There is a social stigma associated with owning a handgun up here that seems totally absent in the States.
A stigma not unlike using cigarettes, facial surgery, or any number of life's little pleasures? Making something unpopular in the latest public opinion poll seems to be the first step, and the least rational one, to making a hobby/luxury so overtaxed or restricted that it becomes unviable. Take a look at the frivolous lawsuits against gun companies for making guns that kill. They make a lawful product with the appropriate warnings and manuals. After that, you're on your own. It's not their fault if someone illegally gives a shotgun to a drug dealer who kills someone with it, it's just people looking for deep pockets and quick cash who know they'll get a settlement offer without so much as a valid claim. The Brady campaign's strategy is to make gun ownership unpopular, fringe, or somehow not "mainstream." And they've gone a long way toward this goal, believe me. Anyone who lives in California knows what I'm talking about. A policy argument against guns, not an emotional appeal, is what you need.
Since the 15th century there has been what is known as a "duty to retreat" in England. The principle states that it is better to retreat from a potentially violent situation and have one's pride injured than to physically injure the other person. Unfortunately, this means that even if you are a victim of robbery, you have a duty to attempt to escape from the robber instead of trying to fight him. If you kill a robber or burglar in "self-defense" in England, you are charged with murder if you didn't retreat "at least to the wall at one's back." There used to be a "castle exception" to the retreat rule in England that states that a homeowner need not retreat when attacked in his own residence, but there now is no castle exception in England. This is evidenced by the total prohibition of the carrying of offensive weapons in England in 1953. Offensive meaning the opposite of defensive. This includes practically anything, certainly a pocketknife, dirk, or dagger, truncheon, axe, tomahawk, etc. England does not condone the use of weapons to ward off attackers. Therefore, anyone who carries a concealed pistol or revolver is certainly not justified in brandishing or shooting someone who robs him in England.
In this great country of ours (USA), there is no duty to retreat in most jurisdictions. However, some jurisdictions, notably some New England states, do require retreat when possible and retain the castle exception. One example of a very violence-friendly law is California, which states that deadly force may be used in defense of oneself or others anywhere, at anytime, when the victim reasonably believes that deadly force is necessary to avoid death, serious bodily injury, or the commission of any violent felony by the perpetrator. In practice, this may prevent criminals from robbing people as they know they could be shot and killed legally. Certainly this suggests that the "wave of violent crime" in the UK is not the result of a gun ban, but is partially the result of a centuries-old rule that favors violent criminals.
What people should be saying is that there is a public policy interest in not having a retreat rule and in not prosecuting people who kill in self-defense, so that criminals will actually be afraid of getting hurt when they rob people. Make sense?
In 2 of Americaz Most Wanted, the popular Snoop/Tupac duet, Snoop specifically says "yeah we live by da gun so we die by da gun." This was before his manslaughter conviction for when his bodyguard, Malik Lee, shot a guy at an L.A. park. How do you think Snoop felt after going to prison for 3 years? It shows in his music. This is in stark contrast to 2Pac's frequent references to rolling with his glock (carrying concealed), which his biographer in Tupac Shakur says that he did 24x7x365 except when he was in church. And look, 2Pac is dead and Snoop lives. Ever heard "Gin & Juice" or "Bitch Please part II?" All Snoop does is drink booze and mack bitches.
but it doesn't seem to be attracting the brightest students. Since they are really just *lending* the ibooks to the residents, they can keep recycling them each year. Remember the original toilet seat ibook? Even if some students do complete the honors program and keep the ibooks, that expense is made back many times over by increased rent income for the school. A smart investment, definitely, but who are these people? Persuaded to spend a lot more for on campus housing for a $900 value spread over four years? That's about $18 per month, maybe the school should just offer them a few 12 packs.
Great, so the next big thing will be ad-supported bionic eyes. ("well, these people couldn't otherwise afford the procedure, so we have to recoup our development costs somewhere...")
Instead of having popups block your screen, you can, frome time to time, have valuable product offers seamlessly integrated with your visual input! A nationwide increase in car crashes ensues...
