That's the *idea* of hate crimes, but if you were to publish literature about how evil the Jews are, and that situation with your girlfriend arose, you'd probably get nailed with a hate crime, because of your ideas.
Hate crimes are just illogical anyway. Who cares what a murderer's motivation is? If somebody kills another human being in cold blood, they should be punished severely, if they're found guilty. Technically serial killers would also be guilty of hate crimes, because they target specific kinds of people, but Jeffery Dahmer was not homophobic, because he himself was gay.
Let's not forget that the Romans weren't the first Western civilization with the jury trial we're all familiar with. They stole it, like most things, from the Greeks, who had a myth surrounding the first such trial as a legal issue between Athena and Poseidon in the city of Athens.
How can speech be free if it has limitations? You claim speech which is NOT in favor of a group can cause them harm. Short of throwing a book at someone, I fail to see how a mere words can inflict harm onto another person.
If a person is offended by what I say, they should fuck off. If I'm at their house, they should kick my ass out, but if I write a book, and if you buy it, and are offended by the contents, take it back to the store for a refund. Don't arrest me for offending you because we disagree.
Considering it's the aerodynamics that cause sonic booms in the first place, I would think a rounded craft would make a louder boom.
Then if you consider the drop in efficiency due to the serious amount of drag that would add, and the increase in fuel consumption, it wouldn't be viable to have a rounded craft in atmosphere.
Later revisions of 54G routers had less memory, and slower processors. Such a gimped amount of memory it took a long time to get a build of Linux that would fit.
Yes, oh heavens, we shouldn't make the government mad... that would be terrible. I mean, their purpose is to do whatever they wish, and we're supposed to agree with their decisions, they've always got our best interests at heart. It's not like they'll abuse this ability if they get it, we can trust them.
Go there, set up an appointment to test your ability to perform something that violates the laws of physics, or shows some sort of supernatural ability, and you'll become a millionaire, no questions asked. But you have to perform under controlled conditions.
The Canadian government then forbade any company operating on Canadian soil from obeying the embargo, and Wal-Mart's Cuban made clothing returned. Wait, I'm confused. Does that mean that all companies are required to import at least ONE item from Cuba?
I disagree about the night club bit. The rights protected by the Constitution do not apply to non government entities. Yes, forcing searches at courthouses is unconstitutional. It's also unconstitutional to have laws requiring it in privately owned areas like airports. But night club owners are free to have any requirement for admittance they wish. If they required you to kiss the bouncer's testicles before entry, it's their right to have that as a requirement for entering, and it's your right to tell them to fuck themselves and go to the night club across the street.
The Great Noodly one is not composed of flour, He created the world, and gave us knowledge of his Noodlyness so we may eventually create flour, and turn it into an approximation of His form.
Do you think PETA feels that if you surgically remove someone's injured spleen, you're committing some tragedy because you're "killing living animal cells"? Give me a break.
Well, when you consider that PETA's ideal world would ban honey, pets of any sort, circuses, seeing eye dogs for the blind, and most importantly they would totally stop all animal testing in medicine which would cause the medical field to practically grind to a halt. I wouldn't put it past them to put cells above the person they came out of, these people would rather a person died from diabetes then get insulin which was created by use of animal testing.
If I may comment about your statement with regard to blowing up the asteroid before it hits Earth. Not only would the damage be spread over a larger area, but it would also cause a lot more of the asteroid to disappear due to friction from re-entry. One giant mass of rock entering the atmosphere won't lose much material from re-entry, but a bunch of smaller pieces would have more surface area, less mass, and thus are more likely to burn away. I read someplace that we're getting pounded by meteorites the size of cars on a regular basis, but they burn up before they hit anywhere. If we could turn this asteroid into a bunch of cars, we'll have nothing to worry about.
Not in the United States of America. We have Common Law here, and it boils down to a protection of rights, not an avoidance to things people don't like. You are not allowed to rob me on the street because you are taking away my property from me. Stabbing someone, and trespassing are also violations of a person's personal sovereignty. We don't have one monarch in the United States, we have about 300 million. We're all monarchs of our own property, be it our homes, our cars, or our bodies.
Religious evangelists annoy the hell out of me, but they're still allowed to retain their right to say whatever the fuck they want, even over the air waves that the FCC monitors. Why should a person who irritates you with a cell phone be any different? Cell phones are banned in every movie theatre I've been in, and not because of laws, but because it's good for business. I'm sure Delta would enact a similar company policy if they got enough bitching from customers who are irritated by cellular phones, but please, don't ask for laws. I can pick and choose my airline, but I can't pick and choose my laws.
