Why do you think no one has bothered to do anything about illegal immigration for 30 years?
Your question is silly. It assumes the truth of the statement "no one has bothered" when there are lots and lots of people who have "bothered". Thus any answer to the question as stated is pointless.
There are lots of answers to related, but different questions: "Why do you think no one has been able to do anything about illegal immigration for 30 years?" or "Why has it been so difficult to address the problem of illegal immigration?" or "Why has action 'A' not fixed this issue 'B'?"
Answers to these types of questions are at least in priciple possible - I doubt any of them hing on people actually planning that "rape babies" will become future voters. Generally, the answers hinge on the difficulty in getting enough people to decided on the best solution to a difficult problem in a real world where competing priorities have vastly different importances for different people across a diverse population.
[Glad I re-read my posting before submitting - at first I had "answers to elated questions..." which is kind of funny. Hopefull all the other typos I missed are equally amusing.]
Trump wants to build a wall and enforce the border. If people aren't crossing illegally then there's no victims for the coyotes to rape. So a Trump presidency results in less rape. But Hillary's not going to do anything to change the situation because her party wants those rape anchor babies as future democratic voters and her donors want the cheap, exploitable slave labor to keep coming, so if you're a pro-rape voter then Hillary's your gal.
Do you really think this way or is this just a rhetorical tool? The party "wants those rape anchor babies as future democratic voters"? With everyone carrying cell phones I would have thought that some disgruntled employee or other "heroic American" would have gotten some video of the evil overloards coordinating their nefarious plans.
I like a good conspiricy myself, but my personal experience with a vast number of people of all political stripes and at a wide range of "political power" indicates that virtually none of them would be capable of keeping that sort of thing under wraps, and besides their behaviour is perfectly well explained by the combination of overly-rigid ideology, wishful thinking, difficulty of learning from previous situations, and short-term thinking all encouraged by a poorly designed incentive system.
Maybe I am an outlier in this type of situation, but I am more likely to pay attention to someone who says: "My opponent may have the best of intentions in wanting to have an outcome of "A", but even if they do manage to do "A" their proposed policy will result in the negative "B", which is much to high a cost." rather than someone who says: "My opponent, who is basically Satan by the way, is trying to to "B" because they are evil (and always have been, they kick dogs don't you know) and any talk they might have about caring about "A" is total fabrication."
What did I say that made you think I was not being honest?
I think it was the "has screamed about Jews and retarded kids" that tainted my impression of your post - there are a lot of things I am unhappy about in regard to the Clinton campaign - but her behaviour towards blacks, jews and "retarded kids" really hasn't been on my radar. I guess a the media elites have been keeping that information away from me. Wait - I thought the media elites were jews? Or have I mis-remembered?
I am completely unclear how rape rates for illegal border crossers enters into either candidate's philosophy or policy statements - surely you are not saying that one or both of them is "pro-rape-of-illegal-border-crossers"? Wasn't the narrative that the crossers were themselves rapists?
Johnson absolutely will not be elected, but a vote for him sends a message to the major parties. Maybe in the future some Libertarian presidential candidate will actually be in the running, but not this time.
Oh to have a ranked ballot system where we could choose whoever we wanted as 1st, and then go down the list (of more and more stinkyness) until we got to the D/R choices and could select them based on whatever small differences we may seem them to have.
I think what needs to happen is that people need to grow in their understanding that "literature" is just a genre of fiction, with no real claim to superiority over any other genre such as "romance", "western", or "science fiction". The Man Booker Prizes may claim to "honour fiction on a global basis", but really they only honour a particular genre of fiction, with a particular set of story structure, tropes, and other defining characteristics.
Top novels in any genre can often stretch or even break these types of "genre rules", and be praised for doing so. It is possible for a novel to be objectively categorized in more than one genre at a time but there are HUGE pre-conceived expectations for any novel based upon how that novel or author is "marketed" or perceived. Thus you have authors like Atwood working hard to maintain their status in the "literature" genre, and distancing themselves from the perceived ghetto of other genres.
Each genre (including "literature") is mostly made up of lesser quality works. 90% of everything is crap. But even if you look at the non-crap of each of these genres - aspects of each of these novels will continue to maintain some of the characteristics of their genre - and that can be challenging for a reader who is dismissive of the genre as a whole. Thus if a "literature" reader thinks (or suspects) a work is "science-fiction" they are probably more likely to think less of it when encountering features that are "science-fictionish" - and this goes both ways. A reader of a "historical romance" novel who generally dislikes "literature" may be put off by aspects of the novel that seem "literary".
So who cares? Well, I think society suffered when one genre is elevated in prestige or "value" over all others. If Chris is made to feel "lesser" because they enjoy science fiction, and Pat is looked down upon because they like romance novels, and Robin uses their love of "literature" to belittle others, good things do not follow. While there is little direct governmental support for fiction prizes, there is a pretty big media push for a number of "literature prizes" in comparison to other genres that tend to give such prizes more "value" in the eyes of the public.
