There are few musicians/bands i will pay to see in concert any more. But i love going to festivals and watching performers. I love hitting bars to watch local talent. I don't even care if the sound is imperfect or the acustics reminds you of dogs barking at cats having screaming loud sex. Its the ecperience of seeing people give it their best and having a hell of a good time in the process.
The last major concert i went to, it seemed like my $80 for tickets bothered the band or something. It was almost like they had something better to do. I know i have something better to do. Long live the garage bands and festivals. Even the has been headliners stuck doing county fairs are better then most headliners in my opinion.
Everyone got entranced about it being over a blowjob instead lieing to a court and there was a big public backlash costing quite a few republican seats in congress. It is also probably why gore did so well in the election, it severely polarised the country.
The plans i saw where outrageously stupid. Their annual cost is more than i spent on healthcare the last five years combined (about $245 per month). And to top it off, they have a $6000 deductable and $6000 out of pocket expenses. That means over one third of my income last year before i see any real advantage if i had to use it. I had catastrophic with a $2000 deductable and only paid $135 a month and it covered broken bones, stitches, heart attacks, strokes and the rest of the crap that would have to happen in order to jack my expenses up enough to see a real benefit from the policies i saw on the exchange.
I wouldn't mind coverage but i don't consider this as any improvement. For years i didn't want insurance because i spent the money on other things. I'm sure others did too.
Huh????? Nixon was never impeached. The house never voted to impeach him. There was talk that he would be impeached but Nixon resigned before that happened.
As for failing to act, either the house or senate can propose a law to stop the NSA. The problem is not many members see problems with it so attempts go nowhere fast.
And yes, the republicans are afraid to impeach Obama because of what happened last time. But that is the reality we have to live with when most of the nation can be tricked into believing lieing in a court of law (which clinton lost his law license because of) was only about getting some strange.
Most police i know don't like them because they take a job from a person.
As for the monitary scheme, you can see that in the debate in ohio's legislature. One side of the isle actually said banning them would deny cities of a significant source of income at a time the state is restricting funding to those cities. And i bet your first guess to the party affiliatation of that law maker would be wrong (Hint, the republicans in Ohio seem to be against them). In my home town, the concept of revenue certainly was brought up as a plus to installing them. We tried to force the city council to provide a separate line item for the revenue from them with no luck and people regularly time the lights to see if they change. They were installed at the busiest intersections that seem to have the least accidents. Most of them have been from rear end colisions and when traffic is thick, you are lucky to get more that 15mph between lights.
Well, not really the only recourse. Moving on to better jobs is another. But i'm not arguing the merits for or against, just commenting on how unhealthy it appears to be and how it perpetuates a condition. If you were constantly at war with your spouse, do you see the relationship lasting? I would think it would be long past time to separate.
When the marriage is based around resentment and getting one over the other, it is often best to just end it with a divorce. This is no different, it is just an unhealthy relationship and breads discontent.
Just an observation. No saying one is right or left or anything. Just that it carries a lot of negetive baggage with it.
Lol.. you have so many misconceptions it isn't funny. The minimum wage was created to curb minority companies under bidding bloated established white companies. It created a base level that barred those willing to work for less from taking well paying jobs. Mandating a prevailing wage in government contracts was much the same. In more modern times, the minimum had been used to stealth tax increases as both the employee and the employer has taxes associated with pay that does not get refunded.
Second, union busting has never been popular in recent times. People started seeing unions in a negetive light when Reagan busted the air traffic controllers specifically because they walked off the job and left people in danger in planes in the air with no one directing their movements in a reletively tight airspace. That is when people started seeing that 90% of what unions were needed for was already encoded into law and their remaining usefulness was mostly about greed of income. But what really killed the unions was downsizing in the 80s where the bloat was consolidated and made efficient. This lead to companies poping up that could compete far better than most established union shops and they took an even deeper hit with the offshoring craze that pitted union wages against third world wages. Outside of the traffic controllers showing how wreckless the pursuit of greed can be, it had little to do with the fall of the unions.
