WTF are you talking about here. I'm talking about protestors rioting or chaining themvselves together to block entrances to abortion clinics isn't exactly "peacefull assembly", not spying on activists.
Objecting to their failure to live up to that standard while refusing to make any effort to live up to it yourself is hypocrisy. Their failure is no excuse for you not to try. In debate, tu quoque, or, "you did it too!" is just one form of ad hominem fallacy; in law, it's often a valid argument, also referred to as "dirty hands." In this case, I'm using it in the legal sense, that is, if you aren't willing to act responsibly, you have no right to complain when others don't. Mr. Pot, meet Mr. Kettle.
Bull. Shit. I can be a compulsive gambler myself and fault William Bennett for gambling, with zero hypocracy involved. Why? Because I'm not a high horse riding moralizer telling other people how they should live their lives, and he is. I can say Henry Hyde should have gone to jail for malicious prosecution, even if I myself am a philandering jerk with two girlfriends. Why? Because I'm not fighting to impeach someone for getting a blowjob when I cheated on my wife when I was the same age.
that is where you are wrong. most of the time, liberatarians believe in market solutions to what is currently regulated.
That's the sort of nonsense I'm talking about. The reason we have government agencies and regulations over markets is presicely because these markets are unwilling or unable to police themselves.
The point is to get rid of all the other stuff people are more than capable of providing for themselves.
Ok. Go find private companies you can pay for police protection, fire protection, ambulance service, compare the cost of public education to private school and then get back to me with your big cost savings.
Wrong. Neoconservative ideas are readily available in political and media circles, though the notion that they dominate is absolutely laughable. True classical conservative, or libertarian, thought is all too difficult to locate anymore.
Fiscally, libertarianism and conservatism are very close - and yes they do dominate the news. But they aren't on the same planet on social issues, and never have been.
There are obviously other meanings, but traditionally, the word "liberal" refers to "generous" amounts of government involvement in things
Liberals use government as a means to an end, not sitting around thinking up new beuracracies for shits and giggles.
a referee government, instead of the nanny state
The problem is that the "nanny state" saves far more money than a libertarian one. Libertarians would rather spend $10 million on a prison than $500,000 on after school and drug treatment programs, even if they reduce crime by the same amount. A further problem is that almost all regulation is of the devil to them, which isn't the case. How many billions were lost from Enron, Vioxx, and mad cow disease? How many more would they lose without the agencies like the SEC and the FDA trying to watch out for and prevent actions that led to crisis?
Libertarian government might work very nicely on the scale of oh, say, your average Amish town. But in an industrialized nation of 300 million people, it's bat-shit crazy.
The author of that artical makes a very good point. MD's are more durable than an mp3 player
Not really. HD based players will typically survive a few drops to concrete just fine. Some guys decided to see how much damage the flash based iPod Nano can take, and it still worked after being run over by a car and dropped out a window at 55 mph. I'm guessing if it'll survive that, it'll survive a showdown with a Huffy.
and can record.
So can most mp3 players, either through line in, microphone, or both. So unless you really, really need optical recording, I don't see any advantages that MD has over an HD or flash based mp3 player, much less "serious" ones, as the article author claims.
Sure, they can fit 1 gig of data per disk, enough for a bunch of songs, but most people don't want to be carrying around lots of disks.
Exactly. If people didn't find swapping disks so annoying, HD or flash based mp3 players would only be bought by gadget freaks and everyone else would still be playing 10 cent burnable CD-R's on 30 dollar disk players.
Neither does Iraq and Lebanon, as they were created in much the same way by western European nations.
Yes, there were a lot of lines drawn arbitrarily on a map, and those lines became countries virtually overnight. The difference between Israel and the rest, however, is that the rest weren't specifically drawn up as a homeland for people who hadn't lived there for thousands of years, reguardless of any existing population. Nor, to my knowledge, were millions of people displaced by a different ethnic group in the formation of Iraq, Iran, etc.
So not only are these examples oceans apart, they aren't even on the same planet.
