You kill an 8 point buck with a bowie knife and nothing else, I will call you a sportsman.
Nice sport. Can't we just have deer wrestling or something? First three-second pin wins?
Personally, I'd much rather die due to a high-powered rifle bullet to the head than being stabbed to death with a knife. More than likely, a headshot critter won't have time to realize it's dead. OTOH, I'd rather not die by drowning in my own blood due to being lung-shot.
Real hunters keep their armament in excellent working order, and their sights true. One shot, one (instant) kill - that's the way to do things.
As for the "Internet hunting", well, that's just plain wrong. Not wrong as in horribly murderously wrong, but wrong as in a fat guy who can't get our of his current room because he can't fit through the doorframe. Should it be illegal, though? I don't think so, but that's the PRC for you. Still not a "sport".
People are often selfish and do things they shouldn't. Just because someone claims to be affiliated with a particular group or belief, then violates the principles of that belief, it doesn't mean that the group or belief has sanctioned or changed to include that behavior.
Also, the first Crusades were a response to Muslim "convert or die" aggression. ("The trigger for the First Crusade was Emperor Alexius I's appeal to Pope Urban II for mercenaries to help him resist Muslim advances into territory of the Byzantine Empire.") Last I checked, such things (Crusades, Inquisition, etc.) were being taught already. Christianity, or at the very least, its principles, were critical to the formation of the USA. Therefore, its principles should be taught in school, as they were prior to the 1950s!
Lastly, the 'church and state' thing was to prevent the establishment of a State religion, not to obliterate all traces of Biblical wisdom or basic Christian principles from our society. Go read George Washington's farewell address, for example.
Members of those groups make up a significant portion of the population, do they?
While it is true that a certain number of people object to any forms of genetic manipulation, folks that oppose certain forms of contraception (such as ones that prevent a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterus, etc.) and IVF do so because of many reasons, one of which is that the glop of cells is alive. (Not conscious, obviously, but alive.)
Indeed, I'm told that IVF clinics are a major source of embryos which have been/are being used to harvest stem cells. If someone believes that embryos shouldn't be destroyed in the first place, then it is logical that they would support neither IVF clinics nor embryonic stem cell research.
The question is this: would you want that human(ish) brain in the sheep to be your brain?
The big deal here is about human(-like) brains in animals. As far as we can tell, it is the brain that sets the humans apart from the rest of the lifeforms on this ball of dirt we call Earth. Few logical people would object to having most human organs grown in an animal's body (although I'd not want to be first in line to receive a transplant out of fear of unknown biological repercussions).
The concern is over not wanting to inflict a human mind with cruelty and suffering. "This is your brain in a sheep..."
Either you have been grossly misinformed, or you're a troll. Keeping a positive frame of mind about this, I will assume the former.
No one (stastisically speaking) objects to stem cell research. No one. What a large percentage of people don't like is embryonic stem cell research, generally because embryonic stem cell research requires killing a human embryo. California's initiative focuses on embryonic stem cell research. It is also only embryonic stem cells which have been limited to only supplies already on hand.
Again, many/most folks approve of research into stem cells from adult, waste (umbelical cords, etc.), and other non-fatal sources.
Re:The question every firefox user is asking
on
Opera 8 Released
·
· Score: 1
drudgereport.com popups? Those are flash-based - if you don't want them, don't use flash.
Wow, the more I read of your comment, the more your ignorance shows:
- The rewind and back buttons have been buggy since version five. I've filed numerous bug reports, but they have been summarily dismissed. (They often "skipped" over pages in past history, making them disappear without a trace. Very annoying when dealing with forms.)
- Numerous plugins block http referrers. My favorite is "tabbrowser extensions", but be aware the FF developers don't like it because it doesn't behave like a proper plugin.
- Built-in crap is the reason Netscape and Mozilla are my least favorite browsers (aside from IE, of course). This applies to both IRC and email clients.
- Nothing wrong with the stock download manager for FF. However, I prefer the "download statusbar" plugin.
- Cookies? Forget messing with menus: "paranoia" plugin adds a button to the interface for this.
- The FF interface (supposedly) can be customized to look like anything else. However, I couldn't care less about this, so have no references to respond with.
- Numerous plugins let you repoen closed tabs. Again, I use "tabbrowser extensions" for this.
- Numerous plugins save a history of your tabs so they can be restored in the event of a crash. Yet again, "tabbrowser extensions" has this feature - I don't even use it, tho.
- Firefox stores passwords. I can't stand the idea of stored passwords, no matter how trivial. Yet, it can.
What you got right:
- The F12 settings thing is nice.
