Why is it that a certain segment of the gun-owning populace immediately jumps to the conclusion that there's some grand-scale movement to try to completely ban guns every time limitations on gun ownership are brought up?
Now, which of those allow it to pass the real ID act?
To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states...
That one does. Guarantee that somehow, the commerce clause will be used as the legal authority to supplant the freedom of the people. It always is.
Maybe the constitutionalists of the current SCOTUS will curtail the Federal power creep that has occurred over the last 80 years, give or take, but I won't be holding my breath.
I think the GP was speaking metaphysically. And, while probably true, the metaphysical loss to my soul of no longer washing my dishes by hand is something I think I can live with.
I had this same question; as near as I can tell, she speaks and writes about Java. In fact, I am sure that I must have missed something. I mean, the MySQL and PostgreSQL debates can get pretty heated here on/. And, anyone that likes PHP is just begging for a beating but, come on, the stuff she was threatened with over code?!?
This guy has to be writing during his "computer hour" when he is released from restraints.
Does anyone have any idea what Kathy advocates that might serve as any pretext for such animosity?
Actually, I think this is one of the few areas where capitalism really could resolve the matter since websites have turned into something of a commodity.
If a someone wants to make money from porn, their site should be.xxx. So, to use an example from later in this post, if a website called "grape" is a site that depicts naked women doing odd things with grapes, it should be grape.xxx. If "grape" is about the Napa valley it should be grape.com.
Here is how the capitalism/self policing works out: if the Napa valley people want the site grape.com but grape.com is full of naked women doing odd things with grapes, they take their case to ICANN and sue for the site name demonstrating that it is a porn site and therefore should have the.xxx domain not the.com domain. Similarly, if farmer Joe discovers that people with foot fetishes drink a lot of wine so buys grape.xxx, but all it really depicts is a bunch of naked feet in grapes, the site that has the kinky grape women can also come and point out that naked feet are not pornography in any country where the internet is not already banned and sue to get grape.xxx for themselves. Other than arbitrating, the government does not have to directly police anything. The market will dictate and force the appropriate domains.
Initially it will be all hell as everything gets sorted out but I do think it would work out rather quickly, and, more importantly, not result in any nonsensical Governmental control attempts.
You may have missed something, which the other responses have pointed out, but I just could not help but mention that, having used them from time to time, those kinetic treadmills use gravity VERY well to keep you up to speed. In fact, from a purely subjective frame of reference, I cannot think of anything that feels closer to a perpetual motion machine than running on one of those puppies.
... and once a day, my papa holds this metal cylinder (vis a vis Star Trek) near me while I pee and then he goes to checks out my dirty underwear. But he says it is for my own good... so it's ok.
Yeah, that'll be lots of fun to explain to Social Services.
While I by and large agree with your responses, I do have one grip: why only one voice set? Blizzard has obviously spent tremendous sums of money but they seem unwilling to pony-up for a few more voice artists that would allow for variations in tone and comment.
Absolutely. And that was the whole point of the announcement: to put the blame for DRM right exactly where it belongs, on the record labels.
I like Apple products and use them if I have a choice but, cynically speaking, this announcement was a no brainer and a win win for Apple. If the record exec's had agreed, Apple could strip-off DRM immediately, be the hero and get back to their attempts to dominate the media download market.
As it is, Jobs can silence Apple's critics by demonstrating how constrained Apple is by the labels.
(If you look back, he does this every couple of years.)
Though I like the look of most warplanes, and have a real fondness for the Grumman Goose, I am not an aircraft enthusiast and so this may be a silly question: exactly how is a WWI biplane a stealth design?
Bullying and being the target of bullying is actually normal male interaction. That is why it happens everywhere in every aspect of life. There are many degrees of bullying but males constantly lock horns on many levels. If you are male, you have bullied before in your life as well. You may have felt justified and it may have been something small but I guarantee there was some point where you smiled that little smile that comes with having the power this time.
Your comments are, over all, well presented. I would disagree, however, with your definition of bullying; I believe it is to general. Social positioning is not bullying. Generally, males exist well within a hierarchical structure where social positions undergo a cycle of setting and testing. Leaders and followers are established. The followers decide who they will follow and how far. The leaders find out who will follow them and how far their followers can be pushed. There is much jockeying and positioning and, depending upon the personalities involved, there will be a course of physical and verbal interactions ranging from fistfights to verbal retorts.
Bullying, on the other hand, is not a jockeying for position with the expectation that, at some point, a reasonable hierarchy will be established with varying degrees of inclusiveness. Bullying is a predatory action that intends to victimize another rather than establish a place for oneself.
