There's more to Christianity than faith-based belief in intangible entities, you know. For example, the whole "peace, love, and brotherhood" thing that the religion is based on.
What does that have to do with gasoline? The fire was not a result of a fuel leak, nor was the speed at which it spread; limousines are filled with lots of flammable stuff.
Something tells me the idea of a society with that much free time scares the holy living hell out of TPTB, which is probably why humanity will never achieve it.
Just think of how effectively we could protest idiotic and morally wrong government actions if we did have to spend the vast majority of our time laboring.
It's not magic, it's the rule of law: Per the Constitution, it is the supreme law of the land, and cannot be superseded by anything except a Constitutional Amendment. As no one has, to date, amended the Constitution to nullify the 4th Amendment, any "law" that violates the right of the People to be free from unlawful search and seizure is, in fact, not a legitimate law, no matter how many political appointees scream that it is.
A law usually has consequences for violating it. Take breaking DRM for example. The penalties can be upto $1M in fines and 10 years of imprisonment. That's pretty stiff. Makes me think that the US government thinks that breaking this law is a serious matter. Now please tell me, this "supreme law of the land" that you speak of, what are the prescribed penalties for breaking it?
Your personal definition of law is of no consequence in this matter. Specifically, you are conflating the concept of law (system of rules that a particular country or community recognizes as regulating the actions of its members) with the particulars of a certain law (an individual rule as part of a system of law which may be enforced by the imposition of penalties).
If the government made a law that said it was required for every goyim to kill at least 1 Jew, and the SCOTUS supported it, would you say the murders are legitimate, legal acts?
Legal, yes - by definition. Legitimate, not so much.
So please remember: * something legal can still be illegitimate * something illegal can still be legitimate * something legitimate can, unfortunately, be -- and often is -- illegal.
At least you know the difference between legal and legitimate, however, remember that while the Holocaust was legal in Germany at the time, the actions taken against Jewish citizens was and is a violation of international law. Muddy waters, but the delineation between right and wrong are a lot more clear than that between legal and illegal.
Aside, the government would never pass such a law, mostly because it is grammatically incorrect ("goyim" is plural).
Don't be an intentionally obtuse ass - it adds nothing to the discussion.
...for enshrining the "right" to bear arms in your constitution. "Gun control? Fuck no, we have the right to wear guns and shoot things, goddammit! Zomglol bless Murrica!"
Nothing to see here, folks, move on. It's most likely some gun-nut teapublican protesting being "disrespected" at not being able to get his way and using a gun to get attention. Frankly, I'm surprised it hasn't happened before.
Um, pardon me, but I believe you've stumbled into the wrong discussion; Idiotic Nonsense Based on Personal Beliefs and Speculation is room 12A, down the corridor.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
As you see, there are multiple criteria that must be met before a warrant is considered legal per the Amendment: There must be probable cause, the probable cause must be supported "by Oath or affirmation," and the request must describe a particular place to search, and a particular person or thing to be seized.
Feel free to post the evidence that supports the claim that all these criteria have been met.
Two can play the FUD game. The public might not consider that gasoline cars burn even worse when the gas tank is punctured by road "metal objects".
Poorly thought out hyperbole, or are you really that dense?
Gasoline doesn't burst into flames the second it touches air, you know. The vast majority of tank punctures in gasoline/diesel vehicles end with an empty tank and a stinky mess on the road.
Let me guess the response: "Hurk-a-durk, but it was punctured by a metal object! That means sparks, sparks mean fire!"
To which I respond, liquid gasoline doesn't burn.
So Tesla should tell them directly. "Yes, one of our cars burned this year - and nobody was hurt. And in the same year, x thousand gasoline cars burned, with z number of fatalities . .."
Dishonest comparison; to be accurate, you would need to consider the amount of gasoline cars vs the amount of electrics on the road, and come up with a percentage of each. Sure, more gas cars will catch fire than electrics this year, but that may be only by virtue of the fact that there's a few hundred million more of them.
