Is your google finger broken or something? Or are you purposely remaining willfully ignorant until someone else goes through the process of spoon feeding you information? Wikipedia is the first source that will tell you about the free speech zones in which they were first used in politics back in 1988 by the DNC. Universities have been using them a lot longer.
The President is not a King. He can have any opinion he wants, up to and including favoring a repeal of the 2nd amendment, and it doesn't matter jack shit until he can sell Congress on it. He also is on record as favoring a single-payer system, but if you notice that option wasn't even seriously considered for health care reform.
You really need to view the parent I was responding to. He stated that Obama wasn't anti gun because he signed a bill into law that allows guns to be carried in national parks. Of course that isn't true, it allows local laws to apply to guns being carried on federal lands and while it will allow more guns on those lands, it doesn't allow them. The bill was a rider on a credit card bill and congress had to pull some maneuvers and tricks to get the bill passed.
Anyways, You right, Obama is not a king. He does have to get congress' approval and actions on it. However, there are plenty of idiots in congress too. Calling a spade a spade is nothing more then calling people for what they are. To pretend that Obama is not anti gun is dangerous, to pretend that he carries no power is even more dangerous.
It's been this way for over 30 years that I know of. If you make someone think you have a weapon, it's armed robbery whether you have it or not. And yes, it is very important in what the victim thinks, it's them who are out because of your actions. It's not as much as the potential damage you could cause, it's what the victim understands you are capable of causing.
Your monicker says it all, sumdumbass. First off, please show where in the fourth amendment there is an exemption for international correspondence. There are none.
Perhaps you should pay attention to history a little more. The vary first congress of this great nation passed a law allowing warrentless searched at the border which was up help by the supreme court because the very right of sovereignty demanded the ability to control what was entering the country. Also, the very same court case that fixed the fourth to domestic wire taps in 1968 also assumed that the administration had a right to listen to foreign conversations as a matter of national security in which is backed by the rulings on the fist law about searches at the borders as well as FISA laws which was created after a later case in which the government was claiming National security in matters of domestic law when some guy attempted to blow up a federal building in Michigan with Dynamite.
I'm sorry that you are ignorant of this. It must be hard walking around with just hald the knowledge you should have. Anyways, if you read the original FISA laws, you wouldn't be out in the could in this issue.
Secondly, FISA was a necessary evil because it prevented our country against invasion, which is one of the two conditions for extra constitutional actions, the other being rebellion. News flash for fear mongers and the afraid: Terrorists pose no threat of invasion whatsoever.
FISA was creted specifically because the court cre in 1968-69 that bound phone conversations to the 4th amendment specifically exempted matters of national security and the FBI got around warrant requirements by using the CIA to conduct surveillance. FISA was a specific response to that. It wasn't some necessary evil or anything of the sorts. It was specifically to stop abuses from federal agencies that were attempting to get around warrant requirements. It would do you a world of good to take some history classes.
As for Obama expanding gun rights, yes he did, dumbass. He signed the bill into law. Period. End of argument.
He signed a bill that had a rider on it into law. Plain and simple and it goes against his own words as well as policies he has supported in the past. If you see it as any other thing without Obama specifically claiming to have turned over a new lead and taking another stand on gun rights, then you are a complete fool. The links I posted prove that.
The video you linked to was the idiot Lou Dobbs (a birther dumbass, among other things). It is concerning a bill that applies to manufacturers and dealers of guns, not gun owners. Coincidentally, one minute in, you have Republican Senator (the one who sponsored the gun provision that was tacked onto the credit card legislation no less) Dick Lugar URGING PASSAGE.
I'm sorry, are we looking at the same video? The one I linked to was about Obama pressuring congress to ratify a treaty that would require mandatory gun ownership registrations that would be shared with other countries (as if it was any of their business). Lou Daubs is also considered a left winger by the right. I told you to not complain about any biasedness in the links because there was plenty from both sides of the isle. If you car to counter, please present Obama in his own words stating the opposite that everyone else has claimed him to be. It isn't going to happen because his anti gun stance is supported by Obama's own words and record.
The link to guncite.com shows reasonable statements about gun issues. The first one on the page has Obama saying that firearms should not be unregulated. Well, buh! Even the second amendment you idiots so fervently cling to starts out: "A WELL REGULATED Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." Funny how the gun loving idiots always forget how that amendment st
I'm a firm believer in that if you are not effecting or affecting someone else, it is none of their business until you make it so. As for buying a 345MPH car, I think you got taken, as for attempting to do it, I can agree with you as long as you do not endanger other people in the process. Take that to mean whatever you want outside of harming someone and getting away with it.
BTW, I understand that what you just described is highly illegal in most states in the US. It sort of runs contrary to what I just mentioned about being legally able to do the potential speed of the car and fits right in there with doing it against the law. I'm simple going to suggest that you should know it's illegal in many places (especially on the turnpike which will/can (as in it happened to me) get you a citation for going between toll booths to quickly compared to the maximum speed limit
Anyways, the entire premise of obtaining a car that can go faster then the speed limit rests upon the notion that you will act legally with the vehicle of suffer the consequences when caught. The same can be said for silencers and other gun paraphernalia. You are expected to use them in a responsible way or all sorts of legal hell can break out on you. We are free until we are told we are not. Part of being free it knowing when and when not to abuse those freedoms. We should not be limited by someone's lack of understanding of that.
Seriously, to your victims, it's the same thing. People will react differently from a physical threat compared to a gun threat. Even when the gun threat is make believe. If you have ever had a gun pointed at you, or what resembled a gun with someone claiming it was a gun you would understand. I have, It was an actual.38 special snub nosed revolver nickel plated that ended up taking the life of a ill trained police officer the exact same night. He went after the suspect without support and took a bullet in the head (presumably without backup following him into harms way).
