Or, just maybe, we could not be extremists and try to rejigger the system to bring it back into balance.
Nah, destroy it all. What could possibly go wrong?
Well, now that we ended slavery, knocked out that whole women's rights thing, and put an end to racism, I think we've had enough progress for now. Let's just disband and coast through the next millennium.
Politicians change their tune frequently. During the GWB administration people like Bill O'Reilly were literally saying "trust the government" (I can't remember if it was about warrant-less wiretapping or Gitmo), but could you imagine what kind of outcry there would be if Gitmo had been Obama's idea? Obama kidnapping people, not giving them a trial, and locking them up indefinitely in some Cuban "detention center"? I'm pretty sure it would be depicted as some communist gulag run by Fidel Castro himself.
Apologies for getting the victims wrong. I personally think that an innocent victim is an innocent victim, regardless of beliefs. But I should have read a little more closely before mouthing off on that. As for O'Reilly, he doesn't speak for all of the US. He just tries to make right wing ideology look centrist. And it is ridiculous that he dismisses the claim that Brevic is a Christian by simply saying "Christians don't do those things", and then goes off into a conspiracy-theory ladin accusation of media bias.
I assumed that the American media was downgrading it because it is a Christian attacking Muslim civilians, rather than the reverse. Maybe I'm wrong, though.
The parent post is currently modded "funny", and while the post should definitely be modded up, "funny" is not what I'd associate with that video. It's sad, especially because it's so recent. And these vacant mannequins are held up as "role models"? This isn't just sad, it's genuinely harmful.
Miss California brightened my day. Apparently a blue state beauty queen is smarter than a red state politician.
I saw a video once on companies trying not to find employees because they wanted people on H1B Visas*, but one of the requirements was that you had to establish that there are no US citizens who can and will do the job. I don't know if that is related to what you're discussing, but it is one possibility.
* (you work a little harder when a job termination followed by a bit of bad luck can get you deported)
So, Murdoch gets in trouble for committing crimes in two different countries and engaging in ethics violations that seem despicable by most people's standards. NBC reports a story you don't want to hear, so therefore they are exactly the same and should be treated as such.
I've been wondering why FoxNews has been going on about Bill Maher calling Palin and Bachman "a couple of boobs" all week. I think they've been trying to create any kind of diversion they can to avoid having to report on this story.
Actually, doing nothing is the tried and true Slashdot defense against STDs.
That's the abstinence paradox. Those who strive for abstinence tend to fail, while those who try, desperately for sex, often fail as well. If they were to switch goals, would they be successful?
As a casual gamer (formerly a "real" gamer), I have to say, don't make $60 games aimed at me. I have plenty of games on my shelf that I have not finished, and my only disappointment, if any, is that I don't have time to just sit around and play games like when I was a teenager. Making the game shorter so that I can see the ending is like skipping to the last page in a murder mystery. It isn't going to help anything.
After my son was born, I once spent four hours watching "Sean of the Dead". Why did it take four hours? Because I was constantly pausing it for one reason or another. It's hard to find 90 minutes of uninterrupted free time when you're working full time and you're a parent. Does that mean that the movie should have been shortened? Of course not.
Besides, I'm not paying $60 for these games. I'm waiting until I find them dirt cheap at some used game store. No improvement is going to change that, so don't lower the bar on my account*.
* With that having been said, Nintendo does a great job of making games aimed at casual gamers. All I'm saying is that serious games shouldn't be shortened in an attempt to appease casual gamers or ADD gamers.
Sorry but this dude is asking for it. He has a similar last name to the bad guy from the Zelda games. The cops are doing us a favor. Think of the children!
When he turns up dead with a silver arrow through his skull, I'm blaming you!
This time it's 'falsifying evidence' because he tried to hand off the camera
Preserving it is falsifying it? Orwell had nothing on this.
IANAL, and I don't know much about chain of custody rules, but the camera is evidence. Allowing people who are not in law enforcement to run off with evidence could make it inadmissible in court. If the evidence can no longer be trusted, that could fit the legal definition of "tampering". Again, IANAL.
The camera could have been used as evidence of disorderly conduct. I just wish he would stop telling the cops "I have a camera" and just try to film it in secret and put it on youtube. What he's doing now obviously isn't working, so, if he has a point, let it play out in the court of public opinion and see if local politicians can be shamed into fixing the problem.
