I'm all for Texas seceding. I would support it 100%. With their electoral votes history, the R's wouldn't get the White House for decades, and the D's would gain seats in the House. As to Alaska, they are a welfare state, receiving $1.84 in federal money for every $1.00 they send - they'd be fools to leave. I don't know how you measure secessionist political clout, but it just isn't going to happen anytime soon (and definitely not in 2 years).
Perhaps not in a fortnight (due entirely to politics), but I fully expect that one of two things will happen in the next two years in the United States:
Either one or more states will leave the United States or the states will pass at least one amendment to the US Constitution all by themselves. In either case, they aren't going to sit idly by and allow the Federal government to run roughshod over them forever.
Not a chance. First, there is no process for leaving the Union. Second, the last time that happened, it didn't end well for those trying to leave. Third, if this were to happen in the next two years, which you pose, I presume they'd be red states (since blue states got their candidate for pres.). The red states are generally the ones that get more from the feds than than they give (look it up) and they know it. Just a small, very vocal group are even proposing secession, no legislatures or even legislators. There was no talk of "Federal government running roughshod over them" when Bush was in power; it's just sour grapes over the last two presidential elections.
As to "the states will pass at least one amendment to the US Constitution all by themselves," I presume you mean that the amendment would come from the state legislatures (as opposed to from Congress). Ratified within two years? Not likely.
Thanks for the Civics lesson; I already know that. I'm just pointing out that your "By your logic..." (btw, I'm not the OP) is really a "By the Constitution's logic..." which also allows for the amendment process you point out. Finally, I don't think you could get 38 states to agree on anything in a fortnight.
By your logic, if the US Congress passed a law outlawing any and all forms of speech deemed "too liberal" (as defined by to-be-written FCC guidelines), and the President signed it into law, and the US Supreme Court rejected a challenge to that law, then our government has every right to come to your home and haul you to prison for however long it pleases.
Quite right. That is how our constitution set things up. Don't like it? Move.
It's people like you that are wrong with the system. Because you assume you haven't heard of something then it must be new.
Even the cleapest PIC12F675 has 6 out of 8 pins pretty much fully reprogrammable as input, output, analog in and PWM out.
Again, sticking polarity detection and GPIO on a plug is not new or non obvious.
No, it's people like YOU that are wrong with the system - calling names because you disagree. I didn't say it was new; I was responding to the OP who said "there was nothing special about the wires" to which I pointed out that there is. I didn't say it was the first to be that way.
Sorry, I thought you were another poster that kept arguing that point with me. I suppose your point was that the students didn't rush him. I don't know the whole story, but I guess he only killed the prof, right? My point was that a weapon that requires time to reload, is not as dangerous. If he was reloading and repeatedly shooting, I'm guessing someone would have stopped him.
Tell that to the professor shot with a bow and arrow who's students left him to die
Don't be a moron. Of course there are a variety of weapons. Some are more powerful than others. I never said that wasn't the case. The more powerful (in terms of killing potential), the more regulated the weapon ought to be. Obviously, a guy with a bow and arrow is not as dangerous as a guy with AK47's.
If you can't connect the ease of availability and the ease of manufacture as essentially the same point, or that my concern for the availability of guns was the potential danger of them, it's really not up to me to educate you. Your teachers failed.
Poor show, as anyone who has to make their case by resorting to childish tactics like name calling and marginalization, has no case to make. Seriously, dude, if you don't realize that your constant changing of topic is a prime example of the phrase, "moving the goalposts," your grasp of English idioms is severely lacking.
If you're going to continually move the goalposts, I'm not going to bother trying to reason with you.
I'm not moving the goalposts. I stand by my statement that just because YOU argue that black powder is dangerous (bombs) is no reason to ignore the dangers of guns. Timothy McVeigh have killed 200 people, but many, many, many more people are killed with guns in the USA than with bombs.
The difference between "preliminarily rejected" and "actually invalidated" is analogous to the difference between "being arrested" and "being convicted". Apple has to defend the patent and lose before anything changes.
Quit using sense. You're interfering with the celebrations of the knee-jerk Apple-haters.