It was used to rob a convenient store I was in, it was placed point blank in my friends face, I ended up doing what appeared to be saving his life by throwing the second cash register on the ground and forcing it open so he could get the extra 200 dollars left for day shift from it ($280 total take in cash because of deposits), and it was all pretty scary. I own guns, I wasn't scared of the fact he had one, I was scared of the fact that he was forcing us to do things we didn't have the capabilities to do while all along cocking and releasing the hammer of the gun attempting to claim he was going to kill us if we didn't help him. I do not care if it was a real gun or not, the threat was there, the actions we followed was there, there is talk that the cop actually got shot by another scared cop while chasing the guy through a back yard (the bullets didn't match what we thought the gun was but that irrelevant because we knew he had a gun).
In the end, he was taken alive by a friend of mine when he broke into his house for cover, the friend found him unarmed crouched in the basement after breaking a window to get in. He pretended to still have the gun, my friend immediately demanded the guy show his hands (at gun point), he pretended again to still have the gun and threatened my friend in which case my friend ended up squeezing a round off and missing in fear as the guy reached for his pocket. The guy immediately froze and waited for authorities to show up and arrest him.
Anyways, I do not care who you think you are or how bad you think you are, you will react differently when you think someone has a gun compare to when they do not or you do not think they do. Knives are just as scary and people will act differently when they are present of appear to be present too. In my state, acting like you have a gun in the commission of a crime is the same thing as having one except you do not get the 3 years consecutive sentencing. It's still armed robbery and it should be.
I didn't leave anything out. I thought the obvious was- well, obvious. Do I need to repeat everything you should already know?
You should also note that the warrant-less wiretapping was only used on international calls, and to that end, with people with suspected terrorist connections. No one familiar with the program, including the democrats involved has ever claimed otherwise. The only people who have were the ones attempting to cause a problem out of it. As for it being an expansion of the government, that too is questionable at best. We were already able to listen to state actors and their agents without a warrant. FISA had a problem because there was no technical definition of a terrorist that fell within the state actors exemptions and a FISA warrant was needed. That has been corrected by law because people knew the need for the action was real. Bush actually got a bump in the polls when this was released because it showed the country they were doing something about the issues of terrorism on domestic soil.
Now, if you really want to get into Bush's expansion of government and deficit spending, outside of two wars, the next biggest thing was No Child Left Behind which despite it's resistance and overall criticisms, was somewhat of a noble goal that most people were willing to accept.
As for Obama expanding gun rights, no he didn't. Congress did because a rider was attached and it was the only way they could get their credit card bill passed. Guns weren't even banned on federal land anyways. Concealed carry was banned at certain parks in certain states and most states have laws about guns on public lands unless hunting and all this bill said was that it's allowed as long as it violated no other law. I frequent Wayne National forest and take my.357, 44mag, or 9 mil with me all the time. I go hunting there all the time too. All state forest in my area is public hunting and all national forests are public hunting. Further more, we are allowed camping just off the trails and the rangers actually suggest having a side arm for the overnight stays. All this law does is say the states can make their own rules for government lands in their areas.
Obama is clear on his gun rights stand. All you have to do is listen to his own words and statements. Smoke and mirrors might have you fooled. However, that does not make your position true. Obama's past is clear, his present is clear, all you need to do is a Google Search for Obama is anti gun and you will be presented with tons of links presenting his position and most of them use his own words. Don't complain about biased sites either, there are plenty on both sides reporting the same damn shit.
Speed can be limited by mechanical or electronic governors. Most people will not have access to disused airports nor will they have private land capable of supporting those speeds.
As I said before, it's because we can until such time we are told that we can't. You not seeing a purpose for it does not negate any freedoms others might enjoy. For the majority of people who have vehicles that go over the speed limit, breaking the law is the only time it gets used, but we do not stop it because there are a few places where they can without breaking the law. It's called freedom, not as free as you will let me.
Shooting someone who doesn't die is called attempted murder and in most cases can and will carry the same penalties as if you murdered the victim depending on the state of mind.
The problem isn't what you think you are doing as much as what those you are doing it to think you are doing. If you convince them you have a gun, for all intends and purposes, you have a gun, even if it's just a banana in your pocket. Your crime wasn't against yourself but the people and the state. It's how you present it to them that matters. When you pretend to have a gun when committing a crime, you have one whether it's on you or not.
When you look at the link, right below it, it describes a way to get a license to own them.
An interesting point is this.
" (3) It shall be an affirmative defense to a prosecution brought under this section that the machine gun, short-barreled shotgun, or short-barreled rifle was acquired prior to July 1, 1994, and is possessed in compliance with federal law."
So if you owned one and it was at least in compliance with federal law before 1994, you need to do nothing except show up to court and claim you owned it since before 1994.
What is the point of having a car that can go faster then the posted speed limit? In America, we work from the premise that we are free and can do things until prohibited otherwise. You can puchase a car that goes 200mph and have no legal way of driving it that fast, it doesn't mean that all cars will have a 55 or 70 MPH governor installed, it means that you can possess it and need to be legally responsible with it. Other countries may operate differently in which you can't do anything without getting permission first. We have gotten there yet.
No it's not. Suggesting to someone that you are armed carries the same weight as being armed. It's like pretending to sell crack cocaine while passing moist sugar and talcum power off instead. You were mentally motivated to the same extremes and the people you committed the fraud on acted under the same conditions. It's the exact same technical aspect of the crime that gets you charged.
If I walked up to you on the street while you were unarmed and said give me your money, you would size me up and attempt to determine if you could take me before acting (unless you are a complete and total puss). If I convinced you that I have a gun and was ready to kill you, you would give me your money and worry about your life (unless you are batshit crazy and partly suicidal). The point is, making someone think you are armed carried the same criminal elements as if you were armed. You shouldn't get a pass because you were only joking about that when your victims understood you to be armed and dangerous.
IF you didn't notice, it's because you weren't looking. Gun rights advocates have spoken out against attempts during the bush administration to take guns from us. Bush didn't exactly support those attempts either. It seems to be the democrats that are so scared of what they are doing, they only feel safe when they can take a mans means of protection away from him.
