On the upside, since the revenue is measured in USD, the fall of the currency won't hurt it much, in fact it'll grow as foreign currencies are worth more and more.
I meant planes that would count as weapons, AFAIK plenty of people own and maintain civil planes. I was disputing your claim that they need more than one person to operate or maintain.
Religion says you don't have to fix your suffering, after death everything will be fine. A world view that doesn't include a (pleasant) afterlife creates a much stronger incentive to improve the conditions.
Especially slaves are much easier to subdue with religion, religion tells them that they'll be rewarded if they keep suffering and punished if they free themselves by killing their master, even if they can defeat the master. Without religion their only choice for improvement would be to get rid of the master and if they have a chance they're more likely to take it.
The hope goes both ways, it'll also work for pacifying a populace by promising that by suffering they'll go to heaven, making them less likely to rectify that suffering (especially when it's caused by people in power).
It is not only to protect ourselves from foreign government's but our own government and any threats on our life liberty and pursuit of happiness.
So if a cop tries to stop you from doing drugs you should be allowed to shoot him to protect your pursuit of happiness?
People often bring up the the classic straw man argument about nuclear weapons and such, but the practicality of actually getting your hands on one is so extreme that is really wouldn't happen.
Isn't it just difficult because making nuclear weapons available to unauthorized people is illegal (probably high treason)?
Do heavy machineguns count then? A MG squad consists of multiple people but the gun could conceivably be operated by one. Same most likely goes for combat planes since they have one pilot and I'd guess a fair number of people know how to maintain a plane, I think it's unpractical and slow but not impossible to do the maintenance all by yourself but I've never tried to operate a plane.
I think generally anything with a blast radius should be limited to organized groups (at least to make sure every person using them is mentally sound when doing so, not mad or drunk or whatever), letting random people own hand grenades is just asking for trouble.
It all comes down to trying to figure out what people 225+ years ago meant when they said "militia" and "arms". I guess that's why they made the Supreme Court.
I think that's all really silly. The constitution is not a holy scripture, it should neither be unalterable nor in need of interpretation. It's a law and it should clearly delineate what is legal and what not. It should be rewritten to be absolutely clear on these issues instead of spawning quasi-religions that fight over the different interpretations of the words of people that lived centuries ago. If it means militia it should say "people have the right to form a militia and not be restricted from bearing any arms as part of one", if it means private use it shouldn't mention militias at all.
He said essential freedom for a little temporary safety, i.e. a huge disparity in magnitude between the loss and gain. He didn't say anything about losing essential freedoms for strong and effective security nor losing minor freedoms for temporary safety.
Energy? Before we start looking into energy are guns even allowed? I guess battlebots would be a lot more interesting if the battle was between two remote controlled M1A2 Abrams...
If your superior is behaving in a way he is not allowed to you're supposed to talk to his superior or someone of equal standing to the accused (not an option when it's the POTUS), skipping the link in the chain of command. It's pretty likely that they've been telling Bush the plan sucks for a long time before going to the public with it.
I'm just thinking the claim was nonsense, there would be no point in even considering derivative works separate if they automatically had all the licensing from the original work attached to them and it would make derivatives from public domain works (like most Disney movies) public domain too.
Slashdot Mirror
On the upside, since the revenue is measured in USD, the fall of the currency won't hurt it much, in fact it'll grow as foreign currencies are worth more and more.
You mean Contra?
The 360 got a pricedrop too, at least in Europe. It's now 200€ for the Arcade (forgot the other prices).
My parents have a 16:9 SDTV (and at 100Hz), that format isn't HDTV exclusive (but IMO really stupid as cinema is 2.sumthin:1).
I don't think owning a HDTV precludes anyone from buying a PS2 or not owning one from buying a PS3...
Doesn't the UK still have the "subject of the British Empire" thing?
That's already happening, it's known as tabloids.
I meant planes that would count as weapons, AFAIK plenty of people own and maintain civil planes. I was disputing your claim that they need more than one person to operate or maintain.
What about marriage with same-sex partners? That seems much more controversial even though you sound like it should be covered.
The problems with a nuke is more of a right to not be molested. How can you assure that no innocent person will be harmed from your use of the weapon?
Careful, this guarantee doesn't exist for any weapon, even handguns frequently result in friendly fire.
Religion says you don't have to fix your suffering, after death everything will be fine. A world view that doesn't include a (pleasant) afterlife creates a much stronger incentive to improve the conditions.
Especially slaves are much easier to subdue with religion, religion tells them that they'll be rewarded if they keep suffering and punished if they free themselves by killing their master, even if they can defeat the master. Without religion their only choice for improvement would be to get rid of the master and if they have a chance they're more likely to take it.
Do what the British did and register yourself as a "jedi".
Strange, the first thing that comes to my mind when reading "us vs them" is "Democrats and Republicans"...
The hope goes both ways, it'll also work for pacifying a populace by promising that by suffering they'll go to heaven, making them less likely to rectify that suffering (especially when it's caused by people in power).
It is not only to protect ourselves from foreign government's but our own government and any threats on our life liberty and pursuit of happiness.
So if a cop tries to stop you from doing drugs you should be allowed to shoot him to protect your pursuit of happiness?
People often bring up the the classic straw man argument about nuclear weapons and such, but the practicality of actually getting your hands on one is so extreme that is really wouldn't happen.
Isn't it just difficult because making nuclear weapons available to unauthorized people is illegal (probably high treason)?
Do heavy machineguns count then? A MG squad consists of multiple people but the gun could conceivably be operated by one. Same most likely goes for combat planes since they have one pilot and I'd guess a fair number of people know how to maintain a plane, I think it's unpractical and slow but not impossible to do the maintenance all by yourself but I've never tried to operate a plane.
I think generally anything with a blast radius should be limited to organized groups (at least to make sure every person using them is mentally sound when doing so, not mad or drunk or whatever), letting random people own hand grenades is just asking for trouble.
It all comes down to trying to figure out what people 225+ years ago meant when they said "militia" and "arms". I guess that's why they made the Supreme Court.
I think that's all really silly. The constitution is not a holy scripture, it should neither be unalterable nor in need of interpretation. It's a law and it should clearly delineate what is legal and what not. It should be rewritten to be absolutely clear on these issues instead of spawning quasi-religions that fight over the different interpretations of the words of people that lived centuries ago. If it means militia it should say "people have the right to form a militia and not be restricted from bearing any arms as part of one", if it means private use it shouldn't mention militias at all.
He said essential freedom for a little temporary safety, i.e. a huge disparity in magnitude between the loss and gain. He didn't say anything about losing essential freedoms for strong and effective security nor losing minor freedoms for temporary safety.
A stop button? Naah, jsut add a kill limit like any serious mad scientist would do.
Energy? Before we start looking into energy are guns even allowed? I guess battlebots would be a lot more interesting if the battle was between two remote controlled M1A2 Abrams...
Er, we have electricity, that does shitloads of things that slaves cannot do.
If your superior is behaving in a way he is not allowed to you're supposed to talk to his superior or someone of equal standing to the accused (not an option when it's the POTUS), skipping the link in the chain of command. It's pretty likely that they've been telling Bush the plan sucks for a long time before going to the public with it.
I'm just thinking the claim was nonsense, there would be no point in even considering derivative works separate if they automatically had all the licensing from the original work attached to them and it would make derivatives from public domain works (like most Disney movies) public domain too.
Obviously but the only one who'd revoke the GPL is the owner, it's kinda obvious that you can't revoke licenses on things you don't own.
I postulate that it is Windows Vista that's keeping them away.
Wha-? No tubes?