I am not at war. Yes, I am an American citizen. I do not support the war, I do not "support our troops." IOW, YOU need to look at the bigger picture: not everyone agrees with your politics.
You are criminally irresponsible for voting for Bush. Did you? Doesn't matter, if you can call me a criminal for no reason, I can call you a criminal for no reason.
Even though I can get it to do everything I want it to? Just because I don't use all the features, it does not automatically follow that I'm just "muddling by."
Come on, I'm of average intelligence and I could figure it out. Well, not all of it, but at least enough to back up everything we have on a scheduled basis and restore things on-demand.
> A lot of people seem to have forgotten what that [panic] was like
Just FYI, on 9/11, not everyone "panicked." There were some people who didn't give in to the sensationalism and realized that it wasn't the first wave of an invading army, wasn't the end of the world, didn't "change our world view" or any of the other stuff that should not have happened.
> The only thing that is better to give than recieve is blame!
I dunno, man, I receive "shit" all the time and don't like it too much. However, I give it to my porcelain god who seems to like it a lot. At least he swallows it every time I push his doorbell.
I wanted to learn to fly one, but they're running a scam there! They want you to go fight for them and stuff! They're trying to trick you into going to war. Geez that's a ripoff, just to fly a plane.
and 4: Information leaks happen, so if the EU knows exactly what the US has on Gal-whatever and methods of attack are known, they can make their own contingency plans to negate the US efforts.
It's a stretch, but not unimaginable.
> "Shout at everybody and wave your big stick threateningly"
And you know what stick GW waves around, hee hee, err.. hmph. Probably would have been better as a Clinton joke, but oh well.
> If your chances of getting away with your crime are higher, than sentences should be longer.
Sweet, so if I shoot someone in public and hang around a few hours, my chances of being caught are higher, and ergo, a shorter sentence! I'll have to keep that in mind.
Chances of getting caught should not enter into it, only the damage that you caused.
Not if that's the only 50 cents I have to my name. Bill Gates could fail to notice (theoretically, his accountants probably wouldn't) 50 grand missing from his various assets and it would not really affect im in the slightest. So do you propose that we consider the stolen amount against the value of total possessions of the victim? Otherwise, the poorer you are the less the law cares about you (which is the truth at the moment).
However, yes, there were hundreds of "victims" (although none of them had anything actually happen to them) in this case.
> I think the massive amount of potential loss that these defendants could have imposed was astounding, so that's what caused us to seek a substantial sentence against Mr. Salcedo
The massive amount of potential damage you can do with that gun is astounding, so obviously you belong in jail.
I don't agree that "potential" should be considered ANYTHING like "actual."
> > prison isn't supposed to rehabilitate anyone. It's supposed to serve as a deterrent to crime > It serves both rolls although the effectiveness of it as a deterrent is questionable.
And it's "effectiveness" as a rehabilitator has been proven to do just the opposite.
> > how is a toy gun a horrible thing? > Seeing kids play with toy guns is something I find wrong.
You didn't answer the question. Can you expound a bit on why it is wrong? Is it because it can be (and probably would be) used to imitate an illegal/immoral act, namely murder? Kids have played with toy guns for a long time, I don't get why it's such a bad thing all of the sudden. Would you scold your child for using a "finger gun" (ie, you point your finger at someone and yell "BANG!")? It's the same thing with slightly more imagination.
If this is the case, does that also translate to digital? Do you see kids playing Halo (or most any other video game) to be wrong as well? It's imitating the same thing, only you can't touch the item, point it yourself, and it's more realistic.
Hmm. It's not a BAD idea, just not a well thought out one. If individuals had to choose whether or not to have a military by choosing to pay taxes or not, we would be invaded soon thereafter. Then we'd be put under the rule of a dictator "for our safety."
I'm all for anarchy, as long as I don't get killed:)
This is not insightful, it's a corrolation != causation problem, even if they are vaguely related (though indirectly).
Another poster had it right on, but didn't emphasize it enough. Clinton's presidency had less crime because we were in the middle of an economic boom. If people have more money around, they are less likely to attack someone for it. After the boom levelled off & started going back to more reasonable numbers... then below... crime rates increased. Because there were fewer jobs and more unrest in the public.
> toy guns I agree with completly. They are horrible things
Without toy guns, how will we glorify government sanctioned murder and staff our future militaries?
Seriously though, how is a toy gun a horrible thing? Do you also think that candy cigarettes should be banned? I think those are dumb and may perhaps contribute to the illusion that smoking is "cool," but I don't think they should be illegal because of that.
A ceremonial sword has no practical purpose, unless that ceremony involves killing or dismembering something. Therefore, ceremonial swords are of no practical value and should be forbidden. They are only used by "special" rich people to give them some false look of superiority and authority. Plus, a sword can actually hurt someone. Toy guns hurt no one, unless they break & you cut yourself on plastic edges.
