48 deaths in a year, out of a population of 7,500,000. Yes, a staggering number.
So, nothing about firearm ownership has changed in their history, well, ever, and now deaths are increasing. Perhaps, just perhaps, something else is the issue. Maybe? Nah, it must be the thing that hasn't changed that's the root cause of the change.
Limits on gun ownership don't stop violent crime. A culture opposed to violent crime stops violent crime.
Canada has lots of firearms legally owned, and has a fraction of gun crime per capita. Switzerland has one of the highest rates of ownership per household (if not the highest), and has almost zero firearm violence. US gun violence is a symptom of culture, not the accessibility of firearms.
I have a friend who works with children who have extreme behavioral issues, and she had a situation similar to this that was just resolved last week. A girl claimed she was touched inappropriately, and my friend was suspended without pay for the last 4 months while the investigation was ongoing. This girl has a long history of fabricating such stories.
Unfortunately, she's also currently engaged in a nasty custody fight where the allegations (of which she was completely cleared last week) are being used to support a claim she's a danger to her own children.
There's a difference between "substandard" and "insufficient."
A standard cooling solution can be insufficient under the right circumstances, such as a card that doesn't rate TDP correctly and allows the card to exceed its published TDP through software. The cooling isn't the problem; the manufacturer is the problem.
Corporations are not people (despite the Supreme Court's recent ruling). They don't (well, shouldn't, since the Supreme Court is apparently staffed with morons right now) have rights, they have privileges and immunities granted to them through state laws regarding their construction and use.
Also, this is one of the few examples where I actually agree the Commerce Clause is the controlling factor. Most of the laws that the Federal Government enacts under the auspices of the Commerce Clause are an absolute joke. (Really? You can force an individual to buy health insurance because it's a commercial issue? Means you can force them to buy the latest celebrity sex tape too, since that's a commercial issue.)
Perhaps, but the largest occurrence that comes to mind is the bottom dropping out of the long distance market in the early to mid 90s as contractual per-minute pricing (not unlike later cellphone plans) ceased to become the norm and was replaced by all-you-can-use flat monthly pricing (with rates far, far lower per minute for anything over a handful). Those were all nationwide companies, so it didn't occur to me that pricing would be so widely disparate in other markets. Stranger things have happened though.
The starkest example I recall was when my father's commercial line contract became an absolute joke during the change, since he was still obligated to pay ridiculously high prices until the end of it, despite the dramatic decrease in rates on non-contract newer plans.
It started long before the modern age of cell phones and VOIP. I don't know how old you are, but suspect you weren't paying phone bills in the late 80s and early 90s. Otherwise the price changes would (presumably, at least, but it's possible it's not for reasons other than your age) be crystal clear.
Prices may not have gone down immediately, but they have absolutely gone down over time. I remember when long distance charges could eat a hole in your bank account the same way cell overage charges could a few years ago, and how data usage charges did until very, very recently.
It may not have been a speedy reduction, but it did happen. Each new tech follows the same cycle.
If by "capitalism" you mean economic subjugation of a population through manipulation of government, then it's got to be the longest-running pyramid scheme in human history. There's also no sign that it's going to cease any time soon.
Also, the US is not actually a capitalist country, any more than the USSR was actually communist. They're just terms co-opted to make subjugation look "populist."
This is exactly it. People hate everyone but the one who brings pork to their state/district.
People are happy to be vampires when it benefits them. Unfortunately, the eventuality is everyone becomes a vampire and there are no more humans to suck the blood out of.
Whether or not socialism is one, pyramid schemes can work for a long time depending on how they're constructed. Just because something works for a time does not mean it is sustainable.
I'm not actually commenting on socialism here, but on the logic behind the statement above. Just because it works now does not automatically mean it is sustainable.
You think they're answerable now? How would that be any different? Politicians are never really answerable to the vote, except in extraordinary circumstances. Like cockroaches, they just keep popping up. Even when they don't, they live out the rest of their lives living comfortably on public largess.
