Yeah , but the real burning question is when are these silly fops going to have enough abuse, revolt, and hang Parliament , the royals and the tabloid journalists from the lampposts?
If not, maybe they just like the pain. Hey, maybe some English are just dying to be tied up and have the hide waled off their backsides. Bet they get a stiffie.
Last time that happened England ended up with Cromwell. In any case it's worth waiting to see how the experiment in USA turns out after the terrorists there revolted. So far its not looking promising.
... but if stronger than the assailant might be expected to follow up a continued attack with wresting the person to the ground, not shooting him.
Without hindsight how are you reasonably expected to know you're stronger and/or more skilled to succeed at wrestling the assailant to the ground? That's taking a mighty big chance when your life (or someone else's life) is on the line. Even if you are 100% sure you can prevail in the wrestling match are you certain that his mate is not about to arrive on the scene? IMO, given the uncertainties of any situation and the inability to have complete situational awareness, disabling the assailant in the quickest most efficient manner is the only reasonable option. If you erroneously choose to attempt a less lethal approach first you may never get the chance to follow up with a more lethal approach.
... to buy time or maneuver into a position to flee, which is always your first priority (with a sidebar for ensuring the safety of others, like children, first).
Safety is my first priority always. Running away until you're too tired to inflict lethal force and then getting stabbed is not a good plan.
You can also not answer the question "Did you stop beating your wife?" with Yes/No.
Nonsense, Yes and No are the only valid answers to that question. It may not be an appropriate question but that is orthogonal to what answers are valid.
Also, there are plenty of questions where the answer is between Yes and No.
Possibly, but more likely the question is wrong rather than the answer is not yes or no.
* 2 Samuel 21:19 -- appears to conflict with 1 Chronicles 20:5; here Goliath is killed, whereas there Goliath's brother is killed. Contradictions might be deemed unscientific.
You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means. Care to explain how critical thinking can lead a person to believe is something with no proof?
Big companies seem to think that consumers have an endless supply of money to spend on anything and everything they want... no concept of a consumer has $100 to spend on games this year. If titles are $50 each, then only two get sold. If titles are $50, but they can resell each for $25 then three games get sold.
All they want is that $100. Selling you less games to get it doesn't worry them in the slightest*.
Which developer only wants $100 when $150 is on the table?
Actually, Bitcoin's leave an infinitely long trail in the block chain....Anyone can find out with ease and absolute certainty which Bitcoins are being transferred and when. The problem lies in the fact that the addresses are anonymous and basically meaningless.
There is no verification of identity and therefore no audit trail - an audit trail of anonymous tokens is worthless, even if you can trace it to the n'th degree and watch your money being laundered anonymously.
This is true only until you exchange your bitcoins for something else. At that point you need to provide extra information.
Even Karl Marx said that if you want to change the system, you have to do it from within, because once you're outside the system, you won't be able to effect change. Manning stepped so far beyond the established system that any reaction to what he did will be to further empower the existing system.
This is also the reason why the U.S.A did not fight a revolutionary war and is still part of the British empire.
Ok, complain all you like, but nobody will care as you have just proved you will vote for them anyway regardless. I appreciate that you will never get 100% agreement but by voting for someone you are saying that you are prepared to compromise. If you are not prepared to compromise then don't vote for them. As you have agreed to compromise don't be supripsed when it is impemented as YOU are personally responsible for agreeing to support it.
Slashdot Mirror
It only takes one shitty law to be passed before you're screwed. The odds are against you.
Yeah , but the real burning question is when are these silly fops going to have enough abuse, revolt, and hang Parliament , the royals and the tabloid journalists from the lampposts? If not, maybe they just like the pain. Hey, maybe some English are just dying to be tied up and have the hide waled off their backsides. Bet they get a stiffie.
Last time that happened England ended up with Cromwell. In any case it's worth waiting to see how the experiment in USA turns out after the terrorists there revolted. So far its not looking promising.
Java developers can't be trusted to indent properly, your code will be formatted post check in.
Why does gold have value, though?
Sex and/or electronics.
... but if stronger than the assailant might be expected to follow up a continued attack with wresting the person to the ground, not shooting him.
