I'll jump in on this easy answer... First though--how stupid are you to make the guns versus gas argument?
Not stupid enough to open my comment with an ad hominem attack, thus essentially telling the world I have no intention of making a well reasoned, rational argument, like what you did here.
Gas is so effective at killing people it is what every army in the world equips their soldiers with...
Non sequitur - we're not talking about soldiers and armies, we're talking about regular, every day psychopaths.
So when that building gets light--the people die at the speed of a bullet? I suspect folks in the building would have more than enough time to find an exit. Of course--if there is someone there with a gun at the entrance--pretty easy to start killing with a twitch of the finger.
Say we have a building with 2 exits, 100 people inside, all leaving simultaneously.
Scenario A: Sniper w/ 30 round magazines sets up outside one of the exits, starts shooting people as soon as they begin to file out. Since he can only cover one exit, that immediately drops his max kill count to 50.
A well-aimed shot from a conventional semi-automatic rifle takes no less than 3 seconds, and that's in the hands of a military expert-grade marskman. Normal assholes, you're looking at 5-8 seconds per shot.
So, the first shot rings out, person in front of the line is killed; there's 1.
Of course, the second victim one goes down, the people behind him are going to being to panic and scatter, making that 50 damn near impossible to achieve. So, our sniper now has to pick and choose his targets, which will no less than double his per-shot time; we'll be generous and say it only bumps to 10 seconds per shot. He takes aim, and pops victim #2.
Meanwhile, as soon as the first shot was fired, someone ran back in the building and called the cops; average police response time is 6-8 minutes.
Back to the shooter; he continues to pick off targets, having to take even more time per shot as now people are triangulating his position and getting behind cover - bump it up to 20 seconds per shot.
Since the police will be on site in no more than 8 minutes, let's figure out how many more victims this prick can claim before the po-po shut him down:
8 minutes divides into 24 20-second increments. Assuming that the shooter never misses (and thus, with the 30 round mag, doesn't have to reload), that would bring the total body count to somewhere in the 25-30 range before our sniper is offed by the cops (or himself), and that's a rather generous figure (most people miss shots, lose targets and have to re-scope, etc., but we'll ignore those variable for the sake of the example).
Scenario B: Psychopath divides his gallon of fuel into 2 half gallon containers, both rigged with remote detonators (read: throwaway phones). He places one can at each exit, and retreats to a safe distance.
As people begin to file toward the exits, Psychopath hits the trigger on his remote detonators; instantly, both exits burst into flames which quickly begin to spread, trapping all 100 people inside.
Total body count: 100, and since the bombs were remotely detonated, the psychopath escapes to kill another day.
And if hypotheticals aren't enough to convince you (which I would hope they aren't), you are more than welcome to research the worst mass killings in US history, and find out for yourself whether or not guns were a factor.
Like in California, where a criminal can walk into your house and rape your daughter, but if you shoot him he can sue your ass into oblivion.
Can you provide some more information on this
Nothing empirical, sorry - I'm going off anecdotes passed to me from friends who moved to the Midwest to escape the Californian drudgery, and of course the well-known disdain that state has for its gun-owning citizens.
As for the anecdotal, the rapist story comes from the brother of a co-worker - essentially, he gets awakened one night by his teenage daughter screaming. Enters the room to see a burly, half-naked Hispanic man attempting to pin his daughter to the bed, so he does what any rational father would - shoots the son-of-a-bitch dead.
Two weeks later he's sitting in a jail cell, awaiting trial for a bevy of charges, key among them being aggravated assault with a deadly weapon - apparently the prosecutor was under the impression that, since the Hispanic man was still wearing boxer shorts, his intent was not to rape the daughter, so the shooting was unjustified.
"Most generalizations are false, including this one." -- Samuel Clemens
Anytime someone claims that group X is better than group Y at task Z, I usually call bullshit, and when the metric by which the standard is measured is a purely subjective and arbitrary one, doubly so.
People who generalize tend to do so because it absolves them of the need to apply critical thinking skills.
