Threat deterrent: being armed in an of itself will potentially cause the would be attackers to wait for easier targets.
Self-defense: shooting someone in the leg is plenty to stop most attacks, killing not required. However, when it is your life or those, I have no problem with killing in defense.
Entertaining sport: target practice, in animate objects are usually not considered alive, hence killing a target is not killing in the typcial fashion.
Armed populace: allows the citizens of a country protect themselves from outside or internal threats, so yes killing is required, however, it still falls into the self defense catagory.
Explain to me why killing is bad in self defense again? If someone has no qualms with killing you to start with, or raping you, or doing any other variety of nasty things to you, should you not have the right to defend yourself? Why should I have to wait for the police to show up, file a greivence, then hope they get the criminal if I can head off the entire situation by stopping the crime in action?
Shoot cows? farmers have a limited need for extremely simple single shot rifles (no magazines, break-reload)
Hand gun is easier to wield. (Granted I don't know what they usually use.)
Self-Defense? once we get rid of the guns some mace and a bat will be fine
God made man. Colt made them equal. Do you really expect your mom to overpower a couple teens with a bat? Your mom must be quite the brute, too bad my mom isn't, I'd rather have her have a gun.
There is no pressing need for guns.
Nor is there a pressed need for computers at home either. But you see that great part of living in a free country is that we get to use our freedoms, one of which is to buy and use a computer at home, another is to own a gun. If you don't like it, move to England.
Your arguments are just like those who hate SUVs. Some people need SUVs (like myself within a year or so as I am building in the country this year). Other buy them just because the want one. Who are you to determine what I can or cannot do with my own money? Freedom is about letting people do with their own property and time what they choose whether you like it or not.
There are three. Now, if you are like most anti-gun folks you will say that the first to are not necessary as we haqve police to protected us. Unforetunately that is not true. The third is probably going to get me called some sort of pickup driving backwater hick. The fourth will probably conjure up some tinfoil head ornaments.
Yes, we do place America life very highly. However, consider how many Iraqis have died at the hands of Saddam?
Do you just have something broken in your brain and cannot understand that, or do you try to be that stupid? If we really didn't care at all for folks outside the US we would have used a lot more aggressive tactics in Iraq, like say carpet bombing ever single civilian, but we didn't. Now, instead we used bombs that cost more than what you will make in a lifetime probably and took out targets as small as single buildings. Instead, the Iraq war has probably had fewer civilian casualties of any war previous to it that lasted even remotely that length. For that matter wars have not in the past lasted as short as this one, again a testament to our spending tons of money on our military machine to be able to keep wars short and quick. Again, because we value lives.
Now look at the rebels in Iraq now, whatdo they do? They are killing who ever they can, Iraq or soldier. The target soft targets like the UN workers, they target civilians in markets, the target roadsides. Who valus life? The animals who target civilians or the soldiers who target those animals?
I would buy the protecting part (and am certainly no fan of nannying) though I'm not so sure about the arming-to-the-teeth bit. Especially when many of the people we arm/train/support (bin Laden springs to mind) later turn out to be great threats to our security. Why do we have to sell/give weapons to so many foreign governments?
If a nation is not armed to the teeth, it will be taking the hand outs of nations that would desire otherwise. It is an unfortunate situation the world is in. However, do you honestly believe that every nation in the world would respect the borders of others if there were not someone armed and capable and willing to stop them? Then if you lie to yourself and say yes, consider Kuwait in '91.
Your sample size of one (bin Laden) is awfully small. Also, when you consider at that time our concern was the expansion of communism, not attacks on US soil, we did the right thing. International polotics are a tricky business, sometimes you have to deal with people you would not otherwise choose to deal with because you are looking for a particular outcome.
As to why we support other nations with arms and military support, because in many ways it reduces our personal risk in an endeavour. Also, during the '70 - '80s we fought wars by proxy because we were concerned with the expansion of communism. Were the US and Russia to openly right neither of us would be here today to reflect on the decisions made then.
And why are we ignoring the North Koreans, who do have weapons that could hurt us, and focusing on poor countries in the Middle East that can't? And don't drag in the WTC/Pentagon attacks--that was planned, financed, and executed by Saudis (our "friends"), not Iraqis.
