If you were right about the Second Amendment, then why the fuck didn't they just write, "The People have the right to keep and bear arms"? Why add that other clause in there if it doesn't change the meaning? None of the other Amendments have this.
The point of slavery was not to "deflect" the issue, but to illustrate that they have had positions which are wrong before. Their opinion is not the be all, end all of everything, and that they are just men, like we are today. They are fallible. And yes, they were VERY unclear about gun ownership in the Constitution, which is the document that matters.
So, anyone claiming it means only members of an active, regulated militia is a moron, or believes the Founders all had Alzheimer's; they must've forgotten they'd already dealt with authorizing the arming of the regulated militia when they delegated that power to Congress.
Because everyone who disagrees with you is a moron, right? How about Trial by Jury? They put that in Article III of the Constitution, yet it was restated in the Sixth Amendment. Did they have Alzheimer's then, as well?
tl;dr: The 2nd Amendment would be redundant if it was intended solely for members of a standing army or active militia troops, as Congress was granted that authority in Article 1, Sec. 8. "The people" means everyone recognized to be of legal age and who have not been deprived of the right through due process of law.
So your interpretation of the Amendment is correct, and no one else is allowed to have their own interpretation?
They don't have that power. They have the power to interpret it, and declare laws and acts of Congress and The President unconstitutional. Interpreting the Constitution is quite vital to that task.
Anyone who thinks gun rights need clarification have been brainwashed.
As opposed to simply forgetting that pesky, "Well Regulated Militia" clause.
The one thing I've learned is, people who argue our Founding Fathers didn't understand or completely missed something when they created the US Constitution, are either completely ignorant of the subject at hand or have an agenda which is contrary to the best interest of the American people.
And people like you like to deify them, instead of remembering that they were just men. They are fallible, and they are not perfect. Pretending they are is a recipe for never progressing in society.
Except none of what you stated clarifies or codifies anything. You may think you're being clever, but you're not. You're missing the entire point, which is that many parts of the Constitution are ambiguous. For example, in the 2nd Amendment, they mention a "Well Regulated Militia". Does that mean that one needs to be part of a Well Regulated Militia in order to have that right?
And in the 4th Amendment, that only protects from criminal prosecution. It offers no actual Right to Privacy, meaning that, if based solely on that, laws against Sodomy, or Abortion, would not have been struck down.
And in the Tenth, that doesn't resolve a thing. If anything, it makes it more ambiguous. And quite frankly, I find it insane that someone could believe that such a fundamental action, such as interracial marriage, or accessing contraception, should be subject to the whims of the State you reside in. There are many, many things in which there is absolutely no reason why those rights should not be protected from sea to shining sea.
I find it incredibly naive that one can be so against something, and then be for it again, based solely on what level of government is performing the action. Remember, states can just as easily infringe on your freedoms as the federal government can. And it's fairly difficult to move states, especially if you don't have much in terms of resources.
If you read their notes, they clearly were in favor of slavery as well. Not to mention, they are not the be all, end all of Constitutionality. While it might be good to get their perspective on things, its important to remember that they were just men, and men of a different era at that. While we should listen to their advice, we should not treat it as if it is some kind of divine, infallible word.
It also mentions a "Well Regulated Militia". Does that mean that one would have to belong to such organization before they can get that right? And does "Well Regulated" mean that the State has the right to regulate the militia?
At the very least, you must admit the Amendment is nowhere near as black and white as you claim it is.
It also mentions a "Well Regulated Militia". Does that mean that one would have to belong to such organization before they can get that right? And does "Well Regulated" mean that the State has the right to regulate the militia?
If there was no need to interpret the Constitution, then the Founding Fathers would not have made the Supreme Court, and given them the powers they did. And to believe they didn't think it would need interpreting as the times went on is quite simply retarded. Times change, technology changes, and things need to adapt. Or would you rather not have 4th Amendment protections on your telephone conversations, because telephones weren't specifically mentioned in the Constitution.
When you say "Linux" to the average person they aren't thinking of the kernel project but the whole stack they have probably at least seen a time or two.
And they'd be wrong.
Which I suppose is why there are close to zero OEM products that do not include them, meaning they all are official licensees of Google and thus just as bound to obey the Google mothership as any Microsoft OEM.
Because they are popular? That still doesn't change the fact that those proprietary bits are only add ons, which the OEM is completely free to leave out.
For that matter, find an install of Android that isn't an OEM install. Free Software my arse.
For the most part, this request is retarded. Anybody who's going to run Android is going to do so on a tablet or phone designed to do so. Why? Because 99% of people wouldn't want to fuck with their shit to the extent needed to get Android running on it. That doesn't make it any less Free Software. But since you asked, there are many. CyannogenMod, for one. There's the Geekspire phone, which people have put Android out on it. Android also runs on the HTC HD2, which was a WinMobile phone.
You don't have to be Kreskin to see that a UI that works on phones an tablets isn't likely to also be usable on a large desktop with a mouse instead of a touchscreen.
