For Christ's sake, click your own link. They already value lives, you silly person. He's just saying we ought to put more resources towards saving a 10 year old who will live to be 79, then saving a 84 year old who won't live to see 85.
So you think allowing private citizens to sue others for animal cruelty is such a crazy idea that we ought not to listen to anyone who proposes it? Sorry pal, you're out to lunch.
I don't think nukes are deterrent because leaders don't want to be seen as villains, I think they're a deterrent because leaders' friends and families are under immediate threat should a nuclear war start. Leaders who start conventional wars find it easy to believe they will escape severe consequences.
First of all, LOVEINT guys are law breakers. Second of all, I doubt polygraph screening is really how they ferret out moles. The truly stupid ones, maybe, but a mole is somebody that they care about. They clearly don't worry too much about the LOVEINT guys.
I get your point, but have you seen some of the stuff the government paid for? Star Wars was supposed to put hundreds of half-mile long particle accelerators in space. It was ridiculous, but they actually went ahead with it for a long time. Not that missile defense is a bad idea, or doing it from space is a bad idea, but the plan they were going ahead with could never ever fly.
I disagree. One thing you can say about the cold war is that it produced a lot of good, experienced engineers and scientists. I say, more government handouts for them, not less. Just make sure they are actually doing something.
Simply put, logic does not follow from the laws of physics, it's the laws of physics that presuppose logic like "we don't know" does not mean "it's impossible" etc.
If that does turn out to a problem, we still may be able to build a machine beyond logic, it just wouldn't be a computer.
Your argument is about as dumb as "If we evolved from monkeys, then how come there are still monkeys around?" In other words, too dumb for refutation. But what the heck:
point 1: If you reduce legally own guns, illegal guns become rarer and more expensive.
point 2: Many people who kill people with guns use legally obtained guns. It's a lot easier to kill someone with a gun than it is to obtain one illegally.
point 3: If someone obtains a gun illegally, then you have grounds to arrest them before they kill anyone.
I'm not necessarily for gun control, but the argument that regulations won't reduce guns to criminals is stupid.
When you live far enough into the boonies, and many Americans do, you really do need a gun for the same reason you need a stash of food and fuel: you're out there pretty much on your own.
Well said. What's more, after running the most dishonest campaign of my life time, I've yet to hear any criticism from any Republicans on that ground. It reminds me more than anything of the time before the Iraq war. A certain percentage of Americans simply didn't care if the Bush Administration was making the whole WMD story up.
Romney was incredibly dishonest about everything this year, in this election. The guy doesn't think we should examine what he says, apparently, just listen to the feel-good words. Well, we don't have much to go on other than that. If you got a memory longer than 5 minutes he starts to look ridiculous.
The guy never thought about the future consequences of what he was saying. Nor did he give a thought to what he said 5 minutes ago. What else didn't he think about?
Slashdot Mirror
For Christ's sake, click your own link. They already value lives, you silly person. He's just saying we ought to put more resources towards saving a 10 year old who will live to be 79, then saving a 84 year old who won't live to see 85.
You should try reading his actual paper. It proposes allowing private citizens to sue someone else for violating existing cruelty laws.
So you think allowing private citizens to sue others for animal cruelty is such a crazy idea that we ought not to listen to anyone who proposes it? Sorry pal, you're out to lunch.
I don't think nukes are deterrent because leaders don't want to be seen as villains, I think they're a deterrent because leaders' friends and families are under immediate threat should a nuclear war start. Leaders who start conventional wars find it easy to believe they will escape severe consequences.
First of all, LOVEINT guys are law breakers. Second of all, I doubt polygraph screening is really how they ferret out moles. The truly stupid ones, maybe, but a mole is somebody that they care about. They clearly don't worry too much about the LOVEINT guys.
That would have been fun.
I get your point, but have you seen some of the stuff the government paid for? Star Wars was supposed to put hundreds of half-mile long particle accelerators in space. It was ridiculous, but they actually went ahead with it for a long time. Not that missile defense is a bad idea, or doing it from space is a bad idea, but the plan they were going ahead with could never ever fly.
I disagree. One thing you can say about the cold war is that it produced a lot of good, experienced engineers and scientists. I say, more government handouts for them, not less. Just make sure they are actually doing something.
What's better for retro gaming: DosBox, or a virtual machine running FreeDos?
If that does turn out to a problem, we still may be able to build a machine beyond logic, it just wouldn't be a computer.
It's good as an educational tool.
Your argument is about as dumb as "If we evolved from monkeys, then how come there are still monkeys around?" In other words, too dumb for refutation. But what the heck:
point 1:
If you reduce legally own guns, illegal guns become rarer and more expensive.
point 2:
Many people who kill people with guns use legally obtained guns. It's a lot easier to kill someone with a gun than it is to obtain one illegally.
point 3:
If someone obtains a gun illegally, then you have grounds to arrest them before they kill anyone.
I'm not necessarily for gun control, but the argument that regulations won't reduce guns to criminals is stupid.
Yeah, but as FMJ likes to point out, he was a Marine.
When you live far enough into the boonies, and many Americans do, you really do need a gun for the same reason you need a stash of food and fuel: you're out there pretty much on your own.
"How could gun control...or even a ban on guns...ever possibly stop a nutcase who won't obey any laws from obtaining a gun?"
Because you are stupid, that's how.
Good one
--Job
It's cultural. The look is associated with trashy content.
What's Romulan for Captain Hazelwood?
"You've covered your ass, now watch this drive!" Bush didn't take Osama seriously.
Well said. What's more, after running the most dishonest campaign of my life time, I've yet to hear any criticism from any Republicans on that ground. It reminds me more than anything of the time before the Iraq war. A certain percentage of Americans simply didn't care if the Bush Administration was making the whole WMD story up.
Romney was incredibly dishonest about everything this year, in this election. The guy doesn't think we should examine what he says, apparently, just listen to the feel-good words. Well, we don't have much to go on other than that. If you got a memory longer than 5 minutes he starts to look ridiculous.
The guy never thought about the future consequences of what he was saying. Nor did he give a thought to what he said 5 minutes ago. What else didn't he think about?
Navy, Airforce, and nuclear missiles all cost money, and you can't raise those in an emergency levy.
Bush set the timetable after Obama proposed it during the election in 2008.
If you want someone who agrees with you 100%, you'll need to run yourself.