I'll say first that there's a lot I personally disagree with in your posting, just so that no one thinks my comments here aren't driven from a personal opinion. I'd also say that i think you believe your comments are somehow elevated because you have facts about AU gun laws, but this thread has plenty of facts and numbers posted about crime rates and other micro or macrocosims that totally refute your assertions. I think you lost your direction when you changed from talking about your opinions to wider generalisms as fact.
Next, I'll point out that my original post posited that the object inherits the intent of the person weilding it. I've since agreed that this is not entirely unrelated to design, but ultimately, I'm not arguing any other point. A gun on a table is as neutral as a bowl of cereal. If you leave them together in a room for a year, ones going to stink, but nothing is going to happen to either of them unless there's a person involved.
Since reading your posting, I have a new contrapoint, which is that Guns (and objects) also inherit the intent of those who aren't weilding them, but are instead trying to villify them for politically motivated for fear mongering purposes.
Guns aren't evil, and they have an extremely long historical track record of being instruments that are critical to defending freedoms. In this case I'm specifically and only speaking of an armed democratic populace, not the horrific instatibliy associated with "african style" anarchy. Examples are numerous and well documented (and the US and Switzerland provide quick examples.)
"African style" anarchy is what you eventually get without effective gun control.
Wow. Thats a crazy and perjorative statement. My position has nothing to do with being from the US at all, and I feel very comfortable with saying that that specific opinion is unique to a culture permeated with gun ignorance and fear. To explore that further:
Speaking of intent, here in Australia you must sit a test to gain a license for a gun that must be registered. You must state a purpose for owning a gun, "self defense" is not a valid purpose, in the eyes of the law you intend to shoot someone regardless of the morals/legality of any particular situation. It is regarded as a sign of "fear" and trying to work out if that fear is justified just bogs everything down in an endless "what if" argument.
Again, this is thinking backwards. Australia has enacted gun laws which apparently use a fear based metric to asssign gun ownership privilages? Because fear was used to draft the laws now it's defacto 'so' that wanting a gun for self defense out in the boonies of AU is a sign of personal weakness and a desire to shoot 'someone'? Seriously? Thats just nuts. Self defense is not a reactive fear based syndrome unless your thinking about some kind of TV show soap opera where a violated person is shaking back and forth in a room with their newly purchased gun. Self defense is a proactive behavior that should be seen as a way of protecting your family's interests. The fact that "law" has removed weapons and now 'self defense' is an irregular, abberant or fear based syndrome is just unsettling. It strikes an unnerving cord frankly, and sounds like a major victory of the very same thought police who pushed the laws to begin with.
Wasn't AU settled by criminals? For christs sake, what happend?
Also, the NRA belt buckle was more of a culture thing than NRA specific. In the states thats just a sign of a big country boy, but I like how the culture of fear so utterly permeates the mind that an organization founded on civil rights is promoted as a pack of 'arms dealers' who had to 'slink' out of your country.
The laws you refernce fail to speak to the point of self defense, if thats where we've ended up here. If someones broken into my house and I have a knife and a gun, the last thing on my mind is going to be picking up the knife because I can inflict a more refin
I still stand by this. Just because you don't intend to kill someone doesn't mean you won't. It also doesn't put any blame on the gun itself.
Blame can go a lot of places; the parents who aren't supervising the gun, didn't have a gun lock on it, or didn't teach the kid gun safety. I vividly remember as a kid throwing a pretty heavy metal tank while playing with a neighbor of mine....a sort of simulated explosion event or some such. I certainly didn't mean to hit the kid, knock him out, cut open his forehead, and send him the hospital.
In that context (kid playing, too young to have intent or understand consequences,) I don't consider myself evil, I don't consider the metal tank to be an instrument of death or pain (although it certainly could have been if I were less lucky.)
Analagously, the gun itself, design aside, still can be an instrument intended for deterrance even if it's use causes a death or injury. In the case of the kid who accidentally kills his neighbor, the gun is (get this) almost a victim of circumstance.
