Looking at all the "5, Insightful" comments - did I miss something? Has
Looking at all the "5, Insightful" comments - did I miss something? Has
Apple never touched GPL stuff.
Guess why parts of WebKit are still LGPL?
Looks like we've got major changes coming in this department soon:
Interaction with filesystem has always been available out of the box - you get
It works the other way around, too, since WSL filesystem is just an NTFS folder. However, because WSL uses some custom attributes to describe inode semantics, which Win32 knows nothing about, writing into WSL filesystem from Win32 is not advisable.
Launching Windows executables from command line isn't supported out of the box. You're right, this is one use case where Cygwin is better for now. But there are several ways to make this work with a little effort - for example, you can ssh into Windows prompt, or use a Win32 server process and connect to it through a local socket. Here is the issue tracking this, and various solutions people have come up with so far.
It's also written by someone who has no clue what they're talking about "Windows 10 implementation of Bash", really? It's called WSL, and it runs native Linux binaries. There's no implementation of Bash there other than the one that's in Ubuntu.
As for the bugs, it's the inevitable outcome of trying to cram a Linux filesystem in an NTFS directory (which is there for the ease of installation and convenience). If you want the real thing with 100% fidelity, loop mount ext4 (of course, then you lose easy access to it from Windows).
It really isn't. Everything that Cygwin does, WSL does better.
Any specific answer would be very point-in-time (hardware and software support etc changes).
Philosophy-wise, though, there is a difference that is a constant. In FreeBSD, the people who write the kernel are the same people who write libc and the rest of the base system (or at least package and test it). So the core OS feels less like something assembled with glue and duct tape, and more like a single polished product. It's even more obvious when you look at the source - same coding standards everywhere, same quality bars etc.
Whether it's a good thing or a bad thing or irrelevant depends on your perspective.
Oh sure, Texas and most of the rest of the South is getting pretty purple. But that's because they are rapidly urbanizing. If you look at states like, say, Montana or Wyoming, they're going to remain the way they are for some time to come.
I agree that it's a very real possibility that GOP will come apart on the federal level. If that happens, it may well become non-existent in deep blue states, like Republicans were in the Solid South, not even bothering to run. But one of side effects will be that the tea party and other uber-hardliners are finally going to be able to run amok on local level where they have a following, even more so than they are today. We'll probably see some regional equivalent to Dixiecrats, maybe even several.
I don't think we're going to get rid of trumpkins after the election. Unfortunately, whether Trump wins or not, he already did one thing that is not easily reversible - he became a role model to all those people and showed that you can not only think crap like that, but say it in the public, and act out on it - and you'll have enough people to back you up to not be an outright social outcast, at least in some parts of the country. Which means that they'll keep doing it for some time to come, and it'll be a thing in deep red local politics for a while.
The good thing is that it's largely a self-correcting problem, because these people will simply die out eventually - millennials can be misguided on many things, but they clearly aren't fond of Trump and his firebrand ugliness en masse. Of course, that's assuming that another such movement doesn't get fostered the way Republicans fostered racism since Goldwater.
If the American political system provided for fair proportional representation, there would be no issue - parties could use whatever rules for their primaries they wanted (including no primaries whatsoever), and anyone could just go start their own party if they were unhappy about it.
The reality, however, is that the political system is mathematically disadvantageous to third parties to such an extreme extent, that fair primaries become the only way to avoid mass disenfranchisement in practice. Which is why we regulate them on many matters, such as prohibiting "white-only" primaries. In that context, it's not at all unreasonable to complain that the rules are unfair, when they actually are unfair.
The country was polarized many times before, but it was always on one or two specific issues. For example, they had to hammer out a compromise on slavery when writing the original Constitution, and then there was that whole debate over whether federal legislature should be one-person-one-vote or one-state-one-vote.
But, because the scope of those were limited, even when they couldn't find agreement there, they could still compromise on many other things. Like, there was widespread acceptance for the need for something like the First and the Second Amendments among all factions, even as they argued about the precise wording and its implications. Some things didn't get included because the parties couldn't agree; but ultimately they could agree on enough to hammer out the original Constitution and the Bill of Rights, which is quite a lot.
