If you don't want to follow security standards then don't check your email from your personal machine. If they make it a requirement that you be able to respond to email outside of the physical location then require a laptop. I really doubt you have any legal recourse, especially since HIPPA and PII data have so many additional requirements around them.
The story said the idiot aka father had been checking for a prowler. This most likely means a round was chambered and if the 380 had a safety it was off. Now it would take some effort to pull the trigger, but a lot less then having to rack the slide. Assuming the handgun was a S&W 380 Sigma then it has an 8 - 10lb trigger pull. For 3 year old that is possible but on the high side. Now a Sigma has a very heavy trigger pull, it isn't uncommon to see as low as 3 - 5lb pull.
When I was shopping for a new TV a couple years ago I didn't care how many inputs it had. I made sure it had a HDMI input. Then I spent time making sure my AV Receiver had all the inputs I needed and then some extras. A TV should not be the central control point in a decent home theater setup.
In a lot of ways I've got to disagree with the overall review. I'd call ME2 a good but not great game. Bioware took my RPG and infected it with a shooter.
First off is the lack of two basic PC settings. Anti-Aliasing and mouse sensitivity. Since I've got a pair of ATI 5850's and bought the Steam version of ME2 I don't have any AA and can't fool the ATI drivers into forcing it on. Hopefully ATI will update drivers to recognize the exe soon. Then having no real control of mouse sensitivity is a bit of a pain, particularly with the circuit board style bypass. Both of these issues only impact the PC.
The next big thing that the game lost is the open-ended feeling. Sure there were a few missions in ME1 that just ended and took you out of the area, but the majority didn't. With the new method you get to the end of a mission and when you hit F, you are taken back to your ship. No more running around the Citadel figuring out 3 or 4 missions at the same time.
I'm also not a fan of the heat clips. While it is true I've never run completely out of ammo playing a solider, I have run out of assault rifle ammo. This is really a pretty minor thing and if you never played ME1 you won't miss it.
Now not all is bad. The ability to influence a cut scene with a right or left mouse click is awesome. I've "solved" several problems with a bullet. The story and character interactions are very good. I'm just about done collecting my team and I'm looking forward to seeing what comes next.
It is a great safety feature that doesn't allow the ignition to be turned off while an automatic is in gear. Nearly every car out there has power steering, if you turn off the ignition at best you have lost the power steering and some cars lock the steering wheel. So for control issues it is far better to not turn off the car.
I agree that simulation is very much what 4E D&D has become. I've been playing it for about a year fairly regularly and I recently commented to the GM that at times 4th edition really seems like a tabletop miniature combat first and a role playing game second.
The two systems I prefer are Harp and Rifts. I feel that Harp has a very good set of rules around things and dropped the worst of Rolemaster while keeping the good parts. Rifts rules are ok but the background and details around it are awesome.
What 2003 redesign are you talking about? The production of 4th gen Camaro's ended with the 2002 model. The 5th generation began production in March 2009. Given the response and comments I get on my 2010 2LT/RS Camaro it is safe to say you are in a minority on the looks of the car.
I recently traded my 06 VW Golf TDI in on a new Camaro. Let me tell you, a diesel is far from gutless. Thanks to the low end torque of diesel the car accelerates more like a small V6 instead of a I4. I could comfortable cruise at 80 mph which is 5 over the speed limit on the highway by me. When it comes to automotive performance, horsepower determines top speed and torque acceleration.
If I get to the point that I can afford a 2nd car payment or pay off my new car another VW TDI will be at the top of my list.
Unfortunately it requires you to buy an American car.
It is sad that thanks to decades of brainwashing by rags like Consumer Reports American cars are considered bad. Have you seen the ratings since the mid to late 90's? While on average the big 3 get lower marks then Honda and Toyota the difference is often statistically insignificant. Just check out JD Power rankings.
Has the American car industry actually managed to get a whole 100bhp/litre out of a normally aspirated car yet? Or install suspension that wouldn't feel more at home in a super-soft bed?
