That's funny, because the women went to police not to seek prosecution but to make him take an AIDS test. So it seems they didn't want to press any charges. Funny that.
Because it's not rape by any english language definition. There was no non-consensual or forced sex. It was sex with a broken condom. If she doesn't know it's broken, it's "Rape", just like the Arab who went to jail for consensual sex with an Israeli went to jail for "rape" because he didn't tell her she was an arab, and no jew would have sex with an arab. Quotes are appropriate. Not to mention the background of the woman who actually made the accusation -- after which she deleted her tweets about enjoying herself, and her blogpost on how to get revenge on a man you find cheating on you (which, IIRC, involved filing false rape claims).
Now why would I go and do a crazy thing like that? OS upgrades mean script upgrades. Unless there's a worthy ROE (return on effort), I never upgrade. I only just got from XP to Windows 7 with my last motherboard fry last year. And only went from 2K to XP in 2007 when ATI dropped driver support (assholes, next card I'm buying will be a Sapphire radeon instead of ati radeon). It gets old re-inventing existing functionality over and over. I got other shit to do.
I have 64 bit architecture, and my previous installation of windows did not have two program file folders. While I get what you're saying, you said it wrong.;)
I keep 0 icons on my desktop, and don't want stupid pinned icons taking up my taskbar. I like to have WORDS on them, not just a dumb hard-to-deipher icon. See, I know how to READ. Sometimes there's 2 browser windows, and the WORDS help me know which one to use. Real estate there is expensive. Of course I use the start menu - I have over 250 programs installed.
It's like they want to force me to do everything by command-line. I practically do anyway, but now that they have 2 ProgramFiles foldres, it can be twice as hard to find shit. That's why the start menu is great. Especially the Windows 7 one that let's you type a few characters into the text entry box, and returns only the programs with those characters in it.
In short, WHAT THE FUCK WERE YOU THINKING, MICROSOFT?
Coming soon: 3rd party start menus more susceptible to viruses than Microsoft's (assuming that is possible).
It's not a conclusion, it's fact. They solved every murder and half of them were by illegal immigrants. Half of DUIs are by illegal immigrants too. It's why they started doing checkpoints around here.
Also, if you're going to cherry pick ONE type of crime, picking the one that is least-often reported by the victim is going to give you the least-useful numbers as well. Funny thing about murders and drunk driving accidents - they don't tend to go unreported like rapes.
Oh I see.. You're also talking about Prince William County. And you're looking at the following year, which was an increase after a drop twice as large the year before where they started enforcing That Law. If we're going to cherry pick one year, the year the law was enforced is the best. But I regret to inform you that -22% + 10% still equals less.
More info on the year after they enforced it.
Now I know legal immigrants commit crimes at lower rates than citizens, but illegal ones? Nope. Not in PWC.
I haven't provided links as much ever since they added the "select text, right click->search for google" functionality, as I think people should verify things themselves, that functionality makes it SO easy, and I'd rather them verify it independently than be based on the one (likely biased) link I provide them. Just different philosophies, I guess.
You still don't get it, do you? I got modded up so I cane here to revisit once my original comment that you have a problem with got up to 5.
The answer to the question "is this iranian apple employee also prevented and prohibited from purchasing apple products?" is "Only if she [the customer] tells the person about to sell it to her that she intends to send it to her relative in Iran."
It is grammatically, ethically, legally, and logically a perfect and correct statement in every possible way.
You classify legal and illegal immigrants together, but they are not. Don't insult my grandparents. When Prince William County, VA, enacted a similar law, it cut down on a lot of trouble. Murders halved from 9/yr annually to 4/yr annually, because 50% of the murders were by illegal immigrants. Over $100M in english-as-a-second-language class tax money was saved. If you want to come to our country legally, learn english to pass the entrance exam first, on your own time, not on my dime. I wouldn't expect I country I emigrate to to teach me its language; I'd expect to learn it myself and even make my wife speak to me in it as much as possible until we could conduct business in that country.