Trump could point out that Saudi Arabia is on Hillary's side considering that it has provided 20% of her campaign funding, where it is illegal for foreign government to fund American political campaigns.
Yeah, I'm sure it would be easy to cover that one up.
Which is more likely, that the gazilllion opponents of Clinton and others who would benefit from this story being corroborated are unable to find some evidence of such massive wrongdoing beyond a single hacked website even though it is true, or the report was fabricated?
Thanks ScentCone for the info - I have learned much.
Why did the Tennessee Supreme Court put state in 1840, “A man in the pursuit of deer, elk, and buffaloes might carry his rifle every day for forty years, and yet it would never be said of him that he had borne arms; much less could it be said that a private citizen bears arms because he has a dirk or pistol concealed under his clothes, or a spear in a cane.” Was that court completely at odds with the understanding in the rest of the country? Was that statement widely criticized at the time?
You're examining their ruling out of context. That ruling didn't address collective vs. individual rights, it was limited to whether or not the prohibited concealed carrying of a Bowie knife by Aymette, who occasionally flashed it for show as he stomped around town looking for a man with whom he'd been arguing. He was convicted for carrying the (then, in Tennessee) illegal knife, and he attempted to get out of that by citing the Second Amendment's somewhat altered junior partner in the Tennessee constitution. The Supreme Court, which SHOULD have used the occasion to reinforce the Second Amendment's primacy in such matters, did as it often does, and ruled narrowly on the matter of whether or not Tennessee's protection of white men keeping and bearing arms did, or did not apply to concealed Bowie knives.
I note that you clipped the actually langue of the court which I put back in above - I don't think you really responded to my questions. While the context of the court's words is interesting, knowing that context does not seem to change the reason I brought it up. The context is important to understand the court's final ruling, sure, but what i am most interested in is that the 1840 language about "bearing arms" seems to clearly make the distinction between using a firearm for hunting ("it would never be said of him that he had borne arms") and in bearing arms as protected by the consistution. Did many (most?) people in the 1840s have this same type of understanding (or is this a "misunderstanding"? If the majority of people think it means one thing, is that the "correct" meaning? If the majority of jurists think one thing, but the majority of the public think the other - which majority is more "important"?)
There are nearly enough guns in civilian hands currently to arm every man, woman, and child in the US. Even if everyone was on-board and willingly turned in firearms, it would still be decades before significantly more than half were turned in just due to the sheer numbers involved and the size of the nation, so you'll have some areas gun-free and some not for decades, and criminals will simply go to the places where victims are unarmed.
I don't doubt that this is a major issue. Interestingly, the percentage of US citizens who are gun owners seems to be at an historic low, while at the same time the number of guns owned by those who do own guns has increased - about 20% of gun owners seem to be owning more tha 65% of all the guns out there. I guess if we could convince those 20% to dispose of their firearms, that would get us over the 50% mark pretty quick!
I guess I am not totally convinced. Each one of the quotes to me seem to be quotes in support of bodies like the 13 state militias, in contrast to the federal governments' potential standing army, or at least they can be read in that way. To think that they unambiguously support the idea of individual citizens regularly carrying handguns seems a bit disingenuous.
Why did the house adopt the wording “A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.” if everyone knew that this was a personal rather than collective right? Or was that a fabrication or the author of the article? It certainly seems as though the emphasis here is this wording is on the collective right.
Why did the Tennessee Supreme Court put state in 1840, “A man in the pursuit of deer, elk, and buffaloes might carry his rifle every day for forty years, and yet it would never be said of him that he had borne arms; much less could it be said that a private citizen bears arms because he has a dirk or pistol concealed under his clothes, or a spear in a cane.” Was that court completely at odds with the understanding in the rest of the country? Was that statement widely criticized at the time?
Is it not the case that four times between 1876 and 1939, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to rule that the Second Amendment protected individual gun ownership outside the context of a militia?
It does seem as though the emphasis on the individual right vs the collective right has shifted in the last 250 years and that it is not totally clear what the framers meant. More importantly, it is not totally clear what we as a people, right now, should do in terms of regulating the use of firearms. When significan portions of the population are on both sides of an issue, it is a challenge to find a way forward.
No. The Second Amendment was proposed, talked about, debated, and eventually ratified by people who EXACTLY considered it to be about protecting the individual right to keep and bear arms. There are mountains of letters, transcripts, and explicit explanations from those who created the Bill of Rights to help you understand their thinking about this, as well as other familiar ones (like the freedom to speak, assemble, etc).
Interesting.
Was the article wrong when it said "From 1888, when law review articles first were indexed, through 1959, every single one on the Second Amendment concluded it did not guarantee an individual right to a gun. The first to argue otherwise, written by a William and Mary law student named Stuart R. Hays, appeared in 1960."
