The question here is do the download numbers also reflect copies downloaded with package managers such in Linux distros such as Gentoo and Ubuntu, or does it only count people that only actually go to the webpage to download? The way Windows users and Linux users tend to get software these days tends to be a little different, where windows users expect going to the website, downloading, and using an something like Install Shield to install.
This reminds me of an abused car insurance statistic - 80% of all car accidents happen close to home. 80% of all driving happens close to home!
Ok, I'll bite. What is it about the US that it's such an atrocity that a police authority is granted the power to search people, but the cold-blooded murder of well over 100,000 Americans per decade is ok? You'd rather get shot than searched? That's a rather eccentric interpretation of "live free or die".
And besides, this is not a discussion about gun control: find another forum.
Tell that to the parent posters who scored 5's. They were specifically discussing how effective a lack of gun control would be against a tyrannical government, even citing the second amendment.
For your second sentence alone, if I were not the originator of this discussion, I would mod you up so hard/. would be more broken than it already is.
Well don't thank me just yet, I had to split my response in two, and the other half isn't being received so well. Here is the other half. Offered with complete respect.
Your Second Amendment is nice in theory. In practice, it is a paper tiger.
I respectfully disagree, strongly. The second amendment does in fact have teeth, it kills over 12,000 Americans annually - enter "homicide" for option 1 and "firearm" for option 2.
Think about that. The number of combat deaths in the civil war was approximately 205,000 (most others died of disease). The right to bear arms in case a rebellion against the government is necessary results in the same number of fatal shootings as the civil war every 17 years! Right in people's homes and in the streets! What kind of sense is that supposed to make?!
And to the immediate north, Canada's gun deaths have been cut in half since imposing tough gun restrictions. Wouldn't it be nice if American kids could at least graduate college before a civil war's worth of murder occurs in their country?
But we're not talking about a coup d'etat, were talking about militia actions to compel the government to concede certain powers. And Oklahoma City speaks volumes to the IED capabilities of modern-day American militias. Quite a bit more than mere harassment.
Long story short, lop-sided or not, it would make Bosnia look like a bar brawl. Undoubtedly a determined opposition could prevail in compelling the government to concede certain contested issues. For example I bet it wouldn't take too many federal building assaults to convince Obama to surrender the right for border patrols to stick their hands up the assholes of 2/3 of the population at will.
At this rate, I wouldn't be surprised if armed rebellions occured in the US in my lifetime. Take a wild guess why I don't live in the US...
Why is it that the unborn are deprived of life without due process?
First ask yourself this - would you under any circumstances tie a woman down and impregnate her with a turkey baster? No? Ok, read on.
The courts have been very clear on abortion. If the fetus cannot survive on its own then it is not considered to be a person and has no constitutional rights. If the mother does not wish to continue providing life support for the fetus, preventing her from aborting the pregnancy is no different than forcing her to become pregnant against her will.
Pro-life arguments are also pro-slavery. Protecting the dependent unborn makes as much sense as protecting the undead.
The American pioneers were preceded by explorers that not only did not intend to stay permanently, but (mostly) returned home safely to tell the tales. Otherwise, there wouldn't be any maps to guide the pioneers later.
The explorers were preceded by eskimoes and first nations, who would have crossed over from Asia while there was a polar ice cap connecting Alaska to Siberia. I'm betting any that made that trip did not go back.
I don't get it... If DRM works, it restricts what you do. If it restricts what you do, it's not inivisible. How is this implementation different from any other DRM?
The problem with current DRM formats is that by preventing users from illegal use of the content it also prevents legitimate use of the content. If a DRM format allows you to make full legal use of the content while preventing you from illegal use of the content, then it is invisible to all legitimate consumers.
If it is still visible to you, well as a musician and producer, I don't really care. It used to be a good band could take a shot at the mainstream just by working hard and playing the right places, which were very accessible. Now you have to work hard, play the right places, know the right people, and make a huge financial commitment just for your shot. Many of the "right places" have closed, and the right people are swamped with deserving candidates they know won't make the cut.
So my heart does not bleed for those who complain about being restricted from further shitting on the bands that feed them. Piracy does hurt the entire industry, and not just the Puff Daddy's.
