What's your point, twerp? That somehow Ebay doesn't support your gun control agenda and is therefore bad in some way? Get a life.
If the jerk didn't get a gun, he would have just run over a crowd with his car, or he would have built an ammonium nitrate bomb. Evil and crazy men will do evil and crazy things.
Quite frankly the situation might have been ameliorated to some degree if concealed carry were legal on college campuses (VTech). Then a legally carrying civilian might have been able to stop some of the slaughter.
This about the 27th article this month about some nebulous Solar power breakthrough guaranteed to revolutionize the generation of energy as we know it. We'll never hear about this ever again, and we'll still need to burn oil and coal to power our air conditioners and SUVs.
The original poster acts as though this is some new super-secret nefarious plot to keep secrets from the American public. The simple truth is that there has always been censorship of personal correspondence from war zones. This was true of WW2, Korea and, for all I know, of the Civil and Revolutionary Wars. Nobody likes it, least of all the poor junior officers who have to censor letter after letter, but it's a basic military necessity.
It's the military, not the cub scouts. Get over it.
Uhh, maybe it's me and my misplaced sense of priorities, but you might want to help the starving people dying people in the street before you give them free prOn.
The core issue here is that we ultimately end up with a government sanctioned list of approved ideas. Any idea not on the approved list becomes anathema. In any sane society, the government has no business deciding on the merit of individual ideas. It exists to exercise the existing ideas and will of the electorate.
Remember, freedom to choose is the freedom to make bad decisions; there is no controversy in making good decisions.
It's nice to see that the Koreans have as many idiots in their country as we do in ours. Why not create a bill of rights for chairs or turnips while they're at it?
Let's get this straight. South Korea will soon be a country where it's acceptable to kill, cook and eat your dog Fluffy or your cat Socks, but not acceptable to throw out a pile of broken junk named "robot?"
Well, the Capitalist answer is that the shortage in qualified applications should cause the average salary within the industry to rise correspondingly. The increase in average salary then will make the IT field more attractive to college students, thus eventually solving the work force shortage.
There is no more "IT labor shortage" than there is an "oil shortage." Those who claim shortage are either disingenuous or are ignorant of basic economics.
When I read a sentence containing the words "Peugeot", "Citroen", "Novell" and "lemon", I don't usually associate the word "lemon" with the word "Novell."
No, you make the occasional failure the common case. Overwhelmingly progress is of benefit to the environment. Observe that only wealthy nations have the resources to preserve the environment. Poor nations don't have that luxury. Progress and wealth are a good thing, for both man and the environment.
When you ask "what does it say about your values if you would only consider the device if it was economically sound?", you are playing word games and trying to be cute. It's self-evident that the invention is only useful if the benefit produced by the device outweighs the cost of the device. The ferocious boondoggle that is solar power has proven that conclusively enough.
If it costs $1/gallon to ship water to a given location and the cost of water generated by the windmill device is $1.10/gallon, the windmill device is useless. But you knew that already, didn't you?
What does it say about your values that your first reaction to a potentially revolutionary invention is negative? I'm not saying that the windmill technology works; quite frankly, I'd bet that it doesn't. That said, any device that can extract water vapor from air with any degree of efficiency could have a revolutionary effect on the dryer areas of the globe. Africa in particular could benefit from this type of device in a very serious way. Consider just how profound the consequences of this device could be for sub-Saharan Africa, if it's economically viable.
You should be pleased by the discovery of this invention. Your initial reaction shouldn't be that the extraction of a few gallons of water vapor per day will bring about the end of the world.
It wasn't enough that they bored us to death with their crappy programming. Of course, you could never actually listen to their crappy programming, since it was all commercials, all the time. And you could never get the IQ85 disk jockies to shut up, either.
So, we voted with our wallets, and chose to pay for something decent instead of shoveling down the free crap they offered us. Now, they're mad, cause we don't want what their peddling. So what do they do when they're beaten in the market place? Sue, of course!
Unreal. Who bothers to listen to broadcast radio anymore? It's unlistenable.
What, you're shocked that all the government funded plodders were out done by a Capitalist independent? Government is very poor at creation and is typically very poor at selecting future winners in the technology race. That's why government should be a consumer of technology rather than a producer of the same.
As long as it's easier to buy votes with volume than reason, debates of this nature will continue. When shouting loudest stops winning elections, the dialog will become more civil and the debates will be about issues rather than about men.
Competency tests for voters and candidates would be a good start. Of course, SCOTUS decided that was illegal in the early '70s, so I suppose we'll just shout ourselves hoarse.
If you believe that firearms manufacturers are liable for deaths caused by murderers, then blaming video game manufacturers (publishers) for actions taken by those who use their product is a logical corolary. Of course, then we should also sue the auto makers for the deaths caused by drunk drivers.
Unless you inject the notion of personal responsibility into the dialog, the final destination is a world where physical objects have intent and people have none. Or, more accurately, the creator of an object becomes responsible for all uses of that object in perpetuity. Finally, anyone who creates ANYTHING becomes responsible for the ills of this world; couch-bound slugs who do nothing and achieve nothing are blameless.
