While that may be true, the government is not entitled to root out all crimes committed by citizens. The US is not yet a police state despite the attempts made by neocons to change that.
Having a recent warrant out for arrest, being already charged with a crime, out on bail, or already been convicted of a crime. Seems like reasonable suspicion of criminal activity to me.
To put it mildly, you could be wrong. If what you said was true then anyone with any prior criminal record would have no 4th Amendment rights in the eyes of the law. That is clearly a flawed notion.
If the restrictions put on the second amendment were applied to freedom of the press, the only press protected would be manually powered flat bed presses.
So you think there shouldn't be limitations on what sort of arms citizens are allowed to have and so everyone should be free to posses even nuclear weapons if they chose?
If we are to apply Occam's Razor, then the first option would be the most parsimonious option. However since we are already certain that we lack any real understanding of most of the matter in the universe, assuming there is more matter out there that we don't understand is not much of a stretch.
Thanks for sharing. Try as I might I can't imagine why anyone would complain about a nearly imperceptible two frame animation in an icon when there is a huge ad banner right above it.
It doesn't have to be universally accepted. If it is universally understood that is good enough, which it pretty much is despite the protests of some who don't like it.
As an environmentalist, I would like to point out how you should not burn your house down as it would directly release a lot CO2 and other pollutants into the atmosphere.
So I guess you'll go and burn your house down now right? Since having a place to live is less important to you than spiting people who annoy you.
Why is it that it is wrong to kill someone in just about every religion? Somehow, regardless of culture people have all figured it out that killing each other is bad. It's really not that hard.
For the benefit of "The Earth"? Seriously? You make it sound like the earth is some far off place reserved for the enjoyment of a wealthy few.
When deciding that reducing energy usage is a waste of money for almost everyone, how do you reach that conclusion? Have you factored in the countless externalizes or are you just looking at the direct savings? From the example you gave I'm assuming the latter is the case.
That would be very convenient for the creationists, because YEC is disappearing these days.
You should probably clarify that by saying that these days YEC is disappearing from public. I'd be willing to bet that most people who claim to support ID deep inside are young earthers. They just see ID as a tool to get public opinion moving in the "right" direction.
There are many creationists that profess to believe that the earth was created to look old to test our faith. Hell, in my immediate family alone I can name a few.
Slashdot Mirror
Please can we send Tom Cruise instead??
A.K.A. The Golf Channel.
If you fall forever without ever reaching an endpoint, that doesn't exactly resolve the infinity problem, does it?
$CORPORATION doesn't give a $EXPLITIVE about $TECHNOLOGY except for how it ($CORP) can exploit it.
You're not flamebaiting. You're not insightful either, you're just spouting obvious statements in a beligerant manner. Your mother must be proud.
You're being an asshole. I could debate further with you but I've got better things to do, so I'll leave it at that.
While that may be true, the government is not entitled to root out all crimes committed by citizens. The US is not yet a police state despite the attempts made by neocons to change that.
Having a recent warrant out for arrest, being already charged with a crime, out on bail, or already been convicted of a crime. Seems like reasonable suspicion of criminal activity to me.
To put it mildly, you could be wrong. If what you said was true then anyone with any prior criminal record would have no 4th Amendment rights in the eyes of the law. That is clearly a flawed notion.
If the restrictions put on the second amendment were applied to freedom of the press, the only press protected would be manually powered flat bed presses.
So you think there shouldn't be limitations on what sort of arms citizens are allowed to have and so everyone should be free to posses even nuclear weapons if they chose?
The ACLU also sided with Jerry Falwell in a case.
No. No it isn't.
If we are to apply Occam's Razor, then the first option would be the most parsimonious option. However since we are already certain that we lack any real understanding of most of the matter in the universe, assuming there is more matter out there that we don't understand is not much of a stretch.
Thanks for sharing. Try as I might I can't imagine why anyone would complain about a nearly imperceptible two frame animation in an icon when there is a huge ad banner right above it.
You forgot c) An image editor.
No, you stupid fucking idiot. "He" is a singular masculine pronoun, not a gender neutral pronoun.
See, other people can holler and swear to. It doesn't make them right.
It doesn't have to be universally accepted. If it is universally understood that is good enough, which it pretty much is despite the protests of some who don't like it.
I don't tell them what to do, so they should kindly shut the hell up
Hmm
As an environmentalist, I would like to point out how you should not burn your house down as it would directly release a lot CO2 and other pollutants into the atmosphere.
So I guess you'll go and burn your house down now right? Since having a place to live is less important to you than spiting people who annoy you.
Is it just me or is that the only time you see "whoosh" anymore. I support voting it off the internet.
Thanks for making that clear, I cried a little for slashdot when I saw that comment.
Why is it that it is wrong to kill someone in just about every religion? Somehow, regardless of culture people have all figured it out that killing each other is bad. It's really not that hard.
It's not.
As is always the case, those with the money get to decide.
For the benefit of "The Earth"? Seriously? You make it sound like the earth is some far off place reserved for the enjoyment of a wealthy few.
When deciding that reducing energy usage is a waste of money for almost everyone, how do you reach that conclusion? Have you factored in the countless externalizes or are you just looking at the direct savings? From the example you gave I'm assuming the latter is the case.
That would be very convenient for the creationists, because YEC is disappearing these days.
You should probably clarify that by saying that these days YEC is disappearing from public. I'd be willing to bet that most people who claim to support ID deep inside are young earthers. They just see ID as a tool to get public opinion moving in the "right" direction.
There are many creationists that profess to believe that the earth was created to look old to test our faith. Hell, in my immediate family alone I can name a few.