The idea behind freedom of speech isn't that you have the right to STFU, its the opposite. You have the right to say anything you damn well please, and you also have the right to not say anything you damn well please. All I'm saying is, freedom of speech means if you don't want to say anything, that's your right, just as much as it's your right to bitch moan and complain. You can't force somebody to say something they don't want to because that's not freedom at all.
No, if the US ran an ambulance service, the paramedics would carry soldiers who would carry guns, jump out of the ambulance, chase down whoever caused the patient harm, and kill them. The paramedics would take the patient to the hospital as fast as possible.
The point of it was that just becuase you both now have a common enemy does [not] change the nature of the relationship between the two of you. Have you ever read a history book? Do you have no idea what happened during the second world war? The US and the USSR, who threatened the world with thermonuclear hell for half a century teamed up against Hitler. FDR, Churchill, and Stalin -- the guy who killed more of his own people than Hitler did Jews -- had regular meetings to strategize. Yes, we still hated the Commies and as soon as the war was over we reverted back to enemical status, and I agree that the enemy of my enemy is not my friend, but the enemy of my enemy is a guy who I will pretend is my friend until he's no longer useful.
Well that doesn't happen in the US because we can find anything we damn well want on the 'net. Just because the media opts not to put it on TV isn't censorship. Censorship is when party C has some information, party B wants access to said information, and party A gets to decide whether or not party B can access it. If party A decides not to spread information, that's their prerogative. Freedom to speak implies freedom to STFU, and there's not a damn thing wrong with that.
Nobody said the US doesn't have the ability to control things. Your parent's question was what control is currently placed on the Internet by the US government, which is, at the moment, absolutely none.
As the other poster said, the US won the civil war, so it didn't change there; however, the our first Republic lasted about 10 years, and then they wrote the Constitution when the Articles of Confederation failed.
Because if they had all the extras of the theatrical edition on the extended edition DVDs, you'd be an idiot for buying both and nobody feels pressured to waste money on the version they don't want to watch just for the extras.
Depth comes not from questions asked by the movie but by questions answered by the movie. All the questions you present shows a lack of depth because they didn't bother to answer them in the movies. The Matrix was deep. It answered many of its own questions and hinted that the rest would be answered later. Reloadedappeared deep because it asked a lot of questions and hinted that they would be answered by the last movie. Those questions aren't answered, and the last movie poses even more questions. That's why people say the movie sucked! We expected closure and answers to all the deep questions, and what we got was some semi-vigorous handwaving, and it left people feeling ripped off by the shallow pseudoanswers to the deep questions.
Just because you can not see the details of the depth does not mean that the depth is not there. I would say that if the details of the depth aren't there, then there is no depth. If you're too dense to see it, that's one thing, but when it's just not there, how exactly is that depth?
I know, I know: don't feed the trolls, but you're a real dumbass and I can't help it. If you put it on the screen, it needs the details! You use your imagination when you read. When you watch a movie, you're supposed to be able to see everything you would've imagined when reading the book! The whole point of TV/movies is that people don't want to read and use their imaginations and would rather have the images put on a screen for them, but why should those of us who have read the book not get the experience of seeing someone else's interpretation of what we've already imagined? Really, it's the people who didn't want to read and imagine that complain about the movie being too long!
Your brain operates on electrical signals in a very similar manner to your computer, so yes, your brain does have a "binary reader". Every neuron in your body essentially is one. If the machines can send sensory feedback into your brain, why couldn't they just rewire your cerebral cortex so that instead of being yourself, you become Smith?
Anything you don't understand? Yes. I don't understand 1. Get the speed limits right, if they're not right at present. because that's impossible. The "right" speed limit changes with conditions. If it's raining, windy, dark, or foggy, the "right" speed limit is much lower than on a clear, sunny, calm day. If there is high traffic then the "right" speed limit is lower than if there is virtually no traffic. These conditions change throughout the day. The beltway around DC is a perfect example as it has very little traffic at 3am and is well lighted all night, but it's bumper-to-bumper at rush hour. At 3am, the speed limit is way too low, but at 5pm, the speed limit is way too high. You can't put a number on a sign and say it's the "right" speed limit because what's appropriate fluctuates. I would advocate a speed limit of "Drive Safely" and if you're driving too fast and hit somebody, you get a ticket. If you're driving fast and don't hit anybody, how were you being dangerous, exactly?
the mere act of shooting is harmless. Actually, no. If you point a gun into a crowd, every member of that crowd can press charges for Assault with a Deadly Weapon and seek personal damages in civil court on top of that because of the emotional damage you did by putting them in fear of bodily harm. If you pull the trigger, you've got ADW with intent to inflict severe injury charges. Speeding is more analgous to shooting at a firing range. If you're under control and in a safe environment, neither speeding nor discharging a firearm is dangerous. If you're in heavy traffic then speeding is dangerous, and if you're in a crowd then shooting is dangerous.
Yeah, and you can drown in an inch of water. What does that have to do with anything? The fact of the matter is, if someone is going 1mph over the speed limit, they do not present any significant increase to the safety hazard compared to someone going exactly the speed limit or 1mph under. An inch of water is obviously not a serious safety hazard, despite the fact that you can drown in it, so I don't see the point.
