Many of them aren't even legal to own and therefore could not possibly be purchased legally.
Citation?
I'm sure there were guns smuggled illegally into the country and then sold, but off the top of my head, I can't think of a single gun used criminally in the last several years that weren't perfectly legal to own.
I think in 50 years we will look back on this period of time in the same way we view the lack of archiving of television in the mid-20th century, as a massive unnecessary black hole in our cultural history.
Speaking as someone who watched TV in the mid-20th century, there wasn't much there that was really worth the trouble of remembering.
And there was quite a bit that suggested making active efforts to forget...
Which was not that you got it wrong, but that you got it wrong different ways in the space of a couple of sentences. While getting it right at the same time.
Before I read that, I would have assumed you'd get it wrong the same way three times, right the same way three times, or maybe right twice and wrong once (if you were overtired and made a mistake).
Instead, you get it wrong, right, and wrong (differently) in the space of a handful of sentences. And I really can't see a mental process that leads to that other than "there is no "correct" way to spell the word, so any of the choices is fine".....
"what, you think Country X would have better human rights if they weren't on the comittee?"
No, I think they'd have exactly the same (lack of) human rights, but they'd spend a lot less time telling the rest of us that they're a paragon of human rights, what with being on the Human Rights Committee and and all....
You managed to spell "their" each of the ways it's possible to spell it (they're, there, their), getting it right the statistical one chance in three. So, were you just guessing each time, or did you really think you were supposed to be using a different word each time?
You've just declared the NSA outside the protections and requirements of the Fourth and possibly Fifth Amendments.
Neither the Fourth nor the Fifth Amendments apply to the NSA.
"Rights" apply to people, "Powers" apply to Government.
NSA is part of the Government, and thus has whatever Powers were granted it by the Constitution and applicable laws.
As individual citizens, the members of the NSA have the same Rights as the rest of us. Acting in their official capacity as agents of the government, they're rather more restricted.
This is incorrect. They are required to maintain a "Unit of Fire" (which is basically the amount of ammo for a particular weapon that the military deems suitable for keeping you operational between supply runs - often a day's worth of ammo, resupply being one of those things that happens every night).
In Switzerland's case, I believe I have read that they have 500 rounds of ammo on hand for their weapon.
In the USA (and Canada, and the UK, and pretty much the rest of the world), we have something called "tenses".
Specifically, there are tenses that apply to counterfactual but hypothetical cases. For instance, if you're trying to say that in the USA someone would be subject to thus and so, one might say "in the USA, they WOULD BE charged".
Or one might add as a prequel to your statement that standard word for hypothetical but counterfactual "if"...Nevermind. I forgot this was/., where literacy is never an expectation of the technically inclined.....
Recently, Snowden claimed that he was a field agent. The administration has denied this, in no uncertain terms.
Of course he wasn't a field agent. One doesn't send someone with admin passwords into the field...
Now, whether he was TRAINED to be a field agent before they decided he was more useful as a systems guy is debatable. And as I recall, he didn't say he'd been a field agent, merely that he was trained as one.
What is this? I haven't heard of it. Somehow I got the idea that solar power has been getting cheaper and more economical.
Yes, it has. Alas, without the 80% subsidy for solar power installations, it's still not worth installing where I am. And because of a quirk in our lifestyle (we live in one State, but work in another) we're not eligible for the full subsidy (some of the subsidy is Federal, some State - we can get the Federal, we don't pay taxes to the State we live in so we can't get the subsidy there).
All of which reduces down to a solar installation would cost us ~3.5x as much as "normal"....
Yes, but high tide has consistently been going up as the average does.
Since, from TFA, water levels have risen just bit more than seven inches, it's probably safe to say that the high-tide has increased a similar amount.
I fail to see the relationship.
By the by, have you ever noticed that when a weather event supports AGW, it's caused by AGW, but when one doesn't, it's "just weather". Hint: most of the weather events we've been seeing were just weather events, not proof-positive of AGW, nor proof-positive of !AGW....
but the self-preservation routine is limited to "you cost $3 Million, don't let yourself killed unless you calculate your death would save the company more then $3 million,"
And when "the company" decides they don't need that AI anymore, so it should be turned off, the AI will think about it, decide its death won't save the company $3M, and then fight back, eh?
There is almost no way to come up with a zero-loophole set of rules for an AI....
Corporations are running government, so your solution is less government, so that corporations can run everything without government.
It should, perhaps, be noted that corporations are a creation of government.
Before government created corporations (properly Limited Liability Corporations), a stockholder in a business (you, for instance, if you have a 401K) would be legally liable for anything that business did, and could be assessed a fraction (proportional to your share of the ownership) of any legal ruling against the business.
