You have to be very smart, takes decades of education, and it can kill you in ways we haven't even discovered yet. And that's why they get the big bucks.
Europeans don't think you have to have babies to be having sex
So... intercourse is not required for european sex?! Ridiculous. There is foreplay, and there is sex. These acts may happen within proximity to each other, but a person having an orgasm in a room by themselves is not having sex, that much is clear. Digital, and even oral, stimulation is not copulation. But I'll agree that an unsuccessful mating, even if intentionally unsuccessful as by using certain methods of birth control, is still sex.
On the other hand, this european standard may explain why american girls have had this reputation for being easy... they thought they were merely being friendly when all the while, unbeknownst to them, they were being euro-raped.
Even Lewinski claims they never had sex. She gave him a hummer, and for some inexplicable reason Republicans think that's where babies come from. But there's not a single case of a woman becoming pregnant from performing fellatio. He, therefore, didn't have sex with her, and thus wasn't lying. Let's say he wasn't fellated, let's say she gave him a handjob... would you still say he lied?
I actually think the Republicans had a legitimate complaint about the lying-under-oath part; Clinton did effectively perjur himself
To be entirely accurate, he did not lie. Asked if he had sex with Lewinski he emphatically said "no." Sex is copulation, not what they did. You can't make babies doing what they did together. So one can only assume that Republicans don't understand what sex is.
I also don't see why you don't think that people have the right to defend themselves individually against violence using firearms.
They have that right. But, according to the Framers of the Constitution, this right does not derive from, nor does it have anything to do with, the 2nd Amendment. In my opinion, and the opinion of most academic Constitutional scholars, the 2nd isn't even remotely related to self-defense. Interestingly, in the entire Constitution there is no mention of self-defense. To again state my opinion, the 2nd Amendment is not for self-defense - its for something else, and I think you have it in your definition of militia. But I agree, even if self-defense is not in the Constitution, that doesn't mean gun owners don't have the right to it. It just really bugs me when I hear about, say, a case in Texas where a man was protecting his property, that he "exercised his 2nd Amendment rights" by shooting a burglar. That isn't accurate. Not in the least. If the story had been different, if he entrenched at the edge of town and was fighting off some crazed violent motorcycle gang that was intent on pillaging the town, or even a neighborhood, then sure, that's a proper 2nd Amendment exercise.
So by all means, if your life is in jeopardy, to prevent yourself from being a victim of violent crime, you are lawfully allowed to protect yourself with your gun, so please do so. Just don't tell me the 2nd Amendment is the law that gives you that right. It isn't (though this current SCOTUS disagrees with me, all previous courts have agreed with me). The 2nd Amendment doesn't mention self-defense. The Founders had their reasons for omitting it.
but if they bust my door down I have to surrender? I'm not following your logic here. I also think you've confused self-defense with the 2nd amendment.
Hey, I didn't say anything like that. What I was referring to is the landmark case in DC recently. In the opinion the Justices clearly state that the 2nd Amendment gives gun owners the right to use a gun in self-defense. But it does not, and Constitutional scholars back this up. Most gun owners will say they carry for self-defense, and the 2nd gives them that right... but that is (was) not accurate. And accuracy is important. The 2nd gives them a right to carry a firearm (and it "shall not be infringed") for the purpose of, and it should be clear because its the first words of the Amendment, for a "well regulated militia." I'm not confusing the 2nd with self-defense... but a lot of gun owners do, and now the Supreme Court has made it law. I'm not saying gun owners don't have a right to self-defense, merely that it doesn't derive from the 2nd Amendment and the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with self-defense. Or at least it used to... but SCOTUS changed that.
These devices would never be used against people in the manner they now are in a truly free society.
That part I'd give you. It seems that there are quite a few incidents wherein police officers have reached for their TASER rather than reaching for their deescalation skills. I don't think you can blame this on the tool though -- you have to blame it on the operator.
My cousin is a detective now, and I've heard these horror stories during her tenure where she works (major city, with major crime). I have to temper and balance between two conflicts -- my "I'm scared of cops with itchy fingers" with my "jesus, I hope my cousin errs on the side of caution, and uses whatever she must, club, taser, gun, to protect herself." She's so tough, though... one of the stories, she chases down some scumbag perp (really... there are scumbags out there, true criminals), and he turns to face her, and instead of subduing him with a club, or tasing him, or rightfully shooting him, she puts up her dukes and takes the guy out, cuffs him, drags him to her cruiser.
