This is a lot of cope. Sorry - there's nothing historically or linguistically accurate about that paper. It uses liberal misinterpretation of the word 'regulated' to infer government control, and grossly over-extends how militias have been regulated and mustered for the 300 odd years prior to the Constitution, and for 150 odd years after. It's doublespeak, a reinterpretation and recast of original intent and meaning.
My guy... have you been on youtube lately?
Ignoring for a moment that militias were actively prosecuted and pushed underground during the 80s/90s/00s, "guntube" quite clearly shows that there are organized and well equipped (how we say 'regulated' in today's parlance) militias out there still. They're just not registered 501c3 organizations. When the founders wrote the US Constitution, "militia" was every able bodied male who could muster arms. This is well established historically from the English tradition.
It isn't that we think gun-lovers are going to go ape-shit and shoot everyone around them, it is that a proportion of gun-lovers will do this. Which ones? Why you just have to ask them.
Why don't you do that, then? And look at the shooting death and mass shooting statistics and demographics, while you're at it. It isn't the people you're concerned that it will be, at all.
One of the lessons we've had as the Federal, multi-branch nature of the US governmennt has frustrated Trump is that the government may be fucking us over, but it's not doing it in *unison*. It's doing it piecemiel, on the initiative of many interests working against each other, just as the framers intended. The motto on the Great Seal notwithstanding, there are myriad roadblocks to consolidating power in the hands of a single individual. It takes time and repeated failures. This is why the second Trump Adminsitration is worse than the first; they've figured out ways around things like Congressional power of the purse, put more of their henchmen in the judiciary, and normalized Congress lying down and letting the president walk all over them. It's a serious situation, although fortunately Trump isn't long for this world.
This is true, except in places like San Francisco, where self defense is effectively illegal if you're of a specific ethnic or cultural persuasion.
Well that's not quite a substantial claim. They've not really implemented any added compatibility in years, very negligible support (eg. no AHCI support at all).
Considering its a 16/32 bit system, and most of the Windows apps from that era run under Wine without problems from what I've seen, I struggle to see the point.
Perhaps if the political climate had been different for the past 30 odd years (until recently), yes...
At this point the hardware support is so negligible that it's a fanciful idea - it hasn't really progressed at all from the last time I tried using it a decade ago, from what I can tell.
You realize that this is literally the textbook definition of market fascism, right - when government and commerce collude, with the industries typically following the lead of the government's mandates for what they're supposed/allowed to build?
I've been wondering this. WTF is going on? 2 nights ago, when it was clear, I was out back with a fire. I live in town and rarely can see shooting stars from here.
That night, we saw no fewer than 5, not even really watching. They weren't particularly fast, had 1-2 hands of trail in the sky, and all went from east->west across the horizon.
It's not supposed to be a meteor shower, at least based on conventional meteor showers (persids, etc.) but I have never seen this many before in such a short period of time.
500 miles is not a "multi-day" range. That's a day (300-600 miles) for local driving, or less than a day for OTR long haul. 12+ hour days are not common, most of it spent driving. Even a local fuel delivery route is going to exceed that in most cases.
I'm guessing these will be for close-to-terminal local delivery only, because they're not going to have much use beyond that, particularly with lengthy charge requirements and no sleeper.
Yeah, I don't really get it's trajectory. I'd have thought that by 2005/2010 or so they'd have pivoted to W7 workalike compatibility, due to it being vastly superior in literally every way.
At that point, you could conceivably implement W10+ compatibility at a much lower effort, making it a realistic bridge for people to stand on for modern hardware.
A focus on supporting newer hardware, with a newer architecture, would go a long way to bridging the "I can do windows things not on Windows".
At this point we're talking about a code base that's designed for 30 year old hardware. That doesn't seem to have much utility, especially with the inability to work with modern hardware.
Years ago, when Windows 9x was in the field and ReactOS was starting out, the concept made sense: a compatible, open source Windows work-alike.
Today, Windows can't even run Windows apps, and ReactOS doesn't have a meaningful footprint beyond what WINE can provide. Hardware has far eclipsed Windows 2003/XP/7 compatibility (which is again, each of which are further beyond what ReactOS can provide); most of this same hardware works on Linux.
What value does ReactOS have, beyond providing a(n insecure by default) WIndows workalike which can also run Windows applications? The only argument I can see is providing a development platform which could be used for proprietary industrial hardware which only works with Windows. However, the biggest selling point which makes ReactOS capable is "can use Windows drivers" which, even while greatly improved, is still very spotty at best: most drivers don't simply work, you've got to do substantial work to the underlying platform to get them to work. Meanwhile, you're increasingly bound by the legacy hardware requirements - hardware which is increasingly becoming hard to find.
Perhaps it makes more sense in a world where you can write a kernel extension/driver in a day with AI (I've done it, very cool experience), but otherwise I struggle to see how ReactOS has anything which would attract developer time. Help me understand?
While that's true, a responsible generation aims to boost the next generation to a *higher* level than the education they received. The world has become more complex and faster-paced, and even if that weren't true, the consequenes of aiming high and falling short are better than the consequences of aiming for the status quo and falling short.
So while I'm 100% onboard with skepticism that technology will magically make education better, I think the argument that "the education I got worked for me should be good for them" isn't a strong argument. What we need is a better ecducation that would have been a better education fifty years ago: stronger math, science, and language skills, general knowledge, and, I think critical thinking and media literacy. Possibly emotional intelligence -- it's kind of pointless to teach people critcial thinking skills if they are carried away by emotions.
There are no economic or security reasons to blockade Cuba, so that leaves *political*.
It used to be believed that bullies were low status individuals who are lashing out out of frustration. But research has shown that bullying is an effective strategy for achieving and maintaining social status. In other words it's a political winner. So the focus of research has shifted from the bully to the people around him who enable the bullying. The inner circle are the henchmen -- people without the charisma and daring to initiate the bullying, but join in when the bully gets things started. Around them are the audience, the people who wouldn't risk participating but enjoy the bullying vicariously. And around them are the much larger group of bystanders, who don't approve but are waiting for someone else to stop the bullying. Then off to the side are the defenders, who stand up to the bully.
Perhaps the least appreciated supporting factor in the phenomenon of the high-status bully is the silence of the bystanders, which is dependent upon the perception of widespread approval. Since you can't visibly see the the line between the approving audience and the apalled bystanders, the silence of the bytstanders is absolutely essential in sustaining the bullying.
Lot's of Americans are apalled at the idea of using military force to inflict suffering on the Cuban people. But that's only politically advantageous *because* of *them*. Tney are indistinguishable from the relatively small number of people who are thrilled when Trump announced he can do anything he wants wtih Cuba. The gap between actual approval and *perceived* approval is absolutely critical in establishign and maintaining any kind of authoritarianism. This is why would be authoritarian leaders are so focused on punishing and marginalizing any kind of expression of disapproval.
Makes me want to start using 4chan. That's amazingly based and I wish that the Linux kernel and distro maintainers would take a similar approach to these absolutely asinine, insecure, and socially dangerous "age verification" requirements being hoisted by the likes of Meta on the world.
Surprise your boss. Get to work on time.
