I don't mean to be cold, but who cares about Taiwan? I mean, how is an independent Taiwan in the US's best strategic interests?
With the Western loss of Hong Kong and Macao, to the Chinese in the late 90s, Taiwan is probably the only friendly staging area for a potential invasion of the Chinese mainland.
911 isn't rocket science, but a lot of the "integration" points are much more manual than you might think. 911 is as serious as it gets - mistakes can cost lives.
Mistakes can cost lives in any industry - that risk doesn't warrant the grant of an official monopoly.
Why should this be the case if stars do it so readily?
Perhaps self-sustaining fusion reactions don't scale down? Perhaps self-sustaining fusion reactions require far more mass than we are currently capable of providing?
I don't really see this as an issue with Oklahoma itself, but the fact that we have a crumbling economy with more jails than schools.
When I am elected President, I will personally ensure that Oklahoma has fewer prisons than schools... by turning the state into a Federal Penitentiary.
Maybe if the legislative branch had term limits we might be able to get some new blood in there more regularly, maybe even make it more difficult (read: prohibitively expensive) for special interests and corps to buy lifer politicians.
Look at Mexico and tell me that term limits are a good thing.
If everyone is unique, how can you then establish guidelines respecting that while enforcing your "appropriate" parenting techniques?
However, the point is, something needs to be done for the children. Does the state need to be involved? Directly.. no. Indirectly, if need be.
What needs to be done for the children? Are they out of hand? Are they unable to function in the modern world? Are they *gasp* having sex? Of course not. The average child is just as well acclimated to society as they were a hundred years ago. So, the argument that there needs to be some agency to tell parents how to raise their children will only serve to infringe on the rights of the minority, while shrinking the majority so that they can be "regulated" also.
Should the state be a crutch, no. The government is in place to serve the people, to do what's best for the people. If that means they provided training or whatever will work with someone, then so be it.
Every time the government gets involved to "do what's best for people", you can rest assured that it will be an expensive boondoggle that only serves to infringe on the liberty of free people. You haven't explained what proper training should be, but you're quite naive if you don't believe it will be used as a partisan football. Democrats will demand that corporal punishment be banned, while Republicans will demand that sex education be banned, and back and forth. If you disbelieve that will happen, look at Kansas' education board.
Party aside, parents who care about their children want what's best. Is this not a universal understanding, hateful people aside?
Parents who care about their children want what they think is best for their children. What is best for your children is not going to be what is best for my own. Seeing that, I'm not sure how you can argue that it's in my children's best interest for you to tell me how to raise them. That's what your proposed "training program" will do.
Proposition? If a parent is flagged negligent, they're put in a parenting-assist program that starts them off in some counciling/training program that helps them and the child(ren). And the process goes from there until parent and child(ren) seem okay.
What do you define as "negligent"? Are Christian Scientists negligent because they don't believe in medical care? Are Scientologists negligent because they don't believe in psychology? Creationists for hindering their children's ability to function in the modern world? "Evolutionists" for teaching their children that we're not special in the eyes of God? What about home-schoolers? Are they negligent by preventing their children from "socializing"? How about people who send their children to public schools? Are they negligent for putting their children in danger of drugs, violence, and sexual predators? Nudists? Are they negligent for teaching their children that clothing is optional? Your proposition fails, because as soon as the party you support loses power, ideas and positions you agree with will suddenly come under fire.
There is no legitimate argument for involving the State in raising children.
They won't make a law, the FCC will pass a regulation. Let's be honest, the Federal government has been making end-runs around the Constitution for more than fifty years.
Consider the size of your average passenger airliner. Further consider the distant unlikeliness that the number of terrorists hijacking a plane will outnumber the entire crew. Now, a little thought puzzle. Stand at the front of the plane. Stand at the back of the plane. At the front, how many of the passengers can you see completely, don't forget short people. At the rear of the plane, how many of the passengers can you see clearly? Now, let's even assume you've got a couple guys in the center of the plane. Now, if you've got a couple guys at the front, a couple guys in back, and a couple in the center. WHO THE FUCK IS FLYING THE PLANE?
If you say the pilot and co-pilot, then you'll have to cut down on the number of terrorists guarding the passengers. If you say one of the terrorists, that still cuts down on the number of passengers. So, you're telling me, that a handful of terrorists are going to be able to shoot everyone who might be rummaging in their carry-on luggage? Consider that the average airliner carries more than 150 people.
