well, lets also say that the Iraqi family unit is generally 4 people, a mother father and two children or maybe some elderly relatives. Now the 21% of the population can easily be one gun per household and just like a household in the US, When I ask if you have a TV, you don't say no, it's your dads, you say yes.
So what I'm getting here is, if one exists in the household, then it can easily be everyone or close to everyone. This is because when it's not being used, it's available for use by anyone in the house should they take the opportunity.
This is slashdot. A place where a few friends with some mod points and a conspiracy is all that is needed to negate any ration argument. You can be saying 2+2=5, and people will argue it's 5 or can be five and resort to some weak arguement. And yes, I'm I actually did participate in a discussion here where someone attempted to show how 2+2 could equal 5.
I was with you until you started chastising the men for not taking the time to identify their target.
The problem is that there wasn't time if what they thought turned out to be true. They were circling the target, asked on the radio about any friendlies/units in the area, they were talking all the steps possible until they saw the camera which has a silhouette partially resembling a weapon capable of taking them down, the person holding it crouched by a corner to be shielded while the camera/weapon was being aimed in their direction, and at this point, time is simply not there if you expect real soldiers in real combat situation to ever come home alive.
In other words, if you can't take the specifics of the situation into account from the perspective of the heli crew, then you really shouldn't be discussing this at all. You are no different then the blathering idiot boss who's entire sales improvement plan consists of "sell more stuff" leaving your job on the line if you don't. I've been in situations where I was shot at (I wasn't the target), I know what facing the reality of death is. If I'm ever in a situation where I'm trying to determine of the guy holding the gun is friendly or not, as soon as it looks like it's pointed at me is when I decide I need to do something. If you want to sit there waiting for him to shoot or to get a better look at the guy, you will be more likely then not getting shot at. It's no different here. If the camera had been a RPG, if the guys had been insurgents, waiting any more time to identify them could have meant their lives. You can't fault someone for acting on that, even when it turns out to be a big ass horrible and tragic mistake. Fault the politicians who put them in that position but do no sit there and complain that when a person weighs their life against another and picks their, then they should have done something more.
I think the troll mod came from someone who thinks you making fun of the private who got busted, not the dictator in charge. Perhaps the idiot is a hero to them?
It is still a crime when it exposes another crime just the same as a crime doesn't negate another crime.
In other words, if you break and enter a building in order to obtain evidence that someone murdered someone, neither crime disappears unless you are the cops hiding certain facts that your supervisor doesn't want known. there might be some instances where the crime becomes un-prosecutable because of the way evidence was gathered making it unusable, but it doesn't disappear or get negated.
The same "rules theorised for grain and bullion markets" still apply. The variables are just different though. In grain, you get a lot for a little work as nature provides most of the investment. With these devices, you get little for a lot of work (comparatively). Gain then has to be stored somewhere and processed special in order to remain usable for it's intended purpose. In both, your markup has to be income that lasts a good portion of the year when grain can't be harvested-sold. If you spend income or profit on development and quality control, then you need to replace that income by a higher markup. When the investment becomes so great that a simple person can't do it anymore, then you need to consider the costs of using other people's money which equates to the time value of money. They won't give you something for nothing because they can be getting something in return for it.
Now where the free market does get hampered in this is by the monopolies given by regulation. That's right, a monopoly can be made by regulation which makes your second paragraph wrong by default. A copyright or patent is a monopoly by regulation or government interference. The only thing stopping me from duplicating a Xbox or router or whatever and selling it is the copyrights and patents companies hold on their products. Regulation stops competition which is an essential part of the free market system. Regulation of the free market stops me from walking in and selling the same thing that costs less then a DVD player for the price of a DVD player while they struggle to sell them for a thousand times as much. Of course you did mention that so few of these things are sold, this means that at the price of a DVD player, I would have to sell enough of them to stay in business all year round. If so few of them are actually purchased, it may be that I need to mark them up 1000 percent in order to do that. You certainly can't keep a company running all year long and the next on 5 purchases at $89.99 each. You might be able to if it's a small company at 5 purchases of $125,000 each per year. But the real numbers will dictate that, not your "hey, look at that" observations.
This means that citizens of a government can't sue the government unless something expressly gives them permission- generally the government itself through laws or by nature of charter (constitution). This would also go for foreign powers too. They would have to find a court willing to take the case that the US would recognize as surrendering part of it's sovereign immunity over to. To date, there are very few courts this has happened to and when the situation came up, we just ignored it anyways.
all that would more or less happen is that people would get pissed and the people who already hate the US would have one more reason.
Yes, except for the numbering, and except for the fact that there were two and only two names it's exactly the same. It was intended as a means to select the pres and VP at the same time, sort of a winner and runner-up scenario, rather than an instant run off. The fact that it resembles modern runoff systems is more a convenient quirk, rather than because it was an instant runoff design. Just placing multiple votes doesn't make it "instant runoff" because you aren't voting for one position. But whatever lies you have to make to have your 100% incorrect statements about the number of votes and the ordinality thereof is fine with me. It just solidifies my opinion of your character.
