Yeah, because it's crazy to think a person who looks 15 is anywhere near 50 years old. If that applies to someone, they'll probably want to get a new ID card just to same them the hassle. Life is unfair sometimes.
I took a course on terrorism from a lefty commie, and according him, our text (books from other lefty commies), and common sense agree that the poorest countries in the world support less terrorism than some richer countries. You think Saudi Arabia is poor? What's their excuse? They want an Islamic country. It's ideologicial. They are attacking the US becaue they see the US supporting their modern governments. Look up Sayyid Qutb.
They've been giving us shit for years and now they're claiming that they're the victims. I haven't owned a tv in 4 years. Really, I would be better off if cable went away, because then I wouldn't have to hear gossip about tv at work.
No no, his comment about you not getting his sarcastic comment was sarcastic, implying that he thought that *your* comment was serious! I can't believe you fell for the oldest trick in the book! What a fool. What's with you man?
Al-Qaeda is special because it is an international terrorist group born from the failure of their inability to overthrow the Egyptian government (and their blame of the US for their failure). There is no precedent that I know of for that kind of terror.
Well, the problem is Americans are used to polite-speak and we prefer to say *ask* when we really mean *tell*. Which is why people stop and give up their bags at the door in the first place. But yes, the distinction is important in legal matters.
I can't stand it when people demand their rights, and they're *wrong*. Sadly there are a bunch of pricks who are "rebels" and resist everything because they don't like it and therefore their "rights" must be getting violated. But the guy is right. Some states don't require that you ID on demand (although license is a requirement that comes with the privilege of driving a car, if you are driving). I personally don't show my receipt because I don't want them wasting my time. And no, WalMart cannot search you. I highly doubt they have signs that say that. Businesses only have the right to search as a condition of entry (like at stadiums, bars, etc.). Checking a receipt/bag isn't a search, but I don't know of any legal basis for that, it's just a request that people tend to follow because they're polite, doesn't make it a right though.
I'm pretty sure that checking somebody's sewer line violates that individual's right to privacy, meaning it can't be searched. Yes, I know that garbage (on the street corner) does not fall under that rule, but a call from a public phone can be. So it's not an easy answer.
This is slashdot: "Waaah! America is trying to push their fascist copyright on the rest of the world! They're the nazi bullies of the 21st century."
The next day... "Why wont America sell copyrighted material to me?! Americans are so ego-centric. They probably couldn't find my country on a map. They are only hurting themselves."
Are you seeing a connection here, maybe? Bueller? I understand that music companies want ridiculous profits, and you can rest satisfied that the companies aren't squeezing you enough to make them happy. But I'm answering your question as to why at least.
I only purchased a couple episodes of MacGyver, to relive my childhood memories of the show. I'm still disappointed that Google will not be refunding my hour of time.
How about Munich Massacre Syndome? You're citing very 1 on 1 interactions, not bombing from a distance. Any incident involving bombing friendlies (and often civilians) gets news coverage. Every day abuse does not, and many instances may not be reported. So your links don't help your claim.
* ISPs can implement some QoS (good!) but only based on the type of service, not its source/destination/ownership/content... In sync with this post by jonwil, who I fully agree with.
I think the law is great, but I don't agree with this part. While it will stop goodmail type schemes where companies pay for their content to get to me, it doesn't stop ISPs from charging me for a "service" like a "VoIP Package" which isn't different from any other kind of bandwidth. I do agree that as long as people aren't getting charged differently, that for QoS it should be fine.
Yeah man, M$ is so slow at sending out patches, and even if they do make the patch, it doesn't mean people are going to download them. If they had just created it right from the start, they wouldn't have to do the crappy whack-a-mole. When is M$ going to fix their OS? Oh, 5 months ago? Oops...
Which internet provider created these barriers to entry again?
I know Qwest has made a big deal about letting its DSL customers use a different ISP. The only reason they do is because phone lines are a government regulated monopoly, and they were required to.
I listened to Barack Obama's "podcast" about net neutrality (on youtube), it was excellent. He understood that everyone gets broadband through just a handfull of companies, and that not passing the law would allow companies to create barriers to entry, to where everything is as bad as phone or cable companies.
I don't see how McCain is going to be any different than many in the current administration, or even democrats like Hillary. I just don't see how someone could look at the issue and not understand that internet providers are trying to screw consumers.
