Actually, try changing the things that are "explanations" and you'll start to find that they are also "excuses". Offer up solutions to end the "explanations" and you'll likely get a slew of reasons why it isn't possible, mainly from the very people who profit by keeping the status quo, but have "compassion" for the plight.
If the US ARMY is doing anything against US citizens, it is proof of tyranny, as they are forbidden by current law (posse comitatus) from engaging US Citizens.
And just so you know, I oppose the militarization of law enforcement (giving police tanks and such).
That is, unless we abolish the federal reserve and re-establish sound money.
I guess, if I say I am not a moron you'd still argue, so I won't.
But what I will say is that well armed citizenry can be more than just a bug to be squashed. And yes, I do think that citizens with Paramilitary grade weapons do stand a chance against militarized government agencies. All you have to do is remember what two well armed guys in Hollywood pulled off during a bank heist. Not to mention the Taliban and Iraqi militia people picking off our troops.
And you've actually helped make my point, the whole point of gun control is for government to control guns. And this is the very thing I am protesting. The whole "there is no need" argument fails right here, because government will always create a "need" to have bigger better guns than citizens. And that is exactly how tyrants control their citizens.
From the sounds of it, you actually support government with big guns and likewise do not believe Tyranny can happen here. Those that do not know history, are doomed to repeat it. Sadly, those of us who do know history are too few to do anything about it.
His antipathy towards our most important civil right, the right to self defense, shows that Stevens was never fit to be admitted to the bar at all. The second amendment doesn't need fixing, it needs ENFORCEMENT.
The right to keep and bear arms isn't for the government to grant or withhold, and the second amendment doesn't even presume to do so. It acknowledges the right as pre-existing, it cites one important reason for preserving it, and forbids the government from infringing it.
The worst asshole in my high school became a cop.
The sick fuck principal and the sick fuck vice-principal at my middle school just loved to paddle kids until their asses were purple.
Never encountered that in school, but by 9th grade I already knew what kind of damage you could do to someone if you knew their name, address and SSN.
We vote on whether to have a no confidence vote. It's votes all the way down.
Or we could just have it automatically invoked in odd years.
The problem with the gun control people, is that they fail to realize that they are in fact, not against guns, per se. They are against the people (common citizens) of having guns. They are all for the government having guns.
Lets call it what it is, they don't think the common people need or deserve protection from tyrannical governments, because they mistakenly believe that their government cannot possibly be a tyranny. I would love to round up all these people and force them into "first amendment zones" where we can control their speech, like the government tried to do in Nevada.
The most racist thing I've ever heard, were the liberals whining about black people's "plight", making excuses for the bad behavior being "cultural". It is clearly the most bigoted viewpoint, and it isn't coming from "Tea Baggers", it is coming from the left. And some of the worst, is coming the black/african left. These people are poverty pimps and race baiters who DO NOT WANT a successful Black (see Ben Carson character assassination).
When success is rewarded with hateful words like "Uncle Tom", and "Race Traitor" you can squarely call it "racism". There is no greater racist than those that DO NOT believe black people can be smart, intelligent and successful.
But, instead of taking a close look at the policies that are designed to hold black people captive (slavery??) inside the invisible cages and to be ruled by their plantation masters (voting 80% DNC), we have people calling the wrong side "racist".
The real Racism are those that insist that black people cannot be successful, without a handout.
Devops is not killing off developers. What it is doing is combining the jobs of a traditional Release Engineer and a traditional Linux System Administrator. It's right up my alley, actually, so I am looking to move on for exactly such a position.
ESR's statement remains true.
DOH! I *knew* I should've read the freakin' article before writing that.
Obviously, the article is talking about scripting languages, languages that (typically) run inside of a hopefully-OS-independent-behavior runtime rather than a traditional compiled language that doesn't contain a lot of "runtime" between the compiled code and the operating system.
If the language specification doesn't expressly say what happen when things "outside the design" happen, then different implementations may work differently.
If the language design spec says
"If an array index is out of bounds, exit the program and return a value of ABEND_ARRAY_BOUNDS_VIOLATION to the calling program,"
that may seem very specific, but if how to "exit the program and return a value of ABEND_ARRAY_BOUNDS_VIOLATION to the calling program," isn't specified by someone (usually the operating system), then it may not be specific enough. if different operating systems specify how to do this differently, then expected "under the hood" behavior will not necessarily be consistent across operating systems.
For example, does "exit the program" mean simply returning control to the caller, or does it mean explicitly returning any resources that were previously granted to the program by the operating system first? Or is that optional? If it's optional as far as the operating system is concerned, does the language provide a compile- or run-time switch to force such a cleanup? Does returning memory to the operating system guarantee that the OS will sanitize the memory, and if not, does the language guarantee it? If the language doesn't guarantee it, does the language provide a compile- or runtime switch so the program will sanitize memory prior to returning it to the operating system?
These differences in language implementations and even differences in how operating systems handle the starting and stopping of processes can lead to differences in what the code actually does. Usually these differences are unimportant but sometimes they are very important.