I get the point, but I'm certain those same people are unwittingly committing to that cause on a regular basis in far greater amounts. This OSC boycott smacks of a bit of bandwagoning. Kony for 2013 sort of thing.
You seem to be talking about art, while the GP is referring to money. Apparently the GP does indeed appreciate the art but would rather not give his money to an artist he doesn't deem fit to receive it.
Thank heavens we don't have places called libraries where you can borrow books and movies for free.
Neo-con: a conservative who supports a strong-pro-Israel middle easy policy. I don't think Romney had a position either way on that - he was pretty focused on domestic stuff. "Neo-con" doesn't mean "those guys I hate" - you can still just say "those guys I hate", it's OK.
As a devout Mormon, he most likely did have a pretty strong Israel policy.
Errr... I don't think the lyrics to Shoot to Thrill mean quite what you think...I strongly suggest you listen to more AC/DC....There may be some really, really subtle innuendo in their lines... it can be very difficult to spot....
I cannot speak for AC/DC but suspect that they are not massive supporters of the NRA.
Ism's, in my opinion, are not good. A person should not believe in an 'ism,' he should believe in himself. I quote John Lennon: 'I don't believe in Beatles. I just believe in me.' A good point there. After all, he was the walrus. I could be the walrus. I'd still have to bum rides off of people.
My sister is an Apple fan, so my mom is now using an iPad as her *only* (not just primary) device. She hasn't had an issue so far, other than she had to re-buy some programs she had with equivelent apps.
But that wouldn't work for OP. He had to convince his mother that his use case and hers were identical. Hasn't dealt with his Oedipal issues yet? I dunno, but the fact that all that some people need is a tablet is a foreign concept to many on this site.
I've gotten a great deal of pushback when trying to point out how various proposals lead to the situation you describe (complete ban). "Oh, we don't want to do that, nobody wants to do that, we only want to do this."
Yeah, in 1934, they didn't want to do anything except gets guns from the "Eye-ties and darkies".
Why the hell are our gun laws so complicated? Is there any policy purpose, even a bad one, served by making the law so complicated that it makes me want to go write Xorg.conf modelines to rest my brains?
Lots of theories. First is that the US does have a second amendment. Until/unless someone tries to repeal this, any legislation is supposed to comply with it. Laws get written depending on interpretation of this. Then more laws get written. Unfortunately, those writing the laws are generally ignorant from a technical perspective. Think of Internet legislation where the Slashdot reply is "Senator Soandso has no idea how computers work." Gun makers (yes, largely through their lobbying groups, esp. the NRA) are either not invited to the table don't offer help or sell out one group of gun owners in favor of another. If not invited or not offering help, loopholes are left that can be worked around. Selling out one group for another (historically, the NRA wouldn't say as much about laws that mostly affected poor, urban dwellers as opposed to those that might be a nuisance to rich country folk) leaves a different set of openings. Oh, and crappy gun laws let the NRA drum up donations.
Those against private gun ownership are not terribly interested in closing loopholes. While there is a large middle ground seeking 'common sense' solutions, the debate and proposed legislation are driven, at the end of the day, by people who just want all guns gone. Period. If the legal morass is so deep that someone is afraid of buying, selling, or manufacturing a gun or gun related item or product, then they have had a minor victory.
TL; dr, extremists on both sides have created this situation. Both sides gain some and both sides lose some.
Restricting sales of most gun parts (and even ammo!) wouldn't be hard.
What do you mean by "wouldn't be hard"? I'm assuming you mean from a technical perspective. No, it's easy, rewrite a few laws, give the ATF some new guidelines for interpretation, and it's done. The trick is in getting it done politically. Depending on what you are trying to do, this could be incredibly hard from that perspective.
Slashdot Mirror
Here's the business case for upgrading. EOLed products and support. That, and the momentum of change. Pay now or pay dearly later.
Time Value of Money
Also explains why next quarter's financials are so much more important than next year's.
That was my question too.
Sour grapes are a favored snack on Slashdot. I've often wondered if displays of behaviour like this are one of the causes of nerd ostracization.
I get the point, but I'm certain those same people are unwittingly committing to that cause on a regular basis in far greater amounts. This OSC boycott smacks of a bit of bandwagoning. Kony for 2013 sort of thing.
Here I was hoping you were the real one. I'd rather have him around again instead of all these stupid APK troll posts.
The best is the time when the two of them managed to troll each other.
Hell they are flat out telling him what they are doing. When did they ever admit to their goals in the novel?
Quite. What a miserable mess. They rewrote it basically from scratch. Kept the names and the We Win part and redid everything else.
You can tell all of this from the trailer? Or you're just choosing to interpret things this way to give you an excuse to vent your nerd rage?
You seem to be talking about art, while the GP is referring to money. Apparently the GP does indeed appreciate the art but would rather not give his money to an artist he doesn't deem fit to receive it.