Was the article incorrect when it stated "There is not a single word about an individual’s right to a gun for self-defense or recreation in Madison’s notes from the Constitutional Convention. Nor was it mentioned, with a few scattered exceptions, in the records of the ratification debates in the states. Nor did the U.S. House of Representatives discuss the topic as it marked up the Bill of Rights. In fact, the original version passed by the House included a conscientious objector provision. “A well regulated militia,” it explained, “composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.”
I would be interested to have references to the "mountains of letters, transcripts, and explicit explanations from those who created the Bill of Rights" on this issue. I have not been able to find many - do you have any to share?
In some sense, this is accademic - the laws we now operate under are the written legislation as interpreted by the courts - which is how the system is supposed to work. Only the courts are able to make these legal interpretations, and if they are unpopular the only way to change them is to make modifications to the legislation. Constitutional ammendments are at least in theory possible.
Requiring an extra letter in the password is a much better way of ensuring strength than deliberately reducing the strength.
I don't think that it is quite that simple. Requiring use of all possible characters (up/low/digits/symbols) does ensure that the search space is the largest possible, at the cost (as you point out) of giving the attacker extra knowledge of the parameters of that space - but for most cases, this results in increased difficulty for the attacker.
If the attacker knows that 8 characters is the minimum, then that does mean that they "save" the resources of checking the N^7 possible passwords excluded by the rule, but searching through (N^8-N^7) is much harder then cracking those passwords that likely would have resulted if people were allowed to have less than 8 characters. Requiring upper/lower/dig/symbols means that the search space has a value for "N" which is around 80 rather than just 24 for people who just like lower case. Yes the attacker knows that there is "at least one" of each type, but that knowledge isn't as useful as the fact that without such restrictions, many of the users would use passwords that contain "exactly zero" of any type beyond the lower case letters (and some probably only use the digits zero to nine). Letting the attacker know that these "small" search spaces are unused would save them a bit of time, but saving 24^8 choices out of 80^8 choices is not such a big deal, and ensuring that all the users are in the (80^8-24^8) world is not such a bad thing.
I do agree that allowing (or even insisting) on longer passwords is the best way to increase the search volume. What pisses ME off is some of my financial places that STILL do not allow me to chose passwords that are longer than eight characters. I can protect my stupid facebook account with a fifty character string, but my bank account is limited to eight?
As far as the climatologists go, the old guard of professors and mentors trains the new guard, and they are savage to anyone who doesn't follow in their lock step group think. Just do a google search for climatologists who have been excommunicated for disagreeing with the herd. PhDs typically enter the work force when they are ~28, not 40, so those who had just started working in the field in 1979 (the tail end of the ice age scare) would be 65 or just retiring this year and would have been leading the departments for the last 20 years.
Well, those entering the field at 28 are not "the same scientists who were running around in the 70s saying that the next ice age was upon us", in fact they are the next generation of scientists who have found different stuff. You started out saying "I can't believe these people, they keep changing their mind!", and I am just pointing out that they are not even the same people! You know, your argument about forced group think seems fundamentally flawed if your best example is one where you feel as though a consensus opinion actually changed. You can't reasonably say "they all think the same and never change due to peer pressure and other similar influences" and also at the same time say "they used to think one thing and now they think something else." Both of those statements might be reasonable criticisms individually, but they do kind of work against each other.
By the way, Wikipedia at least claims that Global Cooling was never any sort of widely held opinion of climatologists: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... - so while there might have been press reports of cooling being a possible problem, "Academic analysis of the peer-reviewed studies published at that time shows that most papers examining aspects of climate during the 1970s were either neutral or showed a warming trend." So before you go blaming those fickle for flip-flopping all the time, perhaps your should re-examine what the scientists at the time were mostly saying - and it doesn't seem like they were all saying it was going to get chilly.
As for a google search for "climatologists who have been excommunicated for disagreeing with the herd", I have not been able to find any, though I don't deny that it is possible. The thing is, in my experience of academia, it is pretty darn hard to do anything about tenured researchers doing crazy shit, and there are not insignificant numbers of people in the sciences who like to take a contrarian position against almost anything. The fact of the matter is that over at least the last decade, a number of valid criticisms of climate research have been made, and work has been done to address them. The number of climatologists who have had doubts about the "consensus" has been decreasing, as one would expect if the consensus was broadly correct.
Sure, it is possible that the whole thing is a hoax perpetrated by "big solar" against the virtuous carbon crowd. But I have to ask, if the consensus opinion was in fact broadly correct, how would everyone's behaviour be different? What would convince you that there was not some nefarious data manipulation going on?
