" In fact Columbus never believed he had found new land, he always thought that he had got to the (East) Indies and Japan."
There is some evidence to the contrary. I have read of letters that Columbus wrote to relatives admitting that he never thought he was sailing to Asia. In those letters he states that he had an unshakeable belief that he would find new lands but he had to lie about Asia to get the financing. Some would call this inspiration; others an irrational belief.
If the letters did happen, then what really happened from the atheists standpoint is that an insane person convinced gullible religious nutjobs looking to make a quick buck into financing his journey to a nonexistent place and then he got lucky and found a real place and the religious nutjob financiers ended up not getting screwed.
I am quite certain that for the time being (as long as we have at least 5 rational people as part of SCOTUS) ammunition will be considered as fundamentally inseparable from "arms."
Simple. She is, as you pointed out, an executive. The collective wisdom of basement dwellers (non earning freeloaders) compels us all to understand that executives are the most greedy, lazy, useless people on earth and have never done anything except suck the money and earnings potential out of every company they've ever worked for and fire every single employee they've ever had and ship every single job to darker-skinned people leaving on the other side of the vast oceans. That is why all companies fail and go into bankruptcy every year. And then get bailed out by the taxpayers, every year.
If it wasn't for all that job-shipping and bailing out, the government would have plenty of money to give the basement dwellers and they would be living glorious lives of true freedom and happiness instead of living in the dark nether regions of the mommies humble abode.
What makes a weapon ridiculous? And how many people want them banned? If you want to end civilian ownership of firearms in the US then do it the correct way. Get a two-thirds majority of each chamber of Congress to pass a bill with the wording of a new amendment that explicitly states that not only does the second amendment exist but that civilian ownership of firearms is not allowed. Then get 38 states to pass it as well. Anything less is simply ignoring the "rule of law". Ignoring the rule of law in other areas has led to such idiotic beliefs that the government can look at my documents (without a warrant) if I ask Google to store them electronically but that a warrant is required if I print them and store them in a lock box in a vault at my bank.
Seriously, stop picking and choosing which rights you want respected and which you don't. Start expecting every one of them to be respected.
I could say "If you want them to track my gun then I want them to track your R/C (or kite)" but that would be against my actual beliefs. Hopefully, it does cause at least a few to wonder why they accept the government doing some things but not others.
How many of you not wanting R/C planes banned are fine with the current attempt at banning so-called "assault rifles" and "large capacity" magazines?
We should all be saying "enough is enough".
So maybe "gun enthusiasts" will start getting some help and more liberals will start to figure out what "original intent" really means when it comes to the US Constitution and how it should be interpreted by the courts. That would eliminate a bunch of other problems as well: email and documents stored on third party servers, etc.
"the people were in a panic. the lawmakers were cool, calm and licking their chops. police and military also salivated at the New Normal(tm)." Sounds very much like all the ban this, ban that happening right now the the US in the wake of Newtown, CT.
But then "guns are evil" so we're all good with it.
Educate yourself about the "missionary life." LDS missionaries spend almost all of their time interacting with the locals and very little interacting with non-locals. I won't comment on the cultural understanding but he most likely left Brazil with an extremely good grasp of the language.
After 18 months or so in Switzerland, I easily passed as a native of the Zurich region to those from the Bern region. It is truly amazing how well one can learn a language when totally immersed in it.
That's for the best. My CCW instructor who was also a police officer and police academy instructor taught us that once we make the decision to use our weapon, we are to "shoot to stop the threat" and that the only reliable way to stop the threat was to "shut down the computer." He went on to explain for those that still didn't understand that the goal was not to injure but to kill by shutting down the central nervous system by targeting a rectangle about three inches wide centered on the nose and running from the eyes to the sternum. Not killing for the sake of killing but killing because that is the only way to guarantee that the threat has been eliminated.
He also pointed out that the side benefit of this is that the assailant will not be making up any bullshit story about how mistaken you were about his (her) intentions.
The actual statistics are more like 27 of those deaths are drug dealers killing other drug dealers. But that is exactly the mentality of the control freaks currently in power right now. Equate us all with drug dealers.
And almost all of them are drug dealers killing other drug dealers. That violence will never stop.
