Wow. One study of one city had those results, and the article you linked to admits "While it may be that the type of people who carry firearms are simply more likely to get shot, it may be that guns give a sense of empowerment that causes carriers to overreact in tense situations, or encourages them to visit neighbourhoods they probably shouldn't"...
Couldn't that be cultural? Maybe Philly residents are more cocky when they carry a gun, but that doesn't apply to say, residents of Boise, Idaho.
It also goes on to say "We don't have an answer as to whether guns are protective or perilous"
The study also did not identify whether or not those who died while carrying guns were involved in criminal activities (say... gangs/drugs), which would certainly increase their chances of being shot.
Try investigating the cost of a PLUP. For a relatively low dollar amount, you can have in excess of $1M in liability insurance. You are much more likely to be able to settle a major death/injury claim for that and avoid the situation you specify.
That's the first thing I did. After noticing that their "copied" text was mostly #defines and enums, I went looking at the matching part of the POSIX standard and the SUS. Lo and behold! Almost everything is part of one of the UNIX standards and simply cannot be changed. Every implementation would look the same.
The point was that say someone is operating under the part 97 (amateur service) rules in the frequencies of WiFi that overlap the ham band... who do you think wins?
Why should a spouse be entitled to protect the criminal activities of their partner? If a spouse were compelled to testify, I can think of two situations. The first is that he/she knew about the criminal activity and is therefore involved or failed to report the criminal activity, and can take the fifth amendment. The second is that he/she can honestly say under oath that he/she did not know of the criminal activity.
Let me clarify that I would vote for anything giving substantively the same legal rights, e.g. ability to designate that a person can visit you in the hospital, division of household resources in separation, applicability of benefits, etc.
However, I don't believe it should be extended to only gay people or people even involved in a sexual relationship of any kind.
If two sisters want the same rights because they have been living together for 20 years, they should have it even though there is no sexual relationship going on.
If 1 man and 5 women want the same deal, they should get it.
If a man and a woman live together with a non-sexual relationship, but view each other as family, they should be given the same right.
I won't support a half-assed solution that yet again makes one group "equal" to another yet still leaves other people out entirely on the basis of behavior.
That's not equal rights, that's just incorporating more people into the "selected majority" who get the "right" while other people continue to get screwed.
That's where contractual agreements come in to play.
What should constitute a marriage in the eyes of the government but a contractual relationship? Nothing more then an economic corporation entered into by agreeing people to share certain assets and liabilities.
There should be nothing special about the word "marriage" except to the people whom it conveys some meaning.
My solution ends the argument between people who view marriage as a relationship between a man and a women vs people who view it as a relationship of M to N people of whatever gender and people who see it as a partnership arrangement (western marriages) vs a property arrangement (some other cultures).
My point of view will never win if most people are happy with the status quo. As long as there is an argument, I can insert my view and people will listen. If there's no argument, then nobody will care to listen.
Not where I live. A petition in this sense is specifically to either cause a public referral of a legislator-approved bill, or to initiate a change in law that originates from the public rather than the legislature.
That was my understanding of the circumstances of this case, not some everyday popular petition that the government has no obligation to do anything about.
You might just avoid it. But others might replace the word "avoid" with the word "vandalize."
FYI I'd never vote for gay marriage. Does that make you dislike me?
Would it suddenly make a difference if I told you that I would like to see the government eliminate all references to marriage of any kind, including traditional (read: heterosexual) marriages? That is, I would like to see the complete and entire elimination of government recognition of "marriage".
Okay, I pulled two different dictionaries and naturally one says unusual and uncommon are synonyms and another restricts 'unusual' to "uncommon in amount or degree." I happen to agree more with the latter, I guess.
I'll concede, though. Unusual and uncommon can be synonyms according to certain sources and people.
I wonder if the difference is regional in nature.
Geology rocks (to keep it on-topic) and so does language!
That may be true, but only because geology was one of my areas of academic interest in college. I wouldn't be pedantic if I wasn't very interested in the subject. Hopefully you understand.
You are confusing "unusual" with "uncommon." It would be unusual if it was particularly strong or if it was in a place where earthquakes are rare. It is neither.
Here on the west coast of North America, large subduction zone earthquakes happen every 300-500 years. That does not make them unusual. It makes them uncommon.
Slashdot Mirror
Wow. One study of one city had those results, and the article you linked to admits "While it may be that the type of people who carry firearms are simply more likely to get shot, it may be that guns give a sense of empowerment that causes carriers to overreact in tense situations, or encourages them to visit neighbourhoods they probably shouldn't"...
Couldn't that be cultural? Maybe Philly residents are more cocky when they carry a gun, but that doesn't apply to say, residents of Boise, Idaho.
It also goes on to say "We don't have an answer as to whether guns are protective or perilous"
The study also did not identify whether or not those who died while carrying guns were involved in criminal activities (say... gangs/drugs), which would certainly increase their chances of being shot.