As for income inequality, the majority of the income being considered too large is performance based. It is stock options, bonuses and so one attached to a base pay. It was originally done this way in order to shirk pay obligations if the executive failed to properly run the company (with some tax strategy). The problem is it an incentive to keep wages low and stagnant. It isn't so much the inequal amounts that is the effective problem but what makes those amounts so inequal. Now i know you are looking at fixing it meaning increasing worker pay but the realities will likely be decreasing exec pay and simply giving them prefered stock where they get the same but it is counted as dividends separate from their pay.
The only way to fix this is to tie employee wages to the same or similar bonus structures. This way, even if the ceo makes 20,000 times more than the base hourly pay for workers, those workers get rewarded the same. I have seen people who actually do get profit sharing earn as much as 2 times thier anual salary fron the profit. Mostly it seems to be one third to two thirds more.
Or they could create separate staffing companies and hire temp workers with few regular workers.
But it is no wonder companies have so much anymosity towards employees when they pick the busiest time of the year to stop work. It completely smacks of the we want to hurt you vibe that is generally met with hostile return. I bet someone is attempting to find ways to fire the lot of the strikers without violating law.
So what you are saying is that the minimum wage jobs are working out quite well for them?
I agree that welfare in the US allows companies to not pay a living wage to employees and it effectivly subsidizes those companies. But that is the result of half assed socialism not the companies taking advantage of it. Without those social services making up the differences, those jobs would either be relegated to extra money jobs, jobs for kids looking for experience, or gone altogether. It only becomes a problem when it distorts the job markets to the point that minimum wage jobs become career opertunities. This is compounded by the increasing concept of single person/parent households and the ever increasing expectations of them.
Stipulations are not illegal though. You can loan me money and i can agree that all disputes to the contract or repayment be settled in your home town. Likewise, you can agree to not take legal actions if repayment isn't made according to the contract. We both can be held to those terms if we violate them. That in and of itself is not illegal even if local laws provide the means to act contrary to the agreed contract.
The issue here may be that by agreeing to terms that specify jurisdiction, they may have waived the rights to sue outside that jurisdiction. But that doesn't mean the government is prevented from prosecuting or fining. I don't think google will get out of the suit should the case be moved, but they may gain an advantage. But iirc, most courts will ignore jurisdiction clauses if it disproportionatly creates a hardship for one of the psrties.
This is a civil case over supposed criminal activities that google has not been charged on in Europe (yet). There will not be any arrests or extradiction because of the lawsuit. But any assests including bank accounts within control/reach of the legal system could be confiscated and converted into payments if Brittish law allows it to happen. If the trial was properly defended, other countries could honor yhe judgement but not likely if it was held in absentia (google doesn't show).
If you didn't want to limit your legal remedies to those available in a certain area, then why did you agree to doing so in the first place? Was it an intentional act of fraud in order to benefit from what you otherwise couldn't?
This isn't something that just got made up. Its part of the license agreement people agree to in order to install the software. I don't see google winning but i find the outrage being shown to be very uninteligent and lacking.
Not really. They could but only to the extent other countries recognized them as a country and even then, only to the extent their transactions are viewed to be within that country.
The problem is if you buy something online, did you buy it in your country or the sellers. That even gets muddled when you send it to my country and i use it. Am i using it in my country or yours. This is where a strong military and economic advantage comes into play. If you have the military might, you can enforce it being in your country. Absent that, economics come into play. Would it benefit you forcing jurisdiction if it meant you could no longer import or export to the other country. How about if it makes doing so more expensive through taxing. But back to the earlier theme, what do i care if another country is mad at me if it possesses neither might or economic leverage and i do. I could just impose jurisdiction on them or ignore them altogether.
I think a gun in a safe would only protect against the colimbine and newtown shootings. In both, there was ample oppertunity to open a safe and shoot the criminals when they passed a doorway.