You don't just make up a number and add it onto your balance sheet.
And THAT is why I failed my economics class. My teacher never did appreciate my 'creativity'. I would simply explain that I wanted to be a CEO someday.
Economics does not use Balance Sheets, that would be your Accounting course. Perhaps that is why you failed?
His teacher failed him because his improper application of the wrong tools in the wrong field could lead him to politics.
Mostly because the rest of the world suffers at the hand of the Federal Government. Were the states to actually act and reign it in, then they might be aware of the 50 governments that make up the Union.
It's "rein it in". The straps that a horserider holds that connect to a bit and bridle to control a horse are called reins. When you subdue a horse that's getting out of control, you rein it in.
"Reign it in" is actualy the name of a song I wrote 4 years ago, registered under SOCAN. My IP bitch!;P
It's a good thing the number of states is a round number... damn that was some ignorant shit. Got a 5 for insightful too. Sad sad news.
You know, a long time ago, the citizens of America in the south didn't have a problem with slavery.
You know, a long time ago, the citizens of America in the north didn't have a problem with slavery either, except that the slaves didn't handle the cold so well.
Could you pick out of a line-up a visually foreign person you've only just met? For example, I'm of Indonesian descent, 3rd generation Canadian. I'm far better at distinguishing caucasians than they are at distinguishing any asians.
I can't imagine what middle-of-the-road Americans must inperpret from seeing the two candidates. A black man with white features, or an old geezer.
My first thought would be "what, they couldn't find any normal people to run for president?"
Along that same line, I have to ask, "what, they had to go to Alaska to find a running mate for McCain?!"
It is more like, "If I get mugged I would like to be in a position to protect myself and / or my family. Or, "If I am disarmed then I am less capable of defending myself against an enemy, foreign or domestic." Call it paranoia if you must, I learned it in the Boy Scouts. Be Prepared.
That's like saying you should wear a fireman's suit all the time in case the building you're in catches fire. Packing iron is just as extreme. My interpretation of someone carrying a gun is that they want to live unreasonably and be "prepared" when life catches up with them.
How is law enforcement held accountable? Quotas? Bonuses? Higher insurance premiums?
Insurance holds law enforcement accountable by higher premiums to their municipal government (city/town/county etc). If crime gets out of hand, the municipality is faced with a prohibitively high rate increase, and must either shape up or pack up. State and federal governments share in the responsibility and lend their support as needed. If law enforcement becomes ineffective, the economic pressure sorts things out.
What happens if you happen to be a victim of violence, do they pay your family? Not sure about you but my family would rather have me around than any sum of money.
There are services available to victims of crime, more than just financial support, obviously no replacement for not having been victimized in the first place. But more importantly you should know it's your children that are more likely to be victims of gun-related violence. The age at which murderers are most likely to use a gun is 17. Guess what age group they're shooting at. Are you then going to send your kids to school packing? Of course not. You shouldn't carry a gun either FOR THE EXACT SAME REASONS.
Perhaps you should get to know someone a little better before passing judgment. I do not want to shoot anyone, and I truly do hope nobody ever puts me in that position. We are talking about the preservation of life, not possessions.
I don't buy it. A reasonable reaction for when someone believes their way of life could lead them into mortal danger is to change their way of life to avoid such a situation. By arming yourself, you knowingly accept the risk and in fact add to it by doing so. Your family comes along for the ride, and are more likely to be victims that you.
You mistake bloodlust for the will to stay alive. How someone loses that instinct is beyond me.
You're going to have to speak up, the families of the 30 people who were killed in the US by guns since my last post didn't quite hear you.
You seem to be very concerned about saving lives, what about mine? What about my children? Think of the children.;) I prefer to be mostly self-sufficient, the police are not around to protect me and could not do so even if they were. I enjoy shooting as recreation and have been doing so for most of my life. The irresponsibility of some punk should not dictate my activities.
As I wrote above, I think mostly of the children. Your life is in far less danger than theirs, mostly because you're raising them to embrace this gun-dependent lifestyle.
You know, lots of people are killed in car accidents daily, perhaps we should ban them. Or limit cars to 35 miles per hour, that would save a bunch of lives. While we are at it, ban alcohol too, that stuff is bad and we shouldn't be trusted with such dangerous items.
