that's the legal definition, sure. but, i'm only familiar with english, and not law. if we're going with the legal definition, we'll also need legal definitions for 'exhibition' and 'physical force'.
in any case, it wasn't evident from the original context that you were speaking in legal terms, not ordinary english ones. my apologies.
I had a chance to meet Minsky at MIT's CSAIL in 2005. Though my interaction with him was brief, it was immediately clear to me that he was a tremendously intelligent individual. I offer my condolences not only to his friends and family, but to the entire human race that is worse off without his insights.
A few blog posts about how that isn't how things "should" work will change nothing. Wealth is power, and power includes the power to separate one's self from the consequences of one's actions. This is a non-negotiable fact of how humans do things, and will remain so into the foreseeable future.
Is it? That means that the web is more profitable than traditional publishing, and there's nothing to worry about.
Conversely, if adblocking is killing [the profitability, and hence sustainability of ] the web, then the web isn't really killing the publishing industry, and there's nothing to worry about.
Explain to me how it can be possible for the web to kill the publishing industry while being unprofitable.
Sanders' thing is bribing the voters with my money. Turns out, it's pretty popular, no matter the current year. Communism is a disease.
Hi. I'm a Bernie Sanders supporter. I agree with your assessment, that he's bribing the voters with your money [assuming you make enough for that to be true]. He's bribing the voters with my money too [and I still support him nonetheless]. That's not why I'm responding to your comment.
You suggest that this approach is "pretty popular, no matter the current year". What basis do you have for making this claim? At face value, it seems intuitive. However, based on my understanding of political history in the US, it's totally at odds with reality. Populist platforms that could be described as bribing the poor with the money of the rich have not been very popular at all -- especially in poorer districts. In the rural south, where poverty is most rampant, socialist policies like these are especially unpopular. This seems to contradict your allegation of popularity. In light of these facts, can you explain why you believe that bribing voters with your money is "pretty popular"?
First, I'm generally opposed to the 'social justice warrior' mentality that seems to be gaining popularity in American culture. I question the implied notion that social injustice is always the most important issue at hand. If you're about to respond saying that this notion isn't really implied anywhere, then I move to my second point.
Let's assume that, as the summary claims, there is indeed a "harassment problem" in astronomy. And let's assume that, as the summary claims, an entire academic field is recognizing a widespread problem, taking steps to change its policies, and is beginning to support the victims, rather than the senior, more famous, more prestigious perpetrators. There is an undeniable implication here that this is a good thing, and I question the basis for this implication. While we can all agree that fixing a "harassment problem" is, in a vacuum, a good thing, it is not logically necessary that the good from fixing this "harassment problem" outweighs the negative impact of opposing (or, fine, "holding accountable") the "more prestigious perpetrators". While one may hold an opinion that the value of social justice is greater than the value of amassing astronomical knowledge, it is just that -- an opinion.
It is my opinion that too many people unquestioningly accept the premise that the social justice is of utmost importance, and that achieving social justice is worth any price. I acknowledge that this may certainly be the case, but that such claims are unsupported by any factual evidence or logical argument.
You use the word "leftist", which to me indicates a partisan mentality, so I'll try extra-hard to give you the benefit of the doubt instead of dismissing you as an idiot.
That being said, what does Josef Stalin have to do with "leftist government" or anything that I said? Generally speaking, authoritarian dictatorship doesn't constitute "leftist government". I look forward to hearing your insightful and unbiased response.
Wasn't that the premise you put forth yourself? That tens of millions of people would turn to government for support?
Regardless, I don't understand why you're so unsure about how that's going to work. The government already gives money to tens of millions of people today, either by sending bank checks via the postal service or electronically via ACH. Since both of these mechanisms scale quite well, it seems self-evident that giving money to more people, even to everyone, would work the same way it does today.
I raised somepoints that I consider salient, and even managed to refrain from any name-calling or false accusations, though I guess your comment predates them.
Oh, man, I should've kept reading before submitting my earlier comment.
Lately there have been a small number of cases of black youth violently attacking police officers, typically after being confronted for some crime these youth had committed, and then the police officers do the only reasonable thing and defend themselves using their guns.
Yes, the only reasonable thing for a well-trained law enforcement officer to do when violently attacked by unarmed black youth is to shoot them. After all, policing isn't supposed to be a dangerous job, so we can't expect police officers to endure any level of danger, no matter how insignificant. Any threat to an officer, no matter how minor, must be met with gunfire. This is, after all, "the only reasonable thing" to do.
In 2015, 129 American police officers died in the line of duty. 39 by gunfire, 7 by vehicular assault, 6 by bomb, 3 by assault. That's 55 cops killed by some form of violence (the rest died from automobile accidents, heart attacks, 9/11 related illness, etc).