I guess it would be accurate to say that back then, they disagreed on "issues". In today's US, the disagreement is only nominally on issues, and in reality mostly just partisan. As soon as Democrats adopt some policy or another, Republicans immediately oppose it, regardless of what they thought about it before. On the other hand, when Trump came and basically rewrote the Republican platform, most of them just fell in line. And while Republicans are definitely the party of "my way or the highway" these days, I have to point a finger at many Democrats as well - I've seen plenty of people argue against e.g. gun rights not on the basis of any rational arguments, but simply on the basis of "let's stick it to them rednecks".
So if it comes to the convention, I expect the same thing - anything that comes from the left will be opposed by the right regardless of what it actually is about, "on principle".
The "net effect" is negligible in the age of the Internet. I made several non-FFL, background-check-free gun purchases myself, and not a single one of them was at a gun show. It was always some guy I got in touch with online, and then met at some convenient and easily accessible location - e.g. a gun range relatively close to both of us. With specialized platforms like GunBroker and ArmsList, with their thousands of listings and the ability to easily filter, gun shows cannot compete.
About the only reason I can think of to go to a gun show is to find some hot deals, e.g. when someone is dumping their stock (not just guns, but also, and more likely, ammo and other consumables). But these usually come from FFLs.
The framers didn't have a problem with privately owned warships, complete with naval artillery; why do you think they would treat handguns differently?
They didn't say much before then, because there were no cases that hinged on the interpretation of the Second where it mattered.
One case that I can think of that was related was US v. Miller (1939). In that case, SCOTUS ruled that a sawed-off shotgun was not legal, because it was not a standard military weapon, and thus was not "particularly suitable for use by militia". Because the weapon itself was found to be out of the scope of the amendment, they didn't have to decide whether the right was collective or individual.
Another was Printz v. United States (1997), which ruled parts of the Brady law unconstitutional. But that actually had very little to do with guns, and mostly about whether the federal government could enact a law that forced state and local LEO agencies to enforce some federal provisions (SCOTUS ruled that it couldn't).
As far as divining the precise meaning of the Amendment itself, and the intent of those who authored it, it's instructive to take a look at state constitutions. Many of them include RKBA provisions, and those that were enacted later than the original Bill of Rights are clearly influenced by it, but often use more explicit language to clearly define the right as individual. Some examples:
"That the right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned." (Kentucky, 1792)
"That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the State" (Indiana, 1816)
"That every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state." (Alabama, 1819)
"Every citizen has a right to keep and bear arms for the common defence; and this right shall never be questioned." (Maine, 1819)
"Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state." (Connecticut, 1818)
"Every citizen shall have the right to bear arms in defence of himself and the republic" (Texas, 1836)
"The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called in question; but nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons." (Colorado, 1876)
"The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired" (Washington, 1889)
I think that given all these, there's a clear trend here towards interpreting RKBA as an individual right with self-defense as explicitly valid application. It would be rather surprising if the federal constitution would diverge radically on that.
ACLU is honest about what they do - they defend "civil liberties", and they don't consider 2A to be one. So they don't promote it, but they don't oppose it either. They're just neutral on it.
Given that, why would you care about their lack of pro-2A stance when deciding whether to support or not their activities to protect the other assorted freedoms? It would be like refusing to eat in your local Chinese restaurant because they don't have pro-2A posters. You don't go there for your gun rights - you go there for food. Similarly, you don't go to ACLU for gun rights - you go to them for freedom of speech, privacy etc.
So this whole "never give them a fucking dime" thing is utterly absurd. In my experience, most people who voice it, when you actually push them on it, admit that they hate ACLU for other reasons - for example, because they want Christianity to be a privileged religion in US, and don't like the fact that ACLU fights for the complete and unambiguous separation of church and state, or because they're anti-abortion and don't like ACLU's pro-choice stance.
Given its constituency, the only thing I expect to be "open" about [the Open Software Foundation] is its mouth. -- John Gilmore