Now we see the wealth of rationale behind your other arguments. Virtually all car-related deaths are accidental. Just a minor distinction...
But that being said, I don't react to the risks of driving by buying the safest car and driving irrationally, I drive responsibly and avoid risky situations. There are a few highways I don't even use because of the reckless drivers that frequent them. That
Oh please, get off it. I travel with firearms regularly and the only time this gun-toting pinhead wanders about the airport with a firearm is during the time before checking baggage.
Well duh, I didn't expect you tried to sneak it past security. Believe me I resent the TSA gun-toting pinheads as much as unqualified "ordinary" people such as yourself.
I protest every post protesting the advocating of firearms. If you don't like firearms more power to you, but your irrational fears should not dictate my life. "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity" -Sigmund Freud
Who said anything about fear? It's the arguments for guns are completely paranoid, i.e. "I'm gonna get mugged if I don't carry a gun!" or "If we can't have guns the government will enslave us!" These issues are least prevalent where there are the least number of guns on the street.
Meanwhile the argument against guns is very logical and statistical. There are several insurance structures that effectively hold law enforcement accountable for the violent crime within their jurisdiction, so the criminal justice system can focus on criminals, and not "ordinary" gun-toting pinheads shooting would-be muggers.
Specifically, you strike me as the sort that would rather shoot someone just because you have the legal right to self-defense, even if it means a lengthy manslaughter trial, rather than just cough up your wallet to a mugger and cancel/replace your plastic. That is an unreasonable bloodlust that I'm sure Sigmund would have an unflattering phallic anecdote for too.
Now I bet you're thinking if you and I were in an alley, you'd rather be the guy with the gun. Well in my neck of the woods you'd get two years in provincial jail, with all the bitch-talking hacks as well as hard-asses awaiting federal sentences, just for bringing the gun to the alley. I'd rather take a bullet than do that time.
That's part of how a gun-free system can work and save 10,000 deaths from gunfire annually in the US alone. Remember that, a vote for guns is a vote for 10,000 deaths. That's more than 3x 9/11 every year. Maybe once one of them is a loved one you'll wisen up.
Mod me flaimbait all you want, the numbers speak for themselves.
I am aware of the proportion of Quebecois in the military, how many of them advocate separation is anyone's guess. Note that I do not assume every Quebecois is a separatist. However, the Bloc Quebecois party are openly declared separatists.
So you can't really declare "separatists" as traitors, you'd get a part of the army rising against Canada...
Which is exactly why the Canadian military should never be trusted to a declared separatist. They could initiate an uprising without provocation. And why wouldn't they?
Remember, there is considerable separatism in Alberta too. Unite those clans for a common goal and there could be serious trouble. I can think of no higher goal a separatist Prime Minister could possibly have. That is what people vote for when they vote Bloc for federal representation, whether they realize it or not. That is what separatists do!
As for the Green party, they'd soon be sending troops into peacekeeping roles armed with only slingshots and harsh language. You might be aware of how under-supplied and under-trained Canadian peacekeepers were in the 90's, most deployed without ever firing a live round. Well that was under the Liberals. The Green party would be much worse. They would divert the defence budget to tree planting and windmills in a heartbeat.
My greatest concern is that 16.8% of the votes were cast for parties that shouldn't even be on a federal ballot. Could you imagine the commander-in-chief of any country's armed forces being a declared tree-hugger or separatist? What foreign military, ally or foe, would respect them?
Don't get me wrong, I'm actually a proud advocate of environmentalism. However, overzealous uncompromising environmental administration at the federal level is unacceptable.
Elected representatives who abuse their position to achieve separatist objectives are in violation of their oath of office. Bloc Quebecois candidates are declared separatists, and should be disqualified. There cannot be national parties for each province, so there cannot be even one national party for any one province. Brute common sense.
Some of us have been forced to learn the ins and outs of this crap in more detail than we wish. If, like me, you travel with firearms, you'll learn that the FAA is statutorily in charge of what can and can't be checked and the TSA can't order me to do anything that violates FAA regs. FAA regs mandate that luggage with firearms must be locked. Period.