And besides, if terrorists are capable of killing anyone with a weapon with skill and alacrity - why do we need "Air Marshals"?
Still; the chances of someone firing a gun in an aeroplane are much higher than the chances of a premeditated hijacking (assuming guns are allowed on planes).
Only if you allow people to carry loaded firearms. If you require that they keep the cartridges in their carry-on luggage, then you get the benefit of having an armed and polite manifest without any of the messy firing at random.
Have you given a thought to what discharging a firearm on an airplane at 30,000 feet might do if you puncture the hull of the plain and depressurize the cabin?
Yeah, Mythbusters covered that in an episode, and nothing happened. They had to use explosives to blow out a window, and in order to get the roof to come off, they had to use lots of explosives.
If he disagrees with it, it is because he views the clump-of-cells/human, whatever you want to call it, as being something/someone that should not be killed/terminated. This suggests he views the clump as a person, or someone worth protecting, hence the murder anaology.
Believing that the foetus should not be terminated does not mean that one believes that terminating the foetus is murder. It seems to me that is an artificial dichotomy - one could, perhaps, believe that abortion is a lamentable waste of potential, or even that the 'surgical' termination of a pregnancy can harm the mother, or any number of things and still think that abortion is wrong. None of those things would impose the belief that abortion is murder onto the subject. The "murder" analogy especially fails when one considers that people treasure many things that may be destroyed without murder - memories, heirlooms, property - one would not make a "murder analogy" if I said I opposed the destruction of my property, but I thought that your destroying your own should be legal.
The reason people reacted as hostilely to your inquiry, is that the "murder" question is emotionally charged by the anti-choice/pro-life movement, and automatically assumes such a world-view.
Slashdot Mirror
Like I said, if you don't want to use O2k7, you can use the 2k7 licenses on O2k3.
As long as they are not OEM licenses, your 2k7 licenses will downgrade to 2k3. I'm so glad my company has someone else to deal with that bullshit.
You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means.
I don't mean to be cold, but who cares about Taiwan? I mean, how is an independent Taiwan in the US's best strategic interests?
With the Western loss of Hong Kong and Macao, to the Chinese in the late 90s, Taiwan is probably the only friendly staging area for a potential invasion of the Chinese mainland.
Google has ads?!
Still have to obey both.
Your posting the AACS key in your signature is technically a violation of the DMCA.
911 isn't rocket science, but a lot of the "integration" points are much more manual than you might think. 911 is as serious as it gets - mistakes can cost lives.
Mistakes can cost lives in any industry - that risk doesn't warrant the grant of an official monopoly.
Why should this be the case if stars do it so readily?
Perhaps self-sustaining fusion reactions don't scale down? Perhaps self-sustaining fusion reactions require far more mass than we are currently capable of providing?
Nothing is worse than government schools.
I don't really see this as an issue with Oklahoma itself, but the fact that we have a crumbling economy with more jails than schools.
When I am elected President, I will personally ensure that Oklahoma has fewer prisons than schools... by turning the state into a Federal Penitentiary.
Who the f*** decided that sentences on the Internet shall no longer be formatted with two spaces after a period?!
With the advent of variable width fonts, it is no longer necessary to signal a full-stop spacing with two spaces.
Maybe if the legislative branch had term limits we might be able to get some new blood in there more regularly, maybe even make it more difficult (read: prohibitively expensive) for special interests and corps to buy lifer politicians.
Look at Mexico and tell me that term limits are a good thing.
If everyone is unique, how can you then establish guidelines respecting that while enforcing your "appropriate" parenting techniques?
What needs to be done for the children? Are they out of hand? Are they unable to function in the modern world? Are they *gasp* having sex? Of course not. The average child is just as well acclimated to society as they were a hundred years ago. So, the argument that there needs to be some agency to tell parents how to raise their children will only serve to infringe on the rights of the minority, while shrinking the majority so that they can be "regulated" also.
Every time the government gets involved to "do what's best for people", you can rest assured that it will be an expensive boondoggle that only serves to infringe on the liberty of free people. You haven't explained what proper training should be, but you're quite naive if you don't believe it will be used as a partisan football. Democrats will demand that corporal punishment be banned, while Republicans will demand that sex education be banned, and back and forth. If you disbelieve that will happen, look at Kansas' education board.
