Don't get me wrong. I don't believe for one moment that trying to ban gambling would work any better than prohibition did.
I just hate the argument that there are no victims of gambling (or any other vice you care to name). There may not be a victim in every case, but there are victims and there are plenty of good arguments against banning vice that don't require dismissing those who have been victimized.
Prohibition is a great example because drugs and gambling have two things in common: there's no victim.
Really? So when my step-father burned down the family home two days before Christmas for the insurance money so he could cover his gambling debits, neither I nor anyone else in my family was a victim? Wow. I feel -so- much better about sleeping in a homeless shelter as a kid. Thank you.
Even wee hours of the morning, I rarely get much more than 60% of the advertised bandwidth that I pay for (and at peak times, it's usually more like 40-50%). I would be THRILLED if they "throttled" me to 70% of what they advertise that I'm getting.
Windows 7's "Sins"... sounds like it would be a list of problems with Windows 7, yet all but two of the "sins" is about Microsoft or one of their other products.
Also?
"The security of your computer and network depends on two things: what you do to secure your computer and network, and what everyone else does to secure their computers and networks." -and- "Unfortunately your browser does not have JavaScript enabled. Please consider whitelisting this site."
Fuck that. I'm not enabling javascript. Fix the goddamned site so it doesn't ask for potential security risks to be enabled if you're that concerned about how secure people's computers are.
So you're saying that women evaluate every action they take on the basis of whether or not it will get them closer to their ultimate goal of having sex with Wonder Woman?
Assuming that the notes don't include copies of the tests, which is unlikely, what exactly would other students do with the notes?
Student might use the notes to help them learn the subject, but that's what the teacher is supposed to be encouraging them to do. They might also learn how to take better notes by having an example. That's something else the teacher should encourage.
And... umm... that's really it, isn't it? There's nothing else relevant to a class that can be done with someone's notes.
"Well, this individual isn't the murderer, but DNA shows the murderer could be related to him so we want to search the houses of ever living relative he has.
Of course it isn't. The government protects people from terrorism by creating new and meaningless annoyances like the TSA. Would would the government want to protect people from itself?
BTW... the TSA's new official response to questions about the necessity of their measures is now "LOL U WAT?"
The specifics of which countries posses a given weapon and who they can or cannot target with them does not determine whether a weapon is one of mass destruction.
I think that you've misunderstood my request for an explanation of how chemical and biological weapons do not qualify as weapons of mass destruction and decided that I was making some statement about the war with Iraq.
That is not the case.
If you want a statement about the war with Iraq from me, however, I'll offer one: I disagree with it and believe it is the dumbest idea the Bush administration has had (which is saying something because they've had some impressively stupid ideas). I'm hoping they don't top it on the way out of office, but they seem to be working very hard to do so and I'm sure my representatives are tired of hearing from me at this point.
I also firmly believe that, every time the Bush administration says WMD, they actually mean Weapon of Mass Distraction since that seems to be their main purpose in using those three letters.
A weapon of mass destruction is one which can kill lots of people at once. Nothing more, nothing less. Chemical and biological weapons are most definitely weapons of mass destruction, even if they aren't quite as devastating as a nuclear blast.
I'm at a loss to understand how you rationalize your belief that chemical and biological weapons do not qualify as weapons of mass destruction... and I'm not buying a book for a "lengthy discussion" to find out what your rational is. Perhaps you could present your argument for your position without requiring people to pay for someone else to explain it?
Slashdot Mirror
Don't get me wrong. I don't believe for one moment that trying to ban gambling would work any better than prohibition did.
I just hate the argument that there are no victims of gambling (or any other vice you care to name). There may not be a victim in every case, but there are victims and there are plenty of good arguments against banning vice that don't require dismissing those who have been victimized.
Prohibition is a great example because drugs and gambling have two things in common: there's no victim.
Really? So when my step-father burned down the family home two days before Christmas for the insurance money so he could cover his gambling debits, neither I nor anyone else in my family was a victim? Wow. I feel -so- much better about sleeping in a homeless shelter as a kid. Thank you.
Didn't you notice the "sudo mod me up" at the end?
Now make me a sandwich.
No?
sudo make me a sandwich
Even wee hours of the morning, I rarely get much more than 60% of the advertised bandwidth that I pay for (and at peak times, it's usually more like 40-50%). I would be THRILLED if they "throttled" me to 70% of what they advertise that I'm getting.
Windows 7's "Sins"... sounds like it would be a list of problems with Windows 7, yet all but two of the "sins" is about Microsoft or one of their other products.
Also?
"The security of your computer and network depends on two things: what you do to secure your computer and network, and what everyone else does to secure their computers and networks."
-and-
"Unfortunately your browser does not have JavaScript enabled. Please consider whitelisting this site."
Fuck that. I'm not enabling javascript. Fix the goddamned site so it doesn't ask for potential security risks to be enabled if you're that concerned about how secure people's computers are.
So you're saying that women evaluate every action they take on the basis of whether or not it will get them closer to their ultimate goal of having sex with Wonder Woman?
Assuming that the notes don't include copies of the tests, which is unlikely, what exactly would other students do with the notes?
Student might use the notes to help them learn the subject, but that's what the teacher is supposed to be encouraging them to do. They might also learn how to take better notes by having an example. That's something else the teacher should encourage.
And... umm... that's really it, isn't it? There's nothing else relevant to a class that can be done with someone's notes.
Go into your web browser's cookie manager and delete the cookies for www.youtube.com and au.youtube.com and you shouldn't be redirected any more.
That a Milky Way has sugar in it
"Yes your honor, we need 45 search warrants."
"Why?"
"Well, this individual isn't the murderer, but DNA shows the murderer could be related to him so we want to search the houses of ever living relative he has.
Write a script that will copy goatse, tub girl and screen shots from 2 girls 1 cup thousands of times into every directory of your hard drive.
After they check a few images, they'll stop looking.
Quick! Buy stock in cardboard box futures!
Of course it isn't. The government protects people from terrorism by creating new and meaningless annoyances like the TSA. Would would the government want to protect people from itself?
BTW... the TSA's new official response to questions about the necessity of their measures is now "LOL U WAT?"
In 1951 a collector spied it and bought it from the old guy for $100,000. He invested the $100k and will never want for anything again.
Obviously he didn't invest that $100k in Enron
The specifics of which countries posses a given weapon and who they can or cannot target with them does not determine whether a weapon is one of mass destruction.
I think that you've misunderstood my request for an explanation of how chemical and biological weapons do not qualify as weapons of mass destruction and decided that I was making some statement about the war with Iraq.
That is not the case.
If you want a statement about the war with Iraq from me, however, I'll offer one:
I disagree with it and believe it is the dumbest idea the Bush administration has had (which is saying something because they've had some impressively stupid ideas). I'm hoping they don't top it on the way out of office, but they seem to be working very hard to do so and I'm sure my representatives are tired of hearing from me at this point.
I also firmly believe that, every time the Bush administration says WMD, they actually mean Weapon of Mass Distraction since that seems to be their main purpose in using those three letters.
A weapon of mass destruction is one which can kill lots of people at once. Nothing more, nothing less. Chemical and biological weapons are most definitely weapons of mass destruction, even if they aren't quite as devastating as a nuclear blast.
I'm at a loss to understand how you rationalize your belief that chemical and biological weapons do not qualify as weapons of mass destruction... and I'm not buying a book for a "lengthy discussion" to find out what your rational is. Perhaps you could present your argument for your position without requiring people to pay for someone else to explain it?