Well, because statistically they are. Granted, the comment made it sound like suicide (which it's not), but yeah, they're still dangerous (compared to other vehicles, anyway).
That's not a better analogy. It's actually quite terrible. Nothing is taken from the designers that they did not agree to and readily give. The "bitten apple" analogy is completely skewed, otherwise nobody would choose the designers that were rejected once. Their career would be over the second they were no longer in 1st place.
And then they came for the scribes, and I said nothing... And then they came for the bilge-pumpers, and I said nothing... And then they came for the well diggers, and I said nothing... And people adapted, and nothing remarkable happened as a result.
Boohoo, another industry that only the truly skilled can compete in. Cry me a river...
The only people affected are those who are not truly talented designers who are actually able to communicate with their clients, and companies who have idiots for marketing heads.
Why should anyone else care about either being affected? The former is in the wrong industry and the latter gets what they paid for (in all the ways that can be interpreted).
No industry has an inherent right to survive technological change. Otherwise we'd still have a scribal industry, and the use of printing presses would be restricted. As industries die out to technological change, the people in those industries have to adapt to the world, not adapt the world to themselves.
If you're truly a better designer, you can still probably find good paying work for clients who care about having a relationship with the person designing the graphical elements of their business. If you don't have those skills as a designer, you really aren't a skilled worker, and should honestly be working for unskilled wages. Either polish up, or find a different career. That's how the world works.
Expedia does, however, let you look through all the flights available and pick the one you like. Similarly, 99designs lets you look through all the designs made available by people who are fully aware they may not be paid at all for their work, and allows you to pick and pay for the one you like the best.
People who aren't going to be paid anyway have absolutely nothing to lose by hopping on the bandwagon.
Slashdot Mirror
48 deaths in a year, out of a population of 7,500,000. Yes, a staggering number.
So, nothing about firearm ownership has changed in their history, well, ever, and now deaths are increasing. Perhaps, just perhaps, something else is the issue. Maybe? Nah, it must be the thing that hasn't changed that's the root cause of the change.
Limits on gun ownership don't stop violent crime. A culture opposed to violent crime stops violent crime.
Canada has lots of firearms legally owned, and has a fraction of gun crime per capita. Switzerland has one of the highest rates of ownership per household (if not the highest), and has almost zero firearm violence. US gun violence is a symptom of culture, not the accessibility of firearms.
I have a friend who works with children who have extreme behavioral issues, and she had a situation similar to this that was just resolved last week. A girl claimed she was touched inappropriately, and my friend was suspended without pay for the last 4 months while the investigation was ongoing. This girl has a long history of fabricating such stories.
Unfortunately, she's also currently engaged in a nasty custody fight where the allegations (of which she was completely cleared last week) are being used to support a claim she's a danger to her own children.
T-Mobile will unlock phones you buy from them after 90 days, so you can take them to any carrier you want.
There's a difference between "substandard" and "insufficient."
A standard cooling solution can be insufficient under the right circumstances, such as a card that doesn't rate TDP correctly and allows the card to exceed its published TDP through software. The cooling isn't the problem; the manufacturer is the problem.
Corporations are not people (despite the Supreme Court's recent ruling). They don't (well, shouldn't, since the Supreme Court is apparently staffed with morons right now) have rights, they have privileges and immunities granted to them through state laws regarding their construction and use.
Also, this is one of the few examples where I actually agree the Commerce Clause is the controlling factor. Most of the laws that the Federal Government enacts under the auspices of the Commerce Clause are an absolute joke. (Really? You can force an individual to buy health insurance because it's a commercial issue? Means you can force them to buy the latest celebrity sex tape too, since that's a commercial issue.)
Perhaps, but the largest occurrence that comes to mind is the bottom dropping out of the long distance market in the early to mid 90s as contractual per-minute pricing (not unlike later cellphone plans) ceased to become the norm and was replaced by all-you-can-use flat monthly pricing (with rates far, far lower per minute for anything over a handful). Those were all nationwide companies, so it didn't occur to me that pricing would be so widely disparate in other markets. Stranger things have happened though.
