Then I'd go to an urgent care clinic, which takes both my insurance and cash-only payments from people who don't have insurance. If you want to win your argument against the parent post you responded to, you're going to have to beat my argument I just submitted just now. Urgent care clincs outnumber hospitals. There may be rural exceptions, but I don't think this place is rural.
That assumes you know jailbreakme is the right site with the right kind of jailbrake. I spent about 3-5 hours trying to figure out how to jailbrake my iPhone (given to me; I'd never buy one) and having gone through several different jailbrake methods before I got one that worked right. And I'm not somebody who doesn't know how to do things. I ultimately had to pop in an IRC channel and speak to actual people. There was a site - jailbrakematrix - which helped explain which jailbrakes work for which versions. Mine was a 2G/iPhone Original. And the jailbrake only worked with the latest firmware, which I had to update.
Wrong, humans evolved from other simians, and they all ate meat throughout the entirety of their existence. If humans temporarily stopped eating meat, it was due to availability, not because they never started. Furthermore, your main argument for why it's okay to take advantage of plants and eat them is that they are too stupid to have something to say (if they could talk). So basically, it's okay to take advantage of the stupid. Well done. You're sure on the ethical high road now.
like when veterans are hit in the head with a tear gas cannister on video by a polieman firing at them while they are already on the ground receiving medical attention? Yeah, total accident.
Fuck you, and take your bullshit out the door with you.
In fact, with the National Mall -- since they have allowed some groups to camp there; to deny other groups based on their message would be a denial of 1st amendment rights, as government is not allowed to show message-based favoritism when doling out taxpayer. For example, when DC tried to not allow pro-marijuana messages on their subway trains, they lost a lawsuit. Of course, such unconstitutional favoritism is the whole point of the protester-permit process.
Also, the National Mall has allowed many groups (but not individuals) to camp there. So you're wrong not just in principle, but in your example as well. Double wrong.
Yea... Those are public lands. People should be able to peacefully assemble. The opposite of peace is... not tents. I'm sorry that congress made laws about HOW we can peacefully assemble -- in direct violation of an amendment saying it does not have that power. But I'm doubly sorry that people like you use that as an example of how things should be. Public land should be for the public to use how it wants. Basic democratic principle. Guess it's lost on you.
Say I want to go to a park for 4 hours, and take a nap without getting sunburn. Am I allow to bring a tent, massa? What about 6 hours? Should my rights be curtailed at a specific number of hours? 7? 4? 8? 3? Are tents simply prohibited in public spaces? I seem to recall a lot of homeless people sleeping in tents on public property. It's something that can be allowed. It's just chosen not to, to give a convenient excuse. Kind of like how they pulled over the Wikileaks truck for not having its headlights on, then arrested the occupants.
Actually, the park was converted from public to private land by a legal agreement requiring them to open the park to the public 24 hours. In other words, they legally agreed that it would be treated publicly, despite private ownership.
Also, you are trying to equate summary punishment by police with some sort of justice. That's not how the justice system works.
So in 3 sentences, you managed to lie and equate summary justice with actual justice. Nice to know where you stand.
No, they weren't. If you ask anyone actually evicted by the police, the police did allow them to keep their property. They weren't abandoned, though maybe they were "abandoned". At this point, the law uses "words" that don't even have their common-sense "meaning" anymore, so maybe there is some legal status of "abandoned" that can be forced upon you even when you are not really abandoning your property.
But by any common-sense interpretation of the English language, they were not abandoned. It was not voluntary. You are full of shit. And the bill of rights has a little something to do with every law in existence, for laws must take it into consideration in order to be legal. (Though there is always that awkward point after a law is passed, but before it is struck down. ..)
So you're saying it's okay to destroy property, but not lives. Funny -- the bill of rights seems to disagree with that. Police throwing 5,000 donated books into a dumpster is not a visage of democracy.
I may have phrased my initial post incorrectly, but in the context of global events you should still be able to discern the message of what I'm saying, rather than nitpicking it. But I can't take off my own pedant hat, so I know how that goes.;)
Anyway: Earthquakes make tsunamis. If you are building an island reactor that must withstand earthquakes, it must be set up to also withstand the tsunamis that may come with an earthquake. ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU'RE AN ISLAND SURROUNDED BY WATER.
Yes, He can fire anybody at the DOJ whenever he wants. There may be political repercussions, but he has that power. It was established by SCOTUS the first time a president fired a postmataster general. And you can bet that if you have the ability to fire someone, you certainly have the ability to control the direction of their efforts, either directly or indirectly.
...And what created the biggest flood waters to hit the plant ever? An earthquake. Tsunamis aren't an unknown phenomenon that they didn't know about when the plant was built.
They built a plant that was supposed to last 100 years, and only set it up to survive smaller earthquakes. At the time of build, there had been 10 earthquakes in the last 1000 years big enough to f Fukushima up. Divide 1000 years by 10 earthquakes that bad = 1 per 100 years. And it was supposed to operate for 100 years. The arrogance of "maybe we'll get lucky this 100 yrs" vs. "let's make it work for 0.2 higher on the richter scale" is what is at fault here.
The park has a specific legal agreement that it is to be treated the same as a public park, with 24 hour access. It WAS a public park, but the govt let a corporation clean it after 911, and let them own it in name - but only by agreeing it will be treated exactly the same. So no - the owners can't restrict who can and can't use it. Look up the page about it on Snopes or Wikipedia or wherever else you must.
I kind of consider our yearly auto deaths to be catastrophic myself, in the sense that it's about "13 september elvenths of dead people per year". And, y'know, 911 was apparently a catastrophe.
