The profit portion of this site is an aside, really. I feel *very* strongly about the topic:)
Please do contact me on the site - or email me directly at the email on my profile here. There are other news aggregators out there, but I started www.thankgodihadagun.com to highlight personal accounts. I believe that we have a lot to learn from people who have "been there, done that", and if nothing else, these stories serve as a reminder to remain vigilant.
Finally - I made $6.72 on that site today. Freaking weird, since I've made $0.01 to this point.
People are incredibly stupid, period. My point was that having a gun with an empty chamber severely limits its use for self-defense, while it does very little to prevent its use by children.
If I kid is old enough to play with the gun, they can surely manage to cycle the action. Also, it is incredibly hard to accidentally shoot yourself with a shotgun. You have to really work at it, and use your toe or something else to pull the trigger.
Sure, the kid could shoot someone else, but Mishotaki didn't suggest that. I'm pointing out that the stupidity about firearms gos both ways. Just as there are people dumb enough to leave young children alone with access to loaded firearms, there are people dumb enough to wet themselves with the thought of a gun getting up by itself and starting to shoot people.
There is a middle ground here, and its called repsonsibility. Someone irresponsibile enough to end up with a kid shooting a gun unattended is irresponsible enough to let them hurt themselves or others in a myriad of ways. Therefore, the gun is not the issue, but the parent is.
Wow, you know the anonymous guy has kids. And the gun isn't out of their reach. And it isn't in a locked upright cabinet. And he leaves it sitting out when he isn't home. And he leaves his kids home alone with the gun out.
You're a fucking psychic, what are you doing on Slashdot when you could be picking stocks?
That's not true, these days at least. I set up my Adwords account without any upfront, and wasn't charged until after my ads began running. In addition, I got a $100 coupon for free ads, so I was able to run extensive tests before I had to start paying for them.
Adsense, however, seems very hard to make any scratch on. I've set it up on one of my sites, www.thankgodihadagun.com, and have gotten 100s of views, but no click-throughs. I've "made" $.01, and won't see a payout until I hit $100. It may be possible to make money on the domain parking stuff, but I've not tried that yet. There has to be a market segment that typos, doesn't know that they've done it, and click the first thing on the page. That, or you could lay out the page so it looks sorta-kinda okay, and people click an ad to see if they're on the right site.
I've done ROI calculations on becoming a service provider for WiMax or similar, piggybacking off cellular towers. It would be profitable, but I'm prohibited from doing so. I was planning on using Motorola 900Mhz equipment for my towers, and distributing via 2.4Ghz in denser communities via a wireless bridge.
Seriously - a wireless router? This is Slashdot, I doubt anyone here is that ignorant.
I'm saying that the area is profitable, and that there is no requirement to offer service at all - instead, lines are drawn up, and companies are given areas where they are the exclusive provider of broadband. I didn't even have DSL access until about 5 years ago - before that, it was ISDN or POTS.
OSU? I'm only a couple hundred miles east of you. Oklahoma has a lot of areas with similar setups, I believe (though it would be a lot easier to service with wireless).
That's flawed logic - it is *illegal* for any other company to offer service to me. *I* would be providing service to the area if not for that law, via wireless.
Yeah, I assumed the convention went along with Eastern/Western hemisphere designations, but you have to agree it is rather arbitrary.
I knew what you were saying, I just find it humorous to watch us humans try to bend things to fit our preconceptions - like how far we go to prevent saying that someone is 0 years old. A baby is a day old, a month old, 12 weeks old, etc. - but never 0 years old. As old as the concept is, I'm convinced that most people simply do not fully grasp the concept of zero.
Odd - Where I live, 500 yards away, they have 8Mbps cable available for $40/mo. The best I can get is 512Kbps DSL for $85/mo. I offered to pay to have the line run up the hill to my home, and got an easement from the landowner to do so, but was stopped when I discovered that it wasn't legal to extend cable coverage outside the prescribed service area.
Get rid of the government "regulation" on this, and I'd have decent internet in a week.
That's an interesting argument, trying to phrase the pro-AGW argument in terms of dollars. Ineffective, but interesting.
You claim that previous temperature changes were caused by changes in the Earth's orbit --- that may be a contributing factor, but certainly not the whole story. Earth's atmospheric makeup has changed many times.