But more importantly, schools being gun free zones broadcasts a no resistance message where even empty safes with the sugestion of arms being present lowers the expectations of the criminals a bit. I think the threat of being stopped would have asignificant impact on the potential shooters. Remember, most of them commit suicide which is their ultimate goal. In cases like columbine and sandy hook, most of if not all the collateral damage would have been stopped if someone armed could have stepped up when the shots were first fired.
I'm not surre it would matter if they could pick locks or not. The safes would only have weapons in them when people are around and to that extent only some of them- which ones wouldn't be known- would have them. Thats without even getting into the idea of locks on safes bring harder to pick then regular lockd. But if someone is going to bother with that much effort, they might as well break into a home or store and steal a gun. They would likely have more success in finding one with less chance of being caught.
As for your 9/11 comment. You do realize the tapes were released right? They are availible on the jnternet and the news has played a variety if them including the one i mentioned as it was played repeatedly right aftrr the release about a month ago. Is this backwards day or something? Because if knowing about that makes someone a conspiracy nutjob, i'm not sure what ut makes them.
Most armed teacher proposals i have seen include a gun safe which the weapon is stored in until needed. In fact, probably just instally the gun safes with no armed teachers and jyst the suggestion of them could likely have the same deterent effect. However, the knocked out and gun taken problem can happen with the police also. It is not unique to teachers who would be trained. Cops often enter the schools with their side arm to deal with students who are seriously unrully. It would be the same as a teacher with a conceal carry when they are surprise attacked.
I guess the big difference between teachers and cops would be the amount of time between knowing something is happening and being able to do something about it. 9/11 tapes of sandy hook show that an armed staffer could have ended the shooting before any student was ever harmed. The janitor talked with operators the entire time Lanza was using his gun to try and open the door to get in. They told him to hide- to seek safety which i think was reasonable since there likely would have been nothing he could do unarmed outside of trying to notify others of the impending danger which he already was doing. It must really suck comming out of something like that knowing how helpless you really are in a situation that ended so horrifically.
I find that interrsting. Should we only protect dpeevh that was possible when the first amendment was created? Should we only allow free expresion of ideas that were availible at that time too? Should the protections agaisnt searchs only exist to the extent availible when thr fourth amendment was created? Should your due process rights only exist for the laws that were in place whenn the condtitution was created? How about religion freedom or freedom of the press? Csn the government force you to house and feed the marines, airforce, or navy troops because they weren't around when the constitution or amendments were ratified.
I think the idea of limiting the constitution to only what was around when it was created is the most uninteligent concept ever. It completely ignores the realities of life. If you do not like something in the constitution, there is a process to amend it. But to ignore it or dhoe horn it into a box so small it becomed irrelevant is idiotic. I mean just look at the indefinate detention of the patriot act, warrant-less wire taps, people being stopped and searched in NY for simply being in public and looking like someone undesirable to some underpaid and likely underqualified patrol officer, look at the fines with absolutely no due process under the PPACA, the NSA data collection and lots more appearant violations of rights of the citizens when we ignore the constitution or parts of it at will or refuse to extend provisions past what was availible at the time of adoption. But i guess none of that matters because your argument seems to be one of emotion rather than logic.
I do not understand what you think is so wrong about that. I have hunted since i was seven and i participated in the school trap and skeet courses. We could and regularly did bring our own shotguns to school for use directly after or we could use the ones the school had. Most people opted for their own because the school's guns were not taken care of very well and considered junk by most students.
There was even a target proficiency course that used.22 weapons. These were all parts of the olympics and common in some schools just like track and field and ice skating and skiing.
Granted, our parents had to notify the school when we brought the guns in and were to take them home and they were stored in an equipment room with a security door and locks with the ammo in the office. We had no shootings at my school or any around us. This was also in the late 70's and 80s with the programs being canceled due to funding before any "safe zones" or 24-7 coverage of idiots on rampage in schools with no way of protecting students other than calling someone miles away to come and help after the fact.
I find your view of others to be more disturbing then what you try to paint them as.