I'm most definitely running the latest driver for the card. They stopped updates a few yrs ago. Again, ati did not advertise HD playback until the NEXT card, so it's not a surprise it has trouble with higher-bitrate (but not lower-bitrate) 1080p. What is surprising is that things seem to have gotten worse after 5 yrs of use - probably dirt in the fan. I have it overclocked about 1% at this point, nothing to lose.
"No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." (Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334,[C.J.Boyd, Ed., 1950])
"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves...and include all men capable of bearing arms." (Richard Henry Lee, Additional Letters from the Federal Farmer (1788) at 169)
"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty.... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins." (Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment [ I Annals of Congress at 750 {August 17, 1789}])
"...to disarm the people - that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them." (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380)
"the ultimate authority... resides in the people alone," (James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, in Federalist Paper #46.)
"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (James Madison, The Federalist Papers #46 at 243-244)
"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States" (Noah Webster in `An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution', 1787, a pamphlet aimed at swaying Pennsylvania toward ratification, in Paul Ford, ed., Pamphlets on the Constitution of the United States, at 56(New York, 1888))
"...but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights..." (Alexander Hamilton speaking of standing armies in Federalist 29.)
"Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state government, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people" (Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788)
"The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to Congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretense by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both." [William Rawle, A View of the Constitution 125-6 (2nd ed. 1829)
"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for few public officials." (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 425-426)
"The Constitution shall never be construed....to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms" (Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 86-87)
I agree, they shouldn't. They should look it up and verify themself. Taking the one link I give would only be taking a link that most likely supports MY viewpoint. It's kind of biased to take the one source from the person submitting the argument. I'd rather the person work it our for themself...
Let me spell it out for Mr. Self-Righteous Retard Who Thinks He Can Write Code But Clearly Can't Because He Doesn't Know What "If" Means:
Original statement: "question. is this iranian apple employee also prevented and prohibited from purchasing apple products?"
My response: "Only if she tells the person about to sell it to her that she intends to send it to her relative in Iran."
My response is an if statement. It has two possible valuations based on whether the if condition is met. In answering the question, I state that they are prohibtied "only if" she tells them about it. So if she tells them about it, they are prohibited. If she does not, they are not. It is a valid if statement that takes the condition about whether they know or not into consideration. The statement has absolutely no legal fallacy no matter what - it is a valid statement in both situations.
Do you fucking get it now, or are you so mentally defective that you still can't comprehend something that I could in 3rd grade when I started programming?
No, you didn't. But your lack of reading comprehension is really showing. I suggest looking up the word "if", and perhaps finding some pages that explain how this curious word is used.
Slashdot Mirror
That's funny, because the women went to police not to seek prosecution but to make him take an AIDS test. So it seems they didn't want to press any charges. Funny that.
The tone sounds like your disagreeing with me, but the message doesn't. I will confusedly agree with you and feel neutral about it.
Scare quotes are absolutely appropriate.
Now why would I go and do a crazy thing like that? OS upgrades mean script upgrades. Unless there's a worthy ROE (return on effort), I never upgrade. I only just got from XP to Windows 7 with my last motherboard fry last year. And only went from 2K to XP in 2007 when ATI dropped driver support (assholes, next card I'm buying will be a Sapphire radeon instead of ati radeon). It gets old re-inventing existing functionality over and over. I got other shit to do.
I have 64 bit architecture, and my previous installation of windows did not have two program file folders. While I get what you're saying, you said it wrong. ;)
It's like they want to force me to do everything by command-line. I practically do anyway, but now that they have 2 ProgramFiles foldres, it can be twice as hard to find shit. That's why the start menu is great. Especially the Windows 7 one that let's you type a few characters into the text entry box, and returns only the programs with those characters in it.
In short, WHAT THE FUCK WERE YOU THINKING, MICROSOFT?
Coming soon: 3rd party start menus more susceptible to viruses than Microsoft's (assuming that is possible).
Why can't the law just require buildings to have handicapped ramps if they "can"?
GPS is absolutely accurate, it's just not precise. I obviously was not being pedantic enough.
Precision != Accuracy.
It's not a conclusion, it's fact. They solved every murder and half of them were by illegal immigrants. Half of DUIs are by illegal immigrants too. It's why they started doing checkpoints around here.
