Like the highest voted issue on change.gov that was dismissed out of hand.
The people expressed an opinion, which was refused without debate. [/ devils advocate]
Compromise is not always possible. Both parties must be willing to negotiate; that's not a given.
There will always be some nutjobs who can not be reasoned with; see religious motivated terrorists of any stripe ( christian / islam / jewish / hindu / sikh / et. al. included ), some environmental groups ( ALF / ELF come to mind )... perhaps you can find some examples of your own.
If your hopes and dreams differ from mine, then share them with me, we'll find the common areas and work to improve things for the both of us.
Playing devils advocate, you seem to be saying that everyone can get along if only they talk more and compromise.
I submit than on some issues there is no compromise possible. Or, would you accept being a "little bit homophobic" or a "little bit racist" as ok?
Telling the other side to, in effect, do what we want or shut up is what we've had for the last eight years. Look how well that's worked.
On another note, you're free to have whatever feel-good feelings you want. I'll base my views on stated goals ( and how they affect my interests), the implementation strategy and success at implementation.
To my mind, emotion has no place in public policy. I'd have thought the last eight years would have taught most of the US that.
Knew a guy who liked to go fishing on the weekends. He'd bring back buckets of urchins, which I'd trade him for scotch. Worked out to about $7 USD (in the late 90's) for a gallon bucket full of the spiney little yum-yums. Did I mention that buying alcohol on an overseas base is cheap, since there's no state taxes?
Anyway, throw a movie in. Remove urchin from bucket. Cut urchin in half with kitchen shears while enjoying the spines moving about in your hand. Add a dash of soy sauce. Eat with spoon. Repeat.
From a database perspective, both Microsoft and Oracle have their own virutalization products and their support for their databases on VMWare is sketchy at best.
Perhaps we're working for different governments, but at the municipal government I work at we are laying off people city wide. It's the third lay off in about five years.
Not much anyone can do when they're legally required to have a balanced budget and tax revenues are down. It's either increase income ( in this case raise taxes ) or reduce expenses.. and for most organizations payroll is one hell of an expense.
Raising taxes is very unpopular in my area ( they're already rather high compared to national averages ) so cutting staff and services is what's left.
Doesn't that say more about readers than the news media?
I mean, I know what you're referring to when you say "torture scandals" from the media.
Isn't it more the case that most people just don't care? That, to the average viewer / reader, celebrity gossip and missing white girls are more important?
It doesn't help that everyone has a long history of hiring shoddy technology contractors who promise the world and deliver a buggy product that only makes things worse.
As another poster observed there's other ways to implement blocking cell phone signals. Those other ways probably don't look too "sexy" though (i.e. not enough shiny blinky lights for management and/or not high enough margins for the contractor ).
The flaw in your reasoning is the presumption that an intruder is only there for your stuff.
Most break-ins are junkies looking for something to pawn for drug money. Just someone home tends to deter them.
However, those that see someone home and continue to break in seem far more dangerous. That indicates a willingness to use force against anyone home... rather different than just a smash and grab. Perhaps you're the wrong color, and they've decided you need a beat down or your head cracked open. Maybe you're a woman... any why not have a little fun?
Armed people trying to break in moves from "burglary" to "home invasion". That implies a much different motivation than your stuff.
In any event, at best an armed homeowner has one more method to deter a burglary. At worst, an armed homeowner has the means to defend themselves from death or grievous bodily harm.
On the "Automatic AK-47", you do know that fully automatic firearms are already heavily regulated at the Federal level by the National Firearm Act ( see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act ) and that some states already ban private ownership of fully automatic weapons?
Perhaps you were referring to the 1994 - 2004 Assault Weapon Ban... which had no measurable impact on crime rates? See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapons_ban_(USA)#Effect_on_crime for more... but since such "Assault Weapons" are used in less than 2% of crimes why would banning them have any effect on crime?
A National ban on carrying concealed weapons... well, that would target a group of people who not only took required training / safety / legal courses, passed a local / state / Federal background check and are, as a group, considerably more law abiding than the general population ( see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrying_concealed_weapon#Statistics ). People with CCW permits don't seem like the target group for gun control ( i.e. criminals ), so removing their CCW permits.... well, what's the point?
"I'll acknowledge that you have the right to own guns for self protection and for hunting. But I'm tired of hearing the claim that private guns somehow safeguard our civil rights."
Well, do you acknowledge the right of self defense against agents of an oppressive state?
If nothing else, having a significant percentage of the population armed and trained gives pause to an oppressive regime which would use force against it's citizens.
Slashdot Mirror
Just in case you've never seen it...
Rabbit Season / Duck Season
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=veIXcySqItY
very, very small values of "eliminate"?
Or at least Butchie...
*snicker*
[devils advocate]
Or, perhaps, your concerns are irrelevant.
Like the highest voted issue on change.gov that was dismissed out of hand.
The people expressed an opinion, which was refused without debate.
[/ devils advocate]
Compromise is not always possible. Both parties must be willing to negotiate; that's not a given.
There will always be some nutjobs who can not be reasoned with; see religious motivated terrorists of any stripe ( christian / islam / jewish / hindu / sikh / et. al. included ), some environmental groups ( ALF / ELF come to mind )... perhaps you can find some examples of your own.
