Don't worry about developing web sites
I see we have a seasoned computer scientist in the field!
/sarcasm wtf
FYI graphic designers calling themselves developers develop websites. And they're great at it. Computer scientists should stick what they're good at, which has nothing to do with markup languages nor computers nor programming.
Real computer scientists do one, the other, or both:
1) RECKONING
2) SCIENCE
Unfortunately that sign on their car door "To serve and protect", they serve and protect the state. Getting back your iPhone does little to serve and protect the state.
I don't like making generalized statements, however, and shame on me if the description doesn't fit, I'm about to do so. And I don't mean to even criticize the Police in general, because among their ranks are everyday heros and legitimate true, ready to lay down their lives, heros. But to make an observation that I'm sure others have noticed, that even though police
have backup, guns, radio, jackets — all that stuff civilians don't have
it seems at times the choices that the individual police officers we hear about are neither motivated by duty to protect the public nor the state, but themselves first and foremost. Speaking as a coward, fear of injury/death and self-preservation are instincts that are not easily overcome, but members of various US Special Forces and Military, firefighters and deep water and swift water rescue teams, perhaps out of bravado (but so what?), seem to have little trouble doing so. What is it about police duty that makes them less heroically suicidal than those that choose these other careers, when one should expect the vocation to attract the very brave and incorruptable, and those as close to real "superheros" as we can get, like the other vocations I mentioned?
For those civilians that carry weapons for self-defense, no one should have to remind you that the origin of your right to do so was originally one of selflessness, i.e. to protect your defenseless neighbors at risk to your own life or property, either from raiding parties, foreign enemies, crime, or the government. I also would like to emphatically applaud the unarmed bystanders that bravely risked their lives to save a Memphis Police officer today. That is amazing to me... because I just know I would have been running away from obvious danger, and not towards it, as fast as my feet could carry me. And I would not be proud of myself for surviving.
FWIW, material items are definately not worth even risking injury over, let alone risking life. But another life, or multiple lives is worth that risk, and we know this because we have a word for people like that and you probably noticed me using it a lot, and I do because I am facinated by... our heros.
It is a point of contention whether initial drafts of the Constititution were written on hemp paper
fucking irrelivant.
You are clearly unfamiliar with the finer points of intellectial debate or argumentative contention, so I will merely quote again the idiocy that makes it relevant, as you apparently have no idea:
The constitution[sic] is just that, a piece of paper.
You see, you made it relevant! Had you not done so, I assure you I would not have mentioned it.
and your missing an abstract concept that law is only as good as its enforced. Trying holding up a piece of paper to a squad of armed men and see how good it protects you.
The concept of a written document is only as good as people willing to enforce it. In the USA, the constitution has only been enforced at the convience of the government. Ever, in history.
I will now show that you are wrong with counterexample, and I'm stating it as such so that you won't be too stunned by what I can only assume you will perceive as wizardry:
Newton's law of universal gravitation states that any two bodies in the universe attract each other with a force that is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.
Please, tell us how this law is no good because there is no squad of armed men enforcing it. Regarding statutes, it is not how well a law is enforced that determines whether it is "good," but the test of a law has always been whether it stands up in adversarial court, which involves an entirely different branch of government, i.e. it is not the duty of the Executive Branch to test laws, and their enforcement of laws has nothing to do with whether the law is a good one, but it is the duty of the Judicial Branch to determine this. That was how the Framers intended it, and that is how it is done.
Now matter how much you want to play with words. Speaking of abstract concepts, it doesn't seem like you can understand those either.
Do you think this is a motherfucking game? Trust me, child, I do not "play" with words, though it seems you are referring to what we familiar with the English language refer to as semantics, and I can only assure you, contrary to the often popular and your provably false and irrational superstition and paranoia that they are of vital importance to those that wish to understand and be understood in discourse.
I know the constitution inside and out.
You obviously don't. And I'm going to show you and everyone else that this is so.
The constitution is just that, a piece of paper.
It is a point of contention whether initial drafts of the Constititution were written on hemp paper, but we know for a fact, and you are even welcome to go see for yourself with your own eyes, that the Constitution itself was written on parchment, which is no more like paper than your own skin.
Further, epistemically, existentially and philosophically speaking, the actual Constitution is not written on anything , as it is an abstract type that is without form or mass, i.e. an idea and concept, and what is referred to as the actual Constitution, and all copies of it, are mere tokens of that type.
