The fact that you think global warming is a real is a good case study in how money can buy science, and can especially buy people's perceptions of science.
See? Two can play that game.
Lol. The odds that money bought off pretty much all of the relevantly educated people in the field... as compared to having bought the very few fringe-skeptics with relevant educations... is pretty frikking low.
So low, actually, that there aren't two sides to the game at all.
But, just as your skepticism is fueled, any discussion or argument that doesn't agree with your preconceived beliefs will not suffice. Your disbelief = your god = your faith. Good luck with that; I just wish you didn't stand in the way of rational progress and truth in the world.
As several people have pointed out that's bullshit.
how is it bullshit? i think it is quite obvious that the tones are scaled across the 'frets' very similarly to how a guitar's tones are scaled... the finger placement is obviously affecting the output tones in ways that are similar to how they do on a guitar.
make a frikking point...oh wait.. you're just a coward with nothing real to say.
Sure... and all the EM radiation from stuff that came before cell phones, like power lines and radios.... and before technology, like the big bang and the sun.... all of those would be screwing us up too! (sarcasm)
If EM radiation, which has been around since before life began, were a selective pressure (which it might have been), life would likely have evolved to not be affected by EM radiation. And so we are much more likely to be evolved to be resistant to EM radiation damages than we are to be susceptible.
You're probably more likely to completely and randomly be shifted 1 meter in any direction from your current position than you are to have a molecule get wiggled and end up causing some cascade of catastrophic events.... I wonder which guesstimate is more unlikely... yours or mine.... In any case, they are both way way way out there and not ANY basis to draw assumptions or conclusions from. And this is something you can know. You might not know, but you can know it. Just like the global warming debate; skeptics could understand the arguments, but by the time they were educated enough to understand the arguments they would know enough to realize their skepticism was simply ignorance and doubt.
Protein folding relies heavily on very lower energy Van der Waals interactions, ionic interactions, and even the hydration shell. Theoretically, the perfect type of low energy radiation could denature tumor suppressant proteins in a nucleated keratinocyte and generate a squamous cell carcinoma.
That said, possible doesn't mean practical. The probability of 2 GHz being that perfect frequency, of denaturing a single type of tumor suppressant protein causing unchecked DNA replication, and that replication introducing a cancerous change is negligibly low. Plus, researchers would've sounded the alarm ages ago if a common/well studied cancer like SCC increased in incidence in a specific area of the body. Deeper tissue wouldn't get as much radiation exposure, and a non-skin cancer on the thigh is kinda rare (blood vessel, muscle, bone, and fat cancers have prevalences of ~.1% - 1%).
That is an interesting theory. But in support of your skepticism as to the likeliness of it being reality, I'll bring up a couple other related molecular/protein facts for readers:
-The denaturation of tumor-suppressor proteins would have to occur not on one or several, but a large number of those within the cell to degrade the suppression signal enough to disable it; and since the 'damage' is only temporal, the denaturation would have to occur continuously and also to its daughter cells as well so as to maintain the tumor growth. Genetic damage (as previously shown to be physically impossible) to the suppressor genes is the only way to truly disable the gene in the cell and its progeny.
-Chaperonin-60 (HSP60/GroESL) is present in sufficient quantity to maintain proper folding of denatured proteins in the cell and so I would suggest that not only would the rate of denaturation have to be large enough to encumber proper suppression signaling, but it would also have to overcome the repair activity of HSP60. (Maybe the radiation also denatures the chaperonin, but that's just getting so improbable its hard to even consider talking about).
-I don't want to assume too much here, but testing cell phone strength EM radiation on protein folding is not too difficult to have been done by now. I really want to assume it has been done and the results were null... I don't want to search the pubs tonight...
-So, assuming that the EM radiation *can* affect protein folding, and assuming the hypothetical fact that it would have to happen to many proteins --- if this were the case, we would likely see the effects of denatured proteins in other observable areas. Nearly everything going on in the cell and in the body is controlled, communicated, and mediated by proteins. Many proteins are active in real time and encumbering their function by denaturation (by any means, including the hypothetical) should have some form of physiological or psychologically observable changes. Lets take insulin for an example, but lets also assume that thousands of proteins are just as relevant. With insulin, loss of function results in lowered glucose uptake into the cells and so the blood retains glucose. If EM waves were denaturing insulin in any real way, blood glucose levels should be observable and diabetic-like symptoms might likely arise. This is not the case... I'm not sure how many readers are aware of the complexity of proteins and their complex functions in the body, but there are basically thousands of examples that could be imagined wherein a significant denaturing of proteins would result in some observable outcome.