Thank heavens we don't have places called libraries where you can borrow books and movies for free.
Make no mistake, romney is a neo-con.
Neo-con: a conservative who supports a strong-pro-Israel middle easy policy. I don't think Romney had a position either way on that - he was pretty focused on domestic stuff. "Neo-con" doesn't mean "those guys I hate" - you can still just say "those guys I hate", it's OK.
As a devout Mormon, he most likely did have a pretty strong Israel policy.
Where are you getting the idea that Apple... or any of Apple's fans... think that tablets will completely replace PCs?
Jedediah finds strawmen to be more appropriate combatants to his logical abilities
Errr... I don't think the lyrics to Shoot to Thrill mean quite what you think...I strongly suggest you listen to more AC/DC....There may be some really, really subtle innuendo in their lines... it can be very difficult to spot....
I cannot speak for AC/DC but suspect that they are not massive supporters of the NRA.
Subtle?
the government was doing it for you. (Or rather, for them.)
For all of us.
For the children.
Linux? 1990? Which distro?
(and modded informative?)
Socialist-Fascist States of America.
Capitslism is half way between the two. Our capitalism is the worse of both.
Breaking the financial backs of the citizens and yet the trains don't run on time?
Yeah, I can see that...
Ism's, in my opinion, are not good. A person should not believe in an 'ism,' he should believe in himself. I quote John Lennon: 'I don't believe in Beatles. I just believe in me.' A good point there. After all, he was the walrus. I could be the walrus. I'd still have to bum rides off of people.
If you can't use toggle switches to enter code on the front panel of a computer, you shouldn't be allowed to operate one.
Say it, say it, say it again!
I think you mean Die Hard 2.
My sister is an Apple fan, so my mom is now using an iPad as her *only* (not just primary) device. She hasn't had an issue so far, other than she had to re-buy some programs she had with equivelent apps.
But that wouldn't work for OP. He had to convince his mother that his use case and hers were identical. Hasn't dealt with his Oedipal issues yet? I dunno, but the fact that all that some people need is a tablet is a foreign concept to many on this site.
aka, "how to boil a frog".
I've gotten a great deal of pushback when trying to point out how various proposals lead to the situation you describe (complete ban). "Oh, we don't want to do that, nobody wants to do that, we only want to do this."
Yeah, in 1934, they didn't want to do anything except gets guns from the "Eye-ties and darkies".
This couple's 4 kids would disagree--except that three of the kids are mutants that can't speak or tie their shoes.
I don't want to live on this planet anymore.
Nope, I think that's the Soviet Russia version.
So, you propose ICANN be ran by a single individual!
yes... yes i do... it should be run by yoda
Yeah, because he did such a great job with the Jedi order. 99.how-many-9's percent killed?
And let's not even talk about how screwed up his interpretation of The Prophecy was.
No thanks.
And they totally exist.
[Citation needed]
Non-gun-owning American asks:
Why the hell are our gun laws so complicated? Is there any policy purpose, even a bad one, served by making the law so complicated that it makes me want to go write Xorg.conf modelines to rest my brains?
Lots of theories. First is that the US does have a second amendment. Until/unless someone tries to repeal this, any legislation is supposed to comply with it. Laws get written depending on interpretation of this. Then more laws get written. Unfortunately, those writing the laws are generally ignorant from a technical perspective. Think of Internet legislation where the Slashdot reply is "Senator Soandso has no idea how computers work." Gun makers (yes, largely through their lobbying groups, esp. the NRA) are either not invited to the table don't offer help or sell out one group of gun owners in favor of another. If not invited or not offering help, loopholes are left that can be worked around. Selling out one group for another (historically, the NRA wouldn't say as much about laws that mostly affected poor, urban dwellers as opposed to those that might be a nuisance to rich country folk) leaves a different set of openings. Oh, and crappy gun laws let the NRA drum up donations.
Those against private gun ownership are not terribly interested in closing loopholes. While there is a large middle ground seeking 'common sense' solutions, the debate and proposed legislation are driven, at the end of the day, by people who just want all guns gone. Period. If the legal morass is so deep that someone is afraid of buying, selling, or manufacturing a gun or gun related item or product, then they have had a minor victory.
TL; dr, extremists on both sides have created this situation. Both sides gain some and both sides lose some.
Restricting sales of most gun parts (and even ammo!) wouldn't be hard.
What do you mean by "wouldn't be hard"? I'm assuming you mean from a technical perspective. No, it's easy, rewrite a few laws, give the ATF some new guidelines for interpretation, and it's done. The trick is in getting it done politically. Depending on what you are trying to do, this could be incredibly hard from that perspective.
Why would I want one? Same reason I want a Liberator pistol: it seems like a neat technological trick.