The trouble with old hardware is not whether it works or not. The trouble with it is, as soon as you touch it to see if it works or not, you've already spent more than the computer is worth. If you spend more than a few minutes with it, its like dumping new gold plated rims and a new suspension on a car that is now worth exactly the cost of used rims and a used suspension.
The days of reincarnating old hardware are over (except for the essential computer and system historians out there, who spend their "free" time resurrecting ancient gems for posterity and because its fun... please continue to rock on), and they were over a decade ago or more. The way to go about getting the poor masses to use computers is to make cheap new computers... which they're already doing.
Poor people don't want your garbage, whether it works or not. Poor people aren't stupid or uneducated; they're merely not rich or middle class.
That's the bummer about hacking, you can't brag. If you're black hat, you get caught, if you're white hat, the NDA hits you.
Hackers, even the black-hatted ones, are way too honest for their line of work. They have a lot to learn from the software and video pirates of the 1980's
I see we have a seasoned computer scientist in the field!
/sarcasm wtf
FYI graphic designers calling themselves developers develop websites. And they're great at it. Computer scientists should stick what they're good at, which has nothing to do with markup languages nor computers nor programming.
Real computer scientists do one, the other, or both:
I don't mean to spoil the mystery for you, but I'm definitely trolling. However, this fact should not in any way detract from my bullet-proof argument. Also, in general, one shouldn't be so much concerned about the troll as one should be about their troll. Hate the game, not the player.
Unfortunately that sign on their car door "To serve and protect", they serve and protect the state. Getting back your iPhone does little to serve and protect the state.
I don't like making generalized statements, however, and shame on me if the description doesn't fit, I'm about to do so. And I don't mean to even criticize the Police in general, because among their ranks are everyday heros and legitimate true, ready to lay down their lives, heros. But to make an observation that I'm sure others have noticed, that even though police
have backup, guns, radio, jackets — all that stuff civilians don't have
it seems at times the choices that the individual police officers we hear about are neither motivated by duty to protect the public nor the state, but themselves first and foremost. Speaking as a coward, fear of injury/death and self-preservation are instincts that are not easily overcome, but members of various US Special Forces and Military, firefighters and deep water and swift water rescue teams, perhaps out of bravado (but so what?), seem to have little trouble doing so. What is it about police duty that makes them less heroically suicidal than those that choose these other careers, when one should expect the vocation to attract the very brave and incorruptable, and those as close to real "superheros" as we can get, like the other vocations I mentioned?
For those civilians that carry weapons for self-defense, no one should have to remind you that the origin of your right to do so was originally one of selflessness, i.e. to protect your defenseless neighbors at risk to your own life or property, either from raiding parties, foreign enemies, crime, or the government. I also would like to emphatically applaud the unarmed bystanders that bravely risked their lives to save a Memphis Police officer today. That is amazing to me... because I just know I would have been running away from obvious danger, and not towards it, as fast as my feet could carry me. And I would not be proud of myself for surviving.
FWIW, material items are definately not worth even risking injury over, let alone risking life. But another life, or multiple lives is worth that risk, and we know this because we have a word for people like that and you probably noticed me using it a lot, and I do because I am facinated by... our heros.
It is a point of contention whether initial drafts of the Constititution were written on hemp paper
fucking irrelivant.
You are clearly unfamiliar with the finer points of intellectial debate or argumentative contention, so I will merely quote again the idiocy that makes it relevant, as you apparently have no idea:
The constitution[sic] is just that, a piece of paper.
You see, you made it relevant! Had you not done so, I assure you I would not have mentioned it.
and your missing an abstract concept that law is only as good as its enforced. Trying holding up a piece of paper to a squad of armed men and see how good it protects you.
The concept of a written document is only as good as people willing to enforce it. In the USA, the constitution has only been enforced at the convience of the government. Ever, in history.
I will now show that you are wrong with counterexample, and I'm stating it as such so that you won't be too stunned by what I can only assume you will perceive as wizardry:
Newton's law of universal gravitation states that any two bodies in the universe attract each other with a force that is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.
Please, tell us how this law is no good because there is no squad of armed men enforcing it. Regarding statutes, it is not how well a law is enforced that determines whether it is "good," but the test of a law has always been whether it stands up in adversarial court, which involves an entirely different branch of government, i.e. it is not the duty of the Executive Branch to test laws, and their enforcement of laws has nothing to do with whether the law is a good one, but it is the duty of the Judicial Branch to determine this. That was how the Framers intended it, and that is how it is done.
Now matter how much you want to play with words. Speaking of abstract concepts, it doesn't seem like you can understand those either.
