Bussard collectors (in the Star Trek reference) were for collecting particles to augment the matter storage of the ship. They did not keep the ship from building up these particles as it traveled.
And history proves out that the Northern States began their attack on the institution of slavery and an action to force the Southern States to agree to sell industrial goods to the Northern States. Else, the Northern States would not have agreed to the compromises in the constitution in the first place and the Southern States would have formed a separate union. This does not change the fact that the reality of the situation was quite simple: the Northern States wanted the cheap southern goods, they would get them by any means necessary and they would get their proposed protective tariffs on imported goods so that the Southern States would be forced to purchase Northern goods.
I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so. ~~ Abraham Lincoln, Inaugural Address
Given, for many years, including the framing of the constitution, slavery was an issue. That cannot be disputed. Factor, certainly. Overarching reason for seceding, no.
Im not saying that slavery had absolutely nothing to do with it, but it was a factor that was not necessarily the primary issue. The issue at hand was that states wanted to be able to do with their property, be it a slave, bale of cotton, cow, chicken, house, land etc, as they saw fit and not have the Federal government, which did NOT have the right, dictate to them what they could and could not do with it. Also, there has never been nor will there ever be, an excuse for the retardation that is the state of Georgia. I live here, how brain dead yahoos keep getting elected, Ill never understand.
You're a moron and apparently not a student of history. The ownership of slaves was such a very minor issue in the beginning that it was virtually of no consequence. Which is why slavery wasn't outlawed prior to or during the onset of the war. Slavery did not become an issue until the southern states began negotiations with France and England for assistance. Lincoln, knowing the view of slavery in western Europe, decided to make slavery a much larger issue so that western Europe would back out of its assistance to the south.
The major issue that kicked off the state's rights battle was actually trade. The southern states were selling cotton and tobacco to Europe, Britain specifically, because they were getting far better prices for their crops. The northern industrial complex was then being forced to purchased finished or partially finished goods from Europe which increased their manufacturing costs to nearly a prohibitive level. The nothern industrial states went before their brethren in congress and made complaints AGAINST capitalism and free enterprise. The fed issued "orders" to the southern states requiring them to sell their crops to U.S. based industries rather than European. The states said no and thus kicked off the the move to secede from the union, which, ultimately led to the fight for supremacy.
How about you actually learn history before you open your mouth in an intellectual debate.
I'm sorry, but your arguments there are entirely dependent on not only the state, but the people that are involved throughout the process. My father being an attorney here, has handled hundreds of domestic / custodial cases over the years. I have assisted him with many of these cases over the years with research, investigation, filings etc. In both his experience and mine, your points are quite invalid. In this state:
If your wife tells the police you hit her, even without evidence supporting the claim, they are required to arrest you. In fact, your wife is no longer involved, the state becomes the complainant.
My father just dispensed with a case that he has been fighting for over 7 years. The husband and wife decided to divorce. During the divorce proceedings, the wife was not getting the amount of money per month that she had requested, even though it was the maximum awarded by law. So, she told the court that he had molested their 10 year old daughter. He was arrested and given a bond of $100,000. After he was release, he was put on trial for sexual assault to a minor, child molestation, statutory rape and domestic violence. Combined, these charges totaled to 148 years in prison.
During this period, the wife's behavior had become more erratic. She failed several drug tests, she had 2 DUI's and had begun living with another man who was later arrested for distribution of narcotics (meth).
The defendant on the other hand, had no criminal history, not even tickets. He had numerous character witnesses as well as witnesses to events that the wife had claimed occurred but in reality had not. However, the court saw fit to not allow him to have custody of the daughter, but did allow him to have temporary custody of their 7 year old son.
During this 7 year battle, the wife's stories became more erratic, he behavior changed drastically, and she started sending the daughter over to the ex-husband's house to pick up the son. They lived only a few blocks from one another.
In the end, after 7 years of fighting for his life, the man my father defended was acquitted of the charges. He still does not have custody of his children. He lost his job within 6 months of the divorce filing and had barely been able to maintain any kind of employment since, due to being prosecuted for sexual and domestic offenses. He is broke, basically jobless and does not have his children because of this.
This case has pushed my father into no longer practicing law.
You can prove your ex is a drug addict all you want, the majority of the time, the court will order the woman into counselling or rehab for a certain amount of time, then give her the kids back.
Wife not allowing you to take your kids? You can be fucked. Not only because you won't see them, but also because she can file a complaint against you for not showing up. My father had to deal with this more than once. My mother being the drunk that she was, occasionally told him to piss off. He would then have to call the sheriff's department to come to the house and write a statement that he had come out to see his son and that she had refused to allow it. The sheriff's department would NOT enforce the custodial agreement.