Now that you got a Democratic president, you're all up in arms. Whoop-te-do, you're at least five years late.
So we should just give up and lay down? That's not the way it works. If you are just now finding out what is going on, then it's you who had the problem, not everyone else. Anyways, even if they were asleep at the switch, it's no excuse to all the sudden allow it to happen now. If it was wrong then, it is still wrong now, and if it's still wrong now, then you bringing up the past does nothing but show how much more important it is now to do something.
Seriously, if someone started killing off your immediate family, would you give up and let them finish because you missed them killing the first few people? Or would you fight even harder to protect those who are left?
Lol.. And you are claiming they are brain washed. All you need to do is read Obama's own words about the Supreme court decision in the DC gun control case to get an idea of where he stands. As for the free speech zones, they were originally implemented by the democrats and historically used by them until your selective memory singled out Bush.
History isn't a hard subject. I suggest you try it a little. It's even easier with the advent of recorded history and the internet in which you can easily look things up with.
That is only true if the product as a whole is ignored and each individual component is analyzed. Taken as a whole, the laptop or netbook, if the cost of providing an operating system is $0 compared to $99, then the inverse is true.
We aren't buying components off the shelf and assembling the devices at home. We shouldn't look at the costs that way when it's offered as a complete package.
Your 77% number is only remotely accurate if you ignore water vapor. You can do that in order to press your point but that is a little disingenuous.
BTE, the 0.000020 of your human body was of the difference between some arbitrary point in time and present. It wouldn't be 0.000020 of a 200lbs man. Either way, it's still not a significant portion of the person. Do not confuse significant with critical or important as the dictionary shows us they are not the same.
As for the importance of Co2 in the atmosphere. I do not think anyone was claiming that it doesn't play a role. However, the amount of a role is debatable and as we have seen with the lower temps today, the value we have placed on that roles isn't exactly a constant or over powering compared to other parts of the systems involved. That pure raw fact is that we do not understand climate enough to assign absolutes in the way Co2 has been crafted over the past few years. None of the models can actually predict the future and only after considerable tooling can they recreate the past with accuracy but the closer to accuracy in the past, the further off the future seems to go.
Fitting a square peg into a round hole should be a sign that something isn't quite right but sadly, the political will behind global warming mandates that it stays the same unless it changes to their political advantage. If you remember back in the 1980's and early 90's, you will remember a push to forgive the third world debt, you will remember pushes to apply a world tax on all the people to fund the UN, you will remember the UN attempting to assert authority over people in various countries with the world court that required countries to submit their sovereignty to the UN. All the sudden, Global warming came about and the political solution covered the majority of those issues and they almost disappeared about the same time that the Kyoto protocol were created. Of course there is little reason to wonder why when the Kyoto accord contains mechanisms that pretty much addressed all those concerns under the disguise of global warming. It's also no surprise why the powers to be attempted to keep the text of Kyoto out of the American people's hands until after it was ratified (which didn't work) and that out of the 150 some odd countries only 37 have limits on their Co2 production and the rest stand to benefit from material investment from the wealthier countries looking to continue their lifestyle while being pinched. As we can see by the rise of China and India's Co2 production from Europe outsourcing their ways into compliance while struggling to adjust for population growth within the treaty guidelines, Co2 was never the whole problem, where it was produced was.
To make a longer post short, if Co2 is the problem and the real problem, then the political solutions would be completely different. They would include multinational research into cleaner energy that would be shared among the countries, it would include initiatives to assist growing countries with using the clean energy, it would include actual proof including data sets so anyone interested could review and check the problem as well as evaluate the solutions with full knowledge. This would be an open discussion because the problem would have been real and required an open solution. It isn't that way for a reason, this is because the problem is exaggerated and the solutions are crafted to implement ulterior motives. Even playing with the numbers has an effect that allows you to claim 77% instead of a much more accurate 0.28% of the total GHGs. You even attempted to trot out pre-industrial age numbers to inflate it. Do you seriously expect the world to go back to pre-industrial living conditions? Even third world countries emit more Co2 now then they did pre-industrial age so why aren't they limited in their production? While less then one half of one percent of the total greenhouse gases can be thrown around in various inflated ways, you cannot really escape the insignificance of it. What you can do is fall for
I don't think it's "the sort of talk" that's not welcome as much as it appears what your attempting to imply. Force sterilization is bad, but reproductive rights does not really equate to slaughter and death and forced labor (that we gave up) in concentrations camps.
Look at your own numbers, 0.000315 and 0.000385 with a difference of 0.000050 supposedly being the problem. That doesn't look so significant as the GP said. To put it into more perspective, of the total Green House Gases, Co2 is only about 0.28% of it all. That's less then one percent total and roughly only 12% of that is considered to be the problem. That works out to around 0.000336 of the total green house gases being considered as the problem. As the GP said, that is not very significant in the GHG scene.
Where it is significant is that Co2 is the primary GHG produced by anthropogenic means. That's why they shorten 0.000385 to 385ppm and attempt to make it look bigger. The same reason is why you see claims to target percentages of pre{$somedate} instead of 0.000020 reduction. It's all to make it look bigger and more scarier. I mean seriously, If I was to cut off 0.000020 of your human body, would you laugh at me because that wouldn't even be a hair? How about when I say 40% of the total volume you were at some random date that turns out to be 9 months and one week before you were born. So lets see, does it sound more nefarious at either 0.000020 or 40% of your growth at pre-birth (pre1990) levels. Which sound more significant and make you want to do something to stop it.
I guess have trolls that follow me. That or someone can't figure out the new mod system.
Anyways, I had Squab the first time in much the same ways you have described. I ate it before I knew what it was and thought it was delicious. It made me a little quezy after finding out what it was but I got over that quickly. I took up dove hunting since then just because of it. I still haven't quite found a recipe that tastes as good as the first time but I'm close.