Before we wacky Americans had our revolution against the English, we had a war with Canada/France, called the French-Indian War. No, the name is misleading, it wasn't the French against the Indians, it was the French AND the Indians working together against the colonies.
As Iraq (not Irak) has shown, wars are far from cheap, and are incredible strains on morale when they occur far away. The average English citizen was fed up with having to pay the same amount of taxation, perhaps even more, for a war that was only a concern for those colonies "over there". The English Parliament decided the colonies should pay more taxes, and increased the tax rates accordingly.
If there's anything citizens hate, it's taxation. Since the representation idea wasn't then what it is today, the colonies didn't have anybody in Parliament giving their opinions, and they started to get angry.
The shooting didn't actually erupt until the English military raided the armories in the towns of Lexington and Concord. The English were concerned about average citizens having firearms, and wanted to take them away, and the colonists defended their rights with lethal force.
Was that their first response? No. You don't start shooting people for no reason, that's the mark of a psychopath. Similarly, people are hesitant to start a revolution because of an unjust war, just look at Vietnam. It takes a lot to piss off enough people to have them take up arms against their government, it's not something that's done lightly and without cause. But it's also inevitable, because very few governments have been turned upside down in a peaceful manor.
Human beings are violent by nature, it's just how we are. With no firearm legislation in Vermont, it's amazing for there to be a single human being there, let alone the 600,000 who live there happily. Our passion for violence is improving, but it's not gone, and it never will be gone, and the second amendment is our safeguard against a truly evil, past the point of no return, government.
Congress gave up their power to declare war just before the conflict over there in Korea. But that doesn't give a war on drug/terror/poverty any more Constitutional bearing. The Constitution only grants Congress with the authority to declare wars, and the Third Amendment only allows quartering of troops during one of those Congressionally declared wars AND it has to be backed by appropriate legislation. The Fourth Amendment also makes no mention of a temporary suspension in war time, because if we're at war, we would have far more important things to do than spy on our own citizens anyway.
Firstly, if it came out to an all out rebellion, the government's trillion dollar budget would disappear. People who are rebelling don't pay taxes.
Secondly, when rioters get out of control, do police use cruise missiles?
Thirdly, the military is composed of citizens just like the ones who are rebelling, I'm sure there would be a lot of internal support, and it might benefit the rebels immensely by having spied who are disrupting communications and coordination within the military to make our "phallic obsession" devices as useful as they were designed to be.
Also, "in God we Trust" was added to currency due to the Red Scare in the 50's. It's not "anachronistic" because it's not even MENTIONED in the Bill of Rights, but the right to "bear arm" is.
We the people are the ones who are tasked with keeping the Constitution enforced.
The fact that we haven't been doing our jobs doesn't make it any less our responsibility, and we should all march down to Washington and start protesting. If the government keeps ignoring the Constitution, we're fully without our rights as citizens to overthrow that government and replace it again.
Well, counting cards is already an obsolete method of trying to beat the system, because most good casinos use a combination of multiple decks of cards, and computer controlled shuffling machines to make it a futile effort.
My university's introductory C.S. course is Java, but it's extremely basic, just offering knowledge on functions, and such.
So far, every programming class after that has been in C, and with the exception of the introductory class, use of Java in any class is purely an elective course.
It shouldn't be a surprise how quickly things got done with the Manhattan Project. If you throw as many people at a problem, and as much money, as the United States government threw at the project, you could get just about anything done in record time. Take the equivalent amount of today's money, and throw it at HIV or cancer research, and if you didn't get a full blown cure, you'd surely get a treatment that would make those diseases as dangerous as gonorrhea.
Why is the Second Amendment the only amendment that people interpret to have just one piece to it?
It provides two things: It allows the individual states to maintain a militia, and to keep that militia useful and protect themselves from a potentially tyrannical government, it recognizes the right of all citizens to have arms.
The Mormon church's goal isn't about milking their members dry? Do you KNOW any Mormons? They've got mandatory tithes, and their family/community will refuse to acknowledge their marriage if it isn't performed in the church, and it's not exactly cheap to get a wedding done there. At least if you're a poor Catholic, you can get married at a court house or a chapel in Vegas, and still have the respect of your family and friends.
You mean to imply that the Bible contains reference to a single person of some sort, not some sort of amalgamation of a series of people in a historical region.
So, please name one of these verifiable historical figures and events, and no, Jesus was based on a collection of various figures, not a single verifiable person.
