Why is the 2nd amendment more important than the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 13th, 14th, 15th, 19th let alone them combined?
Because the 2nd Amendment is the one that gives us the ability to throw the reset switch if all else fails. And yes, that's exactly what it's for; all the bullshit reasons about (government-controlled) militias, self-defense, and hunting is just that: bullshit. The guys who wrote the Constitution had just finished violently overthrowing their government, so they wanted to explicitly reaffirm the right to do so again. Period.
Your handguns aren't really going to allow you to compete with the US military, and every idiot cannot be trusted with a tank, so any forced overthrow arguement is crap.
On the contrary, the Iraqi "insurgents" don't have tanks, and look how well they're doing! Handguns I agree about, though, which is why I believe the ban on "assault weapons" is unconstitutional.
The answer to that depends on the further question, "free for whom?" The GPL is free for the user; the BSD license is free for the developer.</feeding the troll>
Using a thing is different than leveraging it. For example, a pizza delivery guy might use Honda's VTEC technology by virtue of the fact that he happens to deliver his pizzas in a Civic. In contrast, a Honda-sponsored F1 team would leverage VTEC technology by using it to gain a competitive advantage over other teams. See the difference?
The new lesson is that the freedom belongs to the software, not to users
Of course, when he says "software" he really means "users," and when he says "users" he really means "developers," and that inaccuracy of terminology doesn't help him make his point clearly.
Of course, half the people talking about this issue make a similar mistake; there'd be a heck of a lot less argument about this sort of thing (as well as ancillary issues, such as why it doesn't make sense to argue that either the GPL or BSD license is "more free" than the other) if English didn't make it so hard to be precise.
I don't mean to sound insulting, but the argument "but you're still marginally better than some fucking backwater" is not good enough! America invented the damn Internet; we should have the best connections to it!
My figures might be off, but I believe it's something like the almost all the genes of our species can be traced to maybe 500 individuals 2000 years ago.
Yep, those figures are off: 2,000 years ago, there were over 1 million people in downtown Rome alone. Maybe you mean 20,000 years?
Their business model worked just fine before they were big enough to "control" anything.
On the contrary, Microsoft was controlling from the beginning: it piggy-backed on IBM's clout to control DOS, and went from there.
Seriously, I know most of the kids here on/. probably weren't around before there was a Windows 95, but have you ever seen an old Apple II or Mac OS? Commodore? Tandy? DesqView or DRDOS or OS/2 or any of those other OS's and applications that Windows was "competing" against?
My first computer was a Tandy 1000 RLX (an "IBM compatible" with a 286). It ran Deskmate 3... on top of MS-DOS. And why did it run MS-DOS? Because the IBM PC did, which made it the "standard." Microsoft was already getting its tithe, even then.
the speed chosen is what is *perceived* by the *motorist* to be safe: not what is actually safe.
If it weren't actually safe, then a large percentage of vehicles would crash. They don't (despite driving at the perceived safe speed rather than the speed limit), therefore it's safe. QED.
"safe" is usually defined from the *motorist* point of view, NOT the vulnerable road users (cyclist, pedestrian, etc)
Now that's a good point. However, that mostly applies to local streets, which people don't tend to speed as much on anyway. Highways don't tend to have much cycle or pedestrian traffic, even when it isn't prohibited.
Should the speed limits be abolished ? I would say no
Most people drive at what they consider to be the maximum safe speed, regardless of what the number on the sign is. Therefore, if the speed limit is lower than the 85th percentile speed, the law is wrong.
Fuck you, fascist! It's people like you who are letting this country become totalitarian, because of your sheer fucking stupidity. Let me ask you one question, and let's see if it enlightens you: who gets to decide which speech is obscene, and which is protected?
Well no shit, Sherlock! If the government was provided directly then it would be an obvious and flagrant violation of the First Amendment. This way, it's a scheming, tricky, underhanded violation instead.
The fact it was allowed the OXML lobby to shout 'you made one half-thought-out office document format a standard, why not two?' and ISO had no real answer to this.
And even that, in itself, is ludicrously stupid too! Obviously, the answer is "because we already fucking have one, so we don't need another!"
I certainly don't want to make light of Microsoft's blatant manipulation of the processes, but in some sense the Microsoft Office formats are `already in use and mature'.
Maybe, but the Microsoft Office formats, even in the newest version, ARE NOT THE SAME THING AS OOXML! They do not conform to that thing that ISO so euphemistically calls a 'standard!'
You know, if Microsoft were in any other industry, they would have been sued to oblivion and back by now. Seriously, everything Microsoft has ever made has been shoddy, nonfunctional crap that would be rejected even by the members of the Pinto and Yugo Fans of America club!
