Did you see what time I posted that? I have a great sense of humor... after I wake up. Besides, you can never be too careful with these political correctness nimrods. So nuts to you!:P
I still want a Space Cadet keyboard. I think it had 5 modifier keys per hand. I wonder if I can turn my Windows key into a Meta (in Windows as well as Linux)...
By the way, in case you haven't noticed this one yet, try your keyboard's "application menu" key in Emacs. It's the same effect as M-x, but with one key. Now, if only that key weren't in a less convenient location than the aggregate bother of typing M-x to begin with.
No, they're not. That doesn't make it a sexist statement. I mean...shit, is there any combination of pronouns that a person can use and be politically correct? I say fuck it all, and I'll use whichever one I damn well please. If you want political correctness, you're looking at the wrong person. I'm not sexist, but I'm sure as hell not a pussy who bows to minority pressure, either. (And yes, it's a minority of women who even care.)
And quadruple-bucky-shift-left-foot-cokebottle is the shortcut that does a cvs download of the Hurd, finishes the unfinished parts, and prepares it for release.
Some friends and I were actually going to make a footboard once, not that long ago, to move all the modifier keys to the floor. We figure that, if a church organist can play scales with her feet, we could speed up our typing significantly by never having to use two finger simultaneously by way of our feet doing that part of the job.
On the abortion issue, I think that the biggest mistake people are making is considering a question of law to even begin with. It is already illegal to murder another person. Abortion should be a question of fact, meaning something a jury determines with the help of expert testimony.
Whether abortion is murder turns on whether a fetus is a living human, which in turn depends on when you decide life has begun. The "life begins at birth" side has it wrong. If a mother gives birth prematurely by a week, the baby will live, and therefore it must have already been alive a week before the due date. But killing it ten minutes before it's due somehow isn't really murder? The logic is flawed.
Moreover, no argument based on the dependence of the fetus can be made. By law, the child is dependent upon the parents until the age of 18, anyhow. Would you consider a mother killing her child when he is 6 months old murder? How about 6 years? 17?
Any argument for either side must be made in terms of when life begins, and I don't trust Congress any more than I trust religious zealots (myself included) to objectively define when that is. I do trust doctors to determine when life begins, because they are the ones who can say "Miss Smith, your son was born 8 weeks early, but he is going to make it." or "Ma'am, I'm sorry, but your child was born 15 weeks early, and there isn't much hope at this point."
Defining birth as beginning at conception is, then, equally ridiculous. A fetus born 9 months prematurely has zero chance of survival.
The gray area is the time between conception and birth. Exactly where should the line be drawn? I personally draw it at brain activity, because that's how we measure when you are dead and, if you are clinically dead, then you can't be a victim of a future homicide. However, I defer to medical judgment on this question. If the State can prove to the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that the child was medically alive at the time of abortion, then a murder conviction is supported. If the State cannot prove that, then no conviction should occur.
I was home in North Dakota for Christmas. One morning, it was -41F without the wind chill. I think that the average global temperature might indeed be increasing, but only because ND isn't averaged in. You plug that -41F (for the C people, -40 is where they are equal, so it's just a tad warmer than -41C) into the average, and all the sudden the whole world feels a little cooler.
I posted sources in another comment tacked onto the other reply to the initial comment I posted on this topic. Go up a few levels and look for "Not in the EU," and then check out the links there.
The tax stamp (not permit, and not expensive) that you are thinking of is more than just expensive to get - it requires local law enforcement approval, a background check, and the $200 tax. However, no machinegun manufactured after the middle of 1986 can be owned by anyone but a class III FFL holder or law enforcement agencies.
The second amendment uses the word "infringed" to describe what "shall not be" done to "the right to keep and bear arms." I ask you this - if you have a patent on something and someone produces something that is exactly like your invention except for, say, a gear ratio being slightly different, has he "infringed" on your patent?
I think that the recording industry's consensus is that the only sufficient anti-piracy measure would be a total shutdown or centralization of the system.
No kidding. Briefs of amici curiae, or "amicus briefs," as they are called and as this one is, may urge the court to take a certain position, but they are hardly opening salvos. That'd be like saying that Switzerland's decision to remain neutral is the opening salvo in the next world war.
Certain guns are illegal notwithstanding the 2nd Amendment because the last time those laws came up before the Supreme Court, the pro-gun side died before showing that the Supreme Court's interpretation of the 2nd Amendment specifically allowed those guns (machineguns, sawed-off shotguns, etc.)
Here, the case is coming to the Supreme Court. Although there is not a Constitutional provision for it, the Supreme Court tends to take things like future technological setbacks into account before handing down a ruling.
How about outlawing guns to stop people from committing murder? Not only is in ineffective in its goal, but it takes rights away from the innocent. But the vast majority of Slashdotters are in favor of banning guns, despite their multitudinous lawful purposes. It's hypocritical.
The Beowulf film with Christopher Lambert is one of the worst movies I've ever seen. I made a more accurate cinematic version of the epic poem for my high school English class, entitled "The Beo Wulf Project." With WWF wrestling, running through the woods, and driving a pickup truck like listening to Extreme, it was still better than the 1999 film.