Re:it's a contract dispute, not trademark
on
On Apple vs Apple
·
· Score: 1
It's true, my UID is high, but I was around LONG before there were UIDs (remember Chips and Dip?), I just never got around to getting one for a long time.
So you are being nostalgic.:)
And I wasn't intending to be inflammatory, but there are a good few comments that roast Apple Corp for their actions without any regard to the actual facts of the case or contract, which is... disappointing.
...Which isn't necessarily defending or appologizing for Apple Computer, nor is it really dissapointing. Yes, this based on a contract dispute as opposed to trademark law, but the whole reason they had a contract in the first place is because Apple Corp bullied the small-at-the-time Apple Computer into signing it. Apple Computer should have spent a bit more on their lawyers at the time, and told Apple Corp to piss off - the very suggestion that a beeping and booping Apple II infringed on a record label's trademark should have been laughed out of court.
So reguardless, this case is due to the dickheadedness of Apple Corp, wether or not they are contractually "right" at this time. And it's doubtfull that they are, given the information in the news reports. Apple Computer's lawyer claims that the agreement specifically allows "distribution of digital entertainment content" and restricted Apple Computer from becomming a record label or distributing songs on physical media, neither of which they are trying to do. The CNN article also says that Apple Corp wants Apple Computer to remove the Apple Computer logo from the iTMS, which is stupid, since it's not on there in the first place. In fact, the only mention of Apple Computer on the iTMS is the copyright notice at the bottom of the page.
Re:it's a contract dispute, not trademark
on
On Apple vs Apple
·
· Score: 1
While you may have a fancy low UID
While it's nice not to have an ID in the hundereds of thousands, it's nothing phancy...there's 17,616 people out there who have a lower one. The lowest (aside from Taco's) (and best) ID I've seen in a discussion was 69.:)
Taco apended that comment to the story posting, and thus it was not moderated at all.
Yup, I remember. I mentioned it as the sort of inflamatory statement that would have been modded up, not as an example of one that actually was. It was just easier to mention a famous-within-Slashdot comment like that as opposed to hunting for a real one dated five years ago.:)
Re:it's a contract dispute, not trademark
on
On Apple vs Apple
·
· Score: 1, Flamebait
There are the usual appologists, "Apple (Computer) can do no wrong!"
Where, exactly? Perusing the comments, I didn't see any. I'd say you might be nostalgic for the days when inflamatory anti-Apple statements like Taco's "No wireless, less space than a Nomad, lame" earned an automatic +5 Insightful, but your UID is pretty high.
Okay, name one other example of a skyscraper that was on fire with thousands of gallons of jet fuel burning inside it. The Towers didn't fall from "just a fire" they fell from a fire that was a few thousand degrees hot, IIRC.
You forgot the fourth reason: it just doesn't matter. Anyone who doesn't wear the foil hat realizes that a bunch of drones looking down on US territory doesn't matter at all to individual liberty.
More like "just doesn't get it". These things could become as common as K-9 units. And if SCOTUS rubber stamps searches like these the way they have car searches, the cops will be able to use these for everything except looking in your bathroom window. The other scary part is how easily these planes could be tied into a national system, in a permanent database. In 20 years it would be trivial for someone with access to go back and look at all your day to day movements from the preceeding five years.
Sheesh, I seriously think that if people like you had their way, the police wouldn't be allowed to patrol the streets.
Don't be a tool. There can be a hundered cops in front of your house but they all have short term memory. With our ever expanding storage technology, surveillance can be filed in a giant Wal-Mart type database - and never removed.
Because if you had read the article, you'd have known that this has nothing to do with the military. It is the police who want this capability
Ah, I see your reasoning. And by the same token, the Administration and Congress had nothing to do with the Patriot act because it is used by local law enforcement. Makes perfect sense.
and last I checked, the police have the Constitutional authority to conduct surveillance.
And the last time I checked, they were required to get a warrant before doing so. What do you bet there wont be some court cases over air surveillance because the cops didn't get one?
