That is patently false, you are spreading lies and disinformation, as well as displaying your ignorance of brewing. Why do you simply not admit your snobbery, declare that your choice of beer is by far the best, and that anything common must be "horse piss" as you so eloquently phrased it. I think we can all congratulate you on your exceptional sense of style, and your enormous genitalia which allows you to drink and appreciate such exotic and manly beers that we mortals could never fully appreciate.
You are clearly typing while ignorant. Bud is a great beer if you take into account CONSISTANCY, every bottle tastes pretty much the same. Thats a damn amazing feat considering the volume they produce, and yes, they have tasters, and yes they have quality control. Bottled beer is also pastuerized, which alters the flavor slightly, as opposed to beer on tap. I'm really annoyed with beer snobs who talk out of thier ass, and trash whats common simply to elevate themselves in thier own little minds. You like what you like, personally I prefer Yuengling, that doesn't make me better or worse or smarter or dumber or in any way indicate my degree of class or sophistication. It simply indicates where my taste buds lie. Macrobrews are made to be accessable to the vast majority of the people. Niche beers fill in the rest. That's all I have to say.
But don't you see that "well equiped, well trained, and well organized force" IS what puts the general population at risk. Let us examine the history of the 20th century, or any other century for that matter. Compare civilian on civilian crime and murder rates to government on civilian crime and murder rates, How many millions killed by thier own governments in the 20th century alone? And do not say "yes but that cannot happen here" it absolutely can, people are people, and fall prey to the same evils no matter which hemisphere they live in. Personal liberties will continue to erode unless the people at large expend the effort to assure thier continuance. So I think the question should not be if the people should be allowed the same weapons that the police posess, but rather, should the police be allowed to posess anything stronger than what the people have.
Eagerly awaiting your reply.
No, that is the progression of weapons technology, for a very long time municipal police forces didn't even exist. What you are advocating is the acceleration of this with rest of the population left behind. A heavily armed goverment versus heavily armed criminals. And where does it go from where, the more power you put into the hands of government, the more government will seek to apply that power elsewhere. Have you not considered that banks develop ways to defend themselves, that people carry weapons to defend themselves. Yes it may take police armed with machine guns to top a criminal armed with a machine gun, but there are vastly more non-criminal citizens, who if even less than half were armed, would outmatch the criminals. I do not trust paramilitary police, I do not wish to live in a society WITH armed soldiers on every street corner, I do not know why you do.
My statement was not a straw man argument. You are asserting that ordinary police weapons are ineffective and we would require soldiers or heavily armed police to achieve equality in an arms race between the criminals and law enforcement. I do not see how you can deny such a thing to be anything but a perpetual state of civil war. Whereas if more people had sidearms, extra police, and extra police firepower would be unnecessary to stop criminals.
Voting for anything beyond very local government is a waste of time. Even if your votes are counted legitimately (which I seriously doubt), 90% of the time the opposition candidate is just as bad as the incumbant, while there are benefits in switching them around constantly, to continue to participate in thier charade only gives them more ability to claim a mandate. They can stuff thier "mandate" I for one welcome this absurd legislation, as well as the rest, never in the history of this nation has the government trampled so many rights in such a short time, passed all types of legislation essentially marking every citizen as a criminal, and put forward such a sorry lot of "leaders". The danger lies in the slow erosion of liberty, it tends to not be noticed, with the rapidness the current regieme is going about it however, the people DO notice. This is the first time in my life ordinary people openly of armed rebellion in polite conversation. People are waking up to the fact that the 2 party system is a sham, and they are being bled dry by an elite of murderers and thieves who care nothing for those under them. So, as for these new laws, I'm beyond outrage, I'm just waiting patiently for my countrymen to wake up and join me, keep it coming.
I disagree with the oft-repeated assertion that people have "reproductive rights". If you beleive that people are endowed with natural rights, then you must agree a child is a separate individual, with thier own set of rights. Let us say for example, and I will simplify this to make it short, lets say a mother with aids has a 50% chance of passing it onto her offspring. Let us then say that she injects her child with a used syringe, whats the difference? One is considered a "right" while the other is a criminal act. I assert that BOTH are criminal acts, you do not have the right to pollute others with your own defects. I am all in favor of fixing people, I am also in favor of eliminating the reproductive abilities for people with serious genetic ailments. Flame away.