So, yes, it is a cheap price to me. I wasn't the original poster of that comment but I will admit that I really don't care about drug dealers killing other drug dealers and get very upset when someone uses the existence of that activity as a reason to restrict my access to whatever weapon I want.
Because I really don't care that 27.9 or more of those deaths (on average) are drug dealers killing other drug dealers. That is also the majority of the "killed by an acquaintence" statistic.
Seconding your questions about the internet and such...
It is exactly because we don't look to the original intent of the framers of our country (authors of the constitution) that we have allowed the government to not treat emails and private chats the same as snail mail and other "personal effects."
Actually educate yourself and read how George Mason defined the militia. He defined it as basically all private citizens.
Yes, he is THE authority on the issue because he is the author of the second amendment.
"Taxing" wealth in the US would most likely be found to be a 5th Amendment violation. I'm not sure about most slashdotters, but I don't think congress passing a law is considered "due process". Aren't trials required for "due process" to be satisfied? At least that is the general view from those opposing holding people in Gitmo and such.
I think someone was trying to make a distinction between vast majority and small minority. Yes, some firearms are used to commit crimes but only an extremely small minority of firearms in the US are used for such purposes (as in 99.999% are not used for criminal purposes). So yes, some sites are used more heavily for non-infringing purposes and some sites are used almost exclusively for infringing purposes.
Overall, I agree that shutting down types of sites is wrong. However, shutting down individual sites based on their usage and how they promote themselves, etc. may not be. To continue the gun analogy... shutting down licensed dealers and gun shows is generally wrong but shutting down the guy selling out of the back of his van in a back alley in downtown big city is probably a good way to prevent guns from being used for criminal activities.
good to see the AC is clueless..NET is not a programming language it is a framework (set of libraries) and I don't know of any way to use MS tools to program in C# that don't rely on the.NET framework to run.
Slashdot Mirror
" In fact Columbus never believed he had found new land, he always thought that he had got to the (East) Indies and Japan." There is some evidence to the contrary. I have read of letters that Columbus wrote to relatives admitting that he never thought he was sailing to Asia. In those letters he states that he had an unshakeable belief that he would find new lands but he had to lie about Asia to get the financing. Some would call this inspiration; others an irrational belief. If the letters did happen, then what really happened from the atheists standpoint is that an insane person convinced gullible religious nutjobs looking to make a quick buck into financing his journey to a nonexistent place and then he got lucky and found a real place and the religious nutjob financiers ended up not getting screwed.
I am quite certain that for the time being (as long as we have at least 5 rational people as part of SCOTUS) ammunition will be considered as fundamentally inseparable from "arms."
Simple. She is, as you pointed out, an executive. The collective wisdom of basement dwellers (non earning freeloaders) compels us all to understand that executives are the most greedy, lazy, useless people on earth and have never done anything except suck the money and earnings potential out of every company they've ever worked for and fire every single employee they've ever had and ship every single job to darker-skinned people leaving on the other side of the vast oceans. That is why all companies fail and go into bankruptcy every year. And then get bailed out by the taxpayers, every year. If it wasn't for all that job-shipping and bailing out, the government would have plenty of money to give the basement dwellers and they would be living glorious lives of true freedom and happiness instead of living in the dark nether regions of the mommies humble abode.
What makes a weapon ridiculous? And how many people want them banned? If you want to end civilian ownership of firearms in the US then do it the correct way. Get a two-thirds majority of each chamber of Congress to pass a bill with the wording of a new amendment that explicitly states that not only does the second amendment exist but that civilian ownership of firearms is not allowed. Then get 38 states to pass it as well. Anything less is simply ignoring the "rule of law". Ignoring the rule of law in other areas has led to such idiotic beliefs that the government can look at my documents (without a warrant) if I ask Google to store them electronically but that a warrant is required if I print them and store them in a lock box in a vault at my bank. Seriously, stop picking and choosing which rights you want respected and which you don't. Start expecting every one of them to be respected.
I could say "If you want them to track my gun then I want them to track your R/C (or kite)" but that would be against my actual beliefs. Hopefully, it does cause at least a few to wonder why they accept the government doing some things but not others.
How many of you not wanting R/C planes banned are fine with the current attempt at banning so-called "assault rifles" and "large capacity" magazines? We should all be saying "enough is enough".
