Like the burden of proof for THIS case to go to trial? Wake up. Judges grant cases all the time with little or no evidence or precedent for the charges to even apply.
And trust me, it's YOU that needs to do the proving, innocent till proven guilty is BS.
Quoted for truth. I worked for a company that had an injunction filed against it BEFORE any charges were filed or delivered to the executives of the company. The FTC filed the injunction and it said in it that the company could not use company money to pay its employees, pay its debtors, or even DEFEND ITSELF! What a crock of shit!
Actually study after study shows time and time again that speeding is not as dangerous as the police would have you beleive. What is dangerous is cutting people off, not signaling, driving on the shoulder, driving a vehicle which cannot keep up with the flow of traffic etc. These are the things the police should be enforcing but catching speeders is more profitable and they have cornered the market on the public opinion of speeding with the "think of the children" bullshit.
If we have learned anything from Eric Holder's waste of taxpayers money in his suit against the State of Arizona it is that Federal Law is pre-emptive of State law when there is a conflict. Specifically the First Amendment of the United States consitution says that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Judicial precedent has sometimes stated that for something to be considered press it has to be newsworthy. This is absolute bullshit but even if we hold that higher standard here then this video still passes. Look at all the news sites refering to this case now!
most of the low speed limits are about makeing cash and not safety just like the red light cameras.
Quoted for Truth! Highway Patrol should be pulling over people who don't use their turn signals or don't yeild the right of way but pulling over harmless speeders is much easier.
Wow. I don't know how you could possibly be more ignorant. Even a cusory reading of the article would tell you that this weapon causes no permanent damage or even lasting pain.
No need. We invaded Iraq not because of what we did know but because of what we DID NOT know. Namely, what the hell was Saddam thinking? He kicked out the weapons inspectors. He refused to allow them access when they were in the country to certain areas. He was constantly warning the places the inspectors were headed to. To the outsider it sure looked like he was up to no good. Then what about the history? He had known chemical weapons programs because he USED THEM on Iran. He also had a policy of paying great rewards to people's families if they would volunteer to commit a terrorist act against Israel (usually posthumously). He has a history of launching missiles against Israel (for no good reason). Who cares if he actually did restart his WMD programs! He was acting like that is exactly what he WAS doing. He was bluffing (probably to scare Iran) and his chickens came home to roost.
I actually seek out the news that makes me mad. I also seek out the news which is biased so I can comment on the bias and show with facts that back it up. This is a big reason that I support user submitted news websites like allvoices.com and others like it. When it comes down to it, the duty to report falls on the back of the witness who in most cases is a regular citizen.
What I want to know is how much of the released documents painted the military in a good light versus in a negative light. In any given set of after action reports there is bound to be a certain amount of good stories and a certain amount of bad ones. Both do not get released because they contain sensitive data. However both exit. What was the ratio of positive to negative? Or was it all negative?
The article was very light on details. Why was the weapon scrapped? Why was it never tested in a real world scenario as a non-lethal measure. The truth is that as much as the military is against non-lethal weapons, they can actually save lives on both sides and help in the winning of the war at the same time because you have less casualties which tend to cause the other side to galvanize against you.
Right. Basically what we call "High level programming languages" are not all that high level any longer and the compiler is getting off without doing enough work. The language should be simple and the "hard work" should be done by the compiler figuring out the most effecient way to get done what it is being told to get done.
No you are doing it wrong. You broke your own chain of logic. Where did anybody say that a news story is being copyrighted? The point here is that if you write it then you own it. You are still free to write whatever you want based on any facts available to you. Your whole post is a pointless tangent.
Anybody with half a brain realizes that facts are free but content is not. I'm actually happy that these websites that simply repost content so they can steal the ad revenue are being sued. How lazy do you have to be to not just write your own content on the same exact subject and do some semblance of research on the topic?
How about we compare MS to Apple - and neither pays for bug/vulnerability finds.
Both of them are headed by guys with the first name Steve and both of those guys are just about equally hated for their prideful arrogance and inability to admit to mistakes. Hmm, I think you might be onto something here...
No breaks will be had. They just need to try harder. I mean really, they had an oil spill too and they resorted to using chop sticks. I can't make this shit up.
