Do you have any clue about the gun laws in the United States? You can't just walk into K-mart and buy a gun. There are such things as background checks. It keeps people with felonies on their records from purchasing a firearm. These checks are now instant - as in the gun store calls the FBI, some info is run through a computer, and they tell you immediately whether this person is allowed to purchase a firearm.
Then there is this other little thing called a waiting period. Depending on your state and the type of firearm you're buying, you have to wait so many days before you can come back to the store to collect your new purchase. In Wisconsin, there is a 48-hour waiting period after purchasing a handgun.
Now, if I am a criminal, I'm going to avoid the K-marts, Wal-marts, and sporting good or gun stores for precisely those two reasons. Why buy legally and leave a paper-trail when I can just spend a little more to buy a gun that had its serial number scratched off. Or if I am really desperate, I can steal one.
Your way doesn't work. How do you determine who is bat-shiat crazy, who is sane, and who is about to pop and kill their wife and her lover when he plans on catching them in bed in two nights? You can't.
Besides, your way only makes it harder for law abiding citizens to get guns for self-defense or recreation. If someone wants to shoot up a crowd badly enough, there are plenty of illegal, and legal, ways to purchase a firearm that gets around sanity checks and waiting periods. No one ever said the gun used in a crime had to be legally purchased.
Um...dude...its gonna happen. Shit happens, and it is part of life. You may not like to hear it, but there is nothing your friendly politician can do about it except create CO2.
Lets assume for a second that all guns were outlawed in the US and were no longer available. This guy would have found some other way to go on a killing spree - be it with a knife, some improvised weapon, or even a homemade bomb.
The whole argument about guns is purely an emotional one. There is no logic behind the anti-gun arguments that outlawing them or making them harder to get will reduce crime, and evidence shows that restrictive gun laws have a correllation with increased crime.
So its bad that the libertarians want you to have more of the money you earn. Its bad that they believe that you should be responsible for yourself, not some monolithic entity that takes from some to give to others?
And there is nothing wrong with handgun deregulation. You have a right to own one. Its the second most important amendment to the constitution. That some people misuse them for illegal activities is no reason to take my gun away from me.
The voting system doesn't need to be changed because those parties can get on the ballot. What needs to change is people actually looking at their local candidates and selecting the best one for the job or who matches their beliefs the best, not the one that gets the most time in the media.
The problem is that it requires people to be anything but sheep.
But greenhouse gases don't explain the warming trend we're observing on Mars, does it? Why is Mars getting warmer at the same time the sun is reaching a peak period of activity? CO2 doesn't account for it entirely.
It really sucks to be in Apple's shoes right now, but in some ways, it serves them right for making a deal with the devil.
Apple didn't have much of a choice. If they would have followed the law, they would have been in breach of contract and brought to court in a lawsuit. But by following their contracts, they end up in court in violation of some anti-business law.
I've used quite a few versions of OpenOffice and Microsoft Office in my days, and I have to agree with the poster. Office 2007 is a superior product, and I purchased it for my small business. Before that, I used OpenOffice and MS Office 2000.
The interface was what sold me on it. Not only was it different, but it was more powerful. I could do more in less time. Yeah, there was a learning curve, but it would be insane to think that a product with such a radical change wouldn't have one.
Well...you can say that is the reason they were excluded, or you can come up with something valid like requiring the code to be audited by computer security professionals before the purchase or some bull like that. Diebold won't open their code, so they would be disqualified on those grounds alone.
I just took a position as a network admin where I replaced a "bad" network engineer. Because of the projects I inherited from him, I don't have time to prepare my own for the next fiscal year to actually improve the network.
Mac: Hi. I'm a Mac.
PC: And I'm a PC.
Mac: Hey PC, what are you doing over there.
PC: Playing a game.
Mac: Can I play?
PC: Remember how you said that I wasn't fun?
Mac: Yeah. You're really good with spreadsheets and stuff, but you don't have anything fun.
PC: Like most computer games, this one is only for PCs. You need Windows to play it.
Mac: Oh.
PC: Yeah. NO GAME FOR YOU!
That happened to my girlfriend's sister. She had an eMachines. One night, the computer just wouldn't turn on. She brought the computer to me first to see if she would have to take it to Best Buy, and as far as I could tell, it was either the mobo or the PSU.
So after hearing that, she takes it in to Geek Squad, hears the exact same thing I told her, and then is told that it would cost over $300 just to replace the mobo. She ends up paying $40 to have them transfer the files off of her hard drive (which was still usable) and buys another eMachines.
Except the Constitution does not state that Habeas Corpus can be suspended in war-time. It is very clear under which instances it can be suspended, and we're not in either one of those conditions.
