They may as well be suing the NSA, considering what would come out in discovery if this lawsuit is allowed to proceed. Or rather, what won't come out, in the interest of "national security."
And when you bought that land, somewhere in the contract was a requirement that you continue to extend the easement to AT&T. It's like an HOA, or any other property covenant. Once your land goes in, it's nearly impossible to get it back out.
No, the poles run through easements that AT&T negotiated with the various landowners in their way. The poles themselves are wholly owned by AT&T. Exactly what the terms of those easements are is going to have significant impact on whether AT&T can be forced to open up their poles for Google's fiber lines.
Except that, with the legalization of other drugs, meth would likely decline among manufacturers. People use it in many cases because it's dirt cheap. If there was a ready supply of legal cocaine, people could get an upper high without the nasty side effects to both users and the property of manufacturers.
If nothing else, it would allow for treatment centers, doctors, etc. to campaign for the use of other drugs over the use of meth.
Most DAs are not interested in simplicity. They want more laws because they're more likely to get a conviction on at least one of them. The other bonus DAs see is that each crime gets its own sentence, and they can be handed down to be served consecutively rather than simultaneously. In this way they can get people locked up for longer. This makes them look good to the percentage of the public who do not possess the faculties to critically examine anything but their refrigerator contents.
In politics, reasonable routes are usually the first casualties in any undertaking.
it'll take more than a guy tuning a printer in his basement to make them practical.
It's only slightly harder than turning on a printer, since the design files already exist. Not only do they already exist, but better versions will end up being available the same way.
Download file, turn on printer, load filament media into printer, open file, hit "print" button.
It's a little longer than printing a paper document, but no more difficult.
The rate of lightning strikes directly hitting a person is many orders of magnitude lower than being the victim of a violent crime. As for killer bees, if I lived in an area where they nest you can bet your ass I'd do anything I could to protect myself from them. That's a nasty way to die.
I'd rather not have my city turn into New York, Chicago, or L.A. Or D.C. God forbid we create another area like D.C. Those urban areas with strict gun control laws are also the least safe in which to walk around.
I'm perfectly happy with our low violent crime rate (most shootings of innocents here are the result of the police). Urban areas are where most illegal guns are found. Adding more gun control laws will only drive up sentencing terms, because they almost always are enforced after the fact (we still don't have pre-cogs to discover crimes before they happen).
No, I don't give a shit (not that I'm the one to which your response was posted) that you have a problem with not being able to force law-abiding citizens the tools to protect themselves. Nothing you can do will prevent criminals from obtaining firearms, kinda like how DRM only impacts the law-abiding.
The fact that you find folks who defend their rights despicable is pretty despicable in itself. Law-abiding owners have zero negative impact on you, and one day you may find your defenseless self saved by one of them. That's something that does happen regularly. Thanks to YouTube, it's even easier to dig up proof positive that non-lethal use of a defensive firearm saves lives every single day.
Yes, because anywhere this might happen will have a ready police station. That is assuming there is one you know about in the areas that have them, which is not a great assumption for many (as already posted a couple times in response here).
So no, not as easy in a great number of cases. Additionally, the same incidents occur outside of vehicles where your advice is completely untenable in the event the punks aren't just fucking with your head.
My girlfriend was mugged in the city of Spokane. After the little assholes ran off (too stupid to check inside her coat where her wallet and cell phone were, she dialed 911. She was told to stay there, and an officer would be by sometime in the next hour. She was 5 minutes from home, so she disregarded their advice to hang out on the street under a freeway overpass for the next hour.
Needless to say, this sort of thing happens regularly here. Since the mugging, she's learned to practice tactical awareness when walking alone at night. Being able to brandish a weapon is enough to scare off most attackers when you can see them coming. A good combat knife comes into play if they get close enough that a safe draw and fire is no longer possible.
Actually, seat belts do kill people, albeit rarely. My Dad is alive thanks to one of the few occasions he didn't buckle up. He was ejected through the windshield, and the car was crushed. The inspectors at the scene told him his chances of surviving had he been wearing a belt were almost non-existent.