So the best way to sneak a bomb onto an airplane is to check it and declare that it's a firearm? Does anyone think about these rules before they're instituted?
And I protest every post advocating firearms. Traveling with them is even more unreasonable. Traveling by plane is bad enough without gun-toting pinheads wandering airports (apart from the TSA pinheads).
The shock of realizing you are dreaming often causes you to wake up enough to stop dreaming, or to change the dream such that you no longer are lucid. I don't personally know of any tricks to help here... it seems to be just more getting comfortable with lucid dreaming.
It helps to not look (redirect your eyes) at anything specific. Your eyes are closed, so it doesn't make any difference to move your eyes anyway. All it does is interrupt your suspension of disbelief when the image does not move with eye movements. Soon you learn to move the image, not your eyes.
Speaking of weird dreams, I once had a doozy with a weird RL twist. Fortunately this was not graphic - my mom gave birth to a tupperware dish, which served the role of an egg, out of which hatched a chocolate toy lawnmower. My brother and I horsed around with it at a cottage my grandfather had sold 10 years prior. We flipped it over, and there was a 1-800 phone number that I remembered when I woke. I called it right away, and it was the poison control center, the first number in my local phone book at the time. I wrote a Primus-like song about it called The Dance Of The Chocolate Lawnmower.
For the record, it was full color, and I grew up with color TV. It skipped a fair bit, all the would-be gross parts, and only seemed to take maybe 15 minutes.
Slashdot Mirror
The question here is do the download numbers also reflect copies downloaded with package managers such in Linux distros such as Gentoo and Ubuntu, or does it only count people that only actually go to the webpage to download? The way Windows users and Linux users tend to get software these days tends to be a little different, where windows users expect going to the website, downloading, and using an something like Install Shield to install.
This reminds me of an abused car insurance statistic - 80% of all car accidents happen close to home. 80% of all driving happens close to home!
So vampires don't have rights either?
Vampires have more whoop-ass than Arnold Schwarzenegger and Jesse Ventura combined. They don't need no stinkin rights.
Canada is not the U.S. Get the bigger picture.
Ok, I'll bite. What is it about the US that it's such an atrocity that a police authority is granted the power to search people, but the cold-blooded murder of well over 100,000 Americans per decade is ok? You'd rather get shot than searched? That's a rather eccentric interpretation of "live free or die".
And besides, this is not a discussion about gun control: find another forum.
Tell that to the parent posters who scored 5's. They were specifically discussing how effective a lack of gun control would be against a tyrannical government, even citing the second amendment.
For your second sentence alone, if I were not the originator of this discussion, I would mod you up so hard /. would be more broken than it already is.
Well don't thank me just yet, I had to split my response in two, and the other half isn't being received so well. Here is the other half. Offered with complete respect.
Your Second Amendment is nice in theory. In practice, it is a paper tiger.
I respectfully disagree, strongly. The second amendment does in fact have teeth, it kills over 12,000 Americans annually - enter "homicide" for option 1 and "firearm" for option 2.
Think about that. The number of combat deaths in the civil war was approximately 205,000 (most others died of disease). The right to bear arms in case a rebellion against the government is necessary results in the same number of fatal shootings as the civil war every 17 years! Right in people's homes and in the streets! What kind of sense is that supposed to make?!
And to the immediate north, Canada's gun deaths have been cut in half since imposing tough gun restrictions. Wouldn't it be nice if American kids could at least graduate college before a civil war's worth of murder occurs in their country?
But we're not talking about a coup d'etat, were talking about militia actions to compel the government to concede certain powers. And Oklahoma City speaks volumes to the IED capabilities of modern-day American militias. Quite a bit more than mere harassment.
Long story short, lop-sided or not, it would make Bosnia look like a bar brawl. Undoubtedly a determined opposition could prevail in compelling the government to concede certain contested issues. For example I bet it wouldn't take too many federal building assaults to convince Obama to surrender the right for border patrols to stick their hands up the assholes of 2/3 of the population at will.
At this rate, I wouldn't be surprised if armed rebellions occured in the US in my lifetime. Take a wild guess why I don't live in the US...
