Citizens shouldn't have to justify why they need or even just want drones (or guns);
I've heard Americans use that word 'citizens' a few times. What does citizenship have to do with it? Citizenship for voting, OK, but what does it matter for getting a license? You don't even need to be a citizen to join the US military.
the onus is on the state to come up with reasons why we shouldn't have them.
Surely that part is obvious. Guns can be dangerous. It is normal to regulate dangerous things.
Now if the state wants to regulate these things because of problems, that's fine. Require a license. Require registration. Whatever.
OK, we are on the same page. But licensing implies limits on who can have them. And regulation also means limiting the kinds of weapons. We need to balance public vs private interest. One person having fun vs another getting shot. The latter seems more important, no?
I'll agree that guns should not be banned, if you agree that there should be limits. Some people might argue that "its fun" is not sufficient justification for easy availability of weapons whose primary design purpose is to kill people.
The number of people killed by handguns in the US is a pretty good motivation. The question is if banning them is effective. I don't know. Maybe it is already too late for that where you live.
But a ban should be the last option, and should require both extremely strong reasons for a ban and proof that a ban is effective and the only effective measure.
I think you are saying "ban" for what other people might call a restriction. Regulating emissions is the same as banning overly-pollution, I suppose. It seems you are trying to make an emotional appeal with that word.
What is so terrible about having to reload after you take a shot?
If you want to take these things from the thousands of responsible operators because of a single irresponsible asshat, then lets start banning knifes and cars too.
Calm down. Nobody is "banning" guns. Or knives. Just regulating. Flick-knives are bad. 50-cal machine guns on the back of your pickup are bad. You want a kitchen knife or a deer-hunting gun? No problem. Sorry if the gun requires as much paperwork as your car.
A collision briefing putting out more power than the rest of the observable universe, wiping out who knows how many intelligent civilisations in an instant. Kind of puts the Trump thing in perspective, I suppose.
Vacuum is far from empty. Even in deepest, darkest space you have a temperature of 2.7K from the cosmic background radiation. Temperature is not just about conduction.
This probe is going into the sun's corona, which does have a particle temperature, but is so thin that the radiation temperature is far more important.
Pence but his motivations are based on what he thinks is good for the country, and is able to understand the complexities in it.
He seems like a decent guy, and a skilled politician. But you have to question his intelligence and judgement.
And I believe that, Mr. Speaker. I believe that God created the known universe, the earth, and everything in it including man, and I also believe that some day, scientists will come to see that only the theory of intelligent design provides an even remotely rational explanation for the known universe.”
Small-l liberal: A person of liberal political and social beliefs. Big-l Liberal: A member of the Liberal party.
That's a bit confusing. The "Small-l liberal" would normally refer specifically to social, not economic, liberalism. A small-L liberal may believe in bigger government, more welfare spending, and increased regulation, which all goes against classical liberalism. Australia's current prime-minister is both kinds of liberal, but his predecessor from the same party is very much a social conservative.
The US has an unusual usage of the work "liberal". It is not properly the opposite of conservative. Australia's Liberal party has both social conservatives and social "progressives".
Well, the law is kind of dumb. But they could just stop cross-dressing and paining their faces while flying. Its just travel, not Saturday Night. Gender-neutral clothing is quite popular these days. Its not like they were ever really fooling anybody in daylight.
Doesn't North Carolina have separate disabled/family toilets either?
And don't even try to tell me a person who has a dick and tits that were added later is not weird.
Sure it is weird. We even have a psychiatric term "gender identity disorder". But your reaction is weird too. Whats your diagnosis? Some sort of phobia? Were you once molested by a cross-dresser? Do you have a similar reaction to an amputee? Or a black person?
I am sick and tired of minority groups acting like they are entitled to special treatment.
Sure its not that hard to use the loos for your actual gender. On the other hand, its not a big ask either. Its not like they are asking for a special restroom for themselves (not like those over-entitled handicapped people). Seriously, what is your problem?
My local public swimming pool has signs outside the changeroom that I cannot take my 4yo daughter in with me. What do they imagine will happen? People have some very weird sexual hangups.
Good question. I've seen women using men's lavatories * a few times, and nobody did more than raise an eyebrow. I just assumed the queue for the Ladies was too long. As long as they don't try to pee at the urinal and splash my legs, I don't care. If some bloke in a frock came in, I'd care even less.
Conversely, why do trannies get so upset at having to use the men's bathroom? Is it such a terrible inconvenience?
* Why do Americans say "bathroom" ? If people really were taking baths at work, I could see the modesty issue. The Brits are no better. I had to ask directions for the gents in the UK because I did not know that a "cloakroom" is where one takes a pee.
