What's wrong with drugs? They can be fun. That's the problem with the USA - everyone's too uptight to consider that they might enjoy getting drunk or stoned from time to time.
Yes, there are many uptight people in the US. But, I don't think that really explains your observations. Try this: there is a long history in the US of religious groups attempting to convert the US constitution into something that would resemble a passage out of the Old Testament. Media moguls have been eager to cash in on the sentiment: a casual review of US prohibition against alcohol and other drugs turns up article after article in mainstream newspapers detailing the sins of these evil substances. And notice the concomitant demonizing of immigrant groups.
Doctrinally, Christians point to the admonishment against "sins of the flesh". Also, Christians believe anything that inhibits your free will or comes between you and your divine relationship with Christ, is a sin. Most of these believers probably never stopped to consider that voluntarily suspending reason is a "sin against the mind" and a much more powerful force against free will and divine realization than any drug could ever be.
Many Christians are unaware of the trans formative potential of contemplative prayer and meditation. Hence, their near-total ignorance of the Christian saints and mystics who have harnessed these mind-altering techniques to promote spiritual development. In the West, America is home to the largest body of believers who, for the most part, have taken an aggressive stance against anything smacking of mysticism, including their very own saints/mystics. To be fair, Orthodoxy isn't nearly as rabid towards esoteric doctrine as their Protestant and Catholic cousins.
No really, isn't obfuscation the primary impetus for "leet speak"? In other words, the more ambiguity & dubiousness the better. Any wiff of "clearer differentiation" is antithetical.
Ah, just what I thought: you don't want to regulate guns because of their intended use/design, you want to ban/outlaw them. Thank goodness the Founding Fathers did not frame the 2nd Amendment in a legitimate/illegitimate way.
Most Christians do see Muhammad as a fraud, at least so far as The Way is Jesus and Muslims do not accept his Messiah status. The schisms between the Abrahamic faiths are deep and very theologically based. For instance, most Jews do not accept that Jesus of Nazarene was the true Messiah prophesied about. Most Christians do. Most Muslims also do not accept The Nazarene as the Messiah, but rather just an important, among other, prophet (called by them Isa).
Now, maybe these three faiths should recognize more of what they have in common, but to attribute the very real and large divides between them as due simply to petty ulterior agendas is a staggering oversimplification.
Most of the people I know would consider shooting a home intruder the pinnacle of "practical". All the laws and functions of our government to protect citizens from their violent peers are, in a very real way, less-than-practical.
Because swimming pools and hammers have a legitimate purpose, wheras the primary use of guns is to kill people.
Killing somebody who is trying to harm or kill you is legitimate. The tool that was designed for the job is also legitimate. You're trying to play word and category games.
Look Coward, it's simple: you break into someone's home in the US, you have forfeited, in an indirect way, your right to life. The solution: don't break into people's homes. The populace and government in our country has determined that there is no legitimate reason to be breaking into someone else's home. Don't knock, don't ring, don't use the key, then don't bother breathing.
Ya, it's kinda Wild West to you people from other countries, especially ones in Europe, who like to think that they are the pinnacle of human moral achievement. You see, we in this country demand that others respect our right to life. If you don't, then we don't respect yours. So, not only is it OK to kill somebody who is breaking into your home, even if they don't have a weapon, it's also OK in most states to kill somebody who is approaching you in a public place with a weapon, with the seeming intent to do you harm.
I guess you don't consider anybody "bad". Perhaps you're young or extremely sheltered, I don't know. But here's the truth Ruth: bad people exist, the kind of people who will kill you in a second, without even giving you a moment to form an argument. That's reality. Hopefully you never have to meet one of them. If you do, I also hope you have the means to protect yourself.
A negative credit rating (even for a temporary time) could easily cost you many times $71. If your intent is to fight the charge, you'd be better off paying it and then going to court. Going to court and also suffering a bad credit score for not paying doesn't seem like good strategy to me.
At one of the points where he got to doing the actual multiplication of 35,??? X.002cents, I would have said: Let's assume that instead of using 35K units of data, I'd only used one unit. What would the final charge be for only using one kilobyte at the quoted rate of.002cents/per?
I don't know, maybe I'm just overly optimistic, and either these people's math skills really are that bad or some dark conspiracy is afoot at Verizon. As a fellow teacher (music), I think we and our peers share a unique consternation hearing episodes like this.
1. Children can hurt themselves with all manner of household objects. Why should guns be any more regulated than swimming pools in this regard?
2. Shootings are only one part of the spectrum in domestic violence. Like point one, why should guns be any more regulated than say, hammers, in this regard?
3. Accidentally killing a person whom you suspected of breaking into your home is a tragedy. But really, how often does this happen? And on the other side of that coin: civilians shoot more bad guys with guns every year than cops. Plus, they're five times more likely to be correct about the good/bad status of the shot person.
I think you've presented the classic case of the Paternal Government, the one that defaults to being everyone's best protection against themselves. You are giving up your rights for the belief that you are more secure.
at the core: if the virtual asset in question has real world value, then the government will tax it. I just looked on ebay and $10K Linden Dollars are going for about $34-45 USD, so they do indeed have real world value. The questions that remain are secondary: what conversion rate will the government use, how will they arrive at that rate, etc.