- The search from the address bar thing. The only is listed as something you got right because it is rather difficult to get FF to STOP searching from the address bar! This is one "feature" I can't stand.
- User style sheets have their place - however, highlighting the text or using "nuke anything" has always solved contrast issues for me within FF.
- There is only one PDF issue I've found within FF: if the PDF is called from (commonly) a PHP script, so the data is loaded sans file extension, FF doesn't seem to know what to do. Other than that, slow response time is due to your system and Adobe's bloated Reader.
I could go on all day, but I'm already late for an appointment.
Little more than a 'me, too', but I strongly feel that when a company uses silently installed drivers (reboot aside) that are not (not ever that I have seen) uninstalled/removed when the host program is removed to "secure" a product, they are going too far. Even more so when the drivers cause or have caused massive problems with certain devices (USB drives).
On top of that, ubi.com's set up is perfectly rediculous - I've over five names that I cannot recall passwords for, nor can I recover them because of the birthdate requirement.
On top of that, they use either DirectPlay, or some similarly retarded method of requiring the CLIENT to have open ports for the SERVER to connect to - wreaks havoc with firewall security. Good thing no one I've provided a NAT/PAT home router to likes these kinds of games, because they'd basically be SOL - the list of port numbers to be allowed actually exceeds the rule capacity on some of the older Netgear routers (which otherwise still work just fine, thank you).
Good game, but Ubi still continues to piss me off.
Re:Paper Filing Is Still Legal
on
Tracking Your Taxes
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Then you're stupid.
Physical evidence is harder to 1. tamper with 2. copy, and 3. process, at least where #2 involves a handwritten, sealed letter.
Freedom is not granted by a well-crafted constitution; it must be seized!
You are absolutely correct. The Constitution grants us no rights. It doesn't have to, because we already have them! (Remember, "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights".) The Constitution tells the government what it cannot do.
If the regulations are defective or unconstitutional, Congress or the courts can change them. Meanwhile, though, they're in effect.
No. An unconstitutional government law, mandate, directive, or any other term for a rule, is null and void from the moment of its creation. Any attempted enforcement of an unconstiutional provision (law, blah blah) is illegal.
The only reason you may be under the impression that the unconstiutional law would still be "in effect", meaning enforcable, etc., is usually because there are people with guns doing the illegal enforcing. In all but the most extreme cases, it is wiser to resist in the courtroom rather than the bunker.
(and a side note: It is amazing how fast a convo here switches from 1st amendment to 2nd amendment. I wonder why that always happens)
It's hard to have the former without any means of backing it up (or, more precisely, ensure it stays in place) - hence, the latter. Additionally, those who are concerned about their rights generally are concerned about all of their rights.
Actually, an "arm", as the word was defined in that day, at least, meant 'any weapon designed to be man-portable'. (I did paraphrase.)
The second amendment does not grant a US citizen the right to own a tank. It does, however, protect the citizen from the (federal) government's attempts to keep the citizen from owning a LAW, RP-7, M4A1, hand grenades, Stinger missiles (and launcher), M249, MG44, silencers, backpack energy weapons, etc. In theory. Try carting around a MAC-10 and see how long it takes you to be gunned down by the BATF.:P
In the mean time, how many times a DAY do those same weapons get turned against the general population in the commission of crimes? Dozens? Hundreds? Yeah, something like that.
Care to site you source, or is that just the typical hysteria fomented by Handgun Control Inc. and their friends? I challenge you come up with and cite a statistic to back-up that claim that doesn't come from any "gun safety" or "gun control" group.
... and then contrast it with a list of crimes committed using knives, bats, and fists. Perhaps we should start banning muscles.
While you are wrong in regards to an individual's (not the states') God-given right to bear man-portable weapons, let's assume for the sake of the argument that you are actually correct.
Who is a member of the militia? US Code, Title 10, Section 113 defines who the members of the "militia" are: (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard. (b) The classes of the militia are - (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
That would mean, at an absolute minimum, any "able-bodied" male from 17-45 has the right to own a Glock 23, an AR-15, an M4A1, a Stinger missile, an M240 (perhaps not an M60), a bandolier of fragmentation grenades, satchel charges, switchblade knife, laser gun, etc. Any man-portable weapon (e.g., an "arm").
Just in case you think the exception mentioned excludes a lot of folks: (a) To be eligible for original enlistment in the National Guard,
a person must be at least 17 years of age and under 45, or under 64
years of age and a former member of the Regular Army, Regular Navy,
Regular Air Force, or Regular Marine Corps. To be eligible for
reenlistment, a person must be under 64 years of age.
