Maybe it is because you are flat out wrong. Big government is evil, but not all government is evil. Most people who are not pushing agendas understand that there are middle grounds in which government serves the public interest in ways it was constituted to do. But more importantly, people who are flat out against a large and powerful federal government can be completely for the same at a state and local level where the public has more power to control it.
The universe is big- something on a quantum level could possible make this happen. A proton is not the smallest part of an element. If this was to happen, it is possible it could be introduced via comet and we would have a way to encounter, experience, and measure- although it msy take time to understand.
Like i said, we thought we knew everything about physics once then it was turned upside down by Einstein. I do see how we would classify it differrently but i doubt anything would be renamed.
I don't know what the parent was thinking but what if there ended up being two elements with the same number if protons but different phisical properties due to some yet to be discovered reason.
How would something like that be treated? I mean for instance, a noble gas which is solid at room temperature and becomed a superconductor at the same time. Lets run with the fucking magnets and say something with the neutron bond causes the different behavior.
So you do not think there could ever be anything discovered that has the same amount of protons but completely different properties due to some yet unknown reason? Is it that everything in this area of science has already been discovered, the concenssus is in and we should ignore it all except for how we use what we already know?
I think this was the case once before when some idiot tried to claim there was some special theory of reletivity or something nuty like that. Its a good thing nobody took him seriously.
The end user does not have to accept the GPL or any of its variants unless they distribute the covered code. The user of the GPL cam only be the person distributing it.
Thats fine and all, i even agree with it. But does the license allow the person who needs to accept it- more or less or the same amount of freedom between v2 and v3? Users don't have to accept the license, only people distributing it.
Of course the answer is less and that was by design.
Lol.. you are missing the point. Before you get your panties in such a knot that your ability to have children is in danger, what you could do with v2 is more than v3 which was a specific reason for creating v3 as well as QT making the switch. This you cannot deny. By common understanding, being free to do less is not an upgrade.
Oh.. and the OSS definition of free allows you to restrict users. And the gpl/lgpl does define restricting users as free because that is specifically what the v3 changes where designed to do. It restricts users in order cure what they didn't like being done under the previous versions.
However, i don't share your concerns and likely would avoid your license or any with those provisions in them. If i wanted my code to only be used in certain ways, i would keep it propriatary and use specific licenses instead of pretending it was free.
I'm pretty sure he means free to less free as a downgrade. And wether you like to admit it or not, the gpl or lgplv3 is less free than v2 for some by design because it was created to address liberties some were taking with v2 licensed code like locking the boot loader and submarining patents into it.
Thats exactly right. We went from discussing global warming and why people aren't jumping onto specific solutions to discussing what one moron thinks an imbecile said despite no evidence of saying it.
Oh, did you think making something up and my response to that made up crap was going to remain completely on the original topic?i guess i qas too kind previously.
I'm not drawing a damn picture for you. If you cannot see that people are skipping the cost of fixing global warming and opting to endure its consequences, then you really need to sit down and shut up.
Entire nations are doing that, people in other nations are doing it. Its just the reality we are in.
Any contract the government is involved with needs to be open for public inspection. It is how we know about graft, kickbacks, cronyism and so on.
Or do you think it is proper for my uncle bill, who is also the mayor of our town to insert bonuses and so on into my contract with the city for looking pretty on the sidewalk.
Of course you would be completely clueless of that happening if the contract was hidden and secret
The public has the right to know what their government is up to whether you are involved or not. Don't you think so?
I would say that if the public does not have a right to know, then the government or the departments under it do not have the right to settle lawsuits- whether you are involved or not.
Wrong. The constitution only bars the government from actions. The only way it would bar you personally is if you were acting on behalf of the government.
The city has to give you reasonable space to protest, I can stop you from using my land to do it. The city or state cannot put troops in my home at a time of peace but I can offer to allow them to be there. Even where the US constitution has cross over amendments that could imply a duty or bar to a citizen, it resorts to giving congress the power to make law which ends up being the law- not the constitution that bars you.