Wow! Where did that rant come from? I don't know anything about the ghettos. I'm not even American. Am just talking about the facts behind the PISA rankings, and why US scores lower than other advanced economies. I was not trying to imply anything about nature vs nurture here, because it is irrelevant to the context. Try considering a less emotional topic - the urban vs rural gap. There are a number of hypotheses, but we still don't really know the root causes of that.
But if it makes you feel better, I totally agree about the "war on drugs", and that such bad laws disproportionately affect disadvantaged demographics.
The USA is 14th for Reading The USA is 25th for Maths
If you look at the data, the difference comes down to demographics, urban vs rural and race. The top scorers in PISA are highly urbanised and racially homogeneous. If you look at data from American Whites and Asians in the cities, they compare very well. There is less data for blacks and rural populations, but I think those demographics in America would also compare favourably to their fellows in other OECD countries.
but i don't think sharing information over the internet should ever be a crime, in any form whatsoever
No secrets? No privacy? That's a bit broad. I prefer the way that patents work. You can choose to keep something secret, or you can patent it. Then everyone gets to see it, and in exchange you get certain rights for royalties from commercial use. There is no need to ban sharing any more than sharing books is banned. It just creates an un-policable crime and destroys respect for rule of law.
I view it as "leftist" because it expanded the powers of government at the expense of the people.
The left in theory gives power to the people, while the right gives power to the aristocracy. The terms come from the French revolution. In the US, it is more government versus the elite and corporations. But since the latter controls the former, its a moot point.
Slashdot Mirror
Citizens shouldn't have to justify why they need or even just want drones (or guns);
I've heard Americans use that word 'citizens' a few times. What does citizenship have to do with it? Citizenship for voting, OK, but what does it matter for getting a license? You don't even need to be a citizen to join the US military.
the onus is on the state to come up with reasons why we shouldn't have them.
Surely that part is obvious. Guns can be dangerous. It is normal to regulate dangerous things.
Now if the state wants to regulate these things because of problems, that's fine. Require a license. Require registration. Whatever.
OK, we are on the same page. But licensing implies limits on who can have them. And regulation also means limiting the kinds of weapons.
We need to balance public vs private interest. One person having fun vs another getting shot. The latter seems more important, no?
I'll agree that guns should not be banned, if you agree that there should be limits.
Some people might argue that "its fun" is not sufficient justification for easy availability of weapons whose primary design purpose is to kill people.
The number of people killed by handguns in the US is a pretty good motivation. The question is if banning them is effective.
I don't know. Maybe it is already too late for that where you live.
But a ban should be the last option, and should require both extremely strong reasons for a ban and proof that a ban is effective and the only effective measure.
I think you are saying "ban" for what other people might call a restriction. Regulating emissions is the same as banning overly-pollution, I suppose. It seems you are trying to make an emotional appeal with that word.
What is so terrible about having to reload after you take a shot?
If you want to take these things from the thousands of responsible operators because of a single irresponsible asshat, then lets start banning knifes and cars too.
Calm down. Nobody is "banning" guns. Or knives. Just regulating. Flick-knives are bad. 50-cal machine guns on the back of your pickup are bad. You want a kitchen knife or a deer-hunting gun? No problem. Sorry if the gun requires as much paperwork as your car.
If you want a car that will give you an erection when you look at it then you need therapy, not a new car.
You do realise he was using a metaphor, right?
Arousal and desire are not just for sexual matters. Though the more socially acceptable term is "lust", rather than stiffy.
Actually there is a strong positive correlation between IQ (measured in school students) and later alcohol consumption, especially wine.
See https://www.psychologytoday.co...
Low IQ is associated with binge-drinking though.
"Look at that subtle colouring. The tasteful thickness of the fuselage."
"Oh my God. It even has a watermark."
A collision briefing putting out more power than the rest of the observable universe, wiping out who knows how many intelligent civilisations in an instant. Kind of puts the Trump thing in perspective, I suppose.
"I felt a minuscule disturbance in the gravitational force. I fear something terrible has happened."
it has no temperature...
Vacuum is far from empty. Even in deepest, darkest space you have a temperature of 2.7K from the cosmic background radiation.
Temperature is not just about conduction.
This probe is going into the sun's corona, which does have a particle temperature, but is so thin that the radiation temperature is far more important.
Pence but his motivations are based on what he thinks is good for the country, and is able to understand the complexities in it.
He seems like a decent guy, and a skilled politician. But you have to question his intelligence and judgement.
And I believe that, Mr. Speaker. I believe that God created the known universe, the earth, and everything in it including man, and I also believe that some day, scientists will come to see that only the theory of intelligent design provides an even remotely rational explanation for the known universe.”
