Calson

Actually, guns are not protected by the constitution.. Arms (i.e. armaments), which includes guns are.. This includes your right to have missile launchers, ICBMs, attack helicopters, fighter jets, AA guns, ..... Oh wait, you can't have any of those despite the constitution saying that you can... In today's world, if the government decided to turn against the American people completely, then those are exactly the kinds of weapons you would need to resist. A 9mm stuck in your belt is not going to make a soldier stop and think. So, basically, the second amendment is a myth, and your interpretation also falls down. I like that suggestion of closing down the manufacturers, getting the guns off the streets, and going waco on the rest. It would be the only way to really enforce any kind of meaningful gun control here.

Ah.. But us mere mortals (or those like me who have used MS products so much our brains have atrophied) 1: can never remember the syntax for regular expressions 2: always think of the shell command/macro that could have made things easier after we finish editing 3: use a database for sorting everything 4: need the security of a mouse and pointer Although, if it had code completion......

I think I have misunderstood the term Moral Relativism. I was assuming that you were talking about peoples morals being relative to the situation they are in (e.g. Killing is bad in one instance, good in another). Now I think you are talking about people who accept morals opposed to their own in others.. Yes? No? If that is the case, the world would stop functioning if everyone judged people based on how the other person's morals equated to theirs. It is a rare person who can live up to their own moral code, never mind judge others to see if they live up to it. Edit: This is why playing a paladin properly is so hard. Everyone is judged by the Paladin's code, and the Paladin should never compromise that code, even for party members.

Ted: Could use arrow keys and edit directly. Vi: Couldn't use arrow keys, required series of key strokes to edit anything. Of course, it's been over 10 years since I used Vi, so it has probably changed a lot since. Still gives me shivers thinking about it though.

Right now I use C# and I like it a lot. Visual Studio 2005 is by far the best IDE I have seen. Though my nostalgic favourite is Turbo C by Borland. Is Vim like Vi on Unix? If so, then I would rather drill holes in my head than use it. Back in college I used Ted (on Unix) and Turbo C (on Dos) to write my code, and pretended that I did it all on Vi. Really, what is so wrong about wanting to use the arrow keys?

A set of rules does not equal a set of morals. Take any developed country in the world today, and while they all have laws, the laws do not define the morality of the populace. for example, here in the US, we have wars, abortion, gay marriage, global warming. These are all contentious issues, with people on both sides claiming the high moral ground. Both sides of each argument cannot be morally acceptable, as each claims the other is immoral. So which is correct? If the rule is created, and the law is passed, does that make one side morally correct? Maybe it is the ultimate expression of understanding? To take the extreme example of alien and twisted: An alien race visits earth. They are intelligent, communicative, and females eat the males after insemination in a grotesque and agonizing manner. While, I may morally find this reprehensible in humans, who am I to condemn a whole race of creatures that have evolved in a way that seems wrong to me? Good and evil are circumstantial. 2000 years ago, slavery was good. Today, it's bad. 200 years ago, women were second class citizens, and it was good. Today, that kind of thinking is bad, and you will get an earful for even mentioning it. 100 years ago, mentally handicapped children were locked up in basements or barns, as it was what you did with children who were obviously evil. Today, you'll go to prison for a very long time for trying that. In 500 years morals will have changed again due to what ever circumstances prevail at that time. To really see moral relativity in action, try asking the following to various people: Would you murder someone to save a thousand people? Would you murder a really good person to save a thousand people? Would you murder a really evil person to save a thousand people? Would you murder someone with only a day to live to save a thousand people? In my experience, only a few people will stick to their answer no matter what circumstance is presented, as long as the premise (kill x save y, y>x) remains the same. Most will be swayed by one factor or another. Thank you.