Current styluses are passive (like your finger) and therefore require a fat tip to register on the display. Apple's active (generates electric field) stylus is an improvement so the tip can be much narrower than passive styluses making it more accurate for things like sketching on a touchscreen.
Looks like Apple's about a year too late to the game... that is, assuming this is not one of those times when "innovation" == "buying out a small company in order to claim their invention as our own."
Of course, no American corporation would ever do such a thing, right?
Any improvement of existing technology can be patented, so this patent is valid and Apple can sue Samsung if they copycat this stylus.
Where the fuck does that come from? What, are you one of those fanboi's who just can't resist an opportunity to bash Samsung?
If not, apologies for the misunderstanding (although I still don't get why you would even mention it); if so... take your corporate loyalty somewhere else, I don't care much for such nonsense.
If you're gut reaction to criticism, constructive or otherwise, is to behave like a 12 year old, you are a shitty programmer.
While that's likely true, it does not change the fact that the shitty programmer in this situation is in a position to make the other guy's life a living hell, were he so inclined.
Sometimes you just gotta roll with the punches while searching for an exit.
It worked for Zuckerberg. Remember that scene in The Social Network where he has a "who's hotter" site?
No; I don't watch many movies, partially as a standing boycott of the **AA, partially because IMO there hasn't been very much put out lately that's worth watching.
He needs the formula for the algorithm that turns those decisions into an ordered ranking. (That's how chess rankings are computed. It means more to beat a high-rated opponent than a low-rated one.)
OK, so that indicates that the algorithm may be useful for "hot or not" websites and chess rankings. It does not, however, indicate that said algorithm would be useful for any purpose other than vanity polls; I find the fact that, according to the writer, no one but HotOrNot has used his method in 4 years pretty damning evidence in regards to its usefulness.
But what this article proposes is more like a human-powered spam filter. Or like ReCaptcha, which. underneath, is a random-sample voting system used to assist OCR systems that are processing scanned books. (It was a good idea originally, but now OCR is so good that when something gets kicked out for human processing, it probably isn't a valid word.)
Ignoring, for a moment, that the WtP website is pure farce, the mere idea of requiring peer review in order to express a Constitutionally guaranteed right is, well, stupid and counterproductive, regardless of how sound the method is.
If a right has the stipulation of peer review (or, as the writer suggested, fiscal cost) before it is allowed to expressed, it is no longer a right.
No, it's not - a gun can only kill the individual it's pointed at, one at a time. Conversely, a can of gas can be used to burn entire buildings down, killing everyone inside simultaniously.
So no, that's a statement of fact, not a generalization.
No, it's an incorrect generalization.
You can kill more people with one gun than a gallon of gasoline.
I'll let you figure out how. I'm sure you already know.
Yea, sorry, not a physics expert, so perhaps you can explain to me how shooting individual people one-by-one is somehow, magically a faster method of dispatch than killing them all simultaneously.
Let me guess: "Dur, machine guns!"
Machine guns are not readily available to the general population, and thus are non sequitur to this discussion.
So please, elucidate on the concept of how a semi-automatic rifle that cannot be legally obtained without a background check is a more effective means of dealing death than a gallon of incendiary any jackass can buy on almost every street corner.
As I've been saying ever since my first story [in 2008] advocating this algorithm, the only site I'm aware of that currently implements random-sample voting correctly, is HotOrNot
It's understandable why you may have failed to consider this notion, but perhaps the reason that, in 4 years, the only group to take you seriously has been an idiotic vanity website is because it's a stupid fucking idea.
Cops are trained professionals who receive regular firearms practice and are specifically trained in the art of diffusing heated situations.
"Trained professionals"... with an abysmal accuracy rate. My 8 year old nephew is a better shot (OK, that's not fair, he's naturally a better shot than most people I know, but you get the idea).
Calling the cops on someone who is threatening to hurt you is not a threat of violence, nor is it a threat of intimidation. Calling the cops is an action of protecting myself, not attacking my attacker.
We'll ignore, for a moment, the fact that when seconds count, average police response time is 6-10 minutes.