It was the same thing and it was tossed out for a better system. Get over it.
I am posting from outside the USA. I am a permanent resident of a foreign country. I am still a US citizen with no citizenship anywhere else. After meeting the citizenship requirements of where I am now, then I will be a dual citizen. I haven't completed the process of being able to claim citizenship. As such, I'm in the process of completing the move, and I may use conjugation to reflect that whenever I wish without needing to justify it to some dumbass. I still own multiple pieces of property in the US I am intending to sell, and I have financial ties to other things (bank accounts, multiple investment accounts, and such) and so haven't completed the project of moving, though I'm physically out of the country at this point and have no legal requirement to leave the country I'm in, nor any legal requirement to return to the US. So, I have left the US and am in the process of moving. But no, I understand that such subtlety is beyond your understanding. To you, it's a "you were lying then or you are lying now" kind of question.
Lol.. What's so hard to understand here? Words have meanings and I simply expect the words you use to actually mean what they mean. When you say one thing then another, it does become a situation of trusting what you are saying. This is nothing new, it's a concept that has been around for a long time. Quite longer then either of us.
"They listed their first choice and then second choice and then third choice for president, if there wasn't a clear winner from the first choice, it moved to the second then third." They didn't list choices in order. There was no "first choice" and "second choice." The plain English you typed is quite clear, and I'm quite sure that I didn't misunderstand. It's your inability to understand the Constitution and your lies about your ignorance that I'm pointing out in plain English. "if there wasn't a clear winner from the first choice, it moved to the second then third." That's factually incorrect in all cases. "The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed;" There was no instant runoff. The highest number wins (as long as a majority is reached). There was no ranking on the ballots. There were two votes given because you were voting for two positions, not for a runoff system. None of the current systems for "instant runoff" were designed for two-winner systems, and as such, I would assert any logical contortions to call it a modern instant runoff system are just lies to try to backpedal an argument that was wrong on multiple separate points to some unrelated argument about instant runoffs.
You obviously are hung up on the fact that you are wrong and the instant run off system sucks donkey balls. We tried it and got rid of it. Making mistakes on the procedure doesn't change that fact. Get over it and live your life happily elsewhere. As I said before, we are all the better because of you leaving. BTW, if you are running away, then why are you even worried about it? I mean if you left/are leaving, then it really isn't any of your concern now is it.
Are you sure you are an American? They didn't list the order of what they wanted, they just listed two of equal value. There was never any third choice. But you take your incorrect opinion, pass it off as the truth, and you have the gall to not only spread your stupid inaccurate and unamerican whinings, but to correct my correct description of the process (well, I didn't mention that they submitted two names, but I was summarizing and not describing the entire process). I think my description was accurate, and if you like, you can check me at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Two_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Clause_3:_Electors [wikipedia.org]
It's the same setup without numbering the choices. You voted for two candidates, the one with the most in a majority won first place.
Getting all pissed off at me for being "bad" for leaving, when you are the good American, when you obviously have no idea about the Constitution and the principles this country was founded on. Have you ever even read it, other than what you get from listening to whatever talk show hosts you learn your history from? You aren't even close in your description of how the elections work, but not only think it's right, but post in public forums, spreading your ignorance that might infect others. At least, unlike all the other wrong ideas in your pathetic little head, this one is easily checked to prove you 100% wrong. All the other shit you spew that's lies and just plan wrong you'll still hold on to. In fact, I would be surprised if you didn't explain how this is all just me misunderstanding your statements and not related to your stupidity about the Constitution and such.
Nobody is pissed off that you ran away. If you read what I have said, it was to encourage you to do it. You know, the don't let the door hit you and America will be better without you comment. It does seem like you are the one who has an issue understanding the constitution and the principles this country was founded on- not me. But of course you can claim I don't know something when you can't even get the plain and simple English I posted correct. This says way more about you then it does about me. So maybe you should look in the mirror before attempting to claim someone else has a problem.
Would you really like me to explain how to reconcile the two? I don't think that's possible without sounding condescending. I'm guessing that you are just trying to be an ass.
It's quite simple, you either got out like you said, or you didn't and are just making shit up. It could be that you are in the process of getting out but then that would make what you said previous somewhat fallacious. There is no condescending there, just simple realities based on the definitions of words that you use.
So? Someone can't complain about the education (for example) in the USA as being a problem with the USA because the districts are all local? Feel free to make up any stupid and arbitrary rules you want. But if the problem is pervasive across the USA, it is a USA problem, even if not caused or managed by the feds. But no, we'll have to bow to your personal opinion about what people should and shouldn't complain about because you obviously know better than everyone else.
Who said you can't complain? You can cry and bitch all you want, the place to make changes is on the local/state level not the federal level. The federal government has never been constitutionally empowered to mingle in education and one of our founding fathers who was also a big pusher of public education knew that. Jefferson who attempted to institute the first public schools in the US did so correctly at the local levels. He knew that the government he just helped create had no business/authority getting
Well, he is either confused or purposely confusing the issue or a strong mixture of both. I have seen it repeated by others and it comes down to this.