Parents who care about their children want what they think is best for their children. What is best for your children is not going to be what is best for my own. Seeing that, I'm not sure how you can argue that it's in my children's best interest for you to tell me how to raise them. That's what your proposed "training program" will do.
Proposition? If a parent is flagged negligent, they're put in a parenting-assist program that starts them off in some counciling/training program that helps them and the child(ren). And the process goes from there until parent and child(ren) seem okay.
What do you define as "negligent"? Are Christian Scientists negligent because they don't believe in medical care? Are Scientologists negligent because they don't believe in psychology? Creationists for hindering their children's ability to function in the modern world? "Evolutionists" for teaching their children that we're not special in the eyes of God? What about home-schoolers? Are they negligent by preventing their children from "socializing"? How about people who send their children to public schools? Are they negligent for putting their children in danger of drugs, violence, and sexual predators? Nudists? Are they negligent for teaching their children that clothing is optional? Your proposition fails, because as soon as the party you support loses power, ideas and positions you agree with will suddenly come under fire.
There is no legitimate argument for involving the State in raising children.
They want to stop KIDS from seeing it
That is the job of the parents, not the government.
They won't make a law, the FCC will pass a regulation. Let's be honest, the Federal government has been making end-runs around the Constitution for more than fifty years.
Consider the size of your average passenger airliner. Further consider the distant unlikeliness that the number of terrorists hijacking a plane will outnumber the entire crew. Now, a little thought puzzle. Stand at the front of the plane. Stand at the back of the plane. At the front, how many of the passengers can you see completely, don't forget short people. At the rear of the plane, how many of the passengers can you see clearly? Now, let's even assume you've got a couple guys in the center of the plane. Now, if you've got a couple guys at the front, a couple guys in back, and a couple in the center. WHO THE FUCK IS FLYING THE PLANE?
If you say the pilot and co-pilot, then you'll have to cut down on the number of terrorists guarding the passengers. If you say one of the terrorists, that still cuts down on the number of passengers. So, you're telling me, that a handful of terrorists are going to be able to shoot everyone who might be rummaging in their carry-on luggage? Consider that the average airliner carries more than 150 people.
And besides, if terrorists are capable of killing anyone with a weapon with skill and alacrity - why do we need "Air Marshals"?
Still; the chances of someone firing a gun in an aeroplane are much higher than the chances of a premeditated hijacking (assuming guns are allowed on planes).
Only if you allow people to carry loaded firearms. If you require that they keep the cartridges in their carry-on luggage, then you get the benefit of having an armed and polite manifest without any of the messy firing at random.
Have you given a thought to what discharging a firearm on an airplane at 30,000 feet might do if you puncture the hull of the plain and depressurize the cabin?
Yeah, Mythbusters covered that in an episode, and nothing happened. They had to use explosives to blow out a window, and in order to get the roof to come off, they had to use lots of explosives.
It's not "mandatory", but any state that does not abide by the Real ID requirements won't recieve any federal funding for roads and such.
I need minimum font size.
Stop being blind, and your problem is solved.
or just shuffling already existing wealth around?
That's called mercantilism - an economic theory that was discredited about three hundred years ago.
Doesn't MySQL still just have table-level locks? PostgreSQL's the other extreme; it has MVCC.
The MyISAM engine still has table-level locks, but MyISAM isn't remotely ACID. Other engines have different locking mechanisms: page, row, et cetera.
Not every movie has to be fucking Schindler's List to be entertaining.
If he disagrees with it, it is because he views the clump-of-cells/human, whatever you want to call it, as being something/someone that should not be killed/terminated. This suggests he views the clump as a person, or someone worth protecting, hence the murder anaology.
Believing that the foetus should not be terminated does not mean that one believes that terminating the foetus is murder. It seems to me that is an artificial dichotomy - one could, perhaps, believe that abortion is a lamentable waste of potential, or even that the 'surgical' termination of a pregnancy can harm the mother, or any number of things and still think that abortion is wrong. None of those things would impose the belief that abortion is murder onto the subject. The "murder" analogy especially fails when one considers that people treasure many things that may be destroyed without murder - memories, heirlooms, property - one would not make a "murder analogy" if I said I opposed the destruction of my property, but I thought that your destroying your own should be legal.
The reason people reacted as hostilely to your inquiry, is that the "murder" question is emotionally charged by the anti-choice/pro-life movement, and automatically assumes such a world-view.