Also, if you're going to cherry pick ONE type of crime, picking the one that is least-often reported by the victim is going to give you the least-useful numbers as well. Funny thing about murders and drunk driving accidents - they don't tend to go unreported like rapes.
Now I know legal immigrants commit crimes at lower rates than citizens, but illegal ones? Nope. Not in PWC.
I have no idea what you're talking about. Can you be more specific? You just gave a random quote.
I haven't provided links as much ever since they added the "select text, right click->search for google" functionality, as I think people should verify things themselves, that functionality makes it SO easy, and I'd rather them verify it independently than be based on the one (likely biased) link I provide them. Just different philosophies, I guess.
The answer to the question "is this iranian apple employee also prevented and prohibited from purchasing apple products?" is "Only if she [the customer] tells the person about to sell it to her that she intends to send it to her relative in Iran."
It is grammatically, ethically, legally, and logically a perfect and correct statement in every possible way.
You classify legal and illegal immigrants together, but they are not. Don't insult my grandparents. When Prince William County, VA, enacted a similar law, it cut down on a lot of trouble. Murders halved from 9/yr annually to 4/yr annually, because 50% of the murders were by illegal immigrants. Over $100M in english-as-a-second-language class tax money was saved. If you want to come to our country legally, learn english to pass the entrance exam first, on your own time, not on my dime. I wouldn't expect I country I emigrate to to teach me its language; I'd expect to learn it myself and even make my wife speak to me in it as much as possible until we could conduct business in that country.
I'm most definitely running the latest driver for the card. They stopped updates a few yrs ago. Again, ati did not advertise HD playback until the NEXT card, so it's not a surprise it has trouble with higher-bitrate (but not lower-bitrate) 1080p. What is surprising is that things seem to have gotten worse after 5 yrs of use - probably dirt in the fan. I have it overclocked about 1% at this point, nothing to lose.
That's good to hear :) Thanks :)
"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves...and include all men capable of bearing arms." (Richard Henry Lee, Additional Letters from the Federal Farmer (1788) at 169)
"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty.... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins." (Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment [ I Annals of Congress at 750 {August 17, 1789}])
"...to disarm the people - that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them." (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380)
"the ultimate authority ... resides in the people alone," (James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, in Federalist Paper #46.)
"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (James Madison, The Federalist Papers #46 at 243-244)
"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States" (Noah Webster in `An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution', 1787, a pamphlet aimed at swaying Pennsylvania toward ratification, in Paul Ford, ed., Pamphlets on the Constitution of the United States, at 56(New York, 1888))
"...but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights..." (Alexander Hamilton speaking of standing armies in Federalist 29.)
"Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state government, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people" (Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788)
"The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to Congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretense by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both." [William Rawle, A View of the Constitution 125-6 (2nd ed. 1829)
"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for few public officials." (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 425-426)
"The Constitution shall never be construed....to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms" (Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 86-87)
I could go on. And on. And on.
I agree, they shouldn't. They should look it up and verify themself. Taking the one link I give would only be taking a link that most likely supports MY viewpoint. It's kind of biased to take the one source from the person submitting the argument. I'd rather the person work it our for themself...
too much work!
Original statement: "question. is this iranian apple employee also prevented and prohibited from purchasing apple products?"
My response: "Only if she tells the person about to sell it to her that she intends to send it to her relative in Iran."
My response is an if statement. It has two possible valuations based on whether the if condition is met. In answering the question, I state that they are prohibtied "only if" she tells them about it. So if she tells them about it, they are prohibited. If she does not, they are not. It is a valid if statement that takes the condition about whether they know or not into consideration. The statement has absolutely no legal fallacy no matter what - it is a valid statement in both situations.
Do you fucking get it now, or are you so mentally defective that you still can't comprehend something that I could in 3rd grade when I started programming?
No, you didn't. But your lack of reading comprehension is really showing. I suggest looking up the word "if", and perhaps finding some pages that explain how this curious word is used.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2935527&cid=40432217
You just refuted an "if" statement. I don't need a defense. If evaluates to false in that case. My statement still stands.