When humans as a group saw it and convinced others that it was in their own best interest to exploit the resources and efforts of others in order to aid in their society and protect themselves from harm, then we because socialistic in nature. But it's a common lie to assume that this is for the benefit of others, having a store to sell your goods or purchase goods you don't have nearby is in your interest, not the guy's living across the street. He may find it in their interest too, but the conveniences and safety you find as a person is rarely in him having easy access to thing but in you having easy access to thing.
There is no real altruism or "for the greater good" involved in the socialist migration of humanity. Even when people see someone in need and think "someone should help that person", it's often not a genuine desire to see the person helped (else they would provide it themselves), it's a desire to know they will be helped if ever in that or similar situations.
Yea, just don't be a website reporting on the location of people or computers hosting files that Hollywood doesn't want them too. Cause we all know that's not news.
why is it that Terrorists attacked the USA? And don't say it's because we sent troops over there in response to the attacks- there is a serious logic problem in those complaints. I happen to know the real reason but you seem to think you know so why don't you tell us. I seriously want to see if you are actually the suffering the "ignorance of so much around you" that you want to claim is others problems.
Oh BTW, be specific- ranting about how much better you are or how stupid you think others are, doesn't count as a reason. If we are luckey, we will get into a history lessen for you while we are at it.
Most governments have a sovereign immunity from prosecution for their employees in which their public duty is involved. It this is the case, the prosecutor could basically show up to a murder trial wearing a t-shirt saying judges suck- make fun of the jury, and if the criminal got off because of it, nothing could be done to the prosecutor.
This is why a lot of prosecutor seats are elected seats where if they screw up that bad, the public can replace them. I don't know how it works in Italy or this town in particular, but one thing that seems to transcend national borders all around the world is the physical and legal protection of public officials. It would be a shame if the prosecutor isn't an elected seat in this area. But going after them criminally or civilly might be next to impossible unless your in a higher position of government and can just change a bunch of rules/laws.
No, there has never been an instant runoff system for the presidency. There were two problems with the initial system. For one, the loser could win because the Senate would choose the winner if there was no majority (most decidedly a non-instant system). And for another, the instant runoff system you are talking about was a system for having second place take the VP spot. And that was abandoned not because of any flaws in a runoff system, but because it's hard to run a country when the VP and President are from opposite parties working against each other.
No, there was an instant run off system in the electoral college and it worked very similar to instant runoff systems of today. They listed their first choice and then second choice and then third choice for president, if there wasn't a clear winner from the first choice, it moved to the second then third. That's how George Washington got elected unanimously without stopping his opponents from receiving votes too. The changes you speak of was not the changes made to the electoral college regarding this as it was changed internally before the 12th amendment had passed. The twelfth amendment was made to the selection of the candidates for the positions because the single vote system created quite a bit of havoc with the vice president not receiving a majority of votes. Also, the twelfth amendment didn't remove congress from picking the president, it set clear rules to when and how they can do it because the instant runoff was dismantled.
I picked some recent things. My problem isn't with Bush, but with every president in the past 30 years. Clinton at least balanced the budget (depending on your definition of budget), but couldn't keep out of trouble enough to use political clout for anything good. Reagan managed to out-spend the Russians to be a major cause in the stress on their economy that would have lead to their downfall if Gorby hadn't helped it along.
Clinton and Reagan were definitely better presidents then we have seen in the last 15 years but I'm not sure you can lump Clinton in there with him. Clinton's achievements were more or less superficial or mainly in appearances only. Reagan actually did some good with the country bringing it out of Carter's demise- a prosperity that ushered in innovation and achievements that we can't seem to get along without today. You can say those were built by the necessity of the situation created by Reagan, but in retrospect, we are better off because of his term in office. On the other hand, I wouldn't hold him up as some model for society as some do. There certainly were some faults- but as will all president's, they are human and will all have faults.
But, since you can't seem to understand that (or just are looking for something to whine about), it's obvious you are lost cause. You aren't looking for a discussion. You are offended that I'm a 10th generation American that thinks the US is in the shitter and I'm getting the hell out. The USA isn't in my top 10 list of ideal places to live. The USA is failing fast. And those that stand by the flag and claim nationalism or patriotism or whatever ("don't let the door hit you on the way out" counts too) are making it much worse by not standing up, complaining about it loudly, and trying to fix it. I tried what I can, and realized no one wanted it, so I'll come back when people want to fix the US, rather than state it's the best in the world while it's on the slide to the bottom.
Getting the hell out? You said you already got out. Which is it? I don't have a problem with you tucking tail and running instead of making things better. I have a problem with the things that you complained about not being things that the federal or national government has any jurisdiction or constitutional authority over. But I'm sure you knew that considering that you immediately went to the conspiracies of the bridge to nowhere and T
Yes, we do. For reasons including the electorate getting all worked up over what the parties tell them to, and never worked up enough about vote fraud, instant runoff systems that will support 3rd parties, I chose to make my vote count. In another country.