Sorry, you have no clue what you're talking about. Simply brandishing a weapon intending to intimidate is assault. Do it to an FBI agent and you've just committed a felony. Intending to have sex with a minor is likely a crime as well.
If someone gives you ecstasy but tells you that it's asprin, and you take it, you haven't committed a crime. Conversely, if you buy asprin thinking it's ecstasy, then you've committed a crime. If someone slips a drug into your drink (like date rape), you will not be convicted for taking that drug either. If you could convince a jury that you thought someone was 18, you'd probably get off.
And exactly what sort of omniscient being are you? As many other people of said, what happens when the whole situation turns into a chaotic firefight because 50 students have guns?
I already explained that in these situations, even in Columbine, the cops were keeping an eye on *all* the kids. How did they keep from shooting all the kids that were running right towards them? Of course, I understand your point, and that's really all it's worth, because there is no good data on it.
For that matter, what would happen in your "factual" scenario if the one guy with a gun was the first one killed?
It's not like he's sneaking up behind people and popping them in the back of the head. If a guy was going door to door with the purpose of killing people, who is going to the stop the guy? The odds that it would be the person with a gun are really good. That's like saying "Seat-belts save lives!" isn't appropriate because some people could have been better off had they been ejected. Guns protect people.
I understand that there are arguments for gun-control, like if this had just been a burglar, then maybe you'd be better off just not escalating the situation. However, he was killing people. A gun would have been a good defense in this situation. This situation is not a poster boy for gun control.
That's nice subjective reasoning. It still doesn't change the fact that this guy's spree would have ended if one guy had a gun (and had been trained) for self defense.
And to give you an answer, when the cops show up, they take control of the situation and detain *everybody*. The ones that don't follow instructions can be shot.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, because it's crazy to think a person who looks 15 is anywhere near 50 years old. If that applies to someone, they'll probably want to get a new ID card just to same them the hassle. Life is unfair sometimes.
I took a course on terrorism from a lefty commie, and according him, our text (books from other lefty commies), and common sense agree that the poorest countries in the world support less terrorism than some richer countries. You think Saudi Arabia is poor? What's their excuse? They want an Islamic country. It's ideologicial. They are attacking the US becaue they see the US supporting their modern governments. Look up Sayyid Qutb.
They've been giving us shit for years and now they're claiming that they're the victims. I haven't owned a tv in 4 years. Really, I would be better off if cable went away, because then I wouldn't have to hear gossip about tv at work.
Yeah, it is. Classified networks are not hooked up to the internet.
No no, his comment about you not getting his sarcastic comment was sarcastic, implying that he thought that *your* comment was serious! I can't believe you fell for the oldest trick in the book! What a fool. What's with you man?
Al-Qaeda is special because it is an international terrorist group born from the failure of their inability to overthrow the Egyptian government (and their blame of the US for their failure). There is no precedent that I know of for that kind of terror.
Well, the problem is Americans are used to polite-speak and we prefer to say *ask* when we really mean *tell*. Which is why people stop and give up their bags at the door in the first place. But yes, the distinction is important in legal matters.
I can't stand it when people demand their rights, and they're *wrong*. Sadly there are a bunch of pricks who are "rebels" and resist everything because they don't like it and therefore their "rights" must be getting violated. But the guy is right. Some states don't require that you ID on demand (although license is a requirement that comes with the privilege of driving a car, if you are driving). I personally don't show my receipt because I don't want them wasting my time. And no, WalMart cannot search you. I highly doubt they have signs that say that. Businesses only have the right to search as a condition of entry (like at stadiums, bars, etc.). Checking a receipt/bag isn't a search, but I don't know of any legal basis for that, it's just a request that people tend to follow because they're polite, doesn't make it a right though.
I'm pretty sure that checking somebody's sewer line violates that individual's right to privacy, meaning it can't be searched. Yes, I know that garbage (on the street corner) does not fall under that rule, but a call from a public phone can be. So it's not an easy answer.
This is slashdot: "Waaah! America is trying to push their fascist copyright on the rest of the world! They're the nazi bullies of the 21st century."
The next day... "Why wont America sell copyrighted material to me?! Americans are so ego-centric. They probably couldn't find my country on a map. They are only hurting themselves."