Given the amount of more-secure-Mac bragging and the egoistic nature of many hackers, I find the belief that Macs are more secure simply because of a smaller market share an oversimplification. The hackers that I know are not only motivated by money. They hack things just to say they have. In that regard osX is the holy grail, and no knight has claimed it, yet. But that's not for lack of trying.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, there are many uptight people in the US. But, I don't think that really explains your observations. Try this: there is a long history in the US of religious groups attempting to convert the US constitution into something that would resemble a passage out of the Old Testament. Media moguls have been eager to cash in on the sentiment: a casual review of US prohibition against alcohol and other drugs turns up article after article in mainstream newspapers detailing the sins of these evil substances. And notice the concomitant demonizing of immigrant groups.
Doctrinally, Christians point to the admonishment against "sins of the flesh". Also, Christians believe anything that inhibits your free will or comes between you and your divine relationship with Christ, is a sin. Most of these believers probably never stopped to consider that voluntarily suspending reason is a "sin against the mind" and a much more powerful force against free will and divine realization than any drug could ever be.
Many Christians are unaware of the trans formative potential of contemplative prayer and meditation. Hence, their near-total ignorance of the Christian saints and mystics who have harnessed these mind-altering techniques to promote spiritual development. In the West, America is home to the largest body of believers who, for the most part, have taken an aggressive stance against anything smacking of mysticism, including their very own saints/mystics. To be fair, Orthodoxy isn't nearly as rabid towards esoteric doctrine as their Protestant and Catholic cousins.
me, at 843 hours (PST), using FF 2.0.0.1, the problem is not fixed.
Methinks this sentence represents exactly why Linux hasn't already hit the desktop mainstream.
what some film executive found too. By gosh he's gonna fix that!
Mountain out of a molehill: check
You might salvage some of your rep by simply owning up to your ire-inspired geographical mishap.
I should just ignore the ones for 2007.
No really, isn't obfuscation the primary impetus for "leet speak"? In other words, the more ambiguity & dubiousness the better. Any wiff of "clearer differentiation" is antithetical.
Ah, just what I thought: you don't want to regulate guns because of their intended use/design, you want to ban/outlaw them. Thank goodness the Founding Fathers did not frame the 2nd Amendment in a legitimate/illegitimate way.
Now, maybe these three faiths should recognize more of what they have in common, but to attribute the very real and large divides between them as due simply to petty ulterior agendas is a staggering oversimplification.
But, isn't a stick up the ass a prerequisite for impromptu moral judgment of others?
buzzkills with a diminished sense of humor, like yourself.
If you don't accept the legitimate purpose of guns, then please explain to me how making such a distinction helps the regulation process.
Biological gene filters, baby!
Most of the people I know would consider shooting a home intruder the pinnacle of "practical". All the laws and functions of our government to protect citizens from their violent peers are, in a very real way, less-than-practical.
How many people need to be murdered with hammers before you outlaw them?
Ya, it's kinda Wild West to you people from other countries, especially ones in Europe, who like to think that they are the pinnacle of human moral achievement. You see, we in this country demand that others respect our right to life. If you don't, then we don't respect yours. So, not only is it OK to kill somebody who is breaking into your home, even if they don't have a weapon, it's also OK in most states to kill somebody who is approaching you in a public place with a weapon, with the seeming intent to do you harm.
I guess you don't consider anybody "bad". Perhaps you're young or extremely sheltered, I don't know. But here's the truth Ruth: bad people exist, the kind of people who will kill you in a second, without even giving you a moment to form an argument. That's reality. Hopefully you never have to meet one of them. If you do, I also hope you have the means to protect yourself.
If by murder, you mean kill the intruder who meant me and my family harm, then absolutely.
A negative credit rating (even for a temporary time) could easily cost you many times $71. If your intent is to fight the charge, you'd be better off paying it and then going to court. Going to court and also suffering a bad credit score for not paying doesn't seem like good strategy to me.
I don't know, maybe I'm just overly optimistic, and either these people's math skills really are that bad or some dark conspiracy is afoot at Verizon. As a fellow teacher (music), I think we and our peers share a unique consternation hearing episodes like this.
2. Shootings are only one part of the spectrum in domestic violence. Like point one, why should guns be any more regulated than say, hammers, in this regard?
3. Accidentally killing a person whom you suspected of breaking into your home is a tragedy. But really, how often does this happen? And on the other side of that coin: civilians shoot more bad guys with guns every year than cops. Plus, they're five times more likely to be correct about the good/bad status of the shot person.
I think you've presented the classic case of the Paternal Government, the one that defaults to being everyone's best protection against themselves. You are giving up your rights for the belief that you are more secure.
at the core: if the virtual asset in question has real world value, then the government will tax it. I just looked on ebay and $10K Linden Dollars are going for about $34-45 USD, so they do indeed have real world value. The questions that remain are secondary: what conversion rate will the government use, how will they arrive at that rate, etc.
There's a contradiction between your first and second wishes.