Third parties are a joke on a national level in the US and almost nonexistent on a local/state level. Instant runoff elections are too. In fact, the president in the US used to be chosen that way and we got rid of it really early in our country's life.
I had hope with Obama. The "outsider" sell who was going in for change. But the results speak for themselves. The health care legislation was corporate welfare. We still have Gitmo, we are still in Iraq. I was gone before him, and didn't have any realistic expectation he was real change, but it's nice to hope occasionally.
It looks like you had hope that Obama was not Bush. Outside of the health care in which Bush was against (although for seniors getting prescription coverage), the rest of your rant is pretty much about Bush.
When we have a sane government (which requires a sane electorate, which doesn't seem likely), I will come back.
Generally, I would say something inane like don't let the big door hit you where the good lord split you, but it seems like you don't need any encouragement. I think "sane" is just a matter of interpretation and your first mistake is looking at it on a country level. Perhaps you are better off in another country.
At the time, I probably shouldn't have. As I said, I had already been up playing the game for 36 hours (a day and a half). And the 120 mph was after I started slowing down. I'm not sure how fast I was going- I had a 1996 Buick Regal with a hot V6 in it (hot as in it was supposedly souped up by the guy I purchased it from sitting at almost 280hp and 300 ft lbs torque - The Buick regal already had a pretty decent performance coming in stock on the series II 3.8L at 205hp and 230 torque).
Anyways, I can usually tell when I'm more then 5 mph over the posted speed limit. The entire point was that after playing the game like that and being sleep deprived, excess speed simply didn't register with me. I assumed the environment in the game subconsciously or something. I generally don't go more then 5 mph over the posted speed limit unless it's an emergency or something. I'm a volunteer fire fighter and do drive the trucks from time to time so I know what an emergency is and how to safely speed. Of course it helps with lights and a siren telling others to get out of the way.
Lol.. but we didn't have another restaurant to go to. We had Bush-Kerry, and some insignificant third parties who's names I can't even remember. I guess some people went and ate the crap at the third parties, but that only solidified the first two turd sandwiches.
While that might be funny, I do have an experience similar to that. I was playing GTA Vice City one week (yes, I was on vacation and I finished the game in 4 days). Anyways, after about 32 hours of straight play stopping only for restroom breaks and to grab food or drinks to be consumed while playing, I got a phone call from my mother. Her car broke down on her way home from work. I stopped playing, got into my real car, and started driving to pick her up. I noticed a semi truck up the road attempting to turn into a parking lot that had cars parked in a way he couldn't make the turn. I started breaking and it didn't look like I was slowing down. I checked my speed and I was doing over 120 in a 45 mph zone. I barely stopped before hitting the truck which was blocking the entire road now. I seriously thought I was only doing about 40 or so.
After that, I noticed myself running a red light. I stopped and thought about it for a minute, I was driving just like I would in Vice City. It took a conscious effort to not drive the same as I would/was in the game. This all seemed to be subconscious actions in which I wasn't intentionally forgetting how I should drive or intentionally driving recklessly. After noticing it, I haven't had an issue like that since. I'm not sure if it was because I was in a hurry to pick up my mother or if it was because I was sleep deprived or what.
From my experience, I can see someone blurring the lines between fantasy and reality when it comes to driving games.
Well, Ohio is a different beast then Florida in which a new election would probably had ensued. Florida on the other hand, Gore likely wouldn't have won if a full recount took place. At issue wasn't the number of votes, but what counted as a vote. Under certain standards- Gore is projected to of won by less then 200 votes. But that's if the standards were liberal enough to include the misvotes being construed in gores favor state wide which wouldn't have been likely at the time.
Anyways, they didn't miss their chance. They wasted it by dwelling on it instead of using the opportunity to present an alternative. They didn't waste all of it as democrats started taking seats from the republicans in congress the very next midterm election. It just took 6 years to get the type of steam built up to actually take control of a branch. That's why Kerry was running against Bush instead of someone who wasn't an actual turd sandwich. When the choice to two turd sandwiches, people will stick with the turd they are used to. The crap in Ohio (which does have a paper trail in all but the democrat controlled countries- where all the problems were BTW) was insignificant but allowed the continuance of this opportunity which eventually saw Obama being elected. However, it appears that Ohio is shifting back to republican really quickly.
I think both parties accept vote fraud because they both do it when they can, and they don't want anything resembling vote reform to go through because it would probably have lots of people press for things like instant runoff and such that will only benefit the 3rd parties
I think neither party on a platform level accepts fraud at all. When it happens, it's generally the work of a few individuals who think they are doing something or are not thinking when it happens (as was the situation in Cleavland). They do not want reform for several reasons but most of them is because it limits their own legitimate activities an provide an advantage to outsiders. Another reason is because voting laws and regulation is largely a state operation with the federal government having very little say/jurisdiction in the matter. You can't reform voting on a national level without violating state's rights and other constitutional provisions. That's something these third party idiots simply refuse to figure out.
So both parties will bitch and moan until the vote is certified, then they shut the hell up. At least that's what they've always done so far, and probably because they want security and confidence in the government, even if the other guy gets his 4 years, because they know they'll be back.