Re:America's best-kept secret:
on
Take Back Your Time!
·
· Score: 2, Informative
when you buy alone, it's cheaper to self-insure with your own savings and risk catastrophic bills than to pay a fixed premium that almost certainly won't pay off Bullshit. Health insurance is more affordable than going to the hospital. It's that simple. You can just keep your savings and hope to God that you never get a serious disease/injury, but a lady I work with would've made about $30K if she'd had disability insurance (which is a form of health insurance) when she had surgery recently. It's not that the insurance company is price-gouging you anyway. It's the medical community that charges outrageous rates. It's very rare that I lose money on my health insurance for a year (due to dental, etc).
You can't get good and affordable comprehensive health insurance when you buy individually; You can get good and comprehensive coverage that is more affordable than the doctors you'll have to see. Obviously insurance companies expect to make more than they pay in claims, but many individuals are saved economically because of health insurance, and many others are fucked over royally by the doctors who claim to be trying to help them because they can't afford treatment.
That's why the working poor are, for the most part, uninsured No, it's not. The reason they're uninsured is because medical care is so insanely expensive that companies can't afford to insure them at a rate they can afford. That's not because of "negotiating leverage". It's because of simple addition. If you spend more than you make, you don't get a profit!
Then you need to thank the government for the "do-not call list"! It'll save you lots of time for calling those of us who will just tell you to fuck off and die anyway.
You know, when you go to install Mozilla, it has options to just not install the parts you don't want. Isn't that a novel idea? If you don't want to use Mail/News, just don't install it! There's no forced integration because you choose whether or not to install the integrated parts.
err... I did say your thumb, not your pinky;) and yes, it's essentially impossible to use the same hand, but that's why there're 2 alt keys on most keyboards;)
These people are the meatspace equivalent of script kiddies. And increasingly script kiddies seem to be getting interested in ricers. At least, the ones that kept bothering me throughout high school thought their ricers were the best thing since port scanners.
I'm glad you decided to agree with me after that little discussion in your journal. Uniformly-applied federal income taxes are a much better way to fund the government than sales taxes or property taxes.
Slashdot Mirror
The idea behind freedom of speech isn't that you have the right to STFU, its the opposite.
You have the right to say anything you damn well please, and you also have the right to not say anything you damn well please. All I'm saying is, freedom of speech means if you don't want to say anything, that's your right, just as much as it's your right to bitch moan and complain. You can't force somebody to say something they don't want to because that's not freedom at all.
They trump Congress.
Two words: Judicial Impeachment
No, if the US ran an ambulance service, the paramedics would carry soldiers who would carry guns, jump out of the ambulance, chase down whoever caused the patient harm, and kill them. The paramedics would take the patient to the hospital as fast as possible.
The point of it was that just becuase you both now have a common enemy does [not] change the nature of the relationship between the two of you.
Have you ever read a history book? Do you have no idea what happened during the second world war? The US and the USSR, who threatened the world with thermonuclear hell for half a century teamed up against Hitler. FDR, Churchill, and Stalin -- the guy who killed more of his own people than Hitler did Jews -- had regular meetings to strategize. Yes, we still hated the Commies and as soon as the war was over we reverted back to enemical status, and I agree that the enemy of my enemy is not my friend, but the enemy of my enemy is a guy who I will pretend is my friend until he's no longer useful.
Well that doesn't happen in the US because we can find anything we damn well want on the 'net. Just because the media opts not to put it on TV isn't censorship. Censorship is when party C has some information, party B wants access to said information, and party A gets to decide whether or not party B can access it. If party A decides not to spread information, that's their prerogative. Freedom to speak implies freedom to STFU, and there's not a damn thing wrong with that.
Nobody said the US doesn't have the ability to control things. Your parent's question was what control is currently placed on the Internet by the US government, which is, at the moment, absolutely none.
As the other poster said, the US won the civil war, so it didn't change there; however, the our first Republic lasted about 10 years, and then they wrote the Constitution when the Articles of Confederation failed.
Well with the recent tendency to release TV shows as anthologies on DVD would work great for you. That's probably the only way I'd watch it.
Because if they had all the extras of the theatrical edition on the extended edition DVDs, you'd be an idiot for buying both and nobody feels pressured to waste money on the version they don't want to watch just for the extras.
Depth comes not from questions asked by the movie but by questions answered by the movie. All the questions you present shows a lack of depth because they didn't bother to answer them in the movies. The Matrix was deep. It answered many of its own questions and hinted that the rest would be answered later. Reloaded appeared deep because it asked a lot of questions and hinted that they would be answered by the last movie. Those questions aren't answered, and the last movie poses even more questions. That's why people say the movie sucked! We expected closure and answers to all the deep questions, and what we got was some semi-vigorous handwaving, and it left people feeling ripped off by the shallow pseudoanswers to the deep questions.
Just because you can not see the details of the depth does not mean that the depth is not there.