Slashdot Mirror
That's the *idea* of hate crimes, but if you were to publish literature about how evil the Jews are, and that situation with your girlfriend arose, you'd probably get nailed with a hate crime, because of your ideas.
Hate crimes are just illogical anyway. Who cares what a murderer's motivation is? If somebody kills another human being in cold blood, they should be punished severely, if they're found guilty. Technically serial killers would also be guilty of hate crimes, because they target specific kinds of people, but Jeffery Dahmer was not homophobic, because he himself was gay.
Let's not forget that the Romans weren't the first Western civilization with the jury trial we're all familiar with. They stole it, like most things, from the Greeks, who had a myth surrounding the first such trial as a legal issue between Athena and Poseidon in the city of Athens.
How can speech be free if it has limitations? You claim speech which is NOT in favor of a group can cause them harm. Short of throwing a book at someone, I fail to see how a mere words can inflict harm onto another person.
If a person is offended by what I say, they should fuck off. If I'm at their house, they should kick my ass out, but if I write a book, and if you buy it, and are offended by the contents, take it back to the store for a refund. Don't arrest me for offending you because we disagree.
Considering it's the aerodynamics that cause sonic booms in the first place, I would think a rounded craft would make a louder boom.
Then if you consider the drop in efficiency due to the serious amount of drag that would add, and the increase in fuel consumption, it wouldn't be viable to have a rounded craft in atmosphere.
Later revisions of 54G routers had less memory, and slower processors. Such a gimped amount of memory it took a long time to get a build of Linux that would fit.
Yes, oh heavens, we shouldn't make the government mad... that would be terrible. I mean, their purpose is to do whatever they wish, and we're supposed to agree with their decisions, they've always got our best interests at heart. It's not like they'll abuse this ability if they get it, we can trust them.
Damn... my sarcasm gland just failed.
http://www.randi.org/
Go there, set up an appointment to test your ability to perform something that violates the laws of physics, or shows some sort of supernatural ability, and you'll become a millionaire, no questions asked. But you have to perform under controlled conditions.
Yeah, unless you're a Branch Davidian.
I disagree about the night club bit. The rights protected by the Constitution do not apply to non government entities. Yes, forcing searches at courthouses is unconstitutional. It's also unconstitutional to have laws requiring it in privately owned areas like airports. But night club owners are free to have any requirement for admittance they wish. If they required you to kiss the bouncer's testicles before entry, it's their right to have that as a requirement for entering, and it's your right to tell them to fuck themselves and go to the night club across the street.
The Great Noodly one is not composed of flour, He created the world, and gave us knowledge of his Noodlyness so we may eventually create flour, and turn it into an approximation of His form.
Well, when you consider that PETA's ideal world would ban honey, pets of any sort, circuses, seeing eye dogs for the blind, and most importantly they would totally stop all animal testing in medicine which would cause the medical field to practically grind to a halt. I wouldn't put it past them to put cells above the person they came out of, these people would rather a person died from diabetes then get insulin which was created by use of animal testing.
Unless your name is Mary Beth Sweetland.
If I may comment about your statement with regard to blowing up the asteroid before it hits Earth. Not only would the damage be spread over a larger area, but it would also cause a lot more of the asteroid to disappear due to friction from re-entry. One giant mass of rock entering the atmosphere won't lose much material from re-entry, but a bunch of smaller pieces would have more surface area, less mass, and thus are more likely to burn away. I read someplace that we're getting pounded by meteorites the size of cars on a regular basis, but they burn up before they hit anywhere. If we could turn this asteroid into a bunch of cars, we'll have nothing to worry about.
Not in the United States of America. We have Common Law here, and it boils down to a protection of rights, not an avoidance to things people don't like. You are not allowed to rob me on the street because you are taking away my property from me. Stabbing someone, and trespassing are also violations of a person's personal sovereignty. We don't have one monarch in the United States, we have about 300 million. We're all monarchs of our own property, be it our homes, our cars, or our bodies.
Religious evangelists annoy the hell out of me, but they're still allowed to retain their right to say whatever the fuck they want, even over the air waves that the FCC monitors. Why should a person who irritates you with a cell phone be any different? Cell phones are banned in every movie theatre I've been in, and not because of laws, but because it's good for business. I'm sure Delta would enact a similar company policy if they got enough bitching from customers who are irritated by cellular phones, but please, don't ask for laws. I can pick and choose my airline, but I can't pick and choose my laws.
Allow me to give you a free history lesson.
