The bible wasn't written as a book. It is a compilation of discrete articles, written at different times, in different places, by different authors, that are venerated by the church.

Importantly, as I explained above, the Orthodox church (the original church) and the Catholic church (the first schism) have a written and oral Tradition that outlines the meaning of everything (specifically to avoid this situation).

The "Sessions memo" rolled back a memo issued by Attorney General Eric Holder in 2013 that encouraged prosecutors to use their discretion when filing criminal charges.

Unfortunately Eric holder memo was for low level and big time criminals.

Unfortunately Sessions memo undo Holder memo.

Sessions memo have been be light on low level criminals and hard on big time crooks.

I disagree completely that a militia that follows basic regulations is somehow an agent of and under the direction of the government that makes those regulations, that's nutty and paranoid thinking. "Regulation" does not mean 'operates at the discretion of' or 'under the sole direction of' or even 'operates only in ways the government supports'. It means there are basic rules to follow to be in compliance with the law. Your characterization is silly on it's face, and totally wrong IMO.

In order for the 2nd amendment to not be moot, some people in regulated (self regulation is not any regulation, BTW) militias (it's members thereafter known as "the people") would have to be allowed to keep and bear arms, but not necessarily let individuals keep them at home, one 'regulation' could easily be that the arms must remain in the firm custody of the militia at all times, not be taken home by members, and not used outside militia activities. Again, I find your characterization silly.

HILARIOUS. You are now saying only NON regulated militias have a right to keep and bear arms, contrary to the exact words of the document?! Now who wants to re-write the law?!? ;-)

"Well regulated" is one of those terms that's left to the Judicial to define since they didn't define it in the document. Sorry. That makes your argument moot.

The word "People" denies the individual. If the rights are only secured for "people", they are not secured for a single "person". Two different words.

Again, I disagree 100% with your entire premise.

"So, we've established that for the 2nd to not be moot, only "non-government-regulated militias" can be in the set of 'well regulated militia'."

No, only in your silly argument have you established that to yourself. I do not concede at all, and disagree with every point of your premise.

I grow weary of this. I get your point. I strongly disagree. Enough said.

Here's a breakdown that shows my train of thought :



The 2nd amendment limits the authority of 'specifically the government'.

It is not an affirmative right to individuals, it is a denial of rights to the government.
It in theory prevents the government from taking any actions that would infringe on bearing arms.




So, let's look at scope.


If bearing arms is for government regulated militias :

Let's assume that 'well regulated' means 'well government regulated'. (i.e. Merely government regulated in practice.)

- A militia that uses arms as per the government's regulation, would be operating as the government wishes - it would *be* an extension of the government, and the government would not need to seize its arms. The 2nd amendment is moot.

- A militia that doesn't use arms as per the government's regulation, is not government regulated, and has no protection from government arms seizure. The government is free to deny this militia arms at the government's discretion. The 2nd amendment is moot.


In order for the 2nd amendment to not be moot, you would need to protect an entity that the government would *not* wish to be armed.

Since we're still talking militias, that leaves only "non-government-regulated militias" as a protected class of entities.
Hence, this would preclude "government regulated" as a possible definition of "well regulated", in regards to "well regulated militia".

So, we've established that for the 2nd to not be moot, only "non-government-regulated militias" can be in the set of 'well regulated militia'.




So, following on the idea of the 2nd amendment scope being for "well [non-government] regulated militias".

The government can then circumvent 2nd amendment protection by making illegal any 'non-government-regulated militias'. This would eliminate the entire category of arms protected entities. The 2nd amendment is moot.

Hence, for the 2nd amendment to not be moot via this path, that means that "well [non-government] regulated militias" must also be protected under the 2nd amendment.




So, without government regulation, a well regulated militia is subject to the regulation of its members.

As there is no government regulation on militia, there is also no government regulation regarding the quantity of militia members. You are then left with the ability of a single individual to incorporate a militia, and decide on his own regulations.

Which decomposes into de-facto individual rights





This is why the only consequential meaning of the 2nd amendment is one which includes these aspects :
A) Does not define 'well regulated" as "government regulated".
B) Does not restrict the individual.
C) Protects militias.

Any other meaning for the 2nd amendment would result in an emergent status quo that would produce the same circumstances as if there was no 2nd amendment in the first place. This would erase any purpose in having a 2nd amendment.