You seem to be trying to move the goal post a bit. Or is it that you just do not understand what you are talking about?
California v. Ciraolo, No. 84-1513 is not a speech case, it's a 4th amendment case dealing with government needing a warrant or not to satisfy the US constitution. What you fail to realize is that congress, the state, or city with respect to law enforcement subject to the jurisdiction thereof can create a law baring the police from using aerial photography to search for drugs on private property. This is because the case did not say you have a constitutional right to invade someone's privacy if you can see it from a public space, it said that the warrant provisions in the constitution did not bar the police(government) from the search. I hope you can understand the difference between not baring and having a right.
Also, those same entities could pass a law baring citizens from using aerial photography while still allowing the police to do so.
Like I said, it is only not illegal until a law makes it so.
What case was it that SCOTUS rules it was protected speech? As far as I can tell, they haven't.
You are confused or something too. The US constitution does not bar me from anything. It bars the government and it's agencies. If I have a first amendment right to anything, nothing else in the constitution would limit that. I can post a sign saying subject to search upon entering and proceed to search you when you enter my house or business without ever violating the constitution. It is done every day.
Well, it appears from a quick internet search that most quad copters can carry around 2 to 5 lbs of cargo depending on battery and fly time. Typical dynamite weighs in at (0.186 kg).41 lbs or just under a half pound. per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D...
This would be something around 4.5 sticks to 12 sticks of dynamite. Again, these are just ballpark figures and the term safely is kind of up to interpretation. I have rode in several death trap cars which their owners thought were perfectly safe.
It is only legal until a law makes it illegal. The only way a law could not make it illegal is if there was a higher right or bar from making it illegal. For instance, if a state constitutional amendment said the state government cannot make a law banning photography in public places, then the city couldn't do so. The state couldn't do so either, but the federal government- to the extent of their jurisdiction and applicability, could make it illegal.
that's how the US works. Everything is legal until a law makes it illegal. Any political subdivision can make laws in accordance with it's parent state and federal laws. But their penalties are limited to what the state allows the political subdivision to impose.
Both.. God is the creator and can change his creations. But angels are defined as a messenger from God or as a guardian of human beings. So it is like a title and a species. A fallen angel is a former angel who sinned and was cast into into hell and committed to chains of gloomy darkness to be kept until the judgment.
Oh, and we are talking about angels so there is a presumption of a real God assuming the angels are also real- at least for the sake of conversation.
That depends on the state. Ohio for instance requires the photos or peeping to be for the purpose of sexual arousal or self gratification. Other states might be different.
Are you seriously comparing a natural vantage point to an artificial- only because of technology vantage point?
Here is the problem. If your yard can be seen by the neighbors deck of the sidewalk behind the house, you know how private it is or is not. Now a remote controlled camera comes flying along and all the sudden- everything changes- without you necessarily knowing it.
Nonsense. If he had even remotely did as you say, we would be in a debate right now not you pointlessly trying to convince me of something never said. The brainless child did no such thing and it appears you are suffering the same illogical symptoms and could be quite worse off. Not only are you reading into what a moron said, you are imagining that there are facts saying the costs of fixing the problem doesn't matter even if it costs more than dealing with it..
Well, you should get out of your realm of intellectual dishonesty and join the real world more often. Of course that might make you question the church of global warming a bit but I'm sure if you made an attempt at cognitive dissonance, you could achieve a mental state in which you could skip past your beliefs and actually consider the facts.
BTW, it is a fact that people are not dropping their Co2 shitting ways because it is more costly than what already exists. Looks like reality is on my side in a large scale.
Slashdot Mirror
Since you found it funny, why don't you explain the joke to me.
I could see some humor maybe of they were somewhat related but pulling shit out of nowhere just doesn't give the giggles you seem to think it does.