But as far as I'm concerned... I want to get myself a taser... and if a jumpy cop (who is not my cousin) pulls a taser on me, I'm pulling one on them. Its called "Balance of Power" and it was developed over the years by the nuclear arms race between the US and the USSR. Some might say that the 2nd Amendment is a better example of the idea ("God made men. Colt made men equal" -- that kind of thing), but only recently has SCOTUS decided that "Sure, the 2nd means self-defense, too." I happen to disagree completely with that idea... but not because I don't think self-defense is an important concept, it is... we have a right to self-defense... it's just that the Founders debated guns for self-defense, and intentionally left it out of there. It's simply not in the Constitution of the United States in any form... but gun owners and the gun lobby is soooo powerful, they bent SCOTUS and bent the Constitution to say something it has never said before, without Congress or a new Amendment. But I'll never carry a gun, nor use one against another, even if in self-defense. And I'll pray that after a few more appointments to SCOTUS with an eye towards accuracy, and a special (perhaps contrived) case that comes before them, they will restore the true spirit of the 2nd (which is you have the right to carry a gun to protect everyone -but yourself- from a tyrannical government -- my paraphrase... but that's what militias are for). The right to self-defense comes from somewhere else, not the Constitution.
Anyway, my point here might be, that if everyone had a taser, cops wouldn't be so quick to use them just because they heard some attitude in your voice or whatever, if they saw you had one too. (NOT saying people should tase cops... just that a cop should be aware of the possibility before tasing someone before necessary).
Thx for your post. Mod parent up!!
I was trolling in my gp comment, btw, you prolly noticed. I'm antinuke, you see... but in a way that only denies that nuclear power will solve the energy crisis, not saying R&D should stop... just that rolling out another hundred reactors in the next 30 yrs is a very bad idea. The number of commercial plants currently in use is a concern. Whistleblowers have come forward about the lack of space for containment of spent rods, and all the temp storage is full... to me it's a no brainer, we should stop making waste. Period. Electric bills be damned. Brownouts are preferable to containment leaks 73 years from now. But here on slashdot the obvious seems to be ignored. Sounds like you got a good handle on it. This bacteria is a good idea, but not if it's going to fuel some pronuke legislation, because it's not a solution, just another band aid. We should put R&D into nuclear ideas... fission, in any form, I do not believe could ever be the answer. But without advancing the technology, without advancing discovery, we'll just be stuck with it, rise to the level of our technological incompetance and make it status quo. What we need it for is not power generation, but as a path to some actually truly honest to goodness clean nuclear energy... of course I mean fusion (the real and hot variety).
The pronuke slashdot community has already determined that nuclear waste and radioactive materials are not at all dangerous. Besides, we need as much waste as we can get our hands on so we can make breeder reactors. This bacteria is merely an ignorant antinuke troll.
Nuclear power, even from breeder reactors, is not clean, if that's what you're inferring. But otherwise, totally agree with you. It's so cheap it could stand to get more expensive... like the way using only really actually clean energy alternatives would make it more expensive. Bite the bullet, you know? Then, in 50-100 years, we have truly clean cheap energy. Nuclear power is only "cheap," btw, if you don't consider how much has already been invested in it... in order to make fuel for bombs (which was the driving push for the 110 or so reactors out there... even if they can't make fuel for bombs, that was their inception.
On jailbroken iPhones this emu is hackable. So far I've only been able to get Impossible Mission working fully, but Ghostbusters, Castle Wolfenstein, and a few others I threw in to the games directory in the app bundle load and are functional and nearly playable. A little more time and I'll have them working, too.
I'm afraid I can't give any real evidence. I'm no expert. Read a book in college... and I remember being in awe at the cost of nuclear power (the trillions our government has sunk into it over the decades), the complexity of it, and the inherent danger, and the breadth of the danger.
But I admit it seems to me all the pro-nukers are right about what freezing nuclear development here did... held the US back. The United States no longer has the technology to pull off what the pro-nukers want, not without spending gobs of money importing the intellectual capital and technology. I believe that building breeder reactors is cost prohibitive because of this. Breeder reactors won't bring power independence, just more dependence on foreign technology. So even if the danger is marginalized, the cost is still quite amazing.
Obviously, I personally don't think nuclear power is going to be the power savior in which the pro-nukes seem to have this unwavering faith. Looks to me like going backwards.