That is so true. The gun control nuts think that crime is directly related to firearms. It is more related to culture and economics. There are countries in europe that have far more homes with guns in them as a percentage of population with a lower overal crime rate and even lower murder rates than the US and the rest of Europe countries. I'm thinking of the swiss but i think there are others that keep or at one time did keep military weapons in the homes of citizens as part of their military service obligations and defense strategy built out of the cold war. The countries also have different social-economic realities and culture.
Besides, i prefere to know who the racist are. Words do not hurt anyone unless the are directing violence at someone or something similar. That point is even debatable. But you knowing who the racist are makes it a hell of a lot easier to know who you do not want around and if some action truly is racist rather than circumspect. I mean how do you really know an employer or manager is a racist and the low minority employment rates are not because of that instead of the lack of qualified applicants if you don't let him show his true colors.
Unless you were recently dealing with a repair requiring that size drive, the mistake could have been more complicated. Hard drives did not always use 1000 as incements for size. Originally, before creative marketing took advantage of SI units, the drives were measured by actual data capacity. Perhaps your purchase was a transition period and the owner was looking at the CHS to determine the data size verses the marketed size.
I know at the time they changed how the claimed size was created a lot of confusion. My toshiba laptop with its enormous for the time 2.1 gig harddrive was actually a smaller drive using compresion to be reported as larger. Toshiba ended up replacing the drive in 1997 or so because someone was suing them. But i only found out because the CD rom needed waranty repair.
The DMCA type laws are requirements of intrrnational treaty that most if not all countries have adopted. These two treaties which can be found at the WIPO website, the WTC and WPPT treaties where the reason the US created the DMCA in the first place.
There is a lot more to it than US content companies lobying.
I didn't say they were in the wrong or violence was justified. Just yhat it happened and they were oblivious to the fact they were purposely aggravating someone.
And no, i did not seem to appologize for the violence, i stated facts i observed. It is a fact of life that people get angry at others and assault them. But from the sounds of your post, it seem like the bully picked on you a lot and probably still is.
Slashdot Mirror
Lol.. no i willl not go out with you.
Seriously, are you going to a/s/l me?
I'm too old for you
This.....
There are few musicians/bands i will pay to see in concert any more. But i love going to festivals and watching performers. I love hitting bars to watch local talent. I don't even care if the sound is imperfect or the acustics reminds you of dogs barking at cats having screaming loud sex. Its the ecperience of seeing people give it their best and having a hell of a good time in the process.
The last major concert i went to, it seemed like my $80 for tickets bothered the band or something. It was almost like they had something better to do. I know i have something better to do. Long live the garage bands and festivals. Even the has been headliners stuck doing county fairs are better then most headliners in my opinion.
Everyone got entranced about it being over a blowjob instead lieing to a court and there was a big public backlash costing quite a few republican seats in congress. It is also probably why gore did so well in the election, it severely polarised the country.
The plans i saw where outrageously stupid. Their annual cost is more than i spent on healthcare the last five years combined (about $245 per month). And to top it off, they have a $6000 deductable and $6000 out of pocket expenses. That means over one third of my income last year before i see any real advantage if i had to use it. I had catastrophic with a $2000 deductable and only paid $135 a month and it covered broken bones, stitches, heart attacks, strokes and the rest of the crap that would have to happen in order to jack my expenses up enough to see a real benefit from the policies i saw on the exchange.
I wouldn't mind coverage but i don't consider this as any improvement. For years i didn't want insurance because i spent the money on other things. I'm sure others did too.
Huh????? Nixon was never impeached. The house never voted to impeach him. There was talk that he would be impeached but Nixon resigned before that happened.
As for failing to act, either the house or senate can propose a law to stop the NSA. The problem is not many members see problems with it so attempts go nowhere fast.
And yes, the republicans are afraid to impeach Obama because of what happened last time. But that is the reality we have to live with when most of the nation can be tricked into believing lieing in a court of law (which clinton lost his law license because of) was only about getting some strange.
Most police i know don't like them because they take a job from a person.