Maybe it is because you are flat out wrong. Big government is evil, but not all government is evil. Most people who are not pushing agendas understand that there are middle grounds in which government serves the public interest in ways it was constituted to do. But more importantly, people who are flat out against a large and powerful federal government can be completely for the same at a state and local level where the public has more power to control it.
The universe is big- something on a quantum level could possible make this happen. A proton is not the smallest part of an element. If this was to happen, it is possible it could be introduced via comet and we would have a way to encounter, experience, and measure- although it msy take time to understand.
Like i said, we thought we knew everything about physics once then it was turned upside down by Einstein. I do see how we would classify it differrently but i doubt anything would be renamed.
I don't know what the parent was thinking but what if there ended up being two elements with the same number if protons but different phisical properties due to some yet to be discovered reason.
How would something like that be treated? I mean for instance, a noble gas which is solid at room temperature and becomed a superconductor at the same time. Lets run with the fucking magnets and say something with the neutron bond causes the different behavior.
So you do not think there could ever be anything discovered that has the same amount of protons but completely different properties due to some yet unknown reason? Is it that everything in this area of science has already been discovered, the concenssus is in and we should ignore it all except for how we use what we already know?
I think this was the case once before when some idiot tried to claim there was some special theory of reletivity or something nuty like that. Its a good thing nobody took him seriously.
The end user does not have to accept the GPL or any of its variants unless they distribute the covered code. The user of the GPL cam only be the person distributing it.
Thats fine and all, i even agree with it. But does the license allow the person who needs to accept it- more or less or the same amount of freedom between v2 and v3? Users don't have to accept the license, only people distributing it.
Of course the answer is less and that was by design.
Lol.. you are missing the point. Before you get your panties in such a knot that your ability to have children is in danger, what you could do with v2 is more than v3 which was a specific reason for creating v3 as well as QT making the switch. This you cannot deny. By common understanding, being free to do less is not an upgrade.
Oh.. and the OSS definition of free allows you to restrict users. And the gpl/lgpl does define restricting users as free because that is specifically what the v3 changes where designed to do. It restricts users in order cure what they didn't like being done under the previous versions.
You can make your own license any time you want.
However, i don't share your concerns and likely would avoid your license or any with those provisions in them. If i wanted my code to only be used in certain ways, i would keep it propriatary and use specific licenses instead of pretending it was free.
I'm pretty sure he means free to less free as a downgrade. And wether you like to admit it or not, the gpl or lgplv3 is less free than v2 for some by design because it was created to address liberties some were taking with v2 licensed code like locking the boot loader and submarining patents into it.
Thats exactly right. We went from discussing global warming and why people aren't jumping onto specific solutions to discussing what one moron thinks an imbecile said despite no evidence of saying it.
Oh, did you think making something up and my response to that made up crap was going to remain completely on the original topic?i guess i qas too kind previously.
I'm not drawing a damn picture for you. If you cannot see that people are skipping the cost of fixing global warming and opting to endure its consequences, then you really need to sit down and shut up.
Entire nations are doing that, people in other nations are doing it. Its just the reality we are in.
Any contract the government is involved with needs to be open for public inspection. It is how we know about graft, kickbacks, cronyism and so on.
Or do you think it is proper for my uncle bill, who is also the mayor of our town to insert bonuses and so on into my contract with the city for looking pretty on the sidewalk.
Of course you would be completely clueless of that happening if the contract was hidden and secret
The public has the right to know what their government is up to whether you are involved or not. Don't you think so?
I would say that if the public does not have a right to know, then the government or the departments under it do not have the right to settle lawsuits- whether you are involved or not.
Wrong. The constitution only bars the government from actions. The only way it would bar you personally is if you were acting on behalf of the government.
The city has to give you reasonable space to protest, I can stop you from using my land to do it. The city or state cannot put troops in my home at a time of peace but I can offer to allow them to be there. Even where the US constitution has cross over amendments that could imply a duty or bar to a citizen, it resorts to giving congress the power to make law which ends up being the law- not the constitution that bars you.
