No no, it doesn't work that way. I looked up the stats and know you didn't. It would be pointless for me to post any link to real gun stats because you either already found them and didn't want to use them, or just made yours up and wouldn't believe real stats. Your mind is already made up.
Besides, you posted your fake facts before I posted my real stats. You post your link to your fake stats, then I will post my link to the real stats.
you are far more likely to accidentally kill someone with a gun than to actually stop a crime with one. This is statistically provable. Look it up.
I already have and I already quoted you the answer. 2M+ crimes are prevented with guns, and guns don't kill anywhere close to that, either by accident or on purpose. You are full of shit.
What does that link disprove? He still called Linux a cancer, cancer is still an ugly word regardless of context, and Ballmer was trying to make people think ill of Linux. What did I say that this quote disproves?
Context my ass. He called it a cancer, and that word has distinct connotations. If he had not intended those connotations, he has had plenty of time to apologize or correct the record. That he hasn't done so speaks volumes.
Microsoft has, what, 30 years of history? They earned their rep the old fashioned way, they worked hard for it, and now they are stuck with it. 30 years of Microsoft lies and thievery and fraud in general, and full time slander ("cancer", "fraud", you name it) since they first became aware of the GPL and free source software...
It'll take more than one convention to turn their rep around.
And MS fan boys, don't accuse me of exaggeration with that "lies and thievery and fraud" until you can explain away their full history of lies and thievery and fraud.
Guns don't scare me - gun wielding idiots that think they are the last line of defense against everything that scares them do though. The facts I stated are true which you seem to be afraid to face.
What facts? Did you state some facts? All you have stated is that you are afraid of gun-wielding idiots. Are you afraid of pen-wielding medical idiots? Are you afraid of the more general sort of medical idiots?
Or better yet -- are you not afraid of gun-wielding non-idiots? Are you afraid of gun-wielding off-duty cop idiots? How do you tell the gun-wielding off-duty cop idiots from the gun-wielding non-idiot CCW holders?
Face it, you are just plain scared for no reason, and not scared of what should scare you. You are far more likely to die from a medical idiot than a gun-wielding idiot.
You are the coward - it's even in your name.
Ahh, if you don't have any facts, resort to name calling. It all makes sense now.
You are wrong. There are 2+ million crimes yearly in the US prevented by use of a gun, most of those without firing it.
Most gun deaths in the US are criminals on criminals, and those people are criminals only because of the War On (Some) Drugs.
Doctors' bad handwriting alone is responsible for 7000+ deaths a year in the US. Medical mistakes in the US kill 200,000+ a year. Cars kill 40,000+, more than guns.
Where's your outrage about cars and doctors? Wheress your outrage about the War On (Some) Drugs?
Refusing to face facts is a good sign of cowardice. What exactly about guns scares you so much, so irrationally, when cars and doctors kill far more people, and when most gun deaths are criminals anyway?
And your comment ignores the fact that every single one of these suggestions bypasses his slow home connection by backing up across the web to a different online site. His bandwidth problem is to his home, not from his web site.
These are all good suggestions to solve his primary problem, which is how to backup his site somewhere else. Maybe his DVD question is how he thinks of doing it, but it isn't necessarily the only or even the best way to do it. It is entirely possible that a bit of thinking outside the box will do him better than answering the narrow question he asked.
Yes, and a gunfight would have broken out, resulting in not only the one dead passenger by the killer (that would have happened regardless), but several other dead passengers caught in the crossfire of inexperienced gun wielding idiots.
You ought to look up some conceal carry stats and get some knowledge before shooting off your mouth (pun intended).
CCW permits require training and include a background check of some sort. You don't just start carrying and get away with it (except in, I believe, Vermont and Alaska, and they strangely don't have humongous crime problems). Then there's the interesting fact that off-duty cops have a worse criminal rate than CCW holders.
You need to stop reading the nanny state press (both right and left) and starting looking things up for yourself.
The amount of sweat you will emit is highly correlated with the amount of training.
Right there you show your ignorance. Try riding a bike ANYWHERE in a humid climate and tell me how dry you stay. Or just a plain hot climate -- try riding your bike 5 miles to work when it's 90F outside.
You don't use your hands on the small one or the middle sized one. You lock the small upright handle between your legs, leaving your hands free. Sheesh. Even the still photos show that.
"Fuck you" is not nearly as threatening as naming a person, especially a female, and then discussing how they should be sodomized.