An interesting read with some good facts and figures (raw numbers, federally reported statistics, and international comparisons) can be found here:
US vs. Switzerland Gun Laws
It also provides several comparisons against Brittish laws, and a good historical context as well. Get past the fluff in the very beginning and it's a good read.
To your point, you're correct; I inferred that he was making a point about intent when he wasn't. It was still a bogus attempt to say that because kids can kill each other with guns and kids are too young to have the intent to kill that somehow a guns purpose is to kill.
The purpose of a gun is to shoot things, I'll go for that. It is designed to shoot and hit things. I'll say that i've shot a great many guns in my life, probably will shoot a great many more, and none of them have been alive.
Also, making a gun so that it can do something....to be used by the weilder to hit something in front of the gun with ammunition itself is a neutral act.
Axes chop wood, thats neutral but also visually agressive.
We're back to intent now....of the person holding the guy. The kid didn't intend to kill his friend, and a gun by itself has no intent to kill in that same capacity. It's designed to hit (kill, in some cases sure) but the way it's used come back to the person who's using it, and not some kind of fundamental nature that makes it an evil thing which must be banished from society in order to improve our cultural quality of life. (not your words there)
Btw, isn't twising others words the point of this forum?
And out of curiosity, in your opinion, who did a better job of entangling the truth in a haze of opinion?
My argument has not been about the designer of the modern firearm, rather that trying to force guns off the streets isn't going to lower crime. Kids and toys are a digression. Well designed guns (which for my needs means that they hit what they're being shot at) can both be used to commit a crime but also exist as crime deterrants.
If someone uses a gun to deter crime, that is that guns purpose. Designed to kill, intended to deter.
Reducing the number of guns available to the general population will not lower crime.
Restricting the rights of all citizens (and specifically those who use guns responsibly and represent a signifigant majority or at least percentage of gun owners in the usa) just to advance a political adgenda to get a politician re-elected is crap. I don't mind having checks and balances in place for some purchases, but just saying that guns are bad and getting rid of them will reduce crime is not correct.
(you personally may not have made this argument but one of the op's did)
There are several examples made here about Washington DC, Switzerland, and Japan etc. It has everything to do with society, and very little to do with the relative availability of firearms.
Thats the ultimate point I've been trying to make, although you are correct that death without intent (accidents) happen to kids as well as adults.
Just to be fare tho, Japan is also doing pretty well, and as I understand it they have low crime and low guns. Hmm. But wait...maybe it's NOT THE GUNS that make the difference?
Do you believe that if the money that went into the war in iraqiganistan instead went into social programs, but nothing was done about the apparent plague of guns on the street that our society would see a net zero impact in crime? If we had billions of dollars pouring into rehabilitation, education, and crime / punishment reform, all of that would simply be throwing good money after bad if you didn't also fully stop new gun sales?
The very social programs you're promoting are in theory supporting a decrease in the motivation for the people who you seem to think are a) buying all the guns and b) causing all the crime. Performance is the combination of Motivation and Capability. If you impact the motivation, there's a signifigantly lower chance of performance.
That is, unless you're fundamentally against guns in principle, and don't think that anyone should have them, ever. People are going to get killed by accidental discharges, but babies drown in buckets too. Life sucks. I'm never going to use a gun to go randomly kill someone. Why should I let you restrict my right to go shooting or even hunting with my family, my (gasp) kids, or anything else?
I would certainly respect your right to want to change the laws in the states, but it sounds like you're position is really muddled. You're cross mixing different issues to try to make a grander point about some sort of cosmic democratic golden rule where we should all be better people. I'm not promoting any sort of republican / democrat / political dialogue here....but you're muddying up the conversation with Iraq, Republicans, and political vitrol.
I own guns. I shoot guns. I am not an evil person. Very simple.
Yes. That is precisely what i was saying, as can be seen by the fact that no where in my statement did I mention children.