Ah, but you see, we are not ignoring the North Koreans, and to claim so would be a lie. We have been at work with talks with Japan, S. Korea, China and N. Korea (I think two other contries also, Russia?). However, again we get to international politics, so here we are using the carrot, sometimes we use the stick.
Afghanistan was harboring bin Laden, supported him financially and refused to turn him over after the 9/11. The stick. Our choices here were to wait, and hope for the best, or to act and remove a threat immediately. Were we to wait I think we would have found al-queda would be growing today, however, breaking the main base of operations we have neutralized them for a time. Also, don't subscribe to the lie we are not actively hunting bin Laden, we obviously are, infact I have seen reports that we are plannning a large offensive for spring.
As far as your claim that the saudis were funding bin Laden, yeah, so what. The saudis have also exiled him, have worked with us to cut funding to organizations funding terror networks. It seems like had either the Taliban or Saddam complied with our wishes as the saudis have, they might still be in power in some sort of semblence.
As far as Iraq, we presumed there was a threat, and were wrong. However, Saddam also sent $25000 to the families of suicide bombers in Israel, which seems to indicate that he is willing to support terrorism. He also has been known to have and use bio and chem weapons (again, don't believe the lie he never had them). We also know he was unwilling to allow weapon inspections for a number of years after kicking out inspectors. Then we have how many resolutions against Iraq in the UN? The UN was not complying with its own resolutions, what purpose does the UN have?
Going to space has many purposes, however, it also has many military aspects. Seeing China (who I do not believe poses an immediate risk or skill) get to space does mean that we need to be ready for the potential for space confrontation. The research that will make us a military power in space (or atleast be able to strike in space) will also trickle into the private sector, who should take up the reigns of space exploration. The private sector will either find it profitable or not.
Nothing in the information available to GWB said that there were stockpiles of WMD, yet he repeatedly said that we had proof that there were massive stockpiles and that we knew where they were. That's what's called a lie.
So, which are you, Mr. Powell, or Ms. Rice? You know all the evidence that the president recieved?
And it's presently so safe and peaceful there that no Iraqis are dieing?
What Iraq had before we invaded was not peace. In the same way as Soviet Russia was not at peace during the cold war. Peace is not wondering if you will be abducted from your home or your family killed for being a dissident.
The very nature of your statistics disturbs me. How is it we all know so much about the Iraqi deaths in the years durring which we weren't present (and had demonstratbly bad intelligence) but have only guesses about how many have died while we were there and watching? Dosn't that seem even a little bit odd to you?
Because, after we got there, over threw the former regime, and started sticking shovels into the ground we started discovering these mass graves. Our counts and estimates say 300,000 bodies fill these graves. That is how we know.
By all means, we should do it. Too bad we're broke now, having spent more than we have on that whole arming-to-the-teeth thing.
Explain to me why it is that Iraq had never sent anyone into space? Or perhaps why only three nations in the world have ever sent anyone into space (and China being dubious at best since they built off of Russian tech)? When did the US send people into space? Oh yeah, during the hey-day of space during the col war when we were working on arming ourselves to the teeth, that's right.
Some believe that the function of government is to arm itself to the teeth to protect the life and property of its citizens, not to give health care and schooling and nannying its citizens. Researching space tech falls into the defense of its citizens catagory.
Yes, and the reason the number was as high as it was is that we were lied to. So?
Hindsight says was were wrong about the state of the Iraqi weapons programs, not that we were lied to. That would be like me saying its going to be sunny tommorrow, when infact it might be rainy. Our intelligence reports were less than accurate that we presumed them to be. And looking at the history, I do not blame our intelligence either when you look at the chain of events.
A. Saddam has bio and chem weapons. This is a simple fact known since Iran - Iraq war. B. Saddam kicked out inspectors from country and stops complying with UN. C. ??? D. Saddam claims he doesn't have bio and chem weapons in Jan 2003 facing an impending war and can easily stop the war by explaining where the bio and chem weapons are or were destroyed.
Looking at that list seems to point that Saddam had the weapons. Now it is possible that they were moved out of country, though we tried to stop that before the war.
For that matter, "arming people to the teeth" doesn't really reduce the number of dead people, it mostly just influences the nationality of the bodies. So you evidently aren't objecting to death per se.