-Humans (and other life forms) came into existence and evolved in the presence of all kinds of EM radiation from the sun, the big bang, etc. If EM radiation's ability to denature proteins was significant to persistence of life on earth, life would have evolved in ways that were not susceptible to that radiation. --------
Humans are notorious for not knowing the cause of something, imagining a cause, and then sharing and believing that supposed 'cause' as fact. I won't outright deny the possibility that cell phone EM radiation may cause damage to our bodies, but with what we know it is very very highly unlikely.
Don't worry. The obligatory "Obama did this to somehow screw us over" post will come soon. It won't make any real sense and will sound like it was written by a drunk 12 year old, but for some reason (hell, even when its not political we get them) I think we'll see one soon.
I must have been modded down by the drunk 12 year olds.
Don't worry. The obligatory "Obama did this to somehow screw us over" post will come soon. It won't make any real sense and will sound like it was written by a drunk 12 year old, but for some reason (hell, even when its not political we get them) I think we'll see one soon.
I don't know how many of you guys reading may have seen my short rant about how Lawyers (who write these ideas out) put vague wording and loopholes so that there is plenty of room for litigation.
This is EXACTLY what I'm talking about. WTF does the word 'reasonable' mean in the context of the LAW? It means you need a frikkin' lawyer! That's what it means. It means you need a judge to listen to the B.S. and at least one lawyer to explain how something was or was not reasonable.
This is junk. The lawmakers need to be more specific and use words to describe exactly what exceptions there could be and the limits to which those exceptions could be implemented. If new need arises, amendments should be made.
These junkbag lawyers are putting these vague words in on purpose because 1) It allows their camps to keep taking donations from these fuckwad commo companies and 2) it creates and perpetuates more litigation, which ensure job futures for lawyers, judges, and lawmakers.
Don't accept the bullshit response that 'the world is too complex for clear laws'. That's a load of crap. If you can't be clear about what you're trying to legislate, maybe you need a bigger brain and a few more hours of giving a shit before you write it all up. Maybe you need to actually know what the hell you're doing and put an EFFORT into it so that the laws/bills can actually hold water.
Putting words like 'reasonable' in there is just a big mess of grey area begging for exploitation, exemption, and outright disregard. Reasonable is a relative term and that which one man may consider reasonable evidence may be worthless to another. In this case, a judge (and comcast) may think that even 1 illegal bit-torrent is evident, an thus reasonably true (which it is), from where reasonable controls could be reasonably applied...
GTFO. We won't see clear laws/expectations as citizens so long as our country is run by lawyers who want to keep us in a cloud of confusion and foggy litigation. The last thing a lawyer wants is for the people to actually know exactly what is going on, else they would not be in high demand.
One of my biggest peeves with the current legal system is the concept of 'interpretation'. Interpretation throws 'grey area' all over something that a person would expect to be clearly understandable. Ought we have a legal dictionary so that each word can be exactly understood? I think so. Ought we have laws that are clear and exact, and if exceptions need to be added, then the time is taken to add them. If more specificity is needed, then additional laws should be written.
Part of the problem with the approach you're getting at is the idea that there ought be exceptions in the first place. I see it different in that I think there should be clearly written rules with clearly written exceptions, with each exception clearly identified.
Sure it would take more work to do it... in my idea you can't lazily apply vague words like 'reasonably blah blah' to somehow make up for needs of exceptions. But in the long run you would have a population of people who know exactly what is possible, exactly what is expected, and have much less grey area to litigate over.
What's even funnier (but not funny) is that lawmakers will spend thousands of pages of effort to accomplish goals that can actually be accomplished with very clean and succinct wording. Right now there is a healthcare bill going through that is over 1000 pages long. The irony in that, and what I'm getting at, is that the news articles that sum up the bill are only about a page long and yet contain nearly all that could be necessary.
