Since you can only buy houses immediately before your turn there is no such thing as simultaneous actions. If a player bought properties from a player who didn't immediately preceed him in play, then an intervening player could indeed buy all the houses before his turn. There's nothing simultaneos about that though, and it's clear in the rules how it should work.
You can't build hotels until you have a monopoly. Before you can break the monopoly you will have to sell all of the houses and hotels on each of the properties. So you can't trade a property with a hotel on it unless you trade all the properties of the same color. Just so you know.
We don't have poor healthcare in our country. We have top notch healthcare. We even have your best doctors. Now, go put your name on that waiting list so that in 2 months you can get in to see that heart specialist that you really need to see today.
Oh, it's not the fact that they won't stand up for my RKBA that I have a problem with. The Texas State Rifle Association doesn't stand up for my free speech rights, and I have no problem with that. But the TSRA doesn't have an official position on the First Ammendment that is totally incompatible with my own. If the ACLU declared themsselves staunch defenders of 9 of the 10 Ammendments in the BOR I'd have no problem with it. I have a problem with them declaring themselves "neutral" on RKBA when they are really just parroting anti-gun rhetoric.
If the ACLU focused on free-speech and defendant's rights issues like they used to, they could sign me up tommorrow. Too bad they're so busy defending gay marriage[1] and trying to ban the Pledge of Allegiance to focus on things that really are "civil liberties".
[1] What use does a Civil Libertarian have for state recognition of any marriage?
Unless the Constitution protects the individual's right to own all kinds of arms, there is no principled way to oppose reasonable restrictions on handguns, Uzis or semi-automatic rifles.
If indeed the Second Amendment provides an absolute, constitutional protection for the right to bear arms in order to preserve the power of the people to resist government tyranny, then it must allow individuals to possess bazookas, torpedoes, SCUD missiles and even nuclear warheads, for they, like handguns, rifles and M-16s, are arms. Moreover, it is hard to imagine any serious resistance to the military without such arms. Yet few, if any, would argue that the Second Amendment gives individuals the unlimited right to own any weapons they please. But as soon as we allow governmental regulation of any weapons, we have broken the dam of Constitutional protection. Once that dam is broken, we are not talking about whether the government can constitutionally restrict arms, but rather what constitutes a reasonable restriction.
The 1939 case U.S. v. Miller is the only modern case in which the Supreme Court has addressed this issue. A unanimous Court ruled that the Second Amendment must be interpreted as intending to guarantee the states' rights to maintain and train a militia. "In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a shotgun having a barrel of less than 18 inches in length at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument," the Court said.
Makes perfect sense. They conclude that the governement MUST be able to prohibit access to certain weapons, therefore the Constitution must be interpreted in such a way to allow this. The ACLU's whole position on the 2nd Ammendment is a circular argument.
Not only that, but they seem to have lifted their interpretation of Miller straight from HCI's website. Of course if you're familiar with the actual decision you know that their interpretation is totally off base. No one even argued for the defense in Miller because he was already dead when the case got to SCOTUS. That's why there was no, "Evidence tending to show that possession or use of a shotgun.... has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia." Note they did not say no such evidence existed (in fact such arms are used extensively in the military) but none was submitted at the trial, because no one was there to present any.
The decision is actually strongly in favor of a Constitutionally protected individual right to possess weapons which are of the type used by a militia. Of course the ACLU doesn't want to hear this, because what it actually means is that I might not have a right to own a sawed off shotgun, but I do have the right to own M-16's and hand grenades. The court's decision in this case also destroys the argument that the militia refered to in the 2nd Ammendment is the National Guard or any type of organized units:
The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that
the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. "A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline." And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.
That anyone would use Miller to defend a pro gun-control position is laughable to anyone who's actually read the decision. That the ACLU uses it exposes their agenda. You really should read the decision for yourself and see if you still think it really supports the ACLU's "neutral" position.
The ACLU takes a position on the 2nd Ammendment that is inconsistant with all modern Constitutional scholarship and ignorant of the contemporary writings of the authors. While inherently flawed their position isn't unexpected. They certainly don't want to alienate their core constituency by being really meaningful. The ACLU stopped being Liberal a long time ago and now settles for just being liberal. They can read in the Constitution a right to gay marriage and abortion, but not a right to own guns. As you say, "What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?"
Even if you can reconcile their 2nd Ammendment stance, if you own guns, the ACLU isn't interested in protecting your other rights either. Where was the ACLU when Congress was demanding that Ashcroft turn over NICS records of law abiding gun owners, in violation of federal law and the 4th and 5th Ammendments? What is the ACLU's position on mandatory balistic fingerprinting which violates not only the 2nd, but the 4th, 5th, and 6th Ammendments?
Even if you support "resonable" gun laws (whatever the hell that means) why won't the ACLU stand up for residents in places like DC and Chicago where ownership of firearms is completly prohibited even in one's own home?
