I'm not saying there never is a time, but that it's NOT yet time, not even close. Read the Declaration of Independence for a discussion of once when it WAS time. The situation today is nothing compared to back in the 1700's, we can still vote, we can still freely speak, we can petition, and THAT's the proper avenue for redress of your complaints.
In the mean time we continue to keep our arms and I suggest you tone down the rhetoric because there are nut cases out there who could be swayed by your arguments and do stupid things like killing two cops as they eat lunch, and that only hands the people who you perceive as oppressive more justification for what they are doing.
You lost me at the "he had a gun store in the mall" part... How do you have a no gun policy and then allow a gun store? Seems to me that if you have a no-gun policy and then lease a space to a gun store and look the other way while the store is operating, your policy is really not a policy. But that doesn't excuse what he did. The rest of it he had coming.
Crying shame about the 30.06 notice though. That's why all this open carry blather where some yahoo decides to waltz though someplace with a long gun is generally going to have exactly the wrong effect like it did at Target, Starbucks and other places. Open carry in public? Ok with me, right up to the point you enter private property and disrupt some business with your stunt... Then, you need to be dealt with like the nut you are...
Why are none of you gun advocates killing off the NSA officials and the rest of the security people who are shitting all over the rest of your fucking rights? Or are you just a bunch of one trick ponies who only give a crap about your guns?
Mainly because what you suggest is murder and is basically an armed rebellion.
All the gun rights advocates I know are law abiding types who don't go around breaking laws, even the ones they disagree with, but try to work within the system of government we have. They are not going to just start shooting at people for perceived violations of their rights....
Of course there ARE those who go around advocating the violation of law for all sorts of reasons. Names like Snowden, Occupy Wall Street and Furgason MO all come to mind and they all have one common thread. Violation of laws to make your point. Two wrongs NEVER produce a right. Armed rebellion in a nation of generally just laws is flat wrong, especially before all other avenues of causing change have been exhausted.
Nobody accepts openly carried firearms. It's just stupid, insecure men trying to show off. I think almost everyone should have a gun but CONCEALED on them. Otherwise guess who the criminal is shooting first. There's no point in carrying a gun unless nobody knows it's there.
Where I agree that many so called "men" do carry guns openly to make a statement, I'm not so sure that we are not overly sensitive to the sight of firearms in public. There was a time that open carry was common and the sight of a handgun in a holster wasn't anything that produced panic in public. Now I don't want to make the case for the nuts that insist on openly carrying their long guns around in public, but I think there is a place for open carry laws.
I'm with you that I'd prefer licensed concealed carry over open carry myself, we have to understand that open carry does serve a purpose in some public situations and therefore should be generally allowed.
We have a nut job here who open-carried an AR-15 into a mall unannounced.
Yes, while it may have been legal to open carry a long gun into the mall, it was a stupid stunt. He should have just got his concealed permit and carried a weapon hidden so people would feel safer because they didn't know. I hope the mall management had him thrown out and told that if he returned they would have him arrested for trespassing. I hope they also posted the proper signage to make it clear that open carry would not be permitted on their private property while allowing licensed concealed carry.
Oh Yeah, You forgot that the Supremes already weigh in on that issue...you lost.
Hope springs eternal...
Which is why I generally tell gun controllers that they are free to get the constitution changed because the 2nd amendment is pretty clear that this right "shall not be infringed" and until that is changed, gun ownership is generally going to be a fact in the USA.
It seems to me that there has been a lot of media and public backlash against open carry. I'm not personally affected by open carry at the moment, but I'd be hesitant to visit any state where open carry becomes too prolific. My opinion is simply that when everyone open carries, I will have a harder time discerning who is a threat and who isn't.
Really? I don't think this open carry problem is as big as you think given what we have now. If you are legally carrying a firearm in plain view, the assumption that you are a threat because there is a visible gun present is a false one. The carrier of the gun may or may not be a threat, but the existence of the firearm is plain for everybody to see. As long as the firearm remains in a holster, it is no threat, and the law abiding carrier will leave it there until it is necessary and legal to pull it out.