"The global warming scientists" seem to be virtually every climatologist out there, most of who were not working in the 1970s - 1979 was 37 years ago you know. Maybe they have all been brainwashed by their deluded mentors while in grad school, but working scientsts or age 40 in 1979 would now be 77 years old - and they would be the amoungst youngest of those group. Thus it seems unlikely that todays climatologist would be the "same scientists" you speak of from the 1970s.
Of course regardless of what you think of their predictive power, the actual climate change over the last ~20k years does seem pretty slowly changing - except for recently: http://xkcd.com/1732/
personally, i would say cancer is much more like wallstreet fatcats.
a mutation in the rules governing proper behavior causes them to consume all available resources, send ssignals to the regulatory system that they are essential and need protection, while earnestly believing they are the most important part of the system while destroying it from the inside, due to the removal of a system to terminate that behavior early.
Hey, that's pretty good. I'll have to remember that.
Taxes are collected from privately owned assets. Tax deductions are government taking less private property.
One can only believe what you do if one believes that the concept of private property does not exist. For your premise to be true, all property would have to be owned by the government.
If you want that shit, move to Venezuela.
Well, to be fair, all of these "privately owned assets" are only "privately owned" because society has decided to enforce certain legal constructs through the use of a police and courts system. "We the people" have ultimately decided what all these things mean, and to what extent we are going to protect those meanings from other possible ones.
If we were truely following this type of ideal "private ownership" principle, the vast majority of the real estate on this continent would not be held by decendants of immigrants I am confident. Even after killing the vast majority of the continent's inhabitants, ownership should have passed to "nearest relatives", rather than "those who did the killing".
Straight to the labor theory of value. Do not pass go, do not collect $200.
Realize your fallacy and be enlightened. Value is set on the market. Including the value of labor and capital. The fact you don't like that, doesn't change it.
To think that the way we have implemented "the market" is optimal is pretty shortsighted.
The USA has one of the lowest amounts of "socio-economic mobility" amoung developed nations. Peole in the USA have a harder time moving "up the ladder" than in most other places.
Our nuclear arsenals are rotting today, and they're doing very little to prevent war. What is preventing war is the fact that war reduces populations and reducing population is bad for business when you're in the business of controlling as many people as possible. Terrorist propaganda is much more effective than war.
There seems to be some truth to the argument that war is reduced when nations are more tightly interlocked by trade and other exchanges. It is not so much that the evil puppet masters have decided to prevent wars, but rather than the whole system is so interrelated that large scale conflict becomes so obviously bad for everyone that it never gets considered.
The first amendment begins "Congress shall make no law..."
Neither buzzfeed nor Facebook are Congress, obviously. Private businesses are free to publish or not publish whatever they wish..
So I, as the owner of a private business, could post messages on the website of my place of business about the inferiority of various races, and the fact that women don't belong in the work place taking jobs away from men who have families to feed.
Thanks for letting me know about this. I'll get right on it.
Actually I don't think there is much legislation that would prohibit you from doing so. If you are found to be making hiring decisions based on those ideas, or vetting your clientel in that way, you may be in contravention of a variety of statues. Perhaps creating a hostile work environment by way of your website postings might also be a problem.
I do this, too, but will caution others who want to start -- some sites (usually those that don't publish a max length) will allow you to set really long passwords but then break when you try to use them.
I have encountered this. A site may silently cut a "too-long" password short to an acceptable length, so testing that the passwords you have recorded actually do work is important. I try to send a note to such websites letting them know their system sucks. Best practices for websites should be to actually document what length and character sets are acceptable for use, and some sanity checks that give useful feedback when unacceptable passwords are being attempted to be set.
But then you have to write them down somewhere to remember them. That's very bad.
I don't think it is as bad to write them down as you think. Sure, if someone is targeting you specifically, they might be able to steal your little black book and get your stuff, but is that the threat model you are most likely to encounter?
I suspect that for most people, their safety would be improved by having different, long, random passwords recored somewhere reasonably secure is much better than memorized, short, easy to remember, or reused passwords.
You have no clue. There are millions of working people in America working for cash. Almost everyone on SS disability to start.
I don't doubt that there are a lot of cheaters out there, but actually the US's compliance rate is pretty good in comparison to many countries (83% or so, that is by dollar so the per capita rate could be a lot lower if a few people are doing big dollar cheating). Do you have any reference to the idea that "almost everyone on SS disability" are cheating to a significant degree?
The odds of being caught cheating are fairly low, but they are not insignificant, especilly in cases where someone turns you in, and anyone working for cash has a lot of people who know about their non-compliance, and who have incentives to turn them in.
Slashdot Mirror
Why do you think no one has bothered to do anything about illegal immigration for 30 years?
Your question is silly. It assumes the truth of the statement "no one has bothered" when there are lots and lots of people who have "bothered". Thus any answer to the question as stated is pointless.
