You know, if I ever become famous or infamous or something, I'm gonna be really pissed off if all these/.'ers pull up this message and point out how I used to record my own BM's.... That and calling the dog on tape, then hiding the tape recorder and pestering the poor dumb mutt..... Ah, well.
Nice post, AC. Actually, nothing I said was 'disproved' by any posts; some differing opinions were posted, but certainly, no proof.
Second, I live in Saudi Arabia. I look like a target - tall, blonde, blue eyed, doesn't exactly help me blend in with the local dress wearing, hand holding populace. And that's the men.
(rim-shot)
As to weapons of mass destruction, Iraq has spent 10 years continuing to work on their very well documented programs. They had (again, well documented) mobile germ warfare factories, whose wherabouts are unknown. Its not too hard to hide a Winnebego, oh ye of minimal cerebral blood flow.
Although I am somewhat nervous about the idea of holding people with no demonstrable plan for their legal future, please keep in mind that every one of the Camp X-ray inmates were captured during operations in which they were fighting our troops. My sympathy is somewhat tempered by this. I live in Saudi Arabia, and see how the more extreme among them think, and they represent the tamest views among Taliban combatants.
I am truly inspired by your courage. The sheer testicular fortitude it must take, to stand up and proudly say, "I, Anonymous, will *NOT* be played for a fool any more! I will hide behind the deeds of others to stand up for my beliefs in truth, justice, the American Way, and free shit that I didn't pay for!"
They may not have to actually accept the return, but if they lied on their advertisement of the product, you most certainly can get your money back (or attempt it - if they file bankruptcy, you're out).
I think this is one of the most lucid posts I've seen in a while here. It is too bad the other respondants to it have their heads up their collective arses. The fact that they all responded AC is a clue. You are right - there is no contract that you sign with the state (in the 'US state sense, or the State sense) that says, "We, the State, will provide you these services. The bill will be $x, paid with each purchase, or with an income tax", etc, etc. The USSC has ruled that the police have no duty to protect citizens. There is limited action one can take against the government in any case - the lawmakers have to agree to be sued, in many situations. So, you are absolutely correct.
I know a guy who, during university, owned an early 70's model VW Beetle. Apparently, at that time, they had a little tap that screwed onto the spare to power the windshield wiper fluid squirty thing. So he and his buddies put a keg up front and hooked into the spare; the tap came out the dash, and they could just stick the nozzle in their mouthes and fill up as needed while driving about. I'd think that cheap (college afordable) beer mixed with old tire and gas station compressor air would be unpalatable, but its a neat story.
This model is also used in the healthcare products industry. A company like Ivac, who makes digital thermometers, provides the hospital with a large number of top of the line thermometers, no charge, and the hospital buys the probe covers from Ivac. The difference here is that there is a contract involved. Ivac's distributers and the hospital sign a contract. If the hospital finds a cheaper solution, they tell the supplier, who comes to round up their equipment.
I am pretty sure I never signed a contract with HP when I bought their printer, locking me into using only HP consumables. I would just about bet the hair on my head that Lexmark purchasers don't remember signing such a contract, either.
Re:What's the big deal?
on
Droning On
·
· Score: 1
They did, but he lost a very tight election and has recently decided not to run in '04.
Some serious gear, like, say, an el-cheapo geiger detector? Go to the Trinity test site during the brief period of time its open to the public every year. The ground is still radioactive. You *do* get residual radiation, from a fission bomb, and it lasts and lasts. No Energizer bunny needed.
I always find it amusing that on sites such as/., people bark at you (and rightfully so) for not having references that can be checked out. Argue with your perceptions of my personal philosophy or not, those are both things said by people in leadership positions in the gun control movement. Not much ambiguity in them, either.
Sorry if you don't approve - I don't either.
New Jersey, or perhaps it was New York (can't remember, too lazy to Google) passed a law that everyone with semiautomatic rifles with certain cosmetic charactaristics (erroneously called 'assault weapons' by the press and anti-gun lawmakers) must register them. Don't worry, we just want them registered, to keep track in case of theft and whatnot. You silly knee-jerk reactionary gun-nuts, no one is coming for your guns! Then, a few years later, they passed a law banning those same firearms. And they had a niiiiice list of who owned what, and their addresses for the knock on the door. Laws like this are to purposefully make it more inconvenient for law abiding folk like me to legally purchase or own constitutionally guaranteed items.
Here's a nice quote:
The NRA...was right all along in fearing the waiting period was a camel's nose under the tent. Brady has now passed and it is time to reveal the rest of the camel! --- Handgun Control Inc., (HCI) President Richard Aborn (Dec. 8, 1993), Cleveland Plain Dealer.
