Owning a firearm has nothing to do with essential personal freedoms or rights of the individual to exist in a free state. The only justification for it is to protect oneself from infringement on said freedoms, but that can just as easily be done through strong laws and a properly functioning government.
That is completely wrong. Individually owned firearms are used between 600,000 and 2 million times per year to protect their owners from a crime in progress. Their right to life and property in those cases were only preserved by owning that firearm and not by "strong laws and a properly functioning government." Owning a firearm, in additional to protecting against government tyranny, also helps preserve people's right to life.
... and I find the concept that citizens with a few guns could hold their own against the american military-industrial complex a bit of a farce to begin with.
All the second amendment gets your country is the highest per-capita gun violence rate in the western world. It hasn't gotten you anything else.
Apparently you have never read any history of the US in armed conflicts after WWII. The second amendment has little to do with our gun violence rate. There are other countries with higher per-capita firearm ownership which have much lower rates of firearm violence. The US has a violence problem due to many factors which are too difficult for Congress to address in easy sound bites. The fact that a portion of that violence uses firearms is incidental and not caused by the existence of the firearms.
All this revenue that could be pulled by the one time largest shipper in the US, but for some reason, they keep losing billions a year.
No, they aren't "losing billions a year."
It just looks that way, because the USPS is the only government body that's required (thanks to Congressional legislation) to fund ALL retirements and pensions through the next decade.
If it were allowed to be ran like any other government agency, the Post Office would actually be doing OK.
Is this the same as saying, "If it were allowed to pretend to pay its bills like any other government agency, the Post Office would actually be doing OK."?
Yeah, it'd be cool if someone wrote a short story about the dangers of ebooks and digital rights being taken a little too far -- censorship, criminal sanctions for sharing books, and how it would stifle learning. Something to help people understand where this could go. I suppose it's probably about fifteen years too late to do any good, now.
A mileage tax would be regressive, harming especially rural people and the rural poor. Most cities have some sort of public transportation that can be used to get to work and thus avoid a good portion of a miles traveled tax, not so in rural areas. On the other hand, rural salaries tend to be lower and commuting distances longer with no option for public transit. This would be especially hard on agricultural workers who can often barely afford a car in the first place (but couldn't work without one), but would now also be asked to pay mileage taxes on top. Vehicle mileage tax is inherently unfair, in my mind.
I used to feel the same until my current job doing network/server consulting. Now I often go to places that have a full-time IT person who has no certifications, and am shocked by how little they know. I feel like if they had at least gotten a basic server certification they would know what file and directory permissions were and why they are good, rather than looking at me with a blank stare
The main reason, in my mind, to upgrade is being able to effectively use 64-bit machines fully-
This. The main reason to upgrade to Win7 is for 64-bit. Unfortunately, it's also the main reason to put off upgrading. While we haven't had too many issues with software and 64-bit (though there are some), the main problem has been with peripherals. In our IT shop, none of the PC card or USB NICs that we had have a Win7 64-bit driver. Only one of our USB to Serial adapters has a 64-bit driver. A customer has handheld scanners for their warehouse -- no 64-bit driver. Same issues with printer drivers. So in addition to the training and workstation hardware issues related to upgrading to Win7, some companies may have significant issues with drivers for peripheral hardware.
I'm surprised by the number of friends I have who have marital problems because they didn't talk about important things before they got married. Or they talked about them, realized they would about them, and so stopped talking about them, figuring they would work it out later. Bad idea.
1) Money. The largest contributor to failed marriages. How are you going to deal with it? One bank account? One each? Three (two personal accounts and a shared account for shared expenses)? Remember that it's important for each of you to be able to spend some discretionary money on things like coffee, lunch and a more substantial amount on gifts. No one likes to have to ask for money each week. And do you really want to have to ask for $200? "What do you need it for?" "Oh, I wanted to get you those earrings you wanted as a surprise birthday gift." Discuss how you are going to deal with major expenses. If you buy a house, are you going to spend every last bit of your discretionary income to get the fancier house? Or are you going to not exceed 30% of your income so that you still have some breathing room? How much will you save every month? What if someone wants to go to school or quit work to take care of a baby? These are the things that kill a marriage later. E.g. Couple buys expensive house. Can't afford to save any money. Husband continues to charge expensive toys for himself because he feels "poor" if he doesn't. Wife is exasperated. Husband must work overtime every chance he gets, so he feels exasperated too. Both wonder if they married the right person.