There are lots of answers to related, but different questions: "Why do you think no one has been able to do anything about illegal immigration for 30 years?" or "Why has it been so difficult to address the problem of illegal immigration?" or "Why has action 'A' not fixed this issue 'B'?"
Answers to these types of questions are at least in priciple possible - I doubt any of them hing on people actually planning that "rape babies" will become future voters. Generally, the answers hinge on the difficulty in getting enough people to decided on the best solution to a difficult problem in a real world where competing priorities have vastly different importances for different people across a diverse population.
[Glad I re-read my posting before submitting - at first I had "answers to elated questions..." which is kind of funny. Hopefull all the other typos I missed are equally amusing.]
Trump wants to build a wall and enforce the border. If people aren't crossing illegally then there's no victims for the coyotes to rape. So a Trump presidency results in less rape. But Hillary's not going to do anything to change the situation because her party wants those rape anchor babies as future democratic voters and her donors want the cheap, exploitable slave labor to keep coming, so if you're a pro-rape voter then Hillary's your gal.
Do you really think this way or is this just a rhetorical tool? The party "wants those rape anchor babies as future democratic voters"? With everyone carrying cell phones I would have thought that some disgruntled employee or other "heroic American" would have gotten some video of the evil overloards coordinating their nefarious plans.
I like a good conspiricy myself, but my personal experience with a vast number of people of all political stripes and at a wide range of "political power" indicates that virtually none of them would be capable of keeping that sort of thing under wraps, and besides their behaviour is perfectly well explained by the combination of overly-rigid ideology, wishful thinking, difficulty of learning from previous situations, and short-term thinking all encouraged by a poorly designed incentive system.
Maybe I am an outlier in this type of situation, but I am more likely to pay attention to someone who says: "My opponent may have the best of intentions in wanting to have an outcome of "A", but even if they do manage to do "A" their proposed policy will result in the negative "B", which is much to high a cost." rather than someone who says: "My opponent, who is basically Satan by the way, is trying to to "B" because they are evil (and always have been, they kick dogs don't you know) and any talk they might have about caring about "A" is total fabrication."
What did I say that made you think I was not being honest?
I think it was the "has screamed about Jews and retarded kids" that tainted my impression of your post - there are a lot of things I am unhappy about in regard to the Clinton campaign - but her behaviour towards blacks, jews and "retarded kids" really hasn't been on my radar. I guess a the media elites have been keeping that information away from me. Wait - I thought the media elites were jews? Or have I mis-remembered?
I am completely unclear how rape rates for illegal border crossers enters into either candidate's philosophy or policy statements - surely you are not saying that one or both of them is "pro-rape-of-illegal-border-crossers"? Wasn't the narrative that the crossers were themselves rapists?
I guess I'm just not well enough informed.
Was that the type of satire Adams has been producing lately?
Johnson absolutely will not be elected, but a vote for him sends a message to the major parties. Maybe in the future some Libertarian presidential candidate will actually be in the running, but not this time.
Oh to have a ranked ballot system where we could choose whoever we wanted as 1st, and then go down the list (of more and more stinkyness) until we got to the D/R choices and could select them based on whatever small differences we may seem them to have.
I can dream.
I think what needs to happen is that people need to grow in their understanding that "literature" is just a genre of fiction, with no real claim to superiority over any other genre such as "romance", "western", or "science fiction". The Man Booker Prizes may claim to "honour fiction on a global basis", but really they only honour a particular genre of fiction, with a particular set of story structure, tropes, and other defining characteristics.
Top novels in any genre can often stretch or even break these types of "genre rules", and be praised for doing so. It is possible for a novel to be objectively categorized in more than one genre at a time but there are HUGE pre-conceived expectations for any novel based upon how that novel or author is "marketed" or perceived. Thus you have authors like Atwood working hard to maintain their status in the "literature" genre, and distancing themselves from the perceived ghetto of other genres.
Each genre (including "literature") is mostly made up of lesser quality works. 90% of everything is crap. But even if you look at the non-crap of each of these genres - aspects of each of these novels will continue to maintain some of the characteristics of their genre - and that can be challenging for a reader who is dismissive of the genre as a whole. Thus if a "literature" reader thinks (or suspects) a work is "science-fiction" they are probably more likely to think less of it when encountering features that are "science-fictionish" - and this goes both ways. A reader of a "historical romance" novel who generally dislikes "literature" may be put off by aspects of the novel that seem "literary".
So who cares? Well, I think society suffered when one genre is elevated in prestige or "value" over all others. If Chris is made to feel "lesser" because they enjoy science fiction, and Pat is looked down upon because they like romance novels, and Robin uses their love of "literature" to belittle others, good things do not follow. While there is little direct governmental support for fiction prizes, there is a pretty big media push for a number of "literature prizes" in comparison to other genres that tend to give such prizes more "value" in the eyes of the public.
