"And no matter what you say - Trayvon was still an innocent young man who was doing nothing illegal at the time."
Other than jumping George and attempting to cave the back of his head in by repeatedly slamming it onto concrete you mean?
"If he didn't feel big and safe with his gun and the "stand your ground" laws behind him then Trayvon would still be alive and Mr. Zimmerman wouldn't be getting death threats."
No, Trayvon would still be alive if he did not start the altercation.
I notice you used the word 'chase'. At no time did George chase the guy. Second point, George did not start the fight, he was jumped. So, apparently your reasoned response to someone following you - especially if you believed he/she was carrying a gun - is to jump them and start beating on them and hope like hell they don't pull and use the gun you especially believe them to be carrying.
That doesn't even make sense. Spinach doesn't copy its DNA into a host. Spinach has no host. If you're referring to the fact that humans are moving spinach DNA into the orange, then you are apparently only concerned about the mechanism, not genetic modification per se.
Oh, please. Calls are at the top of their communications methodologies. They have self-identifying calls for a reason and it's not over-vocalized introspection.
Your statement would be like saying that although you have a unique # here on./ and it appears on all your self-identified posts, others really can't read it.
This is about the most shallow and lame excuse for reaching for justification I have ever read. Are you seriously so thin of mind that you think music is the only thing that is effected by copyright? Does that thinness extend to the inability to understand that those producing "free" music and videos are just creating promotional pieces in hopes of generating a paying audience?
"Someone forced themselves to push out a turd just to get money, not because he really liked to do it."
Nice straw justification for the dehumanization of the artist attempting to make a living at art so you can live with yourself for ripping them off.
Does this include your employer (or a client) simply deciding they don't want to deal with you anymore and using your output without any recompense? If not, please explain why an author doesn't deserve the same type of protection you do on their livelihood.
First of all, you're wrong, the creators have the control. I own the copyrights on my works and I control them. I can, however, choose to enter into a contract and allow someone else to publish them (although I still own them) or I can sell them outright. Well, I have to admit I'm a bit wrong - *copyright infringers* attempt to usurp that control.
The punishments *can* be harsh, but typically it's simply an order to quit and provide restitution.
"I believe that its better to not have the need to carry than to carry just in case."
So do I, and once you create that place, please invite everyone, as it currently does not exist on this planet. And no, the first step is no to take protection away from honest people.
Good site is the FBI. They keep stats on homicides and their means. Guns are not number one. So wait, it *does* prove they're dangerous even without guns.
When I'm speaking to someone, it is unacceptable for them to treat me with discourtesy, as I do not treat them in that manner. It is a delimitation, not an imposition. It is a statement that the *manner* in which they've chosen to present their argument is unacceptable, not the argument itself. No one has the unfettered right to abuse others in whatever manner they see fit.
Having a grand yell-out in no way guarantees peace afterward. Some of the biggest back-stabbers I've met were also yellers and screamers. They're simply abusive people who can't maintain boundaries.
"Considering the wide spread racism in the south of the US..."
You're pulling that out of your ass. I contracted all over during my career and I *never* saw such raw, unadulterated racial hatred as I experienced in the NE and Chicago. Never. Yet, every time, they would spout about southern hatred. Such self-blinded people.
Slashdot Mirror
"And no matter what you say - Trayvon was still an innocent young man who was doing nothing illegal at the time."
Other than jumping George and attempting to cave the back of his head in by repeatedly slamming it onto concrete you mean?
"If he didn't feel big and safe with his gun and the "stand your ground" laws behind him then Trayvon would still be alive and Mr. Zimmerman wouldn't be getting death threats."
No, Trayvon would still be alive if he did not start the altercation.
I notice you used the word 'chase'. At no time did George chase the guy. Second point, George did not start the fight, he was jumped. So, apparently your reasoned response to someone following you - especially if you believed he/she was carrying a gun - is to jump them and start beating on them and hope like hell they don't pull and use the gun you especially believe them to be carrying.
And, much like Jane Austen's characters, you speak in hyperbole. Her prose is tepid at best.
It was completely relevant to the context.
That doesn't even make sense. Spinach doesn't copy its DNA into a host. Spinach has no host. If you're referring to the fact that humans are moving spinach DNA into the orange, then you are apparently only concerned about the mechanism, not genetic modification per se.
Odd then, how frequently we select names for ourselves that we wish others to use.
Oh, please. Calls are at the top of their communications methodologies. They have self-identifying calls for a reason and it's not over-vocalized introspection.
./ and it appears on all your self-identified posts, others really can't read it.
Your statement would be like saying that although you have a unique # here on
"Sure it also still runs the usual work stuff, but that has not been the reason for its existence for a long time now."
Nice vacuous affirmation.
This is about the most shallow and lame excuse for reaching for justification I have ever read. Are you seriously so thin of mind that you think music is the only thing that is effected by copyright? Does that thinness extend to the inability to understand that those producing "free" music and videos are just creating promotional pieces in hopes of generating a paying audience?
"Someone forced themselves to push out a turd just to get money, not because he really liked to do it."
Nice straw justification for the dehumanization of the artist attempting to make a living at art so you can live with yourself for ripping them off.
No normally. But if you use it as a template, manufacture clones and sell them, yes.
Does this include your employer (or a client) simply deciding they don't want to deal with you anymore and using your output without any recompense? If not, please explain why an author doesn't deserve the same type of protection you do on their livelihood.
First of all, you're wrong, the creators have the control. I own the copyrights on my works and I control them. I can, however, choose to enter into a contract and allow someone else to publish them (although I still own them) or I can sell them outright. Well, I have to admit I'm a bit wrong - *copyright infringers* attempt to usurp that control.
The punishments *can* be harsh, but typically it's simply an order to quit and provide restitution.
"Once skynet becomes self aware, it will be considered its own person..."
Why? There are numerous self aware animals that don't get considered persons. It wouldn't be charged with treason, it would be disabled. .
"negative impact on the environment"
With such a non-definition, OF COURSE we (and every living organism and many non-animate processes) have a negative impact.
The only appropriate answer to that is - so?
Everyone worldwide does it. We're just not shy about it.
"I believe that its better to not have the need to carry than to carry just in case."
So do I, and once you create that place, please invite everyone, as it currently does not exist on this planet. And no, the first step is no to take protection away from honest people.
Good site is the FBI. They keep stats on homicides and their means. Guns are not number one. So wait, it *does* prove they're dangerous even without guns.
More people are killed in the US every year by being beaten to death than by gunshot. So no, guns are *not* what makes belligerent people dangerous.
*Some* very successful people. I do believe you're stating on opinion and mine is more centric.
When I'm speaking to someone, it is unacceptable for them to treat me with discourtesy, as I do not treat them in that manner. It is a delimitation, not an imposition. It is a statement that the *manner* in which they've chosen to present their argument is unacceptable, not the argument itself. No one has the unfettered right to abuse others in whatever manner they see fit.
Having a grand yell-out in no way guarantees peace afterward. Some of the biggest back-stabbers I've met were also yellers and screamers. They're simply abusive people who can't maintain boundaries.
Being a dick is a purposeful act. Simply don't be a dick and the uber thin skinned self-reveal.
his articles are copyrighted.
"most old people will ..."
/. commenter audience, right?
You understand the description following that was one that applies to the general
"Considering the wide spread racism in the south of the US..."
You're pulling that out of your ass. I contracted all over during my career and I *never* saw such raw, unadulterated racial hatred as I experienced in the NE and Chicago. Never. Yet, every time, they would spout about southern hatred. Such self-blinded people.