I think the real power solution is going to be along the lines of legislation that requires all new structures to produce at least some of their own power. As time goes on, this requirement should get steeper. In 40 years, if 60% of the structures in the US were producing 20-30% of their own power, I think it would be be relief enough that we wouldn't need to panic and pour a few trillion into R&Ding and building and deploying 5 more reactors per state or whatever, breeder or not.
You raise a good point that seems to be ignored: nuclear power is complex. It takes a good amount of education poured into many smart people to make it go. The education isn't cheap. Employing bright, well-educated people also isn't cheap. These costs are always ignored, but they are real. Does anyone really believe power is going to get cheaper? It's not. Any savings nuclear power might bring will be passed on to chairmans of the board and power moguls. Power mogels will replace oil mogels as the new robber barons. There's plenty of oil, but the cost will stay up. When there's plenty of power, the same sort of supply/demand/price-fix shennanigans will come into play. Too much power, not enough profit? Pull it back so there's not as much power, keep the price up there where people are used to it. They know we'll pay. Nuclear power is not going to change anything, afa the cost of power to the end user.
You noticed that too? There's another mode that removes the rounded corner facade (when held horizontally). If you ever used a C64 attached to an old TV, it is faithful to how that displays... not everyone could dedicate a square corner trinitron for hobby computing back then. I think that's called overscan, and all older TV's do cut pixels off around the edges.
You are correct. I have proof
And with a jailbroken iPhone it's possible to get other games working as well. I got Seven Cities of Gold working, but unplayable without a disk drive for creating the maps, but Ghostbusters and Castle Wolfensten both work somewhat, and Impossible Mission totally works.
Slashdot Mirror
If this can be done, hijacking botnets, it should be... and then the botnet should be neutralized. Didn't anyone think of this?
If you mean, "Why is there a nuclear arms race?"
It's because Eisenhower fired Patton.
Wayne Electronics likely developed this with some gimmacky military application in mind, but it probably can't work.
"Some circumstantial evidence is very strong, as when you find a trout in the milk."
-Henry David Thoreau
You have to be very smart, takes decades of education, and it can kill you in ways we haven't even discovered yet. And that's why they get the big bucks.
Do not hyphenate "notwithstanding." Do not use parentheses unnecessarily.
apparently it's still available and according to wiki it's still being maintained and used
Europeans don't think you have to have babies to be having sex
So... intercourse is not required for european sex?! Ridiculous. There is foreplay, and there is sex. These acts may happen within proximity to each other, but a person having an orgasm in a room by themselves is not having sex, that much is clear. Digital, and even oral, stimulation is not copulation. But I'll agree that an unsuccessful mating, even if intentionally unsuccessful as by using certain methods of birth control, is still sex.
On the other hand, this european standard may explain why american girls have had this reputation for being easy... they thought they were merely being friendly when all the while, unbeknownst to them, they were being euro-raped.
Europeans procreate with handjobs???!!
Even Lewinski claims they never had sex. She gave him a hummer, and for some inexplicable reason Republicans think that's where babies come from. But there's not a single case of a woman becoming pregnant from performing fellatio. He, therefore, didn't have sex with her, and thus wasn't lying. Let's say he wasn't fellated, let's say she gave him a handjob... would you still say he lied?
It's only a lie if fellatio can produce offspring. Sex is sex. Blowjobs are blowjobs. I don't think he lied. They just asked him the wrong question.
I actually think the Republicans had a legitimate complaint about the lying-under-oath part; Clinton did effectively perjur himself
To be entirely accurate, he did not lie. Asked if he had sex with Lewinski he emphatically said "no." Sex is copulation, not what they did. You can't make babies doing what they did together. So one can only assume that Republicans don't understand what sex is.
I also don't see why you don't think that people have the right to defend themselves individually against violence using firearms.
They have that right. But, according to the Framers of the Constitution, this right does not derive from, nor does it have anything to do with, the 2nd Amendment. In my opinion, and the opinion of most academic Constitutional scholars, the 2nd isn't even remotely related to self-defense. Interestingly, in the entire Constitution there is no mention of self-defense. To again state my opinion, the 2nd Amendment is not for self-defense - its for something else, and I think you have it in your definition of militia. But I agree, even if self-defense is not in the Constitution, that doesn't mean gun owners don't have the right to it. It just really bugs me when I hear about, say, a case in Texas where a man was protecting his property, that he "exercised his 2nd Amendment rights" by shooting a burglar. That isn't accurate. Not in the least. If the story had been different, if he entrenched at the edge of town and was fighting off some crazed violent motorcycle gang that was intent on pillaging the town, or even a neighborhood, then sure, that's a proper 2nd Amendment exercise.