As for the monitary scheme, you can see that in the debate in ohio's legislature. One side of the isle actually said banning them would deny cities of a significant source of income at a time the state is restricting funding to those cities. And i bet your first guess to the party affiliatation of that law maker would be wrong (Hint, the republicans in Ohio seem to be against them). In my home town, the concept of revenue certainly was brought up as a plus to installing them. We tried to force the city council to provide a separate line item for the revenue from them with no luck and people regularly time the lights to see if they change. They were installed at the busiest intersections that seem to have the least accidents. Most of them have been from rear end colisions and when traffic is thick, you are lucky to get more that 15mph between lights.
Well, not really the only recourse. Moving on to better jobs is another. But i'm not arguing the merits for or against, just commenting on how unhealthy it appears to be and how it perpetuates a condition. If you were constantly at war with your spouse, do you see the relationship lasting? I would think it would be long past time to separate.
When the marriage is based around resentment and getting one over the other, it is often best to just end it with a divorce. This is no different, it is just an unhealthy relationship and breads discontent.
Just an observation. No saying one is right or left or anything. Just that it carries a lot of negetive baggage with it.
Lol.. you have so many misconceptions it isn't funny. The minimum wage was created to curb minority companies under bidding bloated established white companies. It created a base level that barred those willing to work for less from taking well paying jobs. Mandating a prevailing wage in government contracts was much the same. In more modern times, the minimum had been used to stealth tax increases as both the employee and the employer has taxes associated with pay that does not get refunded.
Second, union busting has never been popular in recent times. People started seeing unions in a negetive light when Reagan busted the air traffic controllers specifically because they walked off the job and left people in danger in planes in the air with no one directing their movements in a reletively tight airspace. That is when people started seeing that 90% of what unions were needed for was already encoded into law and their remaining usefulness was mostly about greed of income. But what really killed the unions was downsizing in the 80s where the bloat was consolidated and made efficient. This lead to companies poping up that could compete far better than most established union shops and they took an even deeper hit with the offshoring craze that pitted union wages against third world wages. Outside of the traffic controllers showing how wreckless the pursuit of greed can be, it had little to do with the fall of the unions.
As for income inequality, the majority of the income being considered too large is performance based. It is stock options, bonuses and so one attached to a base pay. It was originally done this way in order to shirk pay obligations if the executive failed to properly run the company (with some tax strategy). The problem is it an incentive to keep wages low and stagnant. It isn't so much the inequal amounts that is the effective problem but what makes those amounts so inequal. Now i know you are looking at fixing it meaning increasing worker pay but the realities will likely be decreasing exec pay and simply giving them prefered stock where they get the same but it is counted as dividends separate from their pay.
The only way to fix this is to tie employee wages to the same or similar bonus structures. This way, even if the ceo makes 20,000 times more than the base hourly pay for workers, those workers get rewarded the same. I have seen people who actually do get profit sharing earn as much as 2 times thier anual salary fron the profit. Mostly it seems to be one third to two thirds more.
Or they could create separate staffing companies and hire temp workers with few regular workers.
But it is no wonder companies have so much anymosity towards employees when they pick the busiest time of the year to stop work. It completely smacks of the we want to hurt you vibe that is generally met with hostile return. I bet someone is attempting to find ways to fire the lot of the strikers without violating law.
So what you are saying is that the minimum wage jobs are working out quite well for them?
I agree that welfare in the US allows companies to not pay a living wage to employees and it effectivly subsidizes those companies. But that is the result of half assed socialism not the companies taking advantage of it. Without those social services making up the differences, those jobs would either be relegated to extra money jobs, jobs for kids looking for experience, or gone altogether. It only becomes a problem when it distorts the job markets to the point that minimum wage jobs become career opertunities. This is compounded by the increasing concept of single person/parent households and the ever increasing expectations of them.
Stipulations are not illegal though. You can loan me money and i can agree that all disputes to the contract or repayment be settled in your home town. Likewise, you can agree to not take legal actions if repayment isn't made according to the contract. We both can be held to those terms if we violate them. That in and of itself is not illegal even if local laws provide the means to act contrary to the agreed contract.