Blue states do pay the most in taxes and red states take the most. Another fun fact: remember the anti-gay marriage hoopla that swept through the red states a couple years ago, under the guise of "protection of marriage"? Except that red states have the worst divorce rates, while blue states have the best. In fact, the state with the best divorce rate is Massachusetts, which started the wingnuts on their crusade in the first place.
Ah, a classic example of the right wing's "Look! There's Bigfoot!" Defense, not to be confused with the Chewbacka defense. When some GOP or conservative shenanigan comes to light, right wingers point off into the hills and yell "Look! There's Bigfoot!", hoping to distract people long enough to get away. The media falls for this every time.
Take for example, the latest Downing Street memo. It revealed that prior to the invasion of Iraq, Bush thought the evidence of WMD was so weak that he suggested tricking Iraq into firing on a U-2 spyplane painted with UN colors. Wingnuts like Confederate Yankee dismissed the memo as nonsense, primarily on the grounds that you wouldn't be able to see the plane at it's operation altitude from the ground. That's a Bigfoot moment, because the fact that U-2's fly at 70,000 does nothing to debunk the idea that "putting food on our families" Bush wouldn't have hatched the scheme in the first place.
It mentions the federal government is only interested in using this to replace existing flights by manned aircraft at over 12,500 feet, with filed flight plans. This is your own local officials doing this backyard surveillance, not "the big evil Bush" that everyone seems to like to blame for everything. But MAN does throwing "the Bush administraion" in the summary really catch eyeballs, regardless of whether it's true or not.
More "Bigfoot" nonsense. Dismissing the involvment of the Bush Administration by talking about locals in this is like trying to claim that the Administration and the GOP majority in Congress didn't have anything to do with the Patriot Act because it is used & abused by local law enforcement. And you conviniently ignored the quote that was in the summary:
"A top Homeland Security official told Congress today..." This might be news to you, but the Dept of Homeland Security is part of the Executive Branch, headed by a Cabinent-level official, with all top level officials either being directly appointed by Bush or appointed by appointees of Bush, which makes it part of the......drumroll please....Bush administration.
*sigh* Typical slashdot.
No, typical kneejerk defense by what appears to be a member of the Church of Bush. There have been many times when you guys end up falling all over yourselves in the rush to defend our dear president, only to be proven wrong later. See the Katrina video or the Downing Street memos, for example. And that's just what's filtered out through a stonewalling GOP government. If the Dem's have the balls to actually go out and win the Senate or the House AND investigate the White House, the shit is really going to hit the fan.
Bush is draging this country down, and guys like you are helping him.
There have been many more acts of violence committed by environmental groups for their cause.
No, there haven't been. Maybe more economic damage from industrial sabotage, but industrian sabotage is not terrorism nor violence towards people.
Not to mention unions, who have a history of being linked with violence and ironically the mob.
And businesses have a long histroy of cheating on their taxes, dumping toxic chemicals into the river and sexually harrassing their secretaries. Let's get rid of them, too.
The AC is only telling part of the story. No, dual processors weren't really supported by the operating system until OS X. However, Apple did sell MP systems (one of the cloners had a quad box, IIRC) and they were usuable, but only by specially designed applications like Photoshop. They used a multi-processing system extention, but it was a fugly setup.
The Democrats certainally are spinless pussies, with only a few exceptions here and there. Like when Harry Reid shut the Senate down over Pat Robert's stonewalling the investigation into trumped up intelligence on Iraq, or when Howard Dean or Al Gore occasionally critisize the Administration. But then they are usually surrounded the Democratic firing squad who insist that Dean "doesn't speak for them".
HOWEVER, there is still a big difference between being a spineless pussy along for the ride, and a raging dick who gleefully pulls the trigger.
I take issue with your equating being bullied with a threat to one's existence. They are not the same thing.
They certainty can be. Massive, prolonged bullying can lead to massive depression, which can lead to suicide. Which can also lead to a rational choice to end the lives of those who made your life not worth living, before you take your own. Of course, it rarely goes that far, but bullying can still fuck up peoples lives for a long time.