I guess the distinction is important to me for several reasons. Primarily, had I understood this when I was in middle and high school, I would have had a much easier time of it. Secondarily, I do not want males to be emasculated by our society by false accusations of bullying. And, finally, requiring someone who is truly being victimized to merely endure helps no one and can have disastrous results.
Umm... bullshit right back. When the system is altered so that when a child stands up for himself against a known bully and is not treated just the same as the bully (or worse because, after all the bully has known, documented issues), I will be more inclined to agree with you. Until then, don't dare try to convince me that children should be required to stand up to both the bully and the system that is failing those who are bullied. (Well, you can dare - but you won't get very far.)
It's the DEMOCRATS that are proposing this travesty....
... it is interesting to note that it specifically EXEMPTS the large established lobbying organizations...
Of course they are and of course it does. The Veterans for Truth lost them the last Presidential election. My response was a cynical and somewhat tongue-in-cheek comment on how it would be enforced. Since I did not want to start a flamewar, and since I have observed both parties reportedly engaged in selective enforcement policies that always seem to focus on their opponents, I opted to lump them together. Birds of a feather and all that.
My personal opinion is that freedom-loving loyal democrats are about to get the same type of comeuppance that freedom-loving loyal republicans have gotten. Anyone that thinks democrats are not as totalitarian as republicans, or more so, have not tried to light up a cigarette recently or walk their verbally controlled dog without a leash, or attempted to eat goose liver in Chicago, to cite but a few nicer examples. I have not forgotten the Carnivore database that was initiated under Clinton, more specifically Al Gore, or the attempt to construct a national database on all gun owners.
Hopefully, the US will wise up to the agenda of both parties before it is too late.
As far as Nancy Pelosi being ethically challenged... how can you say such a thing? IIRC she has announced that she will support no tax breaks that don't benefit at least 10 entities.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe it is just Friday but that was funny.
Why is it that a certain segment of the gun-owning populace immediately jumps to the conclusion that there's some grand-scale movement to try to completely ban guns every time limitations on gun ownership are brought up?
Maybe it is because there is.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/april2007/2 00407banguns.htm
http://www.gunscholar.org/gunban.htm
http://vgoc.org/VGOCNov04.pdf
On the other hand, if you were offering even money, I wouldn't take the bet.
Now, which of those allow it to pass the real ID act?
To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states...
That one does. Guarantee that somehow, the commerce clause will be used as the legal authority to supplant the freedom of the people. It always is.
Maybe the constitutionalists of the current SCOTUS will curtail the Federal power creep that has occurred over the last 80 years, give or take, but I won't be holding my breath.
I would have given anything for a paper bag. A septic tank? I wouldn't have dared to dream.
Either is fine, but the switching just pisses me off.
Wish I had mod points for you.
I think the GP was speaking metaphysically. And, while probably true, the metaphysical loss to my soul of no longer washing my dishes by hand is something I think I can live with.
Your argument would be a log more convincing if you hadn't posted anoymous coward. lol.
So, what has Kathy Sierra done to provoke this?
I had this same question; as near as I can tell, she speaks and writes about Java. In fact, I am sure that I must have missed something. I mean, the MySQL and PostgreSQL debates can get pretty heated here on /. And, anyone that likes PHP is just begging for a beating but, come on, the stuff she was threatened with over code?!?
This guy has to be writing during his "computer hour" when he is released from restraints.
Does anyone have any idea what Kathy advocates that might serve as any pretext for such animosity?
Actually, I think this is one of the few areas where capitalism really could resolve the matter since websites have turned into something of a commodity.
If a someone wants to make money from porn, their site should be .xxx. So, to use an example from later in this post, if a website called "grape" is a site that depicts naked women doing odd things with grapes, it should be grape.xxx. If "grape" is about the Napa valley it should be grape.com.
Here is how the capitalism/self policing works out: if the Napa valley people want the site grape.com but grape.com is full of naked women doing odd things with grapes, they take their case to ICANN and sue for the site name demonstrating that it is a porn site and therefore should have the .xxx domain not the .com domain. Similarly, if farmer Joe discovers that people with foot fetishes drink a lot of wine so buys grape.xxx, but all it really depicts is a bunch of naked feet in grapes, the site that has the kinky grape women can also come and point out that naked feet are not pornography in any country where the internet is not already banned and sue to get grape.xxx for themselves. Other than arbitrating, the government does not have to directly police anything. The market will dictate and force the appropriate domains.