Personally, I prefer open carry to concealed carry, which is what we really have now. Even where any kind of carry is illegal (like Chicago) we really just have the non-law abiding doing concealed carry, while the law abiding have nothing. I think open carry is better than what we have now.
Guns, and carrying them, is a constitutional right in the USA and until that changes it seems to me that a general open carry stance along with licensed concealed carry is the best we can do. If you don't like that, I suggest you get the constitution changed...
How does government regulate color printers from printing paper money?
By using expensive technology, inks and papers not readily available to the average person. Sure, you might be able to use an inkjet to print $100 bills that will fool a machine or even some people, but with micro threads in the paper and specially formulated inks applied using offset printing, counterfeiting bills is pretty difficult and expensive.
Oh, I've asked... Problem was I couldn't switch because of the logistics of moving my wife off of their E-mail service so I really couldn't afford to get my bluff called when I threatened to cancel my service. You have to be ready to really cancel before they will come off the "you pay the advertised rate" position.
I am transitioning her to a non-ISP specific E-mail address right now, so once we have her and her friends used to the new address I can call and *really* be ready to cancel the service should they call my bluff. I'm figuring to be ready by the end of the month....
At that point, I figure I will do exactly what you and other suggest and use both providers ads and offers to work the best deal possible.
It's a shame though that shopping for services now resembles shopping for a used car, where the customers never really know what the bottom line really is and to find out you have to be willing to threaten to go elsewhere if they don't drop their price... As I told the last Verizon CSR, I don't like the way you do business because it seems stupid and borderline unethical, but it is what it is.
I think the question really is can you claim a viable defense from a first degree murder charge by saying you didn't intend to kill anybody. Surely you are guilty of manslaughter or perhaps something more, but the question here is how much can they convict you of.
Not for long.... I'd wager that Comcast will quickly increase their Internet Service prices to compensate for the subscribers they will loose though streaming Cable like services. Just enjoy it while it lasts...
Careful... You will still need internet to stream this and unless you live in googleland where fiber abounds and fast internet connections are cheep (where is that exactly?) you will still need to pay Comcast for an internet connection. Get ready to be taken advantage of. Buying just internet service can get expensive beyond what you now see on your Comcast bill for that "package" deal you get on internet. Expect them to bump that up if you don't buy TV from them.
For me, the differential between my single 25/25 internet connection and a 50/50 connection with all the non-premium HD TV channels is about $40/month for 2 TVs. Take a look at Verizon's "pick your own package" prices online to see what I mean. What they do with their pricing isn't very intuitive. For example, I've been a Verizon customer for nearly 10 years, yet the "New customer" advertised price is almost 1/3rd cheaper than they will give me because I'm an existing customer. I've never missed paying the bill and have rarely called them to support my internet connection, but they'd rather get a new customer than keep me, even when I asked them to just match the new customer deal for me.
I'll warn you that TWC is like most providers. They will charge you though the nose for a "dry" internet connection (i.e. when you only have internet service with them). The delta between internet and TV with internet is just about $20 and add phone for another $10 (with per/min charges). Add a few dollars for the cable box and this deal will only be a small gain over an internet connection and TV.
Verizon FIOS is worse than that. They charge me over $100/month for 25/25 net only. If I added their premier TV service, I'd be at $140 or so with taxes and equipment for 2 TV's and they'd bump my internet speed to 50/50.
Where I get where this idea is headed and I would really like to just pay for what I need, I'm still money ahead to go with the full service from Verizon..
If YOUR bot buys something, it does so on your behalf so YOU are responsible. The question here really is: can your lack of understanding of what the bot was going to do provide a defense if your program buys something illegal. I'm guessing the answer to THAT question is "NO" but this is a question for the courts to decide.
However, Neither matters. If your program or you do the trading, you are liable for the results. So in the case of the article, the person responsible is the one who put the BOT program in motion, just like the hedge fund would make or loose money when they run their program.
You should hold your Bitcoin by exchanging them for USD and then store them in your bank. This method besides being orders of magnitude safer, had an actual return of more than 70% during 2014.
