You mean the job where the first 10 ammendments were necessary after just two years ? :-)

Amendments 1–10 and 27 were products of the same Philadelphia Convention that produced the US Constitution, and were proposed along with it.

You could try Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights#Ph...

Nothing you said negates his argument. Why didn't the committee ad them to the constitution itself when it was passed?

They didn't agree about the inclusion of the articles and they wanted to get the constitution signed and proposed to the states for ratification ASAP. Thus those that wanted to get the Bill of Rights in there were promised "it would be coming soon" which appeased them enough to "sign off " on the constitution and those that had some issue with the articles were happy that they weren't initially included. Keep in mind that the "Bill of Rights" originally had 12 articles, only 10 passed initially, 1 finally passed in 1992 and 1 is still outstanding.

Also consider that they Philadelphia Convention wasn't some magical aw-inspiring meeting of the minds as it is sometimes made out to be. Only 39 of 55 actually actually signed the constitution and several were so pissed off they just walked out. I'm sure lots of bargaining and negotiation was done and the 12 articles in the Bill of Rights was simply one of the bargaining chips.

Right, that's what phkamp was saying. That the committee was a messy process that produced an artifact that needed to be fixed right out the gate, and didn't get up to a decent standard for a long long time.

Opponents of BofR claimed that was the broken part because it was redundant (and potentially dangerous) to enumerate rights not explicitly granted to the government. Also the built in amendment process allowed the document to adapt as the country evolved, while allowing the highest priority requirements to be met in the first iteration.

Minus the 3/5ths compromise of course...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-Fifths_Compromise

Committees are all about compromise and compromises are usually a worse solution in everyone's eyes. I'm not saying C14 threads are as bad as slavery, but they are a compromise that I'm sure no one will prefer to their native thread library.

I'm a bit surprise that ISO is even attempting to do generic threads. Who is this really a problem for? We have oodles of libraries that provide cross platform thread libraries. I don't see why we need the C standard to specify one.