Let's take breaking and entering in my state. If the entry was with larcenous intent, that's a Class H felony which gets you max 10 years or fine or both.
It's legal to shoot someone as they are breaking into your home in that case regardless of whether you feel threatened.
Usually a couple times a week, if you don't count the eggs that go into various baked goods. I just realize that our bodies are naturally supposed to partake of meat, pure and simple. To chastise people for not going against their bodies' natural dietary requirements is just wrong. It smacks of the fundamentalist Christian "sex is evil" platform, which combines interestingly with vegetarianism in the case of the inventor of the graham cracker.
Just because you were raised to think it's wrong doesn't mean it is, doesn't mean that you can project that on others who believe differently.
Chicken curry, lamb vindaloo, you're making me hungry.
If you're worried about humane treatment then kill your own food. Physically we are omnivores, no denying it. Vegetarianism is the act of figuring out how to make your body survive minus an entire class of foods it is adapted to.
"I'm not a vegetarian because I love animals, I'm a vegetarian because I hate plants."
The GP's point was that most people didn't morally object to it because they didn't know what exactly means having a steak in front of them
I know exactly what happens in the commercial farms and slaughter houses, and it's one reason I prefer hunted wild game. But the PETA doesn't want me to do that either.
Run around collecting cute little stray animals, and instead of trying to find them homes you kill them. Extra points if you collect them by duping their current possessor into thinking you're going to find them homes. The boss level is your trial for the crimes you committed, extra life if you're found not guilty.
You win if in the end the general uninformed public still thinks you love animals.
They only were the government violating the public trust by abusing their ability to access confidential records on private individuals for partisan political reasons. They keep their jobs.
These guys were just with a company that anyone can decide to stop using. They get fired.
So we can take one or both of two things from this based on the case differences: - Companies are better at ridding themselves of bad people. - The government workers were Democrats working in a Democrat-run state, trying to help the Democrat presidential candidate, so they get a pass.
Bush, Obama, William Jefferson (even while under indictment), Stevens, Clinton, etc.
The populace gave the Democrats in Congress a victory, kicking out lots of Republicans in this whole "change" mantra, yet it's shown that 43% of Obama voters didn't know the Democrats were in charge in the first place. Only 17% knew Obama won his first election by having his opponents removed from the ballot.
We are, in aggregate, dumb and completely uninformed. We will therefore get commensurate-quality representatives in government.
The old saying still applies as it does in the Mac world. If your system is more than 1 or 2 years old consider purchasing a new system
I bought a Mac with Tiger last year. I upgraded to Leopard and found it ran faster. Snow Leopard is due out next year and it appears that my current hardware will probably run even faster on it. Why should I buy new hardware with the OS helping my current hardware last longer? This has been the case for a while, although the PPC-Intel switch will probably leave some people with PPC Macs needing to upgrade their hardware after a few years to be able to run the latest Mac OS.
Contrast with Windows, where OS upgrades always put more strain on the hardware, which brings in your 1-2 year rule.
are you suggesting that the flow is maintained by convection alone
Look up "natural circulation reactor." They aren't that new, the Ohio class uses them. But they are an engineering feat considering the coolant has to flow naturally even when undergoing the g-forces of maneuvers and changes in pitch and yaw.
If modern nuclear subs are quieter than a conventional sub running on batteries then we have certainly made great strides over the last decade or so
Whether they are quieter is probably classified. I think the problem here is that neither of us can detect the other without going active. However, our fleet generally rules the surface, so we can do as much active from above as we need.
Maybe it would stink after several hundred years, but the stadium has an air scrubbing system just like the atmosphere does. The cure for farts will have been found before anyone notices anything anyway.
What, with the state of current technology and limited resources do you think we'll be running so much on fossil fuels a hundred years from now?
Modern American submarine nuclear reactors can operate without the use of cooling pumps. Even with everything else shut down, the core stays cool using the natural flow of the coolant. They only require the pumps to be turned on in times of higher power need, but reactor noise is the least of your worries when you're sprinting with that power.
The law already allows the Secretary of Defense to exempt from the coverage of the Marine Mammal Protection Act any actions deemed necessary for national defense. The DoD granted this exemption with certain conditions designed to protect marine mammals. The National Environmental Protection Act leaves whether to file an environmental impact assessment up to the federal agency, based on whether it thinks its actions have a significant impact on the environment (the Navy is filing one anyway, just to be nice, but it has an exemption for now). The Navy, according to law, even got an exemption under the Coastal Zone Management Act.
So what we have here is a law that leaves operations under the discretion of the executive branch in the interests of national defense, but the environmentalists decided they knew better what is necessary for national defense than the Navy. The court logically deferred to the Navy's professional opinion.
We've been doing sonar training for decades. Only relatively recently did the environazis come up with this approach to hurting people in the name of animals.
There's old Russian and Chinese diesels that they might have, and they're loud. But some of the modern German designs are almost impossible to passively detect.
Despite China maneuvering itself into third-world status for the purposes of the Kyoto Treaty, China isn't third-world. By definition, I don't think you can consider one of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council to be third-world.
