In reality, we don't fight wars over oil, either - we get the vast majority of our oil from ourselves, Canada, Mexico, Venezuela, and Nigeria. The Middle East is a very small supplier of oil for the US. Most of the ME oil goes to our allies in the EU; if we're "going to war" for oil, it's so our allies can have a source of oil.
If the ME didn't produce oil, your oil would cost *a lot* more since there'd be much higher global demand for it. There would also be much higher incentive to take or disrupt that supply
So yeah, it was always about the oil...
I know everybody here wants to get on with the business of rehashing the same old boring arguments about guns, but please notice this is about which IDEAS are illegal to possess. A drawing or blueprint is an idea and a piece of communication. It is not a firearm. In America this would be a 1st Amendment issue (not the 2nd).
I would wager a guess that you've never even been to the United States. If you had, you would realize that the entire " gun " issue is glorified / sensationalized by the media for your viewing pleasure.
I've been to the US, spent a little bit of time in places such as CA, Las Vegas, Chicago, New York, DC etc The US is huge, so it's hard to tar with one brush, but where I went, the inner cities where most tourists go, felt the least safe anywhere else I've been (and I travel a fair bit).
In fact one of the things that stood out for me, is the amount of gun shops everywhere. Everywhere! It's something you don't see much of elsewhere
To which I ask, what's your point? I accept that risk in the name of freedom. You can have freedom or the illusion of safety, which would you prefer?
Ironic.
Your gun laws give you the illusion of safety, but with a factually greater risk of harm.
Whereas the rest of us a free to roam our respective lands without fear of being shot at any given moment.
So to answer your question, I prefer my definition of freedom to yours.
Our government schools have trained us to think "anarchy == chaos" but it's not the case.
You have a class for Anarchy101?
I first learnt the word from my punk rocker friends who thought a funny haircut made you different, despite all of them having similar funny haircuts. I can't recall the word ever being used outside those circles. But saying it's the government that did it, to train you to think a certain way makes it sound exactly like how they used to speak, back when I was 13.
Yet these drooling morons in charge of most governments are so poorly educated that they prefer to freak out about a plastic toy that only rich people are able to actually make and the usability of the "gun" is very very low. Every time there is a new "outrage" or "law" passed on this thing it tells me that the leaders of that country have IQ's that are so close to 80 (functioning moron level) that it's scares me a bit.
If people are electing very low IQ people to leadership positions does that mean the collective IQ of the general population is so low that they think these people are smart?
Sometimes if you can't figure why something is happening, it's because you've failed to grasp the full context of the issue.
But yeah, if calling everyone else names makes you feel better about yourself then keep doing that...
For every claim you can make about the cost and effort of using the horse, I can draw a parallel to the car.
The car is cheaper and easier, and does more for less effort which is why people choose cars over horses.
Samsung make a Internet enabled fridge right now, today. How many people do you know that choose this IoT version over the simplified version?
The non-rule I contradicted was ". Keep it fucking simple you fucking fucktards.", which is an entirely different thing.
No it isn't. That was my creative paraphrasing of the well understood principle of Keep It Simple Stupid (KISS). If you haven't heard of this before then you need to hand in your geek card now.
Yes, and I have the most secure home on the planet because I'm homeless!
But that isn't secure. A homeless person suffers more illness, diseases, assault and death than people who own their own homes. If you are going to make a point try and make one that actually makes sense.
You also don't need a toilet as you can shit in a bucket. It's simpler. You do shit in a bucket right? Tell me you don't violate your own principle on a daily basis!
Again, functioning plumbing is relatively simple ( I have a 70 year old house with mostly original plumbing that still works. Please show me a computer with the same record), and it a lot simpler than a bucket and water that has to be refilled and dumped each time. It is also much cleaner making me more secure from disease and discomfort. Again your poorly though-out analogy fails.
That isn't even close to a rule of engineering at all. Can you imagine if it was?
Engineering VP:"So Johnson, how are you going to design a system that will get us to the moon?".
Johnson:"I don't know boss, but unless I can find a simple way to do it, I'm not going to bother! That would violate the first rule of Engineering!"