Safer, sure but 70% return in 2014? Which bank are you talking about?
My bank pays out a fraction of a percent on savings accounts so the $3K in my account nets me a less than 10 cents a month. That isn't even close to 70% return... Maybe your name is Hillary and you can trade future contracts better than the pros or something, but I doubt there is any reputable bank paying 70% return on any investments. If you are an average investor, you should be getting nearly 7%/year right now on a mixture of stocks and bonds (i.e. mutual funds), but if you can make 70% returns, you are in the wrong business given you are posting on Slashdot.
I would refine that a bit further. It's not just Fundamentalists, but Fundamentalists who refuse to accept that others may hold differing opinions, and further, those Fundamentalists who believe it is justified to use force to change the opinions of others.
I consider myself a fundamentalist, but I do not believe it is my job to force anyone into accepting my views, and I would defend your right to hold positions I consider incorrect.
If you don't make your money back in 5 years, there are better investments out there.
Low interest rates have been pushing timelines out. At 10%, 5 years makes sense. At under 5%, 10 years makes more sense.
Hadn't thought of that, but what you say is correct, lower interest rates do mean longer ROI is possible. Personally, I think we are at the very end of low interest rates right now. Russia's latest rate hike is going to bite. Low energy prices will spur economic activity in pretty short order. All this will conspire so the Fed will be tightening the money supply.
I'd stay out of a 10 year ROI unless I can get bond rates under 2.5%. About the best a corporation can get is just under 4% for a 20 year, 10 year is about 3%. This means you will need to have MINIMUM annual returns of 8% for 20 year break even on principle and interest and 13% on 10 years.
Of course if you have 20 Billion in the bank, the numbers are that much lower..
It's called "sound business practice" and a few rules of thumb.
1. ROI must be break even in less than 5 years. So if you don't break even in that amount of time, you are wasting your investment dollars. If you are paying cash (not borrowing) to fund the project, you can possibly go longer, but you still need to show an annual return of better than 10% to make money over 10 years.
2. Manufacturing usually charges double the production cost for the product. Add up, labor, materials, energy, maintenance and all other production costs and that should be half the sales price. Out of the 50% you take your infrastructure costs, money costs and such to arrive at profit.
Of course all "rules of thumb" are just how the average works. There are exceptions to these rules.
Once again, when not using made up numbers, Green energies are the same.
Thanks for the information.
I'd like to point out though, I made no secret of the fact that I was guessing based on sound business practice. If you don't make your money back in 5 years, there are better investments out there. Big Energy companies may be able to stretch this out to 10 years if they have enough cash flow, but if your numbers are correct, they are going to loose their shirts.
Isn't the army supposed to protect us from foreign threats? This seems like a job for domestic law enforcement.
System testing perhaps? I'm sure the Army is well aware of the domestic nature of the data they are collecting and the fact that the Army is NOT allowed to do law enforcement work.
So, my guess is that they are doing systems testing and validation work. Which happens all the time within our borders.
How convenient, right at flight level of commercial jets.
This is the very bottom of the airspace used by commercial jets so it's not a problem. Below 10,000 feet you have possible uncontrolled aircraft operating VFR without communications equipment to talk to ATC. Above 10,000, you have to have a minimum set of equipment and be talking to ATC.
Commercial jets won't be bothered at all. Civil aviation likely won't either, except that there will be a new bit of restricted airspace they will now need to avoid or fly around, from the ground to 10,000 feet. Likely this airspace is already restricted as a MOA, so it won't be anything new.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not saying there never is a time, but that it's NOT yet time, not even close. Read the Declaration of Independence for a discussion of once when it WAS time. The situation today is nothing compared to back in the 1700's, we can still vote, we can still freely speak, we can petition, and THAT's the proper avenue for redress of your complaints.
In the mean time we continue to keep our arms and I suggest you tone down the rhetoric because there are nut cases out there who could be swayed by your arguments and do stupid things like killing two cops as they eat lunch, and that only hands the people who you perceive as oppressive more justification for what they are doing.
