If the people decide that some weapons are too dangerous and it's best for everyone to not have them around, who are you to disagree?
'The people' can't morally block a person from exercising their fundamental right to self-defense. The right to defend your very own life against an attack is just about THE most 'fundamental' right of all. You can block it, but only by committing a human rights violation in doing so, and someone would be within their right to self-defense to attack you to attempt to restore their right to self-defense.
That really depends. Not everyone has nerve to pull out gun and aim precicely in case of such emergency
So grow some balls, really. One day you'll have a wife and children, and one of your jobs will be to keep them safe. What are you going to do if your family is attacked - ask politely for them to please hold on while you call the police? Seems like men aren't men anymore... "ooh, ooh, I don't have the nerve, please save me". I've been attacked before, let me tell you, the day it happens, nobody is coming to save you... in those split seconds where it matters, you are the line of defense between you and your family surviving unscathed, or being tied up and watching your wife get raped and shot, etc. This isn't kindergarten, it's real life.
However, if there's resistance then he may only get a handful of people
Which is also exactly why so-called "gun-free" zones are favorite targets for these nutjobs - they know their victims are all unarmed. It's also exactly why this chap picked a dark theater where people are relaxing, and threw in a smoke canister.
Didn't you know, there is a magic spell that gets rid of all illegal guns in a country 'at the snap of a finger', and the only reason the US government doesn't use it is because the NRA has bought them off, you see.
Just like 'gun-free-zones' around schools create a magical invisible barrier around them that prevents someone from bringing a gun in.
D) Get an illegal gun, because no gun ban in the history of the entire world ever, anywhere, in any time nor place, has ever been meaningfully successful at keeping guns out of the hands of nutjobs.
Didn't you hear? A woman might feel uncomfortable. Don't you just see how this is an emergency of the highest order? Call the fire brigade, the media, the police --- everyone stop doing what they're doing right now --- a woman somewhere might be feeling uncomfortable! Discomfort! Do you not get how serious this is? I said "discomfort". If you aren't shocked, just shocked I tell you, you must also be sexist. We must at all costs protect the most vulnerable and spiritually sublime members of society, our wymen, from ever having to experience that most horrific sensation, 'discomfort', at the hands of this great evil, namely men who think 'boob' references in code warrants a snicker.
This sounds more like it was a major once-off write-off of a loss-making division (a "me-too" attempt at online advertising to try compete with Google - hell, I didn't even know Microsoft had such a division until I read this), rather than necessarily an indicator of poor cash flow. So I wouldn't be ringing that death knell quite yet. The way Apple's going with their increasingly patent-troll-based business model, we might yet want to see strong competition between all the major players rather than consolidation.
Just a general question, if you don't understand what someone wrote, why is the default response always to just make up clueless false and incorrect assumptions (with which you embarrass yourself) and then bash the other party? Is this an ego thing? How hard is it to just say, "I'm sorry, I don't understand, can you try explain it further?"
So where's your citation that you can violate fire codes while burning the flag?
Please do not revert to blatant lies about my position. You're just not getting it. Your inability to get my point does not invalidate it, and does not permit you to blatantly lie about my point, just because you failed to understand it. Please read my post carefully again, until you understand the point I am making. I have in fact explained myself quite clearly, however, it is a bit of a subtle point - if you are not quite bright, you will have to use the little grey cells.
Remember, this guy still has to go through the 'secret' federal trials
Your tax dollars hard at work. They could have just dropped the whole issue but I guess when the taxpayer foots the bill, you have an infinite prosecution budget, unlike us peons. Wonder how it's costing us taxpayers to go after this guy who was just defending our rights. It's sickening when you think about the multiple layers of moral violations here.
You're confused. You're conflating two issues. Burning the flag in violation of fire codes is still free speech and protected as such. However, it may also violate fire codes if done dangerously. It's NOT that burning a flag in violation of fire codes somehow literally "becomes speech that is actually allowed to be censored". It remains that nobody has the right to censor your free speech in any circumstance - they could not prosecute the *speech* component of the flag-burning - but people do have the right to not be placed at a risk of being harmed by your burning things in dangerous ways. But if they prosecute you, it won't be for "speech" - it will be for endangering them. To claim that this literally means that freedom of speech "has its limits" is disingenuous.
The disagreements on the meaning words like "no law" are a matter of deliberate malintent, not mere "differences in interpretation". You can't "interpret" "no law" in multiple ways, because it isn't even remotely ambiguous. "No law" can only be read one way, no matter how bad your English is.