But, yes, they aren't exactly hampered by lawsuits or demonstrations when they want to conduct military training.
t it kills me that military advancement is always considered more important then environmental impact
It isn't. Every military installation has a strong environmental office. Expensive cleanups are commonplace, and there is training to avoid the contamination in the first place. Combat training even gets scheduled around the habits of endangered species on the post.
Having been in a war, I'm definitely not pro-war. If you think war sucks, try being in one, it sucks even worse up close. But I definitely believe in saving the lives of our troops through proper training should war be necessary. We can only hope that an appropriate balance between environment and training is struck, and that unnecessary wars aren't entered into. We can vote out presidents who we don't think make that balance. We had that chance in 2004, but we blew it.
Just be confident that we'll be able to shoot at the next third world country that bugs us
Yeah, third-world countries tend to have quiet submarines that our sailors would need to be ready for.
But even if it's against a real threat, it's obvious some put the lives of whales over the lives of our sailors. In fact I noticed that the far-whacko environmentalists are more anti-human than pro-animal. That's a lot of self-loathing there.
7 positive for every negative, and 4 negative for every positive. Obama has a 7:1, McCain 1:4, the ratio between is 28:1.
when you choose a running mate who can't name the three countries involved in NAFTA and doesn't know that Africa isn't a country (all reported by Republican staffers)
Correct, but that did not happen here. There is simply no way Obama had a 28:1 ratio of good to bad in reality compared to McCain. That sounds like straight-up guy vs. a criminal.
The businesses rely on some sort of disconnect when it comes to their money. AT&T emblazoned their logo on bags for the Democratic convention around the time the Democratic-run Congress passed the telecom amnesty. Nobody seemed to care. It's like people care in general, but nobody goes after a specific company for doing it unless that company later does something bad, like Enron.
And even then people don't necessarily care. Obama was able to lay blame for Fannie May and Freddie Mac on the Republicans, yet he is the second-highest recipient of their money in only a couple years in office, ahead of senators who have been taking their money for decades. Nobody seemed to care.
It's all in the selling, not in the facts. Obama was just a better salesman, with the help of his press corps, uh, I mean the media.
It's blame it on the Democrats pandering to the poor. It's no insidious conspiracy, it's plain-old pandering for votes. As usual, those with a grand scheme to change our society did not remember the Law of Unintended Consequences. The consequence was that they set up the perfect environment for the crooks to thrive. They are just lucky it came to fruition during a Republican administration so they could deflect all of the blame instead of taking on their fair share.
Slashdot Mirror
Let's take breaking and entering in my state. If the entry was with larcenous intent, that's a Class H felony which gets you max 10 years or fine or both.
It's legal to shoot someone as they are breaking into your home in that case regardless of whether you feel threatened.
People were doing this in the 90s. WAP's WML was just a form of XML.
Usually a couple times a week, if you don't count the eggs that go into various baked goods. I just realize that our bodies are naturally supposed to partake of meat, pure and simple. To chastise people for not going against their bodies' natural dietary requirements is just wrong. It smacks of the fundamentalist Christian "sex is evil" platform, which combines interestingly with vegetarianism in the case of the inventor of the graham cracker.
Just because you were raised to think it's wrong doesn't mean it is, doesn't mean that you can project that on others who believe differently.
And I do make a mean baingan bharta.
Chicken curry, lamb vindaloo, you're making me hungry.
If you're worried about humane treatment then kill your own food. Physically we are omnivores, no denying it. Vegetarianism is the act of figuring out how to make your body survive minus an entire class of foods it is adapted to.
"I'm not a vegetarian because I love animals, I'm a vegetarian because I hate plants."
I know exactly what happens in the commercial farms and slaughter houses, and it's one reason I prefer hunted wild game. But the PETA doesn't want me to do that either.
Run around collecting cute little stray animals, and instead of trying to find them homes you kill them. Extra points if you collect them by duping their current possessor into thinking you're going to find them homes. The boss level is your trial for the crimes you committed, extra life if you're found not guilty.
You win if in the end the general uninformed public still thinks you love animals.
They only were the government violating the public trust by abusing their ability to access confidential records on private individuals for partisan political reasons. They keep their jobs.
These guys were just with a company that anyone can decide to stop using. They get fired.
So we can take one or both of two things from this based on the case differences:
- Companies are better at ridding themselves of bad people.
- The government workers were Democrats working in a Democrat-run state, trying to help the Democrat presidential candidate, so they get a pass.
Bush, Obama, William Jefferson (even while under indictment), Stevens, Clinton, etc.
The populace gave the Democrats in Congress a victory, kicking out lots of Republicans in this whole "change" mantra, yet it's shown that 43% of Obama voters didn't know the Democrats were in charge in the first place. Only 17% knew Obama won his first election by having his opponents removed from the ballot.
We are, in aggregate, dumb and completely uninformed. We will therefore get commensurate-quality representatives in government.
