As A free man, I should never have to justify my choices for self-defense. My exercising of that right hurts no one.
As a member of a community you always have to justify your choices of self-defense. That is done through the justice system. If you don't wish to follow the rules established by a community everyone is free to leave it. Good luck finding somewhere to move to though.
Are you arguing that free people do not have the right to self-defense and choosing the tools that allow the people to exercise that right?
Self-defense is a natural-born right. As a human being I have the right to defend myself and my loved ones. I don't have to ask you or society for that permission.
Again as a member of a community you are subject to the rules of that community. In our country there are ample allowances for people to defend themselves when attacked but there are also restrictions on the level of force allowed. If someone flicks you in the ear you cannot shoot them in the head even though they "attacked" you. You have the "right" to do this but it is not protected by the government.
That is ONE of the basic tenets of our government's founding documents. The second amendment PROTECTS the right of individuals to bear arms for self-defense, it does not GRANT that right.
Please read the second amendment again. It says "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." This has nothing to do with self-defense. It has everything to do with maintaining a regulated Militia. Yes, an amendment protects the right from prosecution from the government, no disagreement there.
Your view is one where governments grant rights - that is a wrong-headed view. Governments do not grant the "right" of self-defense" any more than they grant the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". Our government is structured such that it protects natural-born rights, it does not "grant" them.
I never said anything about the government granting rights. It does however specify which rights it feels is important to protect in its own best interest and the best interest of all its citizens. Our government protects SOME natural born rights. You have the right to walk around killing people, the government does not protect this "Natural born right". And for good reason, if this was allowed a society couldn't operate.
In the end people have the "right" to live as they please, however this is subject to the laws of the land. If people have issue with the laws that govern their society they have options, they can move to change those laws through the democratic process and allow the masses to decide through our representatives what makes sense or they can leave and find somewhere that better fits their world view. And if you feel that this country is too controlling of the rights that are important to you there are some places in Africa where the government has no power to stop you from doing anything, this comes with some downsides though because it doesn't stop anyone else either.
The next standard argument against guns is that a guy with a rifle could never challenge a tank or aircraft. This is true. But what an armed population lacks in technology, they make up for in numbers. During hunting season the woods of Pennsylvania are filled with 600,000 to 700,000 armed people. At that time, it is the largest "standing army" in the world. Think about that for a minute - one state of hunters dwarfs the biggest standing army in the world.
Yeah, and a squadron of B-1's could reduce your army of hunters to a bunch of fat men running around with their hair on fire. But you don't need a bunch of old men with hunting rifles to fight back against a tyrannical federal government. Even if the federal government could ensure 100% loyalty among its troops when fighting against their own population (which is absurd) you still have 50 states with independent "Militia's" with modern weaponry including tanks, aircraft, and modern infantry gear. They are even trained along side the "federal" military. And this is why I think gun control is irrelevant to the 2nd amendment. The 2nd amendment is talking about a well regulated militia, and WE HAVE THAT. That is our protection against a tyrannical government and it could actually be effective while people with rifles and handguns would just be fighting an eternal and losing battle (as is being done in Afghanistan).
The argument for self defense with firearms should be independent of the 2nd amendment. In the 18th century they could be considered the same thing because the level of technology of a modern military was not too far above what was available to the average hunter. This has grown further and further apart as time has gone on. You should have to make your case that the benefits of owning a gun for hunting or self defense outweigh the cost of the gun violence that occurs in this country every day. And that is a debate that is not settled and should be backed up by data from both sides.
Mental issues was the trigger but availablilty of guns was an amplifier. He would not have been able to kill as many if he had been using a knife, and the chinese woman surely would have been able to kill more than 22 if she had guns. It was reported that he finally took his own life because police were moving in on him so how fast he could kill determined how many died. Guns did not cause this but they made it worse. Aurora was not caused by guns but they made it worse, Virginia Tech was not causeed by guns but they made it worse. Many people have a hard on for guns and treat them like toys. A gun is a tool, ask any rancher or farmer, its a neccesity not a form of recreation. If people treated a gun as a tool instead of a toy maybe these events would not happen so often. Anyone that shoots a gun for pleasure treats it as a toy and that is frightening.
Only if you ignore station cash multiplier days like THIS FRIDAY (3x deal). you talk about $$$ like its a constant conversion between it and SC when in reality few people that i know buy station cash when its not on sale.