Jeez, wow. What was i thinking? I mean, kids go around mugging old women all the time. Thank god I own a gun, why just last night a roving band of coked up kids veered clear of me. I think it must have been the shiny gleam of my big NRA belt buckle that tipped them off.
Sarcasm aside....you're saying objects....physical objects have INTENT. As in they sit around thinking...."I'm going to hop into this kids hand and go shoot that asshole who made a supid post on slashdot?"
Give me a break. Design and intent are different things. And where did you get that i'd let a kid 'play' with a gun? Loaded? Unloaded? Get a real argument before you try to make a point by saying my argument is 'clearly flawed' because I didn't think about kids.
It's somehow my fault that I'm a big guy and have concealed carry, because some coked up mugger is going to hit up an 'easy' target instead / anyway?
Are you seriously suggesting that it is the fault of the people who support gun rights that old ladies are getting mugged?
You're arguing two separate issues as if they were connected. Lower crime; yes it's a great and admirable goal. But you don't have to eliminate guns to reduce crime. People don't commit crimes because they have guns, they commit crimes with guns. Knifes, bombs, it's all a symptom of society and not the object itself.
It's the same thing with nuclear weapons. It all depends on who has them and uses them. The object inherits the intent of the person who weilds the guy or has their thumb on the button.
Or even better, I can simply play solo. All around, its a form of entertainment that has tens of thousands of hours worth of amusement, and is within reach of the kids Sorry, although I get that this is a popular form of entertainment that can really occupy your time, you shouldn't do it around, or at the very least within reach of, your kids. It's just not right.
Sorry, but there really isn't much 'even' about the discussion at all. I don't understand how some science gets accepted....world is round, earth isn't at the center of the universe, and other parts aren't. Science is definately a long term work in progress, but saying that his site isn't bent in one direction, or even effectively suggesting that because he gives equal time to both ideas that he's neutral is just a way of trying to qualify an idea that doesn't warrant the comparison.
I have less problems with people who believe in creationsim as a matter of faith than those who try to justify it's existence through pseudo science. Maybe if I took the time to RTFM I'd have a different opinion, but my gripe is really with your comment, not the site. It's like political correctness run amok....lets give the believers a chance to table their ideas and we'll all discuss them like gentlemen, when neither side substantially gives a crap what the other thinks, and it just wastes everyones time in the process. Thousands of pages 'discussing' evolution in an even tone - not being whaco, it just doesn't add up.
Not only has that issue been licked for some of the UAV's, but they've even gone to far as to make them invisible to boot.
http://veratech.aero/phantom.html
This URL shows a fancy cross between a boomerang and a helicopter that falls to the ground in a controlled fashion when it suffers a problem.
When what comes up on a ballot? Having lawyers earn a minimum wage salary?
But I'll try and understand:
When (it)=(the minimum wage proposal the GP proposed for laywers,) comes up on a ballot, the rest of the country (that aren't lawyers) votes (them)=(the laywers) out of power. But, (they'll)=(the lawyers) never let that=(the voting by the people to....wait....vote on a minimum wage proposal that 'moves them out of power'?) happen.
What are you talking about? Lawyers aren't exactly elected...
And whats sensationalist about finding out that lawyers by your numbers make up.32% of the population? When I chose to use the highest average private school tuition for law school to arbitrarily inflate my numbers several times over, that was 'sensationalist' by merit of my conscious decision to use numbers that skew my example in a way that is favorable to my point. Either that or unethical, but nothing really depended on my post so I think it's more sensationlist than unethical, but I'd wager a semantic argument like that is already lost in this conversation.
Lets see....for sensationalisms sake, lets assume you go to the best law school out then and have a 150,000 bill for your law degree. Even at $10.00 an hour, billing 80 hour weeks for 3 years, you not paid off, assuming every dollar of your minimum wage goes to paying off your bill. Putting $4 an hour into your tuition reimbursement, still working 80 hour weeks, but this time for 9 years, and you're barely there, assuming no interest on your initial debt.