Anyone buying a machine like that would be crazy not to buy a membership as an Apple developer...membership is typically $500. But for that $500, you get the price of the machine knocked down to $19,329. Even with the price of the membership factored in, you're still saving over $3,500.
I'm a Republican because I disagree with the Democratic party's communistic/socialistic party lines
This is laughable in the extreme as the Democratic party of today is far more conservative than the GOP was thirty years ago. Which should tell you how far to the right the GOP is today.
I believe that people should earn a living for themselves, and not rely on gubbament checks written on money extorted from hardworking people.
It's actually in the peoples self-interest that there aren't millions of hungry, desperate people living in a country with millions of hand guns.
If taxes were lower
...people would have less money because it would cost more money to get the same services from private companies than the government.
folks would have enough money to care for the needy
1) would not be enough 2) someone shouldn't have to wait for a burst of charity so they can eat and 3) a large number of people wont do it.
I believe that people should be responsible for their own actions. You spilled HOT coffee (when you specifically ordered HOT coffee) on your lap after you set a known-weak styrofoam cup between your legs? Guess what? It's stupidity on your part.
What I find most annoying about people like you, is that you are pumped up on taking responsibility for your own actions, UNLESS those actions are part of a business. In the case you are referring to, of course it was the lady's fault that she spilled coffee on herself. Who's fault was it that the coffee was stored near boiling temperatures, 30 degrees higher than the industry average? McDonalds. What company had recieved, and ignored, hundreds of complaints from customers and health inspectors on the temperature of their coffee? McDonalds. Who served coffee hot enough to cause third degree burns to the bone while knowing that most of their customers drink coffee as soon as they buy it? McDonalds. Who's fault was it that the coffee was spilled? The woman's. Who's fault was it that the resulting burns were so bad they required hundereds of thousands of dollars worth of surgery and skin grafts? McDonalds.
Slashdot Mirror
WTF are you talking about here. I'm talking about protestors rioting or chaining themvselves together to block entrances to abortion clinics isn't exactly "peacefull assembly", not spying on activists.
Objecting to their failure to live up to that standard while refusing to make any effort to live up to it yourself is hypocrisy. Their failure is no excuse for you not to try. In debate, tu quoque, or, "you did it too!" is just one form of ad hominem fallacy; in law, it's often a valid argument, also referred to as "dirty hands." In this case, I'm using it in the legal sense, that is, if you aren't willing to act responsibly, you have no right to complain when others don't. Mr. Pot, meet Mr. Kettle.
Bull. Shit. I can be a compulsive gambler myself and fault William Bennett for gambling, with zero hypocracy involved. Why? Because I'm not a high horse riding moralizer telling other people how they should live their lives, and he is. I can say Henry Hyde should have gone to jail for malicious prosecution, even if I myself am a philandering jerk with two girlfriends. Why? Because I'm not fighting to impeach someone for getting a blowjob when I cheated on my wife when I was the same age.
that is where you are wrong. most of the time, liberatarians believe in market solutions to what is currently regulated.
That's the sort of nonsense I'm talking about. The reason we have government agencies and regulations over markets is presicely because these markets are unwilling or unable to police themselves.
The point is to get rid of all the other stuff people are more than capable of providing for themselves.
Ok. Go find private companies you can pay for police protection, fire protection, ambulance service, compare the cost of public education to private school and then get back to me with your big cost savings.
Wrong. Neoconservative ideas are readily available in political and media circles, though the notion that they dominate is absolutely laughable. True classical conservative, or libertarian, thought is all too difficult to locate anymore.
Fiscally, libertarianism and conservatism are very close - and yes they do dominate the news. But they aren't on the same planet on social issues, and never have been.