HP/liter doesn't matter except in size limited racing or where vehicles are taxed based on engine size. Do you know how the small engines get past 100hp/liter? They do it by being high spinning motors. HP is based on torque and rpm, so if you spin a motor to 7,000 rpms you make more HP. One reason that domestic motors have lower output per liter is because they are much bigger motors. How about we compare torque output, those high revving motors have very little torque. All other things being equal if you take a larger motor making the same HP as a smaller one, the larger motor will be more drivable.
Top Gear regularly make the joke that American car engines are made out of pig iron. And that was certainly true when I considered, for a whole 5 minutes, buying a Ford Mustang. A modern performance car with a *solid* rear axle and a lump of volcanic rock for an engine? No wonder I went out and bought European instead.
Depends on what type of performance you are looking for. Many people who buy Mustangs are still more interested in straight line performance such as drag racing. In those cases a solid axle is much better. The Mustang Cobra's used in drag racing have had problems with wheel hop which can destroy the IRS.
Putting this 'appearance pack' on a Chevrolet is like putting lipstick on a pig.
Purely subjective. I know of several people who pre-ordered Camaro's that went with aftermarket stripes to more closely match the movie car. Though based off the conversations and looks I've gotten in my 2010 Camaro, I'd say you are wrong and many people love the looks of the new Camaro.
16,000 pre-orders say you are wrong. The 2010 Camaro has been one of the most successfully new car launches ever for GM, while it has not been problem free it has been far lower then any GM car. For any manufacture this would be considered a good launch. Since production started in March, over 26,000 have been made. Most are not sitting on lots for very long unless the dealer is greedy.
I'm on the forum that generated that list and your interpretation is way off. That list was generated by a board with thousands of posters. Most new Camaro's don't even have one of these problems. A few of them like the battery cable were caught very early and a recall done. Manufacturing was changed and it hasn't been a problem since.
I'd suggest you and other GM doubters check out http://www.5thgen.org/ or http://www.camaro5.com/ , you will find that these cars have been put together so well that people are nit-picking things like no leather cover for the car manual.
It looks like this may be fixed in the next year to a certain extent. Right now, Congress is debating comprehensive health care reform, and the House already passed legislation on it today.
Sure congress is debating health care reform, but until a provision of the system is that all Government health care plans fall under the same system it is doomed. With the current leading proposals the health care for Congress and the President will be separate. If they had a solution to the problem why wouldn't they be included in it? Any reform without this means that the very people planning have no confidence in it. If they don't want to be covered under their reform how can we the people trust it? Talk about elitist attitude that will only push the divide between the haves and have nots.
Oh puhleeez. Seriously? You think the weapons that civilians have on hand can take on the best-funded military the world has ever seen? You know, the one that has more resources than the next five biggest militaries COMBINED? I don't think you've thought about this very seriously. Yes, I know that's the same thing "they" said about facing down the British back in 1775, but we're living in a different world. How many civilians have access to Abrams tanks and Apache helicopters? Cruise missiles? Not to mention: in what terrain has the US military been *training* for the last two hundred years? To paraphrase an awful movie, "When the day comes that we have to go to war against Utah, we're [the US military] really gonna kick ass".
There are several things wrong with your argument. First if the situation every gets so bad again that civilians take up arms in mass against the Federal government you can bet that the military will be divided. There is no way to now for sure but each member of the military will have 3 broad choices. They could follow the orders of the government and fight the civilians. Secondly they could join the uprising and finally they could attempt to stay neutral. Unless a large majority chose the first action things will be very messy. Given the emphasis on "just following orders" not being a valid defense since the end of WWII expect many to think long and hard about how they react.
Next don't doubt that the extremist is the US have paid attention to Iraq and Afghanistan. Personal firearms are largely for self-defense, I.E.D's and small mortars have proven to be extremely effective. I.E.D's would be relatively easy to make in the US, with the abundance of basic materials and commercial explosives.
Part of what the 2nd Amendment stands for is that people will have the basic tools to oppose tyranny, it doesn't mean that a civilian uprising is likely to succeed. It is just part of the system of checks and balances that the US Government was designed to have. Without any of the first 10 Amendments key parts of the structure are removed and it becomes easier for abuse. The Bush years have had serious attacks against the 1st and 4th Amendments and I hope to see things like the Patriot Act revoked, but at the same time we can not allow the 2nd Amendment to be attacked and weakened.
