Also fixed in Lion, according to the link, for those of us still using older Macs.
We Portlanders greatly appreciate our open air reservoirs however the City Water Bureau does not. Despite a large public outcry to keep our open air reservoirs our water department despite saying that they were working to keep our reservoirs, did not file for a waiver from the department of homeland security to keep the reservoirs open air.
What the hell... WHY?
I used to live in Portland for about three years and regularly drank the tap water The idea that I was drinking water straight from an open-air reservoir post-treatment nauseates me. Why would anyone want this?
The rights protected by the 2nd amendment are rights retained by the people and, in my opinion, are not subject to regulation by states under their powers.
In your opinion. I clearly disagree, finding more agreement with Breyer's dissent in McDonald v. Chicago (2010) that incorporation under the 14th was inappropriate because it is not a fundamental, individual right.
The Second is the only Amendment in the Bill of Rights that explicitly explains the intent behind the right enumerated there -- that the ownership of firearms is intended for the establishment of well functioning militias. That means the right is limited and not fundamental, and the government should have a free hand to regulate so long as that purpose is not thwarted. To hold otherwise is to regulate the militia clause meaningless. I do not think any phrase in the Constitution should be treated so.
If you're implying that the 2nd amendment grants a power to the states then I'd like to understand what structure in the Constitution would give you the impression that anything in the Bill of Rights grants any power to a state.
Well, if you're going to completely disregard the Second, then you must at least look to the Tenth, which held that powers not reserved by the federal government belong to the States or to the people. Note that "the States" is capitalized as a formal term in the same way that "State" is in the Second and in the rest of the Constitution. Once again, this points to the explicit, focused intent of the Amendment to address state and local concerns.
Furthermore, its very clear from the rest of the Constitution that the founders intended the States to still have a large role in the life of their citizens. The structure of the Senate is the clearest expression of that intent, giving an entire house of the legislature over to (originally) state-appointed representatives, balanced between the states.
I say that is a completely different topic and I'm not sure why you brought it up other than to try to be a smart-ass. What you mentioned is not undermining the constitution, and as such, is completely off-topic.
Yes, it is. Any misinterpretation of the constitution is an undermining of its intent and effect, regardless of whether that results in a situation you like or not, and the pure individual right interpretation of the Second Amendment undermines states' rights.
A militia was a force of the proletariat. Every man that was able to take up arms was expected to do so. Therefor, the common man was considered militia and did *not* need to join the army nor any other organization to be considered such.
Yes, it was made up of the people, but the whole phrase "well-regulated" is not mere puffery. It means a militia in proper and working order, and it explicitly referenced as "being necessary to the security of a free State." The governments of the states have long been held to have the right to regulate arms within that context, and the federal government has the right to regulate firearms that do not have a purpose in a militia. (See US v. Miller (1939) on regulation of sawed-off shotguns.)
Anything not specifically outlawed by the constitution or the state is defaulted to being a right. Therefor, yes, you would have the right to own a gun even if the 2nd amendment didn't exist.
Unless a state passed a law saying that you didn't, by your own statement.
You want to use the phrase "well-regulated militia" as a way of allowing the national government to regulate firearms.
Actually, I view the Second Amendment as a state's right and support the right of the states to regulate arms, seeing at the concept of a militia is directly tied to the state power and not individual power. If a state wants to ban handguns and keep only a professional militia (e.g. the National Guard), that should be their right.
Larger "ordnance" is not illegal to own or use in the US. One may privately own fighter jets, tanks, cannons, rocket launchers, etc. While there are some restirtions they are hardly banned, and never have been. So what is your point?
Title II weapons are heavily regulated in ways that handguns cannot be, under current standards. The federal government as the power to regulate them -- even the power to outright ban them. The fact that they have not exercised that power is no proof that they don't. Even DC v. Heller (2008), the case that nailed down the notion that firearm ownership was an individual right, upheld the notion that it only applies to certain types of weapons (referring to US v. Miller (1939).
And that's my point. A strict reading of the Second Amendment in no way forbids the government from preventing private citizens from having ordnance. It only guarantees the right to bear arms, not ordnance.
As a supreme court judge, your job is (was) to defend the constitution, not undermine it.
Then what do you say to all the justices that effectively voted to nullify any meaning of the term "well-regulated militia" in the 2nd Amendment?
All a state would have to do is amend their constitution to proclaim that all their able bodied citizens are members of the state militia for defense of their lives, property, and the state if mustered into action. What can the feds do then?
Not much, if the militia clause is given effect as a state's right instead of an individual one. Then again, there's not much for the citizens to say if a state wanted to define its militia as a purely professional force and outright ban private ownership either under that scenario.
The most literal interpretation of that 2nd amendment means I could possess nuclear weapons, bacterial weapons, chemical weapons, and were I wealthy enough, my own tanks, APCs, fighter jets, bombers, etc.
No, in the 18th century there was already a clear separation between man-portable "arms" and larger "ordnance," and all the examples you mention would definitely qualify as ordnance. You *might* be able to make an argument for chemical & biological weapons, but any sane court would by long precedence consider those to be outside of the realm of what a citizen's militia should possess.
And, you can bet that the IT departments at electric utilities are as professional as any. Your assumption that they don't want to be good at it is utterly and shamefully false. Even if it were true, they have no choice. There's a lot going on at utility companies that these types of scare-mongering authors never talk about. She very briefly mentions the NERC-CIP regulations (glossed them over, really) without also mentioning the IT components of reliability audits, internal audits, internal exercises, external pen tests, coordinated exercises with regional entities, law enforcement, FERC, etc. Industry peer groups play a big role as well. Protecting the power grid is vitally important to us. Why on earth would it not be? We run a metered business. We can't bill if we aren't creating, transmitting and distributing power.
Is it vulnerable? Of course, as is the highway system, water, food distribution, agriculture, shipping, etc.
Now, I totally agree that NERC-CIP should be more assistive and less about pure compliance with standards; but "continuous improvement" is a concept that is constantly harped on by both staff and regulators. It's already there.
Basic troubleshooting methodology is unfortunately not something that seems to be taught in schools.
What are the requirements for driving a 3 ton vehicle these days, heartbeat and visit to the local DL office?
You forgot massive and unnecessarily burdensome documentation of your identity to help make sure college students, the elderly, and the working poor don't vote.
Neither. It seems a cogently argued point to me. Sony is a hardware company with its own fab resources and established relationships with manufacturer, and it controls a popular gaming platform.
What advantages does Oculus VR have that can match or overcome that?
The law likely references "compensation" rather than money. Compensation may take many forms.
The laws regarding commercial flight operations plumb the depths of this type of situation. There was even a case where a pilot gave a potential business partner a ride from one of the Hawaiian islands to another without charging him (so he could catch an airline flight out). But, because it was assumed that the potential partner might factor that into his process and remunerate with a contract, it was considered to be for compensation.
That's an extreme example, but others abound of inadvertent compensation.
There are around 8.5 million Children in the system and around 100k prisoners. Each prisoner costs way more more per head than child, per year.
Yes, and you failed to specify per capita spending when you said, "If they spent the same on education as they did on locking people up per year then maybe you wouldn't have to lock so many people up." If that was truly your intent, then you should have actually said it.