Skip to main content

Recent Posts

Browsers & Technology / Re: Phones! phones! phones!
Last post by ersi -
Apple invented the notch for the iPhones (quickly copied by several stupids) but Galaxy manages to stay clear

Still, this "true fullscreen" display is an entirely misdirected craze. Galaxy's earlier "edge" screens in S6 and S7 have already gone the way of the dodo for a valid reason: They do not allow the user to hold the phone without affecting the screen. "True fullscreen" suffers from the same problem.

Even on my Note 4 it occasionally happens that I have to fiddle something on the side or at the back of the phone and the homescreen gets accidentally messed up so that it takes a half an hour to get things back to their places. This problem is exponentially exacerbated on "edge" and "true fullscreen" displays.

Human users physically need neutral space around the display for just holding the device without random things happening. How hard is it for engineers to understand?

For a little while some may have imagined that they can live with the notch. Maybe Steve Jobs could have brainwashed people into having faith in the notch a little longer, but no, it's over rather sooner than later.

Bezelless computer monitors though, that's another matter (as long as they have good arms/legs/VESA mounts). I wonder why there aren't any already by now.
I know there's all kinds of Microsoft on Android, but there's a Microsoft browser on Android?
Possibly as an attempt to compensate for losing Windows Mobile OS.

I like the way Edge on Android switches tabs. Easy tab-switching by touch is everything on handheld devices.

The UA string: Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; Android 6.0.1; SM-N910F Build/MMB29M) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/69.0.3497.86 Mobile Safari/537.36 EdgA/

Different spoofsters might identify this as Chrome, Safari, or anything as they please, I think.
The first time I ran into a man with a gun was in a little restaurant. He had a holster with in a revolver. My first thought was to get the hell out of the place.
DnD Central / Re: What's Going on in Europe
Last post by Mr. Tennessee -
Most of the shows we watch are from outside the US.
Morse, Endeavor, Inspector Lewis, "Yes, Minister", Monty Python.
And, yes, we like Frasier.
And we dislike Trump!
DnD Central / Re: Everything Trump…
Last post by Mr. Tennessee -
Is this where I vote for Trump?
DnD Central / Bear arms
Last post by Barulheira -
Bear arms? If you prefer so...

Edge is astonishingly high in the table. [whisper]I admit using it on Android  :)
I know there's all kinds of Microsoft on Android, but there's a Microsoft browser on Android?

Ah, probably some other planet where iPhone users exist is included in the statistics. I tend to forget the Apple planet.
It could also partially be other browsers. Like Otter. Yes, surely mostly Otter. :)
Nonsense is not worth understanding, but thanks for explaining. It is reassuring to see you stand firm on the side of nonsense.

Edit: The pattern of nonsense - you are ignoring the first part. Then you claim to be explaining the first part, even though you only talk about "militia" and not "the security of a free state". As soon as the so-called explanation is done, you promptly get back to ignoring the *entire* first part, both militia and the security of a free state.

To stoop to your level, I should ignore the entire second part. Then of course you would whine that the second part was getting ignored. You would never notice that you were being served your own rules of the game.

But I will not stoop to your level. You can keep your nonsense.

What's on that patch, & above, is the second of two (2) complete, & distinct, clauses within the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, clearly defined for us by the United States Supreme Court in their landmark decision in D.C. vs Heller

Source:     MIC     
A common misconception about the Second Amendment is that it only protects arms for the militia, or in modern day, the National Guard or other government-organized military group.

This is simply untrue; a belief arising from ignorance about the language used in the Second Amendment and understanding its meaning as it was understood originally when the Bill of Rights was ratified.

Fortunately, the Supreme Court helps us understand the original intent of the Second Amendment and the words used in their historical context.

In the landmark Supreme Court case, D.C. vs Heller, the court explains that all citizens are the militia; the Second Amendment is an individual right, just like every other right protected in the Bill of Rights, and is independent of membership in any organized group or military unit.

The Second Amendment reads: "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."

There are two clauses that comprise the Second Amendment, an operative clause, and a prefatory clause.

Operative clause: "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The operative clause is the actual protected right; kind of the 'meat and potatoes.' The court wrote: "1. Operative Clause. a. 'Right of the People.' [used 3 times in Bill of Rights] ... All three of these instances unambiguously refer to individual rights, not 'collective' rights, or rights that may be exercised only through participation in some corporate body." (p.5). 

Prefatory clause: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State."

The prefatory clause is the lead-in that "announces a purpose" for the operative clause.  The court stated: "The Amendment's prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause's text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms"(Heller law syllabus p.1).

The court also stated: "The Amendment could be rephrased, 'Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.'" (Heller law syllabus p.3, emphasis added).

Note: "syllabus" in law briefs is not like a college course summary, but "a short note preceding the text of a reported case that briefly summarizes the rulings of the court on the points decided in the case."

The Militia is all of the people

The court states: "It was clearly an individual right, having nothing whatever to do with service in a militia" (p.20), adding "Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to "keep and bear Arms" in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause's description of the holder of that right as "the people" (p.7).

It's clear from the court's ruling regarding the relationship between the prefatory and operative clause (p.25) that the militia meant that all of the people were armed.

"The 'militia' comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Anti-federalists feared that the federal government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens' militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens' militia would be preserved" (Heller law syllabus, p.2, emphasis added).

"Keep arms" was simply a common way of referring to possessing arms, for militiamen and everyone else" (p.9).

Congress creates the Army and Navy, but not the already existent militia

The court states that while Congress is given the power in Article I of the Constitution to create the Army and the Navy, it may simply organize the militia because it already existed:

"Unlike armies and navies, which Congress is given the power to create, the militia is assumed by Article I already to be in existence. Congress is given the power ... to organize "the" militia, connoting a body already in existence," (p.23).

Second Amendment doesn't mean any organized military unit

We find on page 11: "In numerous instances, 'bear arms' was unambiguously used to refer to the carrying of weapons outside of an organized militia," adding further that, "It is clear from those formulations that 'bear arms' did not refer only to carrying a weapon in an organized military unit" (p.11-12).  Fun fact: The National Guard, as it exists today, wasn't created until 1903.

So we see that at the time of its writing, it was clearly understood that the Second Amendment protected the right of all citizenry to have and carry arms. Our ignorance of the terminology, and perhaps the phrasing of the two clauses has clouded this truth, so obvious to our Founders. The Second Amendment means all of us, since we are all the militia, and in no way means only an organized military unit or the National Guard.

I can explain it for you, but I can't understand it for you........