I did not infer that *this* cannon was made of bronze. The parent to my post said that it would be hard to spend $6000 on materials for a Civil-War-era cannon.
I believe most field artillery were made of bronze until Parrott came up with his method of reinforcing cast iron. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to expect that a reproduction weapon of the period be made of bronze.
In some places, it is just fine. Obviously it isn't appropriate in New York City or Chicago, but in BFE, North Dakota, theres nothing wrong with it.
We parents are raising future adults, not perpetual children. When I was 10, you could often find me 5 or 10 miles from my house, in the woods, with a.22 rifle. My daughter is one, and in 2018, you'll find her in the same places.
I'm the biggest Linux fanboi you'll ever meet, but I can't stand this twisted quasi-communist propaganda put out by the FSF. Windows is a proprietary product from a private concern - if you don't like it, don't use it. It is the standard OS because it fills most peoples' needs in the most painless way available. *For most people*, Windows is a better decision than Linux.
Not a single on of their "sins" is immoral or unjust. If you don't like the product - fine - you're free to move to Linux, OSX, BSD, or any of the myriad other minor players.
FWIW, my main PC runs ArchLinux most of the time. I'm a Vi user, and I use ScrotWM as a window manager. I don't have KDE or Gnome installed, as I've no need for a fancy GUI. I've also got Windows 7 on another partition, and I have to say - most of the time, if I just need to jump online, I boot to Windows.
I never said Bush was not a socialist, especially in his second term.
Fascism and Socialism are not mutually exclusive as you seem to infer. Fascism is simply advocacy of an authoritarian state - my argument is that a large part of the conservative voting bloc is libertarian in their beliefs, though they are typically not educated enough to apply that term to themselves. Libertarianism is the opposite of Fascism.
Finally, I did not say that I voted for Bush (though I did), and I certainly did not say that Bush was innocent of pushing America towards socialism.
FWIW, I voted for Paul in the 2008 primaries. In 2004, I abstained because there was no chance of unseating a sitting President, and in 2000, there was no candidate that closely represented my beliefs.
I don't stand for much of what Paul says, but I think he has the general right idea - government limited by the guidelines set forth in the Constitution, and all that.
I would actually consider myself more extreme than Ron Paul - for instance, I am opposed to all forms of mandatory taxation. I'm also reasonable enough to know that this will never be achieved, so the best course of action is to work within the system to minimize its impact on the lives of Americans.
I use a Compaq F756NR, and get about an hour and a half in Vista, and maybe an hour fifteen in Win7. In Arch, I get a minimum of two hours. A fresh install only gets about 45 minutes - there is a power management package you have to install, and configure for how you want it to work. I've got mine set up to automatically scale up if the CPU reaches 80% load, and down once it drops below 50%.
I don't have my laptop with me, or I'd get you the package name. It's been over a year since I installed it, so I've forgotten:(
I'm not familiar enough with British law to say for sure, but in the US I believe they could appeal and challenge the basis of the case. If the law wasn't enacted, they can't put a new one on the books and keep them in jail - it would be an ex post facto law.
Well, you're right and you're wrong on this. Yes, the politicians on both sides of the aisle are indeed pro-authority. The base - the people who actually go out and vote - are simply uneducated on the issues.
There are vast numbers of "soft libertarians" out there, on both sides of the aisle. They don't really care that much about government, generally follow the laws, and keep their heads down. If they want to go home and smoke pot, they do so. They're so uninvolved in the political process, though, they basically vote what the media and their friends tell them.
The key to winning the battle for individual liberty is education. I stood up in front of a crowd this morning at a town hall and spoke on this subject - that my Rep's job is not to go to DC and see how much money he can suck from the federal coffers for his district, but rather to defend our Liberty. I got a nice, heartwarming round of applause, but as I looked across the audience, I would estimate 80% were 60 years old or older.
We are 2 generations removed from an educated electorate. We're in a race now to spread knowledge to enough people to turn it around faster than the authoritarians can take away our ability to do so.
Finally, if you don't believe the Democratic leadership is socialist in their professed beliefs and actions, you're sorely lacking in critical thinking skills. Socialism is, in short, state ownership of industry. Take a look at the finance and automotive industries, then tell me that the politicians we have right now aren't socialist.
FWIW, these issues began with Bush 41, were pushed hard by Clinton, quietly by Bush 43, and now full force by Obama. This is not a Democrat problem, this is a statist/collectivist problem.
Well, I'm pretty extreme on these topics, and recognize that. I am opposed to all forms of government subsidy, period. I'll not get into that, as it invariably leads to a tangent.
With a legal alternative, the sources of street drugs will dry up. There won't be a market large enough for illegal drugs to provide incentive for their manufacture or importation.
Even so, I think you're be surprised at the number of relatively wealthy drug users. Include marijuana in that, and I would put good money on it being millions of people.
I'd just like to point at here that the part of the conservative movement doing this is similar to the communists in the liberal movement - we have our Bible-thumpers, but there are also a lot of libertarians over here. For instance - I can't stand the Democratic leadership. Obama, Biden, Pelosi, Reid, et al - all of these represent the antithesis of my beliefs. But pot? I could care less what you put in your body.