At that point you would probably be held in contempt of court for destroying evidence, and/or the fact that you deleted it would basically make you lose credibility, causing unproven assertions to be that much more likely to be believed.
They aren't getting the tweets - those are a matter of public record. They are getting the IP addresses and meta data around the tweets. If you published a book, I don't need to subpoena the contents of the book. This is more like inspecting your original papers forensically to see where you were when you wrote the book. This isn't information you would be able to get from a published copy. You'd have to get the original pieces of paper it was typed on (assume it's 1970 for this metaphor!) -- something not in public (like tweet IPaddress meta data) -- to do forensic analysis to find that out.
Slashdot Mirror
Then I'd go to an urgent care clinic, which takes both my insurance and cash-only payments from people who don't have insurance. If you want to win your argument against the parent post you responded to, you're going to have to beat my argument I just submitted just now. Urgent care clincs outnumber hospitals. There may be rural exceptions, but I don't think this place is rural.
So uh, yeah. Playing an mp3 is easier than that.
His comment was still better than yours.
Assuming they are alive, anyway. The shortest line is the line at the complaint window at a parachute factory.
Wrong, humans evolved from other simians, and they all ate meat throughout the entirety of their existence. If humans temporarily stopped eating meat, it was due to availability, not because they never started. Furthermore, your main argument for why it's okay to take advantage of plants and eat them is that they are too stupid to have something to say (if they could talk). So basically, it's okay to take advantage of the stupid. Well done. You're sure on the ethical high road now.
mod parent up! higher than my post even!
Yeah, total accident.
Fuck you and the bullshit you rode in on.
Fuck you, and take your bullshit out the door with you.
You have failed to discuss any issues, and hurled ad hominems. At least give me custom ad hominems customized to what i've said!
In fact, with the National Mall -- since they have allowed some groups to camp there; to deny other groups based on their message would be a denial of 1st amendment rights, as government is not allowed to show message-based favoritism when doling out taxpayer. For example, when DC tried to not allow pro-marijuana messages on their subway trains, they lost a lawsuit. Of course, such unconstitutional favoritism is the whole point of the protester-permit process.
Also, the National Mall has allowed many groups (but not individuals) to camp there. So you're wrong not just in principle, but in your example as well. Double wrong.
Say I want to go to a park for 4 hours, and take a nap without getting sunburn. Am I allow to bring a tent, massa? What about 6 hours? Should my rights be curtailed at a specific number of hours? 7? 4? 8? 3? Are tents simply prohibited in public spaces? I seem to recall a lot of homeless people sleeping in tents on public property. It's something that can be allowed. It's just chosen not to, to give a convenient excuse. Kind of like how they pulled over the Wikileaks truck for not having its headlights on, then arrested the occupants.
Also, you are trying to equate summary punishment by police with some sort of justice. That's not how the justice system works.
So in 3 sentences, you managed to lie and equate summary justice with actual justice. Nice to know where you stand.
But by any common-sense interpretation of the English language, they were not abandoned. It was not voluntary. You are full of shit. And the bill of rights has a little something to do with every law in existence, for laws must take it into consideration in order to be legal. (Though there is always that awkward point after a law is passed, but before it is struck down. . .)
So you're saying it's okay to destroy property, but not lives. Funny -- the bill of rights seems to disagree with that. Police throwing 5,000 donated books into a dumpster is not a visage of democracy.
I thought it was Hagarian.
Anyway: Earthquakes make tsunamis. If you are building an island reactor that must withstand earthquakes, it must be set up to also withstand the tsunamis that may come with an earthquake. ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU'RE AN ISLAND SURROUNDED BY WATER.
Yes, He can fire anybody at the DOJ whenever he wants. There may be political repercussions, but he has that power. It was established by SCOTUS the first time a president fired a postmataster general. And you can bet that if you have the ability to fire someone, you certainly have the ability to control the direction of their efforts, either directly or indirectly.
...And what created the biggest flood waters to hit the plant ever? An earthquake. Tsunamis aren't an unknown phenomenon that they didn't know about when the plant was built.
I forgot that water happening after an earthquake was an impossibility on an island full of seismic activity! Silly me! Oh wait...
They built a plant that was supposed to last 100 years, and only set it up to survive smaller earthquakes. At the time of build, there had been 10 earthquakes in the last 1000 years big enough to f Fukushima up. Divide 1000 years by 10 earthquakes that bad = 1 per 100 years. And it was supposed to operate for 100 years. The arrogance of "maybe we'll get lucky this 100 yrs" vs. "let's make it work for 0.2 higher on the richter scale" is what is at fault here.
The park has a specific legal agreement that it is to be treated the same as a public park, with 24 hour access. It WAS a public park, but the govt let a corporation clean it after 911, and let them own it in name - but only by agreeing it will be treated exactly the same. So no - the owners can't restrict who can and can't use it. Look up the page about it on Snopes or Wikipedia or wherever else you must.
I kind of consider our yearly auto deaths to be catastrophic myself, in the sense that it's about "13 september elvenths of dead people per year". And, y'know, 911 was apparently a catastrophe.
At that point you would probably be held in contempt of court for destroying evidence, and/or the fact that you deleted it would basically make you lose credibility, causing unproven assertions to be that much more likely to be believed.
They aren't getting the tweets - those are a matter of public record. They are getting the IP addresses and meta data around the tweets. If you published a book, I don't need to subpoena the contents of the book. This is more like inspecting your original papers forensically to see where you were when you wrote the book. This isn't information you would be able to get from a published copy. You'd have to get the original pieces of paper it was typed on (assume it's 1970 for this metaphor!) -- something not in public (like tweet IPaddress meta data) -- to do forensic analysis to find that out.