They do the job they're supposed to. The war on drugs has filled the prisons with poor people, often of particular demographics and often non-violent (who wants their prisons full of violent types? It costs money) types. The war on piracy is moving to being able to take down web sites and such without any judicial oversight, instead on the word of the copyright industry. This is a way to take down speech that the powers that be don't like as it is going to be part of NAFTA, it can be blamed on needing a treaty.
I had a friend that kept getting in abusive relationships, often with known abusers. Her attitude was that she was better at getting along and everything would be fine.
This is the kind of outcome I would expect in an unregulated industry. That doesn't mean we need government involvement, but it does mean some kind of assurance to the customers of a product that is safe.
I remember a short anecdote of a vegetable farmer being interviewed on the topic of government inspectors. He said the government inspectors he could handle, it was the inspectors from the restaurants and grocers that were brutal....
The government inspectors are probably looking at health concerns such as bacteria, easy to pass by being clean, whereas the grocers etc are probably looking for blemishes, size and colour, something harder to pass. The free market often decides that looks are more important then other things and the same thing is likely to happen with ride sharing, more important to have a nice car and be clean cut and not look like a criminal. Things like this boycott will hopefully change what they inspect for.
What's your point? That agriculture is more interested in size then the nutrients in the crops? I think that is well established that when someone gets paid by weight, they'll try for increasing the weight of what they're selling.
Breaking the largest trade block in the world by breaking treaties (as if Canada is a security threat) is something especially when the guy breaking them doesn't even know anything. He actually thinks Mexico is the US's largest trade partner and doesn't consider the huge advantage the US has with services negating the couple of percent advantage Canada has in material goods currently. There's also the softwood treaty that America breaks regularly, driving up housing costs for Americans. And then there is bringing the worst part of the TPP under NAFTA.
Canada has one of the highest drug costs in the world, so it isn't like we get much of a discount. The way things are going, we'll be back to pre-NAFTA and manufacturing our own drugs. That will get the pharmaceutical companies attention, which will turn on Trump. Right now they're trying to do the TPP bullshit, but with NAFTA instead.
That's one of the reasons that you look at the headers. Amongst others, I have a gmail address that I use for some stuff, but I've almost never used the webmail to send something. The headers may tell you other things like that the person is using an ancient email program on Win95.
Why does this bullshit keep coming up. Socialism is simply the people owning the means of production, contrary to the propaganda that has been pushed on people. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership and workers' self-management of the means of production[10] as well as the political theories and movements associated with them.[11] Social ownership may refer to forms of public, collective or cooperative ownership, or to citizen ownership of equity.[12] There are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them,[13] though social ownership is the common element shared by its various forms.[5][14][15]
I never said whether the 2nd should be repealed or not, just pointed out that in the 18th century, experience had showed that standing armies can lead to tyranny and at the time, a militia was considered a good idea. The Constitution does make funding an army long term harder then a navy and the 2nd itself mentions the importance of a militia.
That's something up to Americans to decide to do, or continue as you have by chipping away at your rights by judicial fiat as executive and legislative fiat. And as the AC points out, the right to bear arms was first about self defense, see the Bill of Rights of 1688. Funny enough, originally it was a requirement for free men to bear arms rather then a right as the militia was much more important back in the day.
Lots of examples of working socialism. Think of things like co-ops. Credit Unions are pretty socialist as well. In areas of Northern Italy and parts of Spain there are quite a few worker owned co-operatives producing goods and operating in a capitalist society quite well. Like so many ism's, it works best when government involvement is minimal. Historically there has also been problems such as in 1930's Spain where the Stalinists showed up and fucked things. People forget that libertarianism was originally a socialist idea and that all socialism means is the workers or people owning the means of production and running it in a democratic manner. Like most ism's, it doesn't scale up very well and in poor countries, it is used by authoritarians and the corrupt to get into power.
The other part is that at the time, a standing army was considered bad as it led to tyranny. Today America has one of the largest well equipped armies in the world, so it could be argued that the reason for the 2nd has gone away.
Isn't the UCMJ basically a law passed by Congress? At that aren't most ways to go to jail based on laws passed by Congress? The 1st is pretty simple, though at the time it was passed, I guess there was common law that prevented speech, but now there is very little common law left as it has all been replaced by statutes. I don't think even contempt is common law in the USA anymore, just a few interactions between the States and the Feds, and of course much of contract law and various other torts that don't result in jail time as far as I know. The correct way would be an amendment limiting freedom of speech in the case of national security, then the government could legally censor people rather then the current rulings by activist judges on what speech is allowed.
OK, number 3 helps a lot, throw in some random recounts as well as any statutory (eg when things are close) recounts of the physical copy and the fact that I have a hard time with numbers 1&2 would go a long way.
