Comment Re:smug Linux user enters the chat (Score 1) 98
The first thing I do on installing Linux is nuke NetworkManager and it's ilk.
The first thing I do on installing Linux is nuke NetworkManager and it's ilk.
There's no reason a smart TV MUST have an account with the manufacturer or seller unless they want to enshittify it.
You may want to have accounts with various streaming services or perhaps you just want it to stream video you have on a NAS.
Somehow "cheap weapons able to target civilians, but not those well protected" doesn't make me feel happier. And such weapon are clearly only useful for attack, not defense.
Well, arguing from the derivation of the word is just silly, but:
https://founders.archives.gov/...
clearly shows that some of them agreed with that point of view. Hamilton, however, was only one side. Others interpreted it differently.
Actually, all that literally means is that you can carry them. It doesn't say anything about ownership or control.
It definitely didn't originally mean "government approved"
That is exactly what it meant. Regulation (from Latin rex = king) means: per the King's law. Or as Wiktionary has it: Borrowed from Latin regulatus, perfect passive participle of regul (“to direct, rule, regulate”) (see -ate (verb-forming suffix)), from regula (“rule”), from reg (“to keep straight, direct, govern, rule”).
Calling that a deterrent is whitewashing it. A hypersonic missile is an attack weapon unless it is specifically an anti-missile missile. It's most highly useful in first strike situations.
Actually, it's one thing to announce, it's another to manufacture at scale. If this is real, it will be a severe threat in 5 years, perhaps a bit less.
What's the range? I really doubt that this is the new MAD, but it does add a new and exciting amount of uncertainty, and increase the advantage of attack over defense.
"Well regulated" is not well defined. It definitely didn't originally mean "government approved"...or at least it didn't mean that to everyone who put their signature to it.
You're being practical, not logical. Logically the 2nd amendment implies that the right to own arms should not be restricted. AFAIK, it's never been interpreted that way by the courts.
There are lots of other places where the clear logical meaning of the US Constitution is always ignored. Often for very sound reasons.
This happens also in LOTS of other parts of the legal system. If an AI ever starts interpreting and enforcing the laws in a literal fashion nearly everyone is going to be hurt. (Sometimes the laws were even written with the intent of selective enforcement, but often I believe people just didn't notice that they implied things that weren't intended.)
"The greatest warriors are the ones who fight for peace." -- Holly Near