Aww. I dismiss your viewpoint because it's untenable, due to your ignorance. You shouldn't take it personally.
So you admit you are a close-minded bigot. Excellent, this explains why you automatically dismiss any facts that don't agree with your world view. Really at this time there is no point in continuing. You think I'm a racist, bible toting, gun slinging redneck and I know I'm not. I hope one day you see the light and can start to understand that just because someone thinks differently then you doesn't mean you are superior.
It is interesting how many different ways that the gun statistic have been spun by all sides of the argument and at this point unless the raw data is released we really have no way to know. I think it has been over-exaggerated and use several sources to show why. I also find it very telling that the networks have dropped coverage of the issue which leads me to think they can't support the position and instead doing a retraction have just ignored it.
While I find political arguments entertaining, once it reaches the point of "I'm right and you are wrong." why bother.
How did I stumble into a debate at a local junior high?
But let's look at your argument, feeble as it may be.
At this point I don't think you are even ready for a Jr. High level debate. You have consistently provided flippant replies and immediately dismiss any opposing viewpoints as ignorant and now feeble. At this point my reply isn't for you, it is for people who are more open-minded that might read the words you spew.
Corruption is due to the social-economic situation in Mexico. Sending public projects to family is normal, bribery as a way of doing business is normal. I see the corruption as one symptom of the poor social-economic situation so we really do agree here. I'm opposed to the US meddling in other countries and the US should not have done anything beyond saying they weren't happy with the proposed legalization.
Another interesting fact is that a vast majority of the arms used to kill people in Mexico are purchased in the United States, illegally, because our gun registration system is practically meaningless. I know as you do that having the right to buy assault weapons is more important than life itself, and you can be sure the residents of northern Mexico understand that as well these days.
Your so called fact has been disproven repeatedly. You will notice that the media hasn't brought it up recently. Only a small portion of firearms recovered in Mexico are sent to the BATF. This is because it is obvious that most of the firearms are not from the US. Machine guns are heavily regulated in the US and I've yet to hear of a single machine gun being traced back to the US. Yet machine guns are commonly used by criminals in Mexico. RPG's have been recovered and guess what, as a US citizen you can't go buy one.
I do believe that the 2nd Amendment is very important and several States have put unreasonable restrictions on it. I'm very much opposed to the 1986 Firearms Act, there is absolutely no reason to not allow new machines guns to be owned by civilians. Of course I'm sure you use the made up definition of an assault weapon and consider any of the AR15's in my gun safe one. An assault weapon must be capable of burst or automatic operation. I'm all for reasonable restrictions which include background checks and for machine guns the stricter ATF background check and tax stamp are a good thing.
You seem to view firearms as evil incarnate. I view them as tools, hobbies such as sporting clays, competition shooting or even just plinking are very relaxing. The people of northern Mexico are likely far more practical and don't curse the guns used by criminals, they curse the criminals. As proven in Darfur guns aren't needed to perform massacres, machetes do the job just fine. You should be attacking the root cause, banning guns won't solve the problem just change it. Why do people break the laws and do violent acts, if you can solve that then owning a gun won't matter one way or the
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
According to merriam-webster: the state or fact of being ignorant : lack of knowledge, education, or awareness
Acknowledging that there is problems in the US with illegal immigration and the legal immigration programs is awareness not ignorance. The largest group of illegal immigrants are from Mexico and the root cause is the social-economic envrionment in Mexico which the US has no right to interfere with. Another leading cause is the Reagan amnesty in 1986. There is nothing bigoted or racist to require people follow the laws in order to immigrant to the US. I have yet to see any proposed modern immigration have anything to do with race or religion and I could not support such proposals. If in your world view it is racist to make a factual statement that most illegal immigrants are Mexican then you have a problem. I have found that 9 times out of 10 when someone pulls the race card in trying to defend illegal immigration it is because they have nothing but the emotional arguments left.
I'm sure Alaska has illegal immigrants from Canada and even from Russia, but they should be treated just like any other illegal and sent back to their country.