You lost me at the "he had a gun store in the mall" part... How do you have a no gun policy and then allow a gun store? Seems to me that if you have a no-gun policy and then lease a space to a gun store and look the other way while the store is operating, your policy is really not a policy. But that doesn't excuse what he did. The rest of it he had coming.
Crying shame about the 30.06 notice though. That's why all this open carry blather where some yahoo decides to waltz though someplace with a long gun is generally going to have exactly the wrong effect like it did at Target, Starbucks and other places. Open carry in public? Ok with me, right up to the point you enter private property and disrupt some business with your stunt... Then, you need to be dealt with like the nut you are...
Why are none of you gun advocates killing off the NSA officials and the rest of the security people who are shitting all over the rest of your fucking rights? Or are you just a bunch of one trick ponies who only give a crap about your guns?
Mainly because what you suggest is murder and is basically an armed rebellion.
All the gun rights advocates I know are law abiding types who don't go around breaking laws, even the ones they disagree with, but try to work within the system of government we have. They are not going to just start shooting at people for perceived violations of their rights....
Of course there ARE those who go around advocating the violation of law for all sorts of reasons. Names like Snowden, Occupy Wall Street and Furgason MO all come to mind and they all have one common thread. Violation of laws to make your point. Two wrongs NEVER produce a right. Armed rebellion in a nation of generally just laws is flat wrong, especially before all other avenues of causing change have been exhausted.
Nobody accepts openly carried firearms. It's just stupid, insecure men trying to show off. I think almost everyone should have a gun but CONCEALED on them. Otherwise guess who the criminal is shooting first. There's no point in carrying a gun unless nobody knows it's there.
Where I agree that many so called "men" do carry guns openly to make a statement, I'm not so sure that we are not overly sensitive to the sight of firearms in public. There was a time that open carry was common and the sight of a handgun in a holster wasn't anything that produced panic in public. Now I don't want to make the case for the nuts that insist on openly carrying their long guns around in public, but I think there is a place for open carry laws.
I'm with you that I'd prefer licensed concealed carry over open carry myself, we have to understand that open carry does serve a purpose in some public situations and therefore should be generally allowed.
We have a nut job here who open-carried an AR-15 into a mall unannounced.
Yes, while it may have been legal to open carry a long gun into the mall, it was a stupid stunt. He should have just got his concealed permit and carried a weapon hidden so people would feel safer because they didn't know. I hope the mall management had him thrown out and told that if he returned they would have him arrested for trespassing. I hope they also posted the proper signage to make it clear that open carry would not be permitted on their private property while allowing licensed concealed carry.
Oh Yeah, You forgot that the Supremes already weigh in on that issue...you lost.
Hope springs eternal...
Which is why I generally tell gun controllers that they are free to get the constitution changed because the 2nd amendment is pretty clear that this right "shall not be infringed" and until that is changed, gun ownership is generally going to be a fact in the USA.
It seems to me that there has been a lot of media and public backlash against open carry. I'm not personally affected by open carry at the moment, but I'd be hesitant to visit any state where open carry becomes too prolific. My opinion is simply that when everyone open carries, I will have a harder time discerning who is a threat and who isn't.
Really? I don't think this open carry problem is as big as you think given what we have now. If you are legally carrying a firearm in plain view, the assumption that you are a threat because there is a visible gun present is a false one. The carrier of the gun may or may not be a threat, but the existence of the firearm is plain for everybody to see. As long as the firearm remains in a holster, it is no threat, and the law abiding carrier will leave it there until it is necessary and legal to pull it out.
Personally, I prefer open carry to concealed carry, which is what we really have now. Even where any kind of carry is illegal (like Chicago) we really just have the non-law abiding doing concealed carry, while the law abiding have nothing. I think open carry is better than what we have now.
Guns, and carrying them, is a constitutional right in the USA and until that changes it seems to me that a general open carry stance along with licensed concealed carry is the best we can do. If you don't like that, I suggest you get the constitution changed...
How does government regulate color printers from printing paper money?