I didn't say that it didn't matter. Your choice of the words "doomed to death" is an explicit appeal to emotion, not logic. That is what I see as a big problem with the current discussion about health care, the conversation is so full of people squawking emotion-laden buzzwords that the logical arguments are not being made/considered.
No, mt words are not an appeal on emotion, the entire point is. I'm using it to say death is certain without the potential life saving treatment. There is one or two chances at living with a medical procedure and without that, they are doomed to death where with the procedure, there is at least a chance of continued life. It illustrates the pointless and futile attempts to say "it's too risky, the patient might die". The fact is, without the procedure, they are going to die anyways- they have nothing to lose and life to gain. If that bothers you, even if it's just bothers you emotionally, it should because it's the accurate description of what I am saying and you entire point is that some third party gets to decide who will die and who gets a chance at living with these situations.
You still don't get it. The consideration of age in the decision, is not about "you've lived enough life, time to give it up", it is about risk/benefit. The older you are, the riskier surgery is. A doctor doesn't give a shit about your worth to society, the doctor is focused on the patient and the risk assessment.
No, you still don't get it. I'm not talking about elective surgeries here. I'm talking about when a patient is terminal and death is a certain reality, the risk benefit becomes death and possible life literally. You see, death is pretty severe, it's also the worse risk any life saving procedure can carry. Living is the benefit. When you look at the procedure and the patient, if you kill them, you have a zero sum gain on the risk, if you save them and give them 5 or more years of life, then it's all gain and all benefit. The decision to have the procedure needs to belong to the patient alone and not you, some doctor looking to increase his pay, not the government, not anyone but the patient. If the doctor says we can try this but it will likely fail, the patient is the one who needs to say "yes or no".
Yet the current system "rations" health care all the time. If your insurance company decides to deny coverage for an "experimental procedure" (something I can tell you from personal experience, they have a -very- broad definition of), you -are- down to your worth - can you pay for the procedure yourself?
The "death panels" (to get back to your original topic) are quite real and are here today. They make decisions based not on what's best for the patient, but what's best for their bottom line, and yes they do take into account status/worth in society. Ignoring this fact does not make it go away.
And If I remember correctly, you said that was wrong. Please explain why instituting it into law would be good? Why not fix the problem instead of entrenching it into a multi billion dollar government program.
How do you propose that this problem be dealt with?
It's actually pretty simple. The doctor or doctors get a consult from specialist in the area concerning the problem. if something exists, even with a 5% probability of working and a 95% chance of death, it's presented to the patient as such and they decide if they want to try it. IF they do, the surgery gets video taped and becomes a learning/teaching tool to educate newer doctors and improve the odds of success. When going into a government program, this ensure the furtherance of medical technology and procedures. Given enough eyes, someone will improve it, alter it to reduce risks or create something that's a game changer either way. When going into a government program and making laws, this should be what is coded into
The interesting thing yet to be seen is if the income generated will be enough to cover the costs and if the electric rates are artificially raised in order to make it happen.
as for the government burying the cable, about the biggest reason why it was a success is because of the lack of government after it was set up. This is typically where the boondoggles come in, after the initial outlay and organization when the management is concentrated on. As for what became the internet, it was primarily under military control until it started being privatized as congress started seeing the benefits it could provide business and commerce. Much of the original "government sponsored" network has been replace by private networks as they aged and needed repairs as well as technology advances and in comparison to what exists today, it is a tiny fraction of the internet as we know it.
This also explains why it takes time to get out of a recession. People need to spend money for companies to have the income to hire more employees, who can then buy other more stuff.
Unfortunately, raising taxes and taking from those companies makes that process a lot longer. It may even get worse before it gets better depending on how careless congress acts.
One of the problems with a custom fit is time and resources. You would essential have to retool or reprogram the helmet making machines for each helmet or run batches of the ones that are identical to some degree before moving on to others. This would create a severe lag in the time the helmets could be issued or even availible and probably result in one of the problems already being seen today which is where the supply is out of your size or your helmet and you are given one the next size bigger.
If a helmet gets damages in any way, it's integrity is challenged and should be replaced. I'm not aware of any policy restricting the replacement of safety gear outside of shortages in the supply line.
Anyways, the cost comparison isn't really custom fit verses lifelong treatment for traumatic brain injuries. This is because the helmet will save more lives and likely prevent more brain injuries then it will ruin or cause. In most cases, the helmet won't actually see any combat in the way the traumatic brain injuries are happening. So what we are looking at is a situation were thousands of helmets or more wouldn't be involved in any consideration if you went with a single person point of view.
The reality of it is that there are 250,000 some US troops in the initial invasion of Iraq. Let's say it costs the same as your ski boots, $300 to custom fit a a helmet. That would have been a $75,000,000 (75 million) additional investment without any replacement capabilities or considerations of other wars or operations we had/have going on. It's difficult to find the number of brain injuries from IEDs compared to bullets or other activity. It's practically impossible to determine a number figure for what the costs of supporting people who suffer that specific injury and cause would be but the number of people would be less then the number of helmets deployed.
But instead of looking at it that way, lets look at it in ways that consider the custom fit verses redesigning the strapping that allows the soldier to adjust it to fit themselves. Moving away from the velcro pads and using the strapping or a combination of the two, could result in just an increase of $100 per helmet with the same effects as a custom fitting helmet. I actually think it would be cheaper considering it's already there and it would just be a different design but we can inflate the number. That's basically one third of the costs with the same net effects.
I understand your concerns about not giving our soldiers defective equipment. I just think there are ways to fix this that can be more cost effective, practical, orderly, and just as if not more effective. I don't disagree that something needs to be done. I just think it can be done better then custom fittings.
I do not think you will find those types of evaluations because it isn't really a function of the processor but the cooling of it.
