Semi-auto works fine for guerilla work, really. Plus, you can capture weapons and modify semis to work as full autos.
The US allows you to own full-auto weapons only if you are willing to apply for a federal licence that comes with restrictions like 'BAFT is allowed to enter your home any time of day or night to check on them', etc. Never mind the checks you need, etc. The last crime in the US committed by a full auto weapon was in the 1940s, as I recall.
I can buy IR goggles, too.
Anyway, the point remains that this sort of thing is easier with access to firearms than without.
"How can you say that the Republicans don't think it through?"
Trickle-down economics. Constitution vs. rights to free speech. 1st amendment vs posting the 10 commandments in freaking courthouses. Etc. etc. They constantly make laws that violate thir oaths to protect the constitution. So no, they DON'T think things through.
"How many Democrats voted against The Patriot Act?"
Immaterial. We're discussing stated goals and policies, not the current set of morons in congress.
"Look at the points you made; nearly all of them were (indirect) comparisons to the Republicans"
So? We're discussing US politics. Using it's political spectrum is reasonable.
"You are basically saying things like welfare, universal healthcare/education, environmental protection, etc, are NOT social policies"
Huh? No... First, I never mentioned environmental protection, which is a mostly social topic. But the rest are economic in that they deal with redistribution of wealth. I might support welfare, but economically, I realize the government has no right to support it. Same with healthcare.
"Both Communism and Fascism are very authoratarian"
Right. Social right (you do what WE say) and economic left (WE choose what to do with your 'money' (yes, ideal communism, no money. 'work time' or whatever is an equivilent process, though)).
"That sounds very socialist to me."
Except that freedom is more important to me than to a socialist. I say that the freedom to do what you want with your money is the greater good, because that is freedom. Individual rights ARE the greater good.
"How could you say that no one has the MORAL authority if they don't support utilitarianism?"
Has nothing to do with their support of utilitarianism. Start with politicians: They were elected to make sure their constituents are represented. Their duty is to create the greatest good. If they choose to place their own interests over those of the people they gave an oath to protect, then they are acting immorally. The people: If they support their own interests over others, they are dragging down the entire system (see the prisoner's dillema - they make things worse for everyone because they support the 'bad' decision.) Therefore, they are acting in an immoral fashion.
"we can look at some intellectual property laws which are supported by the govt and the courts"
Because the courts have decades of bad precident based on non-sensical interpretations of the Constitution. That doesn't make it moral, and it doesn't change my point that those who vote for and uphold those laws should be fined and sometimes imprisoned for the damage they do to society.
"Besides, the govt carries out so much propaganda (to the tune of hundreads of millions of dollars) that the population will treat everything the govt says as constitutional."
And as far as I'm concerned, that's enough to say that the majority of the population has no right to vote. They MUST look at what is in front of them and they MUST do the research they need to determine which is the best course, without relying on idiots like Pat Buchanan to tell them what it is. It is their RESPONSIBILITY, and if they can't handle it, they don't have the moral justification to vote.
"That's what you implied"
Explicitly stated, actually. And it's not because I place myself above others, it's I place people who think about things before acting over people who don't. I'm not the only one who falls into the better catagory.
"But I would never ever claim that these guys are stupid or anything"
But they are. They promote their own 'Well, I think this is best' knee-jerk responses to problems without caring that they are screwing everything up. So yes, they ARE stupid. They're wrecking the world for thie own short-term benefits, and therefore making their long-term prospects much less than they would be. That IS stupid.
You aren't making sense. You're claiming that seperating the axis by economic/social doesn't work because they're intertwined, and give a better solution as political/economic, which is even MORE intertwined. I'll stick with my division, which is a hell of a lot more clear.
"The official anarchist party in USA even says that."
Organise for Anarchy! Look, listening to the anarchists about political thought is like asking a Discordian to explain history. Very entertaining, and very hard to figure out what's true and what's not.
Now, again, I'm libitarian (not left, not right. Libitarian), and I tend to support more Democrat social policies than Republican economic, simply because the Reps don't actually think these things out. Neither do the Dems, but on their side the knee-jerk response is generally in the same ballpark as the rational, thought out one. Now, the Democrats are on the left. Here are some reasons why:
1) Democrats are very close to socialists as far as social policies go. Their moderate instincts show up on the economic scale more frequantly.