Really? When someone gets right in your face, nose to nose, and shouts "Fuck you" and sprays spittle on you, that is less threatening? That person is right there, angry, and has a lot more potential to do harm than some anonymous web poster who may be halfway around the world.
If you get in an argument at work or a party or with your neighbor, and are told "Fuck you" to your face, do you go running to the authorities for protection? That's a much more credible threat than a mere anonymous internet posting.
...please be careful with phrases like "womens' rights to not feel threatened."
No one has the right to not feel threatened. Under most circumstances you have the right to not be harmed, and under some circumstances you have the right to not be threatened. But there is a lot of jurisprudence about "true threats" that suggests a threat must be credible (among other things) before you have a right to silence someone or claim damages against them.
I don't know the context of this "threat", not having read the forum in question, but what do these women do when someone says "Fuck you" to them at a party or driving a car? Do they go running for a lawyer? In both cases, the threat would be much more credible than some anonymous net poster.
His back? You think he farted? I figure he probably used his hands, so you should sue his sides, possibly just one side if he was picking his nose (or doing something else!) at the same time. Or maybe he used a speech-to-text program and you should sue his front. Or top.
Pirated games provide the same play as bought games, unlike pirated movies. Very few individuals have home theaters with huge screens and zillions of speakers to rumble the floor.
I do not believe that pirated DVDs eliminate very many movie goers. Those who would be satisfied with a camcorded copy of a movie on the opening weekend wouldn't have gone to the theater anyway.
It's a different argument that pirated DVDs made later as copies of the real release DVDs could put a dent in sales of said release DVDs. These clowns are talking of the first 38 hours, and I do not believe they made any difference to movie theater tickets. They do not know their own market.
See United States v. Miller, which is often quoted as giving precedent to gun control, in spite of Miller having died and his lawyer not bothering to show up for the trial.
Slashdot Mirror
No no, it doesn't work that way. I looked up the stats and know you didn't. It would be pointless for me to post any link to real gun stats because you either already found them and didn't want to use them, or just made yours up and wouldn't believe real stats. Your mind is already made up.
Besides, you posted your fake facts before I posted my real stats. You post your link to your fake stats, then I will post my link to the real stats.
you are far more likely to accidentally kill someone with a gun than to actually stop a crime with one. This is statistically provable. Look it up.
I already have and I already quoted you the answer. 2M+ crimes are prevented with guns, and guns don't kill anywhere close to that, either by accident or on purpose. You are full of shit.
What does that link disprove? He still called Linux a cancer, cancer is still an ugly word regardless of context, and Ballmer was trying to make people think ill of Linux. What did I say that this quote disproves?
Context my ass. He called it a cancer, and that word has distinct connotations. If he had not intended those connotations, he has had plenty of time to apologize or correct the record. That he hasn't done so speaks volumes.
Stop making excuses for idiots.
I'd say the joke served its purpose here. Got an MS fanboy to blow his cover and raised his blood pressure to boot.
If you are a fangirl instead, it still applies. If you are a fanvampire, sorry for the blood pressure joke.
Microsoft has, what, 30 years of history? They earned their rep the old fashioned way, they worked hard for it, and now they are stuck with it. 30 years of Microsoft lies and thievery and fraud in general, and full time slander ("cancer", "fraud", you name it) since they first became aware of the GPL and free source software ...
It'll take more than one convention to turn their rep around.
And MS fan boys, don't accuse me of exaggeration with that "lies and thievery and fraud" until you can explain away their full history of lies and thievery and fraud.
And CCW holders commit fewer crimes than off-duty cops. Does that tell you anything?
Guns don't scare me - gun wielding idiots that think they are the last line of defense against everything that scares them do though. The facts I stated are true which you seem to be afraid to face.
What facts? Did you state some facts? All you have stated is that you are afraid of gun-wielding idiots. Are you afraid of pen-wielding medical idiots? Are you afraid of the more general sort of medical idiots?
Or better yet -- are you not afraid of gun-wielding non-idiots? Are you afraid of gun-wielding off-duty cop idiots? How do you tell the gun-wielding off-duty cop idiots from the gun-wielding non-idiot CCW holders?
Face it, you are just plain scared for no reason, and not scared of what should scare you. You are far more likely to die from a medical idiot than a gun-wielding idiot.
You are the coward - it's even in your name.
Ahh, if you don't have any facts, resort to name calling. It all makes sense now.
You are wrong. There are 2+ million crimes yearly in the US prevented by use of a gun, most of those without firing it.