Its misleading saying a new weapon is $6.00. In reality it is 600 "station cash". This sounds like a moot point since most of the time 600 station cash costs $6.00 to buy but nobody I know that plays buys station cash when there isnt a deal going on. This friday (the 21st) Sony is doing a 3x station cash day, there is also a wal mart deal where you can buy a $15 card for 2k station cash, combine those and you have 6k station cash for $15. Now look at how much that weapon costs, $1.50 for a new gun on a free to play game that activly competes with games that cost $60 is not such a big deal. Also worth noting that the most expensive weapon in the game is 700 SC or 1000 certs so its not like finding the few weapons that you want for your infantry, plus 1-2 for vehicles is a big deal. Spend $15 on this game this friday and you will be content with weapon unlocks for a long while. Probably till the next 3x sale.
Refuel and reposition will probably not need to be run at the same time. I imagine, as others have, the refuel capability may be difficult and will have to be designed into the satellite in the first place. For sats that need to be repositioned but cannot be refueled this robot could give them a boost, thereby saving it some much needed fuel for later maneuvers. (Say the robot was passing a sat without the capability to be refueled on its way to another customer, owner of the robot can offer owner of the sat a boost for some cost, then move on).
I think the real use for this technology will be realized if we are ever able to park a icy asteroid in orbit, then fuel is already up there and just needs to be distributed. This is just preparing a tech for a later use.
FWIW you left expenses out of your equations. It should be Revenue - Fine - Expenses = Profit. Granted the expenses are probably small for a simple app.
I'm torn. I agree issues like the one you cited are a reason to require oversight in order to protect both doctors and patients. But this is more than apps for tablets and phones, this is about regulating medical software. I may be wrong but I think medical equipment that is currently regulated is a boxed deal, hardware with embedded software, all tested as one item. If the hardware is not controlled anymore issues could arise with approving software for medical use, unless they say App X only approved to be used on an iPad... but I may be missing something, this is not my field.
The problem is understanding the spirit of a law that was written too long ago to ask the person what they were thinking. Lawmakers are not required to explain the spirit of the law when they write it, only the legal text itself. In particular, this has caused misunderstandings with the framers of our constitution on bill of rights. Just looking at the first and second amendments we start having issues with separation of church and state (not called out in the legal text but from outside material we know it weighed heavily on the minds of the authors) and a right to bear arms (legal text calls this out but spirit of the amendment is unclear if its for a state militia or self defense/prevention of government tyranny). The only thing that has saved us as a nation up to this point has been an independent and thoughtful Supreme Court (federal appeals courts as well). They have the ability to adjust laws based on the intention/spirit of it. Just make sure they stay as non-political as possible and we stand a chance.
I halfway agree with you since a lot of people on this site have never heard of it. However, generally the people that play DOTA just sound out the acronym, they almost never refer to it as Defense of the Ancients. So in effect the name of the game is just DOTA, what it stands for is meaningless. Similar to how people use the word radar not realizing that it originally meant RAdio Detection And Ranging. To each his own though, I never liked the game anyway.
Right now AT&T can say that people using 3GB are super users that use WAY more data than the normal person, but that number is going to go up in the future as people start watching more video on their phones (netflix, Sling, HBOGO, etc.). If they try and fight this same fight a few years from now they will have to set their limits much higher since that is going to be the 'norm' and not just the super user. By setting their limits to 3GB now, when people start using more data later they can start hitting them with the overages and say "hey, this is what you signed up for, not our fault". Its evil but still a logical strategy. Fighting this fight now they only have to deal with pissing off the super user, fighting later they piss off everyone.
You don't know what you're talking about. My daughter was allergic to breastmilk, a fairly minor reaction at first but caused her to gain weight slowly. After switching to formula she was able to sleep longer, gained more weight and became a much happier baby. It also made my wife and I more sane since we could get a little sleep and didn't have a screaming infant at all hours.
I don't think so. If this were just the big guy vs. the little guy absolutely, but it is the old big guy vs. the new big guy so you can bet your ass that google and friends will be watching this issue like a hawk and we all know google has money to burn when it comes to this issue.
Everybody is for sale. The size of the bribe has to do with how much they already agree with what you are asking for. In this case the dems are at the top of the list because it is taking more to convince them to betray the people that voted them in. The reps would probably go along with it anyway to "support small business" and only require a token donation.
You can't call it a tie because statistics determine the margin of error to be greater than the vote difference. It makes much more sense to say the winner cannot be determined. A tie means they had the same number of votes and that is extremely unlikely.
