It is probably worth remembering that one of the first (and only) things this Congress did was to overturn Obama-era rules that restricted gun sales to people with certain severe mental illnesses.
Not quite. The repeal does not change any actual firearm regulations; there have been (and still are) laws on the books that prohibit the sale of guns to some groups of people based on mental illness. All they did was remove a questionable reporting requirement from the Social Security Administration that tried to equate "has trouble handling finances" with "potentially dangerous mental defect"
When the ACLU agrees with the NRA on something, it might be worth digging deeper...
Pay particular attention to the section with the bell curve chart, where he says:
Note, I'm not saying that all men differ from all women in the following ways or that these differences are "just." I'm simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why we don't see equal representation of women in tech and leadership. Many of these differences are small and there's significant overlap between men and women, so you can't say anything about an individual given these population level distributions."
"Let's just say if something is flying over your head...that is not an anxiety-reducing situation,"
However, riding in a narrow, sealed, and windowless capsule inside a sealed steel tunnel whizzing around under ground at nearly the speed of sound is nothing but relaxing, eh Elon?
In West Germany, in 1986, an accident involved a jammed pebble that was damaged by the reactor operators when they were attempting to dislodge it from a feeder tube. This accident released radiation into the surrounding area.
While things have improved, I can't imagine how it *wouldn't* be possible for pebbles to get jammed. Pretending it can't happened is simply dangerous.
Unfortunately, that 1% tends to be business critical industry applications (EMR for doctor offices, control software for concrete plants, that sort of thing)
How exactly would a device that makes sure the owner of a gun is the one shooting the gun prevent the owner of the gun from going on a mass shooting? Or from shooting himself?
It goes both ways. The gun rights lobby opposes any and all forms of regulation, even the most common-sense, because they fear exactly the scenario you describe: If the government is allowed any power to regulate guns, that power could be deliberately mis-applied to restrict access.
This is why there has been intense opposition to things like restrictions on high-capacity magazines, or requiring less environmentally-damaging alternatives to lead shot.
The situation is paralleled in abortion, and has a similar effect: It forces political pressure groups to the extremes. Either prohibit entirely, or allow without restriction, both of which are not what the public in general desires.
One of the reasons for this is the gun rights crowd "compromised" in the past. Then, once the dust settled, the gun control crowd start calling those compromises "loopholes" and start trying to close them. As a result, gun rights folk are unwilling to "compromise" because such proposed compromises aren't compromises at all...
Look at the so-called "gunshow loophole". Once upon a time, a carefully-negotiated exemption to the FFL laws was to allow 2 citizens in the same state the ability to transfer guns infrequently among themselves without the red tape of going through a dealer. Nowadays, this scenario is pitched as a loophole because people congregate (either at a fairgrounds or a website) to do exactly what was negotiated as an exemption.
The gun control crowd knows they're not going to lose the FFL system, so nothing stops them from coming after all the exceptions they negotiated in order to get the FFL system passed...
Then no second amendment guns for you. Did you have to give them up?
Why do you push such an idiotic line when you know it is not true yourself?
it is a separate thing from the 2nd Amendment... Reading comprehension, dude
Since you are tying them all in together to try to justify an argument you'd better work on that reading comprehension - unless you are deliberately lying like that traitor running the NRA Oliver North.
Because turning 59 just means he's not automatically in the militia. However, did you notice how the 2nd Amendment doesn't say "the right of the militia to keep and bear arms"?
It's not hard to figure out. Citizen militias are important. Since citizen militias are important, the ability to form them must be protected. Arms are the single most important piece of equipment required to form a citizen militia. Therefore, protecting the citizen's ability to own and operate arms is important.
Quoting from the Militia Acts just strengthens the point that despite the word "militia" being included in the amendment, it's clear that the right belongs to THE PEOPLE, not THE MILITIA. Because when it was written, "the militia" was synonymous to "the people".
And this is before we even get into the 9th and 10th Amendment arguments regarding firearm ownership...
Slashdot Mirror
Some people will claim our calculator is inaccurate. We prefer to think of it as having courage...
There's little point in worrying about a cart if you have no horse.
Unless you run a rickshaw business...
Cosmetic Liposuction is not covered, but liposuction for lipoedema and lymphoedema
Obese patients have also been told they must lose weight in order to have non-urgent surgery.
Seems like this will remove the entire point of liposuction surgery. Or at least make those clinics move outside of Hertfordshire.
or -- it will get a boost from those looking for a shortcut to "lose weight" and reduce their BMI
Except that liposuction is a non-urgent surgery, meaning they'd have to reduce their BMI *before* they can have liposuction...
Now consider the value the device will bring to your life in the context of the projected replacement date of "not guaranteed beyond a year"...
ISIS is claiming responsibility now...
For whatever *that's* worth...
It is probably worth remembering that one of the first (and only) things this Congress did was to overturn Obama-era rules that restricted gun sales to people with certain severe mental illnesses.
Not quite. The repeal does not change any actual firearm regulations; there have been (and still are) laws on the books that prohibit the sale of guns to some groups of people based on mental illness. All they did was remove a questionable reporting requirement from the Social Security Administration that tried to equate "has trouble handling finances" with "potentially dangerous mental defect"
When the ACLU agrees with the NRA on something, it might be worth digging deeper...
If we can defend Nazis, we can defend anything!