Example: Hundreds (or at least dozens) of pages written up in regard to not allowing insurance companies to discrimination on prior medical conditions.
This is junk... In reality, a line to the tune of "All health and/or medicine related insurers operating in the united states for US citizens shall not discriminate for any prior medical conditions, else the company will be assumed by the IRS, shut down, and its assets sold with the money going to the general fund."
Clear and succinct. And if you had a legal dictionary to make sure all the words are well understood... And a framework that says the words are to be LITERAL and NOT UP TO INTERPRETATION, then you've got a single sentence that solves the whole issue right there in one shot. Need an exception? Add a sentence. No need to blur it all up with vague words and leaving them up to interpretation. ------
But what do I know.. I'm not a lawyer, I'm just a man subject to laws lawyers(lawmakers) create; a citizen in fear of interpretation and litigious garbage, watching his country dissolve into petty nothingness by lawyer-catalyzed destruction and exploitation... Oh, and I have logic.
It is my logic that wants simple answers. It is my observation of what is really happening that tells me even your own understanding and approach cannot be trusted. You *think* it must be complex, but that is only because you've been influenced to always think it is that way; surely you still feel there is a need for 'interpretation' in the legal system.
To this day I keep wondering why the constitution is interpreted at all. When I read it, the words are very clear. It is lawyers and judges that felt the constitution needs to be played with and manipulated with interpretation.... some goal in mind... personal interest that is not permitted when read literally.
What about the business of lawyers? At what point does the business of america have anything to do with the fact that people's lives are tied up in the middle of this petty garbage?
You echo the shitty memes of bigots past as if you are beholden to them. I hope you're mature enough to see that money/business is less valuable than the people around you.
Laws are written by lawyers, voted in by politicians (80% of which are/were lawyers), and judged by judges who were lawyers.
Loopholes and vague wording are things that lawyers are GOOD at creating in our system. They are lawyers, they are supposed to be smart enough to make laws very clear; yet wherever you look, laws are written with loopholes and vague wording that permit loads of points of contention to which lawyers must be hired to resolve....
The saddest part of the whole construct being that it is impossible to remove without revolution, impossible to prevent with any form of government, and that many/most lawyers feel some form of 'good' for their part in the system. I'll never forget the wonderful response I got from a lawyer about my criticism of the participation of lawyers in obvious frivilous/wrongful lawsuits.... Her response was what I've heard many times, and never fails to amaze me: "I am a lawyer. It is the person I represent who is asking me to do these things. I am doing nothing wrong; I am doing my job. Blame the person I represent." Right (sarcasm). Like your participation in the whole thing has *nothing* to do with what most would agree to be a heinous act of harassment/blackmail. No... You've done nothing wrong... You're just the tool...
I'd like to compare it to the idea that guns don't kill people... people kill people.... and that would make sense (which is basically her argument), except for the glaring fact that in the lawyer's case, the gun has an educated and possibly moral brain of it's own and is able to freely choose whose hands it is placed in and what targets it would be aimed at, how much damage it would do, etc.
I recall she then argued that I'd be 'sucking her d***' (yes, it didn't make senese) some day when I actually needed a lawyer. This is horrible because of course I would want a lawyer when I actually *need* one. That would be, at least, a case where it isn't so obviously frivolous/wrongful --- a case where most people would agree a lawyer is needed. And so this is horrible because she thought that because I (or others) would *need* her someday, and that she convinced herself to be morally distanced from her participation in wrongful lawsuits, she ultimately expressed that she (lawyers) is of the requisite benevolent gatekeepers to justice.
Sure... lawyers can do no harm... (sarcasm). I wonder how many law school graduates creamed their pants when they saw how vague the Americans with Disabilities Act was when it passed. Clearly written laws give no room for lawyers because the people know what is expected.
A pager? Please elaborate how it is used and for what reasons? I have my assumptions but I'd like to know.... it sounds like a big WTF moment for me is coming...
I don't want to come over all Luddite - but surely part of playing guitar is the sensation of the strings against the fingers. You know where they are, because you can feel them. You know whether and how hard you've plucked/strummed, because you can feel them.