Yet more stupid analogies that don't actually work. Simple means the simplest solution to get the job done. ie a Fridge is a sealed box, with a door and a compressor. It's simple, it works. Why the fuck do I now need to add a TV and Internet connection?
I'm already using the most robust security model for the Internet of Things. I call it Things. My fridge doens't need an internet connection, nor does my light switch. My Smart TV thinks it does, but based on recent information I am in the process of removing that privelege.
I think the difference between the winners and losers will be the CIO's that don't feel the urge to jump onto flavour of the month hype and connect everything to the Internet.
The entire concept breaks the first rule of Engineering. Keep it fucking simple you fucking fucktards.
Browse vs Search.
It's the age old UI delimma that never fails to confuse interface designers. If anyone out there happens to be one of these clowns, please ensure your system always includes BOTH browse and search options for commands.
I remember where I heard it now. It was a doco by Dr Robert Winston called Superhuman, and was covering the experience of military surgeon Professor James Ryan.
I found a summary of the episode here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/hea...
"about one-quarter of female undergraduates said they had experienced nonconsensual sex or touching since entering college"
I get non-consensually touched every day. I have one of those things where I don't like being touched. A pat on the back, a grab on the arm, getting bumped into on the bus, I hate it all. Officially that qualifies as "non-consensual sex or touching" even though 0% of it involves sex.
I'm always weary of any research which uses such vague classifications.
Like most games, the game of life is won by those who learn the shortcuts.
I worked out early on that I could do things faster then some others. So did I advertise this fact? Hello no. Allocate 3 weeks, do it in 3 days and bludge the rest of the time.
I've been in my career over 20 years and this trick still works.
Slashdot Mirror
In reality, we don't fight wars over oil, either - we get the vast majority of our oil from ourselves, Canada, Mexico, Venezuela, and Nigeria. The Middle East is a very small supplier of oil for the US. Most of the ME oil goes to our allies in the EU; if we're "going to war" for oil, it's so our allies can have a source of oil.
If the ME didn't produce oil, your oil would cost *a lot* more since there'd be much higher global demand for it. There would also be much higher incentive to take or disrupt that supply
So yeah, it was always about the oil...
The ultimate test of law making is the standard of living. Australia seems to be doing ok in that regard.
As long as you get there by plane instead of boat you are fine.
I accept that risk.
Well other people don't, and herein lies the issue...
I know everybody here wants to get on with the business of rehashing the same old boring arguments about guns, but please notice this is about which IDEAS are illegal to possess. A drawing or blueprint is an idea and a piece of communication. It is not a firearm. In America this would be a 1st Amendment issue (not the 2nd).
Just like kiddie porn then?
I would wager a guess that you've never even been to the United States. If you had, you would realize that the entire " gun " issue is glorified / sensationalized by the media for your viewing pleasure.
I've been to the US, spent a little bit of time in places such as CA, Las Vegas, Chicago, New York, DC etc The US is huge, so it's hard to tar with one brush, but where I went, the inner cities where most tourists go, felt the least safe anywhere else I've been (and I travel a fair bit).
In fact one of the things that stood out for me, is the amount of gun shops everywhere. Everywhere! It's something you don't see much of elsewhere
To which I ask, what's your point? I accept that risk in the name of freedom. You can have freedom or the illusion of safety, which would you prefer?
Ironic.
Your gun laws give you the illusion of safety, but with a factually greater risk of harm.
Whereas the rest of us a free to roam our respective lands without fear of being shot at any given moment.
So to answer your question, I prefer my definition of freedom to yours.
Criminals don't really care about the law...
Citation?
Policy is how you ensure non-issues stay non-issues. (kind of obvious I thought, but this being slashdot, everyone thinks they know better)
Our government schools have trained us to think "anarchy == chaos" but it's not the case.
You have a class for Anarchy101?
I first learnt the word from my punk rocker friends who thought a funny haircut made you different, despite all of them having similar funny haircuts. I can't recall the word ever being used outside those circles. But saying it's the government that did it, to train you to think a certain way makes it sound exactly like how they used to speak, back when I was 13.
Yeah, he was shot in the legs, captured then hung...