Pay particular attention to the section with the bell curve chart, where he says:
Note, I'm not saying that all men differ from all women in the following ways or that these differences are "just." I'm simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why we don't see equal representation of women in tech and leadership. Many of these differences are small and there's significant overlap between men and women, so you can't say anything about an individual given these population level distributions."
Google didn't do any of that. They fired him because he said that women are inferior engineers and dismissed the issues they face as biology.
Citation please
https://xkcd.com/1264/
-----BEGIN PGP MESSAGE----- Version: BCPG C# v1.6.1.0 hQEMA6aWSBoheq/wAQgAmlMhXPe8IFZS1FFJlZSi5vox+rp2ERjJ/tkZIoDm6eyg NA2GGzmWlI9mu1DKlP0nOINNZV7oY2M8ovqW2AuHd2BpWEaIa58GC/v1hL02xr2P a50tR/FzRG2MkKIFhnW/z+cGZA9CXycusD0tlAnzyve7HZlA08FVFmPnBQ/CbwLe pYzzAVXvSOs3wuPakv57hHErdY0XjarqkBxmnvVzO8WgV93KmZ4caRySzchiBiQ/ Wb9D5PTUIkgS93HWeoQngOTPA1blKKLmSWRk699Wu9MIlcykxgpiNaDjrI6aaZwp ckCTWAwnyhbR8KTqdYo0qlqK0D8t+SC9C+V6XKkA78lQ50pYeazywBvcSNA4OJmx Tif2voDW0VzvSQdbnITUpw/AfuJsMQTYqsTcQaKFQsdoMf9KJiCQGWjjj9Cl3GtT v+FwYAgCbdEjmCOx1XBHQrQ= =Kyq6 -----END PGP MESSAGE-----
The problem is that too many people obtain too much money and power running that complex and inefficient patchwork of programs...
"Let's just say if something is flying over your head...that is not an anxiety-reducing situation,"
However, riding in a narrow, sealed, and windowless capsule inside a sealed steel tunnel whizzing around under ground at nearly the speed of sound is nothing but relaxing, eh Elon?
You must patch the telephone device back through the console unit.
Sorry, but I'm skeptical: I want to see some details before I'm convinced.
Sorry, but we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it... ;)
Perhaps the crash has something to do with Ransomware suddenly becoming illegal in California?
I mean, it's not like people would use bitcoin for *illegal* activities, right?
Maybe they're just planning ahead for when we ALL drive autonomous cars...
Let your car drive you to work, and then let your car go work for Uber for a few hours in exchange for a small payment
Uber would then be paying for just the car, instead of a car and driver
"When you're CEO, they let you do it. You can just walk right up to them and edit their posts." -- /u/spez
Hahn died on September 27, 2016. Almost 2 months ago...
In West Germany, in 1986, an accident involved a jammed pebble that was damaged by the reactor operators when they were attempting to dislodge it from a feeder tube. This accident released radiation into the surrounding area. While things have improved, I can't imagine how it *wouldn't* be possible for pebbles to get jammed. Pretending it can't happened is simply dangerous.
Unfortunately, that 1% tends to be business critical industry applications (EMR for doctor offices, control software for concrete plants, that sort of thing)
How exactly would a device that makes sure the owner of a gun is the one shooting the gun prevent the owner of the gun from going on a mass shooting? Or from shooting himself?
It goes both ways. The gun rights lobby opposes any and all forms of regulation, even the most common-sense, because they fear exactly the scenario you describe: If the government is allowed any power to regulate guns, that power could be deliberately mis-applied to restrict access.
This is why there has been intense opposition to things like restrictions on high-capacity magazines, or requiring less environmentally-damaging alternatives to lead shot.
The situation is paralleled in abortion, and has a similar effect: It forces political pressure groups to the extremes. Either prohibit entirely, or allow without restriction, both of which are not what the public in general desires.
One of the reasons for this is the gun rights crowd "compromised" in the past. Then, once the dust settled, the gun control crowd start calling those compromises "loopholes" and start trying to close them. As a result, gun rights folk are unwilling to "compromise" because such proposed compromises aren't compromises at all...
Look at the so-called "gunshow loophole". Once upon a time, a carefully-negotiated exemption to the FFL laws was to allow 2 citizens in the same state the ability to transfer guns infrequently among themselves without the red tape of going through a dealer. Nowadays, this scenario is pitched as a loophole because people congregate (either at a fairgrounds or a website) to do exactly what was negotiated as an exemption.
The gun control crowd knows they're not going to lose the FFL system, so nothing stops them from coming after all the exceptions they negotiated in order to get the FFL system passed...
Then no second amendment guns for you. Did you have to give them up? Why do you push such an idiotic line when you know it is not true yourself?
Since you are tying them all in together to try to justify an argument you'd better work on that reading comprehension - unless you are deliberately lying like that traitor running the NRA Oliver North.
Because turning 59 just means he's not automatically in the militia. However, did you notice how the 2nd Amendment doesn't say "the right of the militia to keep and bear arms"?
It's not hard to figure out. Citizen militias are important. Since citizen militias are important, the ability to form them must be protected. Arms are the single most important piece of equipment required to form a citizen militia. Therefore, protecting the citizen's ability to own and operate arms is important.
Quoting from the Militia Acts just strengthens the point that despite the word "militia" being included in the amendment, it's clear that the right belongs to THE PEOPLE, not THE MILITIA. Because when it was written, "the militia" was synonymous to "the people".
And this is before we even get into the 9th and 10th Amendment arguments regarding firearm ownership...