More fun, lets say you get stuck at the 'best buy' of 'full time' minimum wage new age law companies, and can only work 32 hours a week before you get benefits.
23 years, not including interest.
I wonder where the line is for people hopping on this idea?
I agree on your other points however, patents being limited to certain types of innovation, limited on their legnth, and designed to support advancements in our society not stifle them
The point in their post was not that they're saying changing ram or hardware is the SAME as breaking deep freeze, but that awareness at THEIR school, and likely by extension many others, is low enough that they can get into the boxes if necessary....and that relates to an even earlier post where they talk about resetting the CMOS battery to bypass Deep Freeze.
I don't know if resetting the CMOS battery is still a valid way to bypass DF, I'm just saying that you shouldn't tell someone they're stupid without reading their post more thoroughly.
Your point on locks is important, that makes his moot, but you're direct attack at his 'stupid' post only makes yours all the more amusing.
I suppose wanker is more of an irritating person...someone who's irked you in some way.
I always have a very fluid approach to vocabulary...I enjoy amalgamating words together and suppose wang or weiner would have been better....but so much of language is as you said the gist of the meaning and not the vehicles used to get there.
Not to mention USA, UK, and the rest of the world all getting different versions, spellings, etc. Thanks for enjoying however, I originally meant to be more helpful than funny.
The 'decrese in fertility' is totally unrelated to the temporary discomfort of burning your wanker by having something too hot sitting on it.
Do a google search for "intra scrotal temperature fertility" and you'll find all kinds of interesting tests that basically say that heat messes with how the dna in your sperm is formed. An increase in heat doesn't damage what you've got, but your newly forming sperm goes 'all out of whack'
Also, wearing tight underpants is worse the boxers or commando, and sitting is worse that walking.
Only fix, I suppose, is to get your computer off your lap, strip naked, stand up, walk around, and eject any damanged sperm. You can just tell whoever walks in that you're busy saving the human race.
816597 aol
816597 aol evil
816597 sue aol
816597 lawyers to sue aol
816597 evil french free pc
816597 aol sucks
816597 make money by suing aol
816597 class action lawsuit
816597 cookies
816597 hide porn from girlfriend
816597 clear cache
816597 stupid aol
816597 games for people from the midwest
816597 Adult bookstores near Dayton, OH
816597 fake ID
816597 search for embarrassing stuff online
816597 have my innermost thoughts and desires posted online for the world to see
816597 ?????
816597 Sue AOL - PROFIT!!!!!
and think that it was going to be full of posts with links to pictures of supermodels? Not that learning more abour WIRING RACKS is a bad thing, but this late at night I wouldn't mind some nice WINNING RACK photos.
There are several posts that I think are missing the point this guy / gal is making and some that try to point it out, can someone confirm that:
The artists are paid by the record labels for their contract, not for specific albums sold, as one poster points out (Thereby nullifying the loss per sale argument....leaving behind supply / demand type one where a popular artist might be less appealing to a company because more of their 'potential sales' will be 'stolen'....leading to a lower general contract for signing the popular ones)
and / or
The artists are paid estimated on the 'sales' of their item, but not based upon 'lost sales' to piracy (thereby allowing the corporations to recoup lost sales without having to funnel that back to their artists)
Both are related but both are interesting points that I haven't heard before.
Slashdot Mirror
Next, I'll point out that my original post posited that the object inherits the intent of the person weilding it. I've since agreed that this is not entirely unrelated to design, but ultimately, I'm not arguing any other point. A gun on a table is as neutral as a bowl of cereal. If you leave them together in a room for a year, ones going to stink, but nothing is going to happen to either of them unless there's a person involved.
Since reading your posting, I have a new contrapoint, which is that Guns (and objects) also inherit the intent of those who aren't weilding them, but are instead trying to villify them for politically motivated for fear mongering purposes.