So if I put a sign somewhere on my house (that visitors may or may not see) I am then legally and morally allowed to physically assault anyone on my premises who happens to have a camera? I don't think so.
Secondly, nearly every cellphone these days is a camera. Why aren't they manhandling and throwing out every customer with a cellphone? They 'de facto' don't apply that policy.
Sure, but you don't really think the average America-hating McDonalds security thug grass the relatively subtle differences between a Canadian and US accent?
I am happy for you to call hit-men etc Devils sperm, but they are there to advise their employers who take the decisions. I'm not sure why we quite see the blame shifted onto the hit-men is beyond me.
if US software industry companies wanted to stay abreast of US software patents to avoid infringing them, it would take roughly 2 million patent attorneys working full time to examine all the software patents. And this assumes these patent attorneys would only need 10 minutes per patent, which “is an unrealistically low amount of time.” And at $100 per hour, this would be $400 billion per year. In an industry that is valued at about $224 billion.... And all this is still a conservative estimate since it takes more than 30 minutes to review a patent, and because this is only for the software industry and software patents. If all companies in all industries had to review all relevant patents, the cost would likely be in the hundreds of trillions of dollars per year—multiples of the annual US GDP
And even in US, you can still have a person "vanish" by professionals if you have the money. To believe otherwise shows a significant lack of understanding of reality
Yes but it's ILLEGAL, YOU DOLT - it isn't a function of the "capitalist system", rather, the "capitalist system" PUTS YOUR ASS IN JAIL if you are caught. This is unlike non-capitalist countries, where the political system itself allows you to make people disappear (e.g. North Korea, Cuba etc.). (And yes, technically Obama can 'make you disappear' - BUT THAT IS NOT CAPITALISM --- again, not even the most looney lefties define capitalism as a system in which the president is allowed to make you disappear.)
Let's take Brazil, which you have defined as a 'capitalist country' where, according to you, it is so bad the poor are alleged killing one another for scraps all over the place.
First, the Gini coefficient in Brazil has been improving for decades: http://www.tradingeconomics.com/brazil/gini-index-wb-data.html
Second, Brazil is rated one of the happiest countries, and has, comparatively, one of the lowest suicide rates on Earth: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate
Third, Brazil GDP per capita has been increasing constantly for decades: http://www.indexmundi.com/g/g.aspx?c=br&v=67
Fourth, Brazil has one of the lowest unemployment rates in the world, much better than the US, and actually remains at the so-called natural unemployment rate in spite of the global recession http://www.tradingeconomics.com/brazil/unemployment-rate "The unemployment rate in Brazil was last reported at 5.8 percent in May of 2012"
Fifth, Brazil has many of the most beautiful women in the world...
I could really go on like this, though I am sure you have no interest whatsoever in "facts".
Of course, you just claimed that South America and Africa together hold over hundred countries (they have 66 total as of writing this)
I didn't claim that, dipshit. If you're going to nitpick on such obviously blatantly infantile and irrelevant points, then it's clear that you have nothing to stand on, and no interest in a meaningful debate.
Secondly, you admit that Africa is struggling under post-colonialism, but you just called them 'some of the most Capitalist countries on earth'.. colonialism was the opposite of capitalism, it was brutal repression, so how do you figure that the poverty is the cause of Capitalism when you yourself admit it is struggling through 'post-colonialism'?
Third, hiring private militias and shooting people with them ISN'T BLOODY CAPITALISM - holy fucking crap. LOOK UP CAPITALISM AND LEARN WHAT THE WORD MEANS FIRST, then we can have a discussion. NOBODY, but NOBODY defines capitalism as a system in which private militias are allowed to shoot people - not even the most looney leftists define it that way!
Of course, you just claimed that South America and Africa together hold over hundred countries (they have 66 total as of writing this)
ISN'T BLOODY CAPITALISM - holy fucking crap. LOOK UP CAPITALISM AND LEARN WHAT THE WORD MEANS FIRST, then we can have a discussion. NOBODY, but NOBODY defines capitalism as a system in which private militias are allowed to shoot people - not even the most looney leftists define it that way!
Slashdot Mirror
If the people decide that some weapons are too dangerous and it's best for everyone to not have them around, who are you to disagree?
'The people' can't morally block a person from exercising their fundamental right to self-defense. The right to defend your very own life against an attack is just about THE most 'fundamental' right of all. You can block it, but only by committing a human rights violation in doing so, and someone would be within their right to self-defense to attack you to attempt to restore their right to self-defense.