In 2015, 1138 people died at the hands of on-duty American police officers. 554 of those people had firearms, and 223 of them were unarmed.
For every cop that is killed through violence, twenty Americans are killed by police violence. Of those twenty, four are entirely unarmed.
Source for cops killed by people, source for people killed by cops.
We see an influx of young men, many of them clearly with violence and rape on their minds (as we've seen in Cologne, Paris, and other cities), entering Europe illegally.
Cologne, yes. Paris, what? I thought the Paris attackers were French and Belgian nationals. Do you have some proprietary information that hasn't been released in the media, or are you falsely claiming that these are "hostile foreign invaders"?
Finally, automation is gearing up to eliminate labor from entire industries! 2% of the workforce in trucking, 2.4% of the workforce in fast food, shit is getting real! Pretty soon, the choice between socialism and mass-starvation will be much more pressing than it has been in the past.
That's the real issue that constantly gets ignored in favor of the media's fabricated crises-of-the-day - the gradual loss of middle class jobs due to automation and outsourcing. It's going to be very, very bad as tens of millions lose their incomes and then turn to government for support.
I'm not sure why this is going to be "very, very bad", though. I'll speak for myself and say that I can't wait to lose my income and turn to government for support. I don't find any inherent pleasure in needing to go to work in order to pay the bills. I, personally, will find it very, very good to live a life of leisure.
You're correct in saying that European prejudice was predominantly racial. However, it was specific to Jews, not Semites in general (as there was no significant non-Jewish Semitic population in Europe to be prejudiced against). Consequently, I question the validity of using "anti-Semitic" in that context, as it's unnecessarily broad. If we're okay with using unnecessarily broad terms, why "anti-Semitic" and not "anti-Human", or "anti-Primate", or "anti-Animal"?
Let's face it. There was never a time when "anti-Semitic" was the most specific descriptive term to use. I guess it's just a consequence of the unguided evolution of language, akin to "homophobia" becoming a commonly-used term despite having very little to do with any actual "fear" of same-sex relations. That being said, I prefer to use the terms "anti-Jew" and "anti-gay".
Also, your claim about Muslims' prejudice against Jews isn't really accurate. Israel's ethnically Jewish population is largely secular and atheist, but many of their neighboring Muslims' hatreds are untamed by this fact.
Getting rid of phone numbers could get rid of bullshit phone sales people or so-called telemarketers, nonsense charities, and bill collectors. Since I uusally get several annoying such calls, every day, I think getting rid of phone numbers is a great idea.
Says the guy logged in via his facebook account.
Look man, I don't know how you wandered over to slashdot, but I'm pretty sure you were looking for instagram or pinterest instead.
So then why do people say "anti-Semitic" instead of "anti-Jewish"? Is this like the word "literally" now being used to mean "figuratively"? If so, is this something that we should be celebrating instead of continuously complaining about?
First, what the founders thought. The founders thought that it was important that the populace be armed for the purpose of being able to overthrow an oppressive government. This was relevant at the time, as the populace had just overthrown an oppressive government by taking up arms. If we apply this reasoning to today's world, it would follow that the populace must have access to surface-to-air missile batteries, electronic warfare devices, and nuclear arms. It is left as an exercise to the reader to determine whether or not this is desirable, or whether developments in arms technology has escalated things to a point where the risk that results from an uninfringed-upon right to bear arms is greater than the risk that results from having a government that cannot be militarily challenged by its populace.
Next, what the law is today. Today, the second amendment refers to a militia (although, if you understand English grammar, it doesn't state that the right to bear arms is restricted to the militia). Today, the militia is defined as per the statute I referenced above. By today's laws (even abiding by your incorrect understanding of English grammar), all males between 17 and 44 years of age (inclusive), as well as female members of the National Guard, as members of the militia, have a right to bear arms as protected by the second amendment. This is the interpretation that is favored by those who wish to abandon the historical baggage that accompanies this issue, and simply reason about it in the context of the law as it is today.
You can't have it both ways. Either we're going with the intent of the founders, in which case everyone ought to have a SAM battery in their backyard, or we're going with the law as it stands today, in which case everyone has the right to bear arms. If we're going with some conflation of these viewpoints, we can falsely reason that only members of state militias have a right to bear arms, as you did, or that that women have no constitutionally-protected right to bear arms, as others might.