The issue here may be that by agreeing to terms that specify jurisdiction, they may have waived the rights to sue outside that jurisdiction. But that doesn't mean the government is prevented from prosecuting or fining. I don't think google will get out of the suit should the case be moved, but they may gain an advantage. But iirc, most courts will ignore jurisdiction clauses if it disproportionatly creates a hardship for one of the psrties.
This is a civil case over supposed criminal activities that google has not been charged on in Europe (yet). There will not be any arrests or extradiction because of the lawsuit. But any assests including bank accounts within control/reach of the legal system could be confiscated and converted into payments if Brittish law allows it to happen. If the trial was properly defended, other countries could honor yhe judgement but not likely if it was held in absentia (google doesn't show).
If you didn't want to limit your legal remedies to those available in a certain area, then why did you agree to doing so in the first place? Was it an intentional act of fraud in order to benefit from what you otherwise couldn't?
This isn't something that just got made up. Its part of the license agreement people agree to in order to install the software. I don't see google winning but i find the outrage being shown to be very uninteligent and lacking.
Not really. They could but only to the extent other countries recognized them as a country and even then, only to the extent their transactions are viewed to be within that country.
The problem is if you buy something online, did you buy it in your country or the sellers. That even gets muddled when you send it to my country and i use it. Am i using it in my country or yours. This is where a strong military and economic advantage comes into play. If you have the military might, you can enforce it being in your country. Absent that, economics come into play. Would it benefit you forcing jurisdiction if it meant you could no longer import or export to the other country. How about if it makes doing so more expensive through taxing. But back to the earlier theme, what do i care if another country is mad at me if it possesses neither might or economic leverage and i do. I could just impose jurisdiction on them or ignore them altogether.
I think a gun in a safe would only protect against the colimbine and newtown shootings. In both, there was ample oppertunity to open a safe and shoot the criminals when they passed a doorway.
But more importantly, schools being gun free zones broadcasts a no resistance message where even empty safes with the sugestion of arms being present lowers the expectations of the criminals a bit. I think the threat of being stopped would have asignificant impact on the potential shooters. Remember, most of them commit suicide which is their ultimate goal. In cases like columbine and sandy hook, most of if not all the collateral damage would have been stopped if someone armed could have stepped up when the shots were first fired.
I'm not surre it would matter if they could pick locks or not. The safes would only have weapons in them when people are around and to that extent only some of them- which ones wouldn't be known- would have them. Thats without even getting into the idea of locks on safes bring harder to pick then regular lockd. But if someone is going to bother with that much effort, they might as well break into a home or store and steal a gun. They would likely have more success in finding one with less chance of being caught.
As for your 9/11 comment. You do realize the tapes were released right? They are availible on the jnternet and the news has played a variety if them including the one i mentioned as it was played repeatedly right aftrr the release about a month ago. Is this backwards day or something? Because if knowing about that makes someone a conspiracy nutjob, i'm not sure what ut makes them.
Most armed teacher proposals i have seen include a gun safe which the weapon is stored in until needed. In fact, probably just instally the gun safes with no armed teachers and jyst the suggestion of them could likely have the same deterent effect. However, the knocked out and gun taken problem can happen with the police also. It is not unique to teachers who would be trained. Cops often enter the schools with their side arm to deal with students who are seriously unrully. It would be the same as a teacher with a conceal carry when they are surprise attacked.
I guess the big difference between teachers and cops would be the amount of time between knowing something is happening and being able to do something about it. 9/11 tapes of sandy hook show that an armed staffer could have ended the shooting before any student was ever harmed. The janitor talked with operators the entire time Lanza was using his gun to try and open the door to get in. They told him to hide- to seek safety which i think was reasonable since there likely would have been nothing he could do unarmed outside of trying to notify others of the impending danger which he already was doing. It must really suck comming out of something like that knowing how helpless you really are in a situation that ended so horrifically.