There are obviously other meanings, but traditionally, the word "liberal" refers to "generous" amounts of government involvement in things
Liberals use government as a means to an end, not sitting around thinking up new beuracracies for shits and giggles.
a referee government, instead of the nanny state
The problem is that the "nanny state" saves far more money than a libertarian one. Libertarians would rather spend $10 million on a prison than $500,000 on after school and drug treatment programs, even if they reduce crime by the same amount. A further problem is that almost all regulation is of the devil to them, which isn't the case. How many billions were lost from Enron, Vioxx, and mad cow disease? How many more would they lose without the agencies like the SEC and the FDA trying to watch out for and prevent actions that led to crisis?
Libertarian government might work very nicely on the scale of oh, say, your average Amish town. But in an industrialized nation of 300 million people, it's bat-shit crazy.
The author of that artical makes a very good point. MD's are more durable than an mp3 player
Not really. HD based players will typically survive a few drops to concrete just fine. Some guys decided to see how much damage the flash based iPod Nano can take, and it still worked after being run over by a car and dropped out a window at 55 mph. I'm guessing if it'll survive that, it'll survive a showdown with a Huffy.
and can record.
So can most mp3 players, either through line in, microphone, or both. So unless you really, really need optical recording, I don't see any advantages that MD has over an HD or flash based mp3 player, much less "serious" ones, as the article author claims.
Sure, they can fit 1 gig of data per disk, enough for a bunch of songs, but most people don't want to be carrying around lots of disks.
Exactly. If people didn't find swapping disks so annoying, HD or flash based mp3 players would only be bought by gadget freaks and everyone else would still be playing 10 cent burnable CD-R's on 30 dollar disk players.
Lets keep perspective before we feel too sorry for him.
Why is that, exactly? Fucked over is fucked over, no matter how much money he might be worth now.
Neither does Iraq and Lebanon, as they were created in much the same way by western European nations.
Yes, there were a lot of lines drawn arbitrarily on a map, and those lines became countries virtually overnight. The difference between Israel and the rest, however, is that the rest weren't specifically drawn up as a homeland for people who hadn't lived there for thousands of years, reguardless of any existing population. Nor, to my knowledge, were millions of people displaced by a different ethnic group in the formation of Iraq, Iran, etc.
So not only are these examples oceans apart, they aren't even on the same planet.
So you are being nostalgic.
And I wasn't intending to be inflammatory, but there are a good few comments that roast Apple Corp for their actions without any regard to the actual facts of the case or contract, which is... disappointing.
...Which isn't necessarily defending or appologizing for Apple Computer, nor is it really dissapointing. Yes, this based on a contract dispute as opposed to trademark law, but the whole reason they had a contract in the first place is because Apple Corp bullied the small-at-the-time Apple Computer into signing it. Apple Computer should have spent a bit more on their lawyers at the time, and told Apple Corp to piss off - the very suggestion that a beeping and booping Apple II infringed on a record label's trademark should have been laughed out of court.
So reguardless, this case is due to the dickheadedness of Apple Corp, wether or not they are contractually "right" at this time. And it's doubtfull that they are, given the information in the news reports. Apple Computer's lawyer claims that the agreement specifically allows "distribution of digital entertainment content" and restricted Apple Computer from becomming a record label or distributing songs on physical media, neither of which they are trying to do. The CNN article also says that Apple Corp wants Apple Computer to remove the Apple Computer logo from the iTMS, which is stupid, since it's not on there in the first place. In fact, the only mention of Apple Computer on the iTMS is the copyright notice at the bottom of the page.
While you may have a fancy low UID
:)
:)
While it's nice not to have an ID in the hundereds of thousands, it's nothing phancy...there's 17,616 people out there who have a lower one. The lowest (aside from Taco's) (and best) ID I've seen in a discussion was 69.
Taco apended that comment to the story posting, and thus it was not moderated at all.
Yup, I remember. I mentioned it as the sort of inflamatory statement that would have been modded up, not as an example of one that actually was. It was just easier to mention a famous-within-Slashdot comment like that as opposed to hunting for a real one dated five years ago.
There are the usual appologists, "Apple (Computer) can do no wrong!"
