Nearly every local radio station here has their own morning show from 5/6am-10am. Probably the best advantage they have over national broadcast or satellite programming is that they talk about local issues, sports, etc. and they can talk about other local related items such as the Watson's Girl.
Don't worry, I've fallen victim to trolls as well; however I would like to point out that (from what I've been told) the US did have the option of showing the Japanese a test of an atomic bomb, but decided against it. It is debatable whether that would have affected the outcome or not.
It is hard to say exactly what may or may not have happened had we not dropped those bombs on Japan, and it is just as pointless to speculate about why those decisions were made. I highly doubt that Truman would have advocated the use of such a powerful weapon if there were a more peaceful alternative. (Indeed, if we really wanted to rub their faces in the mud, wouldn't we have dropped them on Tokyo?)
Article 1, Section 8, of the Constitution of the United States: "[The Congress shall have power] to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes."
Not close enough to the election to have too much effect on Mr. Bush. It might improve his poll rankings for a little while, but unless Osama Bin Laden is captured within a month of the election, I wouldn't worry too much.
Citizens of foreign countries are not protected by the United States Constitution. The people held at Guantanamo Bay have the right to a trial via the Geneva Conventions and NOT the Constitution (except those who are US Citizens, which are very few in numbers.)
I'm more interested in how people in Taiwan feel about independence or unification, they should be the people that are questions about such things, as it is their decision if they want to be independent or not.
Asking people in mainland China if they support keeping Taiwan would be like asking people in England if they thought it'd be a good idea to hang on to the American Colonies or India while they had the chance.
Like I mentioned somewhere else, it's the sort of the same approach we have to nuclear weapons. Are we ever going to use them again? Probably not unless we absolutely had to (and definitely not in agression.) But the whole point of nuclear weapons is to convince the other person that you just might crazy enough to pull the trigger.
In most cases that's enough to stop somebody from hurting you. Pull out a firearm, and convince them you're crazy enough to pull the trigger to defend yourself. Most of the time they'll back down.
You're assuming incorrectly that eliminating firearms will eliminate all of those murders that happen with them.
The United States is more violent in general. That fact has little to do with firearm laws, and more to do with our culture, drug laws, and many other things. If you took away our firearms, you would see murders without firearms rise with inverse proportionality to murders with firearms (which arguably, would not change much, since I imagine that firearms would remain as easy to obtain as most drugs are in the US.)
The point was that 60% is not 100%; and if guns magically disappeared, I would bet that 90% of that 60% would not go away.
The benefits of firearms (which are used regularly to prevent violent crime without ever having to fire a short) far outweight their deadliness.
Note, I haven't even mentioned the obvious that if we take away guns from citizens, those who break the law or seek to break the law will still obtain them. You only need to look at the drug war and/or prohibition to understand that.
Why should the government waste money protecting us from our stupid selves? Spend money on firearm education and other stuff, put it in public schools, etc. and you'd probably see those accident numbers go down considerably.
Pull your head out of your ethnocentric rearend for a moment and realize that they do not hate us for being successful. In fact, they are probably just as ethnocentric as you and think that they're the ones that have it so great. They are not envious of western civilization, nor do they want to be like us.
The same thing has been said about Native Americans, and any other peoples who have been isolated from the rest of the world for so long that we like to call them primitive. It's all a load of crap used to make you feel better about your culture and society, when in fact it isn't really better or worse, it's only DIFFERENT.
Most murders are not pre-meditated. While you might hear about the 50,000 that were killed by guns last year, you don't hear about the 290,000,000 that used a gun without firing it to defend themselves.
The serial killer thing was a joke; the point was that most serial killers use creative means, and that even if you take away guns there are many ways to get rid of someone who don't like.
Actually, drug laws are probably most to blame for murders involving firearms. Whereas if they were legal you could take Bob the drug addict to court for not paying you for the crack you gave him, right now your only option is to have someone take care of him. Then Bob the drug addict has some friends over and they all have guns too. You figure out the rest.
Slashdot Mirror
Nearly every local radio station here has their own morning show from 5/6am-10am. Probably the best advantage they have over national broadcast or satellite programming is that they talk about local issues, sports, etc. and they can talk about other local related items such as the Watson's Girl.
What is a cannable? Is that something that one can place in a can?
Perhaps you meant 'cannibal'.
Sounds like the same business plan many others are taking right now... when all else fails, sue the pants off everyone until you make some money.
Somebody wants SPAM or those who send it and use it wouldn't make any money. (But that's probably something like 0.01% of people)
A lot of open relays are running *nix. How will fixing problems in MS Exchange solve this?