If they claim its a trade secret they must declare the chemical family of the secret portion of the fluid. I'm not saying this is perfect but it is a step in the right direction for declaring the chemicals used.
Wow, not a known universe fan I guess. It's good to know you don't consider him prizeworthy, plenty of others do though which is why Ringworld got both the Hugo and Nebula that year.
I was in Red Square on New Years Eve attending the festivities. There was no way the bomber could have made it in before midnight due to the massive police and military presence (to get in I went through 3 checkpoints where I lost my alcohol and bottled water). However, after midnight they dropped the security and a bomber could have made quite an impact at any of the several stages surrounding the downtown area that were still packed with people (the streets were closed off to cars so everyone was just walking around).
This spam text was a lucky break for the Russians, things could have gone much worse.
The ONLY way to stop corporate control of something by a small group of companies with lobbying power is not to regulate it. End of story.
That's completely absurd. That's like saying the only way to prevent theft is to reduce the police force. However, the idea that if there is regulation there must be someone benefiting from it is absolutely true... we're called taxpayers.
This seems to me to be a direct response to the Democratic party outspending the Republican party in the 2008 elections. Because of the larger number of people donating small amounts of money to the Obama campaign the Democrats were able to outraise and outspend the Republicans who depended on small numbers of wealthy people contributing the maximum. Nobody knows the intent of SCOTUS in deciding this, maybe it was oversight, maybe they didn't like the move to the left that would eventually leave Democratically nominated Justices in power, nobody knows but them. But the effect of this ruling is to allow the wealthy to skip past the restrictions they were under in 2008 and give them the fund raising advantage in 2010 and beyond.
Whislteblowers are a safety valve. They should be punished for what they do because it is breaking an oath either to a nation or employer. But if someone sees something so disturbing going on and they deem its worth sacrificing their career or life in order to make public they are helping keep our society from becoming too Orwellian.
That this is starting to happen with more regularity is the disturbing part, perhaps the secrets we are keeping have hit some critical mass and the secret keepers can no longer even stomach it.
Slashdot Mirror
As A free man, I should never have to justify my choices for self-defense. My exercising of that right hurts no one.
As a member of a community you always have to justify your choices of self-defense. That is done through the justice system. If you don't wish to follow the rules established by a community everyone is free to leave it. Good luck finding somewhere to move to though.
Are you arguing that free people do not have the right to self-defense and choosing the tools that allow the people to exercise that right?
Self-defense is a natural-born right. As a human being I have the right to defend myself and my loved ones. I don't have to ask you or society for that permission.
Again as a member of a community you are subject to the rules of that community. In our country there are ample allowances for people to defend themselves when attacked but there are also restrictions on the level of force allowed. If someone flicks you in the ear you cannot shoot them in the head even though they "attacked" you. You have the "right" to do this but it is not protected by the government.
That is ONE of the basic tenets of our government's founding documents. The second amendment PROTECTS the right of individuals to bear arms for self-defense, it does not GRANT that right.
Please read the second amendment again. It says "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." This has nothing to do with self-defense. It has everything to do with maintaining a regulated Militia. Yes, an amendment protects the right from prosecution from the government, no disagreement there.
Your view is one where governments grant rights - that is a wrong-headed view. Governments do not grant the "right" of self-defense" any more than they grant the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". Our government is structured such that it protects natural-born rights, it does not "grant" them.
I never said anything about the government granting rights. It does however specify which rights it feels is important to protect in its own best interest and the best interest of all its citizens. Our government protects SOME natural born rights. You have the right to walk around killing people, the government does not protect this "Natural born right". And for good reason, if this was allowed a society couldn't operate.
In the end people have the "right" to live as they please, however this is subject to the laws of the land. If people have issue with the laws that govern their society they have options, they can move to change those laws through the democratic process and allow the masses to decide through our representatives what makes sense or they can leave and find somewhere that better fits their world view. And if you feel that this country is too controlling of the rights that are important to you there are some places in Africa where the government has no power to stop you from doing anything, this comes with some downsides though because it doesn't stop anyone else either.
The next standard argument against guns is that a guy with a rifle could never challenge a tank or aircraft. This is true. But what an armed population lacks in technology, they make up for in numbers. During hunting season the woods of Pennsylvania are filled with 600,000 to 700,000 armed people. At that time, it is the largest "standing army" in the world. Think about that for a minute - one state of hunters dwarfs the biggest standing army in the world.