I find that interrsting. Should we only protect dpeevh that was possible when the first amendment was created? Should we only allow free expresion of ideas that were availible at that time too? Should the protections agaisnt searchs only exist to the extent availible when thr fourth amendment was created? Should your due process rights only exist for the laws that were in place whenn the condtitution was created? How about religion freedom or freedom of the press? Csn the government force you to house and feed the marines, airforce, or navy troops because they weren't around when the constitution or amendments were ratified.
I think the idea of limiting the constitution to only what was around when it was created is the most uninteligent concept ever. It completely ignores the realities of life. If you do not like something in the constitution, there is a process to amend it. But to ignore it or dhoe horn it into a box so small it becomed irrelevant is idiotic. I mean just look at the indefinate detention of the patriot act, warrant-less wire taps, people being stopped and searched in NY for simply being in public and looking like someone undesirable to some underpaid and likely underqualified patrol officer, look at the fines with absolutely no due process under the PPACA, the NSA data collection and lots more appearant violations of rights of the citizens when we ignore the constitution or parts of it at will or refuse to extend provisions past what was availible at the time of adoption. But i guess none of that matters because your argument seems to be one of emotion rather than logic.
I do not understand what you think is so wrong about that. I have hunted since i was seven and i participated in the school trap and skeet courses. We could and regularly did bring our own shotguns to school for use directly after or we could use the ones the school had. Most people opted for their own because the school's guns were not taken care of very well and considered junk by most students.
There was even a target proficiency course that used .22 weapons. These were all parts of the olympics and common in some schools just like track and field and ice skating and skiing.
Granted, our parents had to notify the school when we brought the guns in and were to take them home and they were stored in an equipment room with a security door and locks with the ammo in the office. We had no shootings at my school or any around us. This was also in the late 70's and 80s with the programs being canceled due to funding before any "safe zones" or 24-7 coverage of idiots on rampage in schools with no way of protecting students other than calling someone miles away to come and help after the fact.
I find your view of others to be more disturbing then what you try to paint them as.
That is so true. The gun control nuts think that crime is directly related to firearms. It is more related to culture and economics. There are countries in europe that have far more homes with guns in them as a percentage of population with a lower overal crime rate and even lower murder rates than the US and the rest of Europe countries. I'm thinking of the swiss but i think there are others that keep or at one time did keep military weapons in the homes of citizens as part of their military service obligations and defense strategy built out of the cold war. The countries also have different social-economic realities and culture.
This is so true.
Besides, i prefere to know who the racist are. Words do not hurt anyone unless the are directing violence at someone or something similar. That point is even debatable. But you knowing who the racist are makes it a hell of a lot easier to know who you do not want around and if some action truly is racist rather than circumspect. I mean how do you really know an employer or manager is a racist and the low minority employment rates are not because of that instead of the lack of qualified applicants if you don't let him show his true colors.
Unless you were recently dealing with a repair requiring that size drive, the mistake could have been more complicated. Hard drives did not always use 1000 as incements for size. Originally, before creative marketing took advantage of SI units, the drives were measured by actual data capacity. Perhaps your purchase was a transition period and the owner was looking at the CHS to determine the data size verses the marketed size.
I know at the time they changed how the claimed size was created a lot of confusion. My toshiba laptop with its enormous for the time 2.1 gig harddrive was actually a smaller drive using compresion to be reported as larger. Toshiba ended up replacing the drive in 1997 or so because someone was suing them. But i only found out because the CD rom needed waranty repair.
The DMCA type laws are requirements of intrrnational treaty that most if not all countries have adopted. These two treaties which can be found at the WIPO website, the WTC and WPPT treaties where the reason the US created the DMCA in the first place.
There is a lot more to it than US content companies lobying.
I didn't say they were in the wrong or violence was justified. Just yhat it happened and they were oblivious to the fact they were purposely aggravating someone.
And no, i did not seem to appologize for the violence, i stated facts i observed. It is a fact of life that people get angry at others and assault them. But from the sounds of your post, it seem like the bully picked on you a lot and probably still is.