Personally, I think auto- and semi-auto have no place in civilian life.
This is where you are wrong. I will give you a chance to elaborate if you like, but I will make the argument that the availability of automatic and semi-automatic weapons are imperative.
I am not wrong. It is my opinion, which I expressed. Opinions are neither right nor wrong. You are free to disagree, which you apparently do.
Good point; I mean, it's not like someone could take the components used to build a muzzle-loaded projectile (lead, black powder), and somehow reform them into some sort of destructive device capable of far more damage than a single bullet could cause, right?
Your sarcasm is poorly placed. It's not a matter of who can make the deadliest weapon. It's a matter of convenience to do so. If bombs were available at the local 7-11, bombs would be used more.
You honestly think black powder, lead, and the literal hundreds of thousands of other consumer products that can be used to create explosive devices aren't conveniently available nationwide?
In that case, I've got a nice piece of real estate in NYC that spans the East River you're definitely going to want to invest in.
Requiring someone to make their own cuts down the number who will, and often eliminates the problem through Darwin awards.
Tell that to the families of the 200 people killed by Timothy McVeigh.
I'm not saying that it isn't available. It's just that getting it and making a bomb (successfully) requires a lot more work than getting guns and ammo.
You think that, but I am telling you it's far from the truth.
For example, unlike firearms, you don't have to pass any sort of background check to purchase bleach and fertilizer.
Yes, but you have to learn and do work. Guns take none of that. And you can go to a gun show and skip the background check. And background checks don't work on first-time psychos.
Good point; I mean, it's not like someone could take the components used to build a muzzle-loaded projectile (lead, black powder), and somehow reform them into some sort of destructive device capable of far more damage than a single bullet could cause, right?
Your sarcasm is poorly placed. It's not a matter of who can make the deadliest weapon. It's a matter of convenience to do so. If bombs were available at the local 7-11, bombs would be used more.
You honestly think black powder, lead, and the literal hundreds of thousands of other consumer products that can be used to create explosive devices aren't conveniently available nationwide?
In that case, I've got a nice piece of real estate in NYC that spans the East River you're definitely going to want to invest in.
Requiring someone to make their own cuts down the number who will, and often eliminates the problem through Darwin awards.
Tell that to the families of the 200 people killed by Timothy McVeigh.
I'm not saying that it isn't available. It's just that getting it and making a bomb (successfully) requires a lot more work than getting guns and ammo. There's of course no way you can eliminate all dangers - that doesn't make it useless to eliminate some dangers.
Good point; I mean, it's not like someone could take the components used to build a muzzle-loaded projectile (lead, black powder), and somehow reform them into some sort of destructive device capable of far more damage than a single bullet could cause, right?
Your sarcasm is poorly placed. It's not a matter of who can make the deadliest weapon. It's a matter of convenience to do so. If bombs were available at the local 7-11, bombs would be used more. Requiring someone to make their own cuts down the number who will, and often eliminates the problem through Darwin awards.
These bans are not about actual safety, just the appearance of it.
That's where we disagree. Perhaps the bans are ineffective or poorly thought out, but they are surely intended for safety. The problem is that people will always try to find ways around the specific bans. Personally, I think auto- and semi-auto have no place in civilian life.
Personally, I have never understood why Obama is considered black. His father was black, and his mother was white. So that surely makes him just as white as it makes him black?
Slashdot Mirror
I'm all for Texas seceding. I would support it 100%. With their electoral votes history, the R's wouldn't get the White House for decades, and the D's would gain seats in the House. As to Alaska, they are a welfare state, receiving $1.84 in federal money for every $1.00 they send - they'd be fools to leave. I don't know how you measure secessionist political clout, but it just isn't going to happen anytime soon (and definitely not in 2 years).
There was no process to have a presidential candidate who wasn't a U.S. born citizen either.
Next up, there's no process for a president to serve more than 2 terms.
You can come out from under your right-wing conspiracy cage now.
Perhaps not in a fortnight (due entirely to politics), but I fully expect that one of two things will happen in the next two years in the United States:
Either one or more states will leave the United States or the states will pass at least one amendment to the US Constitution all by themselves. In either case, they aren't going to sit idly by and allow the Federal government to run roughshod over them forever.