I would say the greater good is served here with the concept of trust in the governing officials. It's an admirable fallback. The people in general are idiots and they need the confidence in their leaders for their own well being. Some are more idiots then others and need the rift between them and the government. But in the end, it's the trust that counts.
It makes sense if the allegations are enough to motivate people not to vote republican or get out the vote for the other guy.
The scheme may not be making sure that a republican incumbent is re-elected, it may be in making us think there is a scheme to get a republican incumbent re-elected. Most people are rather idiots when it comes to politics and who they are actually voting for. They are typically more emotionally driven then factual driven. I have a neighbor who says he always votes democrat because they are for the people. When the democrats had control of our town a couple years ago and they took the road money and spent it on bike paths that went no where near any businesses then raised taxes to pave and fix the roads, they invited the state to come in and set up halfway houses for pre-release inmates who would be required to get a job in a town already battling significant unemployment numbers- they gave businesses tax breaks and incentives to hire the convicts over regular citizens. My neighbor bitched and complained about it all so I simply said shut up, it's for the people- you're just not one of them. Now he votes for the hard on crime republicans- same mistake but different results. He is typical of a good portion of the electorate.
Well- I know that you know, that I know that you know, that I know- well, if you already know then there is no reason to repeat it.
What if it's actually a third party who is making it seem like the Republicans making a scheme to make us think that it's the Democrats trying to make us think it's the Republicans trying to make us think it's the Democrat candidate so they can walk in and get elected. You know, standing on the backs of your opponents who beat each other in battle in order to get your reward has been done before.
Why would there have been a revolt? All it did in 2000 and 2004 is empower the democrats who eventually took over. And they took over not because they were better, but because they weren't "Bush". This is why they are expecting heavy losses this and the next election, because Bush, the guy they demonized for 8 years isn't around for them not to be.
Or to get geeks and curios people (the rest of the interweb) to visit their site and explore around hoping that some will stay. It's pretty much like a slashvertisement except that they know everyone will be talking about it so it probably widespread then just geeks.
At the cooler in the big office building on tuesday afternoon. Bill: What? You put a code in and get articles about zombies? No way.. Joe: Sure, you just press these buttons in this order. Bill: Wow, that's neat. I never played those game but this is pretty awesome. I have to tell my kid about this. Kid: I know dad, I'm the one who told sally who told jim, who told johny's neighbors dog, who told aunt jane, who told Mary who told her dad- Joe. I found out by some kids talking about it in school.
It would depend on the specific details of the situation but I would think that the required fiduciary responsibility would make acts in which a conflict of interest existing illegal if it serves to benefit the outside influence over the fiduciary obligation. Of course that would require someone to be in a management style position.
I'm willing to bet that less research dollars go to lobbyists then what returns from their work. In the real world, that is called a profit or net gain. This is likely true even if you don't know what the lobbyist are doing in step 3 ????.
Slashdot Mirror
well, lets also say that the Iraqi family unit is generally 4 people, a mother father and two children or maybe some elderly relatives. Now the 21% of the population can easily be one gun per household and just like a household in the US, When I ask if you have a TV, you don't say no, it's your dads, you say yes.
So what I'm getting here is, if one exists in the household, then it can easily be everyone or close to everyone. This is because when it's not being used, it's available for use by anyone in the house should they take the opportunity.
This is slashdot. A place where a few friends with some mod points and a conspiracy is all that is needed to negate any ration argument. You can be saying 2+2=5, and people will argue it's 5 or can be five and resort to some weak arguement. And yes, I'm I actually did participate in a discussion here where someone attempted to show how 2+2 could equal 5.
I was with you until you started chastising the men for not taking the time to identify their target.
The problem is that there wasn't time if what they thought turned out to be true. They were circling the target, asked on the radio about any friendlies/units in the area, they were talking all the steps possible until they saw the camera which has a silhouette partially resembling a weapon capable of taking them down, the person holding it crouched by a corner to be shielded while the camera/weapon was being aimed in their direction, and at this point, time is simply not there if you expect real soldiers in real combat situation to ever come home alive.
In other words, if you can't take the specifics of the situation into account from the perspective of the heli crew, then you really shouldn't be discussing this at all. You are no different then the blathering idiot boss who's entire sales improvement plan consists of "sell more stuff" leaving your job on the line if you don't. I've been in situations where I was shot at (I wasn't the target), I know what facing the reality of death is. If I'm ever in a situation where I'm trying to determine of the guy holding the gun is friendly or not, as soon as it looks like it's pointed at me is when I decide I need to do something. If you want to sit there waiting for him to shoot or to get a better look at the guy, you will be more likely then not getting shot at. It's no different here. If the camera had been a RPG, if the guys had been insurgents, waiting any more time to identify them could have meant their lives. You can't fault someone for acting on that, even when it turns out to be a big ass horrible and tragic mistake. Fault the politicians who put them in that position but do no sit there and complain that when a person weighs their life against another and picks their, then they should have done something more.