So, is 300,000 dead Iraqis a matter of concern to you? Is 500+ US lives worth 300,000 Iraqi graves? Saddam had more of a body count that we could even try for short of intentionally targetting civilians. Lets do some simple math now.
US did nothing for 10 years: 300,000 known deaths US invades: ~500 US deaths after 1 year
No invasion: 30,000 deaths a year on average Invasion: less than 30,000 average (I do not know the numbers for non-US folks, but I am sure that the number comes in less than 30,000).
Who values lives again?
Now, Bush happens to also present some ideas for getting us into space and also a permanent settlement on the moon and beyond on mars. How do you feel about that? Should we not actually try this, or should we only work on satalite tellescopes? Or because Bush presented the idea should we scrap it?
Gosh, if you were only able to keep it at wanting to save the Hubble, but no, you have to go and look like an idiot.
According to your logic, Saddam was very effective in his space program. Much more than 21 dead, huh? Perhaps his plan was to stack the bodies as a space elevator? He was just getting the foundation finished.
The reason only 500+ US soldiers have died is because we value life so highly. We spend billions to keep our troops armed to the teeth with the best weapons and machinery possible.
Its crazy how successful the US is while still keeping human life in such a high esteem. We are not going to throw away human lives simpley because we have a dream. We will take a measured amount of risk.
Gee, I'm such a dupe. I paid for my version of WC, WCI, WCIII and Starcraft. Geesh, I could have taken the moral highground and just paid for WCIII and Starcraft.
Anyways, look for servers with the shrub-mod. Usually (unless the admin is a complete idiot) they allow you to push characters with your action button (default 'F'). So, if you are in a choke point right after a spawn you just 'F' a couple times and they are out of the way.
- Horses require daily maintenance whether they are used or not. - Horses do not get you from point a to point b when the distance is > 60 miles (950400 hands) nearly as quickly under normal commuting conditions. - You have to do something with the fertilizer the horses generate.
I'm not saying horses are not wonderful animals (useful under the right conditions), but they do have their failings. But that wasn't even my point. I think it was more or less to add a touch of humour to the conversation about people being so serious about using metric / english(imperial) / etc units to measure with.
Wow, that looks remarkabley uncomfortable. Did you want help removing your head from you rear end? Or are you as agile as your intellectual contortionism seems to imply?
Right... I have started looking into this on the west side of Michigan (come back to Holland Mr. Taco) and http://michwave.com/coverage.html seems to be in my area (Grand Rapids).
On the other end, starting this year, the EU will ban dual labeling. So, not only will Europe require US products to have metric labeling (the already do) they will not allow Imperial units to appear on the labels! That's just spiteful.
Are you serious? Well, that's freedom for you. Label it this way or its illegal!
Yes, yes, go ahead euro-lib, mark me -1 flamebait cause you support freedom.
Where did your right to tell someone else how much than can or cannot make come from?
Oh, I get it, you know better than everyone else. Good thing we have you around to let everyone know how much you think they are worth. If we didn't have you, well, then we'd just have to pay everyone what the market will sustain.
More importantly, why do folks want the government preparing their retirement? If you need to retire (retiring is not a requirement) than plan for it. If you cannot plan for your own retirement, you don't get to retire.
You know what the coolest thing about MLKJ was? Do you know why we respect, indeed have a holiday honoring the man, which was this week?
There was a time when black men and women lived in our country who were not treated as equals, who were forced to live separate from white men and women. This, beyond a shadow of doubt was evil, unjust, and horrible. Many states had laws enforcing this separation with bathrooms, busses, jobs, and many other aspects of life. MLKJ set out to change this by forcing the issue, by breaking these laws, and accepting the punishment for breaking these laws. He lived a life of accepting the responsiblity for his own actions, even under an unjust system.
Now, while I am no fan of the RIAA, what they are doing is exactly what they should be doing. They are going after the people who are breaking copyright laws. To do otherwise would be foolish beyond doubt.
If you feel so strongly that the laws that the RIAA are enforcing are evil, unjust, and horrible, then do something about it. Here you either have two choices. You can work within the system attempting to get your congressmen to change the copyright laws to a system to more of your liking. Or secondly you can break the current laws in civil disobediance and take responsibility for your actions.