I *am* concerned about mankind's impact on the global ecosystem, but I don't understand how something so poorly understood can be seen as requiring the drastic, harmful changes proposed by the left's current cap and trade agenda, the Kyoto Treaty, or a myriad or other legislative burdens in the works.
This is *especially* true since America actively discourages the use of diesel in small automobiles, while other countries enjoy the cleaner emissions and higher efficiency vehicles. Meanwhile, we subsidize corn production for ethanol - starving people who were purchasing that corn for food. If you want a good fuel source, try sugar beets, they have a much higher yield than corn.
Let me put it this way -- the far right in this country has an element of steadfast opponents to AGW. They don't believe it is happening, period. They are so venomous in their accusations, though, because they perceive that a dangerous legislative agenda is being pushed because of it - when in fact, the legislative agenda if fueled by simple corruption in state and national politics, and AGW is simply the diversion used to shovel tax dollars into friendly companies via grants and government contracts.
If you truly believe AGW is real, and that it has immediate and catastrophic consequences for the world, the absolute best thing you could do would be to try to put a halt to all the legislation being proposed in its name. Nail down the science, and get it well understood - then take simple, opportunistic steps to combat the problem. That means paying farmers to raise crops that are efficient in the production of biofuels, removing the subsidies on undesirable industry, and lower taxes on desirable industries.
One, you're confusing libertarians and capitalists. There are libertarian socialists, and there are fascist capitalists. They address different spheres of study entirely (though Ayn Rand would argue - then again, she's no libertarian, but I digress).
Markets seek equilibrium. Pure and simple. The free market system is not some magical belief, it is simply the way things work in the absence of outside interference. I don't understand how pointing out that prolonged, catastrophic market fluctuations wouldn't happen without outside influence bothers you so much.
People get all worked up because capitalists and socialists, libertarians and collectivists have different values. Capitalists seek economic freedom, socialists seek economic equality. Libertarians seek individual Liberty, collectivists seek social equality. The difference is, in a free system, if you choose to co-opt with your peers, you may do so - but in a controlled system, you cannot opt-out. For instance - I know few libertarians/capitalists who would have an issue with Social Security, if there were a form you could fill out to stop payment into the system, in exchange for giving up any and all claim on future benefits.
Inertia that was originally provided by a force overcoming gravity, which converted kinetic energy into potential energy. The bouncing back up is due to elasticity. It slowing and coming back down is due to gravity.
Torture is not a pretty thing, to be sure, but I cannot say that it is out of the question in some cases. War isn't waged according to rules of fairness - especially when the war is against an ideology, not a county with defined borders.
The false pretext for war bit is bullshit. Do you honestly believe that George Bush convinced Britain and France's intelligence services in an effort to mislead the American public? There were serious issues with the way war in Iraq was pursued, and we can go into that if you'd like, but the motivation for war was not in question. Furthermore, Congress duly authorized the action. Even if I accepted your claim that war was fought under false pretenses (which I do not), that is not in and of itself a constitutional issue.
FBI agents --- I assume that's a misstatement, and you're referring to Valerie Plame, a CIA agent. If Congress couldn't link the Bush administration to Novak's source, then I can't really hold much credence in your opinion. It's possible, but I think it more likely that someone screwed up and everyone was ordered to stop speaking to limit damage. That's pretty standard.
As for the "enemy combatant concept", the term was coined in 1942 by the Supreme Court.
I'm no defender of the Bush administration (particularly the second term), but I think you'd be hard pressed to show that Obama's has been a "lot less unconstitutional".
Obama's Nobel Prize money springs to mind, though it isn't quite germane to this discussion, as it is not strictly a constitutional issue. According to law, he has 60 days from receipt to dispose of the money - he can't keep it. Where is it?
Slashdot Mirror
Flip that argument - who's up for preventing blacks from purchasing skin lightening or radical plastic surgery?
See, kids, that's called a false dichotomy.
Agreed, this seems more like a Dept. of Defense issue.
The profit portion of this site is an aside, really. I feel *very* strongly about the topic :)
Please do contact me on the site - or email me directly at the email on my profile here. There are other news aggregators out there, but I started www.thankgodihadagun.com to highlight personal accounts. I believe that we have a lot to learn from people who have "been there, done that", and if nothing else, these stories serve as a reminder to remain vigilant.
Finally - I made $6.72 on that site today. Freaking weird, since I've made $0.01 to this point.
