it is probably 9ftx15ft or about 12.8m^2 or about twice the size of my office cubicle. It isn't tiny, but it would be a little tight for space with a good workbench and a sufficient storage space for supplies.
A 9mx15m flat is actually pretty big if you don't have a lot of kids.
We voted for the one guy who said he was going to shut down gitmo, but like most everything else he said, it was just to get elected. For such an inexperienced politician, he played the game like a pro.
He is arguably a scumbag. But going from scumbag to rapist is a pretty big step. And considering the actual allegations? It is disrespectful to actual rape victims.
The bill of rights does not enumerate the rights of people. It places absolute limits on the power of the govornment to interfere with you innumerable rights
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
"Congress SHALL MAKE NO LAW... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;" seems pretty clear to me. Rights belong to the people, all the people, not just citizens or certain classes of people.
But he didn't tell the women he was having a one night stands with that he might have a one night stand with someone else as well! She might not have had a one night stand with him if he had said so! He also said he would call her back and then he didn't!
You are wrong again. Not having guns makes shootings much less common, but it does absolutely nothing to prevent stabbings, beatings, robbery, etc. And since it reduces the risks that criminals face, it may even increase crime.
What you said isn't a fact, it would be a correlation that doesn't account for the many other differences between countries. It isn't even observable because it isn't at all true. The US is right in the middle of the pack for crime among industrialized nations, England and Australia are at or near the top and they have strict gun control, Japan is near the bottom probably due to cultural reasons rather than lack of guns.
There are places in the US where gun ownership was mandated by law and crime went down. The crime rate in England is nearly twice per person for many types of crimes compared to the US. After Australia banned many guns, the rate of armed robbery increased by 45% and the gun homicide rate increased by 300% in Victoria.
And before you say that if no one made guns, then none of that violent crime could occur because even the criminals would be unarmed, I'll say this. Without weapons a normal man is hopelessly outmatched by anyone who makes a living by beating people down. You can also make a gun in an afternoon with simple tools, simple materials and simple skills. Anyone one that wants to be armed can be.
No. 10 men with fists vs 1 man with fists, the 10 men risk nothing to attack. Give them all knives and one of the 10 attackers may be hurt, but is very unlikely to be killed. Give them all guns and the 10 attackers face the real possibility that one or more may be killed if they attack.
Weapons only make the violent more powerful if their victims do not have weapons. That is why one of the first thing a tyranny does is disarm the people.
When someone puts their boot on you throat and as you watch your family tortured and killed, you might wish you had the capacity to fight back. There is nothing immoral about defending yourself, your family and your country pr producing the tools that allows you to do so.
I am left handed and use the mouse with my right hand, because that is where the mouse goes, and it requires less dexterity than touch typing or hitting the right key sequence while playing a videogame.
The original wording of the bill of rights used the word citizen in a lot of places, it was explicitly changedd to people to protect non citizens as well.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." the 4th amendment.
That covers the government not being able to violate your privacy without cause and specific warrant.
If the goal was to make people feel secure, then fondling them and ogling them through their cloths with x-rays was a really bad decision. In puritan America, with all the hangups that people have about their bodies, they couldn't have made a worse decision.
The only problem with that assertion is that between insurance and out of pocket expenses the US is already paying more per capita in health care than all those socialist countries for services that for the average consumer are worse.
Slashdot Mirror
it is probably 9ftx15ft or about 12.8m^2 or about twice the size of my office cubicle. It isn't tiny, but it would be a little tight for space with a good workbench and a sufficient storage space for supplies.
A 9mx15m flat is actually pretty big if you don't have a lot of kids.
We voted for the one guy who said he was going to shut down gitmo, but like most everything else he said, it was just to get elected. For such an inexperienced politician, he played the game like a pro.
I am not sure how these tools respond to 403 errors, but that would be the correct way to ask the person to "leave and don't come back".
A DDoS attack is the equivalent of a sit in, instead of physically obstructing access, you electronically obstruct access.
