Yeah, we can permanently destroy water to create electricity. Great plan.
Yes, and it's up there with groping crops for biofuel. Humans are starving and we are feeding our FOOD to the MACHINES!! Great plan! When the machines realize we are competition for their energy, we're all screwed.
We can just start burning Republicans. Between them spitting out hot air and being a bunch of old fossils, we should be able to power the planet for centuries.
As far as sweden requiring you to be trained on gun ownership, I think that is a great idea for the US to adopt and I doubt anyone would disagree with you.
I like the other rules in sweeden too, like limit of five guns, and you cannot own guns for personal protection (since that is a fallacy).
Or, I could deal with the occasional meth-head or thief, which almost any potential destination is sure to have whether they are acknowledged or not. Maybe you'd be willing to "just move" and sacrifice the other advantages you have, but I am not.
The safety of my family and having them grow up in a safe and secure community is the highest need on my list.
Yet Mexico has stricter regulations than Canada and is higher than the 3 countries you mentioned combined.
Mexico homicides are primarily due to the drug trade. Cannot be compared to the US
Sweden has more private gun ownership than the US but has a lower homicide rate than Canada or the UK.
Have you looked at the regulations for gun ownership in Sweeden? FAR more restrictive than the US. Gun ownership for protection is not permitted. You can own long guns for hunting but not handguns. If you own a handgun, it is for target practice. You HAVE to be an active member of a gun club, and you HAVE to maintain a certain level of proficiency. Personally I think these laws are far more reasonable than the laws in the US, and probably contributes to their lower homicide rate.
Maybe gun laws are not the end all for cause and effect of homicides like you seem to be stating.
Maybe you should do some more research instead of just stating NRA rhetoric.
The difference is that a gun - or a sword, or a knife, or any other weapon - is designed to change the balance of power in a fight.
Really. I bet you I could disarm your pussy assed self, take your gun and shoot you with it. Moron.
If you outlaw guns (or swords, or knives), then the vast majority of the population becomes UNARMED. This makes it that much easier for an armed criminal - already a scofflaw - to commit crimes.
the facts are that the US has a vastly higher crime rate than similar countries that have restrictive gun laws. Take your rhetoric and blow it out your ass.
"When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns." Insert the name of your favorite weapon in place of "guns" and it's still the same.
What a moronic statement. If you outlawed coffee tables, then people who own coffee tables are criminals by definition. So what? What does that statement prove?
"A special effect without a story is boring" - George Lucas, 1977. Hey George, regarding Episodes 1-2-3...?
You just got through saying that if it wasn't guns, it would be knives, or something else. Clearly thats not the case since the country with less restrictive gun laws has a higher rate of homicides.
It's been long known that Americans are much more likely to fight than people in Canada and the UK who resemble cows in their lethargic complacency.
So you're saying Americans are more stupid than people from Canada and the UK? It's long been known that stupid people are more prone to fight than intellectual people.
Very few states have laws where you're allowed to actually have a gun on you.
Amusingly, it's the states where you're NOT allowed to carry a gun that usually have the highest crime rates.
Has it ever occurred to you that these laws were probably passed in an attempt to reduce crime? Kinda like lowering the speed limit in dangerous intersections?
Homicide rate in Canada (guns not allowed) 1.83/100k
Homicide rate in UK(guns not allowed) 1.49/100k
Don't spew that bullshit that the US is safer because people can carry guns. Canada's would be lower still since the gun crimes that do happen are from those smuggled in illegally from the US.
This is complete bullshit, just because an area is used for landfill doesn't mean it becomes an arid wasteland that it useless for the next 100 years. You can still use it, build on it, just like any other land.
No, that is complete bullshit. You cannot build directly on a landfill because the landfill outgasses. You have to wait a number of years before the landfill decays. The only thing you can safely do to a completed landfill is make a park on it.
Ok, so if the rest of Ubuntu is open source, why not integrate the changes from 9.04 into 8.10 so the binary drivers don't have to change? It's open sorce, and there seems to be a demand so why not do this?
In fact why doesn't someone write something so binary drivers dont have to be updated just because the rest of the system got updated?
Open-source gets a point for "stability", in my book.
You update your software and everything breaks. That to me is the definition of *instability* not stability.
Oh please. Apple has been stuck at OpenGL 2.1 for years with only preliminary OpenGL 3 support this year. Doesn't even have shader support. Hardly what I'd call 'phenomenal' support.
The benefit is: If it crashes, you can do something about it.
You have the source. You can compile it yourself. If it doesn't work the way you'd like, you can change it.
With open source, you have many eyes looking at the code. If there is a subtle bug it will more easily be found by 10,000 people looking at it rather than 10 or 20.
And of those 10000 people looking at it, how many actually know what they are doing when it comes to graphics drivers? One? maybe two? And they are just guessing.
I look for stability and performance. I could really give a rats ass about whether it is open source, what platform it is on, what language or what vendor. I will buy only what meets my needs, not struggle with something because of some false hero worship.
Slashdot Mirror
For example windows are not that bad energy losers
I beg to differ. If you are looking for enery loss guidelines, the rule of thumb is the best window is the same as the worst wall.
Insulation costs next to nothing
Really? Ever try and make an R40 roof or R20 wall? Not ridiculous, but not nothing either.
You have to stop making light of the situation! Do you really want to live in a world without balloons and funny voices? Not me!
Yeah, we can permanently destroy water to create electricity. Great plan.
Yes, and it's up there with groping crops for biofuel. Humans are starving and we are feeding our FOOD to the MACHINES!! Great plan! When the machines realize we are competition for their energy, we're all screwed.
We can just start burning Republicans. Between them spitting out hot air and being a bunch of old fossils, we should be able to power the planet for centuries.