People are incredibly stupid, period. My point was that having a gun with an empty chamber severely limits its use for self-defense, while it does very little to prevent its use by children.
If I kid is old enough to play with the gun, they can surely manage to cycle the action. Also, it is incredibly hard to accidentally shoot yourself with a shotgun. You have to really work at it, and use your toe or something else to pull the trigger.
Sure, the kid could shoot someone else, but Mishotaki didn't suggest that. I'm pointing out that the stupidity about firearms gos both ways. Just as there are people dumb enough to leave young children alone with access to loaded firearms, there are people dumb enough to wet themselves with the thought of a gun getting up by itself and starting to shoot people.
There is a middle ground here, and its called repsonsibility. Someone irresponsibile enough to end up with a kid shooting a gun unattended is irresponsible enough to let them hurt themselves or others in a myriad of ways. Therefore, the gun is not the issue, but the parent is.
Perhaps that's it - my site is about something that I feel strongly about, not targeted to a high-paying ad segment.
Good idea :)
Wow, you know the anonymous guy has kids. And the gun isn't out of their reach. And it isn't in a locked upright cabinet. And he leaves it sitting out when he isn't home. And he leaves his kids home alone with the gun out.
You're a fucking psychic, what are you doing on Slashdot when you could be picking stocks?
I believe GTA involves intent - any decent lawyer should be able to get them off the hook for that, then counter-sue.
WTF? You don't keep one in the chamber?
Or perhaps you've been playing too much CounterStrike, and ejected the first round for the sound effect? :)
I think you were legal until 18:00 - then I think it qualifies as "hunting over bait".
That's not true, these days at least. I set up my Adwords account without any upfront, and wasn't charged until after my ads began running. In addition, I got a $100 coupon for free ads, so I was able to run extensive tests before I had to start paying for them.
Adsense, however, seems very hard to make any scratch on. I've set it up on one of my sites, www.thankgodihadagun.com, and have gotten 100s of views, but no click-throughs. I've "made" $.01, and won't see a payout until I hit $100. It may be possible to make money on the domain parking stuff, but I've not tried that yet. There has to be a market segment that typos, doesn't know that they've done it, and click the first thing on the page. That, or you could lay out the page so it looks sorta-kinda okay, and people click an ad to see if they're on the right site.
Now I have a weekend project, lol.
I've done ROI calculations on becoming a service provider for WiMax or similar, piggybacking off cellular towers. It would be profitable, but I'm prohibited from doing so. I was planning on using Motorola 900Mhz equipment for my towers, and distributing via 2.4Ghz in denser communities via a wireless bridge.
Seriously - a wireless router? This is Slashdot, I doubt anyone here is that ignorant.
I'm saying that the area is profitable, and that there is no requirement to offer service at all - instead, lines are drawn up, and companies are given areas where they are the exclusive provider of broadband. I didn't even have DSL access until about 5 years ago - before that, it was ISDN or POTS.
OSU? I'm only a couple hundred miles east of you. Oklahoma has a lot of areas with similar setups, I believe (though it would be a lot easier to service with wireless).
That's flawed logic - it is *illegal* for any other company to offer service to me. *I* would be providing service to the area if not for that law, via wireless.
One *could* set up a Yagi on an old TV antenna pole, hooked up to an old Linksys WRT54g and a 1W amp.
But that would be illegal.
That's exactly the case, and that's why I put "regulation" in quotes. It doesn't help the consumer, it helps the providers maintain their margins.
I'm far more rural than that, the nearest town is 15 miles away from my property. The dividing line is a creek.
Yeah, I assumed the convention went along with Eastern/Western hemisphere designations, but you have to agree it is rather arbitrary.
I knew what you were saying, I just find it humorous to watch us humans try to bend things to fit our preconceptions - like how far we go to prevent saying that someone is 0 years old. A baby is a day old, a month old, 12 weeks old, etc. - but never 0 years old. As old as the concept is, I'm convinced that most people simply do not fully grasp the concept of zero.
Odd - Where I live, 500 yards away, they have 8Mbps cable available for $40/mo. The best I can get is 512Kbps DSL for $85/mo. I offered to pay to have the line run up the hill to my home, and got an easement from the landowner to do so, but was stopped when I discovered that it wasn't legal to extend cable coverage outside the prescribed service area.
Get rid of the government "regulation" on this, and I'd have decent internet in a week.