I read the about page, and it sounded like the reasons for its' existence were ideological (a GNU kernel is the last missing piece in a pure GNU OS), and possibly something to do with SMP, but it wasn't entirely clear if that was where they were going in the GNU Hurd "about us" page.
Not trolling, but can someone state the elevator pitch for GNU Hurd?
That kind of reminds me of how I wanted to give a dollar to a homeless person, and then I remembered a story about a guy getting stabbed to death three towns over, and totally realized that any act of kindness on my part cannot make up for the inconsideration of others. So, I stabbed the guy and went on...true story.
Thank you for mentioning that. I didn't know that that is what they meant by "well regulated".
I can't resist asking, however, if we removed the phrase "well regulated militia" and replaced it with "well functioning militia", that would clarify without changing anything. In fact, it would probably preserve the original intent, since we should not be expecting the judges of 2111, the politicians who select those judges, and the people who select those politicians to understand that the common usage of the word changed over time, and to have a better understanding of history than what we have today.
Now, I'm not saying we should rewrite the amendment, because who knows what the constitution would look like if our most handsome politicians were to rewrite it,(especially considering that their top priority is to prevent the other side make sure that the other side has no accomplishments to brag about during the next election). But, what I am saying is that this isn't constitutional "heresy" to dig a little deeper than "liberals want to take our guns. NRA want's to protect our guns"
The document seems pretty clear on things like free speech, the right to bear arms
The right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Does that literally mean no weapons regulation period? So can you sell hand grenades to children? Or by "arms", do they only mean firearms? And does it matter that they had no standing military and that the need for a well-regulated militia was part of their rationale? Also, doesn't "well regulated militia" imply the government's authority to regulate militias? I think there are a few legitimate questions to ask. Even if you know your answer to every one of them, I don't think they are all clearly written in the second amendment.
Slashdot Mirror
If she does, is it a choice that she and her husband can wish away?
Or, just maybe, we could not be extremists and try to rejigger the system to bring it back into balance.
Nah, destroy it all. What could possibly go wrong?
Well, now that we ended slavery, knocked out that whole women's rights thing, and put an end to racism, I think we've had enough progress for now. Let's just disband and coast through the next millennium.
Politicians change their tune frequently. During the GWB administration people like Bill O'Reilly were literally saying "trust the government" (I can't remember if it was about warrant-less wiretapping or Gitmo), but could you imagine what kind of outcry there would be if Gitmo had been Obama's idea? Obama kidnapping people, not giving them a trial, and locking them up indefinitely in some Cuban "detention center"? I'm pretty sure it would be depicted as some communist gulag run by Fidel Castro himself.
Maybe you'd care to donate 70% of your income to the cause?
Would I change places with someone in the top 5%? Gladly! Can we run a government based on the volunteer system? Hell no!
This is how democracy works, FYI. It isn't extortion, it is how that pesky legislative process works. Troubling, I know.
No. It is not how democracy was intended to work. You do not threaten to harm the country if your demands are not met.
I was wrong about that. He did target civilians, and he was not targeting Muslims. Sorry for misinforming you.
Apologies for getting the victims wrong. I personally think that an innocent victim is an innocent victim, regardless of beliefs. But I should have read a little more closely before mouthing off on that. As for O'Reilly, he doesn't speak for all of the US. He just tries to make right wing ideology look centrist. And it is ridiculous that he dismisses the claim that Brevic is a Christian by simply saying "Christians don't do those things", and then goes off into a conspiracy-theory ladin accusation of media bias.
I assumed that the American media was downgrading it because it is a Christian attacking Muslim civilians, rather than the reverse. Maybe I'm wrong, though.
The parent post is currently modded "funny", and while the post should definitely be modded up, "funny" is not what I'd associate with that video. It's sad, especially because it's so recent. And these vacant mannequins are held up as "role models"? This isn't just sad, it's genuinely harmful.
Miss California brightened my day. Apparently a blue state beauty queen is smarter than a red state politician.
From your link:
Should evolution be taught in schools
Only Vegas
I call bias!
I saw a video once on companies trying not to find employees because they wanted people on H1B Visas*, but one of the requirements was that you had to establish that there are no US citizens who can and will do the job. I don't know if that is related to what you're discussing, but it is one possibility.
* (you work a little harder when a job termination followed by a bit of bad luck can get you deported)
So, Murdoch gets in trouble for committing crimes in two different countries and engaging in ethics violations that seem despicable by most people's standards. NBC reports a story you don't want to hear, so therefore they are exactly the same and should be treated as such.