That really depends. Not everyone has nerve to pull out gun and aim precicely in case of such emergency
So grow some balls, really. One day you'll have a wife and children, and one of your jobs will be to keep them safe. What are you going to do if your family is attacked - ask politely for them to please hold on while you call the police? Seems like men aren't men anymore ... "ooh, ooh, I don't have the nerve, please save me". I've been attacked before, let me tell you, the day it happens, nobody is coming to save you ... in those split seconds where it matters, you are the line of defense between you and your family surviving unscathed, or being tied up and watching your wife get raped and shot, etc. This isn't kindergarten, it's real life.
However, if there's resistance then he may only get a handful of people
Which is also exactly why so-called "gun-free" zones are favorite targets for these nutjobs - they know their victims are all unarmed. It's also exactly why this chap picked a dark theater where people are relaxing, and threw in a smoke canister.
Didn't you know, there is a magic spell that gets rid of all illegal guns in a country 'at the snap of a finger', and the only reason the US government doesn't use it is because the NRA has bought them off, you see.
Just like 'gun-free-zones' around schools create a magical invisible barrier around them that prevents someone from bringing a gun in.
Guns are banned in many parts of Europe and even in countries where they are banned, gunmen open fire on crowds, e.g.:
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Latest-News-Wires/2011/1214/Belgium-gunman-also-killed-a-cleaning-woman
So:
D) Get an illegal gun, because no gun ban in the history of the entire world ever, anywhere, in any time nor place, has ever been meaningfully successful at keeping guns out of the hands of nutjobs.
That said, do you really think he could have killed 12 and injured 50 had he burst into the theatre armed with a flint knife and an atlatl?
Because once guns are banned, nobody is able to get hold of them illegally anymore. Right.
Self-defense is a basic human right.
For one, to help keep their perkies perky as they get older. Two, cold airconditioning and cold weather in public places.
I would venture to guess a merchant was attempting to conceal stock from the taxman.
Didn't you hear? A woman might feel uncomfortable. Don't you just see how this is an emergency of the highest order? Call the fire brigade, the media, the police --- everyone stop doing what they're doing right now --- a woman somewhere might be feeling uncomfortable ! Discomfort! Do you not get how serious this is? I said "discomfort". If you aren't shocked, just shocked I tell you, you must also be sexist. We must at all costs protect the most vulnerable and spiritually sublime members of society, our wymen, from ever having to experience that most horrific sensation, 'discomfort', at the hands of this great evil, namely men who think 'boob' references in code warrants a snicker.
This sounds more like it was a major once-off write-off of a loss-making division (a "me-too" attempt at online advertising to try compete with Google - hell, I didn't even know Microsoft had such a division until I read this), rather than necessarily an indicator of poor cash flow. So I wouldn't be ringing that death knell quite yet. The way Apple's going with their increasingly patent-troll-based business model, we might yet want to see strong competition between all the major players rather than consolidation.
Just a general question, if you don't understand what someone wrote, why is the default response always to just make up clueless false and incorrect assumptions (with which you embarrass yourself) and then bash the other party? Is this an ego thing? How hard is it to just say, "I'm sorry, I don't understand, can you try explain it further?"
So where's your citation that you can violate fire codes while burning the flag?
Please do not revert to blatant lies about my position. You're just not getting it. Your inability to get my point does not invalidate it, and does not permit you to blatantly lie about my point, just because you failed to understand it. Please read my post carefully again, until you understand the point I am making. I have in fact explained myself quite clearly, however, it is a bit of a subtle point - if you are not quite bright, you will have to use the little grey cells.
Remember, this guy still has to go through the 'secret' federal trials
Your tax dollars hard at work. They could have just dropped the whole issue but I guess when the taxpayer foots the bill, you have an infinite prosecution budget, unlike us peons. Wonder how it's costing us taxpayers to go after this guy who was just defending our rights. It's sickening when you think about the multiple layers of moral violations here.
You're confused. You're conflating two issues. Burning the flag in violation of fire codes is still free speech and protected as such. However, it may also violate fire codes if done dangerously. It's NOT that burning a flag in violation of fire codes somehow literally "becomes speech that is actually allowed to be censored". It remains that nobody has the right to censor your free speech in any circumstance - they could not prosecute the *speech* component of the flag-burning - but people do have the right to not be placed at a risk of being harmed by your burning things in dangerous ways. But if they prosecute you, it won't be for "speech" - it will be for endangering them. To claim that this literally means that freedom of speech "has its limits" is disingenuous.
