Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:too bad (Score 1) 262

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The Second Amendment is outdated and needs to be revised or repealed.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?

Comment Re:You will lose an arms fight against the US Govt (Score 1) 262

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.

Comment Re:too bad (Score 2) 262

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.

Comment Re:too bad (Score 3, Informative) 262

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.

Comment Re:Why not yearly? (Score 1) 66

It doesn't just screw over the little guy. It screws over retirees that are in the phase of their life where they are selling assets for income.

Are retirees looking at quarterly reports before selling assets? I would generally say "no" especially since most of these are going to be a 401k where the assets are sold evenly to cover a withdrawal.

Comment Of course not? (Score 1) 153

AI Job Loss Research Ignores How AI Is Utterly Destroying the Internet

Err, yes? This is like complaining that research into solar panels is ignoring that prom dress sales were down last quarter. Also:

Not included in any of Anthropic's research are extremely popular uses of AI such as "create AI porn" and "create AI slop and spam." These uses are destroying discoverability on the internet, cause cascading societal and economic harms.

My dude, if "AI porn is destroying discoverability" you'd better make sure no one looks at your search history.

Comment Re:I hope (Score 1) 144

Welcome to qualified immunity. You can't do shit against the police even if they straight up murder you.

Qualified Immunity protects the officer from personal civil liability. It doesn't protect the department or municipality from said liability, nor does it protect the officer from criminal liability. While it is certainly problematic, it's not the bogeyman you're making it out to be.

Comment Re:Hmmmmm. (Score 1) 87

You know, you usually have some really interesting things to say. I have you on my friend list so your comments get a +6 so I see what you have to say regardless of what people moderating think about your comments. I've been reading your journal entries for literally decades.

But, if I may paraphrase Bill Gates here, "this is the dumbest fucking thing I've read since I've been on Slashdot." You're suggesting that someone who hacked the BASIC interpreter on the Apple ][ forty years ago should have been using a rigorous QA process to catch shit like this, and then bootstrapping off that to insult the man's entire career? Holy fucking shit.

Comment Re: Sounds like a great idea (Score 4, Insightful) 80

So a lighting user would be paying a crazy amount for very little light, against simply using terrestrial-powered artificial lighting.

I'm willing to bet the target market here is military. 100x moonlight to any location on demand is an operational capability that would be worth $5k/hr to any military on earth.

Comment Re:Anyone can sue... (Score 1) 137

Anthropic itself put something out a few months ago about how their platform had been used for hacking a secure network. When I read their article for details, there was very little about what was done, or how, but a LOT that implied that their platform was fucking awesome because it completed this task.

Slashdot Top Deals

In the long run, every program becomes rococco, and then rubble. -- Alan Perlis

Working...