I have an acre here in Arkansas, I don't mind storing it in my back yard. Its on a hill, and not really very usable for me anyhow. Where do I sign up?
That's an interesting argument, trying to phrase the pro-AGW argument in terms of dollars. Ineffective, but interesting.
You claim that previous temperature changes were caused by changes in the Earth's orbit --- that may be a contributing factor, but certainly not the whole story. Earth's atmospheric makeup has changed many times.
I *am* concerned about mankind's impact on the global ecosystem, but I don't understand how something so poorly understood can be seen as requiring the drastic, harmful changes proposed by the left's current cap and trade agenda, the Kyoto Treaty, or a myriad or other legislative burdens in the works.
This is *especially* true since America actively discourages the use of diesel in small automobiles, while other countries enjoy the cleaner emissions and higher efficiency vehicles. Meanwhile, we subsidize corn production for ethanol - starving people who were purchasing that corn for food. If you want a good fuel source, try sugar beets, they have a much higher yield than corn.
Let me put it this way -- the far right in this country has an element of steadfast opponents to AGW. They don't believe it is happening, period. They are so venomous in their accusations, though, because they perceive that a dangerous legislative agenda is being pushed because of it - when in fact, the legislative agenda if fueled by simple corruption in state and national politics, and AGW is simply the diversion used to shovel tax dollars into friendly companies via grants and government contracts.
If you truly believe AGW is real, and that it has immediate and catastrophic consequences for the world, the absolute best thing you could do would be to try to put a halt to all the legislation being proposed in its name. Nail down the science, and get it well understood - then take simple, opportunistic steps to combat the problem. That means paying farmers to raise crops that are efficient in the production of biofuels, removing the subsidies on undesirable industry, and lower taxes on desirable industries.
I'm sure its standard terminology, but how the hell do you have "Eastern" Antarctica? East and West go in a circle at the poles...
One, you're confusing libertarians and capitalists. There are libertarian socialists, and there are fascist capitalists. They address different spheres of study entirely (though Ayn Rand would argue - then again, she's no libertarian, but I digress).
Markets seek equilibrium. Pure and simple. The free market system is not some magical belief, it is simply the way things work in the absence of outside interference. I don't understand how pointing out that prolonged, catastrophic market fluctuations wouldn't happen without outside influence bothers you so much.
People get all worked up because capitalists and socialists, libertarians and collectivists have different values. Capitalists seek economic freedom, socialists seek economic equality. Libertarians seek individual Liberty, collectivists seek social equality. The difference is, in a free system, if you choose to co-opt with your peers, you may do so - but in a controlled system, you cannot opt-out. For instance - I know few libertarians/capitalists who would have an issue with Social Security, if there were a form you could fill out to stop payment into the system, in exchange for giving up any and all claim on future benefits.
Inertia that was originally provided by a force overcoming gravity, which converted kinetic energy into potential energy. The bouncing back up is due to elasticity. It slowing and coming back down is due to gravity.
Torture is not a pretty thing, to be sure, but I cannot say that it is out of the question in some cases. War isn't waged according to rules of fairness - especially when the war is against an ideology, not a county with defined borders.
The false pretext for war bit is bullshit. Do you honestly believe that George Bush convinced Britain and France's intelligence services in an effort to mislead the American public? There were serious issues with the way war in Iraq was pursued, and we can go into that if you'd like, but the motivation for war was not in question. Furthermore, Congress duly authorized the action. Even if I accepted your claim that war was fought under false pretenses (which I do not), that is not in and of itself a constitutional issue.
FBI agents --- I assume that's a misstatement, and you're referring to Valerie Plame, a CIA agent. If Congress couldn't link the Bush administration to Novak's source, then I can't really hold much credence in your opinion. It's possible, but I think it more likely that someone screwed up and everyone was ordered to stop speaking to limit damage. That's pretty standard.
As for the "enemy combatant concept", the term was coined in 1942 by the Supreme Court.
I note that they trap them, not shoot them.
With the price of ammunition these day, $1.50 per head - or per paw, as the case may be - wouldn't even cover your expenses.
I'm no defender of the Bush administration (particularly the second term), but I think you'd be hard pressed to show that Obama's has been a "lot less unconstitutional".
Obama's Nobel Prize money springs to mind, though it isn't quite germane to this discussion, as it is not strictly a constitutional issue. According to law, he has 60 days from receipt to dispose of the money - he can't keep it. Where is it?