Do you think this is a motherfucking game? Trust me, child, I do not "play" with words, though it seems you are referring to what we familiar with the English language refer to as semantics, and I can only assure you, contrary to the often popular and your provably false and irrational superstition and paranoia that they are of vital importance to those that wish to understand and be understood in discourse.
You obviously don't. And I'm going to show you and everyone else that this is so.
The constitution is just that, a piece of paper.
It is a point of contention whether initial drafts of the Constititution were written on hemp paper, but we know for a fact, and you are even welcome to go see for yourself with your own eyes, that the Constitution itself was written on parchment, which is no more like paper than your own skin.
Further, epistemically, existentially and philosophically speaking, the actual Constitutionis not written on anything, as it is an abstract type that is without form or mass, i.e. an idea and concept, and what is referred to as the actual Constitution, and all copies of it, are mere tokens of that type.
All laws are just that, pieces of fucking paper.
Laws are not the paper they are printed on, nor are they the ink with which they are printed, but abstract concepts that are either universal principles describing the fundamental nature of something or, in this case, statutes passed by a legislative body.
It ought to be important to you that you understand that you are absolutely incorrect with your hyperbole in nearly every way imaginable. Paper is just fucking paper, and only with the flavorful word "fucking" did you even remotely get close to something that was correct. The word law itself etymologically comes from the Old Norse, lag, which literally means something laid down or fixed, and is of Germanic origin and related to lay. Interestingly, law is also a Scots language word for a conical hill which rises incongruously from the surrounding landscape. Laws are far more conceptually and far less materially than mere paper and —in Truth— are neither at all either paper nor ink.
Thank you! I find parody not exactly easy nor easily detectable. And it is nice to be appreciated in seeking that incredibly rare and elusive +x Troll moderation, which I'm not sure I have earned for the reasons you describe and which I'll keep in mind if the opportunity ever presents itself or I have a plan to draw one out. Nevertheless, I really do appreciate your gracious acknowledgement! It feels wonderful and you've really made my day, as I have often enough been accused of being a sockpuppet for more infamous trolls, such as the great APK, which as flattering as it is, is kind of anticlimactic for me.
FWIW, I really really worked hard on this troll, used a thesaurus and everything, and I am very proud of it! It is ignorant, and insulting, and probably the meanest thing I have ever written, as though encapsulating a flame war that never actually occurred. In this case, I employed a simple and yet mildly enticing set up, once I located the specific annoying argument I was anticipating, to draw the parent in, and already realizing and expecting the definitional type of response (maybe I wasn't playing fair), and of course the parent walked right into my trap! And I realize and understand the extent of insignificance I am directing you to, in that it is so very very weak and even egotistical of me to want to create and deconstruct and explode such an inconsequential thing as a comment trolling a gun nut attempting to utilize *deterrent* and "final-say" cleverness on a site like Slashdot, as I have on occasion done in the past, but I believe it an emerging and humble art form worthy of just the merest acknowledgement, and I've been waiting for a story like this to pop up so I could deploy this reasoning, and I hope that there might be someone out there that can appreciate a troll that is.... this... paradoxically, inappropriately foulmouthed, and deliciously, intellectually pugilistic and, if I may say so, decadently over the top and engorging insult. This guy or gal is going to think twice about trying that tired argument of misdirection again I can tell you that much. HA!:D
Your dishonest and beguiling insistance on the meaning of this phrase is what we in the business of intelligent discourse label a red herring. It does not mean that Congress does not have the right to regulate the militia, nor is it saying Congress does not have the right to regulate firearms. Congress does have the right, and Congress does indeed absolutely have the right, among other overarching rights it has over militias, to regulate firearms!!!!.
Instead, the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to forbid Congress a very specific and particularly excessive extension of Congress' authority to make laws "necessary and proper" for exercising its control over the militia. No matter what Congress decides or does or does not do regarding militias, by the order of this Amendment, Congress is proscribed from disarming them. And that's all it says! Congress cannot and must not disarm militias, as a whole, in their authority to regulate militias. It speaks only about Congress' authority over this group, this certain armed collection of people (and certainly is not a reference in any way to "We the People of the United States,") and it says nothing about an individual right to anything! Congress can't disarm the entire militia! Get it?
Oh, and do try to keep the childish name-calling to yourself. Such nonsense has no place in discussion, and only serves to denigrate your own position.
More important than the 2nd Amendment is the 1st Amendment! You stupid and dishonest, deceptive and arrogant, intentionally misleading, borderline-retarded waste of everyone's time, space, energy and undoubtedly, air. Please don't take my words personally, because on the whole, this is how we all feel about you and have always felt about you. Jackass.
Correct. The 2nd Amendment demands regulation, and any local laws cannot stop that mandate that was so important to the Founders and the authors of the Constitution and Bill of Rights that they put it in the the first 3 words of the Amendment. Regulation of firearms is, in effect, even more important than the right to bear arms.