Buddhists account for 5.84% of world religious followers. Buddhism spread mainly because it became engrained in the culture and the people had not much religion before that which was not tied to their culture.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religions_by_country
Care to comment on the issue of the quick spread of Christianity after the witness of Jesus' resurection? Seriously, he only had 12 disciples and only a few hundred beleivers at that time. How does a story like that gain so much popularity so quickly? Some 800 years later we know how Islam spread so quickly. It was at the end of a sword. Yet, Christianity spread like wildfire and it was peaceful. In fact it was the Government who immediatly started persecuting the new followers but that did not stifle it's rise. Care to explain any of this? I have an explanation. Those who saw Jesus be resurected had a story which had to get out. It was lent credibility because those who witnessed it did not all know each other. The truth is science cannot test the theory that Jesus was not God. Therefore science has nothing to say about it. Philosophy on the other hand has lots to say and most philisophical proofs are FOR the existance of God.
This is typical of foreigners who only get their news from foreign press and don't understand the ins and outs of news coming from the US. Was Watergate a huge scandal? Yes. Did it show absolute corruption and a failure of Democracy? No. Remember, justice was served. In a failed democracy the facts never would have seen the light of day. The 2000 election was the same. COntraversial? Yes. A Fraud? No. The Democracy has checks and balances and everything worked out fairly. I know this because every election in contention does not go for one side or another. Look at the Al Franken victory. He is a Democrat and challeneged the election in his state and won.
To be fair have you even used IE 8? I avoided it when it came out too. The reports that it broke the Internet, didn't work on Microsofts own website, etc. But now I use it all the time and sometimes don't even bother with Firefox. Know why? It actually works better most of the time. It's not constantly getting hijacked. It loads pages correctly but also features compatability mode for incorrectly coded sites. The best feature though is InPrivate browsing which actually works better then Firefox because you can have both InPrivate and normal browsing sessions with seperate cookies and seperate logins going at the same time. Seriously, give it a try because I think you will like it.
False Analogy much? Santa Claus and Jesus were real men who actually existed. The Tooth Fairy and Honsty in government on the otherhand never have seen the light of day. I keep hoping that I'll live to see the messiah that is honesty in government but everytime that divine conception happens the baby is stillborn and dies in the birth canal of reality.
Your bias is obvious. The USA IS a model democracy. Even if I don't like our current President I have to admit he is a million time better then most in other countries.
Secondly your question about deaths is disingenuous. A better question would be "how many civilian deaths are caused by each side" because quite frankly I could care less about terrorists who target civilians on the other side. Get me those numbers and then get back to me.
Slashdot Mirror
Like the burden of proof for THIS case to go to trial? Wake up. Judges grant cases all the time with little or no evidence or precedent for the charges to even apply.
Quoted for truth. I worked for a company that had an injunction filed against it BEFORE any charges were filed or delivered to the executives of the company. The FTC filed the injunction and it said in it that the company could not use company money to pay its employees, pay its debtors, or even DEFEND ITSELF! What a crock of shit!
All you did is convince me that you hav no idea how to drive.
Actually study after study shows time and time again that speeding is not as dangerous as the police would have you beleive. What is dangerous is cutting people off, not signaling, driving on the shoulder, driving a vehicle which cannot keep up with the flow of traffic etc. These are the things the police should be enforcing but catching speeders is more profitable and they have cornered the market on the public opinion of speeding with the "think of the children" bullshit.
If we have learned anything from Eric Holder's waste of taxpayers money in his suit against the State of Arizona it is that Federal Law is pre-emptive of State law when there is a conflict. Specifically the First Amendment of the United States consitution says that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Judicial precedent has sometimes stated that for something to be considered press it has to be newsworthy. This is absolute bullshit but even if we hold that higher standard here then this video still passes. Look at all the news sites refering to this case now!
If YOU watched the video (RTFA) you would notice there is a marked police car behind him.
most of the low speed limits are about makeing cash and not safety just like the red light cameras.
Quoted for Truth! Highway Patrol should be pulling over people who don't use their turn signals or don't yeild the right of way but pulling over harmless speeders is much easier.
Wow. I don't know how you could possibly be more ignorant. Even a cusory reading of the article would tell you that this weapon causes no permanent damage or even lasting pain.
No need. We invaded Iraq not because of what we did know but because of what we DID NOT know. Namely, what the hell was Saddam thinking? He kicked out the weapons inspectors. He refused to allow them access when they were in the country to certain areas. He was constantly warning the places the inspectors were headed to. To the outsider it sure looked like he was up to no good. Then what about the history? He had known chemical weapons programs because he USED THEM on Iran. He also had a policy of paying great rewards to people's families if they would volunteer to commit a terrorist act against Israel (usually posthumously). He has a history of launching missiles against Israel (for no good reason). Who cares if he actually did restart his WMD programs! He was acting like that is exactly what he WAS doing. He was bluffing (probably to scare Iran) and his chickens came home to roost.
