Certainly even someone who isn't tech-savvy can see that. It'd be a little bit like asking the CEO of an oil company to determine environmental policy.
Unfortunately, there have been a few well-documented cases recently of people being killed when confronting evil little thugs, and without a gun (which Blair insists is completely unnecessary for any citizen), it can be quite hard to take them on.
People come out of V for Vendetta saying, "Wow, imagine living in a society where your liberties are taken away!" You want people to come out saying, "Wow, our liberties are being taken away! And parliament ISN'T blown up yet!"
Whilst I agree with your point, the US attitude seems to be like saying that you won't bother to criminalize murder, because you'll never eliminate it. Surely the point is that you should be taking as many stringent steps as possible to make lobbying/bribery very difficult? Adopt a 'The Less, The Better' attitude.
For the most part, if it doesn't impact too many lives in the USA, then it's not considered that big of a deal.
In the phrase, "Too much of a good thing", 'much' is functioning as a noun; this is why 'of' is needed to glue together the nouns 'much' and 'thing'. In almost all other phrases similar to this, 'much' is the only word after the 'too' that functions as a noun; other words are all adjectives. eg. "Too loud a noise", "Too small a quantity", "Too big a problem". Adjectives directly describe a noun (eg. 'loud noise', 'small quantity', 'big problem'), and DO NOT NEED the preposition 'of' to glue them with their noun! Incidentally, even 'much' can be used as an adjective, when it is describing an abstract noun: "Too much rain".
Therefore, your phrase, "that big of a deal" should have read, "that big a deal"
The 'of' is totally redundant and incorrect. Please do not ever use it UNLESS you are using the word 'much' with a non-abstract noun and need 'of' to glue them together.
I think my point was that when if CNN had advocated overthrowing the govt, as long as they didn't partake in the overthrow it should be TOTALLY unconstitutional to stop them from broadcasting. CABLE News Network, they're broadcasting over 100% private infrastructure and it's not within the government's power, by law, to suppress their speech or confiscate their equipment.
I was saying that, under a circumstance where they tried to do that, the use (or attempted use) of firearms to shoot the bastards that came round to shut the station down would be a sound application of the 2nd amendment.
Yes, in this case we are the good guys. Because, Russia probably would have had him killed, and I don't believe in the death penalty. What is more, Russia would NEVER have extradited Lugovoy because it's against their constitution, let alone the political freeze between Russia and the West right now.
So then we're down to the fact that the government shouldn't be arresting people for growing a drug that's far more harmless than many legal things in society.
And the conclusion to that episode? Itchy & Scratchy got put back on air, because banning them made TV boring. Marge's comment at the end was, "one person can change something, but most of the time, they probably shouldn't."
Maybe this is just too simplistic and i'm missing something, but why not block their caller ID? Each time they use a new one, slap it on the blacklist. If they withhold, setup your system to block all withheld numbers.
Erm, no, it's a NATURAL high barrier to entry, or IOW a natural monopoly. Just as with CPU manufacturing, the nature of the telecoms market is that it takes a phenomenal initial investment, not likely to be made back ever, to even begin to compete with the entrenched local monopolies.
Many anti-capitalist and anti-right-wing arguments fail on this account - there are a good many companies which the free market WOULD work out a better choice
Yeah, and telecoms aint one of them.
You were significantly better off before telecoms were deregulated in the US. If you're seriously suggesting that a private company is likely to emulate the many-multi-billion-dollar investment it took ***THE PUBLIC*** to make (yeah, NOT fucking Verizon) to compete in a completely saturated market with existing monopolies, you need to go back to school and take economics classes. High barriers to entry FUCK the free market. I am purposely using such strong language, because I can't emphasize it enough. Read and understand this. High barriers to entry FUCK the free market, it doesn't work and you need legislation. Why do you refuse to understand this?
"Procedures are being put in place to stop this kind of thing happening in the future, and security is being tightened up. We can ensure the public that this won't happen again."
Yes, it's infuriating to live in this retards' society.
Slashdot Mirror
It's the whole different matter that the missile shield is ineffective and a colossal waste of money.
Why did they go ahead with researching it then? What happened to the lasers in space idea? That was at least cool.
Certainly even someone who isn't tech-savvy can see that. It'd be a little bit like asking the CEO of an oil company to determine environmental policy.
Don't they do that already?
They didn't represent all sides of the debate! This is totally biased. Where is the theory of Intelligent Design represented?
And to anyone who's ever been lectured by Turok, don't worry, he isn't that bad when he's actually interested in what he's talking about...
I didn't get lectured him, but I did watch him hunting dinosaurs.
Unfortunately, there have been a few well-documented cases recently of people being killed when confronting evil little thugs, and without a gun (which Blair insists is completely unnecessary for any citizen), it can be quite hard to take them on.