So maybe "gun enthusiasts" will start getting some help and more liberals will start to figure out what "original intent" really means when it comes to the US Constitution and how it should be interpreted by the courts. That would eliminate a bunch of other problems as well: email and documents stored on third party servers, etc.
"the people were in a panic. the lawmakers were cool, calm and licking their chops. police and military also salivated at the New Normal(tm)." Sounds very much like all the ban this, ban that happening right now the the US in the wake of Newtown, CT. But then "guns are evil" so we're all good with it.
Educate yourself about the "missionary life." LDS missionaries spend almost all of their time interacting with the locals and very little interacting with non-locals. I won't comment on the cultural understanding but he most likely left Brazil with an extremely good grasp of the language. After 18 months or so in Switzerland, I easily passed as a native of the Zurich region to those from the Bern region. It is truly amazing how well one can learn a language when totally immersed in it.
That's for the best. My CCW instructor who was also a police officer and police academy instructor taught us that once we make the decision to use our weapon, we are to "shoot to stop the threat" and that the only reliable way to stop the threat was to "shut down the computer." He went on to explain for those that still didn't understand that the goal was not to injure but to kill by shutting down the central nervous system by targeting a rectangle about three inches wide centered on the nose and running from the eyes to the sternum. Not killing for the sake of killing but killing because that is the only way to guarantee that the threat has been eliminated. He also pointed out that the side benefit of this is that the assailant will not be making up any bullshit story about how mistaken you were about his (her) intentions.
The actual statistics are more like 27 of those deaths are drug dealers killing other drug dealers. But that is exactly the mentality of the control freaks currently in power right now. Equate us all with drug dealers.
And almost all of them are drug dealers killing other drug dealers. That violence will never stop. So, yes, it is a cheap price to me. I wasn't the original poster of that comment but I will admit that I really don't care about drug dealers killing other drug dealers and get very upset when someone uses the existence of that activity as a reason to restrict my access to whatever weapon I want.
Because I really don't care that 27.9 or more of those deaths (on average) are drug dealers killing other drug dealers. That is also the majority of the "killed by an acquaintence" statistic.
Uh, the NRA is 4 million or more regular Americans.
Seconding your questions about the internet and such... It is exactly because we don't look to the original intent of the framers of our country (authors of the constitution) that we have allowed the government to not treat emails and private chats the same as snail mail and other "personal effects."
And the majority of those would not obey orders to disarm the populace.
Actually educate yourself and read how George Mason defined the militia. He defined it as basically all private citizens. Yes, he is THE authority on the issue because he is the author of the second amendment.
As did the author of said amendment. Isn't it amazing what people could learn if they actually bothered.
The author, George Mason, specifically wrote elsewhere that the militia was basically every private citizen.
"Taxing" wealth in the US would most likely be found to be a 5th Amendment violation. I'm not sure about most slashdotters, but I don't think congress passing a law is considered "due process". Aren't trials required for "due process" to be satisfied? At least that is the general view from those opposing holding people in Gitmo and such.
I think someone was trying to make a distinction between vast majority and small minority. Yes, some firearms are used to commit crimes but only an extremely small minority of firearms in the US are used for such purposes (as in 99.999% are not used for criminal purposes). So yes, some sites are used more heavily for non-infringing purposes and some sites are used almost exclusively for infringing purposes.
Overall, I agree that shutting down types of sites is wrong. However, shutting down individual sites based on their usage and how they promote themselves, etc. may not be. To continue the gun analogy... shutting down licensed dealers and gun shows is generally wrong but shutting down the guy selling out of the back of his van in a back alley in downtown big city is probably a good way to prevent guns from being used for criminal activities.
just that you don't adhere to societal norms.
good to see the AC is clueless. .NET is not a programming language it is a framework (set of libraries) and I don't know of any way to use MS tools to program in C# that don't rely on the .NET framework to run.
meant to make money
He does head up a VC backed startup so his organization may not actually be meant to "make" money outside of the VC handout line.
Well... since minus means subtraction that means the net result is paying them less which to most consumers means a better rate.
On the other hand, you could be one of those weirdos that believes paying more for the same thing is better.