I would say that if the details of the depth aren't there, then there is no depth. If you're too dense to see it, that's one thing, but when it's just not there, how exactly is that depth?
I know, I know: don't feed the trolls, but you're a real dumbass and I can't help it. If you put it on the screen, it needs the details! You use your imagination when you read. When you watch a movie, you're supposed to be able to see everything you would've imagined when reading the book! The whole point of TV/movies is that people don't want to read and use their imaginations and would rather have the images put on a screen for them, but why should those of us who have read the book not get the experience of seeing someone else's interpretation of what we've already imagined? Really, it's the people who didn't want to read and imagine that complain about the movie being too long!
Really? And all this time I thought they were compressing two books into one movie for each part of the trilogy.
Your brain operates on electrical signals in a very similar manner to your computer, so yes, your brain does have a "binary reader". Every neuron in your body essentially is one. If the machines can send sensory feedback into your brain, why couldn't they just rewire your cerebral cortex so that instead of being yourself, you become Smith?
Actually it should've been, "A 1/225-football-field gun can shoot a Volkswagon 352 football fields" since we're being pedantic.
Anything you don't understand?
Yes. I don't understand 1. Get the speed limits right, if they're not right at present. because that's impossible. The "right" speed limit changes with conditions. If it's raining, windy, dark, or foggy, the "right" speed limit is much lower than on a clear, sunny, calm day. If there is high traffic then the "right" speed limit is lower than if there is virtually no traffic. These conditions change throughout the day. The beltway around DC is a perfect example as it has very little traffic at 3am and is well lighted all night, but it's bumper-to-bumper at rush hour. At 3am, the speed limit is way too low, but at 5pm, the speed limit is way too high. You can't put a number on a sign and say it's the "right" speed limit because what's appropriate fluctuates. I would advocate a speed limit of "Drive Safely" and if you're driving too fast and hit somebody, you get a ticket. If you're driving fast and don't hit anybody, how were you being dangerous, exactly?
the mere act of shooting is harmless.
Actually, no. If you point a gun into a crowd, every member of that crowd can press charges for Assault with a Deadly Weapon and seek personal damages in civil court on top of that because of the emotional damage you did by putting them in fear of bodily harm. If you pull the trigger, you've got ADW with intent to inflict severe injury charges. Speeding is more analgous to shooting at a firing range. If you're under control and in a safe environment, neither speeding nor discharging a firearm is dangerous. If you're in heavy traffic then speeding is dangerous, and if you're in a crowd then shooting is dangerous.
Yeah, and you can drown in an inch of water.
What does that have to do with anything? The fact of the matter is, if someone is going 1mph over the speed limit, they do not present any significant increase to the safety hazard compared to someone going exactly the speed limit or 1mph under. An inch of water is obviously not a serious safety hazard, despite the fact that you can drown in it, so I don't see the point.
when you buy alone, it's cheaper to self-insure with your own savings and risk catastrophic bills than to pay a fixed premium that almost certainly won't pay off
Bullshit. Health insurance is more affordable than going to the hospital. It's that simple. You can just keep your savings and hope to God that you never get a serious disease/injury, but a lady I work with would've made about $30K if she'd had disability insurance (which is a form of health insurance) when she had surgery recently. It's not that the insurance company is price-gouging you anyway. It's the medical community that charges outrageous rates. It's very rare that I lose money on my health insurance for a year (due to dental, etc).
You can't get good and affordable comprehensive health insurance when you buy individually;
You can get good and comprehensive coverage that is more affordable than the doctors you'll have to see. Obviously insurance companies expect to make more than they pay in claims, but many individuals are saved economically because of health insurance, and many others are fucked over royally by the doctors who claim to be trying to help them because they can't afford treatment.
That's why the working poor are, for the most part, uninsured
No, it's not. The reason they're uninsured is because medical care is so insanely expensive that companies can't afford to insure them at a rate they can afford. That's not because of "negotiating leverage". It's because of simple addition. If you spend more than you make, you don't get a profit!
Then you need to thank the government for the "do-not call list"! It'll save you lots of time for calling those of us who will just tell you to fuck off and die anyway.
Then you can get the source and add them ;)
or, add in your own style sheet an important rule that all text is {display: none;}?
You know, when you go to install Mozilla, it has options to just not install the parts you don't want. Isn't that a novel idea? If you don't want to use Mail/News, just don't install it! There's no forced integration because you choose whether or not to install the integrated parts.
err... I did say your thumb, not your pinky ;) and yes, it's essentially impossible to use the same hand, but that's why there're 2 alt keys on most keyboards ;)
uhh...it's easier to hit with your thumb than the winkey is?
These people are the meatspace equivalent of script kiddies.
And increasingly script kiddies seem to be getting interested in ricers. At least, the ones that kept bothering me throughout high school thought their ricers were the best thing since port scanners.
For a good MUD client for UNIX, I'd recommend MCL. It's got the simplicity of telnet without the pain.
I'm glad you decided to agree with me after that little discussion in your journal. Uniformly-applied federal income taxes are a much better way to fund the government than sales taxes or property taxes.