Now, if there were more (many more) attacks on American soil following 9/11, I could see suspending Habeas Corpus until the crisis was resolved. But we're not in that sort of situation, so there is no reason why the AG should be talking about how Habeas Corpus does not apply.
The problem is that he didn't state his opinion as Alex Gonzales, lawyer from Texas, he stated it as The Attorney General of the United States in front of Congress. He's violating the oath he took to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.
My girlfriend usually gets upset with me for being on my computer, but she doesn't realize that half the time I am on the computer, she's on her computer scanning pictures, doing lesson plans, or scrapbooking. So it's not like I would be spending time with her anyway if I wasn't on my computer.
A quick browse of the Wikipedia webpage on sampling shows a number of cases where artists have been sued for sampling, so the best thing is to get yourself a lawyer who will direct you towards a good license that allows you to share your work non-commercially. If someone violates that license, you can then get that lawyer to go after them. The history of sampling cases seems to show that artists will pay you off so they don't risk a trial.
And that finnish artist...she should bring Timbaland to court in Finland. She definitely has a case against him, especially since she has prior art to back up her case.
You should not be so aghast at the idea of fixing it with laws (after all, laws are intended to fix social problems)
Only in instances where the social problem leads to physical harm or violation of another's right to life. The government shouldn't be involved in creating new and more restrictive laws to solve tiny problems.
The employers are generally becoming ruder and less considerate of applicants than they were in the 90s.
One recruiter called me at work about a week before Christmas. I told him I couldn't talk at the time (I didn't mention I was at work) and asked if I could call him back. He said no because he would be leaving the office soon. That's right...he actually said that and then started to ask me questions. Before he could even finish the first one, I told him I was driving and it wasn't a good time. He reluctantly gave me his number, but I never returned that call.
Don't expect any kind of feedback from employers. Don't even expect a letter of rejection.
Which I love...considering that they tell me they will get back to me within a few days. They don't call and I wait a few more. I finally get tired of waiting, and my calls go unreturned.
Slashdot Mirror
Do you have any clue about the gun laws in the United States? You can't just walk into K-mart and buy a gun. There are such things as background checks. It keeps people with felonies on their records from purchasing a firearm. These checks are now instant - as in the gun store calls the FBI, some info is run through a computer, and they tell you immediately whether this person is allowed to purchase a firearm.
Then there is this other little thing called a waiting period. Depending on your state and the type of firearm you're buying, you have to wait so many days before you can come back to the store to collect your new purchase. In Wisconsin, there is a 48-hour waiting period after purchasing a handgun.
Now, if I am a criminal, I'm going to avoid the K-marts, Wal-marts, and sporting good or gun stores for precisely those two reasons. Why buy legally and leave a paper-trail when I can just spend a little more to buy a gun that had its serial number scratched off. Or if I am really desperate, I can steal one.
Your way doesn't work. How do you determine who is bat-shiat crazy, who is sane, and who is about to pop and kill their wife and her lover when he plans on catching them in bed in two nights? You can't.
Besides, your way only makes it harder for law abiding citizens to get guns for self-defense or recreation. If someone wants to shoot up a crowd badly enough, there are plenty of illegal, and legal, ways to purchase a firearm that gets around sanity checks and waiting periods. No one ever said the gun used in a crime had to be legally purchased.
Um...dude...its gonna happen. Shit happens, and it is part of life. You may not like to hear it, but there is nothing your friendly politician can do about it except create CO2.
Lets assume for a second that all guns were outlawed in the US and were no longer available. This guy would have found some other way to go on a killing spree - be it with a knife, some improvised weapon, or even a homemade bomb.
The whole argument about guns is purely an emotional one. There is no logic behind the anti-gun arguments that outlawing them or making them harder to get will reduce crime, and evidence shows that restrictive gun laws have a correllation with increased crime.
So its bad that the libertarians want you to have more of the money you earn. Its bad that they believe that you should be responsible for yourself, not some monolithic entity that takes from some to give to others?
And there is nothing wrong with handgun deregulation. You have a right to own one. Its the second most important amendment to the constitution. That some people misuse them for illegal activities is no reason to take my gun away from me.
The voting system doesn't need to be changed because those parties can get on the ballot. What needs to change is people actually looking at their local candidates and selecting the best one for the job or who matches their beliefs the best, not the one that gets the most time in the media.
The problem is that it requires people to be anything but sheep.
I'm sorry, Lumpy, but I cannot allow you to think like that.
Damnit, Imus. You had your fifteen minutes of fame already. Please stop hogging the headlines.
But greenhouse gases don't explain the warming trend we're observing on Mars, does it? Why is Mars getting warmer at the same time the sun is reaching a peak period of activity? CO2 doesn't account for it entirely.