Playing devils advocate, you seem to be saying that everyone can get along if only they talk more and compromise.
I submit than on some issues there is no compromise possible. Or, would you accept being a "little bit homophobic" or a "little bit racist" as ok?
Telling the other side to, in effect, do what we want or shut up is what we've had for the last eight years. Look how well that's worked.
On another note, you're free to have whatever feel-good feelings you want. I'll base my views on stated goals ( and how they affect my interests), the implementation strategy and success at implementation.
To my mind, emotion has no place in public policy. I'd have thought the last eight years would have taught most of the US that.
Sounds rather like "You're either with us or against us... "
Meet the new boss.
Same as the old boss.
Sea urchins are not cute.
Therefore, no outcry.
Sea urchin can be some great movie-watching food.
Knew a guy who liked to go fishing on the weekends. He'd bring back buckets of urchins, which I'd trade him for scotch. Worked out to about $7 USD (in the late 90's) for a gallon bucket full of the spiney little yum-yums. Did I mention that buying alcohol on an overseas base is cheap, since there's no state taxes?
Anyway, throw a movie in. Remove urchin from bucket. Cut urchin in half with kitchen shears while enjoying the spines moving about in your hand. Add a dash of soy sauce. Eat with spoon. Repeat.
From a database perspective, both Microsoft and Oracle have their own virutalization products and their support for their databases on VMWare is sketchy at best.
Perhaps that will cut into VMware's market a bit.
Perhaps we're working for different governments, but at the municipal government I work at we are laying off people city wide. It's the third lay off in about five years.
Not much anyone can do when they're legally required to have a balanced budget and tax revenues are down. It's either increase income ( in this case raise taxes ) or reduce expenses.. and for most organizations payroll is one hell of an expense.
Raising taxes is very unpopular in my area ( they're already rather high compared to national averages ) so cutting staff and services is what's left.
Doesn't that say more about readers than the news media?
I mean, I know what you're referring to when you say "torture scandals" from the media.
Isn't it more the case that most people just don't care? That, to the average viewer / reader, celebrity gossip and missing white girls are more important?
beats fruitcake
^_^
Well, Ballmer did try...
Perfect place for Cliffs notes ads, eh?
"Next test, use our notes and suck less!"
*snicker*
Boil it in oil.
Seriously. With very tough flesh, use enough oil to cover the flesh and heat the oil just to below it's smoke point.
And yes, as soon as I saw the video I thought "calamari".
Minor correction...
As another poster observed there's other ways to implement blocking cell phone signals. Those other ways probably don't look too "sexy" though (i.e. not enough shiny blinky lights for management and/or not high enough margins for the contractor ).
Great buzzword.
Since the speaker defines first that restrictions are "reasonable" then, obviously, it's just a matter of how far those restrictions should go, right?
Wouldn't want to be "unreasonable".
While the plural of anecdote is not data, that correlates to what I've seen.
I've met two women who were programmers; one did VB6, the other COBOL. Both left programming for being PMs.
In one woman's case, she considered moving to PM a promotion. In the other, she "didn't want to keep up with the technology".
:wave:
And see my sig for more.
The flaw in your reasoning is the presumption that an intruder is only there for your stuff.
Most break-ins are junkies looking for something to pawn for drug money. Just someone home tends to deter them.
However, those that see someone home and continue to break in seem far more dangerous. That indicates a willingness to use force against anyone home... rather different than just a smash and grab. Perhaps you're the wrong color, and they've decided you need a beat down or your head cracked open. Maybe you're a woman... any why not have a little fun?
Armed people trying to break in moves from "burglary" to "home invasion". That implies a much different motivation than your stuff.
In any event, at best an armed homeowner has one more method to deter a burglary. At worst, an armed homeowner has the means to defend themselves from death or grievous bodily harm.
Ok... I guess this comes down to two people separated by common language, but what do you mean by 'cultural elites'? Art aficionados?
Out of curiosity, where do you live now that's so much better than the US?
On the "Automatic AK-47", you do know that fully automatic firearms are already heavily regulated at the Federal level by the National Firearm Act ( see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act ) and that some states already ban private ownership of fully automatic weapons?
Perhaps you were referring to the 1994 - 2004 Assault Weapon Ban... which had no measurable impact on crime rates? See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapons_ban_(USA)#Effect_on_crime for more... but since such "Assault Weapons" are used in less than 2% of crimes why would banning them have any effect on crime?
A National ban on carrying concealed weapons... well, that would target a group of people who not only took required training / safety / legal courses, passed a local / state / Federal background check and are, as a group, considerably more law abiding than the general population ( see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrying_concealed_weapon#Statistics ). People with CCW permits don't seem like the target group for gun control ( i.e. criminals ), so removing their CCW permits.... well, what's the point?
Which is exactly why some of us can't bring ourselves to support the ACLU, even if we agree with some of their other goals.
How, exactly, is being against the right of self preservation somehow supporting civil rights?
"I'll acknowledge that you have the right to own guns for self protection and for hunting. But I'm tired of hearing the claim that private guns somehow safeguard our civil rights."
Well, do you acknowledge the right of self defense against agents of an oppressive state?
If nothing else, having a significant percentage of the population armed and trained gives pause to an oppressive regime which would use force against it's citizens.