Instead, you will sit here on slashdot and cry that the law is unjust and unfair. Well, tough. Someone took time out of their lives to create content, that evidently lots of people want, and then someone came along and copied their talent. Just because something is technically feasible does not mean it is fair either.
Oh yeah, I don't care about the GPL code at all. If I wrote something for free and others used it and didn't share I wouldn't care about it at all. More power to them.
Spoken like someone who has never produced something. The music artists did not create their songs for free, their copyright is in the hands of the RIAA. That was their choice to sign with the RIAA and have them protect their copyrights.
How does it go? If you can't do the time, don't do the crime.
It is not the RIAA's fault that she cannot purchase their music. Where were her folks? Were they keeping an eye on her downloading and computer usage? Since when is, "I'm poor" and excuse or legal right to download copyrighted music? Justice is done when that little girl, who is supposed to be poor yet still has a computer, goes without the music that she downloads. The music she is downloading is not hers.
How would you feel if that 12 year old girl started a company using someone's GPL code, and she didn't release it? Would you be so easy to over look a GPL violation? Being poor or being young is no right to viloate the laws that you live under. If she is not held accountable, her folks should be.
Actually, there is adoption. Were I so inclined to, putting a child up for adoption is always an option. Secondly, if my children wind up hating me, so be it. I can remember many rebellous ideas I had when I was younger, and now see the wisdom of my parents.
Hmmm, my wife probably does not mind, atleast no complaints yet. Perhaps when you grow up you will have a change of heart. I see your folks could have used a little more rod, and a little less sparing.
Slashdot Mirror
Threat deterrent: being armed in an of itself will potentially cause the would be attackers to wait for easier targets.
Self-defense: shooting someone in the leg is plenty to stop most attacks, killing not required. However, when it is your life or those, I have no problem with killing in defense.
Entertaining sport: target practice, in animate objects are usually not considered alive, hence killing a target is not killing in the typcial fashion.
Armed populace: allows the citizens of a country protect themselves from outside or internal threats, so yes killing is required, however, it still falls into the self defense catagory.
Explain to me why killing is bad in self defense again? If someone has no qualms with killing you to start with, or raping you, or doing any other variety of nasty things to you, should you not have the right to defend yourself? Why should I have to wait for the police to show up, file a greivence, then hope they get the criminal if I can head off the entire situation by stopping the crime in action?
Shoot targets? play a game, use an air-gun
Accuracy matters in most shooting games.
Shoot cows? farmers have a limited need for extremely simple single shot rifles (no magazines, break-reload)
Hand gun is easier to wield. (Granted I don't know what they usually use.)
Self-Defense? once we get rid of the guns some mace and a bat will be fine
God made man. Colt made them equal. Do you really expect your mom to overpower a couple teens with a bat? Your mom must be quite the brute, too bad my mom isn't, I'd rather have her have a gun.
There is no pressing need for guns.
Nor is there a pressed need for computers at home either. But you see that great part of living in a free country is that we get to use our freedoms, one of which is to buy and use a computer at home, another is to own a gun. If you don't like it, move to England.
Your arguments are just like those who hate SUVs. Some people need SUVs (like myself within a year or so as I am building in the country this year). Other buy them just because the want one. Who are you to determine what I can or cannot do with my own money? Freedom is about letting people do with their own property and time what they choose whether you like it or not.
Threat deterrent.
Self defense.
Entertaining sport.
Armed populace.
There are three. Now, if you are like most anti-gun folks you will say that the first to are not necessary as we haqve police to protected us. Unforetunately that is not true. The third is probably going to get me called some sort of pickup driving backwater hick. The fourth will probably conjure up some tinfoil head ornaments.
Yes, we do place America life very highly. However, consider how many Iraqis have died at the hands of Saddam?
Do you just have something broken in your brain and cannot understand that, or do you try to be that stupid? If we really didn't care at all for folks outside the US we would have used a lot more aggressive tactics in Iraq, like say carpet bombing ever single civilian, but we didn't. Now, instead we used bombs that cost more than what you will make in a lifetime probably and took out targets as small as single buildings. Instead, the Iraq war has probably had fewer civilian casualties of any war previous to it that lasted even remotely that length. For that matter wars have not in the past lasted as short as this one, again a testament to our spending tons of money on our military machine to be able to keep wars short and quick. Again, because we value lives.