First ask yourself this - would you under any circumstances tie a woman down and impregnate her with a turkey baster? No? Ok, read on.
The courts have been very clear on abortion. If the fetus cannot survive on its own then it is not considered to be a person and has no constitutional rights. If the mother does not wish to continue providing life support for the fetus, preventing her from aborting the pregnancy is no different than forcing her to become pregnant against her will.
Pro-life arguments are also pro-slavery. Protecting the dependent unborn makes as much sense as protecting the undead.
The American pioneers were preceded by explorers that not only did not intend to stay permanently, but (mostly) returned home safely to tell the tales. Otherwise, there wouldn't be any maps to guide the pioneers later.
The explorers were preceded by eskimoes and first nations, who would have crossed over from Asia while there was a polar ice cap connecting Alaska to Siberia. I'm betting any that made that trip did not go back.
I don't get it... If DRM works, it restricts what you do. If it restricts what you do, it's not inivisible. How is this implementation different from any other DRM?
The problem with current DRM formats is that by preventing users from illegal use of the content it also prevents legitimate use of the content. If a DRM format allows you to make full legal use of the content while preventing you from illegal use of the content, then it is invisible to all legitimate consumers.
If it is still visible to you, well as a musician and producer, I don't really care. It used to be a good band could take a shot at the mainstream just by working hard and playing the right places, which were very accessible. Now you have to work hard, play the right places, know the right people, and make a huge financial commitment just for your shot. Many of the "right places" have closed, and the right people are swamped with deserving candidates they know won't make the cut.
So my heart does not bleed for those who complain about being restricted from further shitting on the bands that feed them. Piracy does hurt the entire industry, and not just the Puff Daddy's.
You don't just make up a number and add it onto your balance sheet.
And THAT is why I failed my economics class. My teacher never did appreciate my 'creativity'. I would simply explain that I wanted to be a CEO someday.
Economics does not use Balance Sheets, that would be your Accounting course. Perhaps that is why you failed?
His teacher failed him because his improper application of the wrong tools in the wrong field could lead him to politics.
Mostly because the rest of the world suffers at the hand of the Federal Government. Were the states to actually act and reign it in, then they might be aware of the 50 governments that make up the Union.
It's "rein it in". The straps that a horserider holds that connect to a bit and bridle to control a horse are called reins. When you subdue a horse that's getting out of control, you rein it in.
"Reign it in" is actualy the name of a song I wrote 4 years ago, registered under SOCAN. My IP bitch! ;P
It's a good thing the number of states is a round number... damn that was some ignorant shit. Got a 5 for insightful too. Sad sad news.
the USA is closer to european union than to one country. A fact that is often forgotten.
How can we forget it if it never makes sense in the first place?
You've been to Europe, right?
You know, a long time ago, the citizens of America in the south didn't have a problem with slavery.
You know, a long time ago, the citizens of America in the north didn't have a problem with slavery either, except that the slaves didn't handle the cold so well.
It is really tough to consider that these flagrant transgressions still go on in todays environment.
Astounding isn't it? Especially when people like you are so devoted to opposing it.
*crickets*
*crickets*
*crickets*
Could you pick out of a line-up a visually foreign person you've only just met? For example, I'm of Indonesian descent, 3rd generation Canadian. I'm far better at distinguishing caucasians than they are at distinguishing any asians.
I can't imagine what middle-of-the-road Americans must inperpret from seeing the two candidates. A black man with white features, or an old geezer.
My first thought would be "what, they couldn't find any normal people to run for president?"
Along that same line, I have to ask, "what, they had to go to Alaska to find a running mate for McCain?!"
It is more like, "If I get mugged I would like to be in a position to protect myself and / or my family. Or, "If I am disarmed then I am less capable of defending myself against an enemy, foreign or domestic." Call it paranoia if you must, I learned it in the Boy Scouts. Be Prepared.
That's like saying you should wear a fireman's suit all the time in case the building you're in catches fire. Packing iron is just as extreme. My interpretation of someone carrying a gun is that they want to live unreasonably and be "prepared" when life catches up with them.
How is law enforcement held accountable? Quotas? Bonuses? Higher insurance premiums?
