The rational states keep to the minimums of federal law which says long guns and shotguns are legally purchased at 18. 21 is the minimum for handguns. I'm certain that Texas is quite rational in this area.
If you can't tell the difference between "Hot girls in bikinis" and the local swim team, then you need to go back to the basics of literacy and start learning concepts like author's intent and such.
"consistent in enforcing 1950s-TVs-style anti-sex morality on the web". Really? I don't remember Wally, Eddie, Lumpie or the Beaver looking at any porn. Google makes it fairly easy to find from what I hear. I've found it just for not being careful in my search terms.
Nope. I believe that the Declaration of Independence is one of the founding documents of my country and that I do have the right to exist without the very fact of my existing being a reason to tax me.
On the other hand, you seem to believe that you are constantly contributing to the downfall of the world but seem to have no interest in stopping those contributions. That would make you a hypocrite. Simply begging for the privilege of paying for the right to pollute also seems very hypocritical to me.
The "meaning" of the message is very clear. I am sending a series of numbers or letters to someone so they have a brainteaser to occupy their time. It was even made public so anyone can work on the brainteaser.
So exactly how are you hams picking up on the fact that when two people are discussing when to meet for dinner, they are actually exchanging coordinates for where to meet and other things similar to how BBC broadcasts passed along information to operatives during WWII? After all, you claim it is your duty to be detecting and stopping this.
Is it illegal to send strings of numbers either by voice, Morse code or in packets? How many digits can be transmitted before it becomes illegal? What about addresses, GPS coordinates and phone numbers? How do you know that they aren't phone numbers or coordinates?
Having a law that is so ridiculous on its face is just stupid.
A casual perusal of history will show you that Africa has already experienced withering droughts long before the industrial revolution.
Common sense tells us that Africa will continue to experience withering droughts regardless of what we do short of turning over large amounts of melange to the Space guild to keep their climate control satellites operating.
The vast majority of the people living in those areas don't even know anyone who works at the commercial harbors. Hell, the vast majority of people in New Orleans didn't even work.
Well pollution only harms the planet because we have defined pollution as "stuff that harms the environment." If you want to continue down the road of claiming that carbon dioxide is a pollutant and, therefore, harmful to the environment would you please do us all a huge favor and stop emitting it.
Well, the ice in the Antarctic is taller than it used to be but is less broad. I'm not sure if there is actually more or less because the crowd telling me there is less explains the obviousness of that statement by pointing out that the ice sheets are receding without discussing how they are deeper. The other side acknowledges that they are receding but claims that because they are deeper there is still as much ice down there.
One side also claims that the melting of the glaciers on Greenland is unprecedented but won't explain how the Vikings built those villages underneath all that ice. The other side says that the ice wasn't there when the Vikings built the villages. We have found the villages only recently because of the receding glacier. The first side used to claim that Greenland being named Greenland because of the green pastures used for raising sheep was just a myth.
I wouldn't trust a climatologist to do anything other than waste money writing papers about how much humans suck. When you read stories about "elite" climatologists making statements along the lines of universities shouldn't be giving out degrees related to climate studies to anyone who does not already agree that global warming is happening, is bad and is caused by humans, then you have to realize that nobody is actually doing research; they are only trying to find new ways to rewrite the same lies.
And yet no serious climate researcher has been able to show any actual causal relationship between Sandy or any other storm and global warming. Why do you trot it out?
I guess I despise those who think we need more government regulation to protect ourselves.
Maybe the government should also create and enforce regulations against supposedly tech-savvy folks from giving bad advice without really knowing what they are talking about. That is exactly what you described: A tech savvy person using software that modifies a web-site and then giving some vague instructions to a non tech savvy individual that the tech savvy person should know probably isn't using said software.
In other words, you want the government to force a company to make changes to its software because you have (seemingly falsely) portrayed yourself as some kind of expert. Other posters have attempted to claim that Google is committing fraud by having ads appear similar to other search results. I would argue that giving out bad advice as you described is much closer to fraudulent behavior.
You are so stupid as to expect that Google is giving you search results out of the kindness of their hearts? Do you really want to stick with that story?
You mean you are looking for differences beyond the fact that Google is not the one creating the editorial content and are simply pointing you to someone else's content? I'm not sure there are other differences beyond the only one that matters.
If the link was to something relevant to my search, yes. If the ad links were not related to my search and I couldn't tell that without visiting the linked page, then no, I wouldn't like it and I'd find another search engine that wasn't so poorly written and was more usable. Do we need government intervention for this? No. The search engines that don't fulfill needs will stop being used and will then not be able to sell ads and will then go away. Meanwhile, the ones fulfilling the needs (of users and advertisers) will continue to exist or will start up as the need arises. That is how things work as long as the government allows them to. When the government gets to much into central planning and such, then needs actually go unmet.
Slashdot Mirror
operagost wasn't saying he should be convicted of anything but merely pointing out that he is facing felony charges.
I doubt the AC was suggesting that he should be convicted; rather AC was simply pointing out that a conviction would ban him from possessing firearms.
The rational states keep to the minimums of federal law which says long guns and shotguns are legally purchased at 18. 21 is the minimum for handguns. I'm certain that Texas is quite rational in this area.