Without hindsight how are you reasonably expected to know you're stronger and/or more skilled to succeed at wrestling the assailant to the ground? That's taking a mighty big chance when your life (or someone else's life) is on the line. Even if you are 100% sure you can prevail in the wrestling match are you certain that his mate is not about to arrive on the scene?
IMO, given the uncertainties of any situation and the inability to have complete situational awareness, disabling the assailant in the quickest most efficient manner is the only reasonable option. If you erroneously choose to attempt a less lethal approach first you may never get the chance to follow up with a more lethal approach.
... to buy time or maneuver into a position to flee, which is always your first priority (with a sidebar for ensuring the safety of others, like children, first).
Safety is my first priority always. Running away until you're too tired to inflict lethal force and then getting stabbed is not a good plan.
Either the design was flawed or the implementation of the design was incorrect. Just take a look at the materials used to build the hull.
How can one then try out the app without paying?
What can you buy for 150k that simulates negative and/or positive G forces?
You can also not answer the question "Did you stop beating your wife?" with Yes/No.
Nonsense, Yes and No are the only valid answers to that question. It may not be an appropriate question but that is orthogonal to what answers are valid.
Also, there are plenty of questions where the answer is between Yes and No.
Possibly, but more likely the question is wrong rather than the answer is not yes or no.
Exactly. Research has shown that people under torture become prone to fantasy, and are no longer able to distinguish between memory and imagination.
People already can't distinguish between memory and imagination. No need to bring torture into the picture.
* 2 Samuel 21:19 -- appears to conflict with 1 Chronicles 20:5; here Goliath is killed, whereas there Goliath's brother is killed. Contradictions might be deemed unscientific.
That was his twin brother, also named Goliath.
I'm sorry, but atheism isn't a belief. It's a lack of belief. It goes like this: no proof, no belief.
Not trying to troll, but I can't let you propagate misconceptions.
Surely its just: no belief. If you actually do have proof then belief is not required.
Thinking critically
You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means. Care to explain how critical thinking can lead a person to believe is something with no proof?
Sure, as long as you can prove that the dog is a consenting party.
When was that? Computers are very strong chess players nowadays.
When they have all their pieces they are.
Big companies seem to think that consumers have an endless supply of money to spend on anything and everything they want... no concept of a consumer has $100 to spend on games this year. If titles are $50 each, then only two get sold. If titles are $50, but they can resell each for $25 then three games get sold.
All they want is that $100. Selling you less games to get it doesn't worry them in the slightest*.
Which developer only wants $100 when $150 is on the table?
You're not alone.
Is it all right with you if I get you to install a trojan or something and make a copy of your PERSONAL data, then?
According to you, no harm is done because it's only a copy, so you should be ok with that.
The problem with that is not the copy, but using the information in the copy to empty my bank account.
I will never understand freetards.
Ignorance can be resolved. If that is not your specific problem, then you have my sympathy.
Yes
How do you prove they are stolen in such a way that all BTC users agree?
Actually, Bitcoin's leave an infinitely long trail in the block chain....Anyone can find out with ease and absolute certainty which Bitcoins are being transferred and when. The problem lies in the fact that the addresses are anonymous and basically meaningless.
There is no verification of identity and therefore no audit trail - an audit trail of anonymous tokens is worthless, even if you can trace it to the n'th degree and watch your money being laundered anonymously.
This is true only until you exchange your bitcoins for something else. At that point you need to provide extra information.
Even Karl Marx said that if you want to change the system, you have to do it from within, because once you're outside the system, you won't be able to effect change. Manning stepped so far beyond the established system that any reaction to what he did will be to further empower the existing system.
This is also the reason why the U.S.A did not fight a revolutionary war and is still part of the British empire.
Ok, complain all you like, but nobody will care as you have just proved you will vote for them anyway regardless. I appreciate that you will never get 100% agreement but by voting for someone you are saying that you are prepared to compromise. If you are not prepared to compromise then don't vote for them. As you have agreed to compromise don't be supripsed when it is impemented as YOU are personally responsible for agreeing to support it.
Anecdotal evidence is dangerous, I suggest you get some more data and not rely on your point of view.