You seem to be trying to move the goal post a bit. Or is it that you just do not understand what you are talking about?
California v. Ciraolo, No. 84-1513 is not a speech case, it's a 4th amendment case dealing with government needing a warrant or not to satisfy the US constitution. What you fail to realize is that congress, the state, or city with respect to law enforcement subject to the jurisdiction thereof can create a law baring the police from using aerial photography to search for drugs on private property. This is because the case did not say you have a constitutional right to invade someone's privacy if you can see it from a public space, it said that the warrant provisions in the constitution did not bar the police(government) from the search. I hope you can understand the difference between not baring and having a right.
Also, those same entities could pass a law baring citizens from using aerial photography while still allowing the police to do so.
Like I said, it is only not illegal until a law makes it so.
What case was it that SCOTUS rules it was protected speech? As far as I can tell, they haven't.
You are confused or something too. The US constitution does not bar me from anything. It bars the government and it's agencies. If I have a first amendment right to anything, nothing else in the constitution would limit that. I can post a sign saying subject to search upon entering and proceed to search you when you enter my house or business without ever violating the constitution. It is done every day.
Well, it appears from a quick internet search that most quad copters can carry around 2 to 5 lbs of cargo depending on battery and fly time. Typical dynamite weighs in at (0.186 kg) .41 lbs or just under a half pound. per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D...
This would be something around 4.5 sticks to 12 sticks of dynamite. Again, these are just ballpark figures and the term safely is kind of up to interpretation. I have rode in several death trap cars which their owners thought were perfectly safe.
It is only legal until a law makes it illegal. The only way a law could not make it illegal is if there was a higher right or bar from making it illegal. For instance, if a state constitutional amendment said the state government cannot make a law banning photography in public places, then the city couldn't do so. The state couldn't do so either, but the federal government- to the extent of their jurisdiction and applicability, could make it illegal.
that's how the US works. Everything is legal until a law makes it illegal. Any political subdivision can make laws in accordance with it's parent state and federal laws. But their penalties are limited to what the state allows the political subdivision to impose.
Both.. God is the creator and can change his creations. But angels are defined as a messenger from God or as a guardian of human beings. So it is like a title and a species. A fallen angel is a former angel who sinned and was cast into into hell and committed to chains of gloomy darkness to be kept until the judgment.
Oh, and we are talking about angels so there is a presumption of a real God assuming the angels are also real- at least for the sake of conversation.
Reality proves my assertion. Just look around and try to understand why we haven't abandoned fossil fuels altogether by now.
If reality has the effect of "A Wizard did it!", then I'm sure you are not perceiving it properly.
That depends on the state. Ohio for instance requires the photos or peeping to be for the purpose of sexual arousal or self gratification. Other states might be different.
Are you seriously comparing a natural vantage point to an artificial- only because of technology vantage point?
Here is the problem. If your yard can be seen by the neighbors deck of the sidewalk behind the house, you know how private it is or is not. Now a remote controlled camera comes flying along and all the sudden- everything changes- without you necessarily knowing it.
These are two vastly different situations.
If they made a law, it most certainly would be lawful- or legal.
Nonsense. If he had even remotely did as you say, we would be in a debate right now not you pointlessly trying to convince me of something never said. The brainless child did no such thing and it appears you are suffering the same illogical symptoms and could be quite worse off. Not only are you reading into what a moron said, you are imagining that there are facts saying the costs of fixing the problem doesn't matter even if it costs more than dealing with it..
Well, you should get out of your realm of intellectual dishonesty and join the real world more often. Of course that might make you question the church of global warming a bit but I'm sure if you made an attempt at cognitive dissonance, you could achieve a mental state in which you could skip past your beliefs and actually consider the facts.
BTW, it is a fact that people are not dropping their Co2 shitting ways because it is more costly than what already exists. Looks like reality is on my side in a large scale.