Here's another one that's even more telling of their whole agenda:
"Our task of creating a Socialist America can only succeed when those who would resist us have been totally disarmed." Sarah Brady, Chairman, Handgun Control Inc.Source: The National Educator, January 1994, Pg.3
Ok, Mr. AC. Incidentally, perhaps its time you pull your head out of *your* ass and post like a man, but I'll digress. The best stuff can be found here: http://www.shadeslanding.com/firearms/kleck.interv iew.html And here: http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html
But the one from the DoJ that estimates upwards of 1.5million uses per year is here:http://www.ncjrs.org/txtfiles/165476.txt
What is interesting about this last one is that it was commissioned in a feeble attempt by the Clinton administration to 'prove' that firearms are not used enough by the average citizen for self defense to justify their continued legality for such purposes. This study was done 13 other times (you do the research this time, sport). They seemed to come up with the same numbers as Dr. Kleck (who, it should be noted, is a very left-wing, non firearm owning member in good standing of Amnesty International - not your typical NRA stooge, sorry to disappoint you), then immediately begin a pitiful attempt to cook these statistics. That's what gun grabbers do best - cook statistics, because the raw data doesn't bear their views out. Case in point: The New England Journal of Medicine 'study' by Dr. Arthur Kellermann, a physician who hopefully practices medicine with more competence than he understands causal relationships. This study was done for the sole purpose (and was wildly successful, I might add) of having a nice statistic and 'sound bite' for the newspapers. Their conclusions: Having a gun in the home makes one 43 times more likely shoot a family member than those not having a gun in the home. Wow! Impressive, until you read how the study was done, and the fact that it has not been able to be verified by other studies - something such an esteemed peer reviewd journal such as NEJM should have noted, but no matter. The good doctor did such a huge amount of bending the stats to his will that you begin to feel like you're on a Mobius strip while reading them. The biggest fallacy in his argument is that if there is no bleeding corpse for the police to 'take pictures of' (that one was for YOU, AC!!), then no defensive firearm use occured. Not included in the report are the >1million times per year someone pulls a gun and the badguy complies or runs like the little bitch that he is. No body, no stat for Dr. Kellerman's anti-gun ranting and raving. Speaking of ranting and raving, I'm through. Do the research, dude, Google is your friend, and Glock is mine.
Yes, and I assume most of Europe is one big police state then.
Like, say, Switzerland?
What I'd like to know if these so called 'to protect'-cases really needed a gun. And it makes one think that when guns aren't so common, do robbers even need guns to rob, they could say that they just have them to defend themselves against protential armed muggees.
This is one of the more stupid comments I've seen concerning this issue. Almost too stupid to respond to. But I'll try anyway;) A robber is commiting a criminal offence by plying his trade. He, therefore, does not get to use the 'self defense' argument for carrying a gun. In fact, in many areas, carrying a firearm while commiting a felony is, in itself, a felony. If a homeowner shoots him dead, too bad, so sad, that's the risk of his trade. Said homeowner doesn't even have to (and should try to) plant a weapon on the corpse before the cops show up. Just say, "I was in fear for my life, it was dark, he verbally threatened me." 'Nuff said, usually.
The police only show up to write the report and take the pictures, this is a fact. In the US, the police do not even have a legal duty to protect citizens, per a Supreme Court decision after a women was killed after calling the police numerous times.
Guns only in the hands of the police and military is a situation called 'police state.'
Also, too many studies to count have shown that firearms are used MILLIONS of times per year to protect. Even the Justice Dept. did such a study under Klinton, then immediately tried to bury the results.
Some jackass has spoofed his REPLY TO: to *my* e-mail address, and now I'm getting hundreds of e-mails from spam filters (no nasty replies to the spam yet, but I won't blame anyone for doing so) every 12-24 hours.
What can I do about this? It is beyond agrivating -- I am living in a 3rd world shit-dump (Saudi Arabia) and my hotmail acct. is my window to the civilized world. So having a DOS attack on my account is truly affecting me in a negative way.
As if hearing "ASSALAMU ALAIKUM" being yelled at high wattage from every corner starting at 0430 wasn't frustrating enough....
Nice off-topic troll, shit for brains. Yes, the US has nuclear weapons. We've used them in one war to end it and save the lives of 10's to 100's of thousands of Allied *and* Japanese people. Not since. I don't like nukes, but I feel safer with their existance in the hands of democratically elected governments who are answerable to others, instead of insane murderers like Hussein. Trying to compare the two is impossible.