(b) To be eligible for appointment as an officer of the National
Guard, a person must -
(1) be a citizen of the United States; and
(2) be at least 18 years of age and under 64.
*waves the Second Amendment around as a battle flag*
Let's assume for the moment that only 'well-regulated militia's can carry man-portable arms. I don't agree, but for the purposes of this argument, we will overlook that.
US Code, Title 10, Section 113 defines who the members of the "militia" are: (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard. (b) The classes of the militia are - (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
Hm. That would mean, at a bare minimum, any "able-bodied" male from 17-45 has the right to own a Glock 23, an AR-15, an M4A1, a Stinger missile, an M240 (perhaps not an M60), a bandolier of fragmentation grenades, satchel charges, etc. Anything portable by "a man".
Just in case you think the exception mentioned excludes a lot of folks: (a) To be eligible for original enlistment in the National Guard,
a person must be at least 17 years of age and under 45, or under 64
years of age and a former member of the Regular Army, Regular Navy,
Regular Air Force, or Regular Marine Corps. To be eligible for
reenlistment, a person must be under 64 years of age.
(b) To be eligible for appointment as an officer of the National
Guard, a person must -
(1) be a citizen of the United States; and
(2) be at least 18 years of age and under 64.
As for your funky 'shooting spree' comment, we already have laws that cover murder, etc.; no need to imply that without infringing firearm rights, we'd be legally sanctioning such offenses.
Records refer to an individual named James, brother of 'Jesus called Christ'. The GP was correct about few legit historians questioning the existance of a man named Jesus around 30AD-ish.
Attacking the fact that Jesus actually existed and walked the earth is a very direct way of trying to destroy the entire belief system of those that claim to follow Jesus and his teachings.
How powerful is your heater? 1500W? Assuming it is, I have an easy fix for you: get yourself a new system with a 600W power supply, get a second (use it as a server or something), and a nice big CRT. There you go - heater/PC combo.
Slashdot Mirror
You kill an 8 point buck with a bowie knife and nothing else, I will call you a sportsman.
Nice sport. Can't we just have deer wrestling or something? First three-second pin wins?
Personally, I'd much rather die due to a high-powered rifle bullet to the head than being stabbed to death with a knife. More than likely, a headshot critter won't have time to realize it's dead. OTOH, I'd rather not die by drowning in my own blood due to being lung-shot.
Real hunters keep their armament in excellent working order, and their sights true. One shot, one (instant) kill - that's the way to do things.
As for the "Internet hunting", well, that's just plain wrong. Not wrong as in horribly murderously wrong, but wrong as in a fat guy who can't get our of his current room because he can't fit through the doorframe. Should it be illegal, though? I don't think so, but that's the PRC for you. Still not a "sport".
If this is your first time, you may experience some difficulty.
May I suggest attempting to poke your eye in instead?
People are often selfish and do things they shouldn't. Just because someone claims to be affiliated with a particular group or belief, then violates the principles of that belief, it doesn't mean that the group or belief has sanctioned or changed to include that behavior.
Also, the first Crusades were a response to Muslim "convert or die" aggression. ("The trigger for the First Crusade was Emperor Alexius I's appeal to Pope Urban II for mercenaries to help him resist Muslim advances into territory of the Byzantine Empire.") Last I checked, such things (Crusades, Inquisition, etc.) were being taught already.
Christianity, or at the very least, its principles, were critical to the formation of the USA. Therefore, its principles should be taught in school, as they were prior to the 1950s!
Lastly, the 'church and state' thing was to prevent the establishment of a State religion, not to obliterate all traces of Biblical wisdom or basic Christian principles from our society. Go read George Washington's farewell address, for example.
Members of those groups make up a significant portion of the population, do they?
While it is true that a certain number of people object to any forms of genetic manipulation, folks that oppose certain forms of contraception (such as ones that prevent a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterus, etc.) and IVF do so because of many reasons, one of which is that the glop of cells is alive. (Not conscious, obviously, but alive.)
Indeed, I'm told that IVF clinics are a major source of embryos which have been/are being used to harvest stem cells. If someone believes that embryos shouldn't be destroyed in the first place, then it is logical that they would support neither IVF clinics nor embryonic stem cell research.
Thanks to you, I guess that $50 I spent on Black & White turned out not to be a total waste after all!
"By limiting the cell lines, Bush has nearly assured that someone will fund the research outside of US oversight.
I don't think that even the supporters of Bush's policy would want that."
Pardon the exaggeration: 'we don't want North Korea to slaughter innocent humans, so we'd better do it ourselves!'