By using expensive technology, inks and papers not readily available to the average person. Sure, you might be able to use an inkjet to print $100 bills that will fool a machine or even some people, but with micro threads in the paper and specially formulated inks applied using offset printing, counterfeiting bills is pretty difficult and expensive.
Oh, I've asked... Problem was I couldn't switch because of the logistics of moving my wife off of their E-mail service so I really couldn't afford to get my bluff called when I threatened to cancel my service. You have to be ready to really cancel before they will come off the "you pay the advertised rate" position.
I am transitioning her to a non-ISP specific E-mail address right now, so once we have her and her friends used to the new address I can call and *really* be ready to cancel the service should they call my bluff. I'm figuring to be ready by the end of the month....
At that point, I figure I will do exactly what you and other suggest and use both providers ads and offers to work the best deal possible.
It's a shame though that shopping for services now resembles shopping for a used car, where the customers never really know what the bottom line really is and to find out you have to be willing to threaten to go elsewhere if they don't drop their price... As I told the last Verizon CSR, I don't like the way you do business because it seems stupid and borderline unethical, but it is what it is.
I think the question really is can you claim a viable defense from a first degree murder charge by saying you didn't intend to kill anybody. Surely you are guilty of manslaughter or perhaps something more, but the question here is how much can they convict you of.
Being Stupid? Surely.
Manslaughter (killing w/o intent)? Most likely.
....
Premeditated murder in the first degree? Unlikely
Not for long.... I'd wager that Comcast will quickly increase their Internet Service prices to compensate for the subscribers they will loose though streaming Cable like services. Just enjoy it while it lasts...
I can't wait to call Comcast.
Careful... You will still need internet to stream this and unless you live in googleland where fiber abounds and fast internet connections are cheep (where is that exactly?) you will still need to pay Comcast for an internet connection. Get ready to be taken advantage of. Buying just internet service can get expensive beyond what you now see on your Comcast bill for that "package" deal you get on internet. Expect them to bump that up if you don't buy TV from them.
For me, the differential between my single 25/25 internet connection and a 50/50 connection with all the non-premium HD TV channels is about $40/month for 2 TVs. Take a look at Verizon's "pick your own package" prices online to see what I mean. What they do with their pricing isn't very intuitive. For example, I've been a Verizon customer for nearly 10 years, yet the "New customer" advertised price is almost 1/3rd cheaper than they will give me because I'm an existing customer. I've never missed paying the bill and have rarely called them to support my internet connection, but they'd rather get a new customer than keep me, even when I asked them to just match the new customer deal for me.
I'll warn you that TWC is like most providers. They will charge you though the nose for a "dry" internet connection (i.e. when you only have internet service with them). The delta between internet and TV with internet is just about $20 and add phone for another $10 (with per/min charges). Add a few dollars for the cable box and this deal will only be a small gain over an internet connection and TV.
Verizon FIOS is worse than that. They charge me over $100/month for 25/25 net only. If I added their premier TV service, I'd be at $140 or so with taxes and equipment for 2 TV's and they'd bump my internet speed to 50/50.
Where I get where this idea is headed and I would really like to just pay for what I need, I'm still money ahead to go with the full service from Verizon..
You...
If YOUR bot buys something, it does so on your behalf so YOU are responsible. The question here really is: can your lack of understanding of what the bot was going to do provide a defense if your program buys something illegal. I'm guessing the answer to THAT question is "NO" but this is a question for the courts to decide.
You beat me to the automated trading angle....
However, Neither matters. If your program or you do the trading, you are liable for the results. So in the case of the article, the person responsible is the one who put the BOT program in motion, just like the hedge fund would make or loose money when they run their program.
rent things that depreciate.
Rent a CAR over buying it? I don't think so...
I would say:
1. Always pay off credit cards at the end of each month; don't carry unsecured debt month to month.
2. Don't use credit, except to buy *real* property (houses, cars, durable goods) and always secure the credit with the item being purchased.
3. Never owe more on an item than it is worth..
4. Never rent unless you are *SURE* you don't need the item long enough to pay for it in your rental payments
. AND my favorite..
