When it was written, muskets were state-of-the-art. Rifles were yet to be invented.
Muskets were the most common firearm in use at the time; however, Captain Daniel Morgan commanded a rifle unit beginning in 1776. Given that the Constitution wasn't written until 1787, and the amendments obviously thereafter, it's a good bet that the rifle was common knowledge at the time.
At home, I probably get 0-3 pieces of mail per year addressed to the person who used to live here. I'm not sure if that counts as misdelivered or not since it's addressed to my address. However, at work, I get an average of at least one a week addressed to one of the other businesses in our building. We're in Suite B, and it's like the mail carrier is just too damn lazy to open the mailbox for Suite A that's six inches away from ours. That doesn't include the mail sent to our address for prior tenants of the office space -- and we've been there a decade -- or to people whose names I don't even recognize. I used to just assume that customers who said they didn't get their bills were full of shit, but I'm starting to be amazed that anybody gets any of their mail, as much of it as I have to send back or deliver myself.
Why bother finding an imperfect implementation of a proxy voting system when a direct voting one would be much better?
The system was completely bastardized when the states decided to appoint their Electors based on a "Presidential preference" vote.
Why is the focus on states and not on voters?
Because the United States of America is a federal republic. Each of the fifty states is its own sovereign republic, and the central government is formed as a delegation of that sovereignty.
If a state is twice as populated as another, it should have exactly twice the electoral power. Why is it even a problem?
Because the Constitution would never have been signed in 1787, much less ratified by the smaller states, if they had to effectively cede control of the central government to the larger states. The disagreement over dealing with this issue in the legislative branch stalled the Constitutional Convention until the Connecticut Compromise was finally accepted.
Also, for a far better explanation than I could ever offer, you can refer to Alexander Hamilton's explanation in Federalist #68.
It would be like a writer putting several magazine articles a week, while insisting on on manually putting in the MS Word or OO writer formatting tags manually, instead of kicking out content.
A magazine article has been rendered, by the publisher, and printed onto a fixed-size page. If you're going to render your web page to a bitmap or even PDF and hand it out, I'll agree that nobody cares about the HTML. When you're presenting it to a browser to render it, you're telling me that the magazine publisher doesn't care if you turn in an article that renders properly for them in MS Word 2010; they just care that it worked for you when you designed it in Microsoft Works 4.5.
If you want to approach content creation as if it were page layout software, you shouldn't be creating web content.
Now you're going to decide who can and cannot create web content? No sir, you don't get to make that decision.
Perhaps I'm the illiterate one, but I read "shouldn't", not "can't." We all get to make that decision for ourselves. It's called an opinion.
There is also a link at the bottom of the cs101 page that takes you to the real crypto class page.
You mean actually go into a store and give money to people? WTF do you think this is, 1995?
I mount
I name all of my computers after Star Destroyers. Servers are named after Executor-class or larger ships, desktops are named after Imperial II-class ships, laptops are named after Imperator-class ships, and routers, being responsible for "inter-ship" communications, are numbered HoloNet transceivers. I have Victory-class ships reserved for future use if I need to name a device smaller than a laptop. I voted "Fictional people" because it was the closest match.
The sound of the TV drowns out the sounds of the refrigerator, the heat/ac, the washer/dryer, the people walking up and down the stairs outside my front door, the cars driving by, and the car doors in the parking lot. These distracting sounds, of course, don't all happen at once, but the general problem is that because they are unpredictable sounds, they almost always catch my attention when the room is otherwise silent. With the TV on, I rarely notice them, and I usually keep the TV volume low enough that it only distracts me when my brain notices something interesting happening. Granted, most of the time I only use the TV as background noise when it's showing something that I've already watched, or when there's a sporting event on that I only partially care about, which helps my brain recognize the interesting parts.
When I get an SSL certificate from my registrar, the fact that I am logged into the account that owns the domain should be enough proof. Since the computer can do this, it could be free. Frankly, any registrar should be able to issue a free normal SSL certificate, and if any of the big ones started this, they would all be pressured to follow suit. They make the big bucks on the EV certificates now anyway.
The fact that things can be copied and transferred into different formats more easily and without loss of accuracy is not a concern for anyone except content peddlers.
It could be a concern because it can be argued that there is no "seizure" involved in perfectly replicating a digital object. Therefore, any digital records can be taken by the government as long as the original is unaltered without violating the 4th Amendment to the US Constitution.
Personally, I think that argument is a load of crap, but that doesn't mean courts won't accept it. If the Constitution were fully media-agnostic, it would take into consideration perfect replication of digital objects the same way it does limited-quantity analog objects. The issue isn't necessarily enshrining new digital rights but ensuring that the rights applied to the analog world are still protected when something goes digital.
Well, a cult is where a group of followers attempt to "care for" a god (always one, though one can join multiple cults) in the hope that the god will do things for them. A religion is where a group of followers attempt to follow a set of rules (e.g. 1 2 3 4) in the hope that their god (or gods) will not do things to them (eg. 1 2/3 4. Sure, it's not a pefect distinction, but when one realizes that most modern cults (as opposed to the classical ones that worshiped Jupiter Optimus Maximus and such) set their founder up as the deity, it matches up pretty well.
Well, we have opposable thumbs, an advanced cerebral cortex, and our hyoid bone is descended. These allow us to do things like invent tools and articulate complex sounds.
If the majority of major websites took the "upgrade to a decent browser" approach, everybody (perhaps excluding some IT departments) running IE6 would suddenly find "the whole internet" broken and be forced to upgrade. Sadly, nobody wants to be the first to piss everyone off, so it'll never happen.
"No problem is so formidable that you can't walk away from it." -- C. Schulz