The 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution guarantees that each citizen has the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense
That's a damned lie. The 2nd A. of the US Constitution guarantees that each citizen has the right to keep and bear arms for the common defense. Only this Supreme Court, in 2008, changed 200 years of LAW to reinterpret the 2nd A. to mean what it NEVER DID, and WHAT THE FOUNDERS debated and DECIDED to leave out, namely, "self-defense" which is never once mentioned in the Constitition. And we know this because its in the minutes of the Constitutional Congresses.
Again... self-defense may be an inalianble right, but that right sure as shit never came from the 2nd Amendment.
I only posted because it is an elegant solution that provides some amazing features... uh... elegantly. But it is new, and the main feature is mitigated somewhat in ssh by screen. More often than not, I do get annoyed by ssh latency, for which mosh has an... uh.. elegant... solution. (sorry, its late...uh... early)
However, even still, the license is absolutely unacceptable for some uses.
I never thought that the GPL would cause a particular use to be counter to the licensing unless it was being used as a component in another application by a developer that necessarily needed to release under a different and incompatiible license, such as the APL. Under what circumstances would the licensing stop a user from using mosh, or any code under a GPL, as it is, and not as inclusion by a developer in some other application?
I won't miss OpenSSL and that tiny ragtag team of developers, the OpenSSL Eight, as impressive as their work is for such a tiny crew. And I'm only responding because I don't see anyone complaing about ssh, and it is dear to my heart, too, but maybe its time for a change... becuase now there is mosh..
Simply, the idea is to have pre-programmed every common codable module, optimized for diffrent purposes in multiple ways, for every language that this paradigm can work with, available in an online database, with a front end that looks like Minecraft or something, and also includes a sandbox for users to test the resulting program/application, and that the entire OSS project is built and run by volunteer programmers that are paid from advertising profits or corporate subscription fees, based on the level of their involvement.
One never need explain why something makes sense. That would be redundant. What makes sense does so on its face.
I think you may have missed the part about the whole being online bit, and including all permittable code and all logic modules being precoded in different ways for different optimizations, and the bit about it being stored in and accessable in a database by a Minecraft-like front end that...
The other way to make code safer, of course, is to eliminate the programmers.
You would think so, but as a programmer I can assure you that over time code changes itself.
No way *I* wrote that...
Of that I have no doubt. And I know it couldn't be your fault. (And the set up goes like:) Its more likely due to cosmic ray's, man, and eddy's in the space-time continuum!
No, I sort of meant what I said and not really as a joke. And I am kin to BOFH, in that I'll come down hard on users, but only when they fuckup, and I guess that's where we diverge, also, my skill set is much more narrow, unfortunately.
To illustrate the point about programmers, we need to take a little walk, because I like programmers... they are my compadres.
I really love that Superuser forum site and the others like it ("how do you do x under these circumstances on some platform?") where someone posts a question and they get a bunch of rated answers, and all the flamers and trolls gets rated to oblivion and you never see it unless you want to, so its 3 things that work right at the top of the page sometimes, and not just for solutions in the form of previously unknown commands, or known commands used in unexpected ways, but various ways to do the same complex routines or entire scripts. It makes thinking about programming as what it should really be, as simple as creating a todo list or putting together a flow chart using modules that are constantly duplicated, improved slightly, and optimized over time.
Which suggests four things to me. Regular folk, you know, "the norms," and really I just mean anyone at all could very likely do some high-level programming or create software for themselves or for profit if they had the right interface with different common logic modules and standard operators available in graphic form with popup documentation (if activated) that they can link together visually and simulate execution or output before compiling or printing the constructed code text to the screen and into the clipboard or publishing the code to the second thing it suggests to me.
Which is that there should be a front end interface driving a fast database that makes available the most common logic phrases redundant in various methods, for whatever reasons (such as to minimize code verbosity, or maximize speed, or minimize hits on resources) for the most common programming languages (and excluding any that couldn't work with this paradigm), such that each module could be improved independently of the rest by the most accepted advancement method for open source development, grouped in the most common ways by the people that mostly use them tend to group them (by what they're used for, or who they're mostly used by, or what they are written in, or whether interpreted or compiled, and so on, whatever the user chooses and whatever anyone suggests that's a good enough idea to get voted into downstream availability in the interface or database). This should exist already!? Where is this site!?
Thirdly, such a site is certain to attract and promote talent, like flies to honey, as well as attract and allow the mediocre hacks (like me, if you will allow me this very generous characterization) to have better code in whatever language works best, and grow within a few short years to some new popular accepted web phenomenon, and ultimately improve the efficiency and resiliency of code running everywhere on everything.