My father had to deal with denying my mother custody when I was about 12. My mother showed up at his place to pick me up and she was falling down drunk. He would not allow me to leave with her because it was endangering my life. She called the cops. They came to his house and, even though they knew she was plastered, forced him to turn me over to her so that they could leave. When he questioned them as to why they were forcing me to leave with her, as drunk as she was, they told him that she may be intoxicated, but she was not yet behind the wheel. When she left the premises, if she exhibited signs of intoxication, they would then deal with it. But not until then.
Unfortunately, I know a great many attorneys, and most of the ones that still handle domestic cases will tell you flat out that you are quite incorrect. At the same time, they will tell you that it really depends on where these events take place, as states have varying laws and some of it is entirely up to the officer's discretion.
oh but the women were perfectly willing to commit, there was no argument there. When they got what they wanted or finally realized that they wouldnt, they file for divorce so they can go commit to someone that will.
The act bans shipment, transport, ownership and use of guns or ammunition by individuals convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence, or who are under a restraining (protection) order for domestic abuse in all 50 states. The act also makes it unlawful to knowingly sell or give a firearm or ammunition to such persons.
It specifically says CONVICTED of misdemeanor domestic violence or CURRENT retraining order. If you haven't been convicted, and you are not under a restraining order, you are allowed.
It can also mean that we still have some archaic laws on the books that people rarely, or never reevaluate. Shit, the sodomy laws were only repealed in Georgia a few years ago. Until then, people were getting 10 year sentences for admitting that they had oral sex.
For that matter, the laws surrounding driving privileges and insurance are ludicrous. 2 people that I know have both been arrested for driving on a suspended license only because they changed insurance companies and the insurance companies failed to file the corrected paperwork. No notifications were ever sent to either of them regarding their licenses. The judge, unfortunately the same one in Gwinette County, didn't give a shit about the paperwork and convicted both of them. They both lost their licenses for an additional 6 months, received 40 hours of community service and $1000 fines.
Drugs are another issue. Mandatory jail / probation for possession of marijuana under an ounce... get real
That was years before. Tor also demanded that some of the books be split into separate volumes. They continued doing this when the series became very popular. They have split several of the first books into 2 books each. Jordan, on the other hand, did not want this nor did Harriett.
Goodkind can blow it out his ass. I started with the series, ran through it right up through Chainfire and I ended up wanting to shoot myself. Seriously, not only does Richard Rahl parallel Rand al'Thor, but the storylines are comparable in so many ways. The thing that annoyed the shit out of me the most was the incessant whining about Gookind's political beliefs.
In a 2000 chat on CNN.com, Robert Jordan mentioned that NBC had purchased an option to do a miniseries of The Eye of the World.[35] But he expressed doubts that the series would be made stating "key people involved in getting that contract together have left NBC."[36]
On 12 August 2008, Variety reported that Universal Pictures had optioned the rights to produce feature film adaptations of The Wheel of Time books. They plan to adapt The Eye of the World as the first film.[37]
Actually, I find quite the opposite. I think he wrote many of his female characters quite well. I can point at many women that I have known throughout my life that would be shining examples of the Jordan female characteristics. Even my ex was an example, given she was more like Elaida than any of the others...
Jordan wanted to finish the series in 13 books. A couple of years before he died, he was at Dragon*Con and in the WoT panel, he said that it would end with the 13th book, even if you had to wheel it out of the store in a wheel barrow.
The judge did not like me pleading guilty, but he couldn't throw it out at that stage.
Because it was idiocy. You don't bloody plead guilty when there are no witnesses and no evidence you moron. You did not have to hire a lawyer for it. You please not guilty, with no representative from the opposition, the judge will either reschedule, or find in your favor and it's done. Usually, they'll find in your favor unless it is a very serious crime.
It could also have something to do with being able to re-write, modify, or do whatever they wish with the OSS rather than having compiled solutions that they can't modify other than the presentation layer. There are any number of reasons a company might avoid MS packages, they do not always have to be "smart companies" though.
Slashdot Mirror
Bussard collectors (in the Star Trek reference) were for collecting particles to augment the matter storage of the ship. They did not keep the ship from building up these particles as it traveled.
It wasn't until the french stepped in and supplied us with trained personnel, supplies and ships to run blockades...