Insurance holds law enforcement accountable by higher premiums to their municipal government (city/town/county etc). If crime gets out of hand, the municipality is faced with a prohibitively high rate increase, and must either shape up or pack up. State and federal governments share in the responsibility and lend their support as needed. If law enforcement becomes ineffective, the economic pressure sorts things out.
What happens if you happen to be a victim of violence, do they pay your family? Not sure about you but my family would rather have me around than any sum of money.
There are services available to victims of crime, more than just financial support, obviously no replacement for not having been victimized in the first place. But more importantly you should know it's your children that are more likely to be victims of gun-related violence. The age at which murderers are most likely to use a gun is 17. Guess what age group they're shooting at. Are you then going to send your kids to school packing? Of course not. You shouldn't carry a gun either FOR THE EXACT SAME REASONS.
Perhaps you should get to know someone a little better before passing judgment. I do not want to shoot anyone, and I truly do hope nobody ever puts me in that position. We are talking about the preservation of life, not possessions.
I don't buy it. A reasonable reaction for when someone believes their way of life could lead them into mortal danger is to change their way of life to avoid such a situation. By arming yourself, you knowingly accept the risk and in fact add to it by doing so. Your family comes along for the ride, and are more likely to be victims that you.
You mistake bloodlust for the will to stay alive. How someone loses that instinct is beyond me.
You're going to have to speak up, the families of the 30 people who were killed in the US by guns since my last post didn't quite hear you.
You seem to be very concerned about saving lives, what about mine? What about my children? Think of the children. ;) I prefer to be mostly self-sufficient, the police are not around to protect me and could not do so even if they were. I enjoy shooting as recreation and have been doing so for most of my life. The irresponsibility of some punk should not dictate my activities.
As I wrote above, I think mostly of the children. Your life is in far less danger than theirs, mostly because you're raising them to embrace this gun-dependent lifestyle.
You know, lots of people are killed in car accidents daily, perhaps we should ban them. Or limit cars to 35 miles per hour, that would save a bunch of lives. While we are at it, ban alcohol too, that stuff is bad and we shouldn't be trusted with such dangerous items.
Now we see the wealth of rationale behind your other arguments. Virtually all car-related deaths are accidental. Just a minor distinction...
But that being said, I don't react to the risks of driving by buying the safest car and driving irrationally, I drive responsibly and avoid risky situations. There are a few highways I don't even use because of the reckless drivers that frequent them. That
So, what were you doing with your gun when the government was taking away your other rights?
In that order. I'm between of Ballot Box and Jury Box now. We'll see where it leads from there...
So why do you "pack" for steps 1 through 4? Isn't the whole point of those to make sure you don't have to resort to 5?
Oh please, get off it. I travel with firearms regularly and the only time this gun-toting pinhead wanders about the airport with a firearm is during the time before checking baggage.
Well duh, I didn't expect you tried to sneak it past security. Believe me I resent the TSA gun-toting pinheads as much as unqualified "ordinary" people such as yourself.
I protest every post protesting the advocating of firearms. If you don't like firearms more power to you, but your irrational fears should not dictate my life. "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity" -Sigmund Freud
Who said anything about fear? It's the arguments for guns are completely paranoid, i.e. "I'm gonna get mugged if I don't carry a gun!" or "If we can't have guns the government will enslave us!" These issues are least prevalent where there are the least number of guns on the street.
Meanwhile the argument against guns is very logical and statistical. There are several insurance structures that effectively hold law enforcement accountable for the violent crime within their jurisdiction, so the criminal justice system can focus on criminals, and not "ordinary" gun-toting pinheads shooting would-be muggers.
Specifically, you strike me as the sort that would rather shoot someone just because you have the legal right to self-defense, even if it means a lengthy manslaughter trial, rather than just cough up your wallet to a mugger and cancel/replace your plastic. That is an unreasonable bloodlust that I'm sure Sigmund would have an unflattering phallic anecdote for too.
Now I bet you're thinking if you and I were in an alley, you'd rather be the guy with the gun. Well in my neck of the woods you'd get two years in provincial jail, with all the bitch-talking hacks as well as hard-asses awaiting federal sentences, just for bringing the gun to the alley. I'd rather take a bullet than do that time.