. 5. NEVER buy the extended warranty...."
If that means you have to wait to get what you want, or lower your standard of living to pay off unsecured debt, so be it.
Ok, that makes sense.. You'd have made 70% more than holding BTC by just stuffing your mattress... Glowing recommendation that is..
You should hold your Bitcoin by exchanging them for USD and then store them in your bank. This method besides being orders of magnitude safer, had an actual return of more than 70% during 2014.
Safer, sure but 70% return in 2014? Which bank are you talking about?
My bank pays out a fraction of a percent on savings accounts so the $3K in my account nets me a less than 10 cents a month. That isn't even close to 70% return... Maybe your name is Hillary and you can trade future contracts better than the pros or something, but I doubt there is any reputable bank paying 70% return on any investments. If you are an average investor, you should be getting nearly 7%/year right now on a mixture of stocks and bonds (i.e. mutual funds), but if you can make 70% returns, you are in the wrong business given you are posting on Slashdot.
"Money" by Pink Floyd....
I would refine that a bit further. It's not just Fundamentalists, but Fundamentalists who refuse to accept that others may hold differing opinions, and further, those Fundamentalists who believe it is justified to use force to change the opinions of others.
I consider myself a fundamentalist, but I do not believe it is my job to force anyone into accepting my views, and I would defend your right to hold positions I consider incorrect.
If you don't make your money back in 5 years, there are better investments out there.
Low interest rates have been pushing timelines out. At 10%, 5 years makes sense. At under 5%, 10 years makes more sense.
Hadn't thought of that, but what you say is correct, lower interest rates do mean longer ROI is possible. Personally, I think we are at the very end of low interest rates right now. Russia's latest rate hike is going to bite. Low energy prices will spur economic activity in pretty short order. All this will conspire so the Fed will be tightening the money supply.
I'd stay out of a 10 year ROI unless I can get bond rates under 2.5%. About the best a corporation can get is just under 4% for a 20 year, 10 year is about 3%. This means you will need to have MINIMUM annual returns of 8% for 20 year break even on principle and interest and 13% on 10 years.
Of course if you have 20 Billion in the bank, the numbers are that much lower..
It's called "sound business practice" and a few rules of thumb.
1. ROI must be break even in less than 5 years. So if you don't break even in that amount of time, you are wasting your investment dollars. If you are paying cash (not borrowing) to fund the project, you can possibly go longer, but you still need to show an annual return of better than 10% to make money over 10 years.
2. Manufacturing usually charges double the production cost for the product. Add up, labor, materials, energy, maintenance and all other production costs and that should be half the sales price. Out of the 50% you take your infrastructure costs, money costs and such to arrive at profit.
Of course all "rules of thumb" are just how the average works. There are exceptions to these rules.
1.75 Billion a year, BEFORE cost of operation.
Once again, when not using made up numbers, Green energies are the same.
Thanks for the information.
I'd like to point out though, I made no secret of the fact that I was guessing based on sound business practice. If you don't make your money back in 5 years, there are better investments out there. Big Energy companies may be able to stretch this out to 10 years if they have enough cash flow, but if your numbers are correct, they are going to loose their shirts.
Isn't the army supposed to protect us from foreign threats? This seems like a job for domestic law enforcement.
System testing perhaps? I'm sure the Army is well aware of the domestic nature of the data they are collecting and the fact that the Army is NOT allowed to do law enforcement work.
So, my guess is that they are doing systems testing and validation work. Which happens all the time within our borders.
How convenient, right at flight level of commercial jets.
This is the very bottom of the airspace used by commercial jets so it's not a problem. Below 10,000 feet you have possible uncontrolled aircraft operating VFR without communications equipment to talk to ATC. Above 10,000, you have to have a minimum set of equipment and be talking to ATC.
Commercial jets won't be bothered at all. Civil aviation likely won't either, except that there will be a new bit of restricted airspace they will now need to avoid or fly around, from the ground to 10,000 feet. Likely this airspace is already restricted as a MOA, so it won't be anything new.