Yeah, and a squadron of B-1's could reduce your army of hunters to a bunch of fat men running around with their hair on fire. But you don't need a bunch of old men with hunting rifles to fight back against a tyrannical federal government. Even if the federal government could ensure 100% loyalty among its troops when fighting against their own population (which is absurd) you still have 50 states with independent "Militia's" with modern weaponry including tanks, aircraft, and modern infantry gear. They are even trained along side the "federal" military. And this is why I think gun control is irrelevant to the 2nd amendment. The 2nd amendment is talking about a well regulated militia, and WE HAVE THAT. That is our protection against a tyrannical government and it could actually be effective while people with rifles and handguns would just be fighting an eternal and losing battle (as is being done in Afghanistan).
The argument for self defense with firearms should be independent of the 2nd amendment. In the 18th century they could be considered the same thing because the level of technology of a modern military was not too far above what was available to the average hunter. This has grown further and further apart as time has gone on. You should have to make your case that the benefits of owning a gun for hunting or self defense outweigh the cost of the gun violence that occurs in this country every day. And that is a debate that is not settled and should be backed up by data from both sides.
Mental issues was the trigger but availablilty of guns was an amplifier. He would not have been able to kill as many if he had been using a knife, and the chinese woman surely would have been able to kill more than 22 if she had guns. It was reported that he finally took his own life because police were moving in on him so how fast he could kill determined how many died. Guns did not cause this but they made it worse. Aurora was not caused by guns but they made it worse, Virginia Tech was not causeed by guns but they made it worse. Many people have a hard on for guns and treat them like toys. A gun is a tool, ask any rancher or farmer, its a neccesity not a form of recreation. If people treated a gun as a tool instead of a toy maybe these events would not happen so often. Anyone that shoots a gun for pleasure treats it as a toy and that is frightening.
Only if you ignore station cash multiplier days like THIS FRIDAY (3x deal). you talk about $$$ like its a constant conversion between it and SC when in reality few people that i know buy station cash when its not on sale.
Or pay $60 up front? If you assume both of those costs you could unlock every weapon in this game in a month or 2.
Its misleading saying a new weapon is $6.00. In reality it is 600 "station cash". This sounds like a moot point since most of the time 600 station cash costs $6.00 to buy but nobody I know that plays buys station cash when there isnt a deal going on. This friday (the 21st) Sony is doing a 3x station cash day, there is also a wal mart deal where you can buy a $15 card for 2k station cash, combine those and you have 6k station cash for $15. Now look at how much that weapon costs, $1.50 for a new gun on a free to play game that activly competes with games that cost $60 is not such a big deal. Also worth noting that the most expensive weapon in the game is 700 SC or 1000 certs so its not like finding the few weapons that you want for your infantry, plus 1-2 for vehicles is a big deal. Spend $15 on this game this friday and you will be content with weapon unlocks for a long while. Probably till the next 3x sale.
Refuel and reposition will probably not need to be run at the same time. I imagine, as others have, the refuel capability may be difficult and will have to be designed into the satellite in the first place. For sats that need to be repositioned but cannot be refueled this robot could give them a boost, thereby saving it some much needed fuel for later maneuvers. (Say the robot was passing a sat without the capability to be refueled on its way to another customer, owner of the robot can offer owner of the sat a boost for some cost, then move on). I think the real use for this technology will be realized if we are ever able to park a icy asteroid in orbit, then fuel is already up there and just needs to be distributed. This is just preparing a tech for a later use.
We can, we just choose not to.
FWIW you left expenses out of your equations. It should be Revenue - Fine - Expenses = Profit. Granted the expenses are probably small for a simple app.
I'm torn. I agree issues like the one you cited are a reason to require oversight in order to protect both doctors and patients. But this is more than apps for tablets and phones, this is about regulating medical software. I may be wrong but I think medical equipment that is currently regulated is a boxed deal, hardware with embedded software, all tested as one item. If the hardware is not controlled anymore issues could arise with approving software for medical use, unless they say App X only approved to be used on an iPad... but I may be missing something, this is not my field.