OP stated, "you are calling the cops who will bring guns to protect you. Violence by proxy is still violence." Nothing you've said refutes that.
All you have to do is get the pilot before he gets to it. Or when he lands, which will happen eventually. If you don't do it then someone else will. Same concept applies to the rest of the military - at the end of the day its all operated by people, regardless of the equipment.
I love it when the gun nuts start advocating killing American servicemen.
So... you have a problem with that, but not with the anti-gun nut implying the opposite?
I thought guns were meant to deter would be criminals.
Guns no more deter/encourage criminals than hammers deter/encourage ants.
Conceal carry laws deter criminals, because it changes the game from "these people are definitely unarmed, making them easy targets" to "these people may be packing some serious heat that I can't see, so every person I try to rob may just blow my ass away." THAT is a helluva deterrent to all but the most depraved.
Since the list published was a list of concealed carry permit holders, that's a bit less onerous than a list of gun owners, as the permit holder will likely have the weapon on their person most of the time (although it's likely that they have more than one gun, so publishing the list is irresponsible to the effect that criminals can use it as a 'shopping list' for homes to break into).
Same thing as the "Right to bear arms" --- you think with your pissy little semi-automatic assault rifles you can fight the army?
No; I think my pissy little semi-automatic, combined with the pissy little semi-automatics of my thousand friends, will assist us in securing a military armory, if the need ever arises.
Suicide tends to be an impulsive action. Reduce the methods available (firearms, suicide barriers on bridges, etc.) and the suicide rate falls.
Logically speaking, the best course of action, then, would be to find out what causes people to want to commit suicide and fix it, rather than ban this or that.
So you would apply that to your land? It is registered in the form of a deed. How about your car?
Apples and oranges - There is no Constitutionally guaranteed right to own land or cars. There is a Constitutionally guaranteed right to own and carry guns.
[a car] is registered as well as has a license and in most, if not all states an insurance requirement.
Right, registered and licensed... by the states. I shouldn't have to explain to a fellow American the difference between state government and federal government, assuming said American actually passed 9th grade Civics.
Personally, I believe we need to treat guns the same as we treat automobiles.
You can believe a banana is a yacht for all I care - your opinion doesn't change Constitution law.
Require that the owner is trained and licensed to use them.
And the government does such a fantastic job of ensuring every motorist is fully qualified to take the wheel of a 2-ton death machine, right? That's why we have so few traffic deaths, right?
See what I did there? Yea ya do.
Make sure they are insured for when they are used on a person that that person or their survivors can get something more than they currently are getting (nothing).
Like in California, where a criminal can walk into your house and rape your daughter, but if you shoot him he can sue your ass into oblivion. Great concept.
FYI, there is a bevy of civil case law in which a person was wrongfully killed (i.e., not in the process of breaking the law), and their estate made out like bandits. The OJ Simpson civil suits are a prime example of that. Therefore, the idea of "gun insurance" is not only asinine, it's redundant.
Identify each guns ballistic characteristics at the time of manufacture and tie it to the last registered owner for easier identification of the responsible party.
Oh, cute, an ad hominem attack. I take it, then, that you fail to realize attacking the messenger instead of the message implies that your own argument holds no water.
No, it's not - a gun can only kill the individual it's pointed at, one at a time. Conversely, a can of gas can be used to burn entire buildings down, killing everyone inside simultaniously.
So no, that's a statement of fact, not a generalization.
You might be, but all the trapping being done is by your own mind, not any kind of scientific basis.
Talk is cheap. Show me your spaceship.
Replace "spaceship" with "aeroplane" and you'd fit right in with Orville and Wilbur's dissenters.
"Talk is cheap. Show me your time machine."
Replace "time machine" with "aeroplane" and you'd fit right in with Orville and Wilbur's dissenters.
You see the logical problem?
That a subset of society will always believe that what is impossible today will always be impossible, in spite of human advancement, as though they somehow know the future?
Shouldn’t Dick Heads like you be hanging out on at the Huffington Post?