Guns aren't evil, and they have an extremely long historical track record of being instruments that are critical to defending freedoms. In this case I'm specifically and only speaking of an armed democratic populace, not the horrific instatibliy associated with "african style" anarchy. Examples are numerous and well documented (and the US and Switzerland provide quick examples.)
"African style" anarchy is what you eventually get without effective gun control.
Wow. Thats a crazy and perjorative statement. My position has nothing to do with being from the US at all, and I feel very comfortable with saying that that specific opinion is unique to a culture permeated with gun ignorance and fear. To explore that further:
Speaking of intent, here in Australia you must sit a test to gain a license for a gun that must be registered. You must state a purpose for owning a gun, "self defense" is not a valid purpose, in the eyes of the law you intend to shoot someone regardless of the morals/legality of any particular situation. It is regarded as a sign of "fear" and trying to work out if that fear is justified just bogs everything down in an endless "what if" argument.
Again, this is thinking backwards. Australia has enacted gun laws which apparently use a fear based metric to asssign gun ownership privilages? Because fear was used to draft the laws now it's defacto 'so' that wanting a gun for self defense out in the boonies of AU is a sign of personal weakness and a desire to shoot 'someone'? Seriously? Thats just nuts. Self defense is not a reactive fear based syndrome unless your thinking about some kind of TV show soap opera where a violated person is shaking back and forth in a room with their newly purchased gun. Self defense is a proactive behavior that should be seen as a way of protecting your family's interests. The fact that "law" has removed weapons and now 'self defense' is an irregular, abberant or fear based syndrome is just unsettling. It strikes an unnerving cord frankly, and sounds like a major victory of the very same thought police who pushed the laws to begin with.
Wasn't AU settled by criminals? For christs sake, what happend?
Also, the NRA belt buckle was more of a culture thing than NRA specific. In the states thats just a sign of a big country boy, but I like how the culture of fear so utterly permeates the mind that an organization founded on civil rights is promoted as a pack of 'arms dealers' who had to 'slink' out of your country.
The laws you refernce fail to speak to the point of self defense, if thats where we've ended up here. If someones broken into my house and I have a knife and a gun, the last thing on my mind is going to be picking up the knife because I can inflict a more refin
I still stand by this. Just because you don't intend to kill someone doesn't mean you won't. It also doesn't put any blame on the gun itself.
Blame can go a lot of places; the parents who aren't supervising the gun, didn't have a gun lock on it, or didn't teach the kid gun safety. I vividly remember as a kid throwing a pretty heavy metal tank while playing with a neighbor of mine....a sort of simulated explosion event or some such. I certainly didn't mean to hit the kid, knock him out, cut open his forehead, and send him the hospital.
In that context (kid playing, too young to have intent or understand consequences,) I don't consider myself evil, I don't consider the metal tank to be an instrument of death or pain (although it certainly could have been if I were less lucky.)
Analagously, the gun itself, design aside, still can be an instrument intended for deterrance even if it's use causes a death or injury. In the case of the kid who accidentally kills his neighbor, the gun is (get this) almost a victim of circumstance.
An interesting read with some good facts and figures (raw numbers, federally reported statistics, and international comparisons) can be found here: US vs. Switzerland Gun Laws
It also provides several comparisons against Brittish laws, and a good historical context as well. Get past the fluff in the very beginning and it's a good read.
To your point, you're correct; I inferred that he was making a point about intent when he wasn't. It was still a bogus attempt to say that because kids can kill each other with guns and kids are too young to have the intent to kill that somehow a guns purpose is to kill.
The purpose of a gun is to shoot things, I'll go for that. It is designed to shoot and hit things. I'll say that i've shot a great many guns in my life, probably will shoot a great many more, and none of them have been alive.
Also, making a gun so that it can do something....to be used by the weilder to hit something in front of the gun with ammunition itself is a neutral act.
Axes chop wood, thats neutral but also visually agressive.