I think the troll mod came from someone who thinks you making fun of the private who got busted, not the dictator in charge. Perhaps the idiot is a hero to them?
It is still a crime when it exposes another crime just the same as a crime doesn't negate another crime.
In other words, if you break and enter a building in order to obtain evidence that someone murdered someone, neither crime disappears unless you are the cops hiding certain facts that your supervisor doesn't want known. there might be some instances where the crime becomes un-prosecutable because of the way evidence was gathered making it unusable, but it doesn't disappear or get negated.
The same "rules theorised for grain and bullion markets" still apply. The variables are just different though. In grain, you get a lot for a little work as nature provides most of the investment. With these devices, you get little for a lot of work (comparatively). Gain then has to be stored somewhere and processed special in order to remain usable for it's intended purpose. In both, your markup has to be income that lasts a good portion of the year when grain can't be harvested-sold. If you spend income or profit on development and quality control, then you need to replace that income by a higher markup. When the investment becomes so great that a simple person can't do it anymore, then you need to consider the costs of using other people's money which equates to the time value of money. They won't give you something for nothing because they can be getting something in return for it.
Now where the free market does get hampered in this is by the monopolies given by regulation. That's right, a monopoly can be made by regulation which makes your second paragraph wrong by default. A copyright or patent is a monopoly by regulation or government interference. The only thing stopping me from duplicating a Xbox or router or whatever and selling it is the copyrights and patents companies hold on their products. Regulation stops competition which is an essential part of the free market system. Regulation of the free market stops me from walking in and selling the same thing that costs less then a DVD player for the price of a DVD player while they struggle to sell them for a thousand times as much. Of course you did mention that so few of these things are sold, this means that at the price of a DVD player, I would have to sell enough of them to stay in business all year round. If so few of them are actually purchased, it may be that I need to mark them up 1000 percent in order to do that. You certainly can't keep a company running all year long and the next on 5 purchases at $89.99 each. You might be able to if it's a small company at 5 purchases of $125,000 each per year. But the real numbers will dictate that, not your "hey, look at that" observations.
Two words, "sovereign immunity".
This means that citizens of a government can't sue the government unless something expressly gives them permission- generally the government itself through laws or by nature of charter (constitution). This would also go for foreign powers too. They would have to find a court willing to take the case that the US would recognize as surrendering part of it's sovereign immunity over to. To date, there are very few courts this has happened to and when the situation came up, we just ignored it anyways.
all that would more or less happen is that people would get pissed and the people who already hate the US would have one more reason.
It was the same thing and it was tossed out for a better system. Get over it.
Lol.. What's so hard to understand here? Words have meanings and I simply expect the words you use to actually mean what they mean. When you say one thing then another, it does become a situation of trusting what you are saying. This is nothing new, it's a concept that has been around for a long time. Quite longer then either of us.
You obviously are hung up on the fact that you are wrong and the instant run off system sucks donkey balls. We tried it and got rid of it. Making mistakes on the procedure doesn't change that fact. Get over it and live your life happily elsewhere. As I said before, we are all the better because of you leaving. BTW, if you are running away, then why are you even worried about it? I mean if you left/are leaving, then it really isn't any of your concern now is it.
It's the same setup without numbering the choices. You voted for two candidates, the one with the most in a majority won first place.
Nobody is pissed off that you ran away. If you read what I have said, it was to encourage you to do it. You know, the don't let the door hit you and America will be better without you comment. It does seem like you are the one who has an issue understanding the constitution and the principles this country was founded on- not me. But of course you can claim I don't know something when you can't even get the plain and simple English I posted correct. This says way more about you then it does about me. So maybe you should look in the mirror before attempting to claim someone else has a problem.
It's quite simple, you either got out like you said, or you didn't and are just making shit up. It could be that you are in the process of getting out but then that would make what you said previous somewhat fallacious. There is no condescending there, just simple realities based on the definitions of words that you use.
Who said you can't complain? You can cry and bitch all you want, the place to make changes is on the local/state level not the federal level. The federal government has never been constitutionally empowered to mingle in education and one of our founding fathers who was also a big pusher of public education knew that. Jefferson who attempted to institute the first public schools in the US did so correctly at the local levels. He knew that the government he just helped create had no business/authority getting
Well, he is either confused or purposely confusing the issue or a strong mixture of both. I have seen it repeated by others and it comes down to this.
When humans as a group saw it and convinced others that it was in their own best interest to exploit the resources and efforts of others in order to aid in their society and protect themselves from harm, then we because socialistic in nature. But it's a common lie to assume that this is for the benefit of others, having a store to sell your goods or purchase goods you don't have nearby is in your interest, not the guy's living across the street. He may find it in their interest too, but the conveniences and safety you find as a person is rarely in him having easy access to thing but in you having easy access to thing.
There is no real altruism or "for the greater good" involved in the socialist migration of humanity. Even when people see someone in need and think "someone should help that person", it's often not a genuine desire to see the person helped (else they would provide it themselves), it's a desire to know they will be helped if ever in that or similar situations.