Awww, an ad hominem attack, how quaint! Lemme guess, next you'll make some brainless accusation about me being a commie or socialist or some other term you bandy about but don't actually know the definition of, right?
Seriously, though - you're the one making broad, baseless generalizations, showing a complete lack of knowledge of international law, and who, apparently, doesn't know what the difference between a country and a continent is. If anyone is a dickhead in this particular situation, I got news - it ain't me.
But hey, don't let being completely wrong keep you from being a butthurt douche about it. I mean, c'mon, what's the alternative - admit to your folly and actually grow as a human being?
We just put the legal original on glass and sent out copies.
Worked fine, and this was pretty big financial stuff. 50+million dollar deals... and it was 1998. Reduced staffing needs by about 400 people nation wide.
For some reason, when I read this, the first thing that pops to mind is, "They took our jeebs!"
Huh, we do nothing but finance and law here (we're a REIT) and in the six years I've worked here I've NEVER seen anything involving carbon paper... On the other hand our finance people
I infer from this that you've never asked the finance people why they use so much paper?
Assuming that's the case, by what merit would you consider yourself an authority on the matter? One company I work for sells nothing but parts for "big rig" trucks, but that in no way indicates that I would be an expert in diesel parts just by virtue of working for a company that sells them.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh and wanted to toss out there--you don't need a background check to buy an assault rifle.
Yes you do, and if it was manufactured after 1986[?], civilians cannot purchase them at all.
FYI, you keep using that term (assault rifle); I do not think it means what you think it means.
I'll jump in on this easy answer... First though--how stupid are you to make the guns versus gas argument?
Not stupid enough to open my comment with an ad hominem attack, thus essentially telling the world I have no intention of making a well reasoned, rational argument, like what you did here.
Gas is so effective at killing people it is what every army in the world equips their soldiers with...
Non sequitur - we're not talking about soldiers and armies, we're talking about regular, every day psychopaths.
So when that building gets light--the people die at the speed of a bullet? I suspect folks in the building would have more than enough time to find an exit. Of course--if there is someone there with a gun at the entrance--pretty easy to start killing with a twitch of the finger.
Say we have a building with 2 exits, 100 people inside, all leaving simultaneously.
Scenario A: Sniper w/ 30 round magazines sets up outside one of the exits, starts shooting people as soon as they begin to file out. Since he can only cover one exit, that immediately drops his max kill count to 50.
A well-aimed shot from a conventional semi-automatic rifle takes no less than 3 seconds, and that's in the hands of a military expert-grade marskman. Normal assholes, you're looking at 5-8 seconds per shot.
So, the first shot rings out, person in front of the line is killed; there's 1.
Of course, the second victim one goes down, the people behind him are going to being to panic and scatter, making that 50 damn near impossible to achieve. So, our sniper now has to pick and choose his targets, which will no less than double his per-shot time; we'll be generous and say it only bumps to 10 seconds per shot. He takes aim, and pops victim #2.
Meanwhile, as soon as the first shot was fired, someone ran back in the building and called the cops; average police response time is 6-8 minutes.
Back to the shooter; he continues to pick off targets, having to take even more time per shot as now people are triangulating his position and getting behind cover - bump it up to 20 seconds per shot.
Since the police will be on site in no more than 8 minutes, let's figure out how many more victims this prick can claim before the po-po shut him down:
8 minutes divides into 24 20-second increments. Assuming that the shooter never misses (and thus, with the 30 round mag, doesn't have to reload), that would bring the total body count to somewhere in the 25-30 range before our sniper is offed by the cops (or himself), and that's a rather generous figure (most people miss shots, lose targets and have to re-scope, etc., but we'll ignore those variable for the sake of the example).
Scenario B: Psychopath divides his gallon of fuel into 2 half gallon containers, both rigged with remote detonators (read: throwaway phones). He places one can at each exit, and retreats to a safe distance.
As people begin to file toward the exits, Psychopath hits the trigger on his remote detonators; instantly, both exits burst into flames which quickly begin to spread, trapping all 100 people inside.
Total body count: 100, and since the bombs were remotely detonated, the psychopath escapes to kill another day.