It's not magic, it's the rule of law: Per the Constitution, it is the supreme law of the land, and cannot be superseded by anything except a Constitutional Amendment. As no one has, to date, amended the Constitution to nullify the 4th Amendment, any "law" that violates the right of the People to be free from unlawful search and seizure is, in fact, not a legitimate law, no matter how many political appointees scream that it is.
If the government made a law that said it was required for every goyim to kill at least 1 Jew, and the SCOTUS supported it, would you say the murders are legitimate, legal acts?
Well, OK, maybe not you, specifically, but a person of reasonable faculties who has not already proven themselves to be an ardent licker of federal boot.
Slashdot Mirror
There's more to Christianity than faith-based belief in intangible entities, you know. For example, the whole "peace, love, and brotherhood" thing that the religion is based on.
I'll bet these people are really interested in that very fine point:
http://www.krem.com/news/Bride-friends-killed-in-bachelorette-party-car-fire-206271341.html
What does that have to do with gasoline? The fire was not a result of a fuel leak, nor was the speed at which it spread; limousines are filled with lots of flammable stuff.
At least then they'd be consistent.
When your choices are pull this app or you can't sell your phone in the one of the worlds biggest country's it's a pretty easy choice to make.
... when profits are the only thing you care about.
But imagine if we developed AI as intelligent or more intelligent than humans
It would probably decide to exterminate humanity for the good of the universe... having trouble finding a problem with that...
Something tells me the idea of a society with that much free time scares the holy living hell out of TPTB, which is probably why humanity will never achieve it.
Just think of how effectively we could protest idiotic and morally wrong government actions if we did have to spend the vast majority of our time laboring.
An illegal alien who is a gourmet chef will be able to demand more than the minimum wage.
Lol, naivete is funny.
"Yo, ese, I'm a gourmet chef, you need to pay me more!"
"Yea? OK, lemme make a quick phone call first... Hello, INS?"
Also please provide a source not during a FUCKING RECESSION. Thanks.
You know, those goalposts are going to be awfully hard to hit if you keep moving them.
Inside the engine it likes 14.7:1.
14.7:1 is the ideal (stoichiometric) ratio, but the actual mixture varies.
In high-performance applications, you'll see a lot more AFRs between 12 and 13.5 during normal, open-loop operation.
Er I think you meant to say liquid gasoline doesn't EXPLODE, because it burns quite readily.
No; gasoline in liquid form does not burn. Pour a fair amount into a coffee can, then throw a lit cigarette in. Or, spend 5 seconds on Wikipedia:
Liquid gasoline itself is not actually burned, but its fumes ignite, causing the remaining liquid to evaporate and then burn.
Dishonest comparison
LOL. He was talking about advertising.
Ah! So, par for the course, then.
It's not magic, it's the rule of law: Per the Constitution, it is the supreme law of the land, and cannot be superseded by anything except a Constitutional Amendment. As no one has, to date, amended the Constitution to nullify the 4th Amendment, any "law" that violates the right of the People to be free from unlawful search and seizure is, in fact, not a legitimate law, no matter how many political appointees scream that it is.
A law usually has consequences for violating it.
Take breaking DRM for example. The penalties can be upto $1M in fines and 10 years of imprisonment.
That's pretty stiff. Makes me think that the US government thinks that breaking this law is a serious matter.
Now please tell me, this "supreme law of the land" that you speak of, what are the prescribed penalties for breaking it?
Your personal definition of law is of no consequence in this matter. Specifically, you are conflating the concept of law (system of rules that a particular country or community recognizes as regulating the actions of its members) with the particulars of a certain law (an individual rule as part of a system of law which may be enforced by the imposition of penalties).
If the government made a law that said it was required for every goyim to kill at least 1 Jew, and the SCOTUS supported it, would you say the murders are legitimate, legal acts?
Legal, yes - by definition. Legitimate, not so much.
So please remember:
* something legal can still be illegitimate
* something illegal can still be legitimate
* something legitimate can, unfortunately, be -- and often is -- illegal.
At least you know the difference between legal and legitimate, however, remember that while the Holocaust was legal in Germany at the time, the actions taken against Jewish citizens was and is a violation of international law. Muddy waters, but the delineation between right and wrong are a lot more clear than that between legal and illegal.