Yea, just don't be a website reporting on the location of people or computers hosting files that Hollywood doesn't want them too. Cause we all know that's not news.
Alright troll, I'll byte.
why is it that Terrorists attacked the USA? And don't say it's because we sent troops over there in response to the attacks- there is a serious logic problem in those complaints. I happen to know the real reason but you seem to think you know so why don't you tell us. I seriously want to see if you are actually the suffering the "ignorance of so much around you" that you want to claim is others problems.
Oh BTW, be specific- ranting about how much better you are or how stupid you think others are, doesn't count as a reason. If we are luckey, we will get into a history lessen for you while we are at it.
Most governments have a sovereign immunity from prosecution for their employees in which their public duty is involved. It this is the case, the prosecutor could basically show up to a murder trial wearing a t-shirt saying judges suck- make fun of the jury, and if the criminal got off because of it, nothing could be done to the prosecutor.
This is why a lot of prosecutor seats are elected seats where if they screw up that bad, the public can replace them. I don't know how it works in Italy or this town in particular, but one thing that seems to transcend national borders all around the world is the physical and legal protection of public officials. It would be a shame if the prosecutor isn't an elected seat in this area. But going after them criminally or civilly might be next to impossible unless your in a higher position of government and can just change a bunch of rules/laws.
No, there was an instant run off system in the electoral college and it worked very similar to instant runoff systems of today. They listed their first choice and then second choice and then third choice for president, if there wasn't a clear winner from the first choice, it moved to the second then third. That's how George Washington got elected unanimously without stopping his opponents from receiving votes too. The changes you speak of was not the changes made to the electoral college regarding this as it was changed internally before the 12th amendment had passed. The twelfth amendment was made to the selection of the candidates for the positions because the single vote system created quite a bit of havoc with the vice president not receiving a majority of votes. Also, the twelfth amendment didn't remove congress from picking the president, it set clear rules to when and how they can do it because the instant runoff was dismantled.
Clinton and Reagan were definitely better presidents then we have seen in the last 15 years but I'm not sure you can lump Clinton in there with him. Clinton's achievements were more or less superficial or mainly in appearances only. Reagan actually did some good with the country bringing it out of Carter's demise- a prosperity that ushered in innovation and achievements that we can't seem to get along without today. You can say those were built by the necessity of the situation created by Reagan, but in retrospect, we are better off because of his term in office. On the other hand, I wouldn't hold him up as some model for society as some do. There certainly were some faults- but as will all president's, they are human and will all have faults.
Getting the hell out? You said you already got out. Which is it? I don't have a problem with you tucking tail and running instead of making things better. I have a problem with the things that you complained about not being things that the federal or national government has any jurisdiction or constitutional authority over. But I'm sure you knew that considering that you immediately went to the conspiracies of the bridge to nowhere and T
Third parties are a joke on a national level in the US and almost nonexistent on a local/state level. Instant runoff elections are too. In fact, the president in the US used to be chosen that way and we got rid of it really early in our country's life.
It looks like you had hope that Obama was not Bush. Outside of the health care in which Bush was against (although for seniors getting prescription coverage), the rest of your rant is pretty much about Bush.
Generally, I would say something inane like don't let the big door hit you where the good lord split you, but it seems like you don't need any encouragement. I think "sane" is just a matter of interpretation and your first mistake is looking at it on a country level. Perhaps you are better off in another country.
At the time, I probably shouldn't have. As I said, I had already been up playing the game for 36 hours (a day and a half). And the 120 mph was after I started slowing down. I'm not sure how fast I was going- I had a 1996 Buick Regal with a hot V6 in it (hot as in it was supposedly souped up by the guy I purchased it from sitting at almost 280hp and 300 ft lbs torque - The Buick regal already had a pretty decent performance coming in stock on the series II 3.8L at 205hp and 230 torque).
Anyways, I can usually tell when I'm more then 5 mph over the posted speed limit. The entire point was that after playing the game like that and being sleep deprived, excess speed simply didn't register with me. I assumed the environment in the game subconsciously or something. I generally don't go more then 5 mph over the posted speed limit unless it's an emergency or something. I'm a volunteer fire fighter and do drive the trucks from time to time so I know what an emergency is and how to safely speed. Of course it helps with lights and a siren telling others to get out of the way.
Lol.. but we didn't have another restaurant to go to. We had Bush-Kerry, and some insignificant third parties who's names I can't even remember. I guess some people went and ate the crap at the third parties, but that only solidified the first two turd sandwiches.
While that might be funny, I do have an experience similar to that. I was playing GTA Vice City one week (yes, I was on vacation and I finished the game in 4 days). Anyways, after about 32 hours of straight play stopping only for restroom breaks and to grab food or drinks to be consumed while playing, I got a phone call from my mother. Her car broke down on her way home from work. I stopped playing, got into my real car, and started driving to pick her up. I noticed a semi truck up the road attempting to turn into a parking lot that had cars parked in a way he couldn't make the turn. I started breaking and it didn't look like I was slowing down. I checked my speed and I was doing over 120 in a 45 mph zone. I barely stopped before hitting the truck which was blocking the entire road now. I seriously thought I was only doing about 40 or so.