Not a chance. First, there is no process for leaving the Union. Second, the last time that happened, it didn't end well for those trying to leave. Third, if this were to happen in the next two years, which you pose, I presume they'd be red states (since blue states got their candidate for pres.). The red states are generally the ones that get more from the feds than than they give (look it up) and they know it. Just a small, very vocal group are even proposing secession, no legislatures or even legislators. There was no talk of "Federal government running roughshod over them" when Bush was in power; it's just sour grapes over the last two presidential elections. As to "the states will pass at least one amendment to the US Constitution all by themselves," I presume you mean that the amendment would come from the state legislatures (as opposed to from Congress). Ratified within two years? Not likely.
Thanks for the Civics lesson; I already know that. I'm just pointing out that your "By your logic..." (btw, I'm not the OP) is really a "By the Constitution's logic..." which also allows for the amendment process you point out. Finally, I don't think you could get 38 states to agree on anything in a fortnight.
By your logic, if the US Congress passed a law outlawing any and all forms of speech deemed "too liberal" (as defined by to-be-written FCC guidelines), and the President signed it into law, and the US Supreme Court rejected a challenge to that law, then our government has every right to come to your home and haul you to prison for however long it pleases.
Quite right. That is how our constitution set things up. Don't like it? Move.
Wrong. The pins are all programmable.
It's people like you that are wrong with the system. Because you assume you haven't heard of something then it must be new.
Even the cleapest PIC12F675 has 6 out of 8 pins pretty much fully reprogrammable as input, output, analog in and PWM out.
Again, sticking polarity detection and GPIO on a plug is not new or non obvious.
No, it's people like YOU that are wrong with the system - calling names because you disagree. I didn't say it was new; I was responding to the OP who said "there was nothing special about the wires" to which I pointed out that there is. I didn't say it was the first to be that way.
Sorry, I thought you were another poster that kept arguing that point with me. I suppose your point was that the students didn't rush him. I don't know the whole story, but I guess he only killed the prof, right? My point was that a weapon that requires time to reload, is not as dangerous. If he was reloading and repeatedly shooting, I'm guessing someone would have stopped him.
Tell that to the professor shot with a bow and arrow who's students left him to die
Don't be a moron. Of course there are a variety of weapons. Some are more powerful than others. I never said that wasn't the case. The more powerful (in terms of killing potential), the more regulated the weapon ought to be. Obviously, a guy with a bow and arrow is not as dangerous as a guy with AK47's.
If you can't connect the ease of availability and the ease of manufacture as essentially the same point, or that my concern for the availability of guns was the potential danger of them, it's really not up to me to educate you. Your teachers failed.
Poor show, as anyone who has to make their case by resorting to childish tactics like name calling and marginalization, has no case to make. Seriously, dude, if you don't realize that your constant changing of topic is a prime example of the phrase, "moving the goalposts," your grasp of English idioms is severely lacking.
You are childish by your own admission.
Apple market share falling.
http://www.idownloadblog.com/2011/11/15/ios-loses-market-android-recent-quarter/
Update: http://www.kantarworldpanel.com/Global/News/Soaring-iPhone-5-sales-in-US-knock-Android-into-second-place
Also, many people in the US might be waiting for their contracts to expire before moving to an Android phone from the iPhone.
Perhaps. But there's this: http://www.kantarworldpanel.com/Global/News/Soaring-iPhone-5-sales-in-US-knock-Android-into-second-place
Yeah because that new connector is so special it needs to be protected.
There is nothing novel in their connectors.
It's a bunch of wires and some bog standard locking mechanismas.
Wrong. The pins are all programmable.
Must be opposite day for you: http://www.kantarworldpanel.com/Global/News/Soaring-iPhone-5-sales-in-US-knock-Android-into-second-place
Um, no: http://www.kantarworldpanel.com/Global/News/Soaring-iPhone-5-sales-in-US-knock-Android-into-second-place
If you're going to continually move the goalposts, I'm not going to bother trying to reason with you.