And finally, that the interface should be fun and easy to understand, surprisingly fast and fluid and pretty much look like Minecraft or even Tetris, or whatever, as the interface itself is just another idea promoted and/or examined for inclusion and developed based on whatever its popularity or merits are by the roundtable of those that decide to work on the project.
So... that's a new idea that's going to sit there until someone, anyone tells me, please, how to find out how to start a for profit open source web project that gives away functionality for free to attract users with milestones defined such that it can't change beyond its established mandate (it would fork if necessary) and somehow generate perhaps at first modest revenue with it (for site expenses, and contributors, why not?) that will slowly but surely build until its effectively printing money and making us a
You can write beautiful, elegant, purely functional code, as long as it doesn't have to touch a storage system, a network, or a user. But, hey, other than that, it's great!
Speaking as an sysadmin, sounds like Heaven.
The other way to make code safer, of course, is to eliminate the programmers.
Now, whether the militia is the intent of the second amendment is a question that we have been asking for a long time now. The wording of the second amendment is not particularly clear on that.
Perhaps our modern internal parsers have trouble with it, and perhaps as laymen we have debated it, and perhaps it has been debated in the courts, but our academic Constitutional experts and historians, who are surprisingly homogenous regarding this historical fact, have no trouble at all devining the exact intentions of the Founders regardless of the wording. Justice Steven's rewording is, in fact, unnecessary, because his changes simply modernize and make clear what the original intention was. And debate is unncessary and intellectually dishonest, because we know what the Founders intention was from the minutes of the Constitutional Congresses... its all in there, so idky there's all this business of "it means this," and "no, it means this other thing," when, in fact, there is no two ways about it... what the Founders intentions actually were are available to us from the extra documentation they meticulously provided for history and posterity.
It is pretty clear to me, however, from the text alone how important it was to the Founders that gun owners be a part of a militia, and be well regulated, and it should be clear to you too... because its in the first three or four words of the Amendment, and the Founders put it there at the beginning because they wanted to underscore its importance.
The interpretation has been bastardized by the NRA, and all the gun owners (not ALL gunowners, but just the silly ones) that want to do as they please without any sort of regulation or oversight, and they want this because they want it and do not try to offer any sort of legal precidence for it, because there is none. Or I should say, there was none whatsoever prior to 2008, which is a very strange and late date for an interpretation that has stood for 219 years to change. You see, sadly, the meaning of the Second has been completely changed by the 2008 District of Columbia v. Heller decision, and the Justices know what the Founders intended, but the majority of the Court believed that it was ok, because they felt that's what the American people want. In a sense, there is merit to this idea: the American People are in charge. However, the original mandate for the Supreme Court of the United States (and the creation of the US Senate) includes the right of the court to stand in the way of what the People want... Justices are not elected, and it was never their mandate to do as the People wanted them to but to do what is right, and they are appointed and not elected and their positions are protected as lifetime appointments, and in the same regard as to why a Prosecutor has legal immunity, its so they have the right and duty to and can afford to do what is right without fear of retribution of the People. I strongly feel it was not only unnecessary to do as they did, they really went against the Founders intentions, and basically made themselves and the institution of the Supreme Court weaker .
The way the meaning/interpretation of the 2nd was changed by the 2008 decision is pretty startling. Originally, the meaning of the 2nd is saying that a well regulated militia IS the right of the People to keep and carry arms. Thus, your right to carry arms is only there if you are in a well regulated militia, and the militia in which you belong has the right to regulate you, as far as your right to carry is concerned. It is a volunteer militia, so there is a deep self-less nobility to it: you have a right to own and carry arms in order to protect your defenseless neighbors, and that can mean either from foreign enemies, domestic enemies, and even the government.
Now, the official meaning of the 2nd, since the 2008 decision, is completely whack (if I can use a technical term). Basically, SCOTUS gave every gun nut what they always wanted, what they always read into the 2nd that was n
Slashdot Mirror
The trouble with old hardware is not whether it works or not. The trouble with it is, as soon as you touch it to see if it works or not, you've already spent more than the computer is worth. If you spend more than a few minutes with it, its like dumping new gold plated rims and a new suspension on a car that is now worth exactly the cost of used rims and a used suspension.
The days of reincarnating old hardware are over (except for the essential computer and system historians out there, who spend their "free" time resurrecting ancient gems for posterity and because its fun... please continue to rock on), and they were over a decade ago or more. The way to go about getting the poor masses to use computers is to make cheap new computers... which they're already doing.
Poor people don't want your garbage, whether it works or not. Poor people aren't stupid or uneducated; they're merely not rich or middle class.
That's the bummer about hacking, you can't brag. If you're black hat, you get caught, if you're white hat, the NDA hits you.