As for the claim that firearms are more likely to kill you or your family, that's because firearms are a leading suicide method. When you remove suicide from the rate and control for the fact that a huge percentage of firearms are held by collectors, the US homicide-by-firearm rate starts to look quite similar to the rest of the OECD countries. The graph below doesn't actually control for ownership of more than one firearm per person (since that data is pretty sparse, for good reason), so the US rate (far right on graph) is probably quite a bit lower than shown. The data used to make the graph came from Wikipedia so it's by no means rigorous, but it's also not likely to be so far off as to be useless.
Actually, violent crime is rare in most of the country. It's concentrated in a very small number of locations.
The per capita statistics are also very misleading in many cases, since the way those statistics are reported can vary hugely. The US has one of the most comprehensive reporting methods in the world, which will obviously skew their numbers higher. The more the reporting requirements of a country being compared to the US deviate (such as the UK), the less useful per capita comparisons are.
He didn't say being black was a risk factor, he just said that a higher number commit murder than is generally recognized in the mainstream press. That is a simple fact. There is a correlation between race and crime, and the problem is when that correlation is represented as causative. The real cause, of course, is socioeconomic.
Hopefully you don't live in the US then, since every criminal, racist, and nut case can already easily obtain a firearm. That's also something that won't ever change.
No it doesn't. Societies work differently overseas, which is the actual important part of the equation and one which those opposed to firearms conveniently ignore.
There are practical limits on home production of firearms. You can make a limited quantity of pistols and rifles for personal consumption. You can't make silencers or automatic weapons or sell them legally without a license.
Slashdot Mirror
They're conflating "cheaper" with "requires not being lazy."
If I spent $4 for every meal, I'd be going over my monthly food budget by more than 3x.
Eating healthy is cheap. It just requires a bit of time and effort to actually prepare.
It wouldn't make the Police Department any money. Paperwork without reward is anathema to most cops.
As a part of the Federal government it is.
They are immune from the law in most cases, except where they waive sovereign immunity.
They may as well be suing the NSA, considering what would come out in discovery if this lawsuit is allowed to proceed. Or rather, what won't come out, in the interest of "national security."
And when you bought that land, somewhere in the contract was a requirement that you continue to extend the easement to AT&T. It's like an HOA, or any other property covenant. Once your land goes in, it's nearly impossible to get it back out.
No, the poles run through easements that AT&T negotiated with the various landowners in their way. The poles themselves are wholly owned by AT&T. Exactly what the terms of those easements are is going to have significant impact on whether AT&T can be forced to open up their poles for Google's fiber lines.
Except that, with the legalization of other drugs, meth would likely decline among manufacturers. People use it in many cases because it's dirt cheap. If there was a ready supply of legal cocaine, people could get an upper high without the nasty side effects to both users and the property of manufacturers.
If nothing else, it would allow for treatment centers, doctors, etc. to campaign for the use of other drugs over the use of meth.
And, of course, that of all the action taken, not a single provision would have stopped the tragedy du jour.
Most DAs are not interested in simplicity. They want more laws because they're more likely to get a conviction on at least one of them. The other bonus DAs see is that each crime gets its own sentence, and they can be handed down to be served consecutively rather than simultaneously. In this way they can get people locked up for longer. This makes them look good to the percentage of the public who do not possess the faculties to critically examine anything but their refrigerator contents.
In politics, reasonable routes are usually the first casualties in any undertaking.
it'll take more than a guy tuning a printer in his basement to make them practical.
It's only slightly harder than turning on a printer, since the design files already exist. Not only do they already exist, but better versions will end up being available the same way.
Download file, turn on printer, load filament media into printer, open file, hit "print" button.
It's a little longer than printing a paper document, but no more difficult.
the simple fact is if a bad guy is pointing a gun in your face the police are not going to be there in time to help you.
Thanks for a perfect illustration of one of the many reasons why legal access to firearms is justified.
Privately owned firearms stop criminals every single day. Thanks to YouTube there is evidence of that posted daily for the entire world to see.