I have written my State and Federal elected representatives with my views that illegal immigration is a problem and that we need immigration reform without another ammnesty. While in many areas I disagreed with Tom Tancredo on the immigration issue I fully supported him while he was a Representative from Colorado.
/. must be slipping, I expected this sort of highly open-minded response to be the very first reply. I even joked with a friend asking him how long before my original was marked troll or flamebait.
I think I was pretty clear that the Alaskan State budget is doing well because of the oil that is up there. So chances are if there wasn't oil it would be in just as bad of shape as the average State, but I doubt it would be anywhere near as bad as California. Then again maybe not, if there weren't oil a significant amount of the population wouldn't be in the State.
Now I'm going to blow your enlightened mind with some things I'm sure you won't believe. One can be a strong supporter of the 2nd Amendment as a personal right and at the same time despise organized religion. Also when I referenced immigration I should have been more clear that I'm only against illegal immigration and I wasn't the one who picked out specific groups. To me it doesn't matter the color of your skin if you are an immigrant, only one thing matters. Is the immigrant here legally or illegally? If illegally then they should be deported and if caught a second time permanently barred from entering the US or applying for citizenship. If here legally then good for them.
It is possible for some of us to not blindly follow party lines. It is possible to support the 2nd Amendment and at the same time support marriage between any two consenting adults.
Actually I have driven several RWD vehicles in the snow. I learned to drive on an 89 Chevy conversion van that was absolutely horrible in snow without out a couple hundred pounds of sand bags. Then I had a 97 V6 Camaro with all-season tires and in the 3 years I had it, there was only one time I couldn't drive it because the snow around Denver got too much. Last car with RWD is my 00 Z28 which has been modified to over 400 rear wheel HP and once I put snow tires on the car it was great in snow up to about 6". The 6" was more from clearance then anything.
The worst car to drive in the snow I've ever had was a FWD 03 Kia Rio. Only car I ever slid off the road in snow and it had good all season tires on it.
Now up in Alaska I would want a good 4x4 or AWD for the winter and if far enough north then a snowmobile. I knew a guy who was very far up north and he talked about keeping a snow mobile in the back of his truck. Eventually things would get too snowy and he would leave the truck and use the snow mobile.
I find several things rather depressing with your reply. First that it is immediately a Republican vs. Democrat for you and not judging people by their actions. Second that you felt the need to butcher Reagan's name. No where did I say it was limited to R/D as far as the tax and spend attitude goes. Obama is at least justified in his massive deficit spending since prevailing economic theories hold that a key action to break a recession is for Government spending. While I would have liked for the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act to have been more front loaded and some of the spending to have gone other places, overall it was the right thing. It has screwed any chance of Obama leaving a legacy of a balanced budget for his first term, but better an unbalanced budget then a depression.
I also don't see a difference between tax and spend vs. Drunken Sailor with a No-limit Credit Card. Both are irresponsible methods that need to be cracked down on. If you think that Democrats in power don't line the pockets of their friends and family as often as Republicans do you should pay more attention. Enough people from both sides do it that it is a serious problem but I see no way to change it in the near term.
In the long run I would love to see a clearly worded Constitutional Amendment that required a balanced budget from Congress except in cases of formally declared war and certain explicitly worded economic issues such as recession, inflation and deflation.
I'd gladly take a position in Alaska. Wide open land with relatively few people. No overbearing State government that can't balance the budget, not much of an immigration problem up there either. Thanks to the oil revenues residents get checks from the State. About the only thing I would miss is being able to take the t-tops off on my Z28 even occasionally in the winter and pretty much all summer long.
If I had to name a State as worst State it would be California. Land of tax and spend with no fiscal restraint, holder of first county to declare bankruptcy and likely first State to go bankrupt. Of course the single biggest reason to avoid California for me is that about 3/4 of my firearms are unconstitutionally deemed illegal by the State.
I'd really like to buy the DLC's but I refuse to until they fix the crashes with the PC version. I've gone through a ridiculous amount of steps to get the game playable with only a crash to desktop roughly once an hour. Supposedly one of the major problems is DRM on the mp3's used for sounds. I ended up skipping many of the side quests and finished the main quest due to the crashes.
