Comment Re:seriously? (Score 1) 17
The only human being Elon Musk cares about is himself. He is a profound narcissist.
The only human being Elon Musk cares about is himself. He is a profound narcissist.
If you can not prompt an AI to give you code for a trivial problem, then you are in need for help.
And the thought never occurred to you the AI gives you code riddle with syntax errors somehow gives you the correct code. It must be my fault. Just like it was my fault that you assumed everything.
Regardless if you need it, or want it.
Regardless if I need or want help, you think I need help from you. I don't want your help. I don't need your help. You don't accept it when someone say "no" to you, do you?
Coll story, but what does it have to do with whether or not a militia is "well regulated" or not? It really doesn't matter who was swanning around Michigan chasing Mormons, the only thing that does matter is whether or not they were well trained and equipped while doing so. That's what "well regulated" means. A "militia" can be a bunch of randos with a zip gun between the five of them led by a guy who lasted a week in basic before being sent home. A "well regulated militia" is an effective, disciplined, military force.
The Second Amendment is outdated and needs to be revised or repealed. Don't just pretend it means something that it doesn't.
You've done nothing to refute either of the two points I made above, what am I pretending it means that it does not?
I am certainly not advocating for armed resistance against the government, nor am I suggesting that things would go well for anyone who tried, but "you can't win" is just... ignorant of history. The Viet Cong and Al-Qaeda both "won" against the US military, though the costs were astronomical for both them and the civilians caught in the middle.
Your assertion that "you can't win if you fight the government, therefore the only legal use of arms is hunting" is also nonsensical. There are more lawful uses of arms than that. Self defense springs to mind. Sporting purposes that don't involve killing something (e.g. target shooting) is another. Physical security of a building a third.
Take a hard look at definitions 3 and 4 in your own link to see why you're confidently incorrect. A militia is "well regulated" in the same manner as a clock.
See Federalist 29:
The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country, to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured. Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year.
Certainly the militia is also "regulated" as per your definition, and the constitution provides for that (Art I, Sec 8) and no one is disputing such. But the term "well regulated militia" means something else, and that is "well trained and equipped." And the right of the people to keep and bear arms, which shall not be infringed, is in support of the goal of having a well regulated militia, and not subordinate to it.
An argument from authority is a strong rebuttal indeed, but allow me to retort:
It was not an argument from authority. I posted metrics about the movie. You have posted nothing but your personal opinion.
a) oscars are no mark of achievement, except perhaps in the makeup and special effects department. quite the opposite, the oscars have historically been a mark of trite, worn out themes with heavy emphasis on production budget and big names and nothing else.
The Oscars are based on a voting system of peers. In this case a peers in the motion picture industry. My point is that is their opinion. How should your opinion negate theirs other than your own personal taste of the movie?
having made money on a small budget is great, but there are scores of films that have achieved sales above $150M on a budget between 20 and 30M, so there's nothing special in that department either.
As a director, he has made the studio money. That is my point. Some directors lose money for their studios.
With that all said: Do you have any points other than your personal taste of the director's former movie that he is not credible.
When the Constitution was written a "well regulated militia" could mean a group of farmers armed with whatever they had directed by someone with some military experience. It wasn't groups of people in uniform marching in ranks, a lot of them wouldn't even had real shoes.
It certainly did not. A well regulated militia would be one that was well trained and equipped, and your untrained farmers with minimal equipment led by former private Smith does not meet that definition. Nonetheless, the right to keep and bear arms itself is reserved to the people--the perceived need for a well regulated militia is the impetus for said right, not the beneficiary of it.
The reason it just says "arms" with no specifications as to what type of weapons is because they didn't envision machine guns and cluster bombs.
Horseshit. The Continental Congress was interested in and had Belton present his repeating flintlock to them. The Puckle gun had been around for more than half a century. The idea that "they didn't envision" that arms would evolve over time is just not supported by history.
THEY'RE STILL WORKING ON REACTOS?!
Next you'll tell me Haiku is still an option.
"If people start flocking to Linux"
Will this be the year of Linux on the desktop?!?
Slow down, sometimes it takes a few years, or 32 years in this case, to get something right.
Their idea of an offer you can't refuse is an offer... and you'd better not refuse.