You know what's really horrible? Making things illegal for no reason other than "I don't like what it's imitating, even though it is a real, prevelant thing" & "I said so." The games Risk, Axis & Allies, and even Chess are based on war. War is horrible. THOSE GAMES ARE HORRIBLE and should be made illegal. There is the same justification. If toy guns (a physical depiction of a real thing) are illegal, you MUST make it illegal for guns to appear in video games. That's a virtual depiction of the same real thing. What's the difference? With a video game you can fire it and see blood, you just can't hold it in your hand. With a toy, you have to yell "BANG!" and hope your opponent plays dead.
> so they could add another arrest to their otherwise drab and boring existance > All I wanted was to help a poor animal and I get subjected to a warrent search
What??? By phoning something in and giving information, you are not arrested. You were not arrested in any way in that situation, I don't know what you are trying to say, WRT that. Also, did they tell you they were searching for warrants on you? What if you were wanted in another state for luring police or animal control officers and killing them (latter, a noble cause)? They could then be ready for anything instead of just wandering into a gunfight.
Sure it's a stretch, but isn't it the government's job to assume everyone is a criminal and act accordingly?
Anyway, I agree it's stupid to ask for your info on the phone and I'd tell them to go to hell (or something much worse) if I were in that situation. The moral of the story? Never try to do good things when the police are involved, you'll certainly get put in jail (can you tell I'm no fan of authority?).
(This post has mixed serious and satirical statements: if you cannot tell the difference, try again.)
Look, I think raving about global warming is dumb, but those articles are not exactly from credible and (certainly not) unbiased sources. Browsing through other articles, they are pretty much mouthpieces for Republicans and just say everything conservatives want them to say.
> How come a nation with 31% of the world "output" does not export anything
WE DON'T EXPORT ANYTHING??? I had no idea American goods were completely unavailable anywhere else. I thought I went to a Pizza Hut in Canada, but I must have been mistaken.
(Hint: trade deficit does not mean we don't export anything)
Slashdot Mirror
I am not at war. Yes, I am an American citizen. I do not support the war, I do not "support our troops." IOW, YOU need to look at the bigger picture: not everyone agrees with your politics.
You are criminally irresponsible for voting for Bush. Did you? Doesn't matter, if you can call me a criminal for no reason, I can call you a criminal for no reason.
Even though I can get it to do everything I want it to? Just because I don't use all the features, it does not automatically follow that I'm just "muddling by."
Come on, I'm of average intelligence and I could figure it out. Well, not all of it, but at least enough to back up everything we have on a scheduled basis and restore things on-demand.
> A lot of people seem to have forgotten what that [panic] was like
Just FYI, on 9/11, not everyone "panicked." There were some people who didn't give in to the sensationalism and realized that it wasn't the first wave of an invading army, wasn't the end of the world, didn't "change our world view" or any of the other stuff that should not have happened.
> The only thing that is better to give than recieve is blame!
I dunno, man, I receive "shit" all the time and don't like it too much. However, I give it to my porcelain god who seems to like it a lot. At least he swallows it every time I push his doorbell.
> Sure they do. Just sign up for your chance.
I wanted to learn to fly one, but they're running a scam there! They want you to go fight for them and stuff! They're trying to trick you into going to war. Geez that's a ripoff, just to fly a plane.
> There is a point of diminishing returns
and 4: Information leaks happen, so if the EU knows exactly what the US has on Gal-whatever and methods of attack are known, they can make their own contingency plans to negate the US efforts.
It's a stretch, but not unimaginable.
> "Shout at everybody and wave your big stick threateningly"
And you know what stick GW waves around, hee hee, err.. hmph. Probably would have been better as a Clinton joke, but oh well.
> If your chances of getting away with your crime are higher, than sentences should be longer.
Sweet, so if I shoot someone in public and hang around a few hours, my chances of being caught are higher, and ergo, a shorter sentence! I'll have to keep that in mind.
Chances of getting caught should not enter into it, only the damage that you caused.
> If I steal $0.50 from you, it's trivial.
Not if that's the only 50 cents I have to my name. Bill Gates could fail to notice (theoretically, his accountants probably wouldn't) 50 grand missing from his various assets and it would not really affect im in the slightest. So do you propose that we consider the stolen amount against the value of total possessions of the victim? Otherwise, the poorer you are the less the law cares about you (which is the truth at the moment).
However, yes, there were hundreds of "victims" (although none of them had anything actually happen to them) in this case.
Yes, a pension fund is the property, or at least future property, of more than one person.
> your [sic] honor
How do YOU spell "your?"
It's too bad your post is at 0, because I agree completely.
> I think the massive amount of potential loss that these defendants could have imposed was astounding, so that's what caused us to seek a substantial sentence against Mr. Salcedo
The massive amount of potential damage you can do with that gun is astounding, so obviously you belong in jail.