The question is this: would you want that human(ish) brain in the sheep to be your brain?
The big deal here is about human(-like) brains in animals. As far as we can tell, it is the brain that sets the humans apart from the rest of the lifeforms on this ball of dirt we call Earth. Few logical people would object to having most human organs grown in an animal's body (although I'd not want to be first in line to receive a transplant out of fear of unknown biological repercussions).
The concern is over not wanting to inflict a human mind with cruelty and suffering.
"This is your brain in a sheep..."
Either you have been grossly misinformed, or you're a troll. Keeping a positive frame of mind about this, I will assume the former.
No one (stastisically speaking) objects to stem cell research. No one. What a large percentage of people don't like is embryonic stem cell research, generally because embryonic stem cell research requires killing a human embryo. California's initiative focuses on embryonic stem cell research. It is also only embryonic stem cells which have been limited to only supplies already on hand.
Again, many/most folks approve of research into stem cells from adult, waste (umbelical cords, etc.), and other non-fatal sources.
drudgereport.com popups? Those are flash-based - if you don't want them, don't use flash.
OR, you can install a tiny little plugin called "flash block", aka "flash click to view". My favorite.
Wow, the more I read of your comment, the more your ignorance shows:
- The rewind and back buttons have been buggy since version five. I've filed numerous bug reports, but they have been summarily dismissed. (They often "skipped" over pages in past history, making them disappear without a trace. Very annoying when dealing with forms.)
- Numerous plugins block http referrers. My favorite is "tabbrowser extensions", but be aware the FF developers don't like it because it doesn't behave like a proper plugin.
- Built-in crap is the reason Netscape and Mozilla are my least favorite browsers (aside from IE, of course). This applies to both IRC and email clients.
- Nothing wrong with the stock download manager for FF. However, I prefer the "download statusbar" plugin.
- Cookies? Forget messing with menus: "paranoia" plugin adds a button to the interface for this.
- The FF interface (supposedly) can be customized to look like anything else. However, I couldn't care less about this, so have no references to respond with.
- Numerous plugins let you repoen closed tabs. Again, I use "tabbrowser extensions" for this.
- Numerous plugins save a history of your tabs so they can be restored in the event of a crash. Yet again, "tabbrowser extensions" has this feature - I don't even use it, tho.
- Firefox stores passwords. I can't stand the idea of stored passwords, no matter how trivial. Yet, it can.
What you got right:
- The F12 settings thing is nice.
- The search from the address bar thing. The only is listed as something you got right because it is rather difficult to get FF to STOP searching from the address bar! This is one "feature" I can't stand.
- User style sheets have their place - however, highlighting the text or using "nuke anything" has always solved contrast issues for me within FF.
- There is only one PDF issue I've found within FF: if the PDF is called from (commonly) a PHP script, so the data is loaded sans file extension, FF doesn't seem to know what to do. Other than that, slow response time is due to your system and Adobe's bloated Reader.
I could go on all day, but I'm already late for an appointment.
Your very own CWIS, automated defense platform, equipped with depleted uranium rounds to down any crashing jalopy over in your neighbor's yard!
Little more than a 'me, too', but I strongly feel that when a company uses silently installed drivers (reboot aside) that are not (not ever that I have seen) uninstalled/removed when the host program is removed to "secure" a product, they are going too far. Even more so when the drivers cause or have caused massive problems with certain devices (USB drives).
On top of that, ubi.com's set up is perfectly rediculous - I've over five names that I cannot recall passwords for, nor can I recover them because of the birthdate requirement.
On top of that, they use either DirectPlay, or some similarly retarded method of requiring the CLIENT to have open ports for the SERVER to connect to - wreaks havoc with firewall security. Good thing no one I've provided a NAT/PAT home router to likes these kinds of games, because they'd basically be SOL - the list of port numbers to be allowed actually exceeds the rule capacity on some of the older Netgear routers (which otherwise still work just fine, thank you).
Good game, but Ubi still continues to piss me off.
Then you're stupid.
Physical evidence is harder to 1. tamper with 2. copy, and 3. process, at least where #2 involves a handwritten, sealed letter.
Do we really want to create a landed gentry whose offspring never have to work again?
Yes.
If you see a business opportunity and run with it, ala Mr. Hilton, you, too, can provide a wonderful and easy life for your offspring.
That's part of the American Dream.
Freedom is not granted by a well-crafted constitution; it must be seized!
You are absolutely correct. The Constitution grants us no rights. It doesn't have to, because we already have them! (Remember, "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights".) The Constitution tells the government what it cannot do.