Now look at the rebels in Iraq now, whatdo they do? They are killing who ever they can, Iraq or soldier. The target soft targets like the UN workers, they target civilians in markets, the target roadsides. Who valus life? The animals who target civilians or the soldiers who target those animals?
I would buy the protecting part (and am certainly no fan of nannying) though I'm not so sure about the arming-to-the-teeth bit. Especially when many of the people we arm/train/support (bin Laden springs to mind) later turn out to be great threats to our security. Why do we have to sell/give weapons to so many foreign governments?
If a nation is not armed to the teeth, it will be taking the hand outs of nations that would desire otherwise. It is an unfortunate situation the world is in. However, do you honestly believe that every nation in the world would respect the borders of others if there were not someone armed and capable and willing to stop them? Then if you lie to yourself and say yes, consider Kuwait in '91.
Your sample size of one (bin Laden) is awfully small. Also, when you consider at that time our concern was the expansion of communism, not attacks on US soil, we did the right thing. International polotics are a tricky business, sometimes you have to deal with people you would not otherwise choose to deal with because you are looking for a particular outcome.
As to why we support other nations with arms and military support, because in many ways it reduces our personal risk in an endeavour. Also, during the '70 - '80s we fought wars by proxy because we were concerned with the expansion of communism. Were the US and Russia to openly right neither of us would be here today to reflect on the decisions made then.
And why are we ignoring the North Koreans, who do have weapons that could hurt us, and focusing on poor countries in the Middle East that can't? And don't drag in the WTC/Pentagon attacks--that was planned, financed, and executed by Saudis (our "friends"), not Iraqis.
Ah, but you see, we are not ignoring the North Koreans, and to claim so would be a lie. We have been at work with talks with Japan, S. Korea, China and N. Korea (I think two other contries also, Russia?). However, again we get to international politics, so here we are using the carrot, sometimes we use the stick.
Afghanistan was harboring bin Laden, supported him financially and refused to turn him over after the 9/11. The stick. Our choices here were to wait, and hope for the best, or to act and remove a threat immediately. Were we to wait I think we would have found al-queda would be growing today, however, breaking the main base of operations we have neutralized them for a time. Also, don't subscribe to the lie we are not actively hunting bin Laden, we obviously are, infact I have seen reports that we are plannning a large offensive for spring.
As far as your claim that the saudis were funding bin Laden, yeah, so what. The saudis have also exiled him, have worked with us to cut funding to organizations funding terror networks. It seems like had either the Taliban or Saddam complied with our wishes as the saudis have, they might still be in power in some sort of semblence.
As far as Iraq, we presumed there was a threat, and were wrong. However, Saddam also sent $25000 to the families of suicide bombers in Israel, which seems to indicate that he is willing to support terrorism. He also has been known to have and use bio and chem weapons (again, don't believe the lie he never had them). We also know he was unwilling to allow weapon inspections for a number of years after kicking out inspectors. Then we have how many resolutions against Iraq in the UN? The UN was not complying with its own resolutions, what purpose does the UN have?
Going to space has many purposes, however, it also has many military aspects. Seeing China (who I do not believe poses an immediate risk or skill) get to space does mean that we need to be ready for the potential for space confrontation. The research that will make us a military power in space (or atleast be able to strike in space) will also trickle into the private sector, who should take up the reigns of space exploration. The private sector will either find it profitable or not.
As far a
Nothing in the information available to GWB said that there were stockpiles of WMD, yet he repeatedly said that we had proof that there were massive stockpiles and that we knew where they were. That's what's called a lie.
So, which are you, Mr. Powell, or Ms. Rice? You know all the evidence that the president recieved?
And it's presently so safe and peaceful there that no Iraqis are dieing?
What Iraq had before we invaded was not peace. In the same way as Soviet Russia was not at peace during the cold war. Peace is not wondering if you will be abducted from your home or your family killed for being a dissident.
The very nature of your statistics disturbs me. How is it we all know so much about the Iraqi deaths in the years durring which we weren't present (and had demonstratbly bad intelligence) but have only guesses about how many have died while we were there and watching? Dosn't that seem even a little bit odd to you?