>"might makes right" works just fine for the USA, after all, we have exactly the kind of weapons, that we say Iraq is not allowed to have, and we have many more than they could ever aspire to own. It would have worked fine for the Nazis too, as long as they had won. Nissan is simply extending that principle to websites. You can't blame them for following the example set.
Ludicrous. This is simply the 'might makes right' argument. And it didn't work at Nurenburg... Oh, wait, that was something different... My bad....
Really, this can't be a fair method of determing ownership. This is not a cybersquatter situation at all. I've registered my name, not a common name at all but I was suprised to see how many people share my name after Googling for it. If one of these *other* idiots creates a company using our common name, what is the level of financial success/risk necessary for him to win a fight for that domain name? If he loses the first round, but business is good and he becomes even *more* financially successful, can he try again and win?
>Well, basically, yeah. Given that only one entity can have the name, the question arises of who is more entitled to it. If both are using it for commercial purposes, then the entity that has more to gain from it is more entitled to it. So big companies do, indeed, have first rights to the best domain names.
First, please give us your definition of fascist. I always hear left-wingers throw that about, but rarely do they know the definition. Hint: Even the most far right imbecile you can find doesn't qualify.
Second, that the US media is dominated by a left-wing ideology is a simple fact that most of them even acknowlege. When polls are done of major media outlet reporters, they almost unanimously (over 95%) agree with the left wing agenda, such as For abortion, For gun control, Against the US military, etc. etc.
As an aside, I find it funny that the US version of right vs. left is almost completely opposite of the old USSR version.
>Fox News is right wing propaganda brought to you by facist and sleazemonger, Rupert Murdoch. The idea that any of the corporate media are left wing is absurd.
>And you can thank the Bush administration (which >one? both!) for helping that process along.
Please supply specific laws that either Bush, both of whom have (so far) served against a Democrat controlled Congress, are responsible for.
Slashdot Mirror
Is it just me, or does Smeagol look just a trifle Yodish?
Great.... More Smeabrews, just what Hollywood needs.
He really does look like an evil Yoda.... In one caption, he even says, "dead you may not kill them."
Bizarre.
You know, if I ever become famous or infamous or something, I'm gonna be really pissed off if all these /.'ers pull up this message and point out how I used to record my own BM's.... That and calling the dog on tape, then hiding the tape recorder and pestering the poor dumb mutt..... Ah, well.
Your mother or my mother Tvoya = your. ;) It's not quite a literal translation, however.
Nice post, AC. Actually, nothing I said was 'disproved' by any posts; some differing opinions were posted, but certainly, no proof. Second, I live in Saudi Arabia. I look like a target - tall, blonde, blue eyed, doesn't exactly help me blend in with the local dress wearing, hand holding populace. And that's the men. (rim-shot) As to weapons of mass destruction, Iraq has spent 10 years continuing to work on their very well documented programs. They had (again, well documented) mobile germ warfare factories, whose wherabouts are unknown. Its not too hard to hide a Winnebego, oh ye of minimal cerebral blood flow.
Although I am somewhat nervous about the idea of holding people with no demonstrable plan for their legal future, please keep in mind that every one of the Camp X-ray inmates were captured during operations in which they were fighting our troops. My sympathy is somewhat tempered by this. I live in Saudi Arabia, and see how the more extreme among them think, and they represent the tamest views among Taliban combatants.
I am truly inspired by your courage. The sheer testicular fortitude it must take, to stand up and proudly say, "I, Anonymous, will *NOT* be played for a fool any more! I will hide behind the deeds of others to stand up for my beliefs in truth, justice, the American Way, and free shit that I didn't pay for!"
I salute you, sir. Guess with which finger?
They may not have to actually accept the return, but if they lied on their advertisement of the product, you most certainly can get your money back (or attempt it - if they file bankruptcy, you're out).
I presume you are referring to your own anonymous post, you troglodyte sphincter.
I think this is one of the most lucid posts I've seen in a while here. It is too bad the other respondants to it have their heads up their collective arses. The fact that they all responded AC is a clue.
You are right - there is no contract that you sign with the state (in the 'US state sense, or the State sense) that says, "We, the State, will provide you these services. The bill will be $x, paid with each purchase, or with an income tax", etc, etc.
The USSC has ruled that the police have no duty to protect citizens. There is limited action one can take against the government in any case - the lawmakers have to agree to be sued, in many situations. So, you are absolutely correct.