1 meter = the distance light travels in 3*10^-8 seconds in a vacuum. Since seconds are defined as a certain number of vibrations of a cesium atom, that figure is hopefully constant. Apparently the idea is to have one constant to relate all the others to, and the time constant does this.
That's precisely their mentality-- the whole point is to make money. You do that by selling the limited amount of ad space you have for higher and higher premiums. In fact, the networks themselves don't produce the shows that are on them-- smaller production companies initially pitch a show with a pilot to the people who pick shows, and the network agrees to buy more of the shows if it likes what it sees and thinks there is a market for that show. If shows generate money (which is the only thing that matters) they stay on. It's not about "is our show funny, realistic, and warm/fuzzy," it's "what is the maximum profit per ad unit that this show generates, and is this figure more or less than our other shows and our competitors." This determines the ranking. Simply put, if they could be making more profit with reruns of MacGyver than with "10 simple rules for dating my teenage daughter," they trash the new show because it costs money to buy new episodes-- unless they think they could make more money by gradually building a fan base with the new show like an investment.
The networks are run by corporations, who have a headquarters and tons of "affiliates" (franchises) across the country who pay for the privilege of carrying that network's programming. The headquarters has people who just sit there and calculate how much money they could be making in a given time slot, regardless of the show. This is nothing new, it's just getting better all the time. What I'm saying is that they don't care about what you or I, the individual viewer, thinks of the show. We are consumers. They just want the most people to watch it for whatever reason, like the macabre but strangely popular "Osbournes," "world's scariest police chases," and "cops." Honestly now, if you find yourself watching prime time TV, you're on the "sucker" side of the equation as far as the networks are concerned. If you get on the other side of the equation, it takes hard work and perseverance to get anywhere. Not to mention money and good writing. Why don't you try making your own show? If you make one that's good enough, you could pitch it to production companies. You can start by writing one and worrying about who to send it to later.
Slashdot Mirror
There is a social stigma associated with owning a handgun up here that seems totally absent in the States.
A stigma not unlike using cigarettes, facial surgery, or any number of life's little pleasures? Making something unpopular in the latest public opinion poll seems to be the first step, and the least rational one, to making a hobby/luxury so overtaxed or restricted that it becomes unviable. Take a look at the frivolous lawsuits against gun companies for making guns that kill. They make a lawful product with the appropriate warnings and manuals. After that, you're on your own. It's not their fault if someone illegally gives a shotgun to a drug dealer who kills someone with it, it's just people looking for deep pockets and quick cash who know they'll get a settlement offer without so much as a valid claim. The Brady campaign's strategy is to make gun ownership unpopular, fringe, or somehow not "mainstream." And they've gone a long way toward this goal, believe me. Anyone who lives in California knows what I'm talking about. A policy argument against guns, not an emotional appeal, is what you need.
Since the 15th century there has been what is known as a "duty to retreat" in England. The principle states that it is better to retreat from a potentially violent situation and have one's pride injured than to physically injure the other person. Unfortunately, this means that even if you are a victim of robbery, you have a duty to attempt to escape from the robber instead of trying to fight him. If you kill a robber or burglar in "self-defense" in England, you are charged with murder if you didn't retreat "at least to the wall at one's back." There used to be a "castle exception" to the retreat rule in England that states that a homeowner need not retreat when attacked in his own residence, but there now is no castle exception in England. This is evidenced by the total prohibition of the carrying of offensive weapons in England in 1953. Offensive meaning the opposite of defensive. This includes practically anything, certainly a pocketknife, dirk, or dagger, truncheon, axe, tomahawk, etc. England does not condone the use of weapons to ward off attackers. Therefore, anyone who carries a concealed pistol or revolver is certainly not justified in brandishing or shooting someone who robs him in England.
In this great country of ours (USA), there is no duty to retreat in most jurisdictions. However, some jurisdictions, notably some New England states, do require retreat when possible and retain the castle exception. One example of a very violence-friendly law is California, which states that deadly force may be used in defense of oneself or others anywhere, at anytime, when the victim reasonably believes that deadly force is necessary to avoid death, serious bodily injury, or the commission of any violent felony by the perpetrator. In practice, this may prevent criminals from robbing people as they know they could be shot and killed legally. Certainly this suggests that the "wave of violent crime" in the UK is not the result of a gun ban, but is partially the result of a centuries-old rule that favors violent criminals.