2) Democrats don't really support capitalist principles. A quick glance over what they tend to present for bills confirms that. Welfare? Yep. Required health care? Yep. Restrictions on corporate conglomerates? More than the Reps. A lot more.
3) Financial left is the 'mommy knows best' attitude. 'You don't know what's best to do with your money, let mommy take care of it'. Redistribution of wealth through welfare, central health care, etc. are a financial left topics.*
Libitarianism vs. anarchy: The other poster explains that quite well, actually.
Economic vs Social, revisited: And again, your set of axis are even more linked. And for that matter, social policies are not fully dictated by economic concerns. Things like welfare, sure. But the government shouldn't be handling that, anyway. The social aspect is about liberties. Should I have a right to speak my mind? Should I have a right to view pictures of naked women (and should women be able to see pics. of naked men)? Should we be able to own guns (in this case, the social left-right spectrum is reversed in Democrat-Republican viewpoints. Socially liberal people would agree that we have the freedom to own guns. Socially conservitive people would say that we are not to be trusted with that right)? So social and economic issues overlap at points, but are not intertwined enough to make them mutually dependant.
Parties: I'm using the expressed goals of the parties rather than the reality, obviously. And authoritarianism is social right, financial left, BTW.
Concience: I ALWAYS vote my concience. Greatest good for the greatest people. Even if it inconveniances me. Before taking a stand on something like gun control, abortion, euthanasia, etc. I examine both sides and determine which is best for the greatest number. Anyone who does not do that HAS NO MORAL RIGHT TO VOTE. A politician that chooses political expediancy over the constitution and his constituants should be thrown out on his ass faster than you can say 'Master-at-arms.'
"If I were in USA, I would vote Greens"
That explains a lot about your lack of knowledge of US political structures.
"That is sooo elitist. Greens will get some votes all right"
What's elitist? Realizing that the Green's economic policies would destroy the US economy? It's not like it takes much effort, brains, or imagination. All it takes is a basic understanding of reality and a list of what they want to do.
"As far as the minimum wage is concerned, the argument you are putting forth is the same thing capitalists said 70-100 years ago"
No, it's not. You're not paying attention, as I made it quite clear. In fact, I even stated it explicitly: "And while it should be there..." Of course the minimum wage should be increased! And like I said, it should be implemented in such a way so as to keep the standard of living constant. But doi
Wow... I don't even know where to START. You really haven't been paying attention.
Libitarianism is not left or right. Period. No Lib-left, no Lib-right. If you insist on left-right, then it's socially left, financially right. A 'libitarian-left' would, by a huge stretch, mean that you were social left, financial left. That's DEMOCRAT. Ok, that's first. Second, libitarianism isn't anarchism. It's not that far along the scale, and there's an implicit understanding that some laws and government are necessary.
Now, left vs. right is not how you define a libitarian voting. You define whether they are more concerned with financial or social matters. i.e. do they prefer to concentrate on less gov, or more freedom? Now there's where the secondary voting comes from. If they want less government more, in general, they'd vote Republican (although I'd expect that to change for at least the next couple elections...) If they think social freedom is more important (as I do), they'd vote Democrat (not that that is a particularly good choice, either, but it's closer than the Rep-no government link). Or they might be like me, and vote Libitarian, because at least they have something resembling a concience, unlike the other 2 parties.
And no one in their right mind, left right or center, would vote Green, at least while Nader is the candidate. Sheesh, in his last campaign he was pushing for an increase in the minimum wage to $10/hr. And while it should be there, he wanted it all at once! That's one of the best ways I had heard of to crash the economy. You need to spread it out, and force a link to the standard of living. A jump that much that fast wouldn't be good... the differance between throwing a ton's worth of pebbles in a pool over the course of a day and dropping a 1 ton boulder in.
Re:What about the static electricity it will gener
on
Space Elevator Going Up
·
· Score: 2, Funny
"generate static electricity"
Well, we could always use it for propulsion. Make the counterweight a giant shirt and the elevator out of socks and the elevator will shoot right up there.