Yellowstone blowing in a big way is going to be a civilization ending event that nukes aren't going to help much for. Volcanic ash is nasty stuff and when you measure it in feet, well unless you're upwind, you're fucked, and even going far enough upwind will just circle the globe and bring you to downwind.
What about the other piece of electronic voting, namely that the average (and less then average) person can understand the security? It's just as important that everyone trusts the voting as it being secure and it's hard to imagine a trustworthy electronic voting machine that most people understand. When I vote with paper and pencil and watch the whole procedure, it is very understandable.
You should really read some history judging by comments like this,
There was no concept of a company being as large as a Facebook or Google - it wasn't on the radar for concerns of the time.
in a world with companies such as the East India Company, a company that had its own army and courts and were quite capable of killing dissenters by acting as Judge, Jury and executioner. It was also at war with the other East India Companies (French and Dutch). There was also the Hudson's Bay Company which owned a good chunk of N. America Also you might want to read up on the couple of revolutions that happened in England and Great Britain that neutered the monarchy by beheading and plain old firing and put Parliament as Supreme and even came up with a Bill of Rights a hundred years before the American Constitution was written. While the Bill of Rights was pretty crappy by modern standards, by the standards of the 17th century it was pretty radical with the right to bear arms (for Protestants) and the right of free speech (for politicians). The evil tyrant did say a lot, things like the Royal Proclamation of 1763 which really pissed of the colonists by saying that all his subjects were equal, no stealing the natives lands and those evil Papists were allowed more freedoms such as being in government. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Well, the wonderful thing about being American is the 1st Amendment, which says that Congress can't pass any laws limiting speech so there is no way that someone can go to jail for speaking or publishing something, unlike those socialist totalitarian countries.
Yes, I use Thunderbird, and up till less a year ago, over dial up. Looking, it appears I've been using it for about 10 years. To quote the AC poster,
That makes no sense. Thunderbird is an offline email client. No one who uses it is going to switch to a web-based client if Thunderbird dies. Instead they will find a new offline client.
Which sure looks to me that the AC has the definition of offline where the client continues to work when not connected to a network, unlike gmail.com or other web based email interfaces.
Slashdot Mirror
Sheriff? We're talking BC, so it would be the Mounties.
They do the job they're supposed to. The war on drugs has filled the prisons with poor people, often of particular demographics and often non-violent (who wants their prisons full of violent types? It costs money) types.
The war on piracy is moving to being able to take down web sites and such without any judicial oversight, instead on the word of the copyright industry. This is a way to take down speech that the powers that be don't like as it is going to be part of NAFTA, it can be blamed on needing a treaty.
Have they got plea bargaining?
I had a friend that kept getting in abusive relationships, often with known abusers. Her attitude was that she was better at getting along and everything would be fine.
This is the kind of outcome I would expect in an unregulated industry. That doesn't mean we need government involvement, but it does mean some kind of assurance to the customers of a product that is safe.
I remember a short anecdote of a vegetable farmer being interviewed on the topic of government inspectors. He said the government inspectors he could handle, it was the inspectors from the restaurants and grocers that were brutal. ...
The government inspectors are probably looking at health concerns such as bacteria, easy to pass by being clean, whereas the grocers etc are probably looking for blemishes, size and colour, something harder to pass. The free market often decides that looks are more important then other things and the same thing is likely to happen with ride sharing, more important to have a nice car and be clean cut and not look like a criminal. Things like this boycott will hopefully change what they inspect for.
Your guesses don't cover the EU or other places like Canada that don't have such high prison populations and women aren't usually armed.
What's your point? That agriculture is more interested in size then the nutrients in the crops? I think that is well established that when someone gets paid by weight, they'll try for increasing the weight of what they're selling.
I wouldn't be too sure about any thing the Realty TV personality in charge would do.
Breaking the largest trade block in the world by breaking treaties (as if Canada is a security threat) is something especially when the guy breaking them doesn't even know anything. He actually thinks Mexico is the US's largest trade partner and doesn't consider the huge advantage the US has with services negating the couple of percent advantage Canada has in material goods currently.
There's also the softwood treaty that America breaks regularly, driving up housing costs for Americans.
And then there is bringing the worst part of the TPP under NAFTA.
Canada has one of the highest drug costs in the world, so it isn't like we get much of a discount. The way things are going, we'll be back to pre-NAFTA and manufacturing our own drugs. That will get the pharmaceutical companies attention, which will turn on Trump. Right now they're trying to do the TPP bullshit, but with NAFTA instead.
That's one of the reasons that you look at the headers. Amongst others, I have a gmail address that I use for some stuff, but I've almost never used the webmail to send something. The headers may tell you other things like that the person is using an ancient email program on Win95.