The same tired argument that Solaris does not support sound cards from 1995.
Nobody running high-end modern servers cares whether or not Solaris supports obsolete hardware.
I should say, ability and willingness of the student to do homework and take tests.
"I'm tired of kids coming to school and not learning and getting credit for it," said Superintendent Larrie Reynolds in a Daily Record report.
Since when do grades actually indicate whether someone is learning or not?
The only thing that grades measure is the ability of the student to do homework and take tests.
Every soldier that survives in afganastan posts on facebook therefore facebook saves soldiers lives...
Facebook is better than body armor...
Facebook stops bullets!
OMG!!!! Facebook is Chuck Norris!!!!!
So you think that Martin Bryant deserves to live a full life in a comfortable government-run Aussie prison?
Suit yourself.
Try investigating the cost of a PLUP. For a relatively low dollar amount, you can have in excess of $1M in liability insurance. You are much more likely to be able to settle a major death/injury claim for that and avoid the situation you specify.
That's the first thing I did. After noticing that their "copied" text was mostly #defines and enums, I went looking at the matching part of the POSIX standard and the SUS. Lo and behold! Almost everything is part of one of the UNIX standards and simply cannot be changed. Every implementation would look the same.
FYI, you can search the SUS V2 here.
So can pants. Search YouTube for "bump fire."
In that case, the fuse is the loaded rifle a few feet away.
Duh.
Thanks. It's interesting how ones activities lead to assumptions about little snippets of language like that.
Offtopic but I have to ask... is your sig referring to growing palm trees in USDA zone 8?
The point was that say someone is operating under the part 97 (amateur service) rules in the frequencies of WiFi that overlap the ham band... who do you think wins?
The guy with the license, that's who.
Why should a spouse be entitled to protect the criminal activities of their partner? If a spouse were compelled to testify, I can think of two situations. The first is that he/she knew about the criminal activity and is therefore involved or failed to report the criminal activity, and can take the fifth amendment. The second is that he/she can honestly say under oath that he/she did not know of the criminal activity.
That's actually legally a privilege.
One that shouldn't exist, if you ask me.
Let me clarify that I would vote for anything giving substantively the same legal rights, e.g. ability to designate that a person can visit you in the hospital, division of household resources in separation, applicability of benefits, etc.
However, I don't believe it should be extended to only gay people or people even involved in a sexual relationship of any kind.
If two sisters want the same rights because they have been living together for 20 years, they should have it even though there is no sexual relationship going on.
If 1 man and 5 women want the same deal, they should get it.
If a man and a woman live together with a non-sexual relationship, but view each other as family, they should be given the same right.
I won't support a half-assed solution that yet again makes one group "equal" to another yet still leaves other people out entirely on the basis of behavior.
That's not equal rights, that's just incorporating more people into the "selected majority" who get the "right" while other people continue to get screwed.
That's where contractual agreements come in to play.
What should constitute a marriage in the eyes of the government but a contractual relationship? Nothing more then an economic corporation entered into by agreeing people to share certain assets and liabilities.
There should be nothing special about the word "marriage" except to the people whom it conveys some meaning.
My solution ends the argument between people who view marriage as a relationship between a man and a women vs people who view it as a relationship of M to N people of whatever gender and people who see it as a partnership arrangement (western marriages) vs a property arrangement (some other cultures).
My point of view will never win if most people are happy with the status quo. As long as there is an argument, I can insert my view and people will listen. If there's no argument, then nobody will care to listen.
Not where I live. A petition in this sense is specifically to either cause a public referral of a legislator-approved bill, or to initiate a change in law that originates from the public rather than the legislature.
That was my understanding of the circumstances of this case, not some everyday popular petition that the government has no obligation to do anything about.
You might just avoid it. But others might replace the word "avoid" with the word "vandalize."
FYI I'd never vote for gay marriage. Does that make you dislike me?
Would it suddenly make a difference if I told you that I would like to see the government eliminate all references to marriage of any kind, including traditional (read: heterosexual) marriages? That is, I would like to see the complete and entire elimination of government recognition of "marriage".
s/sign a petition about/vote for/
Hmm, makes a difference?
Okay, I pulled two different dictionaries and naturally one says unusual and uncommon are synonyms and another restricts 'unusual' to "uncommon in amount or degree." I happen to agree more with the latter, I guess.
I'll concede, though. Unusual and uncommon can be synonyms according to certain sources and people.
I wonder if the difference is regional in nature.
Geology rocks (to keep it on-topic) and so does language!
That may be true, but only because geology was one of my areas of academic interest in college. I wouldn't be pedantic if I wasn't very interested in the subject. Hopefully you understand.
You are confusing "unusual" with "uncommon." It would be unusual if it was particularly strong or if it was in a place where earthquakes are rare. It is neither.
Here on the west coast of North America, large subduction zone earthquakes happen every 300-500 years. That does not make them unusual. It makes them uncommon.
It's unusual for the location.
No, it isn't.