Constitution. I don't think the oath restricts you after your term of enlistment ends, though. You fall back on the same love of country and countrymen, and if the Constitution were to be so corrupted, then the regime would become the enemy.
Baaa. Baaa. Get a clue. You are not free from being threatened by guns. Any terrorist or criminal willing to break the law can acquire a gun and threaten you with it. What you are free from is the opportunity for self defense in broadly equal terms, or being helped by other lawful citizens on the scene.
Oh, terrorists can run the US military out of Iraq and Afghanistan with its tail between its legs, but the US' own more numerous citizens could never hope to do the same? Really?
A 30-03 cartridge in a bolt action rifle, or a 38 special in a revolver, kills you just as dead as an AK-47 whether you are surrounded by artillery, tanks, and airplanes or not. Even if the military is all wearing body armor, I bet their faces and limbs are exposed.
I guess we should tell Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah and other non-state lethal actors they can disband because they can't hope to stand up to, or to tie up the most powerful and well-trained militaries in the world in protracted conflict.
Do you think there are ANY weapons which should be restricted in terms of private ownership? An M1A2 tank? A 155mm howitzer? How about a nuclear bomb? These are all well within the financial means of billionaires to acquire. I am asking seriously. I consider myself as strong a supporter of gun rights as anyone, but I see the need for SOME limits. Most likely I would draw the line roughly at machine guns - I mean machine guns should be fine, but the above examples should all be limited. Clearly, nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons are way over the line.
Christ. According to COMMON SENSE and English grammar, you twit. According to REALITY.
Of course. That's because you CAN'T disarm "people". Only a moron thinks you can. All you can do is disarm the MEEK people. The PREDATORS will find a way to arm themselves. You fools out there, try to think. I know it's hard, but try. The police are not there to protect people. They are there to protect the State. The "protect and serve" is just fascist window dressing.
You guys are ALL wrong. Don't you know? It's sudo pacman -Syu.
Actually, that's not it. You fork the code from a point BEFORE it goes to hell.
I understand very clearly the difference between accumulated debt and rate of growth of debt (which is what the deficit is).
At the same time, you should understand that you can't "inherit" a deficit. The idea is poppycock. The budget for each year stands fresh on its own. You can change a massive deficit to a surplus in a single year just by adjusting the numbers in your budget. Yes, interest on the debt (which IS inherited), and a piss poor economic climate (which is inherited to some extent) are burdens on the budget, but it within the power of the budgeters to counteract these. I don't claim it would be an easy choice to do it, or to live with, but it is in point of fact utterly trivial procedurally to do.
A final point I'll throw in just to make the whole discussion even more fun. No President has any control over the budget beyond:
1) Submitting one, which can be mutilated or just replaced by the legislature.
2) Signing off on whatever budget DOES get passed by the legislature (if there is one).
3) Using the bully pulpit, which is not trivial, but still it's just talk and persuasion.
In passing, I call attention to the point that those responsible for making a budget can subvert the whole process by just failing to execute their duty. Both the President and Congress have been guilty of that.
One could argue that a President can take unilateral action, like engaging the military in action, which necessarily leads to hemmorhage in the budget, so yes, that has to be mitigated. However, the legislature can still use the war powers act to limit the effect by limiting the time scale - IF, and it is a big IF, they are willing to stick their neck out.
Absolutely right. And I have the right to call you on it, you racist mysogynist dictator lover.
I would tell you to use American Sign Language, but then They would just turn on the camera.
No laptop? The mid 1990s called. They want to know how you missed the last 20 years.
All right, I'll bite. Aside from "OMG, it is, gasp, a CHEMICAL", if it is inert, how can it be toxic? From the MSDS for Fluorinert FC-40:
"Not classified as hazardous according to OSHA Hazard Communication Standard, 29 CFR 1910.1200."
"No occupational exposure limit values exist for any of the components listed in Section 3 of this SDS."
"Skin protection is not required."
"Inhalation: Vapors from heated material may cause irritation of the respiratory system. Signs/symptoms may include cough, sneezing, nasal discharge, headache, hoarseness, and nose and throat pain."
"Skin Contact: Contact with the skin during product use is not expected to result in significant irritation."
"Eye Contact: Vapors from heated material may cause eye irritation. Signs/symptoms may include redness, swelling, pain, tearing, and blurred or hazy vision."
Note, when they are talking about "heated", they are talking about heating to well above any proper operating temperature - greater than 200 C. The stuff CAN break down chemically under such conditions, and noxious/toxic products result. More or less the same as any fluorocarbon, including the refrigerant in your refrigerator.
It is non flammable, period. There is no flash point.
As for the GHG designation, absolutely true. However, essentially no evaporation of Fluorinert into the open should occur in a properly designed and maintained system.
Using NaCl as you describe to make the water conductive also results in the evolution of Cl - chlorine gas - more than oxygen. If your wires are bare copper, the metal also migrates from the positive wire to the negative wire, turning the solution nasty blue-green in the process.
Some caution is advised. Chlorine gas is toxic. It was used in shells to poison troops in WW1. Of course the amount is quite slight in the experiment.
We won't know shit until Newegg begins to stock them, maybe in about 5 years. Cost data from manufacturers, even when you can get it, is always useless because in the real world nobody pays anywhere near list price.
Mayve because it is a (U) unmanned (A) aerial (V) vehicle. Sheesh.
Oh, because UAV failures never occur. What horseshit.
You can't make a remote-controlled or autonomous flying vehicle which cannot endanger anyone. You can mitigate the likelihood of endangerment, but ten seconds of thought will make it obvious you can never ensure it will always fail "safe".
There is no excuse whatsoever for having telnetd running since you already have sshd. Telnet is a laughable security hole.
OK. Your time costs more than 10 MB of RAM. But does it cost more than 10 MB of RAM times 100 apps times one million users? In the latter case, the guys who collectively write the 100 apps are costing the users collectively an extremely large amount of resources (think money).
It depends on how the app is going to be used. I program with C, C++, and Python, as appropriate.
Then again, you could just pick full C++ 11, which has the advantages of both the higher level of abstractions like C#, and the low level capabilities of C.
Anticipating the "but ... but ... it doesn't have garbage collection" - correct; it's not for brain dead idiots who can't program with proper technique and have to have something "managing" their code.
Your understanding of SSD speed advantage appears to be thin. Sure, the sustained sequential transfer speed is faster than an HD, but both are more than satisfactory. The huge gain is in random IO. The 4k random IO of an SSD is VASTLY faster than an HD, no matter if the SSD is operating at SATA (1.5 Gbps), SATA-2 (3 GBps) or SATA-3 (6 GBps) interface speed. This is because of the elementary fact that the SSD has essentially ZERO SEEK TIME.
If your SSD upgrade disappoints you, maybe you are fixated too much on sustained sequential transfer speed, something that doesn't matter much in typical use. Also, it's possible you managed to get the SSD partitioned offset from the proper SSD block size. That will absolutely kill performance due to the necessary blocking/deblocking of 512 byte logical sectors.