If the regulations are defective or unconstitutional, Congress or the courts can change them. Meanwhile, though, they're in effect.
No. An unconstitutional government law, mandate, directive, or any other term for a rule, is null and void from the moment of its creation. Any attempted enforcement of an unconstiutional provision (law, blah blah) is illegal.
The only reason you may be under the impression that the unconstiutional law would still be "in effect", meaning enforcable, etc., is usually because there are people with guns doing the illegal enforcing. In all but the most extreme cases, it is wiser to resist in the courtroom rather than the bunker.
(and a side note: It is amazing how fast a convo here switches from 1st amendment to 2nd amendment. I wonder why that always happens)
It's hard to have the former without any means of backing it up (or, more precisely, ensure it stays in place) - hence, the latter.
Additionally, those who are concerned about their rights generally are concerned about all of their rights.
Actually, an "arm", as the word was defined in that day, at least, meant 'any weapon designed to be man-portable'. (I did paraphrase.)
:P
The second amendment does not grant a US citizen the right to own a tank. It does, however, protect the citizen from the (federal) government's attempts to keep the citizen from owning a LAW, RP-7, M4A1, hand grenades, Stinger missiles (and launcher), M249, MG44, silencers, backpack energy weapons, etc. In theory. Try carting around a MAC-10 and see how long it takes you to be gunned down by the BATF.
I have heard that he UCMJ also supports the notion that the militia is everybody not otherwise already in the acitve service or national guard.
You're looking for Section 311 of US Code, Title 10.
Flashblock, aka Flash Click To View.
:)
One of my favorite Firefox extensions.
While you are wrong in regards to an individual's (not the states') God-given right to bear man-portable weapons, let's assume for the sake of the argument that you are actually correct.
Who is a member of the militia? US Code, Title 10, Section 113 defines who the members of the "militia" are:
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
That would mean, at an absolute minimum, any "able-bodied" male from 17-45 has the right to own a Glock 23, an AR-15, an M4A1, a Stinger missile, an M240 (perhaps not an M60), a bandolier of fragmentation grenades, satchel charges, switchblade knife, laser gun, etc. Any man-portable weapon (e.g., an "arm").
Just in case you think the exception mentioned excludes a lot of folks:
(a) To be eligible for original enlistment in the National Guard,
a person must be at least 17 years of age and under 45, or under 64
years of age and a former member of the Regular Army, Regular Navy,
Regular Air Force, or Regular Marine Corps. To be eligible for
reenlistment, a person must be under 64 years of age.
(b) To be eligible for appointment as an officer of the National
Guard, a person must -
(1) be a citizen of the United States; and
(2) be at least 18 years of age and under 64.
*waves the Second Amendment around as a battle flag*
Let's assume for the moment that only 'well-regulated militia's can carry man-portable arms. I don't agree, but for the purposes of this argument, we will overlook that.
US Code, Title 10, Section 113 defines who the members of the "militia" are:
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
Hm. That would mean, at a bare minimum, any "able-bodied" male from 17-45 has the right to own a Glock 23, an AR-15, an M4A1, a Stinger missile, an M240 (perhaps not an M60), a bandolier of fragmentation grenades, satchel charges, etc. Anything portable by "a man".
Just in case you think the exception mentioned excludes a lot of folks:
(a) To be eligible for original enlistment in the National Guard,
a person must be at least 17 years of age and under 45, or under 64
years of age and a former member of the Regular Army, Regular Navy,
Regular Air Force, or Regular Marine Corps. To be eligible for
reenlistment, a person must be under 64 years of age.
(b) To be eligible for appointment as an officer of the National
Guard, a person must -
(1) be a citizen of the United States; and
(2) be at least 18 years of age and under 64.
As for your funky 'shooting spree' comment, we already have laws that cover murder, etc.; no need to imply that without infringing firearm rights, we'd be legally sanctioning such offenses.
No kidding. If I'd have seen him wearing that vest, I would have had no choice but to attempt to assault him, too.
Records refer to an individual named James, brother of 'Jesus called Christ'. The GP was correct about few legit historians questioning the existance of a man named Jesus around 30AD-ish.
Attacking the fact that Jesus actually existed and walked the earth is a very direct way of trying to destroy the entire belief system of those that claim to follow Jesus and his teachings.
Contradictions in the synoptic gospels? Rubbish.
How powerful is your heater? 1500W? Assuming it is, I have an easy fix for you: get yourself a new system with a 600W power supply, get a second (use it as a server or something), and a nice big CRT. There you go - heater/PC combo.
Oh, be sure to buy Intel for best effect.