You seem like you have an interest in the history of this issue. Consequently, you may find the 1880 commentary of Judge Thomas Cooley on the subject of the second amendment interesting:
It might be supposed from the phraseology of this provision that the right to keep and bear arms was only guaranteed to the militia; but this would be an interpretation not warranted by the intent. The militia, as has been elsewhere explained, consists of those persons who, under the law, are liable to the performance of military duty, and are officered and enrolled for service when called upon. But the law may make provision for the enrolment of all who are fit to perform military duty, or of a small number only, or it may wholly omit to make any provision at all; and if the right were limited to those enrolled, the purpose of this guaranty might be defeated altogether by the action or neglect to act of the government it was meant to hold in check. The meaning of the provision undoubtedly is, that the people, from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms; and they need no permission or regulation of law for the purpose.
Judge Thomas Cooley is described as "perhaps the most widely read constitutional scholar of the nineteenth century" on Wikipedia, if that counts for anything. So, since a sitting Judge from the 19th century seems to share my opinion that the second amendment is written in English, and not doublespeak, is there something you can cite that would suggest the opposite?
Create a new $1.00 piece about the size of a nickel, maybe slightly larger.
Create a new $5.00 piece about the size of a quarter.
I don't understand this desire. Are you saying that you wish the $1 and $5 banknotes in your pocket were coins instead? Why? Are there really people out there that actually prefer coins over banknotes? Is it the additional weight, or the lovely sound they make when clinking together in your pocket as you walk?
I hate coins. I don't want them, and I simply leave any change under $1 as a tip for whoever I'm dealing with. If $1 and $5 banknotes turned into coins instead, I'd be forced to decide between leaving a no-longer-negligible amount of money on the table with each cash transaction or once again becoming a walking piggy-bank, clinking along my merry way.
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
Let's not pretend that the militia is something other than what it is.
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
So, now that we've got the factual definition of the US militia sitting right in front of us, the actual law, do you still feel the same way? Or will you "just go ahead and keep believing it says something it clearly doesn't say"?
Thank you for injecting some sense into the discussion. I'm an American gun owner that supports repealing the second amendment, and I've been saying the same thing for years.
Slashdot Mirror
that's the legal definition, sure. but, i'm only familiar with english, and not law. if we're going with the legal definition, we'll also need legal definitions for 'exhibition' and 'physical force'.
in any case, it wasn't evident from the original context that you were speaking in legal terms, not ordinary english ones. my apologies.
When I ask google, it tells me:
violence, n., behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something.
In light of this fact, I'm not sure I follow your logic.
While we both likely agree that these occupiers are asshats and idiots, we must not allow that to break our common language.
While both are reprehensible, perhaps even equally so, the fact remains that violence is not the same thing as a credible threat of violence.
I had a chance to meet Minsky at MIT's CSAIL in 2005. Though my interaction with him was brief, it was immediately clear to me that he was a tremendously intelligent individual. I offer my condolences not only to his friends and family, but to the entire human race that is worse off without his insights.
A few blog posts about how that isn't how things "should" work will change nothing. Wealth is power, and power includes the power to separate one's self from the consequences of one's actions. This is a non-negotiable fact of how humans do things, and will remain so into the foreseeable future.
Bernie 2016
The web is killing the publishing industry
Is it? That means that the web is more profitable than traditional publishing, and there's nothing to worry about.
Conversely, if adblocking is killing [the profitability, and hence sustainability of ] the web, then the web isn't really killing the publishing industry, and there's nothing to worry about.
Explain to me how it can be possible for the web to kill the publishing industry while being unprofitable.
Sanders' thing is bribing the voters with my money. Turns out, it's pretty popular, no matter the current year. Communism is a disease.
Hi. I'm a Bernie Sanders supporter. I agree with your assessment, that he's bribing the voters with your money [assuming you make enough for that to be true]. He's bribing the voters with my money too [and I still support him nonetheless]. That's not why I'm responding to your comment.
You suggest that this approach is "pretty popular, no matter the current year". What basis do you have for making this claim? At face value, it seems intuitive. However, based on my understanding of political history in the US, it's totally at odds with reality. Populist platforms that could be described as bribing the poor with the money of the rich have not been very popular at all -- especially in poorer districts. In the rural south, where poverty is most rampant, socialist policies like these are especially unpopular. This seems to contradict your allegation of popularity. In light of these facts, can you explain why you believe that bribing voters with your money is "pretty popular"?
Several reasons, really.
First, I'm generally opposed to the 'social justice warrior' mentality that seems to be gaining popularity in American culture. I question the implied notion that social injustice is always the most important issue at hand. If you're about to respond saying that this notion isn't really implied anywhere, then I move to my second point.