Because, after we got there, over threw the former regime, and started sticking shovels into the ground we started discovering these mass graves. Our counts and estimates say 300,000 bodies fill these graves. That is how we know.
Interesting photo site
Washington Times
Fox News
CNN about half way down a reference
By all means, we should do it. Too bad we're broke now, having spent more than we have on that whole arming-to-the-teeth thing.
Explain to me why it is that Iraq had never sent anyone into space? Or perhaps why only three nations in the world have ever sent anyone into space (and China being dubious at best since they built off of Russian tech)? When did the US send people into space? Oh yeah, during the hey-day of space during the col war when we were working on arming ourselves to the teeth, that's right.
Some believe that the function of government is to arm itself to the teeth to protect the life and property of its citizens, not to give health care and schooling and nannying its citizens. Researching space tech falls into the defense of its citizens catagory.
Yes, and the reason the number was as high as it was is that we were lied to. So?
Hindsight says was were wrong about the state of the Iraqi weapons programs, not that we were lied to. That would be like me saying its going to be sunny tommorrow, when infact it might be rainy. Our intelligence reports were less than accurate that we presumed them to be. And looking at the history, I do not blame our intelligence either when you look at the chain of events.
A. Saddam has bio and chem weapons. This is a simple fact known since Iran - Iraq war.
B. Saddam kicked out inspectors from country and stops complying with UN.
C. ???
D. Saddam claims he doesn't have bio and chem weapons in Jan 2003 facing an impending war and can easily stop the war by explaining where the bio and chem weapons are or were destroyed.
Looking at that list seems to point that Saddam had the weapons. Now it is possible that they were moved out of country, though we tried to stop that before the war.
For that matter, "arming people to the teeth" doesn't really reduce the number of dead people, it mostly just influences the nationality of the bodies. So you evidently aren't objecting to death per se.
So, is 300,000 dead Iraqis a matter of concern to you? Is 500+ US lives worth 300,000 Iraqi graves? Saddam had more of a body count that we could even try for short of intentionally targetting civilians. Lets do some simple math now.
US did nothing for 10 years: 300,000 known deaths
US invades: ~500 US deaths after 1 year
No invasion: 30,000 deaths a year on average
Invasion: less than 30,000 average (I do not know the numbers for non-US folks, but I am sure that the number comes in less than 30,000).
Who values lives again?
Now, Bush happens to also present some ideas for getting us into space and also a permanent settlement on the moon and beyond on mars. How do you feel about that? Should we not actually try this, or should we only work on satalite tellescopes? Or because Bush presented the idea should we scrap it?
Gosh, if you were only able to keep it at wanting to save the Hubble, but no, you have to go and look like an idiot.
According to your logic, Saddam was very effective in his space program. Much more than 21 dead, huh? Perhaps his plan was to stack the bodies as a space elevator? He was just getting the foundation finished.
The reason only 500+ US soldiers have died is because we value life so highly. We spend billions to keep our troops armed to the teeth with the best weapons and machinery possible.
Its crazy how successful the US is while still keeping human life in such a high esteem. We are not going to throw away human lives simpley because we have a dream. We will take a measured amount of risk.
Gee, I'm such a dupe. I paid for my version of WC, WCI, WCIII and Starcraft. Geesh, I could have taken the moral highground and just paid for WCIII and Starcraft.
Wouldn't that be hunderds of millions cheaper? Cost for this was ~$850,000,000 I thought, and that got us two of the litte buggers.
Bah, who would ever play on non-FF servers?
Anyways, look for servers with the shrub-mod. Usually (unless the admin is a complete idiot) they allow you to push characters with your action button (default 'F'). So, if you are in a choke point right after a spawn you just 'F' a couple times and they are out of the way.
I got one mydooms, looks like it was a bounce from another idiot admin who sends replies to the forged email header instead of just dropping it.
Granted my mail server is just for my wife and I, so it isn't like we get a whole ton of email anyways compared to a business.
I'm not much of a manager.
Q: What's better than winning a gold medal at the special olympics?
A: Not being retarded
It probably has something to do with your lack of personal skills.
Oh come now. Smile.