The so called dead buckets with exposure to grime is where Intel had the CPU throttling and AMD didn't. AMD also used some heat sinks that had the fins very close together which trapped lint and grim pretty well but that was alleviated by using a different heat sink or by cleaning the heat sink periodically. I do not know how many Intel's I taken on trade for new computers just to find out that the entire reason they were dogs is because the heat sink was clogged and the CPU was throttled back to the equivalent of a 1998 processor.
When I place a system into a harsh environment, I often use a positive ventilation box to enclose the system. This filters most of the dust and stuff before it even touches the computers internal components. If you know the system will be exposed like this, it's something you should think about too. You can get really elaborate systems costing crap loads of money or you can slap one together using Furnace filters, some furring strips and maybe some cheap, 1/4 inch plywood and just use a box fan on low sitting beside it and blowing in. Some computer cases also have enough filters and screens to pretty much qualify as the same. If making one, you don't need to enclose the entire computer, just enough so that most the air around it has passed through the filter which mean you want a small breeze at the open ends.
The funky ISA card you mentioned was a CNC controller. I do support for several machine shops and we have them all over the place. We also use wireless serial ports to save on cable runs and allow one machine to control 6 or 12 CNC machines. In all the machine shops, we do the positive ventilation around the computer which has increased it's speed and reliability enormously.
Slashdot Mirror
Is your google finger broken or something? Or are you purposely remaining willfully ignorant until someone else goes through the process of spoon feeding you information? Wikipedia is the first source that will tell you about the free speech zones in which they were first used in politics back in 1988 by the DNC. Universities have been using them a lot longer.
You really need to view the parent I was responding to. He stated that Obama wasn't anti gun because he signed a bill into law that allows guns to be carried in national parks. Of course that isn't true, it allows local laws to apply to guns being carried on federal lands and while it will allow more guns on those lands, it doesn't allow them. The bill was a rider on a credit card bill and congress had to pull some maneuvers and tricks to get the bill passed.
Anyways, You right, Obama is not a king. He does have to get congress' approval and actions on it. However, there are plenty of idiots in congress too. Calling a spade a spade is nothing more then calling people for what they are. To pretend that Obama is not anti gun is dangerous, to pretend that he carries no power is even more dangerous.
It's been this way for over 30 years that I know of. If you make someone think you have a weapon, it's armed robbery whether you have it or not. And yes, it is very important in what the victim thinks, it's them who are out because of your actions. It's not as much as the potential damage you could cause, it's what the victim understands you are capable of causing.
Perhaps you should pay attention to history a little more. The vary first congress of this great nation passed a law allowing warrentless searched at the border which was up help by the supreme court because the very right of sovereignty demanded the ability to control what was entering the country. Also, the very same court case that fixed the fourth to domestic wire taps in 1968 also assumed that the administration had a right to listen to foreign conversations as a matter of national security in which is backed by the rulings on the fist law about searches at the borders as well as FISA laws which was created after a later case in which the government was claiming National security in matters of domestic law when some guy attempted to blow up a federal building in Michigan with Dynamite.
I'm sorry that you are ignorant of this. It must be hard walking around with just hald the knowledge you should have. Anyways, if you read the original FISA laws, you wouldn't be out in the could in this issue.
FISA was creted specifically because the court cre in 1968-69 that bound phone conversations to the 4th amendment specifically exempted matters of national security and the FBI got around warrant requirements by using the CIA to conduct surveillance. FISA was a specific response to that. It wasn't some necessary evil or anything of the sorts. It was specifically to stop abuses from federal agencies that were attempting to get around warrant requirements. It would do you a world of good to take some history classes.
He signed a bill that had a rider on it into law. Plain and simple and it goes against his own words as well as policies he has supported in the past. If you see it as any other thing without Obama specifically claiming to have turned over a new lead and taking another stand on gun rights, then you are a complete fool. The links I posted prove that.
I'm sorry, are we looking at the same video? The one I linked to was about Obama pressuring congress to ratify a treaty that would require mandatory gun ownership registrations that would be shared with other countries (as if it was any of their business). Lou Daubs is also considered a left winger by the right. I told you to not complain about any biasedness in the links because there was plenty from both sides of the isle. If you car to counter, please present Obama in his own words stating the opposite that everyone else has claimed him to be. It isn't going to happen because his anti gun stance is supported by Obama's own words and record.
I'm a firm believer in that if you are not effecting or affecting someone else, it is none of their business until you make it so. As for buying a 345MPH car, I think you got taken, as for attempting to do it, I can agree with you as long as you do not endanger other people in the process. Take that to mean whatever you want outside of harming someone and getting away with it.
BTW, I understand that what you just described is highly illegal in most states in the US. It sort of runs contrary to what I just mentioned about being legally able to do the potential speed of the car and fits right in there with doing it against the law. I'm simple going to suggest that you should know it's illegal in many places (especially on the turnpike which will/can (as in it happened to me) get you a citation for going between toll booths to quickly compared to the maximum speed limit
Anyways, the entire premise of obtaining a car that can go faster then the speed limit rests upon the notion that you will act legally with the vehicle of suffer the consequences when caught. The same can be said for silencers and other gun paraphernalia. You are expected to use them in a responsible way or all sorts of legal hell can break out on you. We are free until we are told we are not. Part of being free it knowing when and when not to abuse those freedoms. We should not be limited by someone's lack of understanding of that.
Seriously, to your victims, it's the same thing. People will react differently from a physical threat compared to a gun threat. Even when the gun threat is make believe. If you have ever had a gun pointed at you, or what resembled a gun with someone claiming it was a gun you would understand. I have, It was an actual .38 special snub nosed revolver nickel plated that ended up taking the life of a ill trained police officer the exact same night. He went after the suspect without support and took a bullet in the head (presumably without backup following him into harms way).