Are you seeing a connection here, maybe? Bueller? I understand that music companies want ridiculous profits, and you can rest satisfied that the companies aren't squeezing you enough to make them happy. But I'm answering your question as to why at least.
I only purchased a couple episodes of MacGyver, to relive my childhood memories of the show. I'm still disappointed that Google will not be refunding my hour of time.
No, they do it so you can play a nickel slot with a measly $1,000 jackpot, but they can put: JACKPOT: 20,000!!!
credits
How about Munich Massacre Syndome? You're citing very 1 on 1 interactions, not bombing from a distance. Any incident involving bombing friendlies (and often civilians) gets news coverage. Every day abuse does not, and many instances may not be reported. So your links don't help your claim.
Not in the layman's mind, maybe.
* ISPs can implement some QoS (good!) but only based on the type of service, not its source/destination/ownership/content... In sync with this post by jonwil, who I fully agree with.
I think the law is great, but I don't agree with this part. While it will stop goodmail type schemes where companies pay for their content to get to me, it doesn't stop ISPs from charging me for a "service" like a "VoIP Package" which isn't different from any other kind of bandwidth. I do agree that as long as people aren't getting charged differently, that for QoS it should be fine.
So there are people that aren't affected by a high BAC? By that logic, people that can speed without actually speeding shouldn't be ticketed.
Yeah man, M$ is so slow at sending out patches, and even if they do make the patch, it doesn't mean people are going to download them. If they had just created it right from the start, they wouldn't have to do the crappy whack-a-mole. When is M$ going to fix their OS? Oh, 5 months ago? Oops...
Which internet provider created these barriers to entry again?
I know Qwest has made a big deal about letting its DSL customers use a different ISP. The only reason they do is because phone lines are a government regulated monopoly, and they were required to.
I listened to Barack Obama's "podcast" about net neutrality (on youtube), it was excellent. He understood that everyone gets broadband through just a handfull of companies, and that not passing the law would allow companies to create barriers to entry, to where everything is as bad as phone or cable companies.
I don't see how McCain is going to be any different than many in the current administration, or even democrats like Hillary. I just don't see how someone could look at the issue and not understand that internet providers are trying to screw consumers.
First thing that struck my mind when reading this -- you did make sure to backup recently?
He uploaded it to a essay writing service...
How can we blame the US for the setbacks?
Sorry, you have no clue what you're talking about. Simply brandishing a weapon intending to intimidate is assault. Do it to an FBI agent and you've just committed a felony. Intending to have sex with a minor is likely a crime as well.
If someone gives you ecstasy but tells you that it's asprin, and you take it, you haven't committed a crime. Conversely, if you buy asprin thinking it's ecstasy, then you've committed a crime. If someone slips a drug into your drink (like date rape), you will not be convicted for taking that drug either. If you could convince a jury that you thought someone was 18, you'd probably get off.
And exactly what sort of omniscient being are you? As many other people of said, what happens when the whole situation turns into a chaotic firefight because 50 students have guns?
I already explained that in these situations, even in Columbine, the cops were keeping an eye on *all* the kids. How did they keep from shooting all the kids that were running right towards them? Of course, I understand your point, and that's really all it's worth, because there is no good data on it.
For that matter, what would happen in your "factual" scenario if the one guy with a gun was the first one killed?
It's not like he's sneaking up behind people and popping them in the back of the head. If a guy was going door to door with the purpose of killing people, who is going to the stop the guy? The odds that it would be the person with a gun are really good. That's like saying "Seat-belts save lives!" isn't appropriate because some people could have been better off had they been ejected. Guns protect people.
I understand that there are arguments for gun-control, like if this had just been a burglar, then maybe you'd be better off just not escalating the situation. However, he was killing people. A gun would have been a good defense in this situation. This situation is not a poster boy for gun control.
"It's not like the bad guys have devil horns and the civilians carrying weapons have halos so you know what to shoot at."
But bad guys use towers and good guys don't?
That's nice subjective reasoning. It still doesn't change the fact that this guy's spree would have ended if one guy had a gun (and had been trained) for self defense.
And to give you an answer, when the cops show up, they take control of the situation and detain *everybody*. The ones that don't follow instructions can be shot.