2) Kids. Don't say you want them if you don't. Be honest now or miserable later. How do you want to raise them? Do you want a parent to be able to stay home and raise them? Are you willing and able to make those sacrifices? When do you want to have them? Are you willing to spend thousands of dollars for fertility treatments if necessary? How will you discipline them? What kind of schooling? Will you raise them in a religion? Discuss this issue thoroughly and honestly.
3) Communication. Others have already said this one, but it is huge even if cliched. If you can't talk about things opening and honestly with each other, one or both of you are doomed to misery. Hopefully you already have this down if you're affianced, but lots don't. You've got to be able to bring up difficult topics with your spouse and have to know that your partner will be able to listen objectively and discuss rationally with you. If you're afraid to bring up a topic because of you're partner's reaction, that's bad and a potential trouble spot waiting to erupt. Likewise, if there are any topics that you have an unshakeable position on, you'd better be sure that your partner really agrees with you and isn't just afraid to disagree. At some point something (like a child) may make her stick up for her own beliefs which end up diametrically opposed to yours. This usually ends badly.
Also, she doesn't want to hear a simple "I'm sorry." That could mean "I'm sorry that you're mad, but I have no idea why you're mad." You need to add a verbal proof to your conclusion. "I'm sorry. I know you feel taken for granted when I don't call to say that I'm going to be late. I know that you worry when I don't arrive when I say I will." Don't feel compelled to add, "But I feel the same when you don't call, and you don't see me having a fit." That's not helpful.
China has had attention called to it's human rights violations before, now that we are seeing the murder of a child that didn't do anything wrong in worldwide news, maybe we'll start seeing global pressure on China to change their ways a bit.
Dear China,
Please stop killing the internet addicts. We really need the money that you're loaning to us to finance our bailout and people may become a little uncomfortable if they ever link our financial system with murder in their little heads. While the chances of this are remote, and the chances of them actually boycotting Chinese made goods even less, it would still make our lives and our re-elections campaigns much easier if you could stop, or at least cover up better, these little murders.
Thank you for your time and money,
The U.S. Government
If it is encrypted, it will not bypass the filter. It will be blocked, because it is encrypted. The innocent have nothing to hide, the innocent have nothing to fear. Are you innocent? Only criminals use encryption. Trust the government.
My take is that this issue dates from around the time of the Mac Plus. The Mac Plus did not have an internal hard drive, but it did have an external SCSI connection for connecting to a good-sized hard drive enclosure. Most often, when sitting at a desk, the "monitor" (the actual Mac Plus computer) would sit on top of the hard drive enclosure. When the computer bits migrated to the bottom enclosure, people did not know/understand/care and kept right on calling it the hard drive.
Coming from that background, I don't believe that any accredited school has a policy of not failing any students, so if you don't tell us what school, I'll just assume that you are not being honest. Just because you don't like the comment doesn't mean it isn't true. I have reasons for withholding the name which, believe it or not, don't have anything to do with the truth of the statement.
College is all about the piece of paper nowadays anyway so you can get a higher paying job. This is true. I know a math/stats professor, now retired, who taught at a university where he was not permitted to fail any student. It didn't matter if the student failed to attend class all quarter, no one was to fail. The school's rationale was pretty much as you have stated: if a bachelor's degree is necessary to get a decent job in the US, then it would not be fair for them to deny any student that piece of paper. The school felt it was their purpose to provide that piece of paper.
I nominate Elric of Melnibone as a replacement for Steve Rogers, recently deceased Captain America. I believe that he the best representative for the USA.
Sadly, neither party is that great when it comes to respecting the Bill of Rights. Here's my very quick take on their stances. Combined, there wouldn't be much left of the Bill of Rights. Laws and bills are not cited, but numerous examples abound in the last decade.
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Who is trying to destroy what? Dems - Want to weaken some religious freedoms (abolishment of tax-free status). Anti-free speech during elections. Repubs - Recently want to intimidate journalists in re Iraq War. Anti-free speech during elections.
I'm still waiting for someone to suggest, "Hey, think how much we can reduce crime if just make it illegal for people to assemble without a license! No more conspiracies!"
Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Who is trying to destroy what? Dems - Doing everything in their power to destroy this. Repubs - Support in theory, but rarely in practice.