Hackers, even the black-hatted ones, are way too honest for their line of work. They have a lot to learn from the software and video pirates of the 1980's
THiS PoST CRaCKeD By THe aMaZiNG WoNDuMuNCHeR!!
Don't worry about developing web sites
I see we have a seasoned computer scientist in the field!
/sarcasm wtf
FYI graphic designers calling themselves developers develop websites. And they're great at it. Computer scientists should stick what they're good at, which has nothing to do with markup languages nor computers nor programming.
Real computer scientists do one, the other, or both:
1) RECKONING
2) SCIENCE
Not at all! Nothing means anything, unless we give it meaning. And you've made my day, so my thanking you is all the thanks I could accept.
I don't mean to spoil the mystery for you, but I'm definitely trolling. However, this fact should not in any way detract from my bullet-proof argument. Also, in general, one shouldn't be so much concerned about the troll as one should be about their troll. Hate the game, not the player.
Unfortunately that sign on their car door "To serve and protect", they serve and protect the state. Getting back your iPhone does little to serve and protect the state.
I don't like making generalized statements, however, and shame on me if the description doesn't fit, I'm about to do so. And I don't mean to even criticize the Police in general, because among their ranks are everyday heros and legitimate true, ready to lay down their lives, heros. But to make an observation that I'm sure others have noticed, that even though police
have backup, guns, radio, jackets — all that stuff civilians don't have
it seems at times the choices that the individual police officers we hear about are neither motivated by duty to protect the public nor the state, but themselves first and foremost. Speaking as a coward, fear of injury/death and self-preservation are instincts that are not easily overcome, but members of various US Special Forces and Military, firefighters and deep water and swift water rescue teams, perhaps out of bravado (but so what?), seem to have little trouble doing so. What is it about police duty that makes them less heroically suicidal than those that choose these other careers, when one should expect the vocation to attract the very brave and incorruptable, and those as close to real "superheros" as we can get, like the other vocations I mentioned?
For those civilians that carry weapons for self-defense, no one should have to remind you that the origin of your right to do so was originally one of selflessness, i.e. to protect your defenseless neighbors at risk to your own life or property, either from raiding parties, foreign enemies, crime, or the government. I also would like to emphatically applaud the unarmed bystanders that bravely risked their lives to save a Memphis Police officer today. That is amazing to me... because I just know I would have been running away from obvious danger, and not towards it, as fast as my feet could carry me. And I would not be proud of myself for surviving.
FWIW, material items are definately not worth even risking injury over, let alone risking life. But another life, or multiple lives is worth that risk, and we know this because we have a word for people like that and you probably noticed me using it a lot, and I do because I am facinated by... our heros.
fucking irrelivant.
You are clearly unfamiliar with the finer points of intellectial debate or argumentative contention, so I will merely quote again the idiocy that makes it relevant, as you apparently have no idea:
You see, you made it relevant! Had you not done so, I assure you I would not have mentioned it.
and your missing an abstract concept that law is only as good as its enforced. Trying holding up a piece of paper to a squad of armed men and see how good it protects you.
The concept of a written document is only as good as people willing to enforce it. In the USA, the constitution has only been enforced at the convience of the government. Ever, in history.
I will now show that you are wrong with counterexample, and I'm stating it as such so that you won't be too stunned by what I can only assume you will perceive as wizardry:
Please, tell us how this law is no good because there is no squad of armed men enforcing it. Regarding statutes, it is not how well a law is enforced that determines whether it is "good," but the test of a law has always been whether it stands up in adversarial court, which involves an entirely different branch of government, i.e. it is not the duty of the Executive Branch to test laws, and their enforcement of laws has nothing to do with whether the law is a good one, but it is the duty of the Judicial Branch to determine this. That was how the Framers intended it, and that is how it is done.
Now matter how much you want to play with words. Speaking of abstract concepts, it doesn't seem like you can understand those either.
Do you think this is a motherfucking game? Trust me, child, I do not "play" with words, though it seems you are referring to what we familiar with the English language refer to as semantics, and I can only assure you, contrary to the often popular and your provably false and irrational superstition and paranoia that they are of vital importance to those that wish to understand and be understood in discourse.
I know the constitution inside and out.
You obviously don't. And I'm going to show you and everyone else that this is so.
The constitution is just that, a piece of paper.
It is a point of contention whether initial drafts of the Constititution were written on hemp paper, but we know for a fact, and you are even welcome to go see for yourself with your own eyes, that the Constitution itself was written on parchment, which is no more like paper than your own skin.
Further, epistemically, existentially and philosophically speaking, the actual Constitution is not written on anything , as it is an abstract type that is without form or mass, i.e. an idea and concept, and what is referred to as the actual Constitution, and all copies of it, are mere tokens of that type.
All laws are just that, pieces of fucking paper.
