Indeed:

Newsflash: Greedy Patent Troll Developer Hires Unscrupulous Lawyers to Sue!

I fail to see how this is any different..

Yea - except for this bit of BS false dichotomy:

" ... MUD had a text-based interface, but *despite that* ...
"

OMG It's like games are more than their user interface!

OMG It's like we shouldn't equate technological sophistication with Teh Shinies!

All excellent points -

relatedly, noone is developing or releasing X windows applications *targeted* at these other platforms -
which is the same 'position' X will be in in this 'run x on wayland' world - further implying that over time
less and less applications will run on X, further implying that over time network transparency will
decrease more and more (since only the new firefox or libreoffice or whatever major software decides not to support X),
so this is a bad *direction* to be headed in.

I have no problems rearchitecting the X server infrastructure to have a fast low layer, and a simplified api talking
to this layer (that remains X, and therefore network-multiclient compatible), which is what most of the (non developer weenie)
people complaining about so-called 'crufty x' are talking about -

but don't !@#$ ruin out of ignorance and shortsightedness the good things in X because of the bad - fix the bad, and
make it compatible with what is.

ditto systemd, dbus and all of that stuff.

dbus? why not just f!@#$ing use the 127.0.0.1 loopback or require setting up a private multicast network????

nono, we need some crappy daemon writting using the hairball that is GLib-object-C being tied into *everything*
on the system.

derp derp derp.

Because when the wayland display manager crashes, you don't lose any applications at the time? or explorer.exe? or QuartzCompositor or whatever its called on osx, etc?

what is the point of this post?

are you saying that the single-process managing X displays is less stable than the single process running these others?

umm.. because if you are, you are probably wrong.
and if you're not, you're not making any sense.

After years of twitching on the gurney, Mayer is finally taking some kind of extreme measures to fix Yahoo's head.

Whether it is the right measure or not remains to be seen

You have to give these slashdotters more credit: They are really trying to do the best they can: Having no skills themselves, the only reasonable metric is time spent commenting on internal matters for a company they know nothing about! And Gweihir reputedly excels at this. If a slashdotter takes a break to consider something ratinoally, they are definitely not behaving normally in that moment, while a normal person doing the same thing is! So, from their perspective they are clearly making a profound, well informed statement on this matter.

Riiight.. because people who even know multiple customers willing to pay $10k for an exploit kit aren't seriously connected to other fraudsters and shady mafia types, and so on - e.g. 'oh hey - need to get some money sent? - I have a network of 50 people willing to accept transactions under 1k via their $account_type - I can get this to you for only a 25% transaction fee', 'I have this set of 100 accounts which are completely legal but otherwise dormant and unmonitored', 'oh, just buy 500 items from my bogus web dildo store', etc.

At this point does any tech savvy user still think that Java isn't built into every modern web browser and that you need a plugin for it?

I love java - jQuery is great, especially with HTML5 :D

By that line of reasoning, since 'tanks' are essentially the direct descendents of horse mounted infantry
from a weaponry and even army terminology (Armored Cavalry), and since there is no mention at all
of horses, we can either conclude via similitude:

a) we should now ban horses because people cannot own tanks, and these are both cavalry
b) the omission of horses from the constitution is proof that people *should* be allowed to own tanks

or other equally absurd lines of reasoning.

Tanks didn't exist at the time. The only major improvement in individual combat warfare for ~10000+ years from the bow and arrow is a single shot manually loaded gun, which is basically only slightly more effective (witness relative success of native americans vs colonists until the arrival of the repeating rifle & revolver)

I see no mention of cannons or catapults in the constitution, and both were 'non personal' 'artillery style'
arms of the time which by this logic should be explicitly mentioned as not included.

Also - since you are referring to arms in the militia context, is not (full auto) suppresive fire a useful requirement of a modern militia by the same argument, if facing other combatants with that capability?

It is 'the *right* to bear arms' - not 'the legal basis to use a government issued license to bear arms'

If you want to have gun control - there is 1 legally valid solution - amend the constitution & redact
the second amendment. Anything else is illegal.

This is not a subjective argument - it is a clear cut line of logical reasoning.

Apply the same to some other legal right which you do not take issue with - and you just said:

"
The solution you propose is similar to what I have recommended to my friends. Just some way to call and check to see if the other person holds a valid license (to protest, vote, publish an article). It should be as simple as a call.
"

"
I believe early on it was used to justify telling gun manufacturers they had to create weapons of certain sizes and required men of a certain age to own a gun and other equipment, and was sometimes used to justify drafts before we had a true organized national military.
"

Based on what? how you want it to read?

Speaking of connecticut - how about community organized militias melting statues of king george for bullets?

http://www.connecticutsar.org/articles/king_georges_head.htm

This was very clearly a non-draft, citizen-organized, non-government 'militia' populated by
self-armed citizens, who themselves were the very people using the term 'militia' when drafting
the same document to which you refer.

On what basis can you claim that their conception of 'militia' drastically changed from the first context to the second? Would it not be a more natural assumption to assume these terms apply equally to both contexts?

As for the 'structure being setup ensuring' - part of the structure is the second amendment itself, for
this very reason.

As for government using against citizens - based on their own historical context of a percieved downslide
of the english monarchy into corruption and direct experience of government directly using weapons and
force against its own unarmed subjects, why would they magically assume that this would not happen
again?

"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance"

or maybe you think he meant:

"The price of freedom is being vigilant one time and transmuting that into some other representation
but referring to this one time event as magically transcending time and therefore eternally"

Really?

The NRA doesn't compromise on anything at all?

Then why doesn't the NRA support the repeal of bans against 'real' assault weapons
(the 1986 ban against fully automatic aka class III weapons), laws promoting gun locks, etc?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_Owners_of_America
http://jpfo.org/

etc.

Really don't know what point you are trying to make here:

"
Mark 15:29-30

King James Version (KJV)

29 And they that passed by railed on him, wagging their heads, and saying, Ah, thou that destroyest the temple, and buildest it in three days,

30 Save thyself, and come down from the cross.
"

not 'saving' himself from the death by crucifiction is *the entire point*

> If the government wanted to trample your rights in such a fashion, it would just do it.

Assuming your government doesn't support the notion of 'rights' at all, at least in theory.
In the US, you still need to at least have some sort of convoluted argument which fits
into the notion of the existing legal framework.

Also - ammunition is just as much 'arms' as the 'arms' themselves - If the 'arms' I'm
bearing don't contain any ammunition, I just have a wooden/plastic/metal stick shaped
like a gun.

Since when are facist dictatorships leftist?

Not that I agree with the whole left-right false dichotomy, preferring a 2 axis left-right social
orientation and authoritarian-egalitarian axis 'grid', but .. if you're going to use the false dichotomy,
at least be accurate about it.