Why not tax candy makers for the road side litter? Why not tax Mc Donalds for the fat people who need medical treatment? Why not tax bars and restaurants for the medical treatment of people injured by alcohol related road accidents?
Why not tax everything to forcibly achieve your social goals?
Do you not understand that Capitalism is fundmentally moral because it is the VOLUNTARY exchange of values between two individuals? And Socialism is fundamentally immoral because it is the COERCIVE association of individuals? The relationship of Capitalism to Socialism is the relationship of sex to rape.
The ecomnomic lesson of the 20th century is that Socialism and Collectivist economics in general are total failures. The corolary is that free Capitialism brings prosperity and general well being.
Stealing earned money from the oil corporations to be destroyed by the Socialist California universities will only add to the university bureaucracy. Can you really believe the tax will be levied on the oil companies and no part of the tax will be passed on to oil consumers? Are you that economically ignorant?
Prop 187 puts the government in charge of determining the next generation of energy technology rather than the market place. Essentially, government drones will be churning out ideas in a vacuum, spending your hard earned dollars in the process.
The power of government is the power of NEGATION. It does a fine job of negation, but a damn poor one of creation. The old proverb about the road to Hell being paved with good intentions seems apropos.
Are you suggesting that we not uncritically believe everything we see on the Internet? I'm shocked, shocked at your cynicism. Next you'll be telling me that bears don't know Kung-Fu.
Belguim is irrelevant anyway. Now that we can't find it through Google, it will quietly disappear in the back of the wardrobe, lost between Tanganyika and Cluj-Napoca.
After watching Matt Damon's performance in "Team America: World Police", I don't think that he's up to the task. He just has to project himself more effectively on screen.
Slashdot Mirror
What's your point, twerp? That somehow Ebay doesn't support your gun control agenda and is therefore bad in some way? Get a life.
If the jerk didn't get a gun, he would have just run over a crowd with his car, or he would have built an ammonium nitrate bomb. Evil and crazy men will do evil and crazy things.
Quite frankly the situation might have been ameliorated to some degree if concealed carry were legal on college campuses (VTech). Then a legally carrying civilian might have been able to stop some of the slaughter.
Why the Ebay smear?
This about the 27th article this month about some nebulous Solar power breakthrough guaranteed to revolutionize the generation of energy as we know it. We'll never hear about this ever again, and we'll still need to burn oil and coal to power our air conditioners and SUVs.
This belongs in the VAPORWARE category.
for the military.
The original poster acts as though this is some new super-secret nefarious plot to keep secrets from the American public. The simple truth is that there has always been censorship of personal correspondence from war zones. This was true of WW2, Korea and, for all I know, of the Civil and Revolutionary Wars. Nobody likes it, least of all the poor junior officers who have to censor letter after letter, but it's a basic military necessity.
It's the military, not the cub scouts. Get over it.
Jerks. Your comments were very supple; argue with this:
1 112starvation.htma mine/AndyAlkon.htmln dia.starvation.reut/m #1
http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/develop/2002/
http://members.aol.com/frost11030/fightingfuturef
http://edition.cnn.com/2000/ASIANOW/south/12/15/i
http://www.tribuneindia.com/2002/20021102/edit.ht
http://bpark.ahrchk.net/
Where is your respect for human life?
Uhh, maybe it's me and my misplaced sense of priorities, but you might want to help the starving people dying people in the street before you give them free prOn.
Of course, I could be wrong.
The core issue here is that we ultimately end up with a government sanctioned list of approved ideas. Any idea not on the approved list becomes anathema. In any sane society, the government has no business deciding on the merit of individual ideas. It exists to exercise the existing ideas and will of the electorate.
Remember, freedom to choose is the freedom to make bad decisions; there is no controversy in making good decisions.
It's nice to see that the Koreans have as many idiots in their country as we do in ours. Why not create a bill of rights for chairs or turnips while they're at it?
Let's get this straight. South Korea will soon be a country where it's acceptable to kill, cook and eat your dog Fluffy or your cat Socks, but not acceptable to throw out a pile of broken junk named "robot?"
Well done!
Well, the Capitalist answer is that the shortage in qualified applications should cause the average salary within the industry to rise correspondingly. The increase in average salary then will make the IT field more attractive to college students, thus eventually solving the work force shortage.
There is no more "IT labor shortage" than there is an "oil shortage." Those who claim shortage are either disingenuous or are ignorant of basic economics.
I have a 61" 1080p television, and yes, I will look more closely at games and consoles that have the ability to use 1080p technology.
When I read a sentence containing the words "Peugeot", "Citroen", "Novell" and "lemon", I don't usually associate the word "lemon" with the word "Novell."
Now "Citroen" and "lemon" have a lot in common.
"Peugeot" and "lemon" have even more in common.
No, you make the occasional failure the common case. Overwhelmingly progress is of benefit to the environment. Observe that only wealthy nations have the resources to preserve the environment. Poor nations don't have that luxury. Progress and wealth are a good thing, for both man and the environment.