I'm not moving the goalposts. I stand by my statement that just because YOU argue that black powder is dangerous (bombs) is no reason to ignore the dangers of guns. Timothy McVeigh have killed 200 people, but many, many, many more people are killed with guns in the USA than with bombs.
The difference between "preliminarily rejected" and "actually invalidated" is analogous to the difference between "being arrested" and "being convicted". Apple has to defend the patent and lose before anything changes.
Quit using sense. You're interfering with the celebrations of the knee-jerk Apple-haters.
Personally, I think auto- and semi-auto have no place in civilian life.
This is where you are wrong. I will give you a chance to elaborate if you like, but I will make the argument that the availability of automatic and semi-automatic weapons are imperative.
I am not wrong. It is my opinion, which I expressed. Opinions are neither right nor wrong. You are free to disagree, which you apparently do.
Learn? You can spend 5 minutes on google and figure it out.
Still, that is something you plan. Any gun-nut already has his supplies.
Good point; I mean, it's not like someone could take the components used to build a muzzle-loaded projectile (lead, black powder), and somehow reform them into some sort of destructive device capable of far more damage than a single bullet could cause, right?
Your sarcasm is poorly placed. It's not a matter of who can make the deadliest weapon. It's a matter of convenience to do so. If bombs were available at the local 7-11, bombs would be used more.
You honestly think black powder, lead, and the literal hundreds of thousands of other consumer products that can be used to create explosive devices aren't conveniently available nationwide? In that case, I've got a nice piece of real estate in NYC that spans the East River you're definitely going to want to invest in.
Requiring someone to make their own cuts down the number who will, and often eliminates the problem through Darwin awards.
Tell that to the families of the 200 people killed by Timothy McVeigh.
I'm not saying that it isn't available. It's just that getting it and making a bomb (successfully) requires a lot more work than getting guns and ammo.
You think that, but I am telling you it's far from the truth. For example, unlike firearms, you don't have to pass any sort of background check to purchase bleach and fertilizer.
Yes, but you have to learn and do work. Guns take none of that. And you can go to a gun show and skip the background check. And background checks don't work on first-time psychos.
Good point; I mean, it's not like someone could take the components used to build a muzzle-loaded projectile (lead, black powder), and somehow reform them into some sort of destructive device capable of far more damage than a single bullet could cause, right?
Your sarcasm is poorly placed. It's not a matter of who can make the deadliest weapon. It's a matter of convenience to do so. If bombs were available at the local 7-11, bombs would be used more.
You honestly think black powder, lead, and the literal hundreds of thousands of other consumer products that can be used to create explosive devices aren't conveniently available nationwide? In that case, I've got a nice piece of real estate in NYC that spans the East River you're definitely going to want to invest in.
Requiring someone to make their own cuts down the number who will, and often eliminates the problem through Darwin awards.
Tell that to the families of the 200 people killed by Timothy McVeigh.
I'm not saying that it isn't available. It's just that getting it and making a bomb (successfully) requires a lot more work than getting guns and ammo. There's of course no way you can eliminate all dangers - that doesn't make it useless to eliminate some dangers.
They should at least be able to play in some MMORPG that allows ONLY registered sex offenders to play.
Good point; I mean, it's not like someone could take the components used to build a muzzle-loaded projectile (lead, black powder), and somehow reform them into some sort of destructive device capable of far more damage than a single bullet could cause, right?
Your sarcasm is poorly placed. It's not a matter of who can make the deadliest weapon. It's a matter of convenience to do so. If bombs were available at the local 7-11, bombs would be used more. Requiring someone to make their own cuts down the number who will, and often eliminates the problem through Darwin awards.
These bans are not about actual safety, just the appearance of it.
That's where we disagree. Perhaps the bans are ineffective or poorly thought out, but they are surely intended for safety. The problem is that people will always try to find ways around the specific bans. Personally, I think auto- and semi-auto have no place in civilian life.
Personally, I have never understood why Obama is considered black. His father was black, and his mother was white. So that surely makes him just as white as it makes him black?
I believe it's called the "paper bag test."