I actually seek out the news that makes me mad. I also seek out the news which is biased so I can comment on the bias and show with facts that back it up. This is a big reason that I support user submitted news websites like allvoices.com and others like it. When it comes down to it, the duty to report falls on the back of the witness who in most cases is a regular citizen.
What I want to know is how much of the released documents painted the military in a good light versus in a negative light. In any given set of after action reports there is bound to be a certain amount of good stories and a certain amount of bad ones. Both do not get released because they contain sensitive data. However both exit. What was the ratio of positive to negative? Or was it all negative?
The article was very light on details. Why was the weapon scrapped? Why was it never tested in a real world scenario as a non-lethal measure. The truth is that as much as the military is against non-lethal weapons, they can actually save lives on both sides and help in the winning of the war at the same time because you have less casualties which tend to cause the other side to galvanize against you.
Right. Basically what we call "High level programming languages" are not all that high level any longer and the compiler is getting off without doing enough work. The language should be simple and the "hard work" should be done by the compiler figuring out the most effecient way to get done what it is being told to get done.
No you are doing it wrong. You broke your own chain of logic. Where did anybody say that a news story is being copyrighted? The point here is that if you write it then you own it. You are still free to write whatever you want based on any facts available to you. Your whole post is a pointless tangent.
Anybody with half a brain realizes that facts are free but content is not. I'm actually happy that these websites that simply repost content so they can steal the ad revenue are being sued. How lazy do you have to be to not just write your own content on the same exact subject and do some semblance of research on the topic?
Both of them are headed by guys with the first name Steve and both of those guys are just about equally hated for their prideful arrogance and inability to admit to mistakes. Hmm, I think you might be onto something here...
Tahoe, Malibu, Silverado...
No breaks will be had. They just need to try harder. I mean really, they had an oil spill too and they resorted to using chop sticks. I can't make this shit up.
Buddhists account for 5.84% of world religious followers. Buddhism spread mainly because it became engrained in the culture and the people had not much religion before that which was not tied to their culture. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religions_by_country
http://www.brewdog.com/blog-article.php?id=341
Care to comment on the issue of the quick spread of Christianity after the witness of Jesus' resurection? Seriously, he only had 12 disciples and only a few hundred beleivers at that time. How does a story like that gain so much popularity so quickly? Some 800 years later we know how Islam spread so quickly. It was at the end of a sword. Yet, Christianity spread like wildfire and it was peaceful. In fact it was the Government who immediatly started persecuting the new followers but that did not stifle it's rise. Care to explain any of this? I have an explanation. Those who saw Jesus be resurected had a story which had to get out. It was lent credibility because those who witnessed it did not all know each other. The truth is science cannot test the theory that Jesus was not God. Therefore science has nothing to say about it. Philosophy on the other hand has lots to say and most philisophical proofs are FOR the existance of God.
This is typical of foreigners who only get their news from foreign press and don't understand the ins and outs of news coming from the US. Was Watergate a huge scandal? Yes. Did it show absolute corruption and a failure of Democracy? No. Remember, justice was served. In a failed democracy the facts never would have seen the light of day. The 2000 election was the same. COntraversial? Yes. A Fraud? No. The Democracy has checks and balances and everything worked out fairly. I know this because every election in contention does not go for one side or another. Look at the Al Franken victory. He is a Democrat and challeneged the election in his state and won.
To be fair have you even used IE 8? I avoided it when it came out too. The reports that it broke the Internet, didn't work on Microsofts own website, etc. But now I use it all the time and sometimes don't even bother with Firefox. Know why? It actually works better most of the time. It's not constantly getting hijacked. It loads pages correctly but also features compatability mode for incorrectly coded sites. The best feature though is InPrivate browsing which actually works better then Firefox because you can have both InPrivate and normal browsing sessions with seperate cookies and seperate logins going at the same time. Seriously, give it a try because I think you will like it.
False Analogy much? Santa Claus and Jesus were real men who actually existed. The Tooth Fairy and Honsty in government on the otherhand never have seen the light of day. I keep hoping that I'll live to see the messiah that is honesty in government but everytime that divine conception happens the baby is stillborn and dies in the birth canal of reality.
Your bias is obvious. The USA IS a model democracy. Even if I don't like our current President I have to admit he is a million time better then most in other countries.
Secondly your question about deaths is disingenuous. A better question would be "how many civilian deaths are caused by each side" because quite frankly I could care less about terrorists who target civilians on the other side. Get me those numbers and then get back to me.