- Horses require daily maintenance whether they are used or not.
- Horses do not get you from point a to point b when the distance is > 60 miles (950400 hands) nearly as quickly under normal commuting conditions.
- You have to do something with the fertilizer the horses generate.
I'm not saying horses are not wonderful animals (useful under the right conditions), but they do have their failings. But that wasn't even my point. I think it was more or less to add a touch of humour to the conversation about people being so serious about using metric / english(imperial) / etc units to measure with.
Wow, that looks remarkabley uncomfortable. Did you want help removing your head from you rear end? Or are you as agile as your intellectual contortionism seems to imply?
Right... I have started looking into this on the west side of Michigan (come back to Holland Mr. Taco) and http://michwave.com/coverage.html seems to be in my area (Grand Rapids).
On the other end, starting this year, the EU will ban dual labeling. So, not only will Europe require US products to have metric labeling (the already do) they will not allow Imperial units to appear on the labels! That's just spiteful.
Are you serious? Well, that's freedom for you. Label it this way or its illegal!
Yes, yes, go ahead euro-lib, mark me -1 flamebait cause you support freedom.
No, we drive cars now. :-)
And proving once again that the below average person has a hard time spelling "counting to ten."
I'd patent that idea... then license it to OSDN. ;-)
Where did your right to tell someone else how much than can or cannot make come from?
Oh, I get it, you know better than everyone else. Good thing we have you around to let everyone know how much you think they are worth. If we didn't have you, well, then we'd just have to pay everyone what the market will sustain.
More importantly, why do folks want the government preparing their retirement? If you need to retire (retiring is not a requirement) than plan for it. If you cannot plan for your own retirement, you don't get to retire.
You know what the coolest thing about MLKJ was? Do you know why we respect, indeed have a holiday honoring the man, which was this week?
There was a time when black men and women lived in our country who were not treated as equals, who were forced to live separate from white men and women. This, beyond a shadow of doubt was evil, unjust, and horrible. Many states had laws enforcing this separation with bathrooms, busses, jobs, and many other aspects of life. MLKJ set out to change this by forcing the issue, by breaking these laws, and accepting the punishment for breaking these laws. He lived a life of accepting the responsiblity for his own actions, even under an unjust system.
Now, while I am no fan of the RIAA, what they are doing is exactly what they should be doing. They are going after the people who are breaking copyright laws. To do otherwise would be foolish beyond doubt.
If you feel so strongly that the laws that the RIAA are enforcing are evil, unjust, and horrible, then do something about it. Here you either have two choices. You can work within the system attempting to get your congressmen to change the copyright laws to a system to more of your liking. Or secondly you can break the current laws in civil disobediance and take responsibility for your actions.
Instead, you will sit here on slashdot and cry that the law is unjust and unfair. Well, tough. Someone took time out of their lives to create content, that evidently lots of people want, and then someone came along and copied their talent. Just because something is technically feasible does not mean it is fair either.
Oh yeah, I don't care about the GPL code at all. If I wrote something for free and others used it and didn't share I wouldn't care about it at all. More power to them.
Spoken like someone who has never produced something. The music artists did not create their songs for free, their copyright is in the hands of the RIAA. That was their choice to sign with the RIAA and have them protect their copyrights.
How does it go? If you can't do the time, don't do the crime.
It is not the RIAA's fault that she cannot purchase their music. Where were her folks? Were they keeping an eye on her downloading and computer usage? Since when is, "I'm poor" and excuse or legal right to download copyrighted music? Justice is done when that little girl, who is supposed to be poor yet still has a computer, goes without the music that she downloads. The music she is downloading is not hers.
How would you feel if that 12 year old girl started a company using someone's GPL code, and she didn't release it? Would you be so easy to over look a GPL violation? Being poor or being young is no right to viloate the laws that you live under. If she is not held accountable, her folks should be.
Actually, there is adoption. Were I so inclined to, putting a child up for adoption is always an option. Secondly, if my children wind up hating me, so be it. I can remember many rebellous ideas I had when I was younger, and now see the wisdom of my parents.
Hmmm, my wife probably does not mind, atleast no complaints yet. Perhaps when you grow up you will have a change of heart. I see your folks could have used a little more rod, and a little less sparing.