When you ask "what does it say about your values if you would only consider the device if it was economically sound?", you are playing word games and trying to be cute. It's self-evident that the invention is only useful if the benefit produced by the device outweighs the cost of the device. The ferocious boondoggle that is solar power has proven that conclusively enough.
If it costs $1/gallon to ship water to a given location and the cost of water generated by the windmill device is $1.10/gallon, the windmill device is useless. But you knew that already, didn't you?
What does it say about your values that your first reaction to a potentially revolutionary invention is negative? I'm not saying that the windmill technology works; quite frankly, I'd bet that it doesn't. That said, any device that can extract water vapor from air with any degree of efficiency could have a revolutionary effect on the dryer areas of the globe. Africa in particular could benefit from this type of device in a very serious way. Consider just how profound the consequences of this device could be for sub-Saharan Africa, if it's economically viable.
You should be pleased by the discovery of this invention. Your initial reaction shouldn't be that the extraction of a few gallons of water vapor per day will bring about the end of the world.
Think about it.
Proof positive that the man is a barbarian. Civilized men drink MacCallan or Oban.
Well, as long as you don't believe that thinking is the act of an individual, you should probably be in favor of the change.
If you believe that ideas are generated from individuals and that thinking and ideas are hard work, you should probably be opposed to the change.
If you believe that you'll have another beer, you're undoubtedly in the majority.
It wasn't enough that they bored us to death with their crappy programming. Of course, you could never actually listen to their crappy programming, since it was all commercials, all the time. And you could never get the IQ85 disk jockies to shut up, either.
So, we voted with our wallets, and chose to pay for something decent instead of shoveling down the free crap they offered us. Now, they're mad, cause we don't want what their peddling. So what do they do when they're beaten in the market place? Sue, of course!
Unreal. Who bothers to listen to broadcast radio anymore? It's unlistenable.
"Center for Collective Intelligence"
I do believe that she's rolling in her grave over this.
What, you're shocked that all the government funded plodders were out done by a Capitalist independent? Government is very poor at creation and is typically very poor at selecting future winners in the technology race. That's why government should be a consumer of technology rather than a producer of the same.
As long as it's easier to buy votes with volume than reason, debates of this nature will continue. When shouting loudest stops winning elections, the dialog will become more civil and the debates will be about issues rather than about men.
Competency tests for voters and candidates would be a good start. Of course, SCOTUS decided that was illegal in the early '70s, so I suppose we'll just shout ourselves hoarse.
If you believe that firearms manufacturers are liable for deaths caused by murderers, then blaming video game manufacturers (publishers) for actions taken by those who use their product is a logical corolary. Of course, then we should also sue the auto makers for the deaths caused by drunk drivers.
Unless you inject the notion of personal responsibility into the dialog, the final destination is a world where physical objects have intent and people have none. Or, more accurately, the creator of an object becomes responsible for all uses of that object in perpetuity. Finally, anyone who creates ANYTHING becomes responsible for the ills of this world; couch-bound slugs who do nothing and achieve nothing are blameless.
Sounds like fun to me.
Syncerus
Why not tax candy makers for the road side litter? Why not tax Mc Donalds for the fat people who need medical treatment? Why not tax bars and restaurants for the medical treatment of people injured by alcohol related road accidents?
Why not tax everything to forcibly achieve your social goals?
Do you not understand that Capitalism is fundmentally moral because it is the VOLUNTARY exchange of values between two individuals? And Socialism is fundamentally immoral because it is the COERCIVE association of individuals? The relationship of Capitalism to Socialism is the relationship of sex to rape.
The ecomnomic lesson of the 20th century is that Socialism and Collectivist economics in general are total failures. The corolary is that free Capitialism brings prosperity and general well being.
Stealing earned money from the oil corporations to be destroyed by the Socialist California universities will only add to the university bureaucracy. Can you really believe the tax will be levied on the oil companies and no part of the tax will be passed on to oil consumers? Are you that economically ignorant?
Prop 187 puts the government in charge of determining the next generation of energy technology rather than the market place. Essentially, government drones will be churning out ideas in a vacuum, spending your hard earned dollars in the process.
The power of government is the power of NEGATION. It does a fine job of negation, but a damn poor one of creation. The old proverb about the road to Hell being paved with good intentions seems apropos.
Obviously, there's research grant money floating around and somebody had an idea. And an empty refrigerator.
Syncerus
Are you suggesting that we not uncritically believe everything we see on the Internet? I'm shocked, shocked at your cynicism. Next you'll be telling me that bears don't know Kung-Fu.
Syncerus
Belguim is irrelevant anyway. Now that we can't find it through Google, it will quietly disappear in the back of the wardrobe, lost between Tanganyika and Cluj-Napoca.
Syncerus
After watching Matt Damon's performance in "Team America: World Police", I don't think that he's up to the task. He just has to project himself more effectively on screen.
Syncerus
Soon the Internet can be run with the same efficiency and integrity as the United Nations!
Syncerus