Let's assume that, as the summary claims, there is indeed a "harassment problem" in astronomy. And let's assume that, as the summary claims, an entire academic field is recognizing a widespread problem, taking steps to change its policies, and is beginning to support the victims, rather than the senior, more famous, more prestigious perpetrators. There is an undeniable implication here that this is a good thing, and I question the basis for this implication. While we can all agree that fixing a "harassment problem" is, in a vacuum, a good thing, it is not logically necessary that the good from fixing this "harassment problem" outweighs the negative impact of opposing (or, fine, "holding accountable") the "more prestigious perpetrators". While one may hold an opinion that the value of social justice is greater than the value of amassing astronomical knowledge, it is just that -- an opinion.
It is my opinion that too many people unquestioningly accept the premise that the social justice is of utmost importance, and that achieving social justice is worth any price. I acknowledge that this may certainly be the case, but that such claims are unsupported by any factual evidence or logical argument.
You use the word "leftist", which to me indicates a partisan mentality, so I'll try extra-hard to give you the benefit of the doubt instead of dismissing you as an idiot.
That being said, what does Josef Stalin have to do with "leftist government" or anything that I said? Generally speaking, authoritarian dictatorship doesn't constitute "leftist government". I look forward to hearing your insightful and unbiased response.
Wasn't that the premise you put forth yourself? That tens of millions of people would turn to government for support?
Regardless, I don't understand why you're so unsure about how that's going to work. The government already gives money to tens of millions of people today, either by sending bank checks via the postal service or electronically via ACH. Since both of these mechanisms scale quite well, it seems self-evident that giving money to more people, even to everyone, would work the same way it does today.
Mod parent down.
I raised some points that I consider salient, and even managed to refrain from any name-calling or false accusations, though I guess your comment predates them.
Lately there have been a small number of cases of black youth violently attacking police officers, typically after being confronted for some crime these youth had committed, and then the police officers do the only reasonable thing and defend themselves using their guns.
Yes, the only reasonable thing for a well-trained law enforcement officer to do when violently attacked by unarmed black youth is to shoot them. After all, policing isn't supposed to be a dangerous job, so we can't expect police officers to endure any level of danger, no matter how insignificant. Any threat to an officer, no matter how minor, must be met with gunfire. This is, after all, "the only reasonable thing" to do.
In 2015, 129 American police officers died in the line of duty. 39 by gunfire, 7 by vehicular assault, 6 by bomb, 3 by assault. That's 55 cops killed by some form of violence (the rest died from automobile accidents, heart attacks, 9/11 related illness, etc).
In 2015, 1138 people died at the hands of on-duty American police officers. 554 of those people had firearms, and 223 of them were unarmed.
For every cop that is killed through violence, twenty Americans are killed by police violence. Of those twenty, four are entirely unarmed.
Source for cops killed by people, source for people killed by cops.
We see an influx of young men, many of them clearly with violence and rape on their minds (as we've seen in Cologne, Paris, and other cities), entering Europe illegally.
Cologne, yes. Paris, what? I thought the Paris attackers were French and Belgian nationals. Do you have some proprietary information that hasn't been released in the media, or are you falsely claiming that these are "hostile foreign invaders"?
Finally, automation is gearing up to eliminate labor from entire industries! 2% of the workforce in trucking, 2.4% of the workforce in fast food, shit is getting real! Pretty soon, the choice between socialism and mass-starvation will be much more pressing than it has been in the past.
That's the real issue that constantly gets ignored in favor of the media's fabricated crises-of-the-day - the gradual loss of middle class jobs due to automation and outsourcing. It's going to be very, very bad as tens of millions lose their incomes and then turn to government for support.
I'm not sure why this is going to be "very, very bad", though. I'll speak for myself and say that I can't wait to lose my income and turn to government for support. I don't find any inherent pleasure in needing to go to work in order to pay the bills. I, personally, will find it very, very good to live a life of leisure.
You're correct in saying that European prejudice was predominantly racial. However, it was specific to Jews, not Semites in general (as there was no significant non-Jewish Semitic population in Europe to be prejudiced against). Consequently, I question the validity of using "anti-Semitic" in that context, as it's unnecessarily broad. If we're okay with using unnecessarily broad terms, why "anti-Semitic" and not "anti-Human", or "anti-Primate", or "anti-Animal"?
Let's face it. There was never a time when "anti-Semitic" was the most specific descriptive term to use. I guess it's just a consequence of the unguided evolution of language, akin to "homophobia" becoming a commonly-used term despite having very little to do with any actual "fear" of same-sex relations. That being said, I prefer to use the terms "anti-Jew" and "anti-gay".
Also, your claim about Muslims' prejudice against Jews isn't really accurate. Israel's ethnically Jewish population is largely secular and atheist, but many of their neighboring Muslims' hatreds are untamed by this fact.