I know a guy who, during university, owned an early 70's model VW Beetle. Apparently, at that time, they had a little tap that screwed onto the spare to power the windshield wiper fluid squirty thing. So he and his buddies put a keg up front and hooked into the spare; the tap came out the dash, and they could just stick the nozzle in their mouthes and fill up as needed while driving about. I'd think that cheap (college afordable) beer mixed with old tire and gas station compressor air would be unpalatable, but its a neat story.
This model is also used in the healthcare products industry. A company like Ivac, who makes digital thermometers, provides the hospital with a large number of top of the line thermometers, no charge, and the hospital buys the probe covers from Ivac.
The difference here is that there is a contract involved. Ivac's distributers and the hospital sign a contract. If the hospital finds a cheaper solution, they tell the supplier, who comes to round up their equipment.
I am pretty sure I never signed a contract with HP when I bought their printer, locking me into using only HP consumables. I would just about bet the hair on my head that Lexmark purchasers don't remember signing such a contract, either.
They did, but he lost a very tight election and has recently decided not to run in '04.
Some serious gear, like, say, an el-cheapo geiger detector? Go to the Trinity test site during the brief period of time its open to the public every year. The ground is still radioactive. You *do* get residual radiation, from a fission bomb, and it lasts and lasts. No Energizer bunny needed.
I always find it amusing that on sites such as /., people bark at you (and rightfully so) for not having references that can be checked out. Argue with your perceptions of my personal philosophy or not, those are both things said by people in leadership positions in the gun control movement. Not much ambiguity in them, either.
Sorry if you don't approve - I don't either.
New Jersey, or perhaps it was New York (can't remember, too lazy to Google) passed a law that everyone with semiautomatic rifles with certain cosmetic charactaristics (erroneously called 'assault weapons' by the press and anti-gun lawmakers) must register them. Don't worry, we just want them registered, to keep track in case of theft and whatnot. You silly knee-jerk reactionary gun-nuts, no one is coming for your guns!
Then, a few years later, they passed a law banning those same firearms. And they had a niiiiice list of who owned what, and their addresses for the knock on the door.
Laws like this are to purposefully make it more inconvenient for law abiding folk like me to legally purchase or own constitutionally guaranteed items.
Here's a nice quote:
The NRA...was right all along in fearing the waiting period was a camel's nose under the tent. Brady has now passed and it is time to reveal the rest of the camel!
--- Handgun Control Inc., (HCI) President Richard Aborn (Dec. 8, 1993), Cleveland Plain Dealer.
Here's another one that's even more telling of their whole agenda:
"Our task of creating a Socialist America can only succeed when those who would resist us have been totally disarmed."
Sarah Brady, Chairman, Handgun Control Inc.Source: The National Educator, January 1994, Pg.3
Cheers
Ok, Mr. AC. Incidentally, perhaps its time you pull your head out of *your* ass and post like a man, but I'll digress.v iew.html
The best stuff can be found here: http://www.shadeslanding.com/firearms/kleck.inter
And here: http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html
But the one from the DoJ that estimates upwards of 1.5million uses per year is here:http://www.ncjrs.org/txtfiles/165476.txt
What is interesting about this last one is that it was commissioned in a feeble attempt by the Clinton administration to 'prove' that firearms are not used enough by the average citizen for self defense to justify their continued legality for such purposes. This study was done 13 other times (you do the research this time, sport). They seemed to come up with the same numbers as Dr. Kleck (who, it should be noted, is a very left-wing, non firearm owning member in good standing of Amnesty International - not your typical NRA stooge, sorry to disappoint you), then immediately begin a pitiful attempt to cook these statistics. That's what gun grabbers do best - cook statistics, because the raw data doesn't bear their views out. Case in point: The New England Journal of Medicine 'study' by Dr. Arthur Kellermann, a physician who hopefully practices medicine with more competence than he understands causal relationships. This study was done for the sole purpose (and was wildly successful, I might add) of having a nice statistic and 'sound bite' for the newspapers. Their conclusions: Having a gun in the home makes one 43 times more likely shoot a family member than those not having a gun in the home. Wow! Impressive, until you read how the study was done, and the fact that it has not been able to be verified by other studies - something such an esteemed peer reviewd journal such as NEJM should have noted, but no matter. The good doctor did such a huge amount of bending the stats to his will that you begin to feel like you're on a Mobius strip while reading them.
The biggest fallacy in his argument is that if there is no bleeding corpse for the police to 'take pictures of' (that one was for YOU, AC!!), then no defensive firearm use occured. Not included in the report are the >1million times per year someone pulls a gun and the badguy complies or runs like the little bitch that he is. No body, no stat for Dr. Kellerman's anti-gun ranting and raving.