Initially it will be all hell as everything gets sorted out but I do think it would work out rather quickly, and, more importantly, not result in any nonsensical Governmental control attempts.
The pear? Pffth. Bring me.... the COMFY CHAIR!!
Ummmm. Yer goin' to hell for that one!
Karl Marx never saw TV. Religion has nothing on television. Can't even compete.
What where?
Yes, he was. Veeeery interesting, I am thinking.
You may have missed something, which the other responses have pointed out, but I just could not help but mention that, having used them from time to time, those kinetic treadmills use gravity VERY well to keep you up to speed. In fact, from a purely subjective frame of reference, I cannot think of anything that feels closer to a perpetual motion machine than running on one of those puppies.
(No response needed or wanted.)
... and once a day, my papa holds this metal cylinder (vis a vis Star Trek) near me while I pee and then he goes to checks out my dirty underwear. But he says it is for my own good... so it's ok.
Yeah, that'll be lots of fun to explain to Social Services.
LOL
While I by and large agree with your responses, I do have one grip: why only one voice set? Blizzard has obviously spent tremendous sums of money but they seem unwilling to pony-up for a few more voice artists that would allow for variations in tone and comment.
Yes, evidence demonstrated to be illegally obtained is inadmissable.
I like Apple products and use them if I have a choice but, cynically speaking, this announcement was a no brainer and a win win for Apple. If the record exec's had agreed, Apple could strip-off DRM immediately, be the hero and get back to their attempts to dominate the media download market.
As it is, Jobs can silence Apple's critics by demonstrating how constrained Apple is by the labels.
(If you look back, he does this every couple of years.)
Though I like the look of most warplanes, and have a real fondness for the Grumman Goose, I am not an aircraft enthusiast and so this may be a silly question: exactly how is a WWI biplane a stealth design?
Bullying and being the target of bullying is actually normal male interaction. That is why it happens everywhere in every aspect of life. There are many degrees of bullying but males constantly lock horns on many levels. If you are male, you have bullied before in your life as well. You may have felt justified and it may have been something small but I guarantee there was some point where you smiled that little smile that comes with having the power this time.
Your comments are, over all, well presented. I would disagree, however, with your definition of bullying; I believe it is to general. Social positioning is not bullying. Generally, males exist well within a hierarchical structure where social positions undergo a cycle of setting and testing. Leaders and followers are established. The followers decide who they will follow and how far. The leaders find out who will follow them and how far their followers can be pushed. There is much jockeying and positioning and, depending upon the personalities involved, there will be a course of physical and verbal interactions ranging from fistfights to verbal retorts.
Bullying, on the other hand, is not a jockeying for position with the expectation that, at some point, a reasonable hierarchy will be established with varying degrees of inclusiveness. Bullying is a predatory action that intends to victimize another rather than establish a place for oneself.
I guess the distinction is important to me for several reasons. Primarily, had I understood this when I was in middle and high school, I would have had a much easier time of it. Secondarily, I do not want males to be emasculated by our society by false accusations of bullying. And, finally, requiring someone who is truly being victimized to merely endure helps no one and can have disastrous results.
Umm... bullshit right back. When the system is altered so that when a child stands up for himself against a known bully and is not treated just the same as the bully (or worse because, after all the bully has known, documented issues), I will be more inclined to agree with you. Until then, don't dare try to convince me that children should be required to stand up to both the bully and the system that is failing those who are bullied. (Well, you can dare - but you won't get very far.)
It's the DEMOCRATS that are proposing this travesty....
Of course they are and of course it does. The Veterans for Truth lost them the last Presidential election. My response was a cynical and somewhat tongue-in-cheek comment on how it would be enforced. Since I did not want to start a flamewar, and since I have observed both parties reportedly engaged in selective enforcement policies that always seem to focus on their opponents, I opted to lump them together. Birds of a feather and all that.
My personal opinion is that freedom-loving loyal democrats are about to get the same type of comeuppance that freedom-loving loyal republicans have gotten. Anyone that thinks democrats are not as totalitarian as republicans, or more so, have not tried to light up a cigarette recently or walk their verbally controlled dog without a leash, or attempted to eat goose liver in Chicago, to cite but a few nicer examples. I have not forgotten the Carnivore database that was initiated under Clinton, more specifically Al Gore, or the attempt to construct a national database on all gun owners.
Hopefully, the US will wise up to the agenda of both parties before it is too late.
As far as Nancy Pelosi being ethically challenged... how can you say such a thing? IIRC she has announced that she will support no tax breaks that don't benefit at least 10 entities.