Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:Fair point (Score 1) 559

It is part of the constitution of our country, right after the freedoms of speech, religion, and the press.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Any person who tries to restrict firearms ownership from the federal government is trying to reinterpret the Bill of Rights. It requires a very special type of grammar not taught in English classes to interpret the sentence above to mean anything can be restricted by the federal government. Many supreme court justices try to interpret the regulated Militia portion to mean that guns should be regulated, but regulated at the time this was written meant trained. So the only regulation that should exist for guns is that people should be trained in their use. Also, some try to argue that the Militia is covered by the US Military, which is a very inaccurate reading, as the Militia is:

The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

But, even then, the militia is a reason for the right to bear arms, not the only reason for the right to bear arms. There of course are many other reasons, such as hunting, personal defence, target shooting, and probably many others I can't think of.

There is also this major issue that the politicians on the US left keep trying to regulate the arms as if people breaking the law will care about yet another law preventing their ownership of firearms, when frankly, that isn't human nature.

Comment Re: Fair point (Score 1) 559

It is the Senate's job to approve nominees, if none of the nominees get approved, the president can continue offering up options, but the president does not get to unilaterally bypass congress.

The Senate has made it clear that the appointments will wait till after the next president takes office, but how is that in any way different than a no vote in your mind?

Comment Re:Why dump the trash? (Score 1) 68

I think AC was suggesting that the capsule is useful, not necessarily the trash they deorbited with it, but I understand what you are saying too; without the capsule, it is rather difficult to deorbit the trash.

Most of the trash is likely the food containers and biological waste, I don't know what else they have up there that they need to get rid of, but it isn't like we have massive farms attached to the ISS to utilize the fertilizer people output.

Maybe that would be a good addition to the station, a farming module.

Comment Re:Holy flamebait batman! (Score 1) 909

If the politicians could be convinced, the way to go about it is this:

The government starts building the factories/farms/mines needed, and provides the products to the people. It seems like this is the only way to wrest control from the wealthy, and put it in the government's hands, so that the government can do its job of providing for the people.

Slashdot Top Deals

Old programmers never die, they just become managers.