Where, exactly? Perusing the comments, I didn't see any. I'd say you might be nostalgic for the days when inflamatory anti-Apple statements like Taco's "No wireless, less space than a Nomad, lame" earned an automatic +5 Insightful, but your UID is pretty high.
Okay, name one other example of a skyscraper that was on fire with thousands of gallons of jet fuel burning inside it. The Towers didn't fall from "just a fire" they fell from a fire that was a few thousand degrees hot, IIRC.
There was no Israel for Britain to reneg on. And brining up colonial meddling hardly excuses Israeli meddling in Southeast Asia.
All fine and good, until Israel was immediately attacked for daring to declare their independence.
...because they had no business carving a nation out of an area with complete disreguard to the existing population. Isreal has no right to exist.
You forgot the fourth reason: it just doesn't matter. Anyone who doesn't wear the foil hat realizes that a bunch of drones looking down on US territory doesn't matter at all to individual liberty.
More like "just doesn't get it". These things could become as common as K-9 units. And if SCOTUS rubber stamps searches like these the way they have car searches, the cops will be able to use these for everything except looking in your bathroom window. The other scary part is how easily these planes could be tied into a national system, in a permanent database. In 20 years it would be trivial for someone with access to go back and look at all your day to day movements from the preceeding five years.
Sheesh, I seriously think that if people like you had their way, the police wouldn't be allowed to patrol the streets.
Don't be a tool. There can be a hundered cops in front of your house but they all have short term memory. With our ever expanding storage technology, surveillance can be filed in a giant Wal-Mart type database - and never removed.
Because if you had read the article, you'd have known that this has nothing to do with the military. It is the police who want this capability
Ah, I see your reasoning. And by the same token, the Administration and Congress had nothing to do with the Patriot act because it is used by local law enforcement. Makes perfect sense.
and last I checked, the police have the Constitutional authority to conduct surveillance.
And the last time I checked, they were required to get a warrant before doing so. What do you bet there wont be some court cases over air surveillance because the cops didn't get one?
Blue states do pay the most in taxes and red states take the most. Another fun fact: remember the anti-gay marriage hoopla that swept through the red states a couple years ago, under the guise of "protection of marriage"? Except that red states have the worst divorce rates, while blue states have the best. In fact, the state with the best divorce rate is Massachusetts, which started the wingnuts on their crusade in the first place.
Take for example, the latest Downing Street memo. It revealed that prior to the invasion of Iraq, Bush thought the evidence of WMD was so weak that he suggested tricking Iraq into firing on a U-2 spyplane painted with UN colors. Wingnuts like Confederate Yankee dismissed the memo as nonsense, primarily on the grounds that you wouldn't be able to see the plane at it's operation altitude from the ground. That's a Bigfoot moment, because the fact that U-2's fly at 70,000 does nothing to debunk the idea that "putting food on our families" Bush wouldn't have hatched the scheme in the first place.
It mentions the federal government is only interested in using this to replace existing flights by manned aircraft at over 12,500 feet, with filed flight plans. This is your own local officials doing this backyard surveillance, not "the big evil Bush" that everyone seems to like to blame for everything. But MAN does throwing "the Bush administraion" in the summary really catch eyeballs, regardless of whether it's true or not.
More "Bigfoot" nonsense. Dismissing the involvment of the Bush Administration by talking about locals in this is like trying to claim that the Administration and the GOP majority in Congress didn't have anything to do with the Patriot Act because it is used & abused by local law enforcement. And you conviniently ignored the quote that was in the summary: "A top Homeland Security official told Congress today..."
This might be news to you, but the Dept of Homeland Security is part of the Executive Branch, headed by a Cabinent-level official, with all top level officials either being directly appointed by Bush or appointed by appointees of Bush, which makes it part of the......drumroll please....Bush administration.
*sigh* Typical slashdot.