Slashdot Mirror
If you don't want to follow security standards then don't check your email from your personal machine. If they make it a requirement that you be able to respond to email outside of the physical location then require a laptop. I really doubt you have any legal recourse, especially since HIPPA and PII data have so many additional requirements around them.
The story said the idiot aka father had been checking for a prowler. This most likely means a round was chambered and if the 380 had a safety it was off. Now it would take some effort to pull the trigger, but a lot less then having to rack the slide. Assuming the handgun was a S&W 380 Sigma then it has an 8 - 10lb trigger pull. For 3 year old that is possible but on the high side. Now a Sigma has a very heavy trigger pull, it isn't uncommon to see as low as 3 - 5lb pull.
When I was shopping for a new TV a couple years ago I didn't care how many inputs it had. I made sure it had a HDMI input. Then I spent time making sure my AV Receiver had all the inputs I needed and then some extras. A TV should not be the central control point in a decent home theater setup.
First off is the lack of two basic PC settings. Anti-Aliasing and mouse sensitivity. Since I've got a pair of ATI 5850's and bought the Steam version of ME2 I don't have any AA and can't fool the ATI drivers into forcing it on. Hopefully ATI will update drivers to recognize the exe soon. Then having no real control of mouse sensitivity is a bit of a pain, particularly with the circuit board style bypass. Both of these issues only impact the PC.
The next big thing that the game lost is the open-ended feeling. Sure there were a few missions in ME1 that just ended and took you out of the area, but the majority didn't. With the new method you get to the end of a mission and when you hit F, you are taken back to your ship. No more running around the Citadel figuring out 3 or 4 missions at the same time.
I'm also not a fan of the heat clips. While it is true I've never run completely out of ammo playing a solider, I have run out of assault rifle ammo. This is really a pretty minor thing and if you never played ME1 you won't miss it.
Now not all is bad. The ability to influence a cut scene with a right or left mouse click is awesome. I've "solved" several problems with a bullet. The story and character interactions are very good. I'm just about done collecting my team and I'm looking forward to seeing what comes next.
It is a great safety feature that doesn't allow the ignition to be turned off while an automatic is in gear. Nearly every car out there has power steering, if you turn off the ignition at best you have lost the power steering and some cars lock the steering wheel. So for control issues it is far better to not turn off the car.
At this point I'm just hoping that after 4 years of Obama's "leadership" that I'll still have a little bit of change in my pocket.
The two systems I prefer are Harp and Rifts. I feel that Harp has a very good set of rules around things and dropped the worst of Rolemaster while keeping the good parts. Rifts rules are ok but the background and details around it are awesome.
What 2003 redesign are you talking about? The production of 4th gen Camaro's ended with the 2002 model. The 5th generation began production in March 2009. Given the response and comments I get on my 2010 2LT/RS Camaro it is safe to say you are in a minority on the looks of the car.
Tractor pulling involves up to 65,000 pounds http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tractor_pulling
39 * 2 = 78 days for round trip to Mars in the article which is less then 3 months. The 39 days is one way just to get there.
If I get to the point that I can afford a 2nd car payment or pay off my new car another VW TDI will be at the top of my list.
Unfortunately it requires you to buy an American car.
It is sad that thanks to decades of brainwashing by rags like Consumer Reports American cars are considered bad. Have you seen the ratings since the mid to late 90's? While on average the big 3 get lower marks then Honda and Toyota the difference is often statistically insignificant. Just check out JD Power rankings.
Has the American car industry actually managed to get a whole 100bhp/litre out of a normally aspirated car yet? Or install suspension that wouldn't feel more at home in a super-soft bed?
HP/liter doesn't matter except in size limited racing or where vehicles are taxed based on engine size. Do you know how the small engines get past 100hp/liter? They do it by being high spinning motors. HP is based on torque and rpm, so if you spin a motor to 7,000 rpms you make more HP. One reason that domestic motors have lower output per liter is because they are much bigger motors. How about we compare torque output, those high revving motors have very little torque. All other things being equal if you take a larger motor making the same HP as a smaller one, the larger motor will be more drivable.