Laws are not the paper they are printed on, nor are they the ink with which they are printed, but abstract concepts that are either universal principles describing the fundamental nature of something or, in this case, statutes passed by a legislative body.
It ought to be important to you that you understand that you are absolutely incorrect with your hyperbole in nearly every way imaginable. Paper is just fucking paper, and only with the flavorful word "fucking" did you even remotely get close to something that was correct. The word law itself etymologically comes from the Old Norse, lag , which literally means something laid down or fixed, and is of Germanic origin and related to lay . Interestingly, law is also a Scots language word for a conical hill which rises incongruously from the surrounding landscape. Laws are far more conceptually and far less materially than mere paper and —in Truth— are neither at all either paper nor ink.
Thank you! I find parody not exactly easy nor easily detectable. And it is nice to be appreciated in seeking that incredibly rare and elusive +x Troll moderation, which I'm not sure I have earned for the reasons you describe and which I'll keep in mind if the opportunity ever presents itself or I have a plan to draw one out. Nevertheless, I really do appreciate your gracious acknowledgement! It feels wonderful and you've really made my day, as I have often enough been accused of being a sockpuppet for more infamous trolls, such as the great APK, which as flattering as it is, is kind of anticlimactic for me.
FWIW, I really really worked hard on this troll, used a thesaurus and everything, and I am very proud of it! It is ignorant, and insulting, and probably the meanest thing I have ever written, as though encapsulating a flame war that never actually occurred. In this case, I employed a simple and yet mildly enticing set up, once I located the specific annoying argument I was anticipating, to draw the parent in, and already realizing and expecting the definitional type of response (maybe I wasn't playing fair), and of course the parent walked right into my trap! And I realize and understand the extent of insignificance I am directing you to, in that it is so very very weak and even egotistical of me to want to create and deconstruct and explode such an inconsequential thing as a comment trolling a gun nut attempting to utilize *deterrent* and "final-say" cleverness on a site like Slashdot, as I have on occasion done in the past, but I believe it an emerging and humble art form worthy of just the merest acknowledgement, and I've been waiting for a story like this to pop up so I could deploy this reasoning, and I hope that there might be someone out there that can appreciate a troll that is .... this... paradoxically, inappropriately foulmouthed, and deliciously, intellectually pugilistic and, if I may say so, decadently over the top and engorging insult. This guy or gal is going to think twice about trying that tired argument of misdirection again I can tell you that much. HA! :D
Your dishonest and beguiling insistance on the meaning of this phrase is what we in the business of intelligent discourse label a red herring. It does not mean that Congress does not have the right to regulate the militia, nor is it saying Congress does not have the right to regulate firearms. Congress does have the right, and Congress does indeed absolutely have the right, among other overarching rights it has over militias, to regulate firearms!!!! .
Instead, the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to forbid Congress a very specific and particularly excessive extension of Congress' authority to make laws "necessary and proper" for exercising its control over the militia. No matter what Congress decides or does or does not do regarding militias, by the order of this Amendment, Congress is proscribed from disarming them. And that's all it says! Congress cannot and must not disarm militias, as a whole, in their authority to regulate militias. It speaks only about Congress' authority over this group, this certain armed collection of people (and certainly is not a reference in any way to "We the People of the United States,") and it says nothing about an individual right to anything! Congress can't disarm the entire militia! Get it?
Oh, and do try to keep the childish name-calling to yourself. Such nonsense has no place in discussion, and only serves to denigrate your own position.
More important than the 2nd Amendment is the 1st Amendment! You stupid and dishonest, deceptive and arrogant, intentionally misleading, borderline-retarded waste of everyone's time, space, energy and undoubtedly, air. Please don't take my words personally, because on the whole, this is how we all feel about you and have always felt about you. Jackass.
Your self-delusion and unoriginal bullshit notwithstanding, the minutes of the Constitutional Congresses say otherwise.
They meant "regulated" in exactly the same way we mean "regulated."
A well-regulated militia...
Correct. The 2nd Amendment demands regulation, and any local laws cannot stop that mandate that was so important to the Founders and the authors of the Constitution and Bill of Rights that they put it in the the first 3 words of the Amendment. Regulation of firearms is, in effect, even more important than the right to bear arms.
The 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution guarantees that each citizen has the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense
That's a damned lie. The 2nd A. of the US Constitution guarantees that each citizen has the right to keep and bear arms for the common defense. Only this Supreme Court, in 2008, changed 200 years of LAW to reinterpret the 2nd A. to mean what it NEVER DID, and WHAT THE FOUNDERS debated and DECIDED to leave out, namely, "self-defense" which is never once mentioned in the Constitition. And we know this because its in the minutes of the Constitutional Congresses.