But sure, maybe the 2nd amendment is moot.
Maybe it was written out of sheer boredom, just to have something inconsequential to do with one's time.
Maybe it was a farce designed to fool people into thinking that it means something, while it is actually pointless and ineffectual - like saying the sky is up.




In any case, I think we can agree that, if the 2nd means anything, it is intended for facilitating the defense of the state against invading armies.

The fallout of that is that if the 2nd particularly protects any given category of arms, it protects specifically those that are meant for use in military combat. Not hunting, not self defense, etc.

A pistol ban would be of little military detriment for open combat, but would be the greatest harm to people's capacity for insurgency (because pistols can be hidden on a person).

A hunting rifle ban would also be of modest military detriment for open combat (can serve DMR role), but probably the least meaningful.

Arms with particular military applicability would be large capacity+select fire (prototypical infantry arms), or accurized of any capacity (dmr/sniper).
Basically, the arms of greatest consequence to the 2nd amendment are precisely the ones most targeted for regulation.

-scheherazade

In response to that link:
Revoking press passes to private events is not bigotry.
Vague innuendo is not bigotry.
Not wanting radical Islamists in your country is not bigotry.
Putting a temporary travel ban on foreign nationals from entering your country as a protective measure is not bigotry.
Being possibly wrong about Muslims protecting other radicalised Muslims within the American community is not bigotry.
If he is wrong, being wrong is not a "bigoted lie".
Appointing Supreme Court judges who may possibly (at their own discretion) overturn previous rulings is not bigoted.

I had to take discrete math for computer science so I got a good grasp of it. It is merely envisioning everything as groups, rather than values. You don't have to DO anything to the groups, just realise what's inside those groups. In the end though it is merely a well organised way of indicating larger numbers for processing, not intended to find a specific number. I'm not sure what practicality there is for organizing the super large numbers like this either.

Today I found a "bespoke water" video, which came to mind after the recent "bespoke toilet paper" video. I decided to sift it, but I see that you beat me to it about 8 months ago (I'm usually late to the party):
http://videosift.com/video/Artisan-Water-The-Timmy-Brothers

However, I see that it never got enough votes to actually get sifted. I think given the success of the TP video, now might be the time to try again. I don't have privileges so I can't invoke * related to link the two (other one is at http://videosift.com/video/Rustic-Weave-Artisanal-Bespoke-Toilet-Paper), but I think I could * promote your video.

However, I think it would be better to just give you the power points to do that yourself (I have essentially no use for power points myself), IF you feel like it is a good idea. If you think that video had its shot and would rather not use them to promote it again, that is fine too -- in that case consider them a gift for you to use at your discretion since I thoroughly enjoyed the video.

So, have a couple power points and do whatever you like with them.

I really think there must be some forward-looking sensors scanning the road and instructing the suspension in how to act. It doesn't look like it's reactive in any way mechanical, like a spring compensating, but more proactive, where the suspension is acting before the mechanical parts even have a chance to sense any change in the road.

I think the bunny hop may simply be a happy accident where the system reacts to a discrete change in height with such an extreme set of actions (that actually begin first in the rear suspension) that it causes the car to bunny hop.

So I guess people like Rosa Parks were also tools? Perhaps Alice Paul was a tool for standing up for the rights of women to vote? I suppose Mahatma Gandhi was a tool for resisting British oppression and rule?

This is what you cannot seem to grasp, although I will try in the most basic method to explain it to you. Rights = GOOD, Oppression = BAD. Now, what does this mean? It means you have rights that are expected to be yours in a civilized society.

For instance, lets say you were Hispanic and in Arizona. Due to the fact that the Supreme Court allowed portions of SB1070, the 'paper's, please' law to remain in effect, you can be forced as a Hispanic to provide clear proof that you are a citizen in any situation as long as the officer has a reason to suspect that you might be an illegal immigrant.

The reasonable suspicion is entirely at the discretion of the officer, an individual who is not in any way psychic or specifically trained to spot 'illegal immigrants'. So let's say you are wearing a shirt that says Viva La Raza, just a saying that means you are proud of your race. If I was an officer, I could claim that you wearing a shirt with Spanish on it and being Hispanic could mean that you are illegally here. Ludicrous, I know, but I could claim it and get away with it the way the law is worded. I could stop you in the middle of the sidewalk, force you to submit to an ID request, and question you at the bare minimum. I could say a bulge in your pocket looked like drug paraphernalia and that you smelled of drugs, leading to a body search.