Trump could point out that Saudi Arabia is on Hillary's side considering that it has provided 20% of her campaign funding, where it is illegal for foreign government to fund American political campaigns.
Yeah, I'm sure it would be easy to cover that one up.
Which is more likely, that the gazilllion opponents of Clinton and others who would benefit from this story being corroborated are unable to find some evidence of such massive wrongdoing beyond a single hacked website even though it is true, or the report was fabricated?
http://www.dailydot.com/layer8...
Thanks ScentCone for the info - I have learned much.
Why did the Tennessee Supreme Court put state in 1840, “A man in the pursuit of deer, elk, and buffaloes might carry his rifle every day for forty years, and yet it would never be said of him that he had borne arms; much less could it be said that a private citizen bears arms because he has a dirk or pistol concealed under his clothes, or a spear in a cane.” Was that court completely at odds with the understanding in the rest of the country? Was that statement widely criticized at the time?
You're examining their ruling out of context. That ruling didn't address collective vs. individual rights, it was limited to whether or not the prohibited concealed carrying of a Bowie knife by Aymette, who occasionally flashed it for show as he stomped around town looking for a man with whom he'd been arguing. He was convicted for carrying the (then, in Tennessee) illegal knife, and he attempted to get out of that by citing the Second Amendment's somewhat altered junior partner in the Tennessee constitution. The Supreme Court, which SHOULD have used the occasion to reinforce the Second Amendment's primacy in such matters, did as it often does, and ruled narrowly on the matter of whether or not Tennessee's protection of white men keeping and bearing arms did, or did not apply to concealed Bowie knives.
I note that you clipped the actually langue of the court which I put back in above - I don't think you really responded to my questions. While the context of the court's words is interesting, knowing that context does not seem to change the reason I brought it up. The context is important to understand the court's final ruling, sure, but what i am most interested in is that the 1840 language about "bearing arms" seems to clearly make the distinction between using a firearm for hunting ("it would never be said of him that he had borne arms") and in bearing arms as protected by the consistution. Did many (most?) people in the 1840s have this same type of understanding (or is this a "misunderstanding"? If the majority of people think it means one thing, is that the "correct" meaning? If the majority of jurists think one thing, but the majority of the public think the other - which majority is more "important"?)
There are nearly enough guns in civilian hands currently to arm every man, woman, and child in the US. Even if everyone was on-board and willingly turned in firearms, it would still be decades before significantly more than half were turned in just due to the sheer numbers involved and the size of the nation, so you'll have some areas gun-free and some not for decades, and criminals will simply go to the places where victims are unarmed.
I don't doubt that this is a major issue. Interestingly, the percentage of US citizens who are gun owners seems to be at an historic low, while at the same time the number of guns owned by those who do own guns has increased - about 20% of gun owners seem to be owning more tha 65% of all the guns out there. I guess if we could convince those 20% to dispose of their firearms, that would get us over the 50% mark pretty quick!
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
I guess I am not totally convinced. Each one of the quotes to me seem to be quotes in support of bodies like the 13 state militias, in contrast to the federal governments' potential standing army, or at least they can be read in that way. To think that they unambiguously support the idea of individual citizens regularly carrying handguns seems a bit disingenuous.
Why did the house adopt the wording “A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.” if everyone knew that this was a personal rather than collective right? Or was that a fabrication or the author of the article? It certainly seems as though the emphasis here is this wording is on the collective right.
Why did the Tennessee Supreme Court put state in 1840, “A man in the pursuit of deer, elk, and buffaloes might carry his rifle every day for forty years, and yet it would never be said of him that he had borne arms; much less could it be said that a private citizen bears arms because he has a dirk or pistol concealed under his clothes, or a spear in a cane.” Was that court completely at odds with the understanding in the rest of the country? Was that statement widely criticized at the time?
Is it not the case that four times between 1876 and 1939, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to rule that the Second Amendment protected individual gun ownership outside the context of a militia?
It does seem as though the emphasis on the individual right vs the collective right has shifted in the last 250 years and that it is not totally clear what the framers meant. More importantly, it is not totally clear what we as a people, right now, should do in terms of regulating the use of firearms. When significan portions of the population are on both sides of an issue, it is a challenge to find a way forward.
No. The Second Amendment was proposed, talked about, debated, and eventually ratified by people who EXACTLY considered it to be about protecting the individual right to keep and bear arms. There are mountains of letters, transcripts, and explicit explanations from those who created the Bill of Rights to help you understand their thinking about this, as well as other familiar ones (like the freedom to speak, assemble, etc).
Interesting.
Was the article wrong when it said "From 1888, when law review articles first were indexed, through 1959, every single one on the Second Amendment concluded it did not guarantee an individual right to a gun. The first to argue otherwise, written by a William and Mary law student named Stuart R. Hays, appeared in 1960."