I think playing this thing would be a bit like typing on an on-screen keyboard - a second class experience.
I think i would like it WAY more than a guitar... but that's my taste... part of it being that I'm not expecting a guitar, i'm expecting a new fun piece of technology.
Cute:) Seriously, though, you're not actually going to try and defend that crap, are you? Those "filmmakers" make Michael Moore look like a paragon of truth and honesty.
Oh, and btw, my "SlashID" is that bunch of numbers beside my username.
Criminals have no qualms about using force, why would they resort to a weapon like this? There's already effective car stoppers out there like.50 caliber rifles and medium machineguns, both of which would be easier to acquire than a weapon like this.
Or they could just do a PIT manoeuvre or block them off to stop the target car.
So true. Lmfao. A friend and I (we live in Cali) were just going over the various california gun laws and how ridiculous they are.
All of the laws are tied to fines and punishments that are so minimal they are completely IRRELEVANT to any criminal who would choose to commit a crime with a gun. And in that, the laws do *nothing* deter true criminals from using whatever weapons they want.
Let's get an anecdote: If i'm planning a serious bank robbery where I hold people up with a gun, potentially shoot a guard or two, and escape.... I think the least of my worries is the fine I will get for having a magazine larger than 10 rounds! If I'm going on a shooting rampage, I don't think it matters to me that I'll get in a little trouble for having an Automatic rifle.
------- All this, nevermind the fact that Cali bans guns by name (fear of the names) than by its actual mechanisms and specs. Thus, an AK-47 is basically outright banned, but an HK-91 (same bullet, better accuracy though) is legal. -------
Get an effin' clue people! Criminals don't give a crap about laws. That's the whole reason they're criminals in the first place! ---- I wonder what an intellgent approach to crime might look like... such as identifying the needs of neglected children and making greater efforts to better their lives and guide them.... Oh wait... that's welfare! (sarcasm) Lets spend millions of tax dollars on EMP guns instead of on helping kids learn to be responsible adults!
If you kill the helicopter's radios, that is almost as good. No radios = no communications. No communications = no flying in some types of airspace. No communications = no ability to tell ground units where you are. They might have a spotlight, unless the pulse kills that too. But if you kill communications, you seriously degrade the mission capability of a police helicopter.
OH NOES! I"M LOST WITHOUT MY GPS!
I'm imagining a helo pilot who actually knows where he is in relation to the earth and the terrain below him and could at least figure out how to get back to where he took off.... If that pilot isn't the one flying, well I guess that's a bummer... but I'm also guessing there are pilots that know the terrain they are policing. It is their job, ya know.
And you, what, are you going to live your life merely adjacent to the world, resigned to your impotence, determined to forever console yourself that things you disagree with are inherently beyond your influence?
I'll stick to my plan, thanks.
See that is where you get it wrong. You probably didn't even read far enough into the advice to read or even know the serenity prayer. (I'm not even religious, so I just remove the God part of it).
There is a bit about accomplishing what is possible, and another bit about having the wisdom to know when you should accept those that you cannot change.
I don't just sit back and suck it. But unlike you, I can't stare at the blue sky and be upset about it forever. At some point I accept reality on things and learn to appreciate or at least tolerate that which I get as best as I can.
But I lose in the "i look tough" department, huh? Good thing my friends aren't reading this... I might not look hard enough for them to respect me...
Later, tough guy. In a blizzard you might freeze to death while I sit cozy, and accept the fact I should put on a jacket.
Slashdot Mirror
The fact that you think global warming is a real is a good case study in how money can buy science, and can especially buy people's perceptions of science.
See? Two can play that game.
Lol. The odds that money bought off pretty much all of the relevantly educated people in the field... as compared to having bought the very few fringe-skeptics with relevant educations... is pretty frikking low.
So low, actually, that there aren't two sides to the game at all.
But, just as your skepticism is fueled, any discussion or argument that doesn't agree with your preconceived beliefs will not suffice. Your disbelief = your god = your faith. Good luck with that; I just wish you didn't stand in the way of rational progress and truth in the world.