The majority of the Republican base are anti-authoritarian. The leadership of the party is authoritarian, though, and the voters typically go along with it when faced with the choice of that or an out-and-out socialist.
Meth was developed as a direct result of the unavailability of "natural" drugs - cocaine, heroin, etc. Those drugs carry much risk in importation, which meth can be created on a regional basis.
Make coke and heroin available, and the demand for meth will dry up.
I disagree with your assessment of socialized medicine, but your analysis is essentially sound. Instead of the government manufacturing drugs, though, I'd propose that you simply decriminalize the drugs completely. If you get Merck and GSK turning out high-quality (read: lower risk) drugs, available by prescription, you've solved the problem without expanding the power of government.
From my perspective, the "war on drugs" has been one of the biggest mistakes in American history. Many of our essential freedoms have been stripped for this purpose, and the problem has only gotten worse. Now that public opinion is starting to swing more towards decriminalization of at least marijuana, we now have the "war on terrorism". One step at a time, we're losing individual freedoms and gaining government control. This is not a good thing.
They offer a 24dBi Parabolic grid dish that is only a little less money, but I'm probably already running afoul of the FCC, and I'd rather not have something that is so obviously a powerful antenna if I can help it.
The best available at my house is 512Kbs DSL. I offered to lay the fiber myself for the final 2 1/2 miles or so, or pay them to do it, but they insist that there are legal reasons they can't serve me.
So, in typical geek fashion, I set up a P2P wifi link for that distance. It works, and I get about 50 Mbs on a good day. I get terrible packet loss when it rains hard, though.
I can, if I can dig it up. I've since cancelled the account.
Very low-volume businesses get charged this. I ran a photography studio, and probably received 5-10 transactions per month via credit card. I was charged 7.2% plus fees for this service.
I would guess they put an explosive charge behind the bars, and push against the satellite. With a limited capacity, the fact that it would eventually deorbit the carrier isn't a deal killer.
Slashdot Mirror
I did not infer that *this* cannon was made of bronze. The parent to my post said that it would be hard to spend $6000 on materials for a Civil-War-era cannon.
I believe most field artillery were made of bronze until Parrott came up with his method of reinforcing cast iron. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to expect that a reproduction weapon of the period be made of bronze.
There is no requirement to inform, nor an age requirement.
I'm sorry that the subject of whatever despot you live under cannot be trusted with Liberty.
Well, I see one person who has never priced bronze in quantity.
In some places, it is just fine. Obviously it isn't appropriate in New York City or Chicago, but in BFE, North Dakota, theres nothing wrong with it.
We parents are raising future adults, not perpetual children. When I was 10, you could often find me 5 or 10 miles from my house, in the woods, with a .22 rifle. My daughter is one, and in 2018, you'll find her in the same places.
I've never had issues with Firefox in Windows, when I used it. I typically use Chrome these days, though. Firefox is a bit of a dog in Linux, IMO.
The only time I ever open IE is to VPN into work, because we have some weird system that only lets me connect through an ActiveX control.
So what if IE isn't compliant? Use another browser...
Those people should have a home inspected before they buy it, then.
I'm forced to agree.
I'm the biggest Linux fanboi you'll ever meet, but I can't stand this twisted quasi-communist propaganda put out by the FSF. Windows is a proprietary product from a private concern - if you don't like it, don't use it. It is the standard OS because it fills most peoples' needs in the most painless way available. *For most people*, Windows is a better decision than Linux.
Not a single on of their "sins" is immoral or unjust. If you don't like the product - fine - you're free to move to Linux, OSX, BSD, or any of the myriad other minor players.
FWIW, my main PC runs ArchLinux most of the time. I'm a Vi user, and I use ScrotWM as a window manager. I don't have KDE or Gnome installed, as I've no need for a fancy GUI. I've also got Windows 7 on another partition, and I have to say - most of the time, if I just need to jump online, I boot to Windows.
You house is plumbed with distilled water?
Yeah, that 6m of copper tubing will probably make the house explode, right?
I never said Bush was not a socialist, especially in his second term.
Fascism and Socialism are not mutually exclusive as you seem to infer. Fascism is simply advocacy of an authoritarian state - my argument is that a large part of the conservative voting bloc is libertarian in their beliefs, though they are typically not educated enough to apply that term to themselves. Libertarianism is the opposite of Fascism.
Finally, I did not say that I voted for Bush (though I did), and I certainly did not say that Bush was innocent of pushing America towards socialism.
FWIW, I voted for Paul in the 2008 primaries. In 2004, I abstained because there was no chance of unseating a sitting President, and in 2000, there was no candidate that closely represented my beliefs.
I don't stand for much of what Paul says, but I think he has the general right idea - government limited by the guidelines set forth in the Constitution, and all that.
I would actually consider myself more extreme than Ron Paul - for instance, I am opposed to all forms of mandatory taxation. I'm also reasonable enough to know that this will never be achieved, so the best course of action is to work within the system to minimize its impact on the lives of Americans.