I bought a Mac with Tiger last year. I upgraded to Leopard and found it ran faster. Snow Leopard is due out next year and it appears that my current hardware will probably run even faster on it. Why should I buy new hardware with the OS helping my current hardware last longer? This has been the case for a while, although the PPC-Intel switch will probably leave some people with PPC Macs needing to upgrade their hardware after a few years to be able to run the latest Mac OS.
Contrast with Windows, where OS upgrades always put more strain on the hardware, which brings in your 1-2 year rule.
Look up "natural circulation reactor." They aren't that new, the Ohio class uses them. But they are an engineering feat considering the coolant has to flow naturally even when undergoing the g-forces of maneuvers and changes in pitch and yaw.
Whether they are quieter is probably classified. I think the problem here is that neither of us can detect the other without going active. However, our fleet generally rules the surface, so we can do as much active from above as we need.
Maybe it would stink after several hundred years, but the stadium has an air scrubbing system just like the atmosphere does. The cure for farts will have been found before anyone notices anything anyway.
What, with the state of current technology and limited resources do you think we'll be running so much on fossil fuels a hundred years from now?
Modern American submarine nuclear reactors can operate without the use of cooling pumps. Even with everything else shut down, the core stays cool using the natural flow of the coolant. They only require the pumps to be turned on in times of higher power need, but reactor noise is the least of your worries when you're sprinting with that power.
The law already allows the Secretary of Defense to exempt from the coverage of the Marine Mammal Protection Act any actions deemed necessary for national defense. The DoD granted this exemption with certain conditions designed to protect marine mammals. The National Environmental Protection Act leaves whether to file an environmental impact assessment up to the federal agency, based on whether it thinks its actions have a significant impact on the environment (the Navy is filing one anyway, just to be nice, but it has an exemption for now). The Navy, according to law, even got an exemption under the Coastal Zone Management Act.
So what we have here is a law that leaves operations under the discretion of the executive branch in the interests of national defense, but the environmentalists decided they knew better what is necessary for national defense than the Navy. The court logically deferred to the Navy's professional opinion.
We've been doing sonar training for decades. Only relatively recently did the environazis come up with this approach to hurting people in the name of animals.
There's old Russian and Chinese diesels that they might have, and they're loud. But some of the modern German designs are almost impossible to passively detect.
Despite China maneuvering itself into third-world status for the purposes of the Kyoto Treaty, China isn't third-world. By definition, I don't think you can consider one of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council to be third-world.
But, yes, they aren't exactly hampered by lawsuits or demonstrations when they want to conduct military training.
It isn't. Every military installation has a strong environmental office. Expensive cleanups are commonplace, and there is training to avoid the contamination in the first place. Combat training even gets scheduled around the habits of endangered species on the post.
Having been in a war, I'm definitely not pro-war. If you think war sucks, try being in one, it sucks even worse up close. But I definitely believe in saving the lives of our troops through proper training should war be necessary. We can only hope that an appropriate balance between environment and training is struck, and that unnecessary wars aren't entered into. We can vote out presidents who we don't think make that balance. We had that chance in 2004, but we blew it.
Article II, Section 2:
"The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States..."
I would say this is purely an executive matter unless Congress says it's not going to fund such training exercises.
Yeah, third-world countries tend to have quiet submarines that our sailors would need to be ready for.
But even if it's against a real threat, it's obvious some put the lives of whales over the lives of our sailors. In fact I noticed that the far-whacko environmentalists are more anti-human than pro-animal. That's a lot of self-loathing there.
The correct analogy, as you state that it is cumulative, is that one person farts once a day in that stadium. I wouldn't even notice.
The atmosphere has a mass of over 5×10^18 kg (five billion billions). That's a fart in a stadium.
7 positive for every negative, and 4 negative for every positive. Obama has a 7:1, McCain 1:4, the ratio between is 28:1.
And later debunked.
Correct, but that did not happen here. There is simply no way Obama had a 28:1 ratio of good to bad in reality compared to McCain. That sounds like straight-up guy vs. a criminal.
The businesses rely on some sort of disconnect when it comes to their money. AT&T emblazoned their logo on bags for the Democratic convention around the time the Democratic-run Congress passed the telecom amnesty. Nobody seemed to care. It's like people care in general, but nobody goes after a specific company for doing it unless that company later does something bad, like Enron.
And even then people don't necessarily care. Obama was able to lay blame for Fannie May and Freddie Mac on the Republicans, yet he is the second-highest recipient of their money in only a couple years in office, ahead of senators who have been taking their money for decades. Nobody seemed to care.
It's all in the selling, not in the facts. Obama was just a better salesman, with the help of his press corps, uh, I mean the media.
Not rich.
Not redneck.
Who the fuck is this Jesus character everyone talks about? I have a friend named Jesus and he steals hubcaps from cars... :)
Not Republican either. They are usually not very accepting of people who would say the previous line.
It's blame it on the Democrats pandering to the poor. It's no insidious conspiracy, it's plain-old pandering for votes. As usual, those with a grand scheme to change our society did not remember the Law of Unintended Consequences. The consequence was that they set up the perfect environment for the crooks to thrive. They are just lucky it came to fruition during a Republican administration so they could deflect all of the blame instead of taking on their fair share.