And if hypotheticals aren't enough to convince you (which I would hope they aren't), you are more than welcome to research the worst mass killings in US history, and find out for yourself whether or not guns were a factor.
Here's two examples to get you started.
Like in California, where a criminal can walk into your house and rape your daughter, but if you shoot him he can sue your ass into oblivion.
Can you provide some more information on this
Nothing empirical, sorry - I'm going off anecdotes passed to me from friends who moved to the Midwest to escape the Californian drudgery, and of course the well-known disdain that state has for its gun-owning citizens.
As for the anecdotal, the rapist story comes from the brother of a co-worker - essentially, he gets awakened one night by his teenage daughter screaming. Enters the room to see a burly, half-naked Hispanic man attempting to pin his daughter to the bed, so he does what any rational father would - shoots the son-of-a-bitch dead.
Two weeks later he's sitting in a jail cell, awaiting trial for a bevy of charges, key among them being aggravated assault with a deadly weapon - apparently the prosecutor was under the impression that, since the Hispanic man was still wearing boxer shorts, his intent was not to rape the daughter, so the shooting was unjustified.
"Most generalizations are false, including this one." -- Samuel Clemens
Anytime someone claims that group X is better than group Y at task Z, I usually call bullshit, and when the metric by which the standard is measured is a purely subjective and arbitrary one, doubly so.
People who generalize tend to do so because it absolves them of the need to apply critical thinking skills.
OH fuck was ok, it didn't kill as many as "Hold my beer and watch this!"
Fixed for we Midwestern folk.
Current styluses are passive (like your finger) and therefore require a fat tip to register on the display. Apple's active (generates electric field) stylus is an improvement so the tip can be much narrower than passive styluses making it more accurate for things like sketching on a touchscreen.
Sooo.... something like this?
Looks like Apple's about a year too late to the game... that is, assuming this is not one of those times when "innovation" == "buying out a small company in order to claim their invention as our own."
Of course, no American corporation would ever do such a thing, right?
Any improvement of existing technology can be patented, so this patent is valid and Apple can sue Samsung if they copycat this stylus.
Where the fuck does that come from? What, are you one of those fanboi's who just can't resist an opportunity to bash Samsung?
If not, apologies for the misunderstanding (although I still don't get why you would even mention it); if so... take your corporate loyalty somewhere else, I don't care much for such nonsense.
How many of the world's billionaires graduated from one of the aforementioned universities?
When did /. become Dr. Phil for nerds?
Hey, it beats the "Teach me how to hack my ex's Facebook" type questions...
And that shows that you're a shitty programmer.
If you're gut reaction to criticism, constructive or otherwise, is to behave like a 12 year old, you are a shitty programmer.
While that's likely true, it does not change the fact that the shitty programmer in this situation is in a position to make the other guy's life a living hell, were he so inclined.
Sometimes you just gotta roll with the punches while searching for an exit.
It worked for Zuckerberg. Remember that scene in The Social Network where he has a "who's hotter" site?
No; I don't watch many movies, partially as a standing boycott of the **AA, partially because IMO there hasn't been very much put out lately that's worth watching.
He needs the formula for the algorithm that turns those decisions into an ordered ranking. (That's how chess rankings are computed. It means more to beat a high-rated opponent than a low-rated one.)
OK, so that indicates that the algorithm may be useful for "hot or not" websites and chess rankings. It does not, however, indicate that said algorithm would be useful for any purpose other than vanity polls; I find the fact that, according to the writer, no one but HotOrNot has used his method in 4 years pretty damning evidence in regards to its usefulness.
But what this article proposes is more like a human-powered spam filter. Or like ReCaptcha, which. underneath, is a random-sample voting system used to assist OCR systems that are processing scanned books. (It was a good idea originally, but now OCR is so good that when something gets kicked out for human processing, it probably isn't a valid word.)
Ignoring, for a moment, that the WtP website is pure farce, the mere idea of requiring peer review in order to express a Constitutionally guaranteed right is, well, stupid and counterproductive, regardless of how sound the method is.