Actually in WWII the German Tank operators had microphones that clamped onto thier throats, which would pick up what they were saying, but not the background noise of the tank, so they could communicate with eachother and with thier commanders. Been there done that:)
I've found that carpeting results in a less dusty environment, whereas the dust will "stick" to the carpeting, it will blow about on a slick floor and slide to the edges of the room, which is also where computers tend to be, vacuming stirs up pretty much no dust, sweeping does. And I also have an air purifier, it seems to reduce the frequency of dusting, but having to listen to the fan in it is more annoying than dusting, so its more often off than on. My advise, raise your computer off the floor so floor dust doesnt get sucked up inside, and find a quiet air purifier.
I think you miss the point, its not about saving the world, its about totalitarianism. "It is a waste of energy" is not an objective, rational, scienfitic statement of efficiency, is a value assesment. 'Your personal comfort and way of life is unacceptable if you do not conform to my political idealogy and support my causes'. That is why they often border on the rediculous, the mindset is so entrenched that anything not deemed valueable in thier world view is automatically declared wasteful under a catch-all excuse of energy conservation and "saving the world".
Actually, there is a town in upstate new york that has its stop lights reversed (red is at the bottom, green is at the top) and this has been a problem for color blind people who go by the position, rather than the color of the light.
They are part of the Government don't forget, they care more about MONEY than history, loss of human life just tends to turn public oppinion against them, and thus a loss of funding.
As an American, while I do not disagree with your assertion that what America used to be (land of the free, liberty, limited government) is no more, I would like to know which countries DO respect the rights Americans used to enjoy? Europe is hardly a libertarian dream-world, the mid east certainly is not, nor Asia, Africa, Latin America, pretty much all out. This is a global trend, its simply more noticable in the US because we've fallen so far. So to you I would say, yes, we need to wake up, and so does 94% of the world that hates us, maybe if they focused that energy on hating thier own oppressive puppet governments that hold hands with the "US Fascist Regieme" the world might be a better place to live.
Please enlighten me as to how different forms of speech have more or less protection, the 1st amendment is rather vague on that regard, as it seems to protect ALL speech. Either way, the do not call list has nothing to do with impeding free speech.
No direct damage? Okay, lets say I own a private road, now, I have poeple coming through my road, with big 18-wheelers, advertising to the community on the other side, without thier consent, or mine, now, that road needs to be maintained, I may have to add additional lanes to handle the traffic, the traffic might get so heavy I need to hire guards to patrol the road to ensure the level of traffic is kept down. That is direct damage, its taking money out of my pocket, in order to maintain the same level of service for the poeple who pay to use the road.
The market "demand" is entirely different. One is a direct consumption demand, people seek out pot, alcohol, etc., for themselves, because they want it. Spam on the other hand is unsolicited, thats the key. Also, is robbery a more serious offense? If I steal a couple CD's from my local media play, is that more serious than someone whos hundreds of thousands of emails have clogged servers, cost companies money for bandwidth, programmers to filter the spam, overtime to techs to fix stuff? Robbery will result in legal punishment, its time spam did as well.
Well no, you see, drinking, pot smoking, etc. Those things exist due to marketplace demand, whereas spam is the opposite, its a bit like comparing pulling, to pushing. Robbery and such exist despite laws against them, however you cannot seriously suggest we stop prosecuting the offenders. Spammers and the companies that utilize them need to be held accountable for damages they incur.
Except this will all take place in China. America has almost no industrial base left anyway, what would cause you to think manufacturing robots would be any different from everyhing else?
Re:What would the founding fathers think?
on
Open Source Law
·
· Score: 1
Firstly, Jefferson did not write the constitution, he was in France at the time as I recall, Madison wrote a large portion of it. Secondly, Jefferson was opposed to intellectual property laws, he had insisted on a ban on monopolies to be included in the Bill of Rights.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't be an ass, he was using a figure of speech. It Literally takes forever and a day.