Most gun deaths in the US are criminals on criminals, and those people are criminals only because of the War On (Some) Drugs.
Doctors' bad handwriting alone is responsible for 7000+ deaths a year in the US. Medical mistakes in the US kill 200,000+ a year. Cars kill 40,000+, more than guns.
Where's your outrage about cars and doctors? Wheress your outrage about the War On (Some) Drugs?
Refusing to face facts is a good sign of cowardice. What exactly about guns scares you so much, so irrationally, when cars and doctors kill far more people, and when most gun deaths are criminals anyway?
And your comment ignores the fact that every single one of these suggestions bypasses his slow home connection by backing up across the web to a different online site. His bandwidth problem is to his home, not from his web site.
These are all good suggestions to solve his primary problem, which is how to backup his site somewhere else. Maybe his DVD question is how he thinks of doing it, but it isn't necessarily the only or even the best way to do it. It is entirely possible that a bit of thinking outside the box will do him better than answering the narrow question he asked.
Yes, and a gunfight would have broken out, resulting in not only the one dead passenger by the killer (that would have happened regardless), but several other dead passengers caught in the crossfire of inexperienced gun wielding idiots.
You ought to look up some conceal carry stats and get some knowledge before shooting off your mouth (pun intended).
CCW permits require training and include a background check of some sort. You don't just start carrying and get away with it (except in, I believe, Vermont and Alaska, and they strangely don't have humongous crime problems). Then there's the interesting fact that off-duty cops have a worse criminal rate than CCW holders.
You need to stop reading the nanny state press (both right and left) and starting looking things up for yourself.
How amateurish! The descendants of those who left came back and took the land from the descendants of those who remained.
I can troll better than you.
No, he's pressed it so many times that it is worn out.
The amount of sweat you will emit is highly correlated with the amount of training.
Right there you show your ignorance. Try riding a bike ANYWHERE in a humid climate and tell me how dry you stay. Or just a plain hot climate -- try riding your bike 5 miles to work when it's 90F outside.
Report back when your education is complete.
You don't use your hands on the small one or the middle sized one. You lock the small upright handle between your legs, leaving your hands free. Sheesh. Even the still photos show that.
you're ready to make ad hominem attacks.
If rest of your arguments match the quality of your knowledge of ad hominem, they are safe to ignore.
"Fuck you" is not nearly as threatening as naming a person, especially a female, and then discussing how they should be sodomized.
Really? When someone gets right in your face, nose to nose, and shouts "Fuck you" and sprays spittle on you, that is less threatening? That person is right there, angry, and has a lot more potential to do harm than some anonymous web poster who may be halfway around the world.
If you get in an argument at work or a party or with your neighbor, and are told "Fuck you" to your face, do you go running to the authorities for protection? That's a much more credible threat than a mere anonymous internet posting.
...please be careful with phrases like "womens' rights to not feel threatened."
No one has the right to not feel threatened. Under most circumstances you have the right to not be harmed, and under some circumstances you have the right to not be threatened. But there is a lot of jurisprudence about "true threats" that suggests a threat must be credible (among other things) before you have a right to silence someone or claim damages against them.
I don't know the context of this "threat", not having read the forum in question, but what do these women do when someone says "Fuck you" to them at a party or driving a car? Do they go running for a lawyer? In both cases, the threat would be much more credible than some anonymous net poster.
Hate speech, I sue you back!
His back? You think he farted? I figure he probably used his hands, so you should sue his sides, possibly just one side if he was picking his nose (or doing something else!) at the same time. Or maybe he used a speech-to-text program and you should sue his front. Or top.
You know why it's called Canada, eh?
Originally it was the Commonwealth Northern Dominions, which they recognized as a mouthful, and abbreviated as C, eh, N, eh, D, eh.
They are finding it difficult to toe the line.
Pirated games provide the same play as bought games, unlike pirated movies. Very few individuals have home theaters with huge screens and zillions of speakers to rumble the floor.
I do not believe that pirated DVDs eliminate very many movie goers. Those who would be satisfied with a camcorded copy of a movie on the opening weekend wouldn't have gone to the theater anyway.
It's a different argument that pirated DVDs made later as copies of the real release DVDs could put a dent in sales of said release DVDs. These clowns are talking of the first 38 hours, and I do not believe they made any difference to movie theater tickets. They do not know their own market.
See United States v. Miller, which is often quoted as giving precedent to gun control, in spite of Miller having died and his lawyer not bothering to show up for the trial.
The proper answer was .... eggs! Rubber eggs from a giant chicken!