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."

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.

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)

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.

I think you may have missed the part about the whole being online bit, and including all permittable code and all logic modules being precoded in different ways for different optimizations, and the bit about it being stored in and accessable in a database by a Minecraft-like front end that ...

wait a second. Who do I know you can even read?

Of that I have no doubt. And I know it couldn't be your fault. (And the set up goes like:) Its more likely due to cosmic ray's, man, and eddy's in the space-time continuum!

No, I sort of meant what I said and not really as a joke. And I am kin to BOFH, in that I'll come down hard on users, but only when they fuckup, and I guess that's where we diverge, also, my skill set is much more narrow, unfortunately.

To illustrate the point about programmers, we need to take a little walk, because I like programmers... they are my compadres.

I really love that Superuser forum site and the others like it ("how do you do x under these circumstances on some platform?") where someone posts a question and they get a bunch of rated answers, and all the flamers and trolls gets rated to oblivion and you never see it unless you want to, so its 3 things that work right at the top of the page sometimes, and not just for solutions in the form of previously unknown commands, or known commands used in unexpected ways, but various ways to do the same complex routines or entire scripts. It makes thinking about programming as what it should really be, as simple as creating a todo list or putting together a flow chart using modules that are constantly duplicated, improved slightly, and optimized over time.

Which suggests four things to me. Regular folk, you know, "the norms," and really I just mean anyone at all could very likely do some high-level programming or create software for themselves or for profit if they had the right interface with different common logic modules and standard operators available in graphic form with popup documentation (if activated) that they can link together visually and simulate execution or output before compiling or printing the constructed code text to the screen and into the clipboard or publishing the code to the second thing it suggests to me.

Which is that there should be a front end interface driving a fast database that makes available the most common logic phrases redundant in various methods, for whatever reasons (such as to minimize code verbosity, or maximize speed, or minimize hits on resources) for the most common programming languages (and excluding any that couldn't work with this paradigm), such that each module could be improved independently of the rest by the most accepted advancement method for open source development, grouped in the most common ways by the people that mostly use them tend to group them (by what they're used for, or who they're mostly used by, or what they are written in, or whether interpreted or compiled, and so on, whatever the user chooses and whatever anyone suggests that's a good enough idea to get voted into downstream availability in the interface or database). This should exist already!? Where is this site!?

Thirdly, such a site is certain to attract and promote talent, like flies to honey, as well as attract and allow the mediocre hacks (like me, if you will allow me this very generous characterization) to have better code in whatever language works best, and grow within a few short years to some new popular accepted web phenomenon, and ultimately improve the efficiency and resiliency of code running everywhere on everything.

And finally, that the interface should be fun and easy to understand, surprisingly fast and fluid and pretty much look like Minecraft or even Tetris, or whatever, as the interface itself is just another idea promoted and/or examined for inclusion and developed based on whatever its popularity or merits are by the roundtable of those that decide to work on the project.

So... that's a new idea that's going to sit there until someone, anyone tells me, please, how to find out how to start a for profit open source web project that gives away functionality for free to attract users with milestones defined such that it can't change beyond its established mandate (it would fork if necessary) and somehow generate perhaps at first modest revenue with it (for site expenses, and contributors, why not?) that will slowly but surely build until its effectively printing money and making us all (that are involved with the project) obnoxiously rich, and someday bring the project as a gloriously successfyl enterprise to the highest levels that can possibly be attained by any company that isn't Apple, the second richest and second largest company in the world..

Gentlemen... I give you The Internet Modular Programing Languages Sandbox and Database, (but at some point we'll just scoop up codebook.com from whomever is squatting on that... and... pan back in your head and if you'll queue the Kinks song Picture Book for me...)

So as I was saying, eliminating the programmers would also make code safer.

Speaking as an sysadmin, sounds like Heaven.

The other way to make code safer, of course, is to eliminate the programmers.

Timmy timmy timmy timmy timmy timmy (Timmy) Timmy.

Timmy timmy timmy timmy timmy timmy. timmy timmy timmy timmy. timmy, timmy timmy. Timmy timmy timmy timmy timmy "timmy timmy." Timmy timmy timmy timmy timmy timmy timmy, timmy timmy timmy timmy timmy timmy timmy timmy timmy timmy, timmy timmy timmy timmy timmy timmy timmy timmy timmy.

“Computer science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes.”

Timmy (Timmy) Timmy? Timmy Timmy timmy timmy timmy timmy timmy.

Timmy timmy timmy timmy timmy timmy timmy timmy timmy timmy, timmy timmy timmy timmy timmy timmy timmy. Timmy timmy timmy timmy timmy timmy timmy timmy timmy timmy timmy timmy, timmy timmy timmy timmy, Timmy timmy timmy timmy (timmy timmy timmy).