FWIW, I'd be a card carrying member of the ACLU if they would get their spine back. Remember Skokie? One of their finest hours. I can't imagine today's ACLU defending Nazi's unless they were gay illegal aliens.
I'm confused by your sig. You make reference to the 2nd Ammendment, and then you have a link to a supposed civil rights organization which has shunned the 2nd Ammendment, and indeed other civil rights for anyone who owns guns. Where you trying to be ironic, or are you just confused?
This is quite old news. Ever since color copies became widely available they have been designed not to be able to copy money. If there's a color copier around you, try it.
They have no right to do this. They're not police or an authority designated by the government, they're pinkertons hired by the RIAA to enforce their rules.
Um, no. They're agents of the owners of the copyrights being infringed. They can legally do anything the original copyright holder could do including agreeing not to sue the offender in exchange for ceasing the infringing activity. While they might not be legally justified in using force to seize the property, NO ONE is alleging they did. Their attire is completly irrelevant to this point.
If they represented themselves as police officers then they are guilty of a criminal offense, which is completely orthogonal to the confiscation.
They may last 20 years, but there's no reason to believe that they would be in service that long. Advances in this area are still being made in leaps and bounds, so even 5 years from now these panels will likely be obsolete, long before they are "paid for".
The fact remains that the cheapest, safest, most renewable energy source is nuclear. Too bad about the stigma.
Wrong. The article you linked is full of inacuracies. To start, the 1903 flyer WAS NOT launched by catapult. Dumont didn't even claim to fly until 1906, and by then the Wright bros were well beyond the 1093 flyer.
Did you read the parent before replying? He didn't say there was a difference between PAL and SECAM discs he said there is a difference between NTSC and PAL/SECAM players.
Wow, did you even read those links before you posted them? From your first link:
(b) HABEAS CORPUS AND JUDICIAL REVIEW.--
(1) IN GENERAL.--Judicial review of any action or decision relating to this section (including judicial review of the merits of a determination made under subsection (a)(3) or (a)(6)) is available exclusively in habeas corpus proceedings consistent with this subsection. Except as provided in the preceding sentence, no court shall have jurisdiction to review, by habeas corpus petition or otherwise, any such action or decision.
(2) APPLICATION.--
(A) IN GENERAL.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, including section 2241(a) of title 28, United States Code, habeas corpus proceedings described in paragraph (1) may be initiated only by an application filed with--
(i) the Supreme Court;
(ii) any justice of the Supreme Court;
(iii) any circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit; or
(iv) any district court otherwise having jurisdiction to entertain it.
What you are seeing there is how the act specifically preserves the right to habeas corpus. From your fifth link:
It authorizes the Attorney General to detain certified terrorists for additional periods of up to six months if their removal is unlikely in the near future and if the alien's release will threaten national security or public safety.
It limits judicial review of such detention to habeus corpus proceedings.
They even agree. The rest of your links are just general rantings about the PATRIOT act, none of them grounded in fact or quoting any sections of the law.
Seriously, how much do you need to read to get it.
Just once would be enough. Just once, show me where the PATRIOT act removes the right of habeas corpus.
Slashdot Mirror
Since you can only buy houses immediately before your turn there is no such thing as simultaneous actions. If a player bought properties from a player who didn't immediately preceed him in play, then an intervening player could indeed buy all the houses before his turn. There's nothing simultaneos about that though, and it's clear in the rules how it should work.
I stand corrected.
You can't build hotels until you have a monopoly. Before you can break the monopoly you will have to sell all of the houses and hotels on each of the properties. So you can't trade a property with a hotel on it unless you trade all the properties of the same color. Just so you know.
We don't have poor healthcare in our country. We have top notch healthcare. We even have your best doctors. Now, go put your name on that waiting list so that in 2 months you can get in to see that heart specialist that you really need to see today.
Oh, it's not the fact that they won't stand up for my RKBA that I have a problem with. The Texas State Rifle Association doesn't stand up for my free speech rights, and I have no problem with that. But the TSRA doesn't have an official position on the First Ammendment that is totally incompatible with my own. If the ACLU declared themsselves staunch defenders of 9 of the 10 Ammendments in the BOR I'd have no problem with it. I have a problem with them declaring themselves "neutral" on RKBA when they are really just parroting anti-gun rhetoric.
If the ACLU focused on free-speech and defendant's rights issues like they used to, they could sign me up tommorrow. Too bad they're so busy defending gay marriage[1] and trying to ban the Pledge of Allegiance to focus on things that really are "civil liberties".
[1] What use does a Civil Libertarian have for state recognition of any marriage?
Makes perfect sense. They conclude that the governement MUST be able to prohibit access to certain weapons, therefore the Constitution must be interpreted in such a way to allow this. The ACLU's whole position on the 2nd Ammendment is a circular argument.