Now let me ask you, even if you were perfectly innocent, had no drugs, were not illegal, and were minding your own business, would this not piss you off? Assuming it didn't that one time, would you get pissed off when it happened over and over?

Look, I'm Caucasian and a male, and even I know that stuff like this is horseshit. At a certain point, if you don't stand up or support the ones who do, then when they come for you there won't be anyone left to help.

If you can't get the point and still feel the way you say, I feel sorry for you. Thankfully others do and even though you think they are tools, they will take the fall so you can continue to live your delusions.

Fair point, cops seemed to exercise a lot more discretion back in "the day". It doesn't help in the US that there is a profit motive to incarceration and political pressure from the top down to make the quotas etc.

Akira... That movie gave me nightmares for decades. Viewer discretion is advised.

Unknown.

If the ECB pulls ELA, the Greek banking system goes belly up. Again, consequences unknown, but Deutsche Bank for instance didn't seem particularly stable during the last months, so the denial of any contagion risk might have been premature. Additionally, Draghi is tasked with maintaining the stability of the Euro and taking away Greece's last lifeline might just be too far out of his mandate, even for him. Keeping ELA up without increasing the limit will achieve the same result within days though.

If Greece fails to make its payment to the IMF tomorrow, it's at the discretion of Lagarde whether she pulls the plug. Info has been somewhat contradictory, but there should be a 30 day window before the board has to call it a default.

If a default is triggered this week, it's up to the ECB and the EC again. They have shown unwillingness to let things go bust, all the recent months of muddling through should be testament to that.

They cannot have a failed state within Europe without feeding right into the anti-European parties on both ends of the spectrum; they cannot throw Greece out of the EZ; they cannot revitalise the Greek economy without doing a 180 against their own ideology; they cannot let Syriza pull Greece out of the shit without encouraging Podemos. It's an impasse alright.

Should the Greek people vote against the proposal, a proposal that is no longer on the table, it'll be back to negotiations. Should they vote in favour of it, and should it still be available to them at that time in the first place, Tsipras might even get a majority for it in parliament, but Syriza will blow apart right then and there. The left wing cannot agree to further enslavement.

If, however, everything goes sour and Greece does indeed exit the EZ, introduce a new Drachma, the whole shebang, then we're in uncharted terrorities. The situation in Greece would deteriorate even further, given how much they rely on imports, especially of fuel. And the EU, already shaky from the tens of thousands of bodies floating in the Med, the falling standard of living for tens of millions and the sustained unemployment of an entire generation; this fecking union cannot turn the cradle of democracy into a failed state and survive. The governments might be ok with it, but the French people would rip this shit to shreds one way or another, and rightfully so.

To me, imagining the universe as a "grid" of Planck-length units gets *really* interesting when you add the fourth dimension of time, also "digitized" into discrete units of Planck-time.

That can kinda mess with your head. Or mine at least.

The way it was set up, the mod developer did have the choice whether to charge or not. The final price point was also at the mod developer's discretion.

The 25% figure sounds low, but it's the same cut that developers of hats and skins for TF2 and Dota 2 get for their sold items--and there are people making a living at it.

Also, after Valve's 30% cut, the Bethesda looked at what a fair breakdown of what was left would be. Valve--30 Bethesda--45, and modder--25. If you just look at the portion after Valve takes its cut, Bethesda took 65% of what was left, and the modder took 35%. Which is typically what a development studio gets back from sales from a game publisher.

The 25% sounds really low if you're not familiar with how this kind of thing usually works, but it's actually about what content creators typically get when they're given a percentage from a publisher. It's a lot higher than some industries--authors usually only get 10-15% royalties on book sales, and even then only after the first 10,000 books sold.

First, it doesn't mention that paid mods are optional. It's up to the mod developer to decide whether they want fixed price, free or pay what you want.

Second, Valve doesn't get 75%, they get 30%. The remaining 70% is split at the discretion of the publisher (again, in this case, Bethesda, who decided on a 45/25 split). src

First Valve gets 30%. This is standard across all digital distributions services and we think Valve deserves this. No debate for us there.

The remaining is split 25% to the modder and 45% to us. We ultimately decide this percentage, not Valve.