The rate of lightning strikes directly hitting a person is many orders of magnitude lower than being the victim of a violent crime. As for killer bees, if I lived in an area where they nest you can bet your ass I'd do anything I could to protect myself from them. That's a nasty way to die.
I'd rather not have my city turn into New York, Chicago, or L.A. Or D.C. God forbid we create another area like D.C. Those urban areas with strict gun control laws are also the least safe in which to walk around.
I'm perfectly happy with our low violent crime rate (most shootings of innocents here are the result of the police). Urban areas are where most illegal guns are found. Adding more gun control laws will only drive up sentencing terms, because they almost always are enforced after the fact (we still don't have pre-cogs to discover crimes before they happen).
Bah, I hate not being able to edit posts here.
with not being able to force law-abiding citizens to give up the tools to protect themselves.
No, I don't give a shit (not that I'm the one to which your response was posted) that you have a problem with not being able to force law-abiding citizens the tools to protect themselves. Nothing you can do will prevent criminals from obtaining firearms, kinda like how DRM only impacts the law-abiding.
The fact that you find folks who defend their rights despicable is pretty despicable in itself. Law-abiding owners have zero negative impact on you, and one day you may find your defenseless self saved by one of them. That's something that does happen regularly. Thanks to YouTube, it's even easier to dig up proof positive that non-lethal use of a defensive firearm saves lives every single day.
Yes, because anywhere this might happen will have a ready police station. That is assuming there is one you know about in the areas that have them, which is not a great assumption for many (as already posted a couple times in response here).
So no, not as easy in a great number of cases. Additionally, the same incidents occur outside of vehicles where your advice is completely untenable in the event the punks aren't just fucking with your head.
My girlfriend was mugged in the city of Spokane. After the little assholes ran off (too stupid to check inside her coat where her wallet and cell phone were, she dialed 911. She was told to stay there, and an officer would be by sometime in the next hour. She was 5 minutes from home, so she disregarded their advice to hang out on the street under a freeway overpass for the next hour.
Needless to say, this sort of thing happens regularly here. Since the mugging, she's learned to practice tactical awareness when walking alone at night. Being able to brandish a weapon is enough to scare off most attackers when you can see them coming. A good combat knife comes into play if they get close enough that a safe draw and fire is no longer possible.
Actually, seat belts do kill people, albeit rarely. My Dad is alive thanks to one of the few occasions he didn't buckle up. He was ejected through the windshield, and the car was crushed. The inspectors at the scene told him his chances of surviving had he been wearing a belt were almost non-existent.
As for the claim that firearms are more likely to kill you or your family, that's because firearms are a leading suicide method. When you remove suicide from the rate and control for the fact that a huge percentage of firearms are held by collectors, the US homicide-by-firearm rate starts to look quite similar to the rest of the OECD countries. The graph below doesn't actually control for ownership of more than one firearm per person (since that data is pretty sparse, for good reason), so the US rate (far right on graph) is probably quite a bit lower than shown. The data used to make the graph came from Wikipedia so it's by no means rigorous, but it's also not likely to be so far off as to be useless.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/A-WByDOCAAAWYa8.jpg:large
Actually, violent crime is rare in most of the country. It's concentrated in a very small number of locations.
The per capita statistics are also very misleading in many cases, since the way those statistics are reported can vary hugely. The US has one of the most comprehensive reporting methods in the world, which will obviously skew their numbers higher. The more the reporting requirements of a country being compared to the US deviate (such as the UK), the less useful per capita comparisons are.
He didn't say being black was a risk factor, he just said that a higher number commit murder than is generally recognized in the mainstream press. That is a simple fact. There is a correlation between race and crime, and the problem is when that correlation is represented as causative. The real cause, of course, is socioeconomic.
Hopefully you don't live in the US then, since every criminal, racist, and nut case can already easily obtain a firearm. That's also something that won't ever change.
No it doesn't. Societies work differently overseas, which is the actual important part of the equation and one which those opposed to firearms conveniently ignore.
There are practical limits on home production of firearms. You can make a limited quantity of pistols and rifles for personal consumption. You can't make silencers or automatic weapons or sell them legally without a license.