The problem is understanding the spirit of a law that was written too long ago to ask the person what they were thinking. Lawmakers are not required to explain the spirit of the law when they write it, only the legal text itself. In particular, this has caused misunderstandings with the framers of our constitution on bill of rights. Just looking at the first and second amendments we start having issues with separation of church and state (not called out in the legal text but from outside material we know it weighed heavily on the minds of the authors) and a right to bear arms (legal text calls this out but spirit of the amendment is unclear if its for a state militia or self defense/prevention of government tyranny). The only thing that has saved us as a nation up to this point has been an independent and thoughtful Supreme Court (federal appeals courts as well). They have the ability to adjust laws based on the intention/spirit of it. Just make sure they stay as non-political as possible and we stand a chance.
I halfway agree with you since a lot of people on this site have never heard of it. However, generally the people that play DOTA just sound out the acronym, they almost never refer to it as Defense of the Ancients. So in effect the name of the game is just DOTA, what it stands for is meaningless. Similar to how people use the word radar not realizing that it originally meant RAdio Detection And Ranging. To each his own though, I never liked the game anyway.
Right now AT&T can say that people using 3GB are super users that use WAY more data than the normal person, but that number is going to go up in the future as people start watching more video on their phones (netflix, Sling, HBOGO, etc.). If they try and fight this same fight a few years from now they will have to set their limits much higher since that is going to be the 'norm' and not just the super user. By setting their limits to 3GB now, when people start using more data later they can start hitting them with the overages and say "hey, this is what you signed up for, not our fault". Its evil but still a logical strategy. Fighting this fight now they only have to deal with pissing off the super user, fighting later they piss off everyone.
You don't know what you're talking about. My daughter was allergic to breastmilk, a fairly minor reaction at first but caused her to gain weight slowly. After switching to formula she was able to sleep longer, gained more weight and became a much happier baby. It also made my wife and I more sane since we could get a little sleep and didn't have a screaming infant at all hours.
I don't think so. If this were just the big guy vs. the little guy absolutely, but it is the old big guy vs. the new big guy so you can bet your ass that google and friends will be watching this issue like a hawk and we all know google has money to burn when it comes to this issue.
Everybody is for sale. The size of the bribe has to do with how much they already agree with what you are asking for. In this case the dems are at the top of the list because it is taking more to convince them to betray the people that voted them in. The reps would probably go along with it anyway to "support small business" and only require a token donation.
You can't call it a tie because statistics determine the margin of error to be greater than the vote difference. It makes much more sense to say the winner cannot be determined. A tie means they had the same number of votes and that is extremely unlikely.
If they claim its a trade secret they must declare the chemical family of the secret portion of the fluid. I'm not saying this is perfect but it is a step in the right direction for declaring the chemicals used.
Wow, not a known universe fan I guess. It's good to know you don't consider him prizeworthy, plenty of others do though which is why Ringworld got both the Hugo and Nebula that year.
Please let us moderate the summaries. Bad summary of a bad article.
I was in Red Square on New Years Eve attending the festivities. There was no way the bomber could have made it in before midnight due to the massive police and military presence (to get in I went through 3 checkpoints where I lost my alcohol and bottled water). However, after midnight they dropped the security and a bomber could have made quite an impact at any of the several stages surrounding the downtown area that were still packed with people (the streets were closed off to cars so everyone was just walking around). This spam text was a lucky break for the Russians, things could have gone much worse.
The ONLY way to stop corporate control of something by a small group of companies with lobbying power is not to regulate it. End of story.
That's completely absurd. That's like saying the only way to prevent theft is to reduce the police force. However, the idea that if there is regulation there must be someone benefiting from it is absolutely true... we're called taxpayers.
The Internet views China as "controllable"
This seems to me to be a direct response to the Democratic party outspending the Republican party in the 2008 elections. Because of the larger number of people donating small amounts of money to the Obama campaign the Democrats were able to outraise and outspend the Republicans who depended on small numbers of wealthy people contributing the maximum. Nobody knows the intent of SCOTUS in deciding this, maybe it was oversight, maybe they didn't like the move to the left that would eventually leave Democratically nominated Justices in power, nobody knows but them. But the effect of this ruling is to allow the wealthy to skip past the restrictions they were under in 2008 and give them the fund raising advantage in 2010 and beyond.
Whislteblowers are a safety valve. They should be punished for what they do because it is breaking an oath either to a nation or employer. But if someone sees something so disturbing going on and they deem its worth sacrificing their career or life in order to make public they are helping keep our society from becoming too Orwellian. That this is starting to happen with more regularity is the disturbing part, perhaps the secrets we are keeping have hit some critical mass and the secret keepers can no longer even stomach it.