If a right has the stipulation of peer review (or, as the writer suggested, fiscal cost) before it is allowed to expressed, it is no longer a right.
The death star petition is the absolute most serious petition of them all!
Right! What was it that Bush said? Something like,
"We must take this fight to Alderaan, before they bring the fight to us!"
Damn bun-heads, always jealous of our Earthican awesomeness....
No, it's not - a gun can only kill the individual it's pointed at, one at a time. Conversely, a can of gas can be used to burn entire buildings down, killing everyone inside simultaniously.
So no, that's a statement of fact, not a generalization.
No, it's an incorrect generalization.
You can kill more people with one gun than a gallon of gasoline.
I'll let you figure out how. I'm sure you already know.
Yea, sorry, not a physics expert, so perhaps you can explain to me how shooting individual people one-by-one is somehow, magically a faster method of dispatch than killing them all simultaneously.
Let me guess: "Dur, machine guns!"
Machine guns are not readily available to the general population, and thus are non sequitur to this discussion.
So please, elucidate on the concept of how a semi-automatic rifle that cannot be legally obtained without a background check is a more effective means of dealing death than a gallon of incendiary any jackass can buy on almost every street corner.
As I've been saying ever since my first story [in 2008] advocating this algorithm, the only site I'm aware of that currently implements random-sample voting correctly, is HotOrNot
It's understandable why you may have failed to consider this notion, but perhaps the reason that, in 4 years, the only group to take you seriously has been an idiotic vanity website is because it's a stupid fucking idea.
Cops are trained professionals who receive regular firearms practice and are specifically trained in the art of diffusing heated situations.
"Trained professionals"... with an abysmal accuracy rate. My 8 year old nephew is a better shot (OK, that's not fair, he's naturally a better shot than most people I know, but you get the idea).
Calling the cops on someone who is threatening to hurt you is not a threat of violence, nor is it a threat of intimidation. Calling the cops is an action of protecting myself, not attacking my attacker.
We'll ignore, for a moment, the fact that when seconds count, average police response time is 6-10 minutes.
OP stated, "you are calling the cops who will bring guns to protect you. Violence by proxy is still violence." Nothing you've said refutes that.
All you have to do is get the pilot before he gets to it. Or when he lands, which will happen eventually. If you don't do it then someone else will. Same concept applies to the rest of the military - at the end of the day its all operated by people, regardless of the equipment.
I love it when the gun nuts start advocating killing American servicemen.
So... you have a problem with that, but not with the anti-gun nut implying the opposite?
Fucking imbecile...
I thought guns were meant to deter would be criminals.
Guns no more deter/encourage criminals than hammers deter/encourage ants.
Conceal carry laws deter criminals, because it changes the game from "these people are definitely unarmed, making them easy targets" to "these people may be packing some serious heat that I can't see, so every person I try to rob may just blow my ass away." THAT is a helluva deterrent to all but the most depraved.
Since the list published was a list of concealed carry permit holders, that's a bit less onerous than a list of gun owners, as the permit holder will likely have the weapon on their person most of the time (although it's likely that they have more than one gun, so publishing the list is irresponsible to the effect that criminals can use it as a 'shopping list' for homes to break into).
Same thing as the "Right to bear arms" --- you think with your pissy little semi-automatic assault rifles you can fight the army?
No; I think my pissy little semi-automatic, combined with the pissy little semi-automatics of my thousand friends, will assist us in securing a military armory, if the need ever arises.
Hey, it worked for the French.
Suicide tends to be an impulsive action. Reduce the methods available (firearms, suicide barriers on bridges, etc.) and the suicide rate falls.
Logically speaking, the best course of action, then, would be to find out what causes people to want to commit suicide and fix it, rather than ban this or that.
So you would apply that to your land? It is registered in the form of a deed. How about your car?
Apples and oranges - There is no Constitutionally guaranteed right to own land or cars. There is a Constitutionally guaranteed right to own and carry guns.
[a car] is registered as well as has a license and in most, if not all states an insurance requirement.