Speaking of ranting and raving, I'm through. Do the research, dude, Google is your friend, and Glock is mine.
Yes, and I assume most of Europe is one big police state then.
Like, say, Switzerland?
What I'd like to know if these so called 'to protect'-cases really needed a gun. And it makes one think that when guns aren't so common, do robbers even need guns to rob, they could say that they just have them to defend themselves against protential armed muggees.
This is one of the more stupid comments I've seen concerning this issue. Almost too stupid to respond to. But I'll try anyway;)
A robber is commiting a criminal offence by plying his trade. He, therefore, does not get to use the 'self defense' argument for carrying a gun. In fact, in many areas, carrying a firearm while commiting a felony is, in itself, a felony. If a homeowner shoots him dead, too bad, so sad, that's the risk of his trade. Said homeowner doesn't even have to (and should try to) plant a weapon on the corpse before the cops show up. Just say, "I was in fear for my life, it was dark, he verbally threatened me." 'Nuff said, usually.
I can just see it now. The little window comes up:
Ding!
You have chosen to shoot the armed intruder. Do you really want to do this?
Perhaps the criminal will be laughing at you hard enough that you can reboot and shoot him. Or sell him your piece of shit new gun.
The police only show up to write the report and take the pictures, this is a fact. In the US, the police do not even have a legal duty to protect citizens, per a Supreme Court decision after a women was killed after calling the police numerous times. Guns only in the hands of the police and military is a situation called 'police state.' Also, too many studies to count have shown that firearms are used MILLIONS of times per year to protect. Even the Justice Dept. did such a study under Klinton, then immediately tried to bury the results.
Some jackass has spoofed his REPLY TO: to *my* e-mail address, and now I'm getting hundreds of e-mails from spam filters (no nasty replies to the spam yet, but I won't blame anyone for doing so) every 12-24 hours.
What can I do about this? It is beyond agrivating -- I am living in a 3rd world shit-dump (Saudi Arabia) and my hotmail acct. is my window to the civilized world. So having a DOS attack on my account is truly affecting me in a negative way.
As if hearing "ASSALAMU ALAIKUM" being yelled at high wattage from every corner starting at 0430 wasn't frustrating enough....
Nice off-topic troll, shit for brains. Yes, the US has nuclear weapons. We've used them in one war to end it and save the lives of 10's to 100's of thousands of Allied *and* Japanese people. Not since. I don't like nukes, but I feel safer with their existance in the hands of democratically elected governments who are answerable to others, instead of insane murderers like Hussein. Trying to compare the two is impossible. >"might makes right" works just fine for the USA, after all, we have exactly the kind of weapons, that we say Iraq is not allowed to have, and we have many more than they could ever aspire to own. It would have worked fine for the Nazis too, as long as they had won. Nissan is simply extending that principle to websites. You can't blame them for following the example set.
Ludicrous. This is simply the 'might makes right' argument. And it didn't work at Nurenburg... Oh, wait, that was something different... My bad.... Really, this can't be a fair method of determing ownership. This is not a cybersquatter situation at all. I've registered my name, not a common name at all but I was suprised to see how many people share my name after Googling for it. If one of these *other* idiots creates a company using our common name, what is the level of financial success/risk necessary for him to win a fight for that domain name? If he loses the first round, but business is good and he becomes even *more* financially successful, can he try again and win? >Well, basically, yeah. Given that only one entity can have the name, the question arises of who is more entitled to it. If both are using it for commercial purposes, then the entity that has more to gain from it is more entitled to it. So big companies do, indeed, have first rights to the best domain names.
First, please give us your definition of fascist. I always hear left-wingers throw that about, but rarely do they know the definition. Hint: Even the most far right imbecile you can find doesn't qualify.
Second, that the US media is dominated by a left-wing ideology is a simple fact that most of them even acknowlege. When polls are done of major media outlet reporters, they almost unanimously (over 95%) agree with the left wing agenda, such as For abortion, For gun control, Against the US military, etc. etc.
As an aside, I find it funny that the US version of right vs. left is almost completely opposite of the old USSR version.
>Fox News is right wing propaganda brought to you by facist and sleazemonger, Rupert Murdoch. The idea that any of the corporate media are left wing is absurd.
>And you can thank the Bush administration (which >one? both!) for helping that process along. Please supply specific laws that either Bush, both of whom have (so far) served against a Democrat controlled Congress, are responsible for.