Top Gear regularly make the joke that American car engines are made out of pig iron. And that was certainly true when I considered, for a whole 5 minutes, buying a Ford Mustang. A modern performance car with a *solid* rear axle and a lump of volcanic rock for an engine? No wonder I went out and bought European instead.
Depends on what type of performance you are looking for. Many people who buy Mustangs are still more interested in straight line performance such as drag racing. In those cases a solid axle is much better. The Mustang Cobra's used in drag racing have had problems with wheel hop which can destroy the IRS.
Putting this 'appearance pack' on a Chevrolet is like putting lipstick on a pig.
Purely subjective. I know of several people who pre-ordered Camaro's that went with aftermarket stripes to more closely match the movie car. Though based off the conversations and looks I've gotten in my 2010 Camaro, I'd say you are wrong and many people love the looks of the new Camaro.
16,000 pre-orders say you are wrong. The 2010 Camaro has been one of the most successfully new car launches ever for GM, while it has not been problem free it has been far lower then any GM car. For any manufacture this would be considered a good launch. Since production started in March, over 26,000 have been made. Most are not sitting on lots for very long unless the dealer is greedy.
I'd suggest you and other GM doubters check out http://www.5thgen.org/ or http://www.camaro5.com/ , you will find that these cars have been put together so well that people are nit-picking things like no leather cover for the car manual.
That list can be applied to any brand new car. Many new Camaro's including mine have been problem free.
It looks like this may be fixed in the next year to a certain extent. Right now, Congress is debating comprehensive health care reform, and the House already passed legislation on it today.
Sure congress is debating health care reform, but until a provision of the system is that all Government health care plans fall under the same system it is doomed. With the current leading proposals the health care for Congress and the President will be separate. If they had a solution to the problem why wouldn't they be included in it? Any reform without this means that the very people planning have no confidence in it. If they don't want to be covered under their reform how can we the people trust it? Talk about elitist attitude that will only push the divide between the haves and have nots.
Oh puhleeez. Seriously? You think the weapons that civilians have on hand can take on the best-funded military the world has ever seen? You know, the one that has more resources than the next five biggest militaries COMBINED? I don't think you've thought about this very seriously. Yes, I know that's the same thing "they" said about facing down the British back in 1775, but we're living in a different world. How many civilians have access to Abrams tanks and Apache helicopters? Cruise missiles? Not to mention: in what terrain has the US military been *training* for the last two hundred years? To paraphrase an awful movie, "When the day comes that we have to go to war against Utah, we're [the US military] really gonna kick ass".
There are several things wrong with your argument. First if the situation every gets so bad again that civilians take up arms in mass against the Federal government you can bet that the military will be divided. There is no way to now for sure but each member of the military will have 3 broad choices. They could follow the orders of the government and fight the civilians. Secondly they could join the uprising and finally they could attempt to stay neutral. Unless a large majority chose the first action things will be very messy. Given the emphasis on "just following orders" not being a valid defense since the end of WWII expect many to think long and hard about how they react.
Next don't doubt that the extremist is the US have paid attention to Iraq and Afghanistan. Personal firearms are largely for self-defense, I.E.D's and small mortars have proven to be extremely effective. I.E.D's would be relatively easy to make in the US, with the abundance of basic materials and commercial explosives.
Part of what the 2nd Amendment stands for is that people will have the basic tools to oppose tyranny, it doesn't mean that a civilian uprising is likely to succeed. It is just part of the system of checks and balances that the US Government was designed to have. Without any of the first 10 Amendments key parts of the structure are removed and it becomes easier for abuse. The Bush years have had serious attacks against the 1st and 4th Amendments and I hope to see things like the Patriot Act revoked, but at the same time we can not allow the 2nd Amendment to be attacked and weakened.
Aww. I dismiss your viewpoint because it's untenable, due to your ignorance. You shouldn't take it personally.
So you admit you are a close-minded bigot. Excellent, this explains why you automatically dismiss any facts that don't agree with your world view. Really at this time there is no point in continuing. You think I'm a racist, bible toting, gun slinging redneck and I know I'm not. I hope one day you see the light and can start to understand that just because someone thinks differently then you doesn't mean you are superior.