Again... self-defense may be an inalianble right, but that right sure as shit never came from the 2nd Amendment.
I only posted because it is an elegant solution that provides some amazing features... uh... elegantly. But it is new, and the main feature is mitigated somewhat in ssh by screen. More often than not, I do get annoyed by ssh latency, for which mosh has an... uh.. elegant... solution. (sorry, its late...uh... early)
However, even still, the license is absolutely unacceptable for some uses.
I never thought that the GPL would cause a particular use to be counter to the licensing unless it was being used as a component in another application by a developer that necessarily needed to release under a different and incompatiible license, such as the APL. Under what circumstances would the licensing stop a user from using mosh, or any code under a GPL, as it is, and not as inclusion by a developer in some other application?
I won't miss OpenSSL and that tiny ragtag team of developers, the OpenSSL Eight, as impressive as their work is for such a tiny crew. And I'm only responding because I don't see anyone complaing about ssh, and it is dear to my heart, too, but maybe its time for a change ... becuase now there is mosh..
Programming, if nothing else, is moduler.
Simply, the idea is to have pre-programmed every common codable module, optimized for diffrent purposes in multiple ways, for every language that this paradigm can work with, available in an online database, with a front end that looks like Minecraft or something, and also includes a sandbox for users to test the resulting program/application, and that the entire OSS project is built and run by volunteer programmers that are paid from advertising profits or corporate subscription fees, based on the level of their involvement.
One never need explain why something makes sense. That would be redundant. What makes sense does so on its face.
I think you may have missed the part about the whole being online bit, and including all permittable code and all logic modules being precoded in different ways for different optimizations, and the bit about it being stored in and accessable in a database by a Minecraft-like front end that ...
wait a second. Who do I know you can even read?
The other way to make code safer, of course, is to eliminate the programmers.
You would think so, but as a programmer I can assure you that over time code changes itself.
No way *I* wrote that...
Of that I have no doubt. And I know it couldn't be your fault. (And the set up goes like:) Its more likely due to cosmic ray's, man, and eddy's in the space-time continuum!
you should have said...
No, I sort of meant what I said and not really as a joke. And I am kin to BOFH, in that I'll come down hard on users, but only when they fuckup, and I guess that's where we diverge, also, my skill set is much more narrow, unfortunately.
To illustrate the point about programmers, we need to take a little walk, because I like programmers... they are my compadres.
I really love that Superuser forum site and the others like it ("how do you do x under these circumstances on some platform?") where someone posts a question and they get a bunch of rated answers, and all the flamers and trolls gets rated to oblivion and you never see it unless you want to, so its 3 things that work right at the top of the page sometimes, and not just for solutions in the form of previously unknown commands, or known commands used in unexpected ways, but various ways to do the same complex routines or entire scripts. It makes thinking about programming as what it should really be, as simple as creating a todo list or putting together a flow chart using modules that are constantly duplicated, improved slightly, and optimized over time.
Which suggests four things to me. Regular folk, you know, "the norms," and really I just mean anyone at all could very likely do some high-level programming or create software for themselves or for profit if they had the right interface with different common logic modules and standard operators available in graphic form with popup documentation (if activated) that they can link together visually and simulate execution or output before compiling or printing the constructed code text to the screen and into the clipboard or publishing the code to the second thing it suggests to me.
Which is that there should be a front end interface driving a fast database that makes available the most common logic phrases redundant in various methods, for whatever reasons (such as to minimize code verbosity, or maximize speed, or minimize hits on resources) for the most common programming languages (and excluding any that couldn't work with this paradigm), such that each module could be improved independently of the rest by the most accepted advancement method for open source development, grouped in the most common ways by the people that mostly use them tend to group them (by what they're used for, or who they're mostly used by, or what they are written in, or whether interpreted or compiled, and so on, whatever the user chooses and whatever anyone suggests that's a good enough idea to get voted into downstream availability in the interface or database). This should exist already!? Where is this site!?
Thirdly, such a site is certain to attract and promote talent, like flies to honey, as well as attract and allow the mediocre hacks (like me, if you will allow me this very generous characterization) to have better code in whatever language works best, and grow within a few short years to some new popular accepted web phenomenon, and ultimately improve the efficiency and resiliency of code running everywhere on everything.
And finally, that the interface should be fun and easy to understand, surprisingly fast and fluid and pretty much look like Minecraft or even Tetris, or whatever, as the interface itself is just another idea promoted and/or examined for inclusion and developed based on whatever its popularity or merits are by the roundtable of those that decide to work on the project.
So... that's a new idea that's going to sit there until someone, anyone tells me, please, how to find out how to start a for profit open source web project that gives away functionality for free to attract users with milestones defined such that it can't change beyond its established mandate (it would fork if necessary) and somehow generate perhaps at first modest revenue with it (for site expenses, and contributors, why not?) that will slowly but surely build until its effectively printing money and making us a
You can write beautiful, elegant, purely functional code, as long as it doesn't have to touch a storage system, a network, or a user. But, hey, other than that, it's great!