Considering that the splash screen says "Open Office" when the program loads, I have a hard time believing anyone could be so dumb or gullible.
No. Wait. Scratch that. You're not a high school teacher or a cheerleading coach, are you? Cause maybe then I could believe it.
If you live in the basement, where are your kids going to live when they get older?
It really sucks to be in Apple's shoes right now, but in some ways, it serves them right for making a deal with the devil.
Apple didn't have much of a choice. If they would have followed the law, they would have been in breach of contract and brought to court in a lawsuit. But by following their contracts, they end up in court in violation of some anti-business law.
Really sucks to be them.
I've used quite a few versions of OpenOffice and Microsoft Office in my days, and I have to agree with the poster. Office 2007 is a superior product, and I purchased it for my small business. Before that, I used OpenOffice and MS Office 2000. The interface was what sold me on it. Not only was it different, but it was more powerful. I could do more in less time. Yeah, there was a learning curve, but it would be insane to think that a product with such a radical change wouldn't have one.
It worked for Microsoft once...so how much could it hurt to try that again?
Well...you can say that is the reason they were excluded, or you can come up with something valid like requiring the code to be audited by computer security professionals before the purchase or some bull like that. Diebold won't open their code, so they would be disqualified on those grounds alone.
I just took a position as a network admin where I replaced a "bad" network engineer. Because of the projects I inherited from him, I don't have time to prepare my own for the next fiscal year to actually improve the network.
Mac: Hi. I'm a Mac. PC: And I'm a PC. Mac: Hey PC, what are you doing over there. PC: Playing a game. Mac: Can I play? PC: Remember how you said that I wasn't fun? Mac: Yeah. You're really good with spreadsheets and stuff, but you don't have anything fun. PC: Like most computer games, this one is only for PCs. You need Windows to play it. Mac: Oh. PC: Yeah. NO GAME FOR YOU!
That was the girlfriend's sister! My girlfriend is smarter than that because she gets all her computers from me!
:-(
I feel used.
That happened to my girlfriend's sister. She had an eMachines. One night, the computer just wouldn't turn on. She brought the computer to me first to see if she would have to take it to Best Buy, and as far as I could tell, it was either the mobo or the PSU.
So after hearing that, she takes it in to Geek Squad, hears the exact same thing I told her, and then is told that it would cost over $300 just to replace the mobo. She ends up paying $40 to have them transfer the files off of her hard drive (which was still usable) and buys another eMachines.
Except the Constitution does not state that Habeas Corpus can be suspended in war-time. It is very clear under which instances it can be suspended, and we're not in either one of those conditions.
Now, if there were more (many more) attacks on American soil following 9/11, I could see suspending Habeas Corpus until the crisis was resolved. But we're not in that sort of situation, so there is no reason why the AG should be talking about how Habeas Corpus does not apply.
The problem is that he didn't state his opinion as Alex Gonzales, lawyer from Texas, he stated it as The Attorney General of the United States in front of Congress. He's violating the oath he took to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.
My girlfriend usually gets upset with me for being on my computer, but she doesn't realize that half the time I am on the computer, she's on her computer scanning pictures, doing lesson plans, or scrapbooking. So it's not like I would be spending time with her anyway if I wasn't on my computer.
Hick Child: Dang it, Buck. It's my turn to use the sex box!
Buck: It's my sex box! And her name is "Sony".
A quick browse of the Wikipedia webpage on sampling shows a number of cases where artists have been sued for sampling, so the best thing is to get yourself a lawyer who will direct you towards a good license that allows you to share your work non-commercially. If someone violates that license, you can then get that lawyer to go after them. The history of sampling cases seems to show that artists will pay you off so they don't risk a trial.
And that finnish artist...she should bring Timbaland to court in Finland. She definitely has a case against him, especially since she has prior art to back up her case.
Only in instances where the social problem leads to physical harm or violation of another's right to life. The government shouldn't be involved in creating new and more restrictive laws to solve tiny problems.
The employers are generally becoming ruder and less considerate of applicants than they were in the 90s.
One recruiter called me at work about a week before Christmas. I told him I couldn't talk at the time (I didn't mention I was at work) and asked if I could call him back. He said no because he would be leaving the office soon. That's right...he actually said that and then started to ask me questions. Before he could even finish the first one, I told him I was driving and it wasn't a good time. He reluctantly gave me his number, but I never returned that call. Don't expect any kind of feedback from employers. Don't even expect a letter of rejection.
Which I love...considering that they tell me they will get back to me within a few days. They don't call and I wait a few more. I finally get tired of waiting, and my calls go unreturned.