What people should be saying is that there is a public policy interest in not having a retreat rule and in not prosecuting people who kill in self-defense, so that criminals will actually be afraid of getting hurt when they rob people. Make sense?
In 2 of Americaz Most Wanted, the popular Snoop/Tupac duet, Snoop specifically says "yeah we live by da gun so we die by da gun." This was before his manslaughter conviction for when his bodyguard, Malik Lee, shot a guy at an L.A. park. How do you think Snoop felt after going to prison for 3 years? It shows in his music. This is in stark contrast to 2Pac's frequent references to rolling with his glock (carrying concealed), which his biographer in Tupac Shakur says that he did 24x7x365 except when he was in church. And look, 2Pac is dead and Snoop lives. Ever heard "Gin & Juice" or "Bitch Please part II?" All Snoop does is drink booze and mack bitches.
but it doesn't seem to be attracting the brightest students. Since they are really just *lending* the ibooks to the residents, they can keep recycling them each year. Remember the original toilet seat ibook? Even if some students do complete the honors program and keep the ibooks, that expense is made back many times over by increased rent income for the school. A smart investment, definitely, but who are these people? Persuaded to spend a lot more for on campus housing for a $900 value spread over four years? That's about $18 per month, maybe the school should just offer them a few 12 packs.
Great, so the next big thing will be ad-supported bionic eyes. ("well, these people couldn't otherwise afford the procedure, so we have to recoup our development costs somewhere...") Instead of having popups block your screen, you can, frome time to time, have valuable product offers seamlessly integrated with your visual input! A nationwide increase in car crashes ensues...
1 meter = the distance light travels in 3*10^-8 seconds in a vacuum. Since seconds are defined as a certain number of vibrations of a cesium atom, that figure is hopefully constant. Apparently the idea is to have one constant to relate all the others to, and the time constant does this.
The movielink logo looks like they took the "M" from Miramax and played with it in photoshop. Trademark infringement, anyone?
my face is simply configured for RAIF 1
So you have two faces? What happens when you look in the mirror? *chuckle*
That's precisely their mentality-- the whole point is to make money. You do that by selling the limited amount of ad space you have for higher and higher premiums. In fact, the networks themselves don't produce the shows that are on them-- smaller production companies initially pitch a show with a pilot to the people who pick shows, and the network agrees to buy more of the shows if it likes what it sees and thinks there is a market for that show. If shows generate money (which is the only thing that matters) they stay on. It's not about "is our show funny, realistic, and warm/fuzzy," it's "what is the maximum profit per ad unit that this show generates, and is this figure more or less than our other shows and our competitors." This determines the ranking. Simply put, if they could be making more profit with reruns of MacGyver than with "10 simple rules for dating my teenage daughter," they trash the new show because it costs money to buy new episodes-- unless they think they could make more money by gradually building a fan base with the new show like an investment.
The networks are run by corporations, who have a headquarters and tons of "affiliates" (franchises) across the country who pay for the privilege of carrying that network's programming. The headquarters has people who just sit there and calculate how much money they could be making in a given time slot, regardless of the show. This is nothing new, it's just getting better all the time. What I'm saying is that they don't care about what you or I, the individual viewer, thinks of the show. We are consumers. They just want the most people to watch it for whatever reason, like the macabre but strangely popular "Osbournes," "world's scariest police chases," and "cops." Honestly now, if you find yourself watching prime time TV, you're on the "sucker" side of the equation as far as the networks are concerned. If you get on the other side of the equation, it takes hard work and perseverance to get anywhere. Not to mention money and good writing. Why don't you try making your own show? If you make one that's good enough, you could pitch it to production companies. You can start by writing one and worrying about who to send it to later.
Does anybody remember the end of AI? Yeah. I thought so.
AI?! How about 1941? Let's hope his adaptation of Tintin is less whimsical.