The disagreements on the meaning words like "no law" are a matter of deliberate malintent, not mere "differences in interpretation". You can't "interpret" "no law" in multiple ways, because it isn't even remotely ambiguous. "No law" can only be read one way, no matter how bad your English is.
Sounds like you are speaking from experience.
So if I put a sign somewhere on my house (that visitors may or may not see) I am then legally and morally allowed to physically assault anyone on my premises who happens to have a camera? I don't think so.
Secondly, nearly every cellphone these days is a camera. Why aren't they manhandling and throwing out every customer with a cellphone? They 'de facto' don't apply that policy.
The real reason is that Apple has at least 7 patents on 'an easy to open box', and Google couldn't risk more product bans.
He's not American
Sure, but you don't really think the average America-hating McDonalds security thug grass the relatively subtle differences between a Canadian and US accent?
I am happy for you to call hit-men etc Devils sperm, but they are there to advise their employers who take the decisions. I'm not sure why we quite see the blame shifted onto the hit-men is beyond me.
Ah, found the link I was looking for, with some additional info:
http://c4sif.org/2012/04/software-industry-needs-2-million-patent-attorneys-and-2-7-trillion-per-year-to-avoid-infringing-software-patents/
if US software industry companies wanted to stay abreast of US software patents to avoid infringing them, it would take roughly 2 million patent attorneys working full time to examine all the software patents. And this assumes these patent attorneys would only need 10 minutes per patent, which “is an unrealistically low amount of time.” And at $100 per hour, this would be $400 billion per year. In an industry that is valued at about $224 billion. ...
And all this is still a conservative estimate since it takes more than 30 minutes to review a patent, and because this is only for the software industry and software patents. If all companies in all industries had to review all relevant patents, the cost would likely be in the hundreds of trillions of dollars per year—multiples of the annual US GDP
And even in US, you can still have a person "vanish" by professionals if you have the money. To believe otherwise shows a significant lack of understanding of reality
Yes but it's ILLEGAL, YOU DOLT - it isn't a function of the "capitalist system", rather, the "capitalist system" PUTS YOUR ASS IN JAIL if you are caught. This is unlike non-capitalist countries, where the political system itself allows you to make people disappear (e.g. North Korea, Cuba etc.). (And yes, technically Obama can 'make you disappear' - BUT THAT IS NOT CAPITALISM --- again, not even the most looney lefties define capitalism as a system in which the president is allowed to make you disappear.)
Let's take Brazil, which you have defined as a 'capitalist country' where, according to you, it is so bad the poor are alleged killing one another for scraps all over the place.
First, the Gini coefficient in Brazil has been improving for decades:
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/brazil/gini-index-wb-data.html
Second, Brazil is rated one of the happiest countries, and has, comparatively, one of the lowest suicide rates on Earth:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate
Third, Brazil GDP per capita has been increasing constantly for decades:
http://www.indexmundi.com/g/g.aspx?c=br&v=67
Fourth, Brazil has one of the lowest unemployment rates in the world, much better than the US, and actually remains at the so-called natural unemployment rate in spite of the global recession
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/brazil/unemployment-rate
"The unemployment rate in Brazil was last reported at 5.8 percent in May of 2012"
Fifth, Brazil has many of the most beautiful women in the world ...
I could really go on like this, though I am sure you have no interest whatsoever in "facts".
Of course, you just claimed that South America and Africa together hold over hundred countries (they have 66 total as of writing this)
I didn't claim that, dipshit. If you're going to nitpick on such obviously blatantly infantile and irrelevant points, then it's clear that you have nothing to stand on, and no interest in a meaningful debate.
Secondly, you admit that Africa is struggling under post-colonialism, but you just called them 'some of the most Capitalist countries on earth' .. colonialism was the opposite of capitalism, it was brutal repression, so how do you figure that the poverty is the cause of Capitalism when you yourself admit it is struggling through 'post-colonialism'?
Third, hiring private militias and shooting people with them ISN'T BLOODY CAPITALISM - holy fucking crap. LOOK UP CAPITALISM AND LEARN WHAT THE WORD MEANS FIRST, then we can have a discussion. NOBODY, but NOBODY defines capitalism as a system in which private militias are allowed to shoot people - not even the most looney leftists define it that way!
Of course, you just claimed that South America and Africa together hold over hundred countries (they have 66 total as of writing this)
ISN'T BLOODY CAPITALISM - holy fucking crap. LOOK UP CAPITALISM AND LEARN WHAT THE WORD MEANS FIRST, then we can have a discussion. NOBODY, but NOBODY defines capitalism as a system in which private militias are allowed to shoot people - not even the most looney leftists define it that way!