I've been wondering why FoxNews has been going on about Bill Maher calling Palin and Bachman "a couple of boobs" all week. I think they've been trying to create any kind of diversion they can to avoid having to report on this story.
Wrong word order. If you want to say "it is red", you don't say "is it red"
That post made no sense at all. Are you arguing for a prefix? That they call it "panel-control"? Why does the word order matter?
Actually, doing nothing is the tried and true Slashdot defense against STDs.
That's the abstinence paradox. Those who strive for abstinence tend to fail, while those who try, desperately for sex, often fail as well. If they were to switch goals, would they be successful?
As a casual gamer (formerly a "real" gamer), I have to say, don't make $60 games aimed at me. I have plenty of games on my shelf that I have not finished, and my only disappointment, if any, is that I don't have time to just sit around and play games like when I was a teenager. Making the game shorter so that I can see the ending is like skipping to the last page in a murder mystery. It isn't going to help anything.
After my son was born, I once spent four hours watching "Sean of the Dead". Why did it take four hours? Because I was constantly pausing it for one reason or another. It's hard to find 90 minutes of uninterrupted free time when you're working full time and you're a parent. Does that mean that the movie should have been shortened? Of course not.
Besides, I'm not paying $60 for these games. I'm waiting until I find them dirt cheap at some used game store. No improvement is going to change that, so don't lower the bar on my account*.
* With that having been said, Nintendo does a great job of making games aimed at casual gamers. All I'm saying is that serious games shouldn't be shortened in an attempt to appease casual gamers or ADD gamers.
Sorry but this dude is asking for it. He has a similar last name to the bad guy from the Zelda games. The cops are doing us a favor. Think of the children!
When he turns up dead with a silver arrow through his skull, I'm blaming you!
This time it's 'falsifying evidence' because he tried to hand off the camera
Preserving it is falsifying it? Orwell had nothing on this.
IANAL, and I don't know much about chain of custody rules, but the camera is evidence. Allowing people who are not in law enforcement to run off with evidence could make it inadmissible in court. If the evidence can no longer be trusted, that could fit the legal definition of "tampering". Again, IANAL.
The camera could have been used as evidence of disorderly conduct. I just wish he would stop telling the cops "I have a camera" and just try to film it in secret and put it on youtube. What he's doing now obviously isn't working, so, if he has a point, let it play out in the court of public opinion and see if local politicians can be shamed into fixing the problem.
I read the about page, and it sounded like the reasons for its' existence were ideological (a GNU kernel is the last missing piece in a pure GNU OS), and possibly something to do with SMP, but it wasn't entirely clear if that was where they were going in the GNU Hurd "about us" page.
Not trolling, but can someone state the elevator pitch for GNU Hurd?
Man ... the universe is becoming a really scary place!
Isn't that a little too likely to happen?
That kind of reminds me of how I wanted to give a dollar to a homeless person, and then I remembered a story about a guy getting stabbed to death three towns over, and totally realized that any act of kindness on my part cannot make up for the inconsideration of others. So, I stabbed the guy and went on...true story.
Thank you for mentioning that. I didn't know that that is what they meant by "well regulated".
I can't resist asking, however, if we removed the phrase "well regulated militia" and replaced it with "well functioning militia", that would clarify without changing anything. In fact, it would probably preserve the original intent, since we should not be expecting the judges of 2111, the politicians who select those judges, and the people who select those politicians to understand that the common usage of the word changed over time, and to have a better understanding of history than what we have today.
Now, I'm not saying we should rewrite the amendment, because who knows what the constitution would look like if our most handsome politicians were to rewrite it,(especially considering that their top priority is to prevent the other side make sure that the other side has no accomplishments to brag about during the next election). But, what I am saying is that this isn't constitutional "heresy" to dig a little deeper than "liberals want to take our guns. NRA want's to protect our guns"
Dear coward. Please read the posts you are replying to.
The document seems pretty clear on things like free speech, the right to bear arms
The right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Does that literally mean no weapons regulation period? So can you sell hand grenades to children? Or by "arms", do they only mean firearms? And does it matter that they had no standing military and that the need for a well-regulated militia was part of their rationale? Also, doesn't "well regulated militia" imply the government's authority to regulate militias? I think there are a few legitimate questions to ask. Even if you know your answer to every one of them, I don't think they are all clearly written in the second amendment.