It is interesting how many different ways that the gun statistic have been spun by all sides of the argument and at this point unless the raw data is released we really have no way to know. I think it has been over-exaggerated and use several sources to show why. I also find it very telling that the networks have dropped coverage of the issue which leads me to think they can't support the position and instead doing a retraction have just ignored it.
While I find political arguments entertaining, once it reaches the point of "I'm right and you are wrong." why bother.
How did I stumble into a debate at a local junior high? But let's look at your argument, feeble as it may be.
At this point I don't think you are even ready for a Jr. High level debate. You have consistently provided flippant replies and immediately dismiss any opposing viewpoints as ignorant and now feeble. At this point my reply isn't for you, it is for people who are more open-minded that might read the words you spew.
Corruption is due to the social-economic situation in Mexico. Sending public projects to family is normal, bribery as a way of doing business is normal. I see the corruption as one symptom of the poor social-economic situation so we really do agree here. I'm opposed to the US meddling in other countries and the US should not have done anything beyond saying they weren't happy with the proposed legalization.
Another interesting fact is that a vast majority of the arms used to kill people in Mexico are purchased in the United States, illegally, because our gun registration system is practically meaningless. I know as you do that having the right to buy assault weapons is more important than life itself, and you can be sure the residents of northern Mexico understand that as well these days.
Your so called fact has been disproven repeatedly. You will notice that the media hasn't brought it up recently. Only a small portion of firearms recovered in Mexico are sent to the BATF. This is because it is obvious that most of the firearms are not from the US. Machine guns are heavily regulated in the US and I've yet to hear of a single machine gun being traced back to the US. Yet machine guns are commonly used by criminals in Mexico. RPG's have been recovered and guess what, as a US citizen you can't go buy one.
The Libertarian Party has even called Obama and news organizations out on this blatant lie. At http://blogofbile.com/2009/04/20/libertarian-party-calls-out-barack-obama-over-false-gun-facts/#more-4072 one quote is "That means only 5,114 out of 29,000 guns used in Mexican crimes were found to have come from the United States. That figure would be 17 percent, not the 90 percent repeated by Obama." While I would like to see no firearms transferred illegally to Mexico to say that the US is the major source is so far from reality as to be laughable. Here is another source where even the ATF has clarified on the 90% number that was so sensationally splashed across the news networks. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elections/2009/04/02/myth-percent-guns-mexico-fraction-number-claimed/ .
I do believe that the 2nd Amendment is very important and several States have put unreasonable restrictions on it. I'm very much opposed to the 1986 Firearms Act, there is absolutely no reason to not allow new machines guns to be owned by civilians. Of course I'm sure you use the made up definition of an assault weapon and consider any of the AR15's in my gun safe one. An assault weapon must be capable of burst or automatic operation. I'm all for reasonable restrictions which include background checks and for machine guns the stricter ATF background check and tax stamp are a good thing.
You seem to view firearms as evil incarnate. I view them as tools, hobbies such as sporting clays, competition shooting or even just plinking are very relaxing. The people of northern Mexico are likely far more practical and don't curse the guns used by criminals, they curse the criminals. As proven in Darfur guns aren't needed to perform massacres, machetes do the job just fine. You should be attacking the root cause, banning guns won't solve the problem just change it. Why do people break the laws and do violent acts, if you can solve that then owning a gun won't matter one way or the
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
According to merriam-webster: the state or fact of being ignorant : lack of knowledge, education, or awareness
Acknowledging that there is problems in the US with illegal immigration and the legal immigration programs is awareness not ignorance. The largest group of illegal immigrants are from Mexico and the root cause is the social-economic envrionment in Mexico which the US has no right to interfere with. Another leading cause is the Reagan amnesty in 1986. There is nothing bigoted or racist to require people follow the laws in order to immigrant to the US. I have yet to see any proposed modern immigration have anything to do with race or religion and I could not support such proposals. If in your world view it is racist to make a factual statement that most illegal immigrants are Mexican then you have a problem. I have found that 9 times out of 10 when someone pulls the race card in trying to defend illegal immigration it is because they have nothing but the emotional arguments left.
I'm sure Alaska has illegal immigrants from Canada and even from Russia, but they should be treated just like any other illegal and sent back to their country.