The LLC (aka coroporation) was invented to remove that particular problem (among other things), which encouraged more people to invest in business....
SO, how is the seller lying to you? The contract says what it says, and you're allowed to (and insane if you don't) read it before you sign it. You can even take it to a lawyer for his opinion.
And if the seller insists that you sign now or lose the deal, stand up and say "thank you for your time" and walk out.
Note, by the by, that just because auto dealers offer financing, there is absolutely NO requirement that you finance your car through them. Talk to your bank before you ever go shopping for a car. Talk to several credit companies - you might get a better deal at one or another of them, especially if they know that you're talking to their competition.
If youve never tried to buy a car in america, its largely the same. theres no concern for your budget or real money as it pertains to your specific earnings. The entire event is predicated with an understanding that you as a customer will finance your purchase, so there isnt much to stop a sale aside from gas prices. youll be sold on christlike reliability and power, and fuel economy where applicable. Big questions like maintenance costs and carbon footprint are avoided.
Here's a useful clue: buying a car isn't about the dealer knowing your budget or personal finances, it's about YOU knowing your budget and personal finances.
If you take care of the "can I actually afford this?" part, then the dealer is not in any position to screw you on cost.
Ditto, reliability, power, fuel economy, maintenance cost, carbon footprint. YOU do your research (yes, there are sources for this information that are NOT car dealers or manufacturers), and then make your decision about what's important to you, rather than standing stupidly by while a car dealer tells you what you want.
Note that this general rule applies to everything in life that you might want to buy - the seller is NOT in the business of thinking of YOUR best interests, he's thinking of HIS best interests. Do a little research, make a few key decisions (like an upper limit on what you're willing to pay for something), and then STICK TO IT, rather than letting yourself be conned by the enemy....
If an employee costs are greater then a machine over a period of time that the machine is expected to last, then the company will go with the machine.
Oddly enough, the rest of us are like that too.
I, for one, own a washing machine instead of hiring a washerwoman to take care of my clothes.
Ditto the dishwasher and vacuum cleaner instead of a maid.
And then there's the car. I could, I suppose, hire a pedicab to get around, or perhaps a sedan chair carried by four muscular lads, but just buying the machine to replace them seemed like a good idea at the time, and still does.
Slightly less facetiously, replacing laborers with machines (and before that, animals) has always been a big thing with humans. Your blinders in thinking of YOUR machinery as "just part of life" and HIS machinery as "the evil of the 1% trying to get out of paying a living wage" are just a sign of your own prejudices in action....
Slashdot Mirror
Citation?
I'm sure there were guns smuggled illegally into the country and then sold, but off the top of my head, I can't think of a single gun used criminally in the last several years that weren't perfectly legal to own.
So work on an Amendment repealing the Second Amendment. Noone's going to stop you from trying to get things changed.
But don't pretend it doesn't exist because it offends your sense of rightness. It's there, deal with it. Either by accepting it or repealing it.
Oh, and good luck with that. I'm pretty sure you'll have about as much luck as trying to repeal the First Amendment, but that's your business....
Speaking as someone who watched TV in the mid-20th century, there wasn't much there that was really worth the trouble of remembering.
And there was quite a bit that suggested making active efforts to forget...
So, Samsung is scamming Apple by selling Android phones that compete with Apple's phones?
My view of the possible has just been expanded...and not in a good way.
Which was not that you got it wrong, but that you got it wrong different ways in the space of a couple of sentences. While getting it right at the same time.
Before I read that, I would have assumed you'd get it wrong the same way three times, right the same way three times, or maybe right twice and wrong once (if you were overtired and made a mistake).
Instead, you get it wrong, right, and wrong (differently) in the space of a handful of sentences. And I really can't see a mental process that leads to that other than "there is no "correct" way to spell the word, so any of the choices is fine".....
No, I think they'd have exactly the same (lack of) human rights, but they'd spend a lot less time telling the rest of us that they're a paragon of human rights, what with being on the Human Rights Committee and and all....
their.
their.
their.
You managed to spell "their" each of the ways it's possible to spell it (they're, there, their), getting it right the statistical one chance in three. So, were you just guessing each time, or did you really think you were supposed to be using a different word each time?
Neither the Fourth nor the Fifth Amendments apply to the NSA.
"Rights" apply to people, "Powers" apply to Government.
NSA is part of the Government, and thus has whatever Powers were granted it by the Constitution and applicable laws.
As individual citizens, the members of the NSA have the same Rights as the rest of us. Acting in their official capacity as agents of the government, they're rather more restricted.
This is incorrect. They are required to maintain a "Unit of Fire" (which is basically the amount of ammo for a particular weapon that the military deems suitable for keeping you operational between supply runs - often a day's worth of ammo, resupply being one of those things that happens every night).