Timmy timmy timmy timmy timmy timmy timmy timmy timmy... timmy timmy timmy timmy timmy (Timmy, timmy timmy., timmy.)

True. Honda generators are heavy. No one wants to lug those things across the parking lot.

Holy expensive, Batman!. You weren't kidding.

Perhaps our modern internal parsers have trouble with it, and perhaps as laymen we have debated it, and perhaps it has been debated in the courts, but our academic Constitutional experts and historians, who are surprisingly homogenous regarding this historical fact, have no trouble at all devining the exact intentions of the Founders regardless of the wording. Justice Steven's rewording is, in fact, unnecessary, because his changes simply modernize and make clear what the original intention was. And debate is unncessary and intellectually dishonest, because we know what the Founders intention was from the minutes of the Constitutional Congresses... its all in there, so idky there's all this business of "it means this," and "no, it means this other thing," when, in fact, there is no two ways about it... what the Founders intentions actually were are available to us from the extra documentation they meticulously provided for history and posterity.

It is pretty clear to me, however, from the text alone how important it was to the Founders that gun owners be a part of a militia, and be well regulated, and it should be clear to you too... because its in the first three or four words of the Amendment, and the Founders put it there at the beginning because they wanted to underscore its importance.

The interpretation has been bastardized by the NRA, and all the gun owners (not ALL gunowners, but just the silly ones) that want to do as they please without any sort of regulation or oversight, and they want this because they want it and do not try to offer any sort of legal precidence for it, because there is none. Or I should say, there was none whatsoever prior to 2008, which is a very strange and late date for an interpretation that has stood for 219 years to change. You see, sadly, the meaning of the Second has been completely changed by the 2008 District of Columbia v. Heller decision, and the Justices know what the Founders intended, but the majority of the Court believed that it was ok, because they felt that's what the American people want. In a sense, there is merit to this idea: the American People are in charge. However, the original mandate for the Supreme Court of the United States (and the creation of the US Senate) includes the right of the court to stand in the way of what the People want... Justices are not elected, and it was never their mandate to do as the People wanted them to but to do what is right, and they are appointed and not elected and their positions are protected as lifetime appointments, and in the same regard as to why a Prosecutor has legal immunity, its so they have the right and duty to and can afford to do what is right without fear of retribution of the People. I strongly feel it was not only unnecessary to do as they did, they really went against the Founders intentions, and basically made themselves and the institution of the Supreme Court weaker .

The way the meaning/interpretation of the 2nd was changed by the 2008 decision is pretty startling. Originally, the meaning of the 2nd is saying that a well regulated militia IS the right of the People to keep and carry arms. Thus, your right to carry arms is only there if you are in a well regulated militia, and the militia in which you belong has the right to regulate you, as far as your right to carry is concerned. It is a volunteer militia, so there is a deep self-less nobility to it: you have a right to own and carry arms in order to protect your defenseless neighbors, and that can mean either from foreign enemies, domestic enemies, and even the government.

Now, the official meaning of the 2nd, since the 2008 decision, is completely whack (if I can use a technical term). Basically, SCOTUS gave every gun nut what they always wanted, what they always read into the 2nd that was never ever there, and where it was never intended by the Founders, and from the minutes of the Congresses we know they debated it, and decided to leave out "for self-defense" as they believed it a natural right, and there are many important documents prior to the Constitution that have also enumerated this right of self-defense.

So now, to dumb it up completely, the 2nd changed from: "you have the right, if well regulated, to bear arms in order to nobally and selflessly defend your unarmed neighbors;" to the much more sinister: "you have the selfish right to bear arms to defend yourself, and its every man for himself." Again, in 2008, SCOTUS gutted the heart of the 2nd Amendment, and changed the meaning that stood since it was penned and ratified by the States 219 years ago, from a selfless right to put their own life on the line for a defenseless neighbor, to a selfish right to defend themselves, their defenseless neighbors be damned. So I hope now you can see how truely, depressingly sad that truely is, and gun owners seem to ignore it, but they should be the ones most upset about it, because it turned them from heros into schmucks.

IMO, we should leave the text alone, and overturn that portion of the 2008 DoC v. Heller decision, which was superfluous to and beyond the perview of the actual case, and return the meaning of the 2nd to what the Founders intended: if you're a gun owner, your right to bear arms cannot be infringed, but you are also, by being a gun owner, volunteering to be a part of a militia to protect your unarmed neighbor citizens (and lets not mince words, you are selfless heros, like firefighters are, for doing so). And further, we should just declare the NRA a militia, officially, in its own right, as well as any other gun ownership organization, and hold it to them to regulate their ranks, and let them decide internally who can own a gun, and if something bad happens, like Columbine, VA Tech and Sandy Hook, and so many others, that the NRA will also be held responsible as a unit.