> Two photons that are too weak individually do NOT add up to a strong photon,
Usually. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-photon_absorption
How is what you've shown in any way SIGNIFICANT to the original point.... it isn't significant at all.
As several people have pointed out that's bullshit.
how is it bullshit? i think it is quite obvious that the tones are scaled across the 'frets' very similarly to how a guitar's tones are scaled... the finger placement is obviously affecting the output tones in ways that are similar to how they do on a guitar.
make a frikking point.. .oh wait.. you're just a coward with nothing real to say.
Sure... and all the EM radiation from stuff that came before cell phones, like power lines and radios.... and before technology, like the big bang and the sun.... all of those would be screwing us up too! (sarcasm)
If EM radiation, which has been around since before life began, were a selective pressure (which it might have been), life would likely have evolved to not be affected by EM radiation. And so we are much more likely to be evolved to be resistant to EM radiation damages than we are to be susceptible.
You're probably more likely to completely and randomly be shifted 1 meter in any direction from your current position than you are to have a molecule get wiggled and end up causing some cascade of catastrophic events.... I wonder which guesstimate is more unlikely... yours or mine.... In any case, they are both way way way out there and not ANY basis to draw assumptions or conclusions from. And this is something you can know. You might not know, but you can know it. Just like the global warming debate; skeptics could understand the arguments, but by the time they were educated enough to understand the arguments they would know enough to realize their skepticism was simply ignorance and doubt.
Protein folding relies heavily on very lower energy Van der Waals interactions, ionic interactions, and even the hydration shell. Theoretically, the perfect type of low energy radiation could denature tumor suppressant proteins in a nucleated keratinocyte and generate a squamous cell carcinoma.
That said, possible doesn't mean practical. The probability of 2 GHz being that perfect frequency, of denaturing a single type of tumor suppressant protein causing unchecked DNA replication, and that replication introducing a cancerous change is negligibly low. Plus, researchers would've sounded the alarm ages ago if a common/well studied cancer like SCC increased in incidence in a specific area of the body. Deeper tissue wouldn't get as much radiation exposure, and a non-skin cancer on the thigh is kinda rare (blood vessel, muscle, bone, and fat cancers have prevalences of ~.1% - 1%).
That is an interesting theory. But in support of your skepticism as to the likeliness of it being reality, I'll bring up a couple other related molecular/protein facts for readers:
-The denaturation of tumor-suppressor proteins would have to occur not on one or several, but a large number of those within the cell to degrade the suppression signal enough to disable it; and since the 'damage' is only temporal, the denaturation would have to occur continuously and also to its daughter cells as well so as to maintain the tumor growth. Genetic damage (as previously shown to be physically impossible) to the suppressor genes is the only way to truly disable the gene in the cell and its progeny.
-Chaperonin-60 (HSP60/GroESL) is present in sufficient quantity to maintain proper folding of denatured proteins in the cell and so I would suggest that not only would the rate of denaturation have to be large enough to encumber proper suppression signaling, but it would also have to overcome the repair activity of HSP60. (Maybe the radiation also denatures the chaperonin, but that's just getting so improbable its hard to even consider talking about).
-I don't want to assume too much here, but testing cell phone strength EM radiation on protein folding is not too difficult to have been done by now. I really want to assume it has been done and the results were null... I don't want to search the pubs tonight...
-So, assuming that the EM radiation *can* affect protein folding, and assuming the hypothetical fact that it would have to happen to many proteins --- if this were the case, we would likely see the effects of denatured proteins in other observable areas. Nearly everything going on in the cell and in the body is controlled, communicated, and mediated by proteins. Many proteins are active in real time and encumbering their function by denaturation (by any means, including the hypothetical) should have some form of physiological or psychologically observable changes. Lets take insulin for an example, but lets also assume that thousands of proteins are just as relevant. With insulin, loss of function results in lowered glucose uptake into the cells and so the blood retains glucose. If EM waves were denaturing insulin in any real way, blood glucose levels should be observable and diabetic-like symptoms might likely arise. This is not the case... I'm not sure how many readers are aware of the complexity of proteins and their complex functions in the body, but there are basically thousands of examples that could be imagined wherein a significant denaturing of proteins would result in some observable outcome.