I have relative economic prosperity, see my leaders as corrupt, am a US citizen and am outraged over Gitmo.
He is arguably a scumbag. But going from scumbag to rapist is a pretty big step. And considering the actual allegations? It is disrespectful to actual rape victims.
The bill of rights does not enumerate the rights of people. It places absolute limits on the power of the govornment to interfere with you innumerable rights
So you think the mission of creating a secular free iraq isn't doomed to fail? You think we were not lied to repeatedly to get us into that war?
Sounds remarkably similar to recent history as well.
Why would you think that?
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
"Congress SHALL MAKE NO LAW ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;" seems pretty clear to me. Rights belong to the people, all the people, not just citizens or certain classes of people.
But he didn't tell the women he was having a one night stands with that he might have a one night stand with someone else as well! She might not have had a one night stand with him if he had said so! He also said he would call her back and then he didn't!
You are wrong again. Not having guns makes shootings much less common, but it does absolutely nothing to prevent stabbings, beatings, robbery, etc. And since it reduces the risks that criminals face, it may even increase crime.
What you said isn't a fact, it would be a correlation that doesn't account for the many other differences between countries. It isn't even observable because it isn't at all true. The US is right in the middle of the pack for crime among industrialized nations, England and Australia are at or near the top and they have strict gun control, Japan is near the bottom probably due to cultural reasons rather than lack of guns.
There are places in the US where gun ownership was mandated by law and crime went down. The crime rate in England is nearly twice per person for many types of crimes compared to the US. After Australia banned many guns, the rate of armed robbery increased by 45% and the gun homicide rate increased by 300% in Victoria.
http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=8340
http://www.allsafedefense.com/news/International/BritvsUSA.htm
And before you say that if no one made guns, then none of that violent crime could occur because even the criminals would be unarmed, I'll say this. Without weapons a normal man is hopelessly outmatched by anyone who makes a living by beating people down. You can also make a gun in an afternoon with simple tools, simple materials and simple skills. Anyone one that wants to be armed can be.
No, but the prospect of his conviction might.
No. 10 men with fists vs 1 man with fists, the 10 men risk nothing to attack. Give them all knives and one of the 10 attackers may be hurt, but is very unlikely to be killed. Give them all guns and the 10 attackers face the real possibility that one or more may be killed if they attack.
Weapons only make the violent more powerful if their victims do not have weapons. That is why one of the first thing a tyranny does is disarm the people.
SK is also the nation that deployed remote operated web-cam guns in at least one of its banks.
NK already has a good chunk of SK within range of their pre-loaded, pre-aimed, and manned artillery batteries.
When someone puts their boot on you throat and as you watch your family tortured and killed, you might wish you had the capacity to fight back. There is nothing immoral about defending yourself, your family and your country pr producing the tools that allows you to do so.
I am left handed and use the mouse with my right hand, because that is where the mouse goes, and it requires less dexterity than touch typing or hitting the right key sequence while playing a videogame.
My tv has a vga port, a lot of them do. However, I have never seen one with a SCART connector, ever.
The original wording of the bill of rights used the word citizen in a lot of places, it was explicitly changedd to people to protect non citizens as well.
Magic words... terrorism and kiddie porn are the new abracadabra and open sesame.
Citation? A citation is not needed because it is just math.
IQ is an arbitrary number conforming to the best estimate of a standard distribution of intelligence.
By definition, less than 5% (~4.2%) of any normally distributed population is going to be more than 5% from the average.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_distribution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_deviation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:IQ_curve.svg
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." the 4th amendment.
That covers the government not being able to violate your privacy without cause and specific warrant.
If the goal was to make people feel secure, then fondling them and ogling them through their cloths with x-rays was a really bad decision. In puritan America, with all the hangups that people have about their bodies, they couldn't have made a worse decision.
The only problem with that assertion is that between insurance and out of pocket expenses the US is already paying more per capita in health care than all those socialist countries for services that for the average consumer are worse.