So by all means, if your life is in jeopardy, to prevent yourself from being a victim of violent crime, you are lawfully allowed to protect yourself with your gun, so please do so. Just don't tell me the 2nd Amendment is the law that gives you that right. It isn't (though this current SCOTUS disagrees with me, all previous courts have agreed with me). The 2nd Amendment doesn't mention self-defense. The Founders had their reasons for omitting it.
but if they bust my door down I have to surrender? I'm not following your logic here. I also think you've confused self-defense with the 2nd amendment.
Hey, I didn't say anything like that. What I was referring to is the landmark case in DC recently. In the opinion the Justices clearly state that the 2nd Amendment gives gun owners the right to use a gun in self-defense. But it does not, and Constitutional scholars back this up. Most gun owners will say they carry for self-defense, and the 2nd gives them that right... but that is (was) not accurate. And accuracy is important. The 2nd gives them a right to carry a firearm (and it "shall not be infringed") for the purpose of, and it should be clear because its the first words of the Amendment, for a "well regulated militia." I'm not confusing the 2nd with self-defense... but a lot of gun owners do, and now the Supreme Court has made it law. I'm not saying gun owners don't have a right to self-defense, merely that it doesn't derive from the 2nd Amendment and the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with self-defense. Or at least it used to... but SCOTUS changed that.
These devices would never be used against people in the manner they now are in a truly free society.
That part I'd give you. It seems that there are quite a few incidents wherein police officers have reached for their TASER rather than reaching for their deescalation skills. I don't think you can blame this on the tool though -- you have to blame it on the operator.
My cousin is a detective now, and I've heard these horror stories during her tenure where she works (major city, with major crime). I have to temper and balance between two conflicts -- my "I'm scared of cops with itchy fingers" with my "jesus, I hope my cousin errs on the side of caution, and uses whatever she must, club, taser, gun, to protect herself." She's so tough, though... one of the stories, she chases down some scumbag perp (really... there are scumbags out there, true criminals), and he turns to face her, and instead of subduing him with a club, or tasing him, or rightfully shooting him, she puts up her dukes and takes the guy out, cuffs him, drags him to her cruiser.
But as far as I'm concerned... I want to get myself a taser... and if a jumpy cop (who is not my cousin) pulls a taser on me, I'm pulling one on them. Its called "Balance of Power" and it was developed over the years by the nuclear arms race between the US and the USSR. Some might say that the 2nd Amendment is a better example of the idea ("God made men. Colt made men equal" -- that kind of thing), but only recently has SCOTUS decided that "Sure, the 2nd means self-defense, too." I happen to disagree completely with that idea... but not because I don't think self-defense is an important concept, it is... we have a right to self-defense... it's just that the Founders debated guns for self-defense, and intentionally left it out of there. It's simply not in the Constitution of the United States in any form... but gun owners and the gun lobby is soooo powerful, they bent SCOTUS and bent the Constitution to say something it has never said before, without Congress or a new Amendment. But I'll never carry a gun, nor use one against another, even if in self-defense. And I'll pray that after a few more appointments to SCOTUS with an eye towards accuracy, and a special (perhaps contrived) case that comes before them, they will restore the true spirit of the 2nd (which is you have the right to carry a gun to protect everyone -but yourself- from a tyrannical government -- my paraphrase... but that's what militias are for). The right to self-defense comes from somewhere else, not the Constitution.
Anyway, my point here might be, that if everyone had a taser, cops wouldn't be so quick to use them just because they heard some attitude in your voice or whatever, if they saw you had one too. (NOT saying people should tase cops... just that a cop should be aware of the possibility before tasing someone before necessary).