Why does this bullshit keep coming up. Socialism is simply the people owning the means of production, contrary to the propaganda that has been pushed on people. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
If you believe in the free market, there is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... and if you believe in minimal government, there is the original libertarian-ism, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
I never said whether the 2nd should be repealed or not, just pointed out that in the 18th century, experience had showed that standing armies can lead to tyranny and at the time, a militia was considered a good idea. The Constitution does make funding an army long term harder then a navy and the 2nd itself mentions the importance of a militia.
Or the army shrunk in favour of the militia. The navy is quite capable of defending America, especially the nuke equipped subs.
That's something up to Americans to decide to do, or continue as you have by chipping away at your rights by judicial fiat as executive and legislative fiat.
And as the AC points out, the right to bear arms was first about self defense, see the Bill of Rights of 1688.
Funny enough, originally it was a requirement for free men to bear arms rather then a right as the militia was much more important back in the day.
Lots of examples of working socialism. Think of things like co-ops. Credit Unions are pretty socialist as well.
In areas of Northern Italy and parts of Spain there are quite a few worker owned co-operatives producing goods and operating in a capitalist society quite well.
Like so many ism's, it works best when government involvement is minimal. Historically there has also been problems such as in 1930's Spain where the Stalinists showed up and fucked things.
People forget that libertarianism was originally a socialist idea and that all socialism means is the workers or people owning the means of production and running it in a democratic manner.
Like most ism's, it doesn't scale up very well and in poor countries, it is used by authoritarians and the corrupt to get into power.
The other part is that at the time, a standing army was considered bad as it led to tyranny.
Today America has one of the largest well equipped armies in the world, so it could be argued that the reason for the 2nd has gone away.
Isn't the UCMJ basically a law passed by Congress? At that aren't most ways to go to jail based on laws passed by Congress? The 1st is pretty simple, though at the time it was passed, I guess there was common law that prevented speech, but now there is very little common law left as it has all been replaced by statutes. I don't think even contempt is common law in the USA anymore, just a few interactions between the States and the Feds, and of course much of contract law and various other torts that don't result in jail time as far as I know.
The correct way would be an amendment limiting freedom of speech in the case of national security, then the government could legally censor people rather then the current rulings by activist judges on what speech is allowed.
OK, number 3 helps a lot, throw in some random recounts as well as any statutory (eg when things are close) recounts of the physical copy and the fact that I have a hard time with numbers 1&2 would go a long way.
Perhaps you should blame the oil companies that financed those hippies.
Yellowstone blowing in a big way is going to be a civilization ending event that nukes aren't going to help much for. Volcanic ash is nasty stuff and when you measure it in feet, well unless you're upwind, you're fucked, and even going far enough upwind will just circle the globe and bring you to downwind.
What about the other piece of electronic voting, namely that the average (and less then average) person can understand the security?
It's just as important that everyone trusts the voting as it being secure and it's hard to imagine a trustworthy electronic voting machine that most people understand.
When I vote with paper and pencil and watch the whole procedure, it is very understandable.
You should really read some history judging by comments like this,
There was no concept of a company being as large as a Facebook or Google - it wasn't on the radar for concerns of the time.
in a world with companies such as the East India Company, a company that had its own army and courts and were quite capable of killing dissenters by acting as Judge, Jury and executioner. It was also at war with the other East India Companies (French and Dutch). There was also the Hudson's Bay Company which owned a good chunk of N. America
Also you might want to read up on the couple of revolutions that happened in England and Great Britain that neutered the monarchy by beheading and plain old firing and put Parliament as Supreme and even came up with a Bill of Rights a hundred years before the American Constitution was written. While the Bill of Rights was pretty crappy by modern standards, by the standards of the 17th century it was pretty radical with the right to bear arms (for Protestants) and the right of free speech (for politicians).
The evil tyrant did say a lot, things like the Royal Proclamation of 1763 which really pissed of the colonists by saying that all his subjects were equal, no stealing the natives lands and those evil Papists were allowed more freedoms such as being in government.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Well, the wonderful thing about being American is the 1st Amendment, which says that Congress can't pass any laws limiting speech so there is no way that someone can go to jail for speaking or publishing something, unlike those socialist totalitarian countries.
Yes, I use Thunderbird, and up till less a year ago, over dial up. Looking, it appears I've been using it for about 10 years.
To quote the AC poster,
That makes no sense. Thunderbird is an offline email client. No one who uses it is going to switch to a web-based client if Thunderbird dies. Instead they will find a new offline client.
Which sure looks to me that the AC has the definition of offline where the client continues to work when not connected to a network, unlike gmail.com or other web based email interfaces.