Was the article incorrect when it stated "There is not a single word about an individual’s right to a gun for self-defense or recreation in Madison’s notes from the Constitutional Convention. Nor was it mentioned, with a few scattered exceptions, in the records of the ratification debates in the states. Nor did the U.S. House of Representatives discuss the topic as it marked up the Bill of Rights. In fact, the original version passed by the House included a conscientious objector provision. “A well regulated militia,” it explained, “composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.”
I would be interested to have references to the "mountains of letters, transcripts, and explicit explanations from those who created the Bill of Rights" on this issue. I have not been able to find many - do you have any to share?
In some sense, this is accademic - the laws we now operate under are the written legislation as interpreted by the courts - which is how the system is supposed to work. Only the courts are able to make these legal interpretations, and if they are unpopular the only way to change them is to make modifications to the legislation. Constitutional ammendments are at least in theory possible.
Requiring an extra letter in the password is a much better way of ensuring strength than deliberately reducing the strength.
I don't think that it is quite that simple. Requiring use of all possible characters (up/low/digits/symbols) does ensure that the search space is the largest possible, at the cost (as you point out) of giving the attacker extra knowledge of the parameters of that space - but for most cases, this results in increased difficulty for the attacker.
If the attacker knows that 8 characters is the minimum, then that does mean that they "save" the resources of checking the N^7 possible passwords excluded by the rule, but searching through (N^8-N^7) is much harder then cracking those passwords that likely would have resulted if people were allowed to have less than 8 characters. Requiring upper/lower/dig/symbols means that the search space has a value for "N" which is around 80 rather than just 24 for people who just like lower case. Yes the attacker knows that there is "at least one" of each type, but that knowledge isn't as useful as the fact that without such restrictions, many of the users would use passwords that contain "exactly zero" of any type beyond the lower case letters (and some probably only use the digits zero to nine). Letting the attacker know that these "small" search spaces are unused would save them a bit of time, but saving 24^8 choices out of 80^8 choices is not such a big deal, and ensuring that all the users are in the (80^8-24^8) world is not such a bad thing.
I do agree that allowing (or even insisting) on longer passwords is the best way to increase the search volume. What pisses ME off is some of my financial places that STILL do not allow me to chose passwords that are longer than eight characters. I can protect my stupid facebook account with a fifty character string, but my bank account is limited to eight?
As far as the climatologists go, the old guard of professors and mentors trains the new guard, and they are savage to anyone who doesn't follow in their lock step group think. Just do a google search for climatologists who have been excommunicated for disagreeing with the herd. PhDs typically enter the work force when they are ~28, not 40, so those who had just started working in the field in 1979 (the tail end of the ice age scare) would be 65 or just retiring this year and would have been leading the departments for the last 20 years.
Well, those entering the field at 28 are not "the same scientists who were running around in the 70s saying that the next ice age was upon us", in fact they are the next generation of scientists who have found different stuff. You started out saying "I can't believe these people, they keep changing their mind!", and I am just pointing out that they are not even the same people! You know, your argument about forced group think seems fundamentally flawed if your best example is one where you feel as though a consensus opinion actually changed. You can't reasonably say "they all think the same and never change due to peer pressure and other similar influences" and also at the same time say "they used to think one thing and now they think something else." Both of those statements might be reasonable criticisms individually, but they do kind of work against each other.
By the way, Wikipedia at least claims that Global Cooling was never any sort of widely held opinion of climatologists: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... - so while there might have been press reports of cooling being a possible problem, "Academic analysis of the peer-reviewed studies published at that time shows that most papers examining aspects of climate during the 1970s were either neutral or showed a warming trend." So before you go blaming those fickle for flip-flopping all the time, perhaps your should re-examine what the scientists at the time were mostly saying - and it doesn't seem like they were all saying it was going to get chilly.
As for a google search for "climatologists who have been excommunicated for disagreeing with the herd", I have not been able to find any, though I don't deny that it is possible. The thing is, in my experience of academia, it is pretty darn hard to do anything about tenured researchers doing crazy shit, and there are not insignificant numbers of people in the sciences who like to take a contrarian position against almost anything. The fact of the matter is that over at least the last decade, a number of valid criticisms of climate research have been made, and work has been done to address them. The number of climatologists who have had doubts about the "consensus" has been decreasing, as one would expect if the consensus was broadly correct.
Sure, it is possible that the whole thing is a hoax perpetrated by "big solar" against the virtuous carbon crowd. But I have to ask, if the consensus opinion was in fact broadly correct, how would everyone's behaviour be different? What would convince you that there was not some nefarious data manipulation going on?
"The global warming scientists" seem to be virtually every climatologist out there, most of who were not working in the 1970s - 1979 was 37 years ago you know. Maybe they have all been brainwashed by their deluded mentors while in grad school, but working scientsts or age 40 in 1979 would now be 77 years old - and they would be the amoungst youngest of those group. Thus it seems unlikely that todays climatologist would be the "same scientists" you speak of from the 1970s.