Amendment III
No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
Who is trying to destroy what? Dems - Not much action on this front. Repubs - Not much action on this front.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Who is trying to destroy what? Dems - Not as active against these as the Repubs, but not fighting the weakening of the rights much either. Repubs - Warrantless wiretapping, mail reading, internet monitoring, support of broader police powers
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Who is trying to destroy what? Dems - Supportive of recent Supreme Ct decision that private property can be taken for public use if it's a "better" public use. Repubs - "Terrorism" related arrests, where terrorism is undefined.
Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
Who is trying to destroy what? Dems - Maybe not instigators, but voted for most of the current administration's bills affecting the same. Repubs - "Terrorism" related arrests again. Speedy? 3 years is speedy, right? Also not permitting habeus corpus for such defendants, nor counsel.
Amendment VII
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tri
Hmm... And the Vietnamese did pretty will against "the most powerful military in the world." (USA)
And the American Colonists did well enough against "the most powerful military in the world." (Britain)
The Spanish did well enough against "the most powerful military in the world." (Rome)
The Boers did well enough against "the most powerful military in the world." (Britain)
The Philippines did pretty well against the rising American military around 1900.
The list goes on and on. For thousands of years, guerilla fighters have been highly effective against powerful opposing military forces. Out-trained and out-gunned with low-tech weapons and loose organization these forces have waged effective wars against their enemies. The victories may not have been complete, but they accomplished regime change, policy change, favorable terms and sometimes withdrawal/freedom/independence.
People who use the term "untrained civilians with guns" also forget that there is a much larger number of civilians with military, police or civilian firearms training than there are in the military. Additionally, in a true revolution/civil war the military will most likely split just as the populace will split. Add to that, how do you feed your million troops if the farmers have stopped planting their crops or are giving their produce to the enemy?
A revolution in the US would be ugly. Really, really ugly. But it wouldn't look like General Schwartzkopf zipping his way up the highway to Baghdad. It would look more like a cross between the Civil War and Vietnam -- widespread displacement of populace, hunger and starvation in the cities, lots of dead people, no one knowing who is friend and who is foe.
But it would very likely accomplish regime change. So in that sense, it would probably be very successful.
I'm all for gun ownership. I think the statistic is that members of households with guns are three times more likely to be the victim of a homicide than non-gun households, so, by all means... stock up.
That statistic has been proven wrong. What little truth there is to it becomes even less true when you only count households which legally own firearms. True, if you live in a household with a criminal who owns an illegal firearm, you are more likely to be killed. Not so with legally owned firearms.
Slashdot Mirror
Owning a firearm has nothing to do with essential personal freedoms or rights of the individual to exist in a free state. The only justification for it is to protect oneself from infringement on said freedoms, but that can just as easily be done through strong laws and a properly functioning government.
That is completely wrong. Individually owned firearms are used between 600,000 and 2 million times per year to protect their owners from a crime in progress. Their right to life and property in those cases were only preserved by owning that firearm and not by "strong laws and a properly functioning government." Owning a firearm, in additional to protecting against government tyranny, also helps preserve people's right to life.
... and I find the concept that citizens with a few guns could hold their own against the american military-industrial complex a bit of a farce to begin with.
All the second amendment gets your country is the highest per-capita gun violence rate in the western world. It hasn't gotten you anything else.
Apparently you have never read any history of the US in armed conflicts after WWII. The second amendment has little to do with our gun violence rate. There are other countries with higher per-capita firearm ownership which have much lower rates of firearm violence. The US has a violence problem due to many factors which are too difficult for Congress to address in easy sound bites. The fact that a portion of that violence uses firearms is incidental and not caused by the existence of the firearms.
Avoid accidental infinite loops.
All this revenue that could be pulled by the one time largest shipper in the US, but for some reason, they keep losing billions a year.
No, they aren't "losing billions a year."
It just looks that way, because the USPS is the only government body that's required (thanks to Congressional legislation) to fund ALL retirements and pensions through the next decade.
If it were allowed to be ran like any other government agency, the Post Office would actually be doing OK.
Is this the same as saying, "If it were allowed to pretend to pay its bills like any other government agency, the Post Office would actually be doing OK."?
Yeah, it'd be cool if someone wrote a short story about the dangers of ebooks and digital rights being taken a little too far -- censorship, criminal sanctions for sharing books, and how it would stifle learning. Something to help people understand where this could go. I suppose it's probably about fifteen years too late to do any good, now.