Right, registered and licensed... by the states. I shouldn't have to explain to a fellow American the difference between state government and federal government, assuming said American actually passed 9th grade Civics.
Personally, I believe we need to treat guns the same as we treat automobiles.
You can believe a banana is a yacht for all I care - your opinion doesn't change Constitution law.
Require that the owner is trained and licensed to use them.
And the government does such a fantastic job of ensuring every motorist is fully qualified to take the wheel of a 2-ton death machine, right? That's why we have so few traffic deaths, right?
See what I did there? Yea ya do.
Make sure they are insured for when they are used on a person that that person or their survivors can get something more than they currently are getting (nothing).
Like in California, where a criminal can walk into your house and rape your daughter, but if you shoot him he can sue your ass into oblivion. Great concept.
FYI, there is a bevy of civil case law in which a person was wrongfully killed (i.e., not in the process of breaking the law), and their estate made out like bandits. The OJ Simpson civil suits are a prime example of that. Therefore, the idea of "gun insurance" is not only asinine, it's redundant.
Identify each guns ballistic characteristics at the time of manufacture and tie it to the last registered owner for easier identification of the responsible party.
Protip: Stop getting your 'facts' from cable dramas - the vast majority of 'forensic science' is fraud and not based on anything scientific, save DNA evidence (and they tend to fuck that up from time to time, somehow).
In short, take it from a right to a responsibility with real world consequences when that responsibility is violated.
Taking it from a right to, well, anything else, would require a Constitutional Amendment. Good luck getting 2/3 of the states to sign on for that one.
The government has the right to do, whatever its elected officials decide to do, and is not deemed unconstitutional. I believe its called democracy
That's not democracy, that's tyranny. Verbatim.
which makes you a lawless teabagger.
Oh, cute, an ad hominem attack. I take it, then, that you fail to realize attacking the messenger instead of the message implies that your own argument holds no water.
Come now that is also an overgeneralization.
No, it's not - a gun can only kill the individual it's pointed at, one at a time. Conversely, a can of gas can be used to burn entire buildings down, killing everyone inside simultaniously.
So no, that's a statement of fact, not a generalization.
We are stuck here. There is no escape.
You might be, but all the trapping being done is by your own mind, not any kind of scientific basis.
Talk is cheap. Show me your spaceship.
Replace "spaceship" with "aeroplane" and you'd fit right in with Orville and Wilbur's dissenters.
"Talk is cheap. Show me your time machine."
Replace "time machine" with "aeroplane" and you'd fit right in with Orville and Wilbur's dissenters.
You see the logical problem?
That a subset of society will always believe that what is impossible today will always be impossible, in spite of human advancement, as though they somehow know the future?
Shouldn’t Dick Heads like you be hanging out on at the Huffington Post?
Awww, an ad hominem attack, how quaint! Lemme guess, next you'll make some brainless accusation about me being a commie or socialist or some other term you bandy about but don't actually know the definition of, right?
Seriously, though - you're the one making broad, baseless generalizations, showing a complete lack of knowledge of international law, and who, apparently, doesn't know what the difference between a country and a continent is. If anyone is a dickhead in this particular situation, I got news - it ain't me.
But hey, don't let being completely wrong keep you from being a butthurt douche about it. I mean, c'mon, what's the alternative - admit to your folly and actually grow as a human being?
Yea, that'll happen.
We just put the legal original on glass and sent out copies. Worked fine, and this was pretty big financial stuff. 50+million dollar deals... and it was 1998. Reduced staffing needs by about 400 people nation wide.
For some reason, when I read this, the first thing that pops to mind is, "They took our jeebs!"
Huh, we do nothing but finance and law here (we're a REIT) and in the six years I've worked here I've NEVER seen anything involving carbon paper... On the other hand our finance people
I infer from this that you've never asked the finance people why they use so much paper?
Assuming that's the case, by what merit would you consider yourself an authority on the matter? One company I work for sells nothing but parts for "big rig" trucks, but that in no way indicates that I would be an expert in diesel parts just by virtue of working for a company that sells them.