I use a Compaq F756NR, and get about an hour and a half in Vista, and maybe an hour fifteen in Win7. In Arch, I get a minimum of two hours. A fresh install only gets about 45 minutes - there is a power management package you have to install, and configure for how you want it to work. I've got mine set up to automatically scale up if the CPU reaches 80% load, and down once it drops below 50%.
I don't have my laptop with me, or I'd get you the package name. It's been over a year since I installed it, so I've forgotten :(
That's like a legislature getting together and deciding that pi = 3. Couldn't happen.
I'm not familiar enough with British law to say for sure, but in the US I believe they could appeal and challenge the basis of the case. If the law wasn't enacted, they can't put a new one on the books and keep them in jail - it would be an ex post facto law.
IANAL.
Well, you're right and you're wrong on this. Yes, the politicians on both sides of the aisle are indeed pro-authority. The base - the people who actually go out and vote - are simply uneducated on the issues.
There are vast numbers of "soft libertarians" out there, on both sides of the aisle. They don't really care that much about government, generally follow the laws, and keep their heads down. If they want to go home and smoke pot, they do so. They're so uninvolved in the political process, though, they basically vote what the media and their friends tell them.
The key to winning the battle for individual liberty is education. I stood up in front of a crowd this morning at a town hall and spoke on this subject - that my Rep's job is not to go to DC and see how much money he can suck from the federal coffers for his district, but rather to defend our Liberty. I got a nice, heartwarming round of applause, but as I looked across the audience, I would estimate 80% were 60 years old or older.
We are 2 generations removed from an educated electorate. We're in a race now to spread knowledge to enough people to turn it around faster than the authoritarians can take away our ability to do so.
Finally, if you don't believe the Democratic leadership is socialist in their professed beliefs and actions, you're sorely lacking in critical thinking skills. Socialism is, in short, state ownership of industry. Take a look at the finance and automotive industries, then tell me that the politicians we have right now aren't socialist.
FWIW, these issues began with Bush 41, were pushed hard by Clinton, quietly by Bush 43, and now full force by Obama. This is not a Democrat problem, this is a statist/collectivist problem.
Well, I'm pretty extreme on these topics, and recognize that. I am opposed to all forms of government subsidy, period. I'll not get into that, as it invariably leads to a tangent.
With a legal alternative, the sources of street drugs will dry up. There won't be a market large enough for illegal drugs to provide incentive for their manufacture or importation.
Even so, I think you're be surprised at the number of relatively wealthy drug users. Include marijuana in that, and I would put good money on it being millions of people.
I'd just like to point at here that the part of the conservative movement doing this is similar to the communists in the liberal movement - we have our Bible-thumpers, but there are also a lot of libertarians over here. For instance - I can't stand the Democratic leadership. Obama, Biden, Pelosi, Reid, et al - all of these represent the antithesis of my beliefs. But pot? I could care less what you put in your body.
The majority of the Republican base are anti-authoritarian. The leadership of the party is authoritarian, though, and the voters typically go along with it when faced with the choice of that or an out-and-out socialist.
Meth was developed as a direct result of the unavailability of "natural" drugs - cocaine, heroin, etc. Those drugs carry much risk in importation, which meth can be created on a regional basis.
Make coke and heroin available, and the demand for meth will dry up.
I disagree with your assessment of socialized medicine, but your analysis is essentially sound. Instead of the government manufacturing drugs, though, I'd propose that you simply decriminalize the drugs completely. If you get Merck and GSK turning out high-quality (read: lower risk) drugs, available by prescription, you've solved the problem without expanding the power of government.
From my perspective, the "war on drugs" has been one of the biggest mistakes in American history. Many of our essential freedoms have been stripped for this purpose, and the problem has only gotten worse. Now that public opinion is starting to swing more towards decriminalization of at least marijuana, we now have the "war on terrorism". One step at a time, we're losing individual freedoms and gaining government control. This is not a good thing.
I tried that, actually, but played hell with getting the dish aimed properly. I'm using 18dBi Yagis on each end - these, actually: http://www.data-alliance.net/-strse-78/Antenna-18dBi-Yagi-Directional/Detail.bok
They offer a 24dBi Parabolic grid dish that is only a little less money, but I'm probably already running afoul of the FCC, and I'd rather not have something that is so obviously a powerful antenna if I can help it.
The best available at my house is 512Kbs DSL. I offered to lay the fiber myself for the final 2 1/2 miles or so, or pay them to do it, but they insist that there are legal reasons they can't serve me.
So, in typical geek fashion, I set up a P2P wifi link for that distance. It works, and I get about 50 Mbs on a good day. I get terrible packet loss when it rains hard, though.
I can, if I can dig it up. I've since cancelled the account.
Very low-volume businesses get charged this. I ran a photography studio, and probably received 5-10 transactions per month via credit card. I was charged 7.2% plus fees for this service.
"in the Core"?
As in, in the "Marine Core"?
Wow. I guess those Air Force pukes just aren't hardcorps enough for that kind of training.
I'd love to see a reference to that.
That's because it was.
I would guess they put an explosive charge behind the bars, and push against the satellite. With a limited capacity, the fact that it would eventually deorbit the carrier isn't a deal killer.