No, typical kneejerk defense by what appears to be a member of the Church of Bush. There have been many times when you guys end up falling all over yourselves in the rush to defend our dear president, only to be proven wrong later. See the Katrina video or the Downing Street memos, for example. And that's just what's filtered out through a stonewalling GOP government. If the Dem's have the balls to actually go out and win the Senate or the House AND investigate the White House, the shit is really going to hit the fan.
Bush is draging this country down, and guys like you are helping him.
Went something like this. This was a variation on the one that I read.
Oh, and you shouldn't be so down on Oklahoma. They just have more important things to do than book 'learnin.
There have been many more acts of violence committed by environmental groups for their cause.
No, there haven't been. Maybe more economic damage from industrial sabotage, but industrian sabotage is not terrorism nor violence towards people.
Not to mention unions, who have a history of being linked with violence and ironically the mob.
And businesses have a long histroy of cheating on their taxes, dumping toxic chemicals into the river and sexually harrassing their secretaries. Let's get rid of them, too.
Last time I checked, it unconstitutional to prohibit people from peacably assembling.
Last time I checked, what groups like Operation Rescue do is about as far from "peacably assembling" as you can get.
The AC is only telling part of the story. No, dual processors weren't really supported by the operating system until OS X. However, Apple did sell MP systems (one of the cloners had a quad box, IIRC) and they were usuable, but only by specially designed applications like Photoshop. They used a multi-processing system extention, but it was a fugly setup.
The Democrats certainally are spinless pussies, with only a few exceptions here and there. Like when Harry Reid shut the Senate down over Pat Robert's stonewalling the investigation into trumped up intelligence on Iraq, or when Howard Dean or Al Gore occasionally critisize the Administration. But then they are usually surrounded the Democratic firing squad who insist that Dean "doesn't speak for them".
HOWEVER, there is still a big difference between being a spineless pussy along for the ride, and a raging dick who gleefully pulls the trigger.
I take issue with your equating being bullied with a threat to one's existence. They are not the same thing.
They certainty can be. Massive, prolonged bullying can lead to massive depression, which can lead to suicide. Which can also lead to a rational choice to end the lives of those who made your life not worth living, before you take your own. Of course, it rarely goes that far, but bullying can still fuck up peoples lives for a long time.
Anyone buying a machine like that would be crazy not to buy a membership as an Apple developer...membership is typically $500. But for that $500, you get the price of the machine knocked down to $19,329. Even with the price of the membership factored in, you're still saving over $3,500.
That's what his processors do. They go to 110...
Mine goes to one hundred and eleven.
This is laughable in the extreme as the Democratic party of today is far more conservative than the GOP was thirty years ago. Which should tell you how far to the right the GOP is today.
I believe that people should earn a living for themselves, and not rely on gubbament checks written on money extorted from hardworking people.
It's actually in the peoples self-interest that there aren't millions of hungry, desperate people living in a country with millions of hand guns.
If taxes were lower
...people would have less money because it would cost more money to get the same services from private companies than the government.
folks would have enough money to care for the needy
1) would not be enough 2) someone shouldn't have to wait for a burst of charity so they can eat and 3) a large number of people wont do it.
I believe that people should be responsible for their own actions. You spilled HOT coffee (when you specifically ordered HOT coffee) on your lap after you set a known-weak styrofoam cup between your legs? Guess what? It's stupidity on your part.
What I find most annoying about people like you, is that you are pumped up on taking responsibility for your own actions, UNLESS those actions are part of a business. In the case you are referring to, of course it was the lady's fault that she spilled coffee on herself. Who's fault was it that the coffee was stored near boiling temperatures, 30 degrees higher than the industry average? McDonalds. What company had recieved, and ignored, hundreds of complaints from customers and health inspectors on the temperature of their coffee? McDonalds. Who served coffee hot enough to cause third degree burns to the bone while knowing that most of their customers drink coffee as soon as they buy it? McDonalds. Who's fault was it that the coffee was spilled? The woman's. Who's fault was it that the resulting burns were so bad they required hundereds of thousands of dollars worth of surgery and skin grafts? McDonalds.