Aside, the government would never pass such a law, mostly because it is grammatically incorrect ("goyim" is plural).
Don't be an intentionally obtuse ass - it adds nothing to the discussion.
Isn't it self-explanatory?
...for enshrining the "right" to bear arms in your constitution. "Gun control? Fuck no, we have the right to wear guns and shoot things, goddammit! Zomglol bless Murrica!"
Nothing to see here, folks, move on. It's most likely some gun-nut teapublican protesting being "disrespected" at not being able to get his way and using a gun to get attention. Frankly, I'm surprised it hasn't happened before.
Um, pardon me, but I believe you've stumbled into the wrong discussion; Idiotic Nonsense Based on Personal Beliefs and Speculation is room 12A, down the corridor.
analogy
Pretty sure that doesn't mean what you think it means.
Webster's defines terrorism as, "Using fear and the threat of violence to coerce people into certain behaviors."
Going by the actual definition, there is no terrorist organization larger or more powerful than the U.S. Federal government.
Giimme 15 minutes.
20 tops.
Sincerely,
Piers Morgan
Never underestimate the stupidity of rednecks. - FTFY
That's not a fix - not being a redneck does not necessarily preclude a person from being an idiot. NYC alone provides a few million examples of this.
The Fourth Amendment:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
As you see, there are multiple criteria that must be met before a warrant is considered legal per the Amendment: There must be probable cause, the probable cause must be supported "by Oath or affirmation," and the request must describe a particular place to search, and a particular person or thing to be seized.
Feel free to post the evidence that supports the claim that all these criteria have been met.
If there are only, say, 50-100 of these things on the road, that's a serious percentage bursting into flames.
If there's at least a few thousand out there, then it's not a notable percentage, and I don't care.
Two can play the FUD game. The public might not consider that gasoline cars burn even worse when the gas tank is punctured by road "metal objects".
Poorly thought out hyperbole, or are you really that dense?
Gasoline doesn't burst into flames the second it touches air, you know. The vast majority of tank punctures in gasoline/diesel vehicles end with an empty tank and a stinky mess on the road.
Let me guess the response: "Hurk-a-durk, but it was punctured by a metal object! That means sparks, sparks mean fire!"
To which I respond, liquid gasoline doesn't burn.
So Tesla should tell them directly. "Yes, one of our cars burned this year - and nobody was hurt. And in the same year, x thousand gasoline cars burned, with z number of fatalities . . ."
Dishonest comparison; to be accurate, you would need to consider the amount of gasoline cars vs the amount of electrics on the road, and come up with a percentage of each. Sure, more gas cars will catch fire than electrics this year, but that may be only by virtue of the fact that there's a few hundred million more of them.
"unlawful" =, in this case, anything in violation of the 4th Amendment.
Not to say I don't completely agree with you; much the opposite.
But it's not legal, because of Constitutional reasons I stated in the post you replied to, but apparently did not read and/or understand.
P.S. it's spelled "seizure"
I bet career criminals love this new-ish trend of people voluntarily letting the world know when they are away from their homes and valuables.
Jim's Facebook Timeline -
8/17: Jim bought the newest 80" 3D flatscreen, here's a picture of it in the living room! WOW what a big picture!
9/23: Jim just got a new gold iPhone 5s! FTW!!!
9/28: Jim posted 264 photos taken with his Canon DSLR
10/1: Jim checked in at Bed, Bath, and Beyond to use their wifi! Hello World!
10/1: Jim just found out that while he was at BB&B this morning, somebody cleaned him out! Sad panda :(
It's not magic, it's the rule of law: Per the Constitution, it is the supreme law of the land, and cannot be superseded by anything except a Constitutional Amendment. As no one has, to date, amended the Constitution to nullify the 4th Amendment, any "law" that violates the right of the People to be free from unlawful search and seizure is, in fact, not a legitimate law, no matter how many political appointees scream that it is.
If the government made a law that said it was required for every goyim to kill at least 1 Jew, and the SCOTUS supported it, would you say the murders are legitimate, legal acts?
Well, OK, maybe not you, specifically, but a person of reasonable faculties who has not already proven themselves to be an ardent licker of federal boot.