A mileage tax would be regressive, harming especially rural people and the rural poor. Most cities have some sort of public transportation that can be used to get to work and thus avoid a good portion of a miles traveled tax, not so in rural areas. On the other hand, rural salaries tend to be lower and commuting distances longer with no option for public transit. This would be especially hard on agricultural workers who can often barely afford a car in the first place (but couldn't work without one), but would now also be asked to pay mileage taxes on top. Vehicle mileage tax is inherently unfair, in my mind.
I used to feel the same until my current job doing network/server consulting. Now I often go to places that have a full-time IT person who has no certifications, and am shocked by how little they know. I feel like if they had at least gotten a basic server certification they would know what file and directory permissions were and why they are good, rather than looking at me with a blank stare
The main reason, in my mind, to upgrade is being able to effectively use 64-bit machines fully-
This. The main reason to upgrade to Win7 is for 64-bit. Unfortunately, it's also the main reason to put off upgrading. While we haven't had too many issues with software and 64-bit (though there are some), the main problem has been with peripherals. In our IT shop, none of the PC card or USB NICs that we had have a Win7 64-bit driver. Only one of our USB to Serial adapters has a 64-bit driver. A customer has handheld scanners for their warehouse -- no 64-bit driver. Same issues with printer drivers. So in addition to the training and workstation hardware issues related to upgrading to Win7, some companies may have significant issues with drivers for peripheral hardware.
1) Money. The largest contributor to failed marriages. How are you going to deal with it? One bank account? One each? Three (two personal accounts and a shared account for shared expenses)? Remember that it's important for each of you to be able to spend some discretionary money on things like coffee, lunch and a more substantial amount on gifts. No one likes to have to ask for money each week. And do you really want to have to ask for $200? "What do you need it for?" "Oh, I wanted to get you those earrings you wanted as a surprise birthday gift." Discuss how you are going to deal with major expenses. If you buy a house, are you going to spend every last bit of your discretionary income to get the fancier house? Or are you going to not exceed 30% of your income so that you still have some breathing room? How much will you save every month? What if someone wants to go to school or quit work to take care of a baby? These are the things that kill a marriage later. E.g. Couple buys expensive house. Can't afford to save any money. Husband continues to charge expensive toys for himself because he feels "poor" if he doesn't. Wife is exasperated. Husband must work overtime every chance he gets, so he feels exasperated too. Both wonder if they married the right person.
2) Kids. Don't say you want them if you don't. Be honest now or miserable later. How do you want to raise them? Do you want a parent to be able to stay home and raise them? Are you willing and able to make those sacrifices? When do you want to have them? Are you willing to spend thousands of dollars for fertility treatments if necessary? How will you discipline them? What kind of schooling? Will you raise them in a religion? Discuss this issue thoroughly and honestly.
3) Communication. Others have already said this one, but it is huge even if cliched. If you can't talk about things opening and honestly with each other, one or both of you are doomed to misery. Hopefully you already have this down if you're affianced, but lots don't. You've got to be able to bring up difficult topics with your spouse and have to know that your partner will be able to listen objectively and discuss rationally with you. If you're afraid to bring up a topic because of you're partner's reaction, that's bad and a potential trouble spot waiting to erupt. Likewise, if there are any topics that you have an unshakeable position on, you'd better be sure that your partner really agrees with you and isn't just afraid to disagree. At some point something (like a child) may make her stick up for her own beliefs which end up diametrically opposed to yours. This usually ends badly.
Also, she doesn't want to hear a simple "I'm sorry." That could mean "I'm sorry that you're mad, but I have no idea why you're mad." You need to add a verbal proof to your conclusion. "I'm sorry. I know you feel taken for granted when I don't call to say that I'm going to be late. I know that you worry when I don't arrive when I say I will." Don't feel compelled to add, "But I feel the same when you don't call, and you don't see me having a fit." That's not helpful.
China has had attention called to it's human rights violations before, now that we are seeing the murder of a child that didn't do anything wrong in worldwide news, maybe we'll start seeing global pressure on China to change their ways a bit.
Dear China,
Please stop killing the internet addicts. We really need the money that you're loaning to us to finance our bailout and people may become a little uncomfortable if they ever link our financial system with murder in their little heads. While the chances of this are remote, and the chances of them actually boycotting Chinese made goods even less, it would still make our lives and our re-elections campaigns much easier if you could stop, or at least cover up better, these little murders.