I'm 6 foot 5, and mostly torso. I have 1/3 inch of clearance to the roof of my Ram (I know this because I can't wear a baseball cap, and the button plus material is 1/3 inch (or close enough for me, anyway, it's not like I took verniers to it). My primary viewing area passes through the edge of the tint band on the top of the windshield.
As for a test, since when has the Fed payed ATTENTION to the constitution? It's a right, a quick reading will confirm that. The government doesn't like the fact that we have so many rights, and therefore tries to hide that fact.
But in case you don't feel like reading it... I quote: Amendment IX - The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X - The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
And the state is bound by the Federal Constitution, so what rights the Con doesn't grant to the Fed, or the individual states, cannot be taken from the final recipiant - the People. That's us, of course. Basically, except where it explicitly says so, all rights end up being derived from the classic quote 'Your right to swing your fist ends at my face'. Or even 'Do as thou wilt but harm none' (though that's a bit strong because of the implied emotional aspect...)
Well, there are problems with that. For example, I drive a Dodge Ram pickup (probably over 4k, although I don't have the data). There's a reason for this: No other car I tried allowed me to see stoplights. As it is, 1/4 or so of the lights require me to twist and hunch down to get a view. (I did get the V6, short bed, regular cab - as light as it gets for one of those).
Also: You mentioned - heck, I'll quote: "Driving is not a right. People treat it as it is."
Actually, driving is a right. As is everything not explicitly taken away from the people in the constitution. Basic Constitutional law. (sorry, but I've been in an arguementitive mood all day...)
Well, don't hold me to it, but I seem to recall that this patent did have a fair amount of prior art associated with it, but the judge disallowed it because MS didn't raise the point during the patent application period. Apparently allowing a prior art discussion is at the discresion of the judge.
"What you will need is an improvement on the mouse."
Have you ever used a spaceball? I do mechanical CAD design (among other things...) and I've found that the spaceball is probably the best input device for 3D stuff. I can 'grab' an object and spin it, zoom in on it, etc. almost as if it were sitting in my hand. VERY nice.
And I used to play Descent with a Spaceorb, too. Dodging incoming fire in 6 axis can really mess with your opponent's heads. Then they screwed up and added mouse control to D3. Can't play it anymore. I prefer the 3D flight-sim style, where you couldn't turn instantly on a dime and actually had to think about what you're doing...
"What is the percentage of people who used their weapons is legimate situation"
If you never have to, what's the problem? It means you were prepared for something that didn't occur. Not a useful question. But about 2 million people a year use firearms in self defense, if that helps you.
"What is the percentage of people who were victims (accidents, murder with a weapon coming from the corner shop,...) of these weapons"
Percentage again... That's not useful information. But more people are saved by firearms every year than are harmed by them, and it is a well known fact that the higher the percentage of people who own firearms in a location the lower the crime rate.
"Are the weapons adding/replacing problems or solving"
Solving. Police don't solve the crime problem. It takes them too long to arrive for many confrontations. And firearms are the best way for a woman to defend herself from assault.
"Yes, you have the rigth to own a weapon but is it moraly correct"
I find it hard to visualize a moral construct where the owning a weapon is NOT moraly correct. The only one I know of is one where you are not allowed to defend yourself or others, because that would be violent. I don't think that is a particularly moral behavior.
Oh, I'm thinking that's an easy one. You're not replacing the fuel cell. That's still in the laptop. You're just replacing the holding tank for the fuel it uses.
Methanol is considered hazardous. You need special permits to ship more than certain amounts of it. Now, I don't ship it personally, so I can't tell, but how much ya want to bet that the cheap/expensive shipping breakpoint is at about '1 bic lighter' of volume?
As long as you weren't a child rapist or a torturer. You have a right to your sense of humor, even if I don't find it humorous. I just won't listen to you, that's all.
Re:Thank you - If I had mod points, you == +1
on
Blaster Writer Caught
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
"No aspect of prison is funny."
I'm with George Carlin on this one (not a direct quote, haven't listened to the album in a while): 'People keep saying that this isn't funny, or that isn't funny, or that you shouldn't joke about things. Like rape. You shouldn't joke about rape - it isn't funny. Well, anything can be funny. Rape can be funny. For example: Picture Porky Pig raping Elmer Fud. Now that's funny! Why do you think they call him Porky?'