That is patently false, you are spreading lies and disinformation, as well as displaying your ignorance of brewing. Why do you simply not admit your snobbery, declare that your choice of beer is by far the best, and that anything common must be "horse piss" as you so eloquently phrased it. I think we can all congratulate you on your exceptional sense of style, and your enormous genitalia which allows you to drink and appreciate such exotic and manly beers that we mortals could never fully appreciate.
You are clearly typing while ignorant. Bud is a great beer if you take into account CONSISTANCY, every bottle tastes pretty much the same. Thats a damn amazing feat considering the volume they produce, and yes, they have tasters, and yes they have quality control. Bottled beer is also pastuerized, which alters the flavor slightly, as opposed to beer on tap. I'm really annoyed with beer snobs who talk out of thier ass, and trash whats common simply to elevate themselves in thier own little minds. You like what you like, personally I prefer Yuengling, that doesn't make me better or worse or smarter or dumber or in any way indicate my degree of class or sophistication. It simply indicates where my taste buds lie. Macrobrews are made to be accessable to the vast majority of the people. Niche beers fill in the rest. That's all I have to say.
But don't you see that "well equiped, well trained, and well organized force" IS what puts the general population at risk. Let us examine the history of the 20th century, or any other century for that matter. Compare civilian on civilian crime and murder rates to government on civilian crime and murder rates, How many millions killed by thier own governments in the 20th century alone? And do not say "yes but that cannot happen here" it absolutely can, people are people, and fall prey to the same evils no matter which hemisphere they live in. Personal liberties will continue to erode unless the people at large expend the effort to assure thier continuance. So I think the question should not be if the people should be allowed the same weapons that the police posess, but rather, should the police be allowed to posess anything stronger than what the people have. Eagerly awaiting your reply.
No, that is the progression of weapons technology, for a very long time municipal police forces didn't even exist. What you are advocating is the acceleration of this with rest of the population left behind. A heavily armed goverment versus heavily armed criminals. And where does it go from where, the more power you put into the hands of government, the more government will seek to apply that power elsewhere. Have you not considered that banks develop ways to defend themselves, that people carry weapons to defend themselves. Yes it may take police armed with machine guns to top a criminal armed with a machine gun, but there are vastly more non-criminal citizens, who if even less than half were armed, would outmatch the criminals. I do not trust paramilitary police, I do not wish to live in a society WITH armed soldiers on every street corner, I do not know why you do.
My statement was not a straw man argument. You are asserting that ordinary police weapons are ineffective and we would require soldiers or heavily armed police to achieve equality in an arms race between the criminals and law enforcement. I do not see how you can deny such a thing to be anything but a perpetual state of civil war. Whereas if more people had sidearms, extra police, and extra police firepower would be unnecessary to stop criminals.
I would sooner opt for an armed citizenry, than a perpetual state of civil war with paramilitary police versus paramilitary desperados.
Voting for anything beyond very local government is a waste of time. Even if your votes are counted legitimately (which I seriously doubt), 90% of the time the opposition candidate is just as bad as the incumbant, while there are benefits in switching them around constantly, to continue to participate in thier charade only gives them more ability to claim a mandate. They can stuff thier "mandate" I for one welcome this absurd legislation, as well as the rest, never in the history of this nation has the government trampled so many rights in such a short time, passed all types of legislation essentially marking every citizen as a criminal, and put forward such a sorry lot of "leaders". The danger lies in the slow erosion of liberty, it tends to not be noticed, with the rapidness the current regieme is going about it however, the people DO notice. This is the first time in my life ordinary people openly of armed rebellion in polite conversation. People are waking up to the fact that the 2 party system is a sham, and they are being bled dry by an elite of murderers and thieves who care nothing for those under them. So, as for these new laws, I'm beyond outrage, I'm just waiting patiently for my countrymen to wake up and join me, keep it coming.
I disagree with the oft-repeated assertion that people have "reproductive rights". If you beleive that people are endowed with natural rights, then you must agree a child is a separate individual, with thier own set of rights. Let us say for example, and I will simplify this to make it short, lets say a mother with aids has a 50% chance of passing it onto her offspring. Let us then say that she injects her child with a used syringe, whats the difference? One is considered a "right" while the other is a criminal act. I assert that BOTH are criminal acts, you do not have the right to pollute others with your own defects. I am all in favor of fixing people, I am also in favor of eliminating the reproductive abilities for people with serious genetic ailments. Flame away.