-Humans (and other life forms) came into existence and evolved in the presence of all kinds of EM radiation from the sun, the big bang, etc. If EM radiation's ability to denature proteins was significant to persistence of life on earth, life would have evolved in ways that were not susceptible to that radiation.
--------
Humans are notorious for not knowing the cause of something, imagining a cause, and then sharing and believing that supposed 'cause' as fact. I won't outright deny the possibility that cell phone EM radiation may cause damage to our bodies, but with what we know it is very very highly unlikely.
-
-
"Close off every possible method of counter except violence, and people will not hesitate to use what you left them."
When did apathy get outlawed?
Since when is apathy a counter?
Don't worry. The obligatory "Obama did this to somehow screw us over" post will come soon. It won't make any real sense and will sound like it was written by a drunk 12 year old, but for some reason (hell, even when its not political we get them) I think we'll see one soon.
I must have been modded down by the drunk 12 year olds.
Don't worry. The obligatory "Obama did this to somehow screw us over" post will come soon. It won't make any real sense and will sound like it was written by a drunk 12 year old, but for some reason (hell, even when its not political we get them) I think we'll see one soon.
I don't know how many of you guys reading may have seen my short rant about how Lawyers (who write these ideas out) put vague wording and loopholes so that there is plenty of room for litigation.
This is EXACTLY what I'm talking about. WTF does the word 'reasonable' mean in the context of the LAW? It means you need a frikkin' lawyer! That's what it means. It means you need a judge to listen to the B.S. and at least one lawyer to explain how something was or was not reasonable.
This is junk. The lawmakers need to be more specific and use words to describe exactly what exceptions there could be and the limits to which those exceptions could be implemented. If new need arises, amendments should be made.
These junkbag lawyers are putting these vague words in on purpose because 1) It allows their camps to keep taking donations from these fuckwad commo companies and 2) it creates and perpetuates more litigation, which ensure job futures for lawyers, judges, and lawmakers.
Don't accept the bullshit response that 'the world is too complex for clear laws'. That's a load of crap. If you can't be clear about what you're trying to legislate, maybe you need a bigger brain and a few more hours of giving a shit before you write it all up. Maybe you need to actually know what the hell you're doing and put an EFFORT into it so that the laws/bills can actually hold water.
Putting words like 'reasonable' in there is just a big mess of grey area begging for exploitation, exemption, and outright disregard. Reasonable is a relative term and that which one man may consider reasonable evidence may be worthless to another. In this case, a judge (and comcast) may think that even 1 illegal bit-torrent is evident, an thus reasonably true (which it is), from where reasonable controls could be reasonably applied...
GTFO. We won't see clear laws/expectations as citizens so long as our country is run by lawyers who want to keep us in a cloud of confusion and foggy litigation. The last thing a lawyer wants is for the people to actually know exactly what is going on, else they would not be in high demand.
One of my biggest peeves with the current legal system is the concept of 'interpretation'. Interpretation throws 'grey area' all over something that a person would expect to be clearly understandable. Ought we have a legal dictionary so that each word can be exactly understood? I think so. Ought we have laws that are clear and exact, and if exceptions need to be added, then the time is taken to add them. If more specificity is needed, then additional laws should be written.
Part of the problem with the approach you're getting at is the idea that there ought be exceptions in the first place. I see it different in that I think there should be clearly written rules with clearly written exceptions, with each exception clearly identified.
Sure it would take more work to do it... in my idea you can't lazily apply vague words like 'reasonably blah blah' to somehow make up for needs of exceptions. But in the long run you would have a population of people who know exactly what is possible, exactly what is expected, and have much less grey area to litigate over.
What's even funnier (but not funny) is that lawmakers will spend thousands of pages of effort to accomplish goals that can actually be accomplished with very clean and succinct wording. Right now there is a healthcare bill going through that is over 1000 pages long. The irony in that, and what I'm getting at, is that the news articles that sum up the bill are only about a page long and yet contain nearly all that could be necessary.
Example: Hundreds (or at least dozens) of pages written up in regard to not allowing insurance companies to discrimination on prior medical conditions.