People's sense of humor is completely unrelated to what they think SHOULD be funny. I don't find prison rape to be amusing. I know that we have a 60% misconviction rate for capital offenses, nevermind more minor ones. That isn't the reason I don't think it's funny, though. People DO NOT have control over what they think is funny. Lecturing them isn't going to help.
I find Canadian jokes to be amusing. I have a lot of Canadian friends. The only person I work with with a decent sense of humor is Canadian (and I get a lot of the jokes from him, too). And guess what? My father is over 1/2 Canadian.
All this PC crap has gotta stop. You don't think it's funny, fine. Other people do. That isn't even their choice! Don't get mad at them for it.
Here's a thought: The quote in the BBC article posted above said 'did more damage than the original'... Didn't the 'patch' varient have a bug in it that made it even worse than the normal infection? Maybe the reason he was testing in a place he could get caught is he was thinking of himself as a 'good' cracker...
Problem: Suppose I sue, oh, the tobacco companies. I'm a person of moderate wealth (well, hypothetically), so I can spend $100,000 (I wish) on the legal case.
How am I going to pay the $15,000,000 the tobacco companies will throw at me in the form of lawyers? Answer: I can't. I'll be in debt until the end of eternaty, forced to pay my monthly bills by standing on a street corner wearing a shirt that says 'Look what happends when you sue Joe Camel' as a warning to others.
"Keep a list of all assigned projects, whether on a web page for all to see, or on a whiteboard"
Good idea, but I found something that might help even more. Go to a craft store. They have sheets of essentially refrigerator magnet (thin, flexable, black on one side white on the other... I use them as 'don't hurt the paint' attachment points for bumper stickers, but I digress). If you cut up a nice, large one, you can glue some whiteboard to it, and write tasks on it. As a task is assigned and given a priority, move everything up or down to match. (YMMV... my cubicle walls are mixed cloth and metal, this works for me)
Quantum spin doesn't work that way. It's not 'a rotating quark' that can go CW or CCW (as electrons have spin, and they are point sources). Check out spin here.
I think that's actually the point... Greenpeace (well, the environmental movement in general, unfortunatly*...) has a distinct tendancy to take the first very tentitive report of some possible problem and use that as final proof that the technology needs to be banned. The fact that they say haven't seen anything yet is rather telling.
* If it wasn't for this, I might have actually joined one of the groups. Too much of an anti-tech bias, though.
The person you replied to is correct. I can make a copy of a CD for a friend, and it is legal under fair use, as is recording ('copying') songs off the radio.
Poke around and look for the Napster case. The court explicitly states that people are allowed to make copies for their friends, and dismisses Napster's defense because people you don't know cannot really be considered friends. In other words, you can make a CD copy and give it to a friend, and you could even make a dozen and give them to a dozen friends, but if you make a dozen and give them to random people on the street, that's not fair use.
Slashdot Mirror
The US allows you to own full-auto weapons only if you are willing to apply for a federal licence that comes with restrictions like 'BAFT is allowed to enter your home any time of day or night to check on them', etc. Never mind the checks you need, etc. The last crime in the US committed by a full auto weapon was in the 1940s, as I recall.
I can buy IR goggles, too.
Anyway, the point remains that this sort of thing is easier with access to firearms than without.
Compared to no guns?
Two words for ya... guerilla warfare. And one more word: Snipers.
But it reminds me of one of my bumperstickers I get comments on (I have several). "DARE to keep the CIA off drugs"
Trickle-down economics. Constitution vs. rights to free speech. 1st amendment vs posting the 10 commandments in freaking courthouses. Etc. etc. They constantly make laws that violate thir oaths to protect the constitution. So no, they DON'T think things through.
"How many Democrats voted against The Patriot Act?"
Immaterial. We're discussing stated goals and policies, not the current set of morons in congress.
"Look at the points you made; nearly all of them were (indirect) comparisons to the Republicans"
So? We're discussing US politics. Using it's political spectrum is reasonable.