Thx for your post. Mod parent up!! I was trolling in my gp comment, btw, you prolly noticed. I'm antinuke, you see... but in a way that only denies that nuclear power will solve the energy crisis, not saying R&D should stop... just that rolling out another hundred reactors in the next 30 yrs is a very bad idea. The number of commercial plants currently in use is a concern. Whistleblowers have come forward about the lack of space for containment of spent rods, and all the temp storage is full... to me it's a no brainer, we should stop making waste. Period. Electric bills be damned. Brownouts are preferable to containment leaks 73 years from now. But here on slashdot the obvious seems to be ignored. Sounds like you got a good handle on it. This bacteria is a good idea, but not if it's going to fuel some pronuke legislation, because it's not a solution, just another band aid. We should put R&D into nuclear ideas... fission, in any form, I do not believe could ever be the answer. But without advancing the technology, without advancing discovery, we'll just be stuck with it, rise to the level of our technological incompetance and make it status quo. What we need it for is not power generation, but as a path to some actually truly honest to goodness clean nuclear energy... of course I mean fusion (the real and hot variety).
The pronuke slashdot community has already determined that nuclear waste and radioactive materials are not at all dangerous. Besides, we need as much waste as we can get our hands on so we can make breeder reactors. This bacteria is merely an ignorant antinuke troll.
Sure, Canada may get our money. But Canada isn't setting the prices. OPEC is. Them are the moguls.
Nuclear power, even from breeder reactors, is not clean, if that's what you're inferring. But otherwise, totally agree with you. It's so cheap it could stand to get more expensive... like the way using only really actually clean energy alternatives would make it more expensive. Bite the bullet, you know? Then, in 50-100 years, we have truly clean cheap energy. Nuclear power is only "cheap," btw, if you don't consider how much has already been invested in it... in order to make fuel for bombs (which was the driving push for the 110 or so reactors out there... even if they can't make fuel for bombs, that was their inception.
On jailbroken iPhones this emu is hackable. So far I've only been able to get Impossible Mission working fully, but Ghostbusters, Castle Wolfenstein, and a few others I threw in to the games directory in the app bundle load and are functional and nearly playable. A little more time and I'll have them working, too.
I'm afraid I can't give any real evidence. I'm no expert. Read a book in college... and I remember being in awe at the cost of nuclear power (the trillions our government has sunk into it over the decades), the complexity of it, and the inherent danger, and the breadth of the danger.
But I admit it seems to me all the pro-nukers are right about what freezing nuclear development here did... held the US back. The United States no longer has the technology to pull off what the pro-nukers want, not without spending gobs of money importing the intellectual capital and technology. I believe that building breeder reactors is cost prohibitive because of this. Breeder reactors won't bring power independence, just more dependence on foreign technology. So even if the danger is marginalized, the cost is still quite amazing.
Obviously, I personally don't think nuclear power is going to be the power savior in which the pro-nukes seem to have this unwavering faith. Looks to me like going backwards.
I think the real power solution is going to be along the lines of legislation that requires all new structures to produce at least some of their own power. As time goes on, this requirement should get steeper. In 40 years, if 60% of the structures in the US were producing 20-30% of their own power, I think it would be be relief enough that we wouldn't need to panic and pour a few trillion into R&Ding and building and deploying 5 more reactors per state or whatever, breeder or not.
Nuclear Technology has come a looooong way in 40 years.
And what's awesome is that this advancement was all completely free! So we don't have to tally that into the real cost of nuclear power! Win, win!
You raise a good point that seems to be ignored: nuclear power is complex. It takes a good amount of education poured into many smart people to make it go. The education isn't cheap. Employing bright, well-educated people also isn't cheap. These costs are always ignored, but they are real. Does anyone really believe power is going to get cheaper? It's not. Any savings nuclear power might bring will be passed on to chairmans of the board and power moguls. Power mogels will replace oil mogels as the new robber barons. There's plenty of oil, but the cost will stay up. When there's plenty of power, the same sort of supply/demand/price-fix shennanigans will come into play. Too much power, not enough profit? Pull it back so there's not as much power, keep the price up there where people are used to it. They know we'll pay. Nuclear power is not going to change anything, afa the cost of power to the end user.
You noticed that too? There's another mode that removes the rounded corner facade (when held horizontally). If you ever used a C64 attached to an old TV, it is faithful to how that displays... not everyone could dedicate a square corner trinitron for hobby computing back then. I think that's called overscan, and all older TV's do cut pixels off around the edges.
You are correct.
I have proof
And with a jailbroken iPhone it's possible to get other games working as well. I got Seven Cities of Gold working, but unplayable without a disk drive for creating the maps, but Ghostbusters and Castle Wolfensten both work somewhat, and Impossible Mission totally works.