I don't agree that "potential" should be considered ANYTHING like "actual."
> > prison isn't supposed to rehabilitate anyone. It's supposed to serve as a deterrent to crime
> It serves both rolls although the effectiveness of it as a deterrent is questionable.
And it's "effectiveness" as a rehabilitator has been proven to do just the opposite.
"I had to come to prison to become a criminal."
These people weren't holding knives, jackass.
> > how is a toy gun a horrible thing?
> Seeing kids play with toy guns is something I find wrong.
You didn't answer the question. Can you expound a bit on why it is wrong? Is it because it can be (and probably would be) used to imitate an illegal/immoral act, namely murder? Kids have played with toy guns for a long time, I don't get why it's such a bad thing all of the sudden. Would you scold your child for using a "finger gun" (ie, you point your finger at someone and yell "BANG!")? It's the same thing with slightly more imagination.
If this is the case, does that also translate to digital? Do you see kids playing Halo (or most any other video game) to be wrong as well? It's imitating the same thing, only you can't touch the item, point it yourself, and it's more realistic.
Hmm. It's not a BAD idea, just not a well thought out one. If individuals had to choose whether or not to have a military by choosing to pay taxes or not, we would be invaded soon thereafter. Then we'd be put under the rule of a dictator "for our safety."
:)
I'm all for anarchy, as long as I don't get killed
This is not insightful, it's a corrolation != causation problem, even if they are vaguely related (though indirectly).
Another poster had it right on, but didn't emphasize it enough. Clinton's presidency had less crime because we were in the middle of an economic boom. If people have more money around, they are less likely to attack someone for it. After the boom levelled off & started going back to more reasonable numbers... then below... crime rates increased. Because there were fewer jobs and more unrest in the public.
> toy guns I agree with completly. They are horrible things
Without toy guns, how will we glorify government sanctioned murder and staff our future militaries?
Seriously though, how is a toy gun a horrible thing? Do you also think that candy cigarettes should be banned? I think those are dumb and may perhaps contribute to the illusion that smoking is "cool," but I don't think they should be illegal because of that.
A ceremonial sword has no practical purpose, unless that ceremony involves killing or dismembering something. Therefore, ceremonial swords are of no practical value and should be forbidden. They are only used by "special" rich people to give them some false look of superiority and authority. Plus, a sword can actually hurt someone. Toy guns hurt no one, unless they break & you cut yourself on plastic edges.
You know what's really horrible? Making things illegal for no reason other than "I don't like what it's imitating, even though it is a real, prevelant thing" & "I said so." The games Risk, Axis & Allies, and even Chess are based on war. War is horrible. THOSE GAMES ARE HORRIBLE and should be made illegal. There is the same justification. If toy guns (a physical depiction of a real thing) are illegal, you MUST make it illegal for guns to appear in video games. That's a virtual depiction of the same real thing. What's the difference? With a video game you can fire it and see blood, you just can't hold it in your hand. With a toy, you have to yell "BANG!" and hope your opponent plays dead.
> Of course then you'd just be a paranoid freak, and probably deserving of the tapping of your system.
What you are saying: "If you're paranoid about being falsely accused of being a criminal, you are one and should be treated as such."
> Please keep in mind that these are the police
Yes, the same people that couldn't convict O.J.
(Yeah I know they really aren't the same people)
> so they could add another arrest to their otherwise drab and boring existance
> All I wanted was to help a poor animal and I get subjected to a warrent search
What??? By phoning something in and giving information, you are not arrested. You were not arrested in any way in that situation, I don't know what you are trying to say, WRT that. Also, did they tell you they were searching for warrants on you? What if you were wanted in another state for luring police or animal control officers and killing them (latter, a noble cause)? They could then be ready for anything instead of just wandering into a gunfight.
Sure it's a stretch, but isn't it the government's job to assume everyone is a criminal and act accordingly?
Anyway, I agree it's stupid to ask for your info on the phone and I'd tell them to go to hell (or something much worse) if I were in that situation. The moral of the story? Never try to do good things when the police are involved, you'll certainly get put in jail (can you tell I'm no fan of authority?).
(This post has mixed serious and satirical statements: if you cannot tell the difference, try again.)
> Let's break MS into 3 little entities." And then? It was pretty much forgotten
Wasn't that ruling reversed by another judge, and not just "forgotten?"
> Here is an interesting article on the matter:
Look, I think raving about global warming is dumb, but those articles are not exactly from credible and (certainly not) unbiased sources. Browsing through other articles, they are pretty much mouthpieces for Republicans and just say everything conservatives want them to say.
> How come a nation with 31% of the world "output" does not export anything
WE DON'T EXPORT ANYTHING??? I had no idea American goods were completely unavailable anywhere else. I thought I went to a Pizza Hut in Canada, but I must have been mistaken.
(Hint: trade deficit does not mean we don't export anything)