It was used to rob a convenient store I was in, it was placed point blank in my friends face, I ended up doing what appeared to be saving his life by throwing the second cash register on the ground and forcing it open so he could get the extra 200 dollars left for day shift from it ($280 total take in cash because of deposits), and it was all pretty scary. I own guns, I wasn't scared of the fact he had one, I was scared of the fact that he was forcing us to do things we didn't have the capabilities to do while all along cocking and releasing the hammer of the gun attempting to claim he was going to kill us if we didn't help him. I do not care if it was a real gun or not, the threat was there, the actions we followed was there, there is talk that the cop actually got shot by another scared cop while chasing the guy through a back yard (the bullets didn't match what we thought the gun was but that irrelevant because we knew he had a gun).
In the end, he was taken alive by a friend of mine when he broke into his house for cover, the friend found him unarmed crouched in the basement after breaking a window to get in. He pretended to still have the gun, my friend immediately demanded the guy show his hands (at gun point), he pretended again to still have the gun and threatened my friend in which case my friend ended up squeezing a round off and missing in fear as the guy reached for his pocket. The guy immediately froze and waited for authorities to show up and arrest him.
Anyways, I do not care who you think you are or how bad you think you are, you will react differently when you think someone has a gun compare to when they do not or you do not think they do. Knives are just as scary and people will act differently when they are present of appear to be present too. In my state, acting like you have a gun in the commission of a crime is the same thing as having one except you do not get the 3 years consecutive sentencing. It's still armed robbery and it should be.
I didn't leave anything out. I thought the obvious was- well, obvious. Do I need to repeat everything you should already know?
You should also note that the warrant-less wiretapping was only used on international calls, and to that end, with people with suspected terrorist connections. No one familiar with the program, including the democrats involved has ever claimed otherwise. The only people who have were the ones attempting to cause a problem out of it. As for it being an expansion of the government, that too is questionable at best. We were already able to listen to state actors and their agents without a warrant. FISA had a problem because there was no technical definition of a terrorist that fell within the state actors exemptions and a FISA warrant was needed. That has been corrected by law because people knew the need for the action was real. Bush actually got a bump in the polls when this was released because it showed the country they were doing something about the issues of terrorism on domestic soil.
Now, if you really want to get into Bush's expansion of government and deficit spending, outside of two wars, the next biggest thing was No Child Left Behind which despite it's resistance and overall criticisms, was somewhat of a noble goal that most people were willing to accept.
As for Obama expanding gun rights, no he didn't. Congress did because a rider was attached and it was the only way they could get their credit card bill passed. Guns weren't even banned on federal land anyways. Concealed carry was banned at certain parks in certain states and most states have laws about guns on public lands unless hunting and all this bill said was that it's allowed as long as it violated no other law. I frequent Wayne National forest and take my .357, 44mag, or 9 mil with me all the time. I go hunting there all the time too. All state forest in my area is public hunting and all national forests are public hunting. Further more, we are allowed camping just off the trails and the rangers actually suggest having a side arm for the overnight stays. All this law does is say the states can make their own rules for government lands in their areas.
Obama is clear on his gun rights stand. All you have to do is listen to his own words and statements. Smoke and mirrors might have you fooled. However, that does not make your position true. Obama's past is clear, his present is clear, all you need to do is a Google Search for Obama is anti gun and you will be presented with tons of links presenting his position and most of them use his own words. Don't complain about biased sites either, there are plenty on both sides reporting the same damn shit.
Speed can be limited by mechanical or electronic governors. Most people will not have access to disused airports nor will they have private land capable of supporting those speeds.
As I said before, it's because we can until such time we are told that we can't. You not seeing a purpose for it does not negate any freedoms others might enjoy. For the majority of people who have vehicles that go over the speed limit, breaking the law is the only time it gets used, but we do not stop it because there are a few places where they can without breaking the law. It's called freedom, not as free as you will let me.
Shooting someone who doesn't die is called attempted murder and in most cases can and will carry the same penalties as if you murdered the victim depending on the state of mind.
The problem isn't what you think you are doing as much as what those you are doing it to think you are doing. If you convince them you have a gun, for all intends and purposes, you have a gun, even if it's just a banana in your pocket. Your crime wasn't against yourself but the people and the state. It's how you present it to them that matters. When you pretend to have a gun when committing a crime, you have one whether it's on you or not.
When you look at the link, right below it, it describes a way to get a license to own them.
An interesting point is this.
" (3) It shall be an affirmative defense to a prosecution brought under this section that the machine gun, short-barreled shotgun, or short-barreled rifle was acquired prior to July 1, 1994, and is possessed in compliance with federal law."
So if you owned one and it was at least in compliance with federal law before 1994, you need to do nothing except show up to court and claim you owned it since before 1994.
What is the point of having a car that can go faster then the posted speed limit? In America, we work from the premise that we are free and can do things until prohibited otherwise. You can puchase a car that goes 200mph and have no legal way of driving it that fast, it doesn't mean that all cars will have a 55 or 70 MPH governor installed, it means that you can possess it and need to be legally responsible with it. Other countries may operate differently in which you can't do anything without getting permission first. We have gotten there yet.
No it's not. Suggesting to someone that you are armed carries the same weight as being armed. It's like pretending to sell crack cocaine while passing moist sugar and talcum power off instead. You were mentally motivated to the same extremes and the people you committed the fraud on acted under the same conditions. It's the exact same technical aspect of the crime that gets you charged.
If I walked up to you on the street while you were unarmed and said give me your money, you would size me up and attempt to determine if you could take me before acting (unless you are a complete and total puss). If I convinced you that I have a gun and was ready to kill you, you would give me your money and worry about your life (unless you are batshit crazy and partly suicidal). The point is, making someone think you are armed carried the same criminal elements as if you were armed. You shouldn't get a pass because you were only joking about that when your victims understood you to be armed and dangerous.
IF you didn't notice, it's because you weren't looking. Gun rights advocates have spoken out against attempts during the bush administration to take guns from us. Bush didn't exactly support those attempts either. It seems to be the democrats that are so scared of what they are doing, they only feel safe when they can take a mans means of protection away from him.