Speaking as an sysadmin, sounds like Heaven.
The other way to make code safer, of course, is to eliminate the programmers.
People will call things whatever they want to call them, and I do not have the political power to enforce accurate terminology.
Timmy timmy timmy timmy timmy timmy (Timmy) Timmy.
Timmy timmy timmy timmy timmy timmy. timmy timmy timmy timmy. timmy, timmy timmy. Timmy timmy timmy timmy timmy "timmy timmy." Timmy timmy timmy timmy timmy timmy timmy, timmy timmy timmy timmy timmy timmy timmy timmy timmy timmy, timmy timmy timmy timmy timmy timmy timmy timmy timmy.
Timmy (Timmy) Timmy? Timmy Timmy timmy timmy timmy timmy timmy.
Timmy timmy timmy timmy timmy timmy timmy timmy timmy timmy, timmy timmy timmy timmy timmy timmy timmy. Timmy timmy timmy timmy timmy timmy timmy timmy timmy timmy timmy timmy, timmy timmy timmy timmy, Timmy timmy timmy timmy (timmy timmy timmy).
Timmy timmy timmy timmy timmy timmy timmy timmy timmy... timmy timmy timmy timmy timmy (Timmy, timmy timmy., timmy.)
Sabotage at nuke plants is largely a non-issue, too hard to make something bad happen
True. Honda generators are heavy. No one wants to lug those things across the parking lot.
Sapphire has a niche in high end LED flashlights,.
Holy expensive, Batman!. You weren't kidding.
Now, whether the militia is the intent of the second amendment is a question that we have been asking for a long time now. The wording of the second amendment is not particularly clear on that.
Perhaps our modern internal parsers have trouble with it, and perhaps as laymen we have debated it, and perhaps it has been debated in the courts, but our academic Constitutional experts and historians, who are surprisingly homogenous regarding this historical fact, have no trouble at all devining the exact intentions of the Founders regardless of the wording. Justice Steven's rewording is, in fact, unnecessary, because his changes simply modernize and make clear what the original intention was. And debate is unncessary and intellectually dishonest, because we know what the Founders intention was from the minutes of the Constitutional Congresses... its all in there, so idky there's all this business of "it means this," and "no, it means this other thing," when, in fact, there is no two ways about it... what the Founders intentions actually were are available to us from the extra documentation they meticulously provided for history and posterity.
It is pretty clear to me, however, from the text alone how important it was to the Founders that gun owners be a part of a militia, and be well regulated, and it should be clear to you too... because its in the first three or four words of the Amendment, and the Founders put it there at the beginning because they wanted to underscore its importance.
The interpretation has been bastardized by the NRA, and all the gun owners (not ALL gunowners, but just the silly ones) that want to do as they please without any sort of regulation or oversight, and they want this because they want it and do not try to offer any sort of legal precidence for it, because there is none. Or I should say, there was none whatsoever prior to 2008, which is a very strange and late date for an interpretation that has stood for 219 years to change. You see, sadly, the meaning of the Second has been completely changed by the 2008 District of Columbia v. Heller decision, and the Justices know what the Founders intended, but the majority of the Court believed that it was ok, because they felt that's what the American people want. In a sense, there is merit to this idea: the American People are in charge. However, the original mandate for the Supreme Court of the United States (and the creation of the US Senate) includes the right of the court to stand in the way of what the People want... Justices are not elected, and it was never their mandate to do as the People wanted them to but to do what is right, and they are appointed and not elected and their positions are protected as lifetime appointments, and in the same regard as to why a Prosecutor has legal immunity, its so they have the right and duty to and can afford to do what is right without fear of retribution of the People. I strongly feel it was not only unnecessary to do as they did, they really went against the Founders intentions, and basically made themselves and the institution of the Supreme Court weaker .
The way the meaning/interpretation of the 2nd was changed by the 2008 decision is pretty startling. Originally, the meaning of the 2nd is saying that a well regulated militia IS the right of the People to keep and carry arms. Thus, your right to carry arms is only there if you are in a well regulated militia, and the militia in which you belong has the right to regulate you, as far as your right to carry is concerned. It is a volunteer militia, so there is a deep self-less nobility to it: you have a right to own and carry arms in order to protect your defenseless neighbors, and that can mean either from foreign enemies, domestic enemies, and even the government.
Now, the official meaning of the 2nd, since the 2008 decision, is completely whack (if I can use a technical term). Basically, SCOTUS gave every gun nut what they always wanted, what they always read into the 2nd that was n