That's part of how a gun-free system can work and save 10,000 deaths from gunfire annually in the US alone. Remember that, a vote for guns is a vote for 10,000 deaths. That's more than 3x 9/11 every year. Maybe once one of them is a loved one you'll wisen up.
Mod me flaimbait all you want, the numbers speak for themselves.
I am aware of the proportion of Quebecois in the military, how many of them advocate separation is anyone's guess. Note that I do not assume every Quebecois is a separatist. However, the Bloc Quebecois party are openly declared separatists.
So you can't really declare "separatists" as traitors, you'd get a part of the army rising against Canada...
Which is exactly why the Canadian military should never be trusted to a declared separatist. They could initiate an uprising without provocation. And why wouldn't they?
Remember, there is considerable separatism in Alberta too. Unite those clans for a common goal and there could be serious trouble. I can think of no higher goal a separatist Prime Minister could possibly have. That is what people vote for when they vote Bloc for federal representation, whether they realize it or not. That is what separatists do!
As for the Green party, they'd soon be sending troops into peacekeeping roles armed with only slingshots and harsh language. You might be aware of how under-supplied and under-trained Canadian peacekeepers were in the 90's, most deployed without ever firing a live round. Well that was under the Liberals. The Green party would be much worse. They would divert the defence budget to tree planting and windmills in a heartbeat.
Unfortunately the meters cost about $1400 to install, so you don't see any savings for about three years. I'd rather put the money into solar/wind.
My greatest concern is that 16.8% of the votes were cast for parties that shouldn't even be on a federal ballot. Could you imagine the commander-in-chief of any country's armed forces being a declared tree-hugger or separatist? What foreign military, ally or foe, would respect them?
Don't get me wrong, I'm actually a proud advocate of environmentalism. However, overzealous uncompromising environmental administration at the federal level is unacceptable.
Elected representatives who abuse their position to achieve separatist objectives are in violation of their oath of office. Bloc Quebecois candidates are declared separatists, and should be disqualified. There cannot be national parties for each province, so there cannot be even one national party for any one province. Brute common sense.
How could they think hosting unregistered original music is a risk? Have they never seen a band's MySpace profile?
I'm with Warll below, that they made up an excuse to dump a high bandwidth user.
Some of us have been forced to learn the ins and outs of this crap in more detail than we wish. If, like me, you travel with firearms, you'll learn that the FAA is statutorily in charge of what can and can't be checked and the TSA can't order me to do anything that violates FAA regs. FAA regs mandate that luggage with firearms must be locked. Period.
So the best way to sneak a bomb onto an airplane is to check it and declare that it's a firearm? Does anyone think about these rules before they're instituted?
And I protest every post advocating firearms. Traveling with them is even more unreasonable. Traveling by plane is bad enough without gun-toting pinheads wandering airports (apart from the TSA pinheads).
It skipped a fair bit, all the would-be gross parts, and only seemed to take maybe 15 minutes
Hrm, perhaps I watched too many sit-coms...
The shock of realizing you are dreaming often causes you to wake up enough to stop dreaming, or to change the dream such that you no longer are lucid. I don't personally know of any tricks to help here... it seems to be just more getting comfortable with lucid dreaming.
It helps to not look (redirect your eyes) at anything specific. Your eyes are closed, so it doesn't make any difference to move your eyes anyway. All it does is interrupt your suspension of disbelief when the image does not move with eye movements. Soon you learn to move the image, not your eyes.
Speaking of weird dreams, I once had a doozy with a weird RL twist. Fortunately this was not graphic - my mom gave birth to a tupperware dish, which served the role of an egg, out of which hatched a chocolate toy lawnmower. My brother and I horsed around with it at a cottage my grandfather had sold 10 years prior. We flipped it over, and there was a 1-800 phone number that I remembered when I woke. I called it right away, and it was the poison control center, the first number in my local phone book at the time. I wrote a Primus-like song about it called The Dance Of The Chocolate Lawnmower.
For the record, it was full color, and I grew up with color TV. It skipped a fair bit, all the would-be gross parts, and only seemed to take maybe 15 minutes.