"You are basically saying things like welfare, universal healthcare/education, environmental protection, etc, are NOT social policies"
Huh? No... First, I never mentioned environmental protection, which is a mostly social topic. But the rest are economic in that they deal with redistribution of wealth. I might support welfare, but economically, I realize the government has no right to support it. Same with healthcare.
"Both Communism and Fascism are very authoratarian"
Right. Social right (you do what WE say) and economic left (WE choose what to do with your 'money' (yes, ideal communism, no money. 'work time' or whatever is an equivilent process, though)).
"That sounds very socialist to me."
Except that freedom is more important to me than to a socialist. I say that the freedom to do what you want with your money is the greater good, because that is freedom. Individual rights ARE the greater good.
"How could you say that no one has the MORAL authority if they don't support utilitarianism?"
Has nothing to do with their support of utilitarianism. Start with politicians: They were elected to make sure their constituents are represented. Their duty is to create the greatest good. If they choose to place their own interests over those of the people they gave an oath to protect, then they are acting immorally. The people: If they support their own interests over others, they are dragging down the entire system (see the prisoner's dillema - they make things worse for everyone because they support the 'bad' decision.) Therefore, they are acting in an immoral fashion.
"we can look at some intellectual property laws which are supported by the govt and the courts"
Because the courts have decades of bad precident based on non-sensical interpretations of the Constitution. That doesn't make it moral, and it doesn't change my point that those who vote for and uphold those laws should be fined and sometimes imprisoned for the damage they do to society.
"Besides, the govt carries out so much propaganda (to the tune of hundreads of millions of dollars) that the population will treat everything the govt says as constitutional."
And as far as I'm concerned, that's enough to say that the majority of the population has no right to vote. They MUST look at what is in front of them and they MUST do the research they need to determine which is the best course, without relying on idiots like Pat Buchanan to tell them what it is. It is their RESPONSIBILITY, and if they can't handle it, they don't have the moral justification to vote.
"That's what you implied"
Explicitly stated, actually. And it's not because I place myself above others, it's I place people who think about things before acting over people who don't. I'm not the only one who falls into the better catagory.
"But I would never ever claim that these guys are stupid or anything"
But they are. They promote their own 'Well, I think this is best' knee-jerk responses to problems without caring that they are screwing everything up. So yes, they ARE stupid. They're wrecking the world for thie own short-term benefits, and therefore making their long-term prospects much less than they would be. That IS stupid.
"I haven't heard of a single party in
Damn. I'm converting back to Discordianism.
"The official anarchist party in USA even says that."
Organise for Anarchy! Look, listening to the anarchists about political thought is like asking a Discordian to explain history. Very entertaining, and very hard to figure out what's true and what's not.
Now, again, I'm libitarian (not left, not right. Libitarian), and I tend to support more Democrat social policies than Republican economic, simply because the Reps don't actually think these things out. Neither do the Dems, but on their side the knee-jerk response is generally in the same ballpark as the rational, thought out one. Now, the Democrats are on the left. Here are some reasons why:
1) Democrats are very close to socialists as far as social policies go. Their moderate instincts show up on the economic scale more frequantly.
2) Democrats don't really support capitalist principles. A quick glance over what they tend to present for bills confirms that. Welfare? Yep. Required health care? Yep. Restrictions on corporate conglomerates? More than the Reps. A lot more.
3) Financial left is the 'mommy knows best' attitude. 'You don't know what's best to do with your money, let mommy take care of it'. Redistribution of wealth through welfare, central health care, etc. are a financial left topics.*
Libitarianism vs. anarchy: The other poster explains that quite well, actually.
Economic vs Social, revisited: And again, your set of axis are even more linked. And for that matter, social policies are not fully dictated by economic concerns. Things like welfare, sure. But the government shouldn't be handling that, anyway. The social aspect is about liberties. Should I have a right to speak my mind? Should I have a right to view pictures of naked women (and should women be able to see pics. of naked men)? Should we be able to own guns (in this case, the social left-right spectrum is reversed in Democrat-Republican viewpoints. Socially liberal people would agree that we have the freedom to own guns. Socially conservitive people would say that we are not to be trusted with that right)? So social and economic issues overlap at points, but are not intertwined enough to make them mutually dependant.
Parties: I'm using the expressed goals of the parties rather than the reality, obviously. And authoritarianism is social right, financial left, BTW.