Yet these drooling morons in charge of most governments are so poorly educated that they prefer to freak out about a plastic toy that only rich people are able to actually make and the usability of the "gun" is very very low. Every time there is a new "outrage" or "law" passed on this thing it tells me that the leaders of that country have IQ's that are so close to 80 (functioning moron level) that it's scares me a bit.
If people are electing very low IQ people to leadership positions does that mean the collective IQ of the general population is so low that they think these people are smart?
Sometimes if you can't figure why something is happening, it's because you've failed to grasp the full context of the issue.
But yeah, if calling everyone else names makes you feel better about yourself then keep doing that...
For every claim you can make about the cost and effort of using the horse, I can draw a parallel to the car.
The car is cheaper and easier, and does more for less effort which is why people choose cars over horses.
Samsung make a Internet enabled fridge right now, today. How many people do you know that choose this IoT version over the simplified version?
The non-rule I contradicted was ". Keep it fucking simple you fucking fucktards.", which is an entirely different thing.
No it isn't. That was my creative paraphrasing of the well understood principle of Keep It Simple Stupid (KISS). If you haven't heard of this before then you need to hand in your geek card now.
All gadgetry is needless gadgetry.
I take it you've never been to a hospital...
Yes, and I have the most secure home on the planet because I'm homeless!
But that isn't secure. A homeless person suffers more illness, diseases, assault and death than people who own their own homes. If you are going to make a point try and make one that actually makes sense.
You also don't need a toilet as you can shit in a bucket. It's simpler. You do shit in a bucket right? Tell me you don't violate your own principle on a daily basis!
Again, functioning plumbing is relatively simple ( I have a 70 year old house with mostly original plumbing that still works. Please show me a computer with the same record), and it a lot simpler than a bucket and water that has to be refilled and dumped each time. It is also much cleaner making me more secure from disease and discomfort. Again your poorly though-out analogy fails.
That isn't even close to a rule of engineering at all. Can you imagine if it was?
Hand in your geek card
Engineering VP: "So Johnson, how are you going to design a system that will get us to the moon?". Johnson: "I don't know boss, but unless I can find a simple way to do it, I'm not going to bother! That would violate the first rule of Engineering!"
Yet more stupid analogies that don't actually work. Simple means the simplest solution to get the job done. ie a Fridge is a sealed box, with a door and a compressor. It's simple, it works. Why the fuck do I now need to add a TV and Internet connection?
I'm still waiting for a remake of Corvette Summer with Christensen as lead...
I'm already using the most robust security model for the Internet of Things. I call it Things. My fridge doens't need an internet connection, nor does my light switch. My Smart TV thinks it does, but based on recent information I am in the process of removing that privelege.
I think the difference between the winners and losers will be the CIO's that don't feel the urge to jump onto flavour of the month hype and connect everything to the Internet.
The entire concept breaks the first rule of Engineering. Keep it fucking simple you fucking fucktards.
Browse vs Search.
It's the age old UI delimma that never fails to confuse interface designers. If anyone out there happens to be one of these clowns, please ensure your system always includes BOTH browse and search options for commands.
I found the original source. Here's a summary here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/hea...
I remember where I heard it now. It was a doco by Dr Robert Winston called Superhuman, and was covering the experience of military surgeon Professor James Ryan.
I found a summary of the episode here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/hea...
"about one-quarter of female undergraduates said they had experienced nonconsensual sex or touching since entering college" I get non-consensually touched every day. I have one of those things where I don't like being touched. A pat on the back, a grab on the arm, getting bumped into on the bus, I hate it all. Officially that qualifies as "non-consensual sex or touching" even though 0% of it involves sex.
I'm always weary of any research which uses such vague classifications.
Looks like deceptive practice on the part of CHM Constructions. What can Simonds do to defend itself?
Since the offender has published their address, maybe some old fashioned techniques would work best.
Am I the only one who cheats at this?
Like most games, the game of life is won by those who learn the shortcuts.
I worked out early on that I could do things faster then some others. So did I advertise this fact? Hello no. Allocate 3 weeks, do it in 3 days and bludge the rest of the time.
I've been in my career over 20 years and this trick still works.
Really? My experience is different...