Before we wacky Americans had our revolution against the English, we had a war with Canada/France, called the French-Indian War. No, the name is misleading, it wasn't the French against the Indians, it was the French AND the Indians working together against the colonies.
As Iraq (not Irak) has shown, wars are far from cheap, and are incredible strains on morale when they occur far away. The average English citizen was fed up with having to pay the same amount of taxation, perhaps even more, for a war that was only a concern for those colonies "over there". The English Parliament decided the colonies should pay more taxes, and increased the tax rates accordingly.
If there's anything citizens hate, it's taxation. Since the representation idea wasn't then what it is today, the colonies didn't have anybody in Parliament giving their opinions, and they started to get angry.
The shooting didn't actually erupt until the English military raided the armories in the towns of Lexington and Concord. The English were concerned about average citizens having firearms, and wanted to take them away, and the colonists defended their rights with lethal force.
Was that their first response? No. You don't start shooting people for no reason, that's the mark of a psychopath. Similarly, people are hesitant to start a revolution because of an unjust war, just look at Vietnam. It takes a lot to piss off enough people to have them take up arms against their government, it's not something that's done lightly and without cause. But it's also inevitable, because very few governments have been turned upside down in a peaceful manor.
Human beings are violent by nature, it's just how we are. With no firearm legislation in Vermont, it's amazing for there to be a single human being there, let alone the 600,000 who live there happily. Our passion for violence is improving, but it's not gone, and it never will be gone, and the second amendment is our safeguard against a truly evil, past the point of no return, government.
Congress gave up their power to declare war just before the conflict over there in Korea. But that doesn't give a war on drug/terror/poverty any more Constitutional bearing. The Constitution only grants Congress with the authority to declare wars, and the Third Amendment only allows quartering of troops during one of those Congressionally declared wars AND it has to be backed by appropriate legislation. The Fourth Amendment also makes no mention of a temporary suspension in war time, because if we're at war, we would have far more important things to do than spy on our own citizens anyway.
Firstly, if it came out to an all out rebellion, the government's trillion dollar budget would disappear. People who are rebelling don't pay taxes.
Secondly, when rioters get out of control, do police use cruise missiles?
Thirdly, the military is composed of citizens just like the ones who are rebelling, I'm sure there would be a lot of internal support, and it might benefit the rebels immensely by having spied who are disrupting communications and coordination within the military to make our "phallic obsession" devices as useful as they were designed to be.
Also, "in God we Trust" was added to currency due to the Red Scare in the 50's. It's not "anachronistic" because it's not even MENTIONED in the Bill of Rights, but the right to "bear arm" is.
We the people are the ones who are tasked with keeping the Constitution enforced.
The fact that we haven't been doing our jobs doesn't make it any less our responsibility, and we should all march down to Washington and start protesting. If the government keeps ignoring the Constitution, we're fully without our rights as citizens to overthrow that government and replace it again.
Well, counting cards is already an obsolete method of trying to beat the system, because most good casinos use a combination of multiple decks of cards, and computer controlled shuffling machines to make it a futile effort.
My university's introductory C.S. course is Java, but it's extremely basic, just offering knowledge on functions, and such.
So far, every programming class after that has been in C, and with the exception of the introductory class, use of Java in any class is purely an elective course.
It shouldn't be a surprise how quickly things got done with the Manhattan Project. If you throw as many people at a problem, and as much money, as the United States government threw at the project, you could get just about anything done in record time. Take the equivalent amount of today's money, and throw it at HIV or cancer research, and if you didn't get a full blown cure, you'd surely get a treatment that would make those diseases as dangerous as gonorrhea.
Why is the Second Amendment the only amendment that people interpret to have just one piece to it?
It provides two things: It allows the individual states to maintain a militia, and to keep that militia useful and protect themselves from a potentially tyrannical government, it recognizes the right of all citizens to have arms.
The Mormon church's goal isn't about milking their members dry? Do you KNOW any Mormons? They've got mandatory tithes, and their family/community will refuse to acknowledge their marriage if it isn't performed in the church, and it's not exactly cheap to get a wedding done there. At least if you're a poor Catholic, you can get married at a court house or a chapel in Vegas, and still have the respect of your family and friends.
Yeah, that whole Exodus thing has TONS of evidence to support it. Tons of Hebrew slaves escaping Egypt with no evidence at all? Reasonable my ass.
You mean to imply that the Bible contains reference to a single person of some sort, not some sort of amalgamation of a series of people in a historical region.
So, please name one of these verifiable historical figures and events, and no, Jesus was based on a collection of various figures, not a single verifiable person.