Not only that, but they seem to have lifted their interpretation of Miller straight from HCI's website. Of course if you're familiar with the actual decision you know that their interpretation is totally off base. No one even argued for the defense in Miller because he was already dead when the case got to SCOTUS. That's why there was no, "Evidence tending to show that possession or use of a shotgun.... has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia." Note they did not say no such evidence existed (in fact such arms are used extensively in the military) but none was submitted at the trial, because no one was there to present any.
The decision is actually strongly in favor of a Constitutionally protected individual right to possess weapons which are of the type used by a militia. Of course the ACLU doesn't want to hear this, because what it actually means is that I might not have a right to own a sawed off shotgun, but I do have the right to own M-16's and hand grenades. The court's decision in this case also destroys the argument that the militia refered to in the 2nd Ammendment is the National Guard or any type of organized units:
That anyone would use Miller to defend a pro gun-control position is laughable to anyone who's actually read the decision. That the ACLU uses it exposes their agenda. You really should read the decision for yourself and see if you still think it really supports the ACLU's "neutral" position.
The ACLU takes a position on the 2nd Ammendment that is inconsistant with all modern Constitutional scholarship and ignorant of the contemporary writings of the authors. While inherently flawed their position isn't unexpected. They certainly don't want to alienate their core constituency by being really meaningful. The ACLU stopped being Liberal a long time ago and now settles for just being liberal. They can read in the Constitution a right to gay marriage and abortion, but not a right to own guns. As you say, "What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?"
Even if you can reconcile their 2nd Ammendment stance, if you own guns, the ACLU isn't interested in protecting your other rights either. Where was the ACLU when Congress was demanding that Ashcroft turn over NICS records of law abiding gun owners, in violation of federal law and the 4th and 5th Ammendments? What is the ACLU's position on mandatory balistic fingerprinting which violates not only the 2nd, but the 4th, 5th, and 6th Ammendments?
Even if you support "resonable" gun laws (whatever the hell that means) why won't the ACLU stand up for residents in places like DC and Chicago where ownership of firearms is completly prohibited even in one's own home?
FWIW, I'd be a card carrying member of the ACLU if they would get their spine back. Remember Skokie? One of their finest hours. I can't imagine today's ACLU defending Nazi's unless they were gay illegal aliens.
I'm confused by your sig. You make reference to the 2nd Ammendment, and then you have a link to a supposed civil rights organization which has shunned the 2nd Ammendment, and indeed other civil rights for anyone who owns guns. Where you trying to be ironic, or are you just confused?
Except that the parts in question appparantly came off a Russian Progress spacecraft which is docked with the ISS.
This is quite old news. Ever since color copies became widely available they have been designed not to be able to copy money. If there's a color copier around you, try it.
Have you ever heard of public key cryptography? The decoder doesn't neccesarily have the ability to encrypt anything.
Not if it would lead a reasonable person to believe that they are a police officer.
That would make it relevant to the second point, which you seem to agree with.
Why were you wearing bullet proof vests in public?
They have no right to do this. They're not police or an authority designated by the government, they're pinkertons hired by the RIAA to enforce their rules.
Um, no. They're agents of the owners of the copyrights being infringed. They can legally do anything the original copyright holder could do including agreeing not to sue the offender in exchange for ceasing the infringing activity. While they might not be legally justified in using force to seize the property, NO ONE is alleging they did. Their attire is completly irrelevant to this point.
If they represented themselves as police officers then they are guilty of a criminal offense, which is completely orthogonal to the confiscation.
They may last 20 years, but there's no reason to believe that they would be in service that long. Advances in this area are still being made in leaps and bounds, so even 5 years from now these panels will likely be obsolete, long before they are "paid for".
The fact remains that the cheapest, safest, most renewable energy source is nuclear. Too bad about the stigma.
If people are stupid enough (and I have no doubt they are) to put their extremities into fast moving blades I say they get what they deserve.
What about young children who can't know any better?
Right, and since when are BGP and OSPF, "All major routing protocols?"
Actually ~15 frames is enough for most people.
Wrong. The article you linked is full of inacuracies. To start, the 1903 flyer WAS NOT launched by catapult. Dumont didn't even claim to fly until 1906, and by then the Wright bros were well beyond the 1093 flyer.
Actually, Blockbuster pays MORE for the DVD's they buy since they are going to rent them out. Blockbuster is trying to abolish that practice as well.
Did you read the parent before replying? He didn't say there was a difference between PAL and SECAM discs he said there is a difference between NTSC and PAL/SECAM players.
Didn't you watch the X-Files?
Just about all of them. AT&T's offering
What you are seeing there is how the act specifically preserves the right to habeas corpus. From your fifth link:
They even agree. The rest of your links are just general rantings about the PATRIOT act, none of them grounded in fact or quoting any sections of the law.
Seriously, how much do you need to read to get it.
Just once would be enough. Just once, show me where the PATRIOT act removes the right of habeas corpus.
BTW, preview is your friend.
Really? Where in the PATRIOT act does it suspend habeus corpus?