And history proves out that the Northern States began their attack on the institution of slavery and an action to force the Southern States to agree to sell industrial goods to the Northern States. Else, the Northern States would not have agreed to the compromises in the constitution in the first place and the Southern States would have formed a separate union. This does not change the fact that the reality of the situation was quite simple: the Northern States wanted the cheap southern goods, they would get them by any means necessary and they would get their proposed protective tariffs on imported goods so that the Southern States would be forced to purchase Northern goods.
I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so. ~~ Abraham Lincoln, Inaugural Address
Given, for many years, including the framing of the constitution, slavery was an issue. That cannot be disputed. Factor, certainly. Overarching reason for seceding, no.
Im not saying that slavery had absolutely nothing to do with it, but it was a factor that was not necessarily the primary issue. The issue at hand was that states wanted to be able to do with their property, be it a slave, bale of cotton, cow, chicken, house, land etc, as they saw fit and not have the Federal government, which did NOT have the right, dictate to them what they could and could not do with it. Also, there has never been nor will there ever be, an excuse for the retardation that is the state of Georgia. I live here, how brain dead yahoos keep getting elected, Ill never understand.
You're a moron and apparently not a student of history. The ownership of slaves was such a very minor issue in the beginning that it was virtually of no consequence. Which is why slavery wasn't outlawed prior to or during the onset of the war. Slavery did not become an issue until the southern states began negotiations with France and England for assistance. Lincoln, knowing the view of slavery in western Europe, decided to make slavery a much larger issue so that western Europe would back out of its assistance to the south.
The major issue that kicked off the state's rights battle was actually trade. The southern states were selling cotton and tobacco to Europe, Britain specifically, because they were getting far better prices for their crops. The northern industrial complex was then being forced to purchased finished or partially finished goods from Europe which increased their manufacturing costs to nearly a prohibitive level. The nothern industrial states went before their brethren in congress and made complaints AGAINST capitalism and free enterprise. The fed issued "orders" to the southern states requiring them to sell their crops to U.S. based industries rather than European. The states said no and thus kicked off the the move to secede from the union, which, ultimately led to the fight for supremacy.
How about you actually learn history before you open your mouth in an intellectual debate.
I'm sorry, but your arguments there are entirely dependent on not only the state, but the people that are involved throughout the process. My father being an attorney here, has handled hundreds of domestic / custodial cases over the years. I have assisted him with many of these cases over the years with research, investigation, filings etc. In both his experience and mine, your points are quite invalid. In this state:
If your wife tells the police you hit her, even without evidence supporting the claim, they are required to arrest you. In fact, your wife is no longer involved, the state becomes the complainant.
My father just dispensed with a case that he has been fighting for over 7 years. The husband and wife decided to divorce. During the divorce proceedings, the wife was not getting the amount of money per month that she had requested, even though it was the maximum awarded by law. So, she told the court that he had molested their 10 year old daughter. He was arrested and given a bond of $100,000. After he was release, he was put on trial for sexual assault to a minor, child molestation, statutory rape and domestic violence. Combined, these charges totaled to 148 years in prison.
During this period, the wife's behavior had become more erratic. She failed several drug tests, she had 2 DUI's and had begun living with another man who was later arrested for distribution of narcotics (meth).
The defendant on the other hand, had no criminal history, not even tickets. He had numerous character witnesses as well as witnesses to events that the wife had claimed occurred but in reality had not. However, the court saw fit to not allow him to have custody of the daughter, but did allow him to have temporary custody of their 7 year old son.
During this 7 year battle, the wife's stories became more erratic, he behavior changed drastically, and she started sending the daughter over to the ex-husband's house to pick up the son. They lived only a few blocks from one another.
In the end, after 7 years of fighting for his life, the man my father defended was acquitted of the charges. He still does not have custody of his children. He lost his job within 6 months of the divorce filing and had barely been able to maintain any kind of employment since, due to being prosecuted for sexual and domestic offenses. He is broke, basically jobless and does not have his children because of this.
This case has pushed my father into no longer practicing law.
You can prove your ex is a drug addict all you want, the majority of the time, the court will order the woman into counselling or rehab for a certain amount of time, then give her the kids back.
Wife not allowing you to take your kids? You can be fucked. Not only because you won't see them, but also because she can file a complaint against you for not showing up. My father had to deal with this more than once. My mother being the drunk that she was, occasionally told him to piss off. He would then have to call the sheriff's department to come to the house and write a statement that he had come out to see his son and that she had refused to allow it. The sheriff's department would NOT enforce the custodial agreement.