All laws are just that, pieces of fucking paper.
Laws are not the paper they are printed on, nor are they the ink with which they are printed, but abstract concepts that are either universal principles describing the fundamental nature of something or, in this case, statutes passed by a legislative body.
It ought to be important to you that you understand that you are absolutely incorrect with your hyperbole in nearly every way imaginable. Paper is just fucking paper, and only with the flavorful word "fucking" did you even remotely get close to something that was correct. The word law itself etymologically comes from the Old Norse, lag , which literally means something laid down or fixed, and is of Germanic origin and related to lay . Interestingly, law is also a Scots language word for a conical hill which rises incongruously from the surrounding landscape. Laws are far more conceptually and far less materially than mere paper and —in Truth— are neither at all either paper nor ink.
Your dishonest and beguiling insistance on the meaning of this phrase is what we in the business of intelligent discourse label a red herring. It does not mean that Congress does not have the right to regulate the militia, nor is it saying Congress does not have the right to regulate firearms. Congress does have the right, and Congress does indeed absolutely have the right, among other overarching rights it has over militias, to regulate firearms!!!! .
Instead, the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to forbid Congress a very specific and particularly excessive extension of Congress' authority to make laws "necessary and proper" for exercising its control over the militia. No matter what Congress decides or does or does not do regarding militias, by the order of this Amendment, Congress is proscribed from disarming them. And that's all it says! Congress cannot and must not disarm militias, as a whole, in their authority to regulate militias. It speaks only about Congress' authority over this group, this certain armed collection of people (and certainly is not a reference in any way to "We the People of the United States,") and it says nothing about an individual right to anything! Congress can't disarm the entire militia! Get it?
Oh, and do try to keep the childish name-calling to yourself. Such nonsense has no place in discussion, and only serves to denigrate your own position.
More important than the 2nd Amendment is the 1st Amendment! You stupid and dishonest, deceptive and arrogant, intentionally misleading, borderline-retarded waste of everyone's time, space, energy and undoubtedly, air. Please don't take my words personally, because on the whole, this is how we all feel about you and have always felt about you. Jackass.
Your self-delusion and unoriginal bullshit notwithstanding, the minutes of the Constitutional Congresses say otherwise.
They meant "regulated" in exactly the same way we mean "regulated."
A well-regulated militia...
Correct. The 2nd Amendment demands regulation, and any local laws cannot stop that mandate that was so important to the Founders and the authors of the Constitution and Bill of Rights that they put it in the the first 3 words of the Amendment. Regulation of firearms is, in effect, even more important than the right to bear arms.
The 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution guarantees that each citizen has the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense
That's a damned lie. The 2nd A. of the US Constitution guarantees that each citizen has the right to keep and bear arms for the common defense. Only this Supreme Court, in 2008, changed 200 years of LAW to reinterpret the 2nd A. to mean what it NEVER DID, and WHAT THE FOUNDERS debated and DECIDED to leave out, namely, "self-defense" which is never once mentioned in the Constitition. And we know this because its in the minutes of the Constitutional Congresses.
Again... self-defense may be an inalianble right, but that right sure as shit never came from the 2nd Amendment.
I only posted because it is an elegant solution that provides some amazing features... uh... elegantly. But it is new, and the main feature is mitigated somewhat in ssh by screen. More often than not, I do get annoyed by ssh latency, for which mosh has an... uh.. elegant... solution. (sorry, its late...uh... early)
However, even still, the license is absolutely unacceptable for some uses.
I never thought that the GPL would cause a particular use to be counter to the licensing unless it was being used as a component in another application by a developer that necessarily needed to release under a different and incompatiible license, such as the APL. Under what circumstances would the licensing stop a user from using mosh, or any code under a GPL, as it is, and not as inclusion by a developer in some other application?
Programming, if nothing else, is moduler.
Simply, the idea is to have pre-programmed every common codable module, optimized for diffrent purposes in multiple ways, for every language that this paradigm can work with, available in an online database, with a front end that looks like Minecraft or something, and also includes a sandbox for users to test the resulting program/application, and that the entire OSS project is built and run by volunteer programmers that are paid from advertising profits or corporate subscription fees, based on the level of their involvement.
One never need explain why something makes sense. That would be redundant. What makes sense does so on its face.
"It's the best thing since professional golfers on 'ludes." -- Rick Obidiah