I can remember when rotary dial phones were items of everyday use, and not some object of retro-cool pseudo-nostalgia. Imagine my delight, then
Stop right there. You imply distaste for the "retro-cool-pseudo-nostalgia" to which rotary phones have been relegated, and then immediately shift gears into experiencing "delight" at the prospect of a hack that indulges in that very quasi-nostalgia. Seems to make sense.
You do understand that the Electoral College and Senate were designed specifically to limit how much authority highly populous states would have over the rest of the nation, right? The United States of America are not a democracy - they are a constitutional republic. If you sit down and think about it, written constitutions and democracy are mutually exclusive.
There is another way to reverse the Supreme Court, which is probably almost as common as the other two: Constitutional amendment. (See Dred Scott.)
When the Supreme Court reverses itself, it's important to remember also that it does not do so all the sudden, out of the blue. Usually, there will be a string of cases over the course of several decades which gradually go from unanimous one direction to the final justice changing his mind and a 5-4 decision coming down the other direction.
Since the reversal procedure is usually gradual and certiorari is granted only rarely and even more rarely to even remotely similar cases where the lower courts appear to be doing things according to the old decisions, it can take a long time. It's probably quicker to ratify an amendment.
Nice signature line. I should probably standardize my disclaimer a bit.
I'm in the 4th right now while I learn all about it, and have no idea if a study has been done of which districts in the 9th Circuit appeal the most and which of their appeals get cert. the most. I do think it'd be interesting, because the 9th Circuit certainly is a problem. With the number of judges it has, it's rare that any given pair of judges will hear more than one case together.
I worry about dividing the 9th Circuit, because the only way to divide it that doesn't involve splitting a state or having one circuit that hears almost as many as the 9th currently does is to have "Circuit of California" and the rest of the old 9th. The 9th Circuit is liberal enough (relative to the others) as it is, but limiting it to California would just be nuts.
Then you have the possibility of splitting California, but that would introduce not only the possibility of inconsistency of federal law governing California but also political diviseness as Washington fights to control NoCal and Arizona fights to control SoCal.
If there is a good way to do it, I don't know what it is. But I don't think either of these is a good answer.
Slashdot Mirror
Did you see what time I posted that? I have a great sense of humor ... after I wake up. Besides, you can never be too careful with these political correctness nimrods. So nuts to you! :P
I still want a Space Cadet keyboard. I think it had 5 modifier keys per hand. I wonder if I can turn my Windows key into a Meta (in Windows as well as Linux)...
By the way, in case you haven't noticed this one yet, try your keyboard's "application menu" key in Emacs. It's the same effect as M-x, but with one key. Now, if only that key weren't in a less convenient location than the aggregate bother of typing M-x to begin with.
wHAt are you talking aboUT/
No, they're not. That doesn't make it a sexist statement. I mean...shit, is there any combination of pronouns that a person can use and be politically correct? I say fuck it all, and I'll use whichever one I damn well please. If you want political correctness, you're looking at the wrong person. I'm not sexist, but I'm sure as hell not a pussy who bows to minority pressure, either. (And yes, it's a minority of women who even care.)
And quadruple-bucky-shift-left-foot-cokebottle is the shortcut that does a cvs download of the Hurd, finishes the unfinished parts, and prepares it for release.
Some friends and I were actually going to make a footboard once, not that long ago, to move all the modifier keys to the floor. We figure that, if a church organist can play scales with her feet, we could speed up our typing significantly by never having to use two finger simultaneously by way of our feet doing that part of the job.
I won't hold it to any higher standard than I hold myself to...
If it can win, it doesn't have to explain the rules.
On the abortion issue, I think that the biggest mistake people are making is considering a question of law to even begin with. It is already illegal to murder another person. Abortion should be a question of fact, meaning something a jury determines with the help of expert testimony.
Whether abortion is murder turns on whether a fetus is a living human, which in turn depends on when you decide life has begun. The "life begins at birth" side has it wrong. If a mother gives birth prematurely by a week, the baby will live, and therefore it must have already been alive a week before the due date. But killing it ten minutes before it's due somehow isn't really murder? The logic is flawed.
Moreover, no argument based on the dependence of the fetus can be made. By law, the child is dependent upon the parents until the age of 18, anyhow. Would you consider a mother killing her child when he is 6 months old murder? How about 6 years? 17?
Any argument for either side must be made in terms of when life begins, and I don't trust Congress any more than I trust religious zealots (myself included) to objectively define when that is. I do trust doctors to determine when life begins, because they are the ones who can say "Miss Smith, your son was born 8 weeks early, but he is going to make it." or "Ma'am, I'm sorry, but your child was born 15 weeks early, and there isn't much hope at this point."
Defining birth as beginning at conception is, then, equally ridiculous. A fetus born 9 months prematurely has zero chance of survival.