Getting rid of phone numbers could get rid of bullshit phone sales people or so-called telemarketers, nonsense charities, and bill collectors. Since I uusally get several annoying such calls, every day, I think getting rid of phone numbers is a great idea.
Says the guy logged in via his facebook account.
Look man, I don't know how you wandered over to slashdot, but I'm pretty sure you were looking for instagram or pinterest instead.
There be nerds here.
So then why do people say "anti-Semitic" instead of "anti-Jewish"? Is this like the word "literally" now being used to mean "figuratively"? If so, is this something that we should be celebrating instead of continuously complaining about?
First, what the founders thought. The founders thought that it was important that the populace be armed for the purpose of being able to overthrow an oppressive government. This was relevant at the time, as the populace had just overthrown an oppressive government by taking up arms. If we apply this reasoning to today's world, it would follow that the populace must have access to surface-to-air missile batteries, electronic warfare devices, and nuclear arms. It is left as an exercise to the reader to determine whether or not this is desirable, or whether developments in arms technology has escalated things to a point where the risk that results from an uninfringed-upon right to bear arms is greater than the risk that results from having a government that cannot be militarily challenged by its populace.
Next, what the law is today. Today, the second amendment refers to a militia (although, if you understand English grammar, it doesn't state that the right to bear arms is restricted to the militia). Today, the militia is defined as per the statute I referenced above. By today's laws (even abiding by your incorrect understanding of English grammar), all males between 17 and 44 years of age (inclusive), as well as female members of the National Guard, as members of the militia, have a right to bear arms as protected by the second amendment. This is the interpretation that is favored by those who wish to abandon the historical baggage that accompanies this issue, and simply reason about it in the context of the law as it is today.
You can't have it both ways. Either we're going with the intent of the founders, in which case everyone ought to have a SAM battery in their backyard, or we're going with the law as it stands today, in which case everyone has the right to bear arms. If we're going with some conflation of these viewpoints, we can falsely reason that only members of state militias have a right to bear arms, as you did, or that that women have no constitutionally-protected right to bear arms, as others might.
You seem like you have an interest in the history of this issue. Consequently, you may find the 1880 commentary of Judge Thomas Cooley on the subject of the second amendment interesting:
It might be supposed from the phraseology of this provision that the right to keep and bear arms was only guaranteed to the militia; but this would be an interpretation not warranted by the intent. The militia, as has been elsewhere explained, consists of those persons who, under the law, are liable to the performance of military duty, and are officered and enrolled for service when called upon. But the law may make provision for the enrolment of all who are fit to perform military duty, or of a small number only, or it may wholly omit to make any provision at all; and if the right were limited to those enrolled, the purpose of this guaranty might be defeated altogether by the action or neglect to act of the government it was meant to hold in check. The meaning of the provision undoubtedly is, that the people, from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms; and they need no permission or regulation of law for the purpose.
Judge Thomas Cooley is described as "perhaps the most widely read constitutional scholar of the nineteenth century" on Wikipedia, if that counts for anything. So, since a sitting Judge from the 19th century seems to share my opinion that the second amendment is written in English, and not doublespeak, is there something you can cite that would suggest the opposite?
Create a new $1.00 piece about the size of a nickel, maybe slightly larger.
Create a new $5.00 piece about the size of a quarter.
I don't understand this desire. Are you saying that you wish the $1 and $5 banknotes in your pocket were coins instead? Why? Are there really people out there that actually prefer coins over banknotes? Is it the additional weight, or the lovely sound they make when clinking together in your pocket as you walk?
I hate coins. I don't want them, and I simply leave any change under $1 as a tip for whoever I'm dealing with. If $1 and $5 banknotes turned into coins instead, I'd be forced to decide between leaving a no-longer-negligible amount of money on the table with each cash transaction or once again becoming a walking piggy-bank, clinking along my merry way.
Fuck coins!
That still doesn't make the US's second amendment unambiguous. But let's not pretend that a militia was something other than what it was.
10 U.S. Code 311 - Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
Let's not pretend that the militia is something other than what it is.
10 U.S. Code 311 - Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
So, now that we've got the factual definition of the US militia sitting right in front of us, the actual law, do you still feel the same way? Or will you "just go ahead and keep believing it says something it clearly doesn't say"?
Thank you for injecting some sense into the discussion. I'm an American gun owner that supports repealing the second amendment, and I've been saying the same thing for years.
ATF = alcohol, tobacco, and firearms: why are these even grouped together?
Because BSDR (Bureau of Sex, Drugs, and Rock'n'roll) sounded just a bit too fun.