My father had to deal with denying my mother custody when I was about 12. My mother showed up at his place to pick me up and she was falling down drunk. He would not allow me to leave with her because it was endangering my life. She called the cops. They came to his house and, even though they knew she was plastered, forced him to turn me over to her so that they could leave. When he questioned them as to why they were forcing me to leave with her, as drunk as she was, they told him that she may be intoxicated, but she was not yet behind the wheel. When she left the premises, if she exhibited signs of intoxication, they would then deal with it. But not until then.
Unfortunately, I know a great many attorneys, and most of the ones that still handle domestic cases will tell you flat out that you are quite incorrect. At the same time, they will tell you that it really depends on where these events take place, as states have varying laws and some of it is entirely up to the officer's discretion.
Policies are not laws. Policies are made by department heads etc. The OVW can dictate policies to states and it has nothing to do with legislation.
oh but the women were perfectly willing to commit, there was no argument there. When they got what they wanted or finally realized that they wouldnt, they file for divorce so they can go commit to someone that will.
The act bans shipment, transport, ownership and use of guns or ammunition by individuals convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence, or who are under a restraining (protection) order for domestic abuse in all 50 states. The act also makes it unlawful to knowingly sell or give a firearm or ammunition to such persons.
It specifically says CONVICTED of misdemeanor domestic violence or CURRENT retraining order. If you haven't been convicted, and you are not under a restraining order, you are allowed.
he got fucked by the state. Here, they have to prove more than a 92% chance that the child is yours.
You don't have to use windows.
It can also mean that we still have some archaic laws on the books that people rarely, or never reevaluate. Shit, the sodomy laws were only repealed in Georgia a few years ago. Until then, people were getting 10 year sentences for admitting that they had oral sex.
For that matter, the laws surrounding driving privileges and insurance are ludicrous. 2 people that I know have both been arrested for driving on a suspended license only because they changed insurance companies and the insurance companies failed to file the corrected paperwork. No notifications were ever sent to either of them regarding their licenses. The judge, unfortunately the same one in Gwinette County, didn't give a shit about the paperwork and convicted both of them. They both lost their licenses for an additional 6 months, received 40 hours of community service and $1000 fines.
Drugs are another issue. Mandatory jail / probation for possession of marijuana under an ounce... get real
That was years before. Tor also demanded that some of the books be split into separate volumes. They continued doing this when the series became very popular. They have split several of the first books into 2 books each. Jordan, on the other hand, did not want this nor did Harriett.
Goodkind can blow it out his ass. I started with the series, ran through it right up through Chainfire and I ended up wanting to shoot myself. Seriously, not only does Richard Rahl parallel Rand al'Thor, but the storylines are comparable in so many ways. The thing that annoyed the shit out of me the most was the incessant whining about Gookind's political beliefs.
In a 2000 chat on CNN.com, Robert Jordan mentioned that NBC had purchased an option to do a miniseries of The Eye of the World.[35] But he expressed doubts that the series would be made stating "key people involved in getting that contract together have left NBC."[36] On 12 August 2008, Variety reported that Universal Pictures had optioned the rights to produce feature film adaptations of The Wheel of Time books. They plan to adapt The Eye of the World as the first film.[37]
~~ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wheel_of_Time
Actually, I find quite the opposite. I think he wrote many of his female characters quite well. I can point at many women that I have known throughout my life that would be shining examples of the Jordan female characteristics. Even my ex was an example, given she was more like Elaida than any of the others...
Jordan wanted to finish the series in 13 books. A couple of years before he died, he was at Dragon*Con and in the WoT panel, he said that it would end with the 13th book, even if you had to wheel it out of the store in a wheel barrow.
Yet, I do not see Mat's development this way. He is fighting all of the crap that keeps being pushed on him as has been his M.O. since day 1.
if you mean your junior high reunion is 20 years, sure, otherwise your time frames are off seeing as how Eye of the World was published in 1990.
A Song of Fire and Ice... George R.R. Martin... Started in 1991, first book published in 1996... It's been 2 decades.
Since when should foreign stakeholders get a vote as to how laws are built in the U.S.? Another problem with the SEC overstepping their bounds.
The judge did not like me pleading guilty, but he couldn't throw it out at that stage.
Because it was idiocy. You don't bloody plead guilty when there are no witnesses and no evidence you moron. You did not have to hire a lawyer for it. You please not guilty, with no representative from the opposition, the judge will either reschedule, or find in your favor and it's done. Usually, they'll find in your favor unless it is a very serious crime.
Funny, I charged her for the privilege.
It could also have something to do with being able to re-write, modify, or do whatever they wish with the OSS rather than having compiled solutions that they can't modify other than the presentation layer. There are any number of reasons a company might avoid MS packages, they do not always have to be "smart companies" though.