Not really.
People come out of V for Vendetta saying, "Wow, imagine living in a society where your liberties are taken away!"
You want people to come out saying, "Wow, our liberties are being taken away! And parliament ISN'T blown up yet!"
Whilst I agree with your point, the US attitude seems to be like saying that you won't bother to criminalize murder, because you'll never eliminate it. Surely the point is that you should be taking as many stringent steps as possible to make lobbying/bribery very difficult? Adopt a 'The Less, The Better' attitude.
For the most part, if it doesn't impact too many lives in the USA, then it's not considered that big of a deal.
In the phrase, "Too much of a good thing", 'much' is functioning as a noun; this is why 'of' is needed to glue together the nouns 'much' and 'thing'.
In almost all other phrases similar to this, 'much' is the only word after the 'too' that functions as a noun; other words are all adjectives. eg. "Too loud a noise", "Too small a quantity", "Too big a problem". Adjectives directly describe a noun (eg. 'loud noise', 'small quantity', 'big problem'), and DO NOT NEED the preposition 'of' to glue them with their noun! Incidentally, even 'much' can be used as an adjective, when it is describing an abstract noun: "Too much rain".
Therefore, your phrase,
"that big of a deal"
should have read,
"that big a deal"
The 'of' is totally redundant and incorrect. Please do not ever use it UNLESS you are using the word 'much' with a non-abstract noun and need 'of' to glue them together.
You cannot overthrow a constitutional government
;-)
I think my point was that when if CNN had advocated overthrowing the govt, as long as they didn't partake in the overthrow it should be TOTALLY unconstitutional to stop them from broadcasting. CABLE News Network, they're broadcasting over 100% private infrastructure and it's not within the government's power, by law, to suppress their speech or confiscate their equipment.
I was saying that, under a circumstance where they tried to do that, the use (or attempted use) of firearms to shoot the bastards that came round to shut the station down would be a sound application of the 2nd amendment.
working in a constitutional manor.
It's called The White House, isn't it?
I thought the IDEA of amendment #2 was that violent overthrow of the government was often necessary?
There has to be a way of watching TV legally, without having to convince mainstream consumers that they might have to look at the TV or turn it on.
Yes, in this case we are the good guys. Because, Russia probably would have had him killed, and I don't believe in the death penalty. What is more, Russia would NEVER have extradited Lugovoy because it's against their constitution, let alone the political freeze between Russia and the West right now.
I was gonna look at you, but then I changed my mind after I found out that stealing bandwidth made the baby Jesus cry. You monster. :-(
So then we're down to the fact that the government shouldn't be arresting people for growing a drug that's far more harmless than many legal things in society.
And the conclusion to that episode? Itchy & Scratchy got put back on air, because banning them made TV boring. Marge's comment at the end was, "one person can change something, but most of the time, they probably shouldn't."
Linux boys can at the very least ID when their infected or comprimised.
How, exactly? The key to a well-designed trojan is that the user can't easily tell it's there.
Couldn't disagree more. The pathetic number of FT episodes is annoying. I'd like to watch 50 or 100. :-)
Maybe this is just too simplistic and i'm missing something, but why not block their caller ID? Each time they use a new one, slap it on the blacklist. If they withhold, setup your system to block all withheld numbers.
Erm, no, it's a NATURAL high barrier to entry, or IOW a natural monopoly. Just as with CPU manufacturing, the nature of the telecoms market is that it takes a phenomenal initial investment, not likely to be made back ever, to even begin to compete with the entrenched local monopolies.
Interesting, because European countries typically have much better telecoms regulation than the US. Which country is this?
Many anti-capitalist and anti-right-wing arguments fail on this account - there are a good many companies which the free market WOULD work out a better choice
Yeah, and telecoms aint one of them.
You were significantly better off before telecoms were deregulated in the US. If you're seriously suggesting that a private company is likely to emulate the many-multi-billion-dollar investment it took ***THE PUBLIC*** to make (yeah, NOT fucking Verizon) to compete in a completely saturated market with existing monopolies, you need to go back to school and take economics classes. High barriers to entry FUCK the free market. I am purposely using such strong language, because I can't emphasize it enough. Read and understand this. High barriers to entry FUCK the free market, it doesn't work and you need legislation. Why do you refuse to understand this?
What is nacient? Did you mean nascent?
*whips out hex editor...*
*clicky clicky clicky*
*search for $MYNAME...*
*clicky clicky clicky*
*replace with 'Bill Gates'...*
And we're on our way to file sharing! Yay. God job they have these deterrants.
Standard response from our New Labour government:
"Procedures are being put in place to stop this kind of thing happening in the future, and security is being tightened up. We can ensure the public that this won't happen again."
Yes, it's infuriating to live in this retards' society.
Well, I adoped that attitude and... I haven't gotten addicted.