- Pence2002
Small-l liberal: A person of liberal political and social beliefs.
Big-l Liberal: A member of the Liberal party.
That's a bit confusing. The "Small-l liberal" would normally refer specifically to social, not economic, liberalism.
A small-L liberal may believe in bigger government, more welfare spending, and increased regulation, which all goes against classical liberalism.
Australia's current prime-minister is both kinds of liberal, but his predecessor from the same party is very much a social conservative.
The US has an unusual usage of the work "liberal". It is not properly the opposite of conservative.
Australia's Liberal party has both social conservatives and social "progressives".
Does the concept of Liberal Conservatism blow your mind?
Oh, and the US is a Republic, not a Democracy. . .
I had no idea they were mutually exclusive.
Can Trump pull out without getting necessary legislation through congress?
I thought the US was a democracy.
Well, the law is kind of dumb. But they could just stop cross-dressing and paining their faces while flying.
Its just travel, not Saturday Night. Gender-neutral clothing is quite popular these days. Its not like they were ever really fooling anybody in daylight.
Doesn't North Carolina have separate disabled/family toilets either?
And don't even try to tell me a person who has a dick and tits that were added later is not weird.
Sure it is weird. We even have a psychiatric term "gender identity disorder".
But your reaction is weird too. Whats your diagnosis? Some sort of phobia? Were you once molested by a cross-dresser?
Do you have a similar reaction to an amputee? Or a black person?
I am sick and tired of minority groups acting like they are entitled to special treatment.
Sure its not that hard to use the loos for your actual gender. On the other hand, its not a big ask either. Its not like they are asking for a special restroom for themselves (not like those over-entitled handicapped people). Seriously, what is your problem?
My local public swimming pool has signs outside the changeroom that I cannot take my 4yo daughter in with me.
What do they imagine will happen? People have some very weird sexual hangups.
but I'm willing to bet they were generally better than what men dealt with, if only because their "aim" is inherently better
No, that is a myth. Study are study shows men's rooms are cleaner and more hygienic.
Good question. I've seen women using men's lavatories * a few times, and nobody did more than raise an eyebrow.
I just assumed the queue for the Ladies was too long. As long as they don't try to pee at the urinal and splash my legs, I don't care.
If some bloke in a frock came in, I'd care even less.
Conversely, why do trannies get so upset at having to use the men's bathroom? Is it such a terrible inconvenience?
* Why do Americans say "bathroom" ? If people really were taking baths at work, I could see the modesty issue.
The Brits are no better. I had to ask directions for the gents in the UK because I did not know that a "cloakroom" is where one takes a pee.
Wow! Where did that rant come from?
I don't know anything about the ghettos. I'm not even American. Am just talking about the facts behind the PISA rankings, and why US scores lower than other advanced economies. I was not trying to imply anything about nature vs nurture here, because it is irrelevant to the context.
Try considering a less emotional topic - the urban vs rural gap. There are a number of hypotheses, but we still don't really know the root causes of that.
But if it makes you feel better, I totally agree about the "war on drugs", and that such bad laws disproportionately affect disadvantaged demographics.
The USA is 14th for Reading
The USA is 25th for Maths
If you look at the data, the difference comes down to demographics, urban vs rural and race.
The top scorers in PISA are highly urbanised and racially homogeneous.
If you look at data from American Whites and Asians in the cities, they compare very well.
There is less data for blacks and rural populations, but I think those demographics in America would also compare favourably to their fellows in other OECD countries.
"Let a hundred flowers bloom!", said senators Hassan and Portman.
Also, a great new excuse for being late with your thesis:
"My editor ate my submission. "
And that is the worst.
Not even close! Try looking at the source of most of the trash : Asia.
This Chinese beach had 362 tonnes of garbage :
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...
but i don't think sharing information over the internet should ever be a crime, in any form whatsoever
No secrets? No privacy? That's a bit broad. I prefer the way that patents work.
You can choose to keep something secret, or you can patent it. Then everyone gets to see it, and in exchange you get certain rights for royalties from commercial use.
There is no need to ban sharing any more than sharing books is banned. It just creates an un-policable crime and destroys respect for rule of law.
I view it as "leftist" because it expanded the powers of government at the expense of the people.
The left in theory gives power to the people, while the right gives power to the aristocracy. The terms come from the French revolution.
In the US, it is more government versus the elite and corporations. But since the latter controls the former, its a moot point.
Dammit, at least try to stay with the lingo!
Woooshh! Trump invents the lingo.
Why start from scratch when you can join an organisation that is already fabulously wealthy and is immune from all taxes?