Nor do you have to be Kreskin to know that the opposite doesn't work either. Desktop applications, designed for use with a keyboard/mouse, DO NOT WORK ON TOUCHSCREEN DEVICES. Sure, you can get them to run, but they're nowhere near as easy or pleasant to run than something with a UI designed with touch from the start.
So no, android isn't likely to ever threaten the traditional desktop/workstation market
Who the fuck ever though this was going to happen? It's a goddamned phone distro, of course you're not gonna run it on a workstation. What, you think you'll take the Linux running on any other ARM device and put it on your workstation?
That it hasn't already happened leads me to suspect there is an IP trap preventing it.
Or there just isn't enough interest in it happening. The Android emulator is usually good enough for development work. Any other use just doesn't have the momentum behind it. Of course, why don't you put your money where your mouth is, and start working on one? That's the Open Source way.
Develop on as, you run your code on it, or as in you actually do your development on it, as opposed to a laptop? If the latter, how do you have things set up?
The DREAM that I think we shared for 20 years was of open, free systems, freely available and modifiable.
Sounds great. Get to it. Nothing Google is doing will stop you from doing that.
NOT that of a corporation building a successful, billion-dollar division on the promise of such a system.
Why? They aren't doing anything to hamper your ability to use the system, right? So why are you so against them using the system as one portion of their success?
Yes, it's Linux and yet can't run almost any Linux apps.
And this has anything to do with anything how? It doesn't support some of the 3rd party frameworks, big deal. Besides, you don't want Android on a phone, or a tablet to run desktop Linux apps, at least not without having the GUI retooled so that it's touch/finger centric instead of keyboard/mouse centric.
Ask the people who made a living making lightbulbs in Virginia if this was a good thing.
Right after I get done asking the horse buggy whip makers if the car was a good idea.
Why do you want to live in one where people boss you around?
Why do you assume I do? I live in a country where I have incredible amounts of freedom. Freedom on things that matter. Not being able to drive up energy needs for everyone else because I think I need a certain bulb is not something that does.
Your entire comment is negated by the fact that THERE IS NO BAN ON INCANDESCENT BULBS. The law was setting an efficiency standard, and any bulb of any technology that meets it is cool. There are many, many incandescent bulbs that do.
Slashdot Mirror
If you were right about the Second Amendment, then why the fuck didn't they just write, "The People have the right to keep and bear arms"? Why add that other clause in there if it doesn't change the meaning? None of the other Amendments have this.
Read the goddamned comment, you moron.
The point of slavery was not to "deflect" the issue, but to illustrate that they have had positions which are wrong before. Their opinion is not the be all, end all of everything, and that they are just men, like we are today. They are fallible. And yes, they were VERY unclear about gun ownership in the Constitution, which is the document that matters.
Are you sure? Or are you just "interpreting" the meaning of that clause to something you agree with?
So, anyone claiming it means only members of an active, regulated militia is a moron, or believes the Founders all had Alzheimer's; they must've forgotten they'd already dealt with authorizing the arming of the regulated militia when they delegated that power to Congress.
Because everyone who disagrees with you is a moron, right? How about Trial by Jury? They put that in Article III of the Constitution, yet it was restated in the Sixth Amendment. Did they have Alzheimer's then, as well?
tl;dr: The 2nd Amendment would be redundant if it was intended solely for members of a standing army or active militia troops, as Congress was granted that authority in Article 1, Sec. 8. "The people" means everyone recognized to be of legal age and who have not been deprived of the right through due process of law.
So your interpretation of the Amendment is correct, and no one else is allowed to have their own interpretation?
They don't have that power. They have the power to interpret it, and declare laws and acts of Congress and The President unconstitutional. Interpreting the Constitution is quite vital to that task.
Anyone who thinks gun rights need clarification have been brainwashed.
As opposed to simply forgetting that pesky, "Well Regulated Militia" clause.
The one thing I've learned is, people who argue our Founding Fathers didn't understand or completely missed something when they created the US Constitution, are either completely ignorant of the subject at hand or have an agenda which is contrary to the best interest of the American people.
And people like you like to deify them, instead of remembering that they were just men. They are fallible, and they are not perfect. Pretending they are is a recipe for never progressing in society.
Except none of what you stated clarifies or codifies anything. You may think you're being clever, but you're not. You're missing the entire point, which is that many parts of the Constitution are ambiguous. For example, in the 2nd Amendment, they mention a "Well Regulated Militia". Does that mean that one needs to be part of a Well Regulated Militia in order to have that right?
And in the 4th Amendment, that only protects from criminal prosecution. It offers no actual Right to Privacy, meaning that, if based solely on that, laws against Sodomy, or Abortion, would not have been struck down.
And in the Tenth, that doesn't resolve a thing. If anything, it makes it more ambiguous. And quite frankly, I find it insane that someone could believe that such a fundamental action, such as interracial marriage, or accessing contraception, should be subject to the whims of the State you reside in. There are many, many things in which there is absolutely no reason why those rights should not be protected from sea to shining sea.
I find it incredibly naive that one can be so against something, and then be for it again, based solely on what level of government is performing the action. Remember, states can just as easily infringe on your freedoms as the federal government can. And it's fairly difficult to move states, especially if you don't have much in terms of resources.