This is junk... In reality, a line to the tune of "All health and/or medicine related insurers operating in the united states for US citizens shall not discriminate for any prior medical conditions, else the company will be assumed by the IRS, shut down, and its assets sold with the money going to the general fund."
Clear and succinct. And if you had a legal dictionary to make sure all the words are well understood... And a framework that says the words are to be LITERAL and NOT UP TO INTERPRETATION, then you've got a single sentence that solves the whole issue right there in one shot. Need an exception? Add a sentence. No need to blur it all up with vague words and leaving them up to interpretation.
------
But what do I know.. I'm not a lawyer, I'm just a man subject to laws lawyers(lawmakers) create; a citizen in fear of interpretation and litigious garbage, watching his country dissolve into petty nothingness by lawyer-catalyzed destruction and exploitation... Oh, and I have logic.
It is my logic that wants simple answers. It is my observation of what is really happening that tells me even your own understanding and approach cannot be trusted. You *think* it must be complex, but that is only because you've been influenced to always think it is that way; surely you still feel there is a need for 'interpretation' in the legal system.
To this day I keep wondering why the constitution is interpreted at all. When I read it, the words are very clear. It is lawyers and judges that felt the constitution needs to be played with and manipulated with interpretation.... some goal in mind... personal interest that is not permitted when read literally.
Understood. I know where we are, as you. I'm glad to know we're on the same side with this one.
What about the business of lawyers? At what point does the business of america have anything to do with the fact that people's lives are tied up in the middle of this petty garbage?
You echo the shitty memes of bigots past as if you are beholden to them. I hope you're mature enough to see that money/business is less valuable than the people around you.
Why should the punishment for depriving a person of their right to fair use be any less severe than violating a copyright?
Good point! (I would mod you up, but I wrote in this post and don't wanna lose it)
Laws are written by lawyers, voted in by politicians (80% of which are/were lawyers), and judged by judges who were lawyers.
Loopholes and vague wording are things that lawyers are GOOD at creating in our system. They are lawyers, they are supposed to be smart enough to make laws very clear; yet wherever you look, laws are written with loopholes and vague wording that permit loads of points of contention to which lawyers must be hired to resolve....
The saddest part of the whole construct being that it is impossible to remove without revolution, impossible to prevent with any form of government, and that many/most lawyers feel some form of 'good' for their part in the system. I'll never forget the wonderful response I got from a lawyer about my criticism of the participation of lawyers in obvious frivilous/wrongful lawsuits.... Her response was what I've heard many times, and never fails to amaze me: "I am a lawyer. It is the person I represent who is asking me to do these things. I am doing nothing wrong; I am doing my job. Blame the person I represent." Right (sarcasm). Like your participation in the whole thing has *nothing* to do with what most would agree to be a heinous act of harassment/blackmail. No... You've done nothing wrong... You're just the tool...
I'd like to compare it to the idea that guns don't kill people... people kill people.... and that would make sense (which is basically her argument), except for the glaring fact that in the lawyer's case, the gun has an educated and possibly moral brain of it's own and is able to freely choose whose hands it is placed in and what targets it would be aimed at, how much damage it would do, etc.
I recall she then argued that I'd be 'sucking her d***' (yes, it didn't make senese) some day when I actually needed a lawyer. This is horrible because of course I would want a lawyer when I actually *need* one. That would be, at least, a case where it isn't so obviously frivolous/wrongful --- a case where most people would agree a lawyer is needed. And so this is horrible because she thought that because I (or others) would *need* her someday, and that she convinced herself to be morally distanced from her participation in wrongful lawsuits, she ultimately expressed that she (lawyers) is of the requisite benevolent gatekeepers to justice.
Sure... lawyers can do no harm... (sarcasm). I wonder how many law school graduates creamed their pants when they saw how vague the Americans with Disabilities Act was when it passed. Clearly written laws give no room for lawyers because the people know what is expected.
A pager? Please elaborate how it is used and for what reasons? I have my assumptions but I'd like to know.... it sounds like a big WTF moment for me is coming...
I don't want to come over all Luddite - but surely part of playing guitar is the sensation of the strings against the fingers. You know where they are, because you can feel them. You know whether and how hard you've plucked/strummed, because you can feel them.