The starkest example I recall was when my father's commercial line contract became an absolute joke during the change, since he was still obligated to pay ridiculously high prices until the end of it, despite the dramatic decrease in rates on non-contract newer plans.
It surprises me that you didn't register the pricing changes during that time period then, or were in a very odd market.
It started long before the modern age of cell phones and VOIP. I don't know how old you are, but suspect you weren't paying phone bills in the late 80s and early 90s. Otherwise the price changes would (presumably, at least, but it's possible it's not for reasons other than your age) be crystal clear.
Prices may not have gone down immediately, but they have absolutely gone down over time. I remember when long distance charges could eat a hole in your bank account the same way cell overage charges could a few years ago, and how data usage charges did until very, very recently.
It may not have been a speedy reduction, but it did happen. Each new tech follows the same cycle.
I'd say they were probably neck and neck, but in the end it's all speculation.
If by "capitalism" you mean economic subjugation of a population through manipulation of government, then it's got to be the longest-running pyramid scheme in human history. There's also no sign that it's going to cease any time soon.
Also, the US is not actually a capitalist country, any more than the USSR was actually communist. They're just terms co-opted to make subjugation look "populist."
Yup. Should be hating on Texas instead if it's about not teaching evolution or science.
This is exactly it. People hate everyone but the one who brings pork to their state/district.
People are happy to be vampires when it benefits them. Unfortunately, the eventuality is everyone becomes a vampire and there are no more humans to suck the blood out of.
Whether or not socialism is one, pyramid schemes can work for a long time depending on how they're constructed. Just because something works for a time does not mean it is sustainable.
I'm not actually commenting on socialism here, but on the logic behind the statement above. Just because it works now does not automatically mean it is sustainable.
You think they're answerable now? How would that be any different? Politicians are never really answerable to the vote, except in extraordinary circumstances. Like cockroaches, they just keep popping up. Even when they don't, they live out the rest of their lives living comfortably on public largess.
Well, because statistically they are. Granted, the comment made it sound like suicide (which it's not), but yeah, they're still dangerous (compared to other vehicles, anyway).
That's not a better analogy. It's actually quite terrible. Nothing is taken from the designers that they did not agree to and readily give. The "bitten apple" analogy is completely skewed, otherwise nobody would choose the designers that were rejected once. Their career would be over the second they were no longer in 1st place.
And then they came for the scribes, and I said nothing...
And then they came for the bilge-pumpers, and I said nothing...
And then they came for the well diggers, and I said nothing...
And people adapted, and nothing remarkable happened as a result.
Boohoo, another industry that only the truly skilled can compete in. Cry me a river...
The only people affected are those who are not truly talented designers who are actually able to communicate with their clients, and companies who have idiots for marketing heads.
Why should anyone else care about either being affected? The former is in the wrong industry and the latter gets what they paid for (in all the ways that can be interpreted).
No industry has an inherent right to survive technological change. Otherwise we'd still have a scribal industry, and the use of printing presses would be restricted. As industries die out to technological change, the people in those industries have to adapt to the world, not adapt the world to themselves.
If you're truly a better designer, you can still probably find good paying work for clients who care about having a relationship with the person designing the graphical elements of their business. If you don't have those skills as a designer, you really aren't a skilled worker, and should honestly be working for unskilled wages. Either polish up, or find a different career. That's how the world works.
Expedia does, however, let you look through all the flights available and pick the one you like. Similarly, 99designs lets you look through all the designs made available by people who are fully aware they may not be paid at all for their work, and allows you to pick and pay for the one you like the best.
People who aren't going to be paid anyway have absolutely nothing to lose by hopping on the bandwagon.
I hit submit and realized I should have written "shouldn't" instead of "doesn't." Governments exceed their enumerated powers on a regular basis.
Aside from laws against violence and coercion (which apply to every age), no, the government doesn't have a role in protecting a specific group.
A fine or penalty is some amount paid to the government, not to a private party. The judgement is neither fine nor penalty.