If that were true, Linux distros wouldn't need package managers.
That's just because programs on Linux are usually dynamically linked. If I were making a commercial program for Linux, I'd just statically link the damn thing and be done with it.
I was going to rant about how that was not true about C, but I stopped myself. C went through a bunch of iterations (AT&T, K&R, others still way before my time) before it became an ANSI standard.
So, I guess the lesson is to use a language that has stopped evolving.
Slashdot Mirror
I hope you promptly yelled "WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU?!" and slapped some sense into him.
What's your point? Exactly the same would be true in any hypothetical revolution in America as well.
Because the 2nd Amendment is the one that gives us the ability to throw the reset switch if all else fails. And yes, that's exactly what it's for; all the bullshit reasons about (government-controlled) militias, self-defense, and hunting is just that: bullshit. The guys who wrote the Constitution had just finished violently overthrowing their government, so they wanted to explicitly reaffirm the right to do so again. Period.
On the contrary, the Iraqi "insurgents" don't have tanks, and look how well they're doing! Handguns I agree about, though, which is why I believe the ban on "assault weapons" is unconstitutional.
You mean like this?
It doesn't count as "distribution," but what about "conveyance?"
The answer to that depends on the further question, "free for whom?" The GPL is free for the user; the BSD license is free for the developer.</feeding the troll>
Using a thing is different than leveraging it. For example, a pizza delivery guy might use Honda's VTEC technology by virtue of the fact that he happens to deliver his pizzas in a Civic. In contrast, a Honda-sponsored F1 team would leverage VTEC technology by using it to gain a competitive advantage over other teams. See the difference?
Of course, when he says "software" he really means "users," and when he says "users" he really means "developers," and that inaccuracy of terminology doesn't help him make his point clearly.
Of course, half the people talking about this issue make a similar mistake; there'd be a heck of a lot less argument about this sort of thing (as well as ancillary issues, such as why it doesn't make sense to argue that either the GPL or BSD license is "more free" than the other) if English didn't make it so hard to be precise.
I don't mean to sound insulting, but the argument "but you're still marginally better than some fucking backwater" is not good enough! America invented the damn Internet; we should have the best connections to it!
Yep, those figures are off: 2,000 years ago, there were over 1 million people in downtown Rome alone. Maybe you mean 20,000 years?
On the contrary, Microsoft was controlling from the beginning: it piggy-backed on IBM's clout to control DOS, and went from there.
My first computer was a Tandy 1000 RLX (an "IBM compatible" with a 286). It ran Deskmate 3... on top of MS-DOS. And why did it run MS-DOS? Because the IBM PC did, which made it the "standard." Microsoft was already getting its tithe, even then.
If it weren't actually safe, then a large percentage of vehicles would crash. They don't (despite driving at the perceived safe speed rather than the speed limit), therefore it's safe. QED.
Now that's a good point. However, that mostly applies to local streets, which people don't tend to speed as much on anyway. Highways don't tend to have much cycle or pedestrian traffic, even when it isn't prohibited.
You might be interested to read this, then.
Most people drive at what they consider to be the maximum safe speed, regardless of what the number on the sign is. Therefore, if the speed limit is lower than the 85th percentile speed, the law is wrong.
Not to diminish your analogy, but speeding is a criminal offense and so the burden of proof is higher.
Fuck you, fascist! It's people like you who are letting this country become totalitarian, because of your sheer fucking stupidity. Let me ask you one question, and let's see if it enlightens you: who gets to decide which speech is obscene, and which is protected?
I'll bet it's more frequently used for sed (i.e., ed for streams) nowadays, since that's more friendly for scripting.
Well no shit, Sherlock! If the government was provided directly then it would be an obvious and flagrant violation of the First Amendment. This way, it's a scheming, tricky, underhanded violation instead.
What the fuck? You censored the anti-censorship song?!
And even that, in itself, is ludicrously stupid too! Obviously, the answer is "because we already fucking have one, so we don't need another!"
Maybe, but the Microsoft Office formats, even in the newest version, ARE NOT THE SAME THING AS OOXML! They do not conform to that thing that ISO so euphemistically calls a 'standard!'
You know, if Microsoft were in any other industry, they would have been sued to oblivion and back by now. Seriously, everything Microsoft has ever made has been shoddy, nonfunctional crap that would be rejected even by the members of the Pinto and Yugo Fans of America club!
Well, those fuckers sure managed to jam OOXML down our throats pretty damn fast!
That's just because programs on Linux are usually dynamically linked. If I were making a commercial program for Linux, I'd just statically link the damn thing and be done with it.
Uh... what about C99?