So since The Return of the King has been released these jokes are now funny again?
Don't worry, I've fallen victim to trolls as well; however I would like to point out that (from what I've been told) the US did have the option of showing the Japanese a test of an atomic bomb, but decided against it. It is debatable whether that would have affected the outcome or not.
It is hard to say exactly what may or may not have happened had we not dropped those bombs on Japan, and it is just as pointless to speculate about why those decisions were made. I highly doubt that Truman would have advocated the use of such a powerful weapon if there were a more peaceful alternative. (Indeed, if we really wanted to rub their faces in the mud, wouldn't we have dropped them on Tokyo?)
Article 1, Section 8, of the Constitution of the United States: "[The Congress shall have power] to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes."
That ought to make it clear enough.
Not close enough to the election to have too much effect on Mr. Bush. It might improve his poll rankings for a little while, but unless Osama Bin Laden is captured within a month of the election, I wouldn't worry too much.
The case you cite applies to non citizens within the United States, these people were captured outside of our borders.
Citizens of foreign countries are not protected by the United States Constitution. The people held at Guantanamo Bay have the right to a trial via the Geneva Conventions and NOT the Constitution (except those who are US Citizens, which are very few in numbers.)
George Bush has stated that he does not support an independent Taiwan. That sort of voids numbers 2 and 3.
I'm more interested in how people in Taiwan feel about independence or unification, they should be the people that are questions about such things, as it is their decision if they want to be independent or not.
Asking people in mainland China if they support keeping Taiwan would be like asking people in England if they thought it'd be a good idea to hang on to the American Colonies or India while they had the chance.
Well hell, I could have sworn that said T1 when I read it; but it's still more like half a DS-3 than all of it.
Last I checked a T1 was 1.544 mbps up and down; this would be more like the equivalent of half of a T3.
Like I mentioned somewhere else, it's the sort of the same approach we have to nuclear weapons. Are we ever going to use them again? Probably not unless we absolutely had to (and definitely not in agression.) But the whole point of nuclear weapons is to convince the other person that you just might crazy enough to pull the trigger.
In most cases that's enough to stop somebody from hurting you. Pull out a firearm, and convince them you're crazy enough to pull the trigger to defend yourself. Most of the time they'll back down.
That's like expecting a bailiff in some district court to know what the Supreme Court's decision was today on McConnell v. FEC.
You're assuming incorrectly that eliminating firearms will eliminate all of those murders that happen with them.
The United States is more violent in general. That fact has little to do with firearm laws, and more to do with our culture, drug laws, and many other things. If you took away our firearms, you would see murders without firearms rise with inverse proportionality to murders with firearms (which arguably, would not change much, since I imagine that firearms would remain as easy to obtain as most drugs are in the US.)
The point was that 60% is not 100%; and if guns magically disappeared, I would bet that 90% of that 60% would not go away.
The benefits of firearms (which are used regularly to prevent violent crime without ever having to fire a short) far outweight their deadliness.
Note, I haven't even mentioned the obvious that if we take away guns from citizens, those who break the law or seek to break the law will still obtain them. You only need to look at the drug war and/or prohibition to understand that.
Why should the government waste money protecting us from our stupid selves? Spend money on firearm education and other stuff, put it in public schools, etc. and you'd probably see those accident numbers go down considerably.
Pull your head out of your ethnocentric rearend for a moment and realize that they do not hate us for being successful. In fact, they are probably just as ethnocentric as you and think that they're the ones that have it so great. They are not envious of western civilization, nor do they want to be like us.
The same thing has been said about Native Americans, and any other peoples who have been isolated from the rest of the world for so long that we like to call them primitive. It's all a load of crap used to make you feel better about your culture and society, when in fact it isn't really better or worse, it's only DIFFERENT.
Most murders are not pre-meditated. While you might hear about the 50,000 that were killed by guns last year, you don't hear about the 290,000,000 that used a gun without firing it to defend themselves.
The terrorists hate us for being successful. i.e. They disagree with our way of life.
FUD FUD FUD
They hate us for our horrible foreign policy regarding Israel.
The serial killer thing was a joke; the point was that most serial killers use creative means, and that even if you take away guns there are many ways to get rid of someone who don't like.
Actually, drug laws are probably most to blame for murders involving firearms. Whereas if they were legal you could take Bob the drug addict to court for not paying you for the crack you gave him, right now your only option is to have someone take care of him. Then Bob the drug addict has some friends over and they all have guns too. You figure out the rest.
So you never questioned the fact that your net pay was the same as your gross pay every week?