Actually in WWII the German Tank operators had microphones that clamped onto thier throats, which would pick up what they were saying, but not the background noise of the tank, so they could communicate with eachother and with thier commanders. Been there done that :)
I've found that carpeting results in a less dusty environment, whereas the dust will "stick" to the carpeting, it will blow about on a slick floor and slide to the edges of the room, which is also where computers tend to be, vacuming stirs up pretty much no dust, sweeping does. And I also have an air purifier, it seems to reduce the frequency of dusting, but having to listen to the fan in it is more annoying than dusting, so its more often off than on. My advise, raise your computer off the floor so floor dust doesnt get sucked up inside, and find a quiet air purifier.
I think you miss the point, its not about saving the world, its about totalitarianism. "It is a waste of energy" is not an objective, rational, scienfitic statement of efficiency, is a value assesment. 'Your personal comfort and way of life is unacceptable if you do not conform to my political idealogy and support my causes'. That is why they often border on the rediculous, the mindset is so entrenched that anything not deemed valueable in thier world view is automatically declared wasteful under a catch-all excuse of energy conservation and "saving the world".
Actually, there is a town in upstate new york that has its stop lights reversed (red is at the bottom, green is at the top) and this has been a problem for color blind people who go by the position, rather than the color of the light.
They are part of the Government don't forget, they care more about MONEY than history, loss of human life just tends to turn public oppinion against them, and thus a loss of funding.
Yeah, but a Hummer is not the best ways to use that energy
And I suppose when a geek hooks up 12 monitors to 6 computers to play a game, thats a good use of that energy? BIAS
(Not that I have a problem with bias altogether, I just have a problem with it when its masqueraded as objective truth)
As an American, while I do not disagree with your assertion that what America used to be (land of the free, liberty, limited government) is no more, I would like to know which countries DO respect the rights Americans used to enjoy? Europe is hardly a libertarian dream-world, the mid east certainly is not, nor Asia, Africa, Latin America, pretty much all out. This is a global trend, its simply more noticable in the US because we've fallen so far. So to you I would say, yes, we need to wake up, and so does 94% of the world that hates us, maybe if they focused that energy on hating thier own oppressive puppet governments that hold hands with the "US Fascist Regieme" the world might be a better place to live.
One MILLION dollars!
Please enlighten me as to how different forms of speech have more or less protection, the 1st amendment is rather vague on that regard, as it seems to protect ALL speech. Either way, the do not call list has nothing to do with impeding free speech.
No direct damage? Okay, lets say I own a private road, now, I have poeple coming through my road, with big 18-wheelers, advertising to the community on the other side, without thier consent, or mine, now, that road needs to be maintained, I may have to add additional lanes to handle the traffic, the traffic might get so heavy I need to hire guards to patrol the road to ensure the level of traffic is kept down. That is direct damage, its taking money out of my pocket, in order to maintain the same level of service for the poeple who pay to use the road.
The market "demand" is entirely different. One is a direct consumption demand, people seek out pot, alcohol, etc., for themselves, because they want it. Spam on the other hand is unsolicited, thats the key. Also, is robbery a more serious offense? If I steal a couple CD's from my local media play, is that more serious than someone whos hundreds of thousands of emails have clogged servers, cost companies money for bandwidth, programmers to filter the spam, overtime to techs to fix stuff? Robbery will result in legal punishment, its time spam did as well.
Well no, you see, drinking, pot smoking, etc. Those things exist due to marketplace demand, whereas spam is the opposite, its a bit like comparing pulling, to pushing. Robbery and such exist despite laws against them, however you cannot seriously suggest we stop prosecuting the offenders. Spammers and the companies that utilize them need to be held accountable for damages they incur.
Except this will all take place in China. America has almost no industrial base left anyway, what would cause you to think manufacturing robots would be any different from everyhing else?
Firstly, Jefferson did not write the constitution, he was in France at the time as I recall, Madison wrote a large portion of it. Secondly, Jefferson was opposed to intellectual property laws, he had insisted on a ban on monopolies to be included in the Bill of Rights.