Of course regardless of what you think of their predictive power, the actual climate change over the last ~20k years does seem pretty slowly changing - except for recently: http://xkcd.com/1732/
XKCD produced this graph http://xkcd.com/1732/ to shows how temperature has changed over the last 22,000 years
One of my favourite recent xkcds.
personally, i would say cancer is much more like wallstreet fatcats.
a mutation in the rules governing proper behavior causes them to consume all available resources, send ssignals to the regulatory system that they are essential and need protection, while earnestly believing they are the most important part of the system while destroying it from the inside, due to the removal of a system to terminate that behavior early.
Hey, that's pretty good. I'll have to remember that.
Of course they would assume every car is stolen. After all, they told us "You wouldn't download a car, would you?", right?
If anyone hasn't seen this PSA from "The IT Crowd", they have missed out:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
I guess it is probably infinging...
Taxes are collected from privately owned assets. Tax deductions are government taking less private property.
One can only believe what you do if one believes that the concept of private property does not exist. For your premise to be true, all property would have to be owned by the government.
If you want that shit, move to Venezuela.
Well, to be fair, all of these "privately owned assets" are only "privately owned" because society has decided to enforce certain legal constructs through the use of a police and courts system. "We the people" have ultimately decided what all these things mean, and to what extent we are going to protect those meanings from other possible ones.
If we were truely following this type of ideal "private ownership" principle, the vast majority of the real estate on this continent would not be held by decendants of immigrants I am confident. Even after killing the vast majority of the continent's inhabitants, ownership should have passed to "nearest relatives", rather than "those who did the killing".
Stop talking sense!
Straight to the labor theory of value. Do not pass go, do not collect $200.
Realize your fallacy and be enlightened. Value is set on the market. Including the value of labor and capital. The fact you don't like that, doesn't change it.
To think that the way we have implemented "the market" is optimal is pretty shortsighted.
The USA has one of the lowest amounts of "socio-economic mobility" amoung developed nations. Peole in the USA have a harder time moving "up the ladder" than in most other places.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
We would be better off developing policies that give everyone more access to those top rungs.
Our nuclear arsenals are rotting today, and they're doing very little to prevent war. What is preventing war is the fact that war reduces populations and reducing population is bad for business when you're in the business of controlling as many people as possible. Terrorist propaganda is much more effective than war.
There seems to be some truth to the argument that war is reduced when nations are more tightly interlocked by trade and other exchanges. It is not so much that the evil puppet masters have decided to prevent wars, but rather than the whole system is so interrelated that large scale conflict becomes so obviously bad for everyone that it never gets considered.
The first amendment begins "Congress shall make no law..."
Neither buzzfeed nor Facebook are Congress, obviously. Private businesses are free to publish or not publish whatever they wish. .
So I, as the owner of a private business, could post messages on the website of my place of business about the inferiority of various races, and the fact that women don't belong in the work place taking jobs away from men who have families to feed.
Thanks for letting me know about this. I'll get right on it.
Actually I don't think there is much legislation that would prohibit you from doing so. If you are found to be making hiring decisions based on those ideas, or vetting your clientel in that way, you may be in contravention of a variety of statues. Perhaps creating a hostile work environment by way of your website postings might also be a problem.
I do this, too, but will caution others who want to start -- some sites (usually those that don't publish a max length) will allow you to set really long passwords but then break when you try to use them.
I have encountered this. A site may silently cut a "too-long" password short to an acceptable length, so testing that the passwords you have recorded actually do work is important. I try to send a note to such websites letting them know their system sucks. Best practices for websites should be to actually document what length and character sets are acceptable for use, and some sanity checks that give useful feedback when unacceptable passwords are being attempted to be set.
But then you have to write them down somewhere to remember them. That's very bad.
I don't think it is as bad to write them down as you think. Sure, if someone is targeting you specifically, they might be able to steal your little black book and get your stuff, but is that the threat model you are most likely to encounter?
I suspect that for most people, their safety would be improved by having different, long, random passwords recored somewhere reasonably secure is much better than memorized, short, easy to remember, or reused passwords.
You have no clue. There are millions of working people in America working for cash. Almost everyone on SS disability to start.
I don't doubt that there are a lot of cheaters out there, but actually the US's compliance rate is pretty good in comparison to many countries (83% or so, that is by dollar so the per capita rate could be a lot lower if a few people are doing big dollar cheating). Do you have any reference to the idea that "almost everyone on SS disability" are cheating to a significant degree?
http://www.forbes.com/sites/as...
The odds of being caught cheating are fairly low, but they are not insignificant, especilly in cases where someone turns you in, and anyone working for cash has a lot of people who know about their non-compliance, and who have incentives to turn them in.