So we should just give up and lay down? That's not the way it works. If you are just now finding out what is going on, then it's you who had the problem, not everyone else. Anyways, even if they were asleep at the switch, it's no excuse to all the sudden allow it to happen now. If it was wrong then, it is still wrong now, and if it's still wrong now, then you bringing up the past does nothing but show how much more important it is now to do something.
Seriously, if someone started killing off your immediate family, would you give up and let them finish because you missed them killing the first few people? Or would you fight even harder to protect those who are left?
Lol.. And you are claiming they are brain washed. All you need to do is read Obama's own words about the Supreme court decision in the DC gun control case to get an idea of where he stands. As for the free speech zones, they were originally implemented by the democrats and historically used by them until your selective memory singled out Bush.
History isn't a hard subject. I suggest you try it a little. It's even easier with the advent of recorded history and the internet in which you can easily look things up with.
Not only that, the video card isn't going to be operating at maximum capacity.
I think his objective was to provide a worse case usage. In that, he was very effective.
That is only true if the product as a whole is ignored and each individual component is analyzed. Taken as a whole, the laptop or netbook, if the cost of providing an operating system is $0 compared to $99, then the inverse is true.
We aren't buying components off the shelf and assembling the devices at home. We shouldn't look at the costs that way when it's offered as a complete package.
Your 77% number is only remotely accurate if you ignore water vapor. You can do that in order to press your point but that is a little disingenuous.
BTE, the 0.000020 of your human body was of the difference between some arbitrary point in time and present. It wouldn't be 0.000020 of a 200lbs man. Either way, it's still not a significant portion of the person. Do not confuse significant with critical or important as the dictionary shows us they are not the same.
As for the importance of Co2 in the atmosphere. I do not think anyone was claiming that it doesn't play a role. However, the amount of a role is debatable and as we have seen with the lower temps today, the value we have placed on that roles isn't exactly a constant or over powering compared to other parts of the systems involved. That pure raw fact is that we do not understand climate enough to assign absolutes in the way Co2 has been crafted over the past few years. None of the models can actually predict the future and only after considerable tooling can they recreate the past with accuracy but the closer to accuracy in the past, the further off the future seems to go.
Fitting a square peg into a round hole should be a sign that something isn't quite right but sadly, the political will behind global warming mandates that it stays the same unless it changes to their political advantage. If you remember back in the 1980's and early 90's, you will remember a push to forgive the third world debt, you will remember pushes to apply a world tax on all the people to fund the UN, you will remember the UN attempting to assert authority over people in various countries with the world court that required countries to submit their sovereignty to the UN. All the sudden, Global warming came about and the political solution covered the majority of those issues and they almost disappeared about the same time that the Kyoto protocol were created. Of course there is little reason to wonder why when the Kyoto accord contains mechanisms that pretty much addressed all those concerns under the disguise of global warming. It's also no surprise why the powers to be attempted to keep the text of Kyoto out of the American people's hands until after it was ratified (which didn't work) and that out of the 150 some odd countries only 37 have limits on their Co2 production and the rest stand to benefit from material investment from the wealthier countries looking to continue their lifestyle while being pinched. As we can see by the rise of China and India's Co2 production from Europe outsourcing their ways into compliance while struggling to adjust for population growth within the treaty guidelines, Co2 was never the whole problem, where it was produced was.
To make a longer post short, if Co2 is the problem and the real problem, then the political solutions would be completely different. They would include multinational research into cleaner energy that would be shared among the countries, it would include initiatives to assist growing countries with using the clean energy, it would include actual proof including data sets so anyone interested could review and check the problem as well as evaluate the solutions with full knowledge. This would be an open discussion because the problem would have been real and required an open solution. It isn't that way for a reason, this is because the problem is exaggerated and the solutions are crafted to implement ulterior motives. Even playing with the numbers has an effect that allows you to claim 77% instead of a much more accurate 0.28% of the total GHGs. You even attempted to trot out pre-industrial age numbers to inflate it. Do you seriously expect the world to go back to pre-industrial living conditions? Even third world countries emit more Co2 now then they did pre-industrial age so why aren't they limited in their production? While less then one half of one percent of the total greenhouse gases can be thrown around in various inflated ways, you cannot really escape the insignificance of it. What you can do is fall for
I don't think it's "the sort of talk" that's not welcome as much as it appears what your attempting to imply. Force sterilization is bad, but reproductive rights does not really equate to slaughter and death and forced labor (that we gave up) in concentrations camps.
Look at your own numbers, 0.000315 and 0.000385 with a difference of 0.000050 supposedly being the problem. That doesn't look so significant as the GP said. To put it into more perspective, of the total Green House Gases, Co2 is only about 0.28% of it all. That's less then one percent total and roughly only 12% of that is considered to be the problem. That works out to around 0.000336 of the total green house gases being considered as the problem. As the GP said, that is not very significant in the GHG scene.
Where it is significant is that Co2 is the primary GHG produced by anthropogenic means. That's why they shorten 0.000385 to 385ppm and attempt to make it look bigger. The same reason is why you see claims to target percentages of pre{$somedate} instead of 0.000020 reduction. It's all to make it look bigger and more scarier. I mean seriously, If I was to cut off 0.000020 of your human body, would you laugh at me because that wouldn't even be a hair? How about when I say 40% of the total volume you were at some random date that turns out to be 9 months and one week before you were born. So lets see, does it sound more nefarious at either 0.000020 or 40% of your growth at pre-birth (pre1990) levels. Which sound more significant and make you want to do something to stop it.
I guess have trolls that follow me. That or someone can't figure out the new mod system.
Anyways, I had Squab the first time in much the same ways you have described. I ate it before I knew what it was and thought it was delicious. It made me a little quezy after finding out what it was but I got over that quickly. I took up dove hunting since then just because of it. I still haven't quite found a recipe that tastes as good as the first time but I'm close.
You mean Squab?