The gray area is the time between conception and birth. Exactly where should the line be drawn? I personally draw it at brain activity, because that's how we measure when you are dead and, if you are clinically dead, then you can't be a victim of a future homicide. However, I defer to medical judgment on this question. If the State can prove to the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that the child was medically alive at the time of abortion, then a murder conviction is supported. If the State cannot prove that, then no conviction should occur.
I was home in North Dakota for Christmas. One morning, it was -41F without the wind chill. I think that the average global temperature might indeed be increasing, but only because ND isn't averaged in. You plug that -41F (for the C people, -40 is where they are equal, so it's just a tad warmer than -41C) into the average, and all the sudden the whole world feels a little cooler.
I posted sources in another comment tacked onto the other reply to the initial comment I posted on this topic. Go up a few levels and look for "Not in the EU," and then check out the links there.
The tax stamp (not permit, and not expensive) that you are thinking of is more than just expensive to get - it requires local law enforcement approval, a background check, and the $200 tax. However, no machinegun manufactured after the middle of 1986 can be owned by anyone but a class III FFL holder or law enforcement agencies.
The second amendment uses the word "infringed" to describe what "shall not be" done to "the right to keep and bear arms." I ask you this - if you have a patent on something and someone produces something that is exactly like your invention except for, say, a gear ratio being slightly different, has he "infringed" on your patent?
I think that the recording industry's consensus is that the only sufficient anti-piracy measure would be a total shutdown or centralization of the system.
No kidding. Briefs of amici curiae, or "amicus briefs," as they are called and as this one is, may urge the court to take a certain position, but they are hardly opening salvos. That'd be like saying that Switzerland's decision to remain neutral is the opening salvo in the next world war.
I'm sorry, but I call bullshit.
Certain guns are illegal notwithstanding the 2nd Amendment because the last time those laws came up before the Supreme Court, the pro-gun side died before showing that the Supreme Court's interpretation of the 2nd Amendment specifically allowed those guns (machineguns, sawed-off shotguns, etc.)
Here, the case is coming to the Supreme Court. Although there is not a Constitutional provision for it, the Supreme Court tends to take things like future technological setbacks into account before handing down a ruling.
How about outlawing guns to stop people from committing murder? Not only is in ineffective in its goal, but it takes rights away from the innocent. But the vast majority of Slashdotters are in favor of banning guns, despite their multitudinous lawful purposes. It's hypocritical.
They can afford the lawsuits, and it truly would have been hilarious.
You wrestled pandas?
No, we beat them with crowbars.
The Beowulf film with Christopher Lambert is one of the worst movies I've ever seen. I made a more accurate cinematic version of the epic poem for my high school English class, entitled "The Beo Wulf Project." With WWF wrestling, running through the woods, and driving a pickup truck like listening to Extreme, it was still better than the 1999 film.
I can remember when rotary dial phones were items of everyday use, and not some object of retro-cool pseudo-nostalgia. Imagine my delight, then
Stop right there. You imply distaste for the "retro-cool-pseudo-nostalgia" to which rotary phones have been relegated, and then immediately shift gears into experiencing "delight" at the prospect of a hack that indulges in that very quasi-nostalgia. Seems to make sense.
You do understand that the Electoral College and Senate were designed specifically to limit how much authority highly populous states would have over the rest of the nation, right? The United States of America are not a democracy - they are a constitutional republic. If you sit down and think about it, written constitutions and democracy are mutually exclusive.
There is another way to reverse the Supreme Court, which is probably almost as common as the other two: Constitutional amendment. (See Dred Scott.)
When the Supreme Court reverses itself, it's important to remember also that it does not do so all the sudden, out of the blue. Usually, there will be a string of cases over the course of several decades which gradually go from unanimous one direction to the final justice changing his mind and a 5-4 decision coming down the other direction.
Since the reversal procedure is usually gradual and certiorari is granted only rarely and even more rarely to even remotely similar cases where the lower courts appear to be doing things according to the old decisions, it can take a long time. It's probably quicker to ratify an amendment.
Nice signature line. I should probably standardize my disclaimer a bit.
I'm in the 4th right now while I learn all about it, and have no idea if a study has been done of which districts in the 9th Circuit appeal the most and which of their appeals get cert. the most. I do think it'd be interesting, because the 9th Circuit certainly is a problem. With the number of judges it has, it's rare that any given pair of judges will hear more than one case together.
When you sue yourself, do you need a four-faced lawyer?
I worry about dividing the 9th Circuit, because the only way to divide it that doesn't involve splitting a state or having one circuit that hears almost as many as the 9th currently does is to have "Circuit of California" and the rest of the old 9th. The 9th Circuit is liberal enough (relative to the others) as it is, but limiting it to California would just be nuts.
Then you have the possibility of splitting California, but that would introduce not only the possibility of inconsistency of federal law governing California but also political diviseness as Washington fights to control NoCal and Arizona fights to control SoCal.
If there is a good way to do it, I don't know what it is. But I don't think either of these is a good answer.
Do you understand the difference between saying something and coining or, as I used, "coming up with" it?