Concience: I ALWAYS vote my concience. Greatest good for the greatest people. Even if it inconveniances me. Before taking a stand on something like gun control, abortion, euthanasia, etc. I examine both sides and determine which is best for the greatest number. Anyone who does not do that HAS NO MORAL RIGHT TO VOTE. A politician that chooses political expediancy over the constitution and his constituants should be thrown out on his ass faster than you can say 'Master-at-arms.'
"If I were in USA, I would vote Greens"
That explains a lot about your lack of knowledge of US political structures.
"That is sooo elitist. Greens will get some votes all right"
What's elitist? Realizing that the Green's economic policies would destroy the US economy? It's not like it takes much effort, brains, or imagination. All it takes is a basic understanding of reality and a list of what they want to do.
"As far as the minimum wage is concerned, the argument you are putting forth is the same thing capitalists said 70-100 years ago"
No, it's not. You're not paying attention, as I made it quite clear. In fact, I even stated it explicitly: "And while it should be there..." Of course the minimum wage should be increased! And like I said, it should be implemented in such a way so as to keep the standard of living constant. But doi
Libitarianism is not left or right. Period. No Lib-left, no Lib-right. If you insist on left-right, then it's socially left, financially right. A 'libitarian-left' would, by a huge stretch, mean that you were social left, financial left. That's DEMOCRAT. Ok, that's first. Second, libitarianism isn't anarchism. It's not that far along the scale, and there's an implicit understanding that some laws and government are necessary.
Now, left vs. right is not how you define a libitarian voting. You define whether they are more concerned with financial or social matters. i.e. do they prefer to concentrate on less gov, or more freedom? Now there's where the secondary voting comes from. If they want less government more, in general, they'd vote Republican (although I'd expect that to change for at least the next couple elections...) If they think social freedom is more important (as I do), they'd vote Democrat (not that that is a particularly good choice, either, but it's closer than the Rep-no government link). Or they might be like me, and vote Libitarian, because at least they have something resembling a concience, unlike the other 2 parties.
And no one in their right mind, left right or center, would vote Green, at least while Nader is the candidate. Sheesh, in his last campaign he was pushing for an increase in the minimum wage to $10/hr. And while it should be there, he wanted it all at once! That's one of the best ways I had heard of to crash the economy. You need to spread it out, and force a link to the standard of living. A jump that much that fast wouldn't be good... the differance between throwing a ton's worth of pebbles in a pool over the course of a day and dropping a 1 ton boulder in.
Well, we could always use it for propulsion. Make the counterweight a giant shirt and the elevator out of socks and the elevator will shoot right up there.
As for a test, since when has the Fed payed ATTENTION to the constitution? It's a right, a quick reading will confirm that. The government doesn't like the fact that we have so many rights, and therefore tries to hide that fact.
But in case you don't feel like reading it... I quote: Amendment IX - The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X - The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
And the state is bound by the Federal Constitution, so what rights the Con doesn't grant to the Fed, or the individual states, cannot be taken from the final recipiant - the People. That's us, of course. Basically, except where it explicitly says so, all rights end up being derived from the classic quote 'Your right to swing your fist ends at my face'. Or even 'Do as thou wilt but harm none' (though that's a bit strong because of the implied emotional aspect...)
(_o_)
as well as the much more popular:
(oYo)
(note: this works better if you can make the all the o's pink...)
Also: You mentioned - heck, I'll quote: "Driving is not a right. People treat it as it is."
Actually, driving is a right. As is everything not explicitly taken away from the people in the constitution. Basic Constitutional law. (sorry, but I've been in an arguementitive mood all day...)
Well, don't hold me to it, but I seem to recall that this patent did have a fair amount of prior art associated with it, but the judge disallowed it because MS didn't raise the point during the patent application period. Apparently allowing a prior art discussion is at the discresion of the judge.
Have you ever used a spaceball? I do mechanical CAD design (among other things...) and I've found that the spaceball is probably the best input device for 3D stuff. I can 'grab' an object and spin it, zoom in on it, etc. almost as if it were sitting in my hand. VERY nice.