After that, I noticed myself running a red light. I stopped and thought about it for a minute, I was driving just like I would in Vice City. It took a conscious effort to not drive the same as I would/was in the game. This all seemed to be subconscious actions in which I wasn't intentionally forgetting how I should drive or intentionally driving recklessly. After noticing it, I haven't had an issue like that since. I'm not sure if it was because I was in a hurry to pick up my mother or if it was because I was sleep deprived or what.
From my experience, I can see someone blurring the lines between fantasy and reality when it comes to driving games.
Well, Ohio is a different beast then Florida in which a new election would probably had ensued. Florida on the other hand, Gore likely wouldn't have won if a full recount took place. At issue wasn't the number of votes, but what counted as a vote. Under certain standards- Gore is projected to of won by less then 200 votes. But that's if the standards were liberal enough to include the misvotes being construed in gores favor state wide which wouldn't have been likely at the time.
Anyways, they didn't miss their chance. They wasted it by dwelling on it instead of using the opportunity to present an alternative. They didn't waste all of it as democrats started taking seats from the republicans in congress the very next midterm election. It just took 6 years to get the type of steam built up to actually take control of a branch. That's why Kerry was running against Bush instead of someone who wasn't an actual turd sandwich. When the choice to two turd sandwiches, people will stick with the turd they are used to. The crap in Ohio (which does have a paper trail in all but the democrat controlled countries- where all the problems were BTW) was insignificant but allowed the continuance of this opportunity which eventually saw Obama being elected. However, it appears that Ohio is shifting back to republican really quickly.
I think neither party on a platform level accepts fraud at all. When it happens, it's generally the work of a few individuals who think they are doing something or are not thinking when it happens (as was the situation in Cleavland). They do not want reform for several reasons but most of them is because it limits their own legitimate activities an provide an advantage to outsiders. Another reason is because voting laws and regulation is largely a state operation with the federal government having very little say/jurisdiction in the matter. You can't reform voting on a national level without violating state's rights and other constitutional provisions. That's something these third party idiots simply refuse to figure out.
I would say the greater good is served here with the concept of trust in the governing officials. It's an admirable fallback. The people in general are idiots and they need the confidence in their leaders for their own well being. Some are more idiots then others and need the rift between them and the government. But in the end, it's the trust that counts.
It makes sense if the allegations are enough to motivate people not to vote republican or get out the vote for the other guy.
The scheme may not be making sure that a republican incumbent is re-elected, it may be in making us think there is a scheme to get a republican incumbent re-elected. Most people are rather idiots when it comes to politics and who they are actually voting for. They are typically more emotionally driven then factual driven. I have a neighbor who says he always votes democrat because they are for the people. When the democrats had control of our town a couple years ago and they took the road money and spent it on bike paths that went no where near any businesses then raised taxes to pave and fix the roads, they invited the state to come in and set up halfway houses for pre-release inmates who would be required to get a job in a town already battling significant unemployment numbers- they gave businesses tax breaks and incentives to hire the convicts over regular citizens. My neighbor bitched and complained about it all so I simply said shut up, it's for the people- you're just not one of them. Now he votes for the hard on crime republicans- same mistake but different results. He is typical of a good portion of the electorate.
Well- I know that you know, that I know that you know, that I know- well, if you already know then there is no reason to repeat it.
What if it's actually a third party who is making it seem like the Republicans making a scheme to make us think that it's the Democrats trying to make us think it's the Republicans trying to make us think it's the Democrat candidate so they can walk in and get elected. You know, standing on the backs of your opponents who beat each other in battle in order to get your reward has been done before.
Why would there have been a revolt? All it did in 2000 and 2004 is empower the democrats who eventually took over. And they took over not because they were better, but because they weren't "Bush". This is why they are expecting heavy losses this and the next election, because Bush, the guy they demonized for 8 years isn't around for them not to be.
Or to get geeks and curios people (the rest of the interweb) to visit their site and explore around hoping that some will stay. It's pretty much like a slashvertisement except that they know everyone will be talking about it so it probably widespread then just geeks.
At the cooler in the big office building on tuesday afternoon.
Bill: What? You put a code in and get articles about zombies? No way..
Joe: Sure, you just press these buttons in this order.
Bill: Wow, that's neat. I never played those game but this is pretty awesome. I have to tell my kid about this.
Kid: I know dad, I'm the one who told sally who told jim, who told johny's neighbors dog, who told aunt jane, who told Mary who told her dad- Joe. I found out by some kids talking about it in school.
It would depend on the specific details of the situation but I would think that the required fiduciary responsibility would make acts in which a conflict of interest existing illegal if it serves to benefit the outside influence over the fiduciary obligation. Of course that would require someone to be in a management style position.
I'm willing to bet that less research dollars go to lobbyists then what returns from their work. In the real world, that is called a profit or net gain. This is likely true even if you don't know what the lobbyist are doing in step 3 ????.