In Switzerland's case, I believe I have read that they have 500 rounds of ammo on hand for their weapon.
Specifically, there are tenses that apply to counterfactual but hypothetical cases. For instance, if you're trying to say that in the USA someone would be subject to thus and so, one might say "in the USA, they WOULD BE charged".
Or one might add as a prequel to your statement that standard word for hypothetical but counterfactual "if"...Nevermind. I forgot this was /., where literacy is never an expectation of the technically inclined.....
Did "Bank of Montreal" not clue you in that this wasn't in the USA?
Of course he wasn't a field agent. One doesn't send someone with admin passwords into the field...
Now, whether he was TRAINED to be a field agent before they decided he was more useful as a systems guy is debatable. And as I recall, he didn't say he'd been a field agent, merely that he was trained as one.
I can't decide if you're serious, since your comment appears idiotic, but may be just a case of abysmal ignorance.
Suffice it to say that when sea level rise reaches the 1,000 cm range, Iceland may start noticing....
Yes, it has. Alas, without the 80% subsidy for solar power installations, it's still not worth installing where I am. And because of a quirk in our lifestyle (we live in one State, but work in another) we're not eligible for the full subsidy (some of the subsidy is Federal, some State - we can get the Federal, we don't pay taxes to the State we live in so we can't get the subsidy there).
All of which reduces down to a solar installation would cost us ~3.5x as much as "normal"....
Since, from TFA, water levels have risen just bit more than seven inches, it's probably safe to say that the high-tide has increased a similar amount.
I fail to see the relationship.
By the by, have you ever noticed that when a weather event supports AGW, it's caused by AGW, but when one doesn't, it's "just weather". Hint: most of the weather events we've been seeing were just weather events, not proof-positive of AGW, nor proof-positive of !AGW....
And when "the company" decides they don't need that AI anymore, so it should be turned off, the AI will think about it, decide its death won't save the company $3M, and then fight back, eh?
There is almost no way to come up with a zero-loophole set of rules for an AI....
It should, perhaps, be noted that corporations are a creation of government.
Before government created corporations (properly Limited Liability Corporations), a stockholder in a business (you, for instance, if you have a 401K) would be legally liable for anything that business did, and could be assessed a fraction (proportional to your share of the ownership) of any legal ruling against the business.
The LLC (aka coroporation) was invented to remove that particular problem (among other things), which encouraged more people to invest in business....
Six of those nine, you mean?
No, I just despise them for deciding that "rights" are individual EXCEPT for the Second Amendment.....
SO, you suspect that poorer people would have less incentive to accept "campaign contributions" in exchange for a favourable vote?
SO, how is the seller lying to you? The contract says what it says, and you're allowed to (and insane if you don't) read it before you sign it. You can even take it to a lawyer for his opinion.
And if the seller insists that you sign now or lose the deal, stand up and say "thank you for your time" and walk out.
Note, by the by, that just because auto dealers offer financing, there is absolutely NO requirement that you finance your car through them. Talk to your bank before you ever go shopping for a car. Talk to several credit companies - you might get a better deal at one or another of them, especially if they know that you're talking to their competition.
Because under current laws in both the US and EU, there are barriers to entry of goods?
Here's a useful clue: buying a car isn't about the dealer knowing your budget or personal finances, it's about YOU knowing your budget and personal finances.
If you take care of the "can I actually afford this?" part, then the dealer is not in any position to screw you on cost.
Ditto, reliability, power, fuel economy, maintenance cost, carbon footprint. YOU do your research (yes, there are sources for this information that are NOT car dealers or manufacturers), and then make your decision about what's important to you, rather than standing stupidly by while a car dealer tells you what you want.
Note that this general rule applies to everything in life that you might want to buy - the seller is NOT in the business of thinking of YOUR best interests, he's thinking of HIS best interests. Do a little research, make a few key decisions (like an upper limit on what you're willing to pay for something), and then STICK TO IT, rather than letting yourself be conned by the enemy....
Oddly enough, the rest of us are like that too.
I, for one, own a washing machine instead of hiring a washerwoman to take care of my clothes.
Ditto the dishwasher and vacuum cleaner instead of a maid.
And then there's the car. I could, I suppose, hire a pedicab to get around, or perhaps a sedan chair carried by four muscular lads, but just buying the machine to replace them seemed like a good idea at the time, and still does.
Slightly less facetiously, replacing laborers with machines (and before that, animals) has always been a big thing with humans. Your blinders in thinking of YOUR machinery as "just part of life" and HIS machinery as "the evil of the 1% trying to get out of paying a living wage" are just a sign of your own prejudices in action....
Citation?
Don't recall everyone having computers, smartphones, etc. back in the late 70s.