I have written my State and Federal elected representatives with my views that illegal immigration is a problem and that we need immigration reform without another ammnesty. While in many areas I disagreed with Tom Tancredo on the immigration issue I fully supported him while he was a Representative from Colorado.
/. must be slipping, I expected this sort of highly open-minded response to be the very first reply. I even joked with a friend asking him how long before my original was marked troll or flamebait.
I think I was pretty clear that the Alaskan State budget is doing well because of the oil that is up there. So chances are if there wasn't oil it would be in just as bad of shape as the average State, but I doubt it would be anywhere near as bad as California. Then again maybe not, if there weren't oil a significant amount of the population wouldn't be in the State.
Now I'm going to blow your enlightened mind with some things I'm sure you won't believe. One can be a strong supporter of the 2nd Amendment as a personal right and at the same time despise organized religion. Also when I referenced immigration I should have been more clear that I'm only against illegal immigration and I wasn't the one who picked out specific groups. To me it doesn't matter the color of your skin if you are an immigrant, only one thing matters. Is the immigrant here legally or illegally? If illegally then they should be deported and if caught a second time permanently barred from entering the US or applying for citizenship. If here legally then good for them.
It is possible for some of us to not blindly follow party lines. It is possible to support the 2nd Amendment and at the same time support marriage between any two consenting adults.
Actually I have driven several RWD vehicles in the snow. I learned to drive on an 89 Chevy conversion van that was absolutely horrible in snow without out a couple hundred pounds of sand bags. Then I had a 97 V6 Camaro with all-season tires and in the 3 years I had it, there was only one time I couldn't drive it because the snow around Denver got too much. Last car with RWD is my 00 Z28 which has been modified to over 400 rear wheel HP and once I put snow tires on the car it was great in snow up to about 6". The 6" was more from clearance then anything.
The worst car to drive in the snow I've ever had was a FWD 03 Kia Rio. Only car I ever slid off the road in snow and it had good all season tires on it.
Now up in Alaska I would want a good 4x4 or AWD for the winter and if far enough north then a snowmobile. I knew a guy who was very far up north and he talked about keeping a snow mobile in the back of his truck. Eventually things would get too snowy and he would leave the truck and use the snow mobile.
I find several things rather depressing with your reply. First that it is immediately a Republican vs. Democrat for you and not judging people by their actions. Second that you felt the need to butcher Reagan's name. No where did I say it was limited to R/D as far as the tax and spend attitude goes. Obama is at least justified in his massive deficit spending since prevailing economic theories hold that a key action to break a recession is for Government spending. While I would have liked for the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act to have been more front loaded and some of the spending to have gone other places, overall it was the right thing. It has screwed any chance of Obama leaving a legacy of a balanced budget for his first term, but better an unbalanced budget then a depression. I also don't see a difference between tax and spend vs. Drunken Sailor with a No-limit Credit Card. Both are irresponsible methods that need to be cracked down on. If you think that Democrats in power don't line the pockets of their friends and family as often as Republicans do you should pay more attention. Enough people from both sides do it that it is a serious problem but I see no way to change it in the near term. In the long run I would love to see a clearly worded Constitutional Amendment that required a balanced budget from Congress except in cases of formally declared war and certain explicitly worded economic issues such as recession, inflation and deflation.
I'd gladly take a position in Alaska. Wide open land with relatively few people. No overbearing State government that can't balance the budget, not much of an immigration problem up there either. Thanks to the oil revenues residents get checks from the State. About the only thing I would miss is being able to take the t-tops off on my Z28 even occasionally in the winter and pretty much all summer long.
If I had to name a State as worst State it would be California. Land of tax and spend with no fiscal restraint, holder of first county to declare bankruptcy and likely first State to go bankrupt. Of course the single biggest reason to avoid California for me is that about 3/4 of my firearms are unconstitutionally deemed illegal by the State.
I'd really like to buy the DLC's but I refuse to until they fix the crashes with the PC version. I've gone through a ridiculous amount of steps to get the game playable with only a crash to desktop roughly once an hour. Supposedly one of the major problems is DRM on the mp3's used for sounds. I ended up skipping many of the side quests and finished the main quest due to the crashes.