And I used to play Descent with a Spaceorb, too. Dodging incoming fire in 6 axis can really mess with your opponent's heads. Then they screwed up and added mouse control to D3. Can't play it anymore. I prefer the 3D flight-sim style, where you couldn't turn instantly on a dime and actually had to think about what you're doing...
If you never have to, what's the problem? It means you were prepared for something that didn't occur. Not a useful question. But about 2 million people a year use firearms in self defense, if that helps you.
"What is the percentage of people who were victims (accidents, murder with a weapon coming from the corner shop, ...) of these weapons"
Percentage again... That's not useful information. But more people are saved by firearms every year than are harmed by them, and it is a well known fact that the higher the percentage of people who own firearms in a location the lower the crime rate.
"Are the weapons adding/replacing problems or solving"
Solving. Police don't solve the crime problem. It takes them too long to arrive for many confrontations. And firearms are the best way for a woman to defend herself from assault.
"Yes, you have the rigth to own a weapon but is it moraly correct"
I find it hard to visualize a moral construct where the owning a weapon is NOT moraly correct. The only one I know of is one where you are not allowed to defend yourself or others, because that would be violent. I don't think that is a particularly moral behavior.
That's how I would do it, anyway.
Methanol is considered hazardous. You need special permits to ship more than certain amounts of it. Now, I don't ship it personally, so I can't tell, but how much ya want to bet that the cheap/expensive shipping breakpoint is at about '1 bic lighter' of volume?
As long as you weren't a child rapist or a torturer. You have a right to your sense of humor, even if I don't find it humorous. I just won't listen to you, that's all.
I'm with George Carlin on this one (not a direct quote, haven't listened to the album in a while): 'People keep saying that this isn't funny, or that isn't funny, or that you shouldn't joke about things. Like rape. You shouldn't joke about rape - it isn't funny. Well, anything can be funny. Rape can be funny. For example: Picture Porky Pig raping Elmer Fud. Now that's funny! Why do you think they call him Porky?'
People's sense of humor is completely unrelated to what they think SHOULD be funny. I don't find prison rape to be amusing. I know that we have a 60% misconviction rate for capital offenses, nevermind more minor ones. That isn't the reason I don't think it's funny, though. People DO NOT have control over what they think is funny. Lecturing them isn't going to help.
I find Canadian jokes to be amusing. I have a lot of Canadian friends. The only person I work with with a decent sense of humor is Canadian (and I get a lot of the jokes from him, too). And guess what? My father is over 1/2 Canadian.
All this PC crap has gotta stop. You don't think it's funny, fine. Other people do. That isn't even their choice! Don't get mad at them for it.
Here's a thought: The quote in the BBC article posted above said 'did more damage than the original'... Didn't the 'patch' varient have a bug in it that made it even worse than the normal infection? Maybe the reason he was testing in a place he could get caught is he was thinking of himself as a 'good' cracker...
How am I going to pay the $15,000,000 the tobacco companies will throw at me in the form of lawyers? Answer: I can't. I'll be in debt until the end of eternaty, forced to pay my monthly bills by standing on a street corner wearing a shirt that says 'Look what happends when you sue Joe Camel' as a warning to others.
Good idea, but I found something that might help even more. Go to a craft store. They have sheets of essentially refrigerator magnet (thin, flexable, black on one side white on the other... I use them as 'don't hurt the paint' attachment points for bumper stickers, but I digress). If you cut up a nice, large one, you can glue some whiteboard to it, and write tasks on it. As a task is assigned and given a priority, move everything up or down to match. (YMMV... my cubicle walls are mixed cloth and metal, this works for me)
Quantum spin doesn't work that way. It's not 'a rotating quark' that can go CW or CCW (as electrons have spin, and they are point sources). Check out spin here.
That would be GREAT! I'd buy an RC plane for that. Spend the day doing loops right near the school zone.
* If it wasn't for this, I might have actually joined one of the groups. Too much of an anti-tech bias, though.
Poke around and look for the Napster case. The court explicitly states that people are allowed to make copies for their friends, and dismisses Napster's defense because people you don't know cannot really be considered friends. In other words, you can make a CD copy and give it to a friend, and you could even make a dozen and give them to a dozen friends, but if you make a dozen and give them to random people on the street, that's not fair use.