Thank you for your time and money,
The U.S. Government
If it is encrypted, it will not bypass the filter. It will be blocked, because it is encrypted. The innocent have nothing to hide, the innocent have nothing to fear. Are you innocent? Only criminals use encryption. Trust the government.
Stay Alert! Trust No One! Keep Your Laser Handy!
My take is that this issue dates from around the time of the Mac Plus. The Mac Plus did not have an internal hard drive, but it did have an external SCSI connection for connecting to a good-sized hard drive enclosure. Most often, when sitting at a desk, the "monitor" (the actual Mac Plus computer) would sit on top of the hard drive enclosure. When the computer bits migrated to the bottom enclosure, people did not know/understand/care and kept right on calling it the hard drive.
the fifth element has saved us once again from the forces of evil and darkness.
It's not a game. It's touted as a three-D internet, or, maybe, Web 3.0 - a metaverse a la Neil Stephenson. It has games in it and people who rp.
I refer you to Fat Guys Kick Ass to better educate you on the up side of being fat.
Only a Nazi would attempt to crush the free expression of ideas on this subject!
How's that?
I nominate Elric of Melnibone as a replacement for Steve Rogers, recently deceased Captain America. I believe that he the best representative for the USA.
Ah, but Microsoft is the owner. The purchaser just has a license to use the software.
Sadly, neither party is that great when it comes to respecting the Bill of Rights. Here's my very quick take on their stances. Combined, there wouldn't be much left of the Bill of Rights. Laws and bills are not cited, but numerous examples abound in the last decade.
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting
an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Who is trying to destroy what?
Dems - Want to weaken some religious freedoms (abolishment of tax-free status). Anti-free speech during elections.
Repubs - Recently want to intimidate journalists in re Iraq War. Anti-free speech during elections.
I'm still waiting for someone to suggest, "Hey, think how much we can reduce crime if just make it illegal for people to assemble without a license! No more conspiracies!"
Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Who is trying to destroy what?
Dems - Doing everything in their power to destroy this.
Repubs - Support in theory, but rarely in practice.
Amendment III
No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
Who is trying to destroy what?
Dems - Not much action on this front.
Repubs - Not much action on this front.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Who is trying to destroy what?
Dems - Not as active against these as the Repubs, but not fighting the weakening of the rights much either.
Repubs - Warrantless wiretapping, mail reading, internet monitoring, support of broader police powers
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Who is trying to destroy what?
Dems - Supportive of recent Supreme Ct decision that private property can be taken for public use if it's a "better" public use.
Repubs - "Terrorism" related arrests, where terrorism is undefined.
Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
Who is trying to destroy what?
Dems - Maybe not instigators, but voted for most of the current administration's bills affecting the same.
Repubs - "Terrorism" related arrests again. Speedy? 3 years is speedy, right? Also not permitting habeus corpus for such defendants, nor counsel.
Amendment VII
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tri
no text here
Hmm... And the Vietnamese did pretty will against "the most powerful military in the world." (USA)
And the American Colonists did well enough against "the most powerful military in the world." (Britain)
The Spanish did well enough against "the most powerful military in the world." (Rome)
The Boers did well enough against "the most powerful military in the world." (Britain)
The Philippines did pretty well against the rising American military around 1900.
The list goes on and on. For thousands of years, guerilla fighters have been highly effective against powerful opposing military forces. Out-trained and out-gunned with low-tech weapons and loose organization these forces have waged effective wars against their enemies. The victories may not have been complete, but they accomplished regime change, policy change, favorable terms and sometimes withdrawal/freedom/independence.
People who use the term "untrained civilians with guns" also forget that there is a much larger number of civilians with military, police or civilian firearms training than there are in the military. Additionally, in a true revolution/civil war the military will most likely split just as the populace will split. Add to that, how do you feed your million troops if the farmers have stopped planting their crops or are giving their produce to the enemy?
A revolution in the US would be ugly. Really, really ugly. But it wouldn't look like General Schwartzkopf zipping his way up the highway to Baghdad. It would look more like a cross between the Civil War and Vietnam -- widespread displacement of populace, hunger and starvation in the cities, lots of dead people, no one knowing who is friend and who is foe.
But it would very likely accomplish regime change. So in that sense, it would probably be very successful.
Just my $.02
Ah, but "why build one when you can have two at twice the price?"
That statistic has been proven wrong. What little truth there is to it becomes even less true when you only count households which legally own firearms. True, if you live in a household with a criminal who owns an illegal firearm, you are more likely to be killed. Not so with legally owned firearms.