If you read their notes, they clearly were in favor of slavery as well. Not to mention, they are not the be all, end all of Constitutionality. While it might be good to get their perspective on things, its important to remember that they were just men, and men of a different era at that. While we should listen to their advice, we should not treat it as if it is some kind of divine, infallible word.
It also mentions a "Well Regulated Militia". Does that mean that one would have to belong to such organization before they can get that right? And does "Well Regulated" mean that the State has the right to regulate the militia?
At the very least, you must admit the Amendment is nowhere near as black and white as you claim it is.
It also mentions a "Well Regulated Militia". Does that mean that one would have to belong to such organization before they can get that right? And does "Well Regulated" mean that the State has the right to regulate the militia?
Its fact, sadly, most judges go out of their way to ignore the spirit and intention of their words so as to allow them to create law from the bench.
Show me in the Constitution where the "spirit and intention" of the words is codified.
Wrong. Just plain wrong.
If there was no need to interpret the Constitution, then the Founding Fathers would not have made the Supreme Court, and given them the powers they did. And to believe they didn't think it would need interpreting as the times went on is quite simply retarded. Times change, technology changes, and things need to adapt. Or would you rather not have 4th Amendment protections on your telephone conversations, because telephones weren't specifically mentioned in the Constitution.
When you say "Linux" to the average person they aren't thinking of the kernel project but the whole stack they have probably at least seen a time or two.
And they'd be wrong.
Which I suppose is why there are close to zero OEM products that do not include them, meaning they all are official licensees of Google and thus just as bound to obey the Google mothership as any Microsoft OEM.
Because they are popular? That still doesn't change the fact that those proprietary bits are only add ons, which the OEM is completely free to leave out.
For that matter, find an install of Android that isn't an OEM install. Free Software my arse.
For the most part, this request is retarded. Anybody who's going to run Android is going to do so on a tablet or phone designed to do so. Why? Because 99% of people wouldn't want to fuck with their shit to the extent needed to get Android running on it. That doesn't make it any less Free Software. But since you asked, there are many. CyannogenMod, for one. There's the Geekspire phone, which people have put Android out on it. Android also runs on the HTC HD2, which was a WinMobile phone.
You don't have to be Kreskin to see that a UI that works on phones an tablets isn't likely to also be usable on a large desktop with a mouse instead of a touchscreen.
Nor do you have to be Kreskin to know that the opposite doesn't work either. Desktop applications, designed for use with a keyboard/mouse, DO NOT WORK ON TOUCHSCREEN DEVICES. Sure, you can get them to run, but they're nowhere near as easy or pleasant to run than something with a UI designed with touch from the start.
So no, android isn't likely to ever threaten the traditional desktop/workstation market
Who the fuck ever though this was going to happen? It's a goddamned phone distro, of course you're not gonna run it on a workstation. What, you think you'll take the Linux running on any other ARM device and put it on your workstation?
That it hasn't already happened leads me to suspect there is an IP trap preventing it.
Or there just isn't enough interest in it happening. The Android emulator is usually good enough for development work. Any other use just doesn't have the momentum behind it. Of course, why don't you put your money where your mouth is, and start working on one? That's the Open Source way.
Develop on as, you run your code on it, or as in you actually do your development on it, as opposed to a laptop? If the latter, how do you have things set up?
The DREAM that I think we shared for 20 years was of open, free systems, freely available and modifiable.
Sounds great. Get to it. Nothing Google is doing will stop you from doing that.
NOT that of a corporation building a successful, billion-dollar division on the promise of such a system.
Why? They aren't doing anything to hamper your ability to use the system, right? So why are you so against them using the system as one portion of their success?
Yes, it's Linux and yet can't run almost any Linux apps.
And this has anything to do with anything how? It doesn't support some of the 3rd party frameworks, big deal. Besides, you don't want Android on a phone, or a tablet to run desktop Linux apps, at least not without having the GUI retooled so that it's touch/finger centric instead of keyboard/mouse centric.
Ask the people who made a living making lightbulbs in Virginia if this was a good thing.
Right after I get done asking the horse buggy whip makers if the car was a good idea.
Why do you want to live in one where people boss you around?
Why do you assume I do? I live in a country where I have incredible amounts of freedom. Freedom on things that matter. Not being able to drive up energy needs for everyone else because I think I need a certain bulb is not something that does.
Read the fucking article, or at least the summary, dumbass. Just because you're too lazy too, doesn't mean you should spread disinformation. Prick.
Bullshit. There are many incandescent bulbs that meet the standard. Just because you don't like them doesn't change the fact that they exist.
Incandescent bulbs can't meet the standard? I guess that's news to these guys.
And I think it's a dumbass statement. Incandescents are still around.
Idiotic would be not taking the 2 seconds to google before finding incandescent bulbs that do meet the efficiency standard.
An efficiency standard only translates to a ban if there isn't enough interest in meeting it.
The original law, yes. How about the repeal, though?
Your entire comment is negated by the fact that THERE IS NO BAN ON INCANDESCENT BULBS. The law was setting an efficiency standard, and any bulb of any technology that meets it is cool. There are many, many incandescent bulbs that do.