No, mt words are not an appeal on emotion, the entire point is. I'm using it to say death is certain without the potential life saving treatment. There is one or two chances at living with a medical procedure and without that, they are doomed to death where with the procedure, there is at least a chance of continued life. It illustrates the pointless and futile attempts to say "it's too risky, the patient might die". The fact is, without the procedure, they are going to die anyways- they have nothing to lose and life to gain. If that bothers you, even if it's just bothers you emotionally, it should because it's the accurate description of what I am saying and you entire point is that some third party gets to decide who will die and who gets a chance at living with these situations.
No, you still don't get it. I'm not talking about elective surgeries here. I'm talking about when a patient is terminal and death is a certain reality, the risk benefit becomes death and possible life literally. You see, death is pretty severe, it's also the worse risk any life saving procedure can carry. Living is the benefit. When you look at the procedure and the patient, if you kill them, you have a zero sum gain on the risk, if you save them and give them 5 or more years of life, then it's all gain and all benefit. The decision to have the procedure needs to belong to the patient alone and not you, some doctor looking to increase his pay, not the government, not anyone but the patient. If the doctor says we can try this but it will likely fail, the patient is the one who needs to say "yes or no".
And If I remember correctly, you said that was wrong. Please explain why instituting it into law would be good? Why not fix the problem instead of entrenching it into a multi billion dollar government program.
It's actually pretty simple. The doctor or doctors get a consult from specialist in the area concerning the problem. if something exists, even with a 5% probability of working and a 95% chance of death, it's presented to the patient as such and they decide if they want to try it. IF they do, the surgery gets video taped and becomes a learning/teaching tool to educate newer doctors and improve the odds of success. When going into a government program, this ensure the furtherance of medical technology and procedures. Given enough eyes, someone will improve it, alter it to reduce risks or create something that's a game changer either way. When going into a government program and making laws, this should be what is coded into
The interesting thing yet to be seen is if the income generated will be enough to cover the costs and if the electric rates are artificially raised in order to make it happen.
as for the government burying the cable, about the biggest reason why it was a success is because of the lack of government after it was set up. This is typically where the boondoggles come in, after the initial outlay and organization when the management is concentrated on. As for what became the internet, it was primarily under military control until it started being privatized as congress started seeing the benefits it could provide business and commerce. Much of the original "government sponsored" network has been replace by private networks as they aged and needed repairs as well as technology advances and in comparison to what exists today, it is a tiny fraction of the internet as we know it.
Unfortunately, raising taxes and taking from those companies makes that process a lot longer. It may even get worse before it gets better depending on how careless congress acts.
One of the problems with a custom fit is time and resources. You would essential have to retool or reprogram the helmet making machines for each helmet or run batches of the ones that are identical to some degree before moving on to others. This would create a severe lag in the time the helmets could be issued or even availible and probably result in one of the problems already being seen today which is where the supply is out of your size or your helmet and you are given one the next size bigger.
If a helmet gets damages in any way, it's integrity is challenged and should be replaced. I'm not aware of any policy restricting the replacement of safety gear outside of shortages in the supply line.
Anyways, the cost comparison isn't really custom fit verses lifelong treatment for traumatic brain injuries. This is because the helmet will save more lives and likely prevent more brain injuries then it will ruin or cause. In most cases, the helmet won't actually see any combat in the way the traumatic brain injuries are happening. So what we are looking at is a situation were thousands of helmets or more wouldn't be involved in any consideration if you went with a single person point of view.
The reality of it is that there are 250,000 some US troops in the initial invasion of Iraq. Let's say it costs the same as your ski boots, $300 to custom fit a a helmet. That would have been a $75,000,000 (75 million) additional investment without any replacement capabilities or considerations of other wars or operations we had/have going on. It's difficult to find the number of brain injuries from IEDs compared to bullets or other activity. It's practically impossible to determine a number figure for what the costs of supporting people who suffer that specific injury and cause would be but the number of people would be less then the number of helmets deployed.
But instead of looking at it that way, lets look at it in ways that consider the custom fit verses redesigning the strapping that allows the soldier to adjust it to fit themselves. Moving away from the velcro pads and using the strapping or a combination of the two, could result in just an increase of $100 per helmet with the same effects as a custom fitting helmet. I actually think it would be cheaper considering it's already there and it would just be a different design but we can inflate the number. That's basically one third of the costs with the same net effects.
I understand your concerns about not giving our soldiers defective equipment. I just think there are ways to fix this that can be more cost effective, practical, orderly, and just as if not more effective. I don't disagree that something needs to be done. I just think it can be done better then custom fittings.
I do not think you will find those types of evaluations because it isn't really a function of the processor but the cooling of it.
The so called dead buckets with exposure to grime is where Intel had the CPU throttling and AMD didn't. AMD also used some heat sinks that had the fins very close together which trapped lint and grim pretty well but that was alleviated by using a different heat sink or by cleaning the heat sink periodically. I do not know how many Intel's I taken on trade for new computers just to find out that the entire reason they were dogs is because the heat sink was clogged and the CPU was throttled back to the equivalent of a 1998 processor.
When I place a system into a harsh environment, I often use a positive ventilation box to enclose the system. This filters most of the dust and stuff before it even touches the computers internal components. If you know the system will be exposed like this, it's something you should think about too. You can get really elaborate systems costing crap loads of money or you can slap one together using Furnace filters, some furring strips and maybe some cheap, 1/4 inch plywood and just use a box fan on low sitting beside it and blowing in. Some computer cases also have enough filters and screens to pretty much qualify as the same. If making one, you don't need to enclose the entire computer, just enough so that most the air around it has passed through the filter which mean you want a small breeze at the open ends.
The funky ISA card you mentioned was a CNC controller. I do support for several machine shops and we have them all over the place. We also use wireless serial ports to save on cable runs and allow one machine to control 6 or 12 CNC machines. In all the machine shops, we do the positive ventilation around the computer which has increased it's speed and reliability enormously.