If he is in jail then his owning of the guns is a bit moot as he is almost certainly not in possession of any.
If you can't tell the difference between "Hot girls in bikinis" and the local swim team, then you need to go back to the basics of literacy and start learning concepts like author's intent and such.
"consistent in enforcing 1950s-TVs-style anti-sex morality on the web". Really? I don't remember Wally, Eddie, Lumpie or the Beaver looking at any porn. Google makes it fairly easy to find from what I hear. I've found it just for not being careful in my search terms.
And people make fun of Christians for believing in prophecy?
Nope. I believe that the Declaration of Independence is one of the founding documents of my country and that I do have the right to exist without the very fact of my existing being a reason to tax me.
On the other hand, you seem to believe that you are constantly contributing to the downfall of the world but seem to have no interest in stopping those contributions. That would make you a hypocrite. Simply begging for the privilege of paying for the right to pollute also seems very hypocritical to me.
The "meaning" of the message is very clear. I am sending a series of numbers or letters to someone so they have a brainteaser to occupy their time. It was even made public so anyone can work on the brainteaser.
So exactly how are you hams picking up on the fact that when two people are discussing when to meet for dinner, they are actually exchanging coordinates for where to meet and other things similar to how BBC broadcasts passed along information to operatives during WWII? After all, you claim it is your duty to be detecting and stopping this.
Is it illegal to send strings of numbers either by voice, Morse code or in packets? How many digits can be transmitted before it becomes illegal? What about addresses, GPS coordinates and phone numbers? How do you know that they aren't phone numbers or coordinates?
Having a law that is so ridiculous on its face is just stupid.
Most of us would learn after the first time to put on the overwear so as to cover the underweear.
A casual perusal of history will show you that Africa has already experienced withering droughts long before the industrial revolution.
Common sense tells us that Africa will continue to experience withering droughts regardless of what we do short of turning over large amounts of melange to the Space guild to keep their climate control satellites operating.
Have you not noticed that the "insurance industry" as far as flood insurance in the USA is strictly limited to the federal government?
The vast majority of the people living in those areas don't even know anyone who works at the commercial harbors. Hell, the vast majority of people in New Orleans didn't even work.
And if you want to associate a cost with my industrial plant emitting it, then we should also attach the same cost to you emitting it.
Its more the wildly exaggerated cost liberals want to attach to those externalities that is the real problem
Well pollution only harms the planet because we have defined pollution as "stuff that harms the environment." If you want to continue down the road of claiming that carbon dioxide is a pollutant and, therefore, harmful to the environment would you please do us all a huge favor and stop emitting it.
Well, the ice in the Antarctic is taller than it used to be but is less broad. I'm not sure if there is actually more or less because the crowd telling me there is less explains the obviousness of that statement by pointing out that the ice sheets are receding without discussing how they are deeper. The other side acknowledges that they are receding but claims that because they are deeper there is still as much ice down there.
One side also claims that the melting of the glaciers on Greenland is unprecedented but won't explain how the Vikings built those villages underneath all that ice. The other side says that the ice wasn't there when the Vikings built the villages. We have found the villages only recently because of the receding glacier. The first side used to claim that Greenland being named Greenland because of the green pastures used for raising sheep was just a myth.
I wouldn't trust a climatologist to do anything other than waste money writing papers about how much humans suck. When you read stories about "elite" climatologists making statements along the lines of universities shouldn't be giving out degrees related to climate studies to anyone who does not already agree that global warming is happening, is bad and is caused by humans, then you have to realize that nobody is actually doing research; they are only trying to find new ways to rewrite the same lies.
And yet no serious climate researcher has been able to show any actual causal relationship between Sandy or any other storm and global warming. Why do you trot it out?
I guess I despise those who think we need more government regulation to protect ourselves.
Maybe the government should also create and enforce regulations against supposedly tech-savvy folks from giving bad advice without really knowing what they are talking about. That is exactly what you described: A tech savvy person using software that modifies a web-site and then giving some vague instructions to a non tech savvy individual that the tech savvy person should know probably isn't using said software.
In other words, you want the government to force a company to make changes to its software because you have (seemingly falsely) portrayed yourself as some kind of expert. Other posters have attempted to claim that Google is committing fraud by having ads appear similar to other search results. I would argue that giving out bad advice as you described is much closer to fraudulent behavior.
You are so stupid as to expect that Google is giving you search results out of the kindness of their hearts? Do you really want to stick with that story?
Then find another search engine. Or create your own. Nothing is stopping you.
You mean you are looking for differences beyond the fact that Google is not the one creating the editorial content and are simply pointing you to someone else's content? I'm not sure there are other differences beyond the only one that matters.
If the link was to something relevant to my search, yes. If the ad links were not related to my search and I couldn't tell that without visiting the linked page, then no, I wouldn't like it and I'd find another search engine that wasn't so poorly written and was more usable. Do we need government intervention for this? No. The search engines that don't fulfill needs will stop being used and will then not be able to sell ads and will then go away. Meanwhile, the ones fulfilling the needs (of users and advertisers) will continue to exist or will start up as the need arises. That is how things work as long as the government allows them to. When the government gets to much into central planning and such, then needs actually go unmet.