> What the founders intended is that those that exercise their right to bear arms be members of a regulated militia.

"Regulated" doesn't mean what you think it means. In the context of the language in 1787, "well regulated" essentially meant "using standardized equipment".

>If all gun owners were compelled to be members of a militia...

You have this entirely backwards. By US law, you are probably already a member of the Militia:

"UNITED STATES CODE
TITLE 10 - ARMED FORCES
Subtitle A - General Military Law
PART I - ORGANIZATION AND GENERAL MILITARY POWERS
CHAPTER 13 - THE MILITIA

        Â 311. Militia: composition and classes

        (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

        (b) The classes of the militia are --

        (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia;

        and

        (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia."

As always, your "rights" have associated "responsibilities". Along with the right to bear arms, you have the responsibility to know how to use said arms and be prepared to take them up in defense of the nation and the Constitution.

As a militia member, do you know how to secure, maintain, and operate your arms? Do you even HAVE arms?

> tell the NRA they, as a group, will now be held responsible for the actions of their members...

Do you really think that all gun owners are members of the NRA? I assure you, they're not. NRA membership is about 4.3 million; number of gun owners in America, about 52 million. Further, the NRA is by no stretch of the imagination a "militia".

Further, the number of criminals with guns, compared with the number of responsible gun owners, is such a small percentage as to be ignored in most common circumstances.

> The meaning has been twisted over the years, but the original intent is obvious because it is literal.

The 2nd Amendment has not been twisted; it's a complex sentence, but not hard to understand. It is a dependent clause, followed by the independent clause. The independent clause, which stands alone, is:

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

If you don't LIKE this, you have only one choice: have an amendment passed repealing the 2nd Amendment. Good luck with that.

From the BBC article:
"The perception is that publishers are saving a fortune because they are not physically printing a book," he said. Actually, said Mr Evans, printing costs were a small fraction of the total outlay required to produce a book.

"All the costs are the people in the publisher's HQ and the writer's mortgage," he said, adding that these had not changed significantly with the rise of ebooks."

========
The PROBLEM with Mr. Evans' assertion is this:

Most of the other costs are one-time. Printing and distribution, though, go on and on, as long as the book is in print. But with ebooks, that cost is essentially ZERO. And distribution, as can be seen below, is NOT insignificant.

For example, there is this article:

http://ireaderreview.com/2009/05/03/book-cost-analysis-cost-of-physical-book-publishing/

From the article:

"A Simple Model of Book Costs and an Example

The very simple break-up is -

                Author - Creation. 8-15% Royalties.
                Publisher - Being the Curator, Polishing, Manufacturing, Marketing. 45-55% (includes Author's Royalties). Note that Printing accounts for just 10% of the book price.
                Distributor - 10%.
                Retailers - 40%.
                Consumers. Just the paying part ;)

An example found at BookFinder states a cost break-up that closely matched what my research turned up -

                Book Retail Price: $27.95.
                Retailer (discount, staffing, rent, etc.) - $12.58. That's 45%.
                Author Royalties - $4.19. Exactly 15%.
                Wholesaler - $2.80. Exactly 10%.
                Pre-production (Publisher) - $3.55. That's 12.7%.
                Printing (Publisher) - $2.83. Translates to 10.125%.
                Marketing (Publisher) - $2. That's approximately 7.15%."

========
So, here's my take:

The wholesaler and retailer are handling REAL, PHYSICAL BOOKS and moving them around. That cost gets dropped.

And the cost of PRINTING the book goes away, too. That's another 10% or so.

That's 65%!

So an ebook should be about 35% the list cost of a hardback.

That's for popular fiction, essentially. Other markets have other margins. But eBooks are FOCUSED on popular fiction right now--the other markets are speculative niches so far.

Geez. What are they thinking, other than, "Let's abuse the public and steal their money!"?

Baen Books.
Get it as a free download, or read it online. You can probably convince them to accept your money, too.
Baen does eBooks RIGHT.
http://www.baen.com/library/0671878468/0671878468.htm

Why is this a surprise? As a first estimate, 80% of everything is crud!

OK, so I'm conflating Pareto and Sturgeon, but the principle...

Try again. You are comparing the city of Atlanta to the entire Greater London metropolitan district.

If you want to compare apples to apples, try comparing the city of Atlanta to the City of London: 520,000 Atlantans as compared to 8000 Londoners, or 340,000 commuters.

Or try it this way: 5.4 Million in the Atlanta Metropolitan District, compared to 7.5 Million in Greater London.

I grant you, "Atlanta" is much larger than "London". Not as crowded, overall.

Yes, he developed lzexe, and other stuff.

Using CAPS to designate the surname or family name is common usage in several international communities, especially those that have members which are from cultures which put the family name first.

I have seen it frequently in Esperanto forums.

"A Canticle for Liebowitz"! Great book!

Emily had a gold tooth.

Disclaimer: I have not read the petition.

I am not a resident of Washington State, but I might have signed this JUST BECAUSE it deserves to be in the public consciousness, whether I was in favor or opposed.

<opinion>
I'm an evangelical Christian. I'm also a libertarian. This means that I hold personal views about behavior and morality that are different from my opinions about behavior and legality. Things I consider immoral may or may not be illegal, and the converse holds as well. But the state is about LEGALITY, not MORALITY.

I don't think the state should sponsor gay marriage, because I don't think the state should sponsor heterosexual marriage.

From the state's point of view, these should be considered as contracts between individuals, and the participants in the contract (NEITHER of whom is the state!) can call their relationship whatever they want. All the "benefits" applied to the contractual partners by the state should be applied indifferently to the gender of the participants in the contract.
</opinion>

Great movie!

My personal experience is that the part of your thesis that isn't happening is Step 4:

It seems to me that blockbusters are getting bigger, AND the tail is getting longer. More money is being spent at both ends of the curve. This would imply that the curves in the New Scientist article graphic are incorrect: the long tail isn't stealing dollars from the blockbusters. It's not a zero-sum game.

Of course, throw in a tanking economy and all bets are off...

I think that the Free University of Amsterdam is a "theological school" in approximately the same way that Harvard University is a "Congregationalist seminary"; i.e., not much any more. Of course, I've never been to either.

Besides, his doctorate is not in theology, and his C.V. seems to indicate that his peers approve of his work. As for "falsifiable tests or evidence", I wouldn't expect to find that in a news service article in the Vancouver Sun.

And while non-accredited degrees can be obtained quickly and easily on the Internet, most ThD/DD candidates spend just as much time in earning their degrees as you seem to imply they don't.