As far as sweden requiring you to be trained on gun ownership, I think that is a great idea for the US to adopt and I doubt anyone would disagree with you.
I like the other rules in sweeden too, like limit of five guns, and you cannot own guns for personal protection (since that is a fallacy).
Or, I could deal with the occasional meth-head or thief, which almost any potential destination is sure to have whether they are acknowledged or not. Maybe you'd be willing to "just move" and sacrifice the other advantages you have, but I am not.
The safety of my family and having them grow up in a safe and secure community is the highest need on my list.
Dont care. I'm talking about handguns and homicide. Stop trying to change the topic to suit your argument.
Stop playing the victim. You don't like something in your life, it's up to you to change it.
What's that got to do with the statement that outlawing an object that people have makes them criminals by definition?
No. Statistics clearly show countries that restrict personal gun ownership are far safer than those that do not.
Yet Mexico has stricter regulations than Canada and is higher than the 3 countries you mentioned combined.
Mexico homicides are primarily due to the drug trade. Cannot be compared to the US
Sweden has more private gun ownership than the US but has a lower homicide rate than Canada or the UK.
Have you looked at the regulations for gun ownership in Sweeden? FAR more restrictive than the US. Gun ownership for protection is not permitted. You can own long guns for hunting but not handguns. If you own a handgun, it is for target practice. You HAVE to be an active member of a gun club, and you HAVE to maintain a certain level of proficiency. Personally I think these laws are far more reasonable than the laws in the US, and probably contributes to their lower homicide rate.
Maybe gun laws are not the end all for cause and effect of homicides like you seem to be stating.
Maybe you should do some more research instead of just stating NRA rhetoric.
The difference is that a gun - or a sword, or a knife, or any other weapon - is designed to change the balance of power in a fight.
Really. I bet you I could disarm your pussy assed self, take your gun and shoot you with it. Moron.
If you outlaw guns (or swords, or knives), then the vast majority of the population becomes UNARMED. This makes it that much easier for an armed criminal - already a scofflaw - to commit crimes.
the facts are that the US has a vastly higher crime rate than similar countries that have restrictive gun laws. Take your rhetoric and blow it out your ass.
The stats I cited were for homicides.
"When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns." Insert the name of your favorite weapon in place of "guns" and it's still the same.
What a moronic statement. If you outlawed coffee tables, then people who own coffee tables are criminals by definition. So what? What does that statement prove?
"A special effect without a story is boring" - George Lucas, 1977. Hey George, regarding Episodes 1-2-3...?
The ewoks were far worse than Jar Jar.
Ridiculous. Why not say traffic laws are poinless because criminals wont actually follow them - they are only for the law abiding.
Homicide rate has nothing to do with guns.
You just got through saying that if it wasn't guns, it would be knives, or something else. Clearly thats not the case since the country with less restrictive gun laws has a higher rate of homicides.
It's been long known that Americans are much more likely to fight than people in Canada and the UK who resemble cows in their lethargic complacency.
So you're saying Americans are more stupid than people from Canada and the UK? It's long been known that stupid people are more prone to fight than intellectual people.
Very few states have laws where you're allowed to actually have a gun on you.
You are so full of shit. If you look at the open carry laws in the US, gun restrictions are the exception, not the rule: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_carry_in_the_United_States
Amusingly, it's the states where you're NOT allowed to carry a gun that usually have the highest crime rates.
Has it ever occurred to you that these laws were probably passed in an attempt to reduce crime? Kinda like lowering the speed limit in dangerous intersections?
Homicide rate in US (guns allowed) 5.4/100k
Homicide rate in Canada (guns not allowed) 1.83/100k
Homicide rate in UK(guns not allowed) 1.49/100k
Don't spew that bullshit that the US is safer because people can carry guns. Canada's would be lower still since the gun crimes that do happen are from those smuggled in illegally from the US.
I would say the opposite. The world would be a far safer place to live if we didn't have guns at all.
This is complete bullshit, just because an area is used for landfill doesn't mean it becomes an arid wasteland that it useless for the next 100 years. You can still use it, build on it, just like any other land.
No, that is complete bullshit. You cannot build directly on a landfill because the landfill outgasses. You have to wait a number of years before the landfill decays. The only thing you can safely do to a completed landfill is make a park on it.
Wow you seem to live in a wonderful area. Thieves, methheads and open carry laws. Why not move?
Ok, so if the rest of Ubuntu is open source, why not integrate the changes from 9.04 into 8.10 so the binary drivers don't have to change? It's open sorce, and there seems to be a demand so why not do this?
In fact why doesn't someone write something so binary drivers dont have to be updated just because the rest of the system got updated?
Open-source gets a point for "stability", in my book.
You update your software and everything breaks. That to me is the definition of *instability* not stability.
Oh please. Apple has been stuck at OpenGL 2.1 for years with only preliminary OpenGL 3 support this year. Doesn't even have shader support. Hardly what I'd call 'phenomenal' support.
The benefit is: If it crashes, you can do something about it. You have the source. You can compile it yourself. If it doesn't work the way you'd like, you can change it. With open source, you have many eyes looking at the code. If there is a subtle bug it will more easily be found by 10,000 people looking at it rather than 10 or 20.
And of those 10000 people looking at it, how many actually know what they are doing when it comes to graphics drivers? One? maybe two? And they are just guessing.
I'll stick with the professionals, thanks.
I look for stability and performance. I could really give a rats ass about whether it is open source, what platform it is on, what language or what vendor. I will buy only what meets my needs, not struggle with something because of some false hero worship.
They have phenomenal OpenGL support, just not for Linux.
Then for what platform? Cause it certainly isn't for Windows.