I think playing this thing would be a bit like typing on an on-screen keyboard - a second class experience.
I think i would like it WAY more than a guitar... but that's my taste... part of it being that I'm not expecting a guitar, i'm expecting a new fun piece of technology.
That isn't how a guitar works. You have to fret the string AND pluck or strum the string.
Yeah, duh... The whole point is that this isn't a guitar... its a digital 'guitar' that is more of a new tech than a simple guitar....
Sorry to tell ya, but this isn't just another rehashing of the same old idea over and over... its something new.
If there's no strings, what's the point of the neck and the frets?
To choose tones in a way 'similar' to how a guitar player chooses them.
So was Ghandi.
The righteous don't give a f*** for their cause is more important than self.
Cute :) Seriously, though, you're not actually going to try and defend that crap, are you? Those "filmmakers" make Michael Moore look like a paragon of truth and honesty.
Oh, and btw, my "SlashID" is that bunch of numbers beside my username.
Have you been drinking today?
Cali still has it. Cali has very stupid laws on this stuff.
Criminals have no qualms about using force, why would they resort to a weapon like this? There's already effective car stoppers out there like .50 caliber rifles and medium machineguns, both of which would be easier to acquire than a weapon like this.
Or they could just do a PIT manoeuvre or block them off to stop the target car.
So true. Lmfao. A friend and I (we live in Cali) were just going over the various california gun laws and how ridiculous they are.
All of the laws are tied to fines and punishments that are so minimal they are completely IRRELEVANT to any criminal who would choose to commit a crime with a gun. And in that, the laws do *nothing* deter true criminals from using whatever weapons they want.
Let's get an anecdote: If i'm planning a serious bank robbery where I hold people up with a gun, potentially shoot a guard or two, and escape.... I think the least of my worries is the fine I will get for having a magazine larger than 10 rounds! If I'm going on a shooting rampage, I don't think it matters to me that I'll get in a little trouble for having an Automatic rifle.
-------
All this, nevermind the fact that Cali bans guns by name (fear of the names) than by its actual mechanisms and specs. Thus, an AK-47 is basically outright banned, but an HK-91 (same bullet, better accuracy though) is legal.
-------
Get an effin' clue people! Criminals don't give a crap about laws. That's the whole reason they're criminals in the first place! ---- I wonder what an intellgent approach to crime might look like... such as identifying the needs of neglected children and making greater efforts to better their lives and guide them.... Oh wait... that's welfare! (sarcasm) Lets spend millions of tax dollars on EMP guns instead of on helping kids learn to be responsible adults!
If you kill the helicopter's radios, that is almost as good. No radios = no communications. No communications = no flying in some types of airspace. No communications = no ability to tell ground units where you are. They might have a spotlight, unless the pulse kills that too. But if you kill communications, you seriously degrade the mission capability of a police helicopter.
OH NOES! I"M LOST WITHOUT MY GPS!
I'm imagining a helo pilot who actually knows where he is in relation to the earth and the terrain below him and could at least figure out how to get back to where he took off.... If that pilot isn't the one flying, well I guess that's a bummer... but I'm also guessing there are pilots that know the terrain they are policing. It is their job, ya know.
How much will they cost? How many cars do they plan to put them in? Does this make any economical sense as compared to the benefit?
And you, what, are you going to live your life merely adjacent to the world, resigned to your impotence, determined to forever console yourself that things you disagree with are inherently beyond your influence?
I'll stick to my plan, thanks.
See that is where you get it wrong. You probably didn't even read far enough into the advice to read or even know the serenity prayer. (I'm not even religious, so I just remove the God part of it).
There is a bit about accomplishing what is possible, and another bit about having the wisdom to know when you should accept those that you cannot change.
I don't just sit back and suck it. But unlike you, I can't stare at the blue sky and be upset about it forever. At some point I accept reality on things and learn to appreciate or at least tolerate that which I get as best as I can.
But I lose in the "i look tough" department, huh? Good thing my friends aren't reading this... I might not look hard enough for them to respect me...
Later, tough guy.
In a blizzard you might freeze to death while I sit cozy, and accept the fact I should put on a jacket.