We're back to intent now....of the person holding the guy. The kid didn't intend to kill his friend, and a gun by itself has no intent to kill in that same capacity. It's designed to hit (kill, in some cases sure) but the way it's used come back to the person who's using it, and not some kind of fundamental nature that makes it an evil thing which must be banished from society in order to improve our cultural quality of life. (not your words there)
Btw, isn't twising others words the point of this forum?
And out of curiosity, in your opinion, who did a better job of entangling the truth in a haze of opinion?
My argument has not been about the designer of the modern firearm, rather that trying to force guns off the streets isn't going to lower crime. Kids and toys are a digression. Well designed guns (which for my needs means that they hit what they're being shot at) can both be used to commit a crime but also exist as crime deterrants.
If someone uses a gun to deter crime, that is that guns purpose. Designed to kill, intended to deter.
Reducing the number of guns available to the general population will not lower crime.
Restricting the rights of all citizens (and specifically those who use guns responsibly and represent a signifigant majority or at least percentage of gun owners in the usa) just to advance a political adgenda to get a politician re-elected is crap. I don't mind having checks and balances in place for some purchases, but just saying that guns are bad and getting rid of them will reduce crime is not correct.
(you personally may not have made this argument but one of the op's did)
There are several examples made here about Washington DC, Switzerland, and Japan etc. It has everything to do with society, and very little to do with the relative availability of firearms.
Thats the ultimate point I've been trying to make, although you are correct that death without intent (accidents) happen to kids as well as adults.
If only we had a long running control sample of people where we could have a high ratio of guns to people to see what happened to the crime rate.
Oh, wait. It's called Switzerland.
High on guns, low on crime, since 1291.
Just to be fare tho, Japan is also doing pretty well, and as I understand it they have low crime and low guns. Hmm. But wait...maybe it's NOT THE GUNS that make the difference?
Yes, they are two separate issues.
Do you believe that if the money that went into the war in iraqiganistan instead went into social programs, but nothing was done about the apparent plague of guns on the street that our society would see a net zero impact in crime? If we had billions of dollars pouring into rehabilitation, education, and crime / punishment reform, all of that would simply be throwing good money after bad if you didn't also fully stop new gun sales?
The very social programs you're promoting are in theory supporting a decrease in the motivation for the people who you seem to think are a) buying all the guns and b) causing all the crime. Performance is the combination of Motivation and Capability. If you impact the motivation, there's a signifigantly lower chance of performance.
That is, unless you're fundamentally against guns in principle, and don't think that anyone should have them, ever. People are going to get killed by accidental discharges, but babies drown in buckets too. Life sucks. I'm never going to use a gun to go randomly kill someone. Why should I let you restrict my right to go shooting or even hunting with my family, my (gasp) kids, or anything else?
I would certainly respect your right to want to change the laws in the states, but it sounds like you're position is really muddled. You're cross mixing different issues to try to make a grander point about some sort of cosmic democratic golden rule where we should all be better people. I'm not promoting any sort of republican / democrat / political dialogue here....but you're muddying up the conversation with Iraq, Republicans, and political vitrol.
I own guns. I shoot guns. I am not an evil person. Very simple.
Yes. That is precisely what i was saying, as can be seen by the fact that no where in my statement did I mention children.
Jeez, wow. What was i thinking? I mean, kids go around mugging old women all the time. Thank god I own a gun, why just last night a roving band of coked up kids veered clear of me. I think it must have been the shiny gleam of my big NRA belt buckle that tipped them off.
Sarcasm aside....you're saying objects....physical objects have INTENT. As in they sit around thinking...."I'm going to hop into this kids hand and go shoot that asshole who made a supid post on slashdot?"
Give me a break. Design and intent are different things. And where did you get that i'd let a kid 'play' with a gun? Loaded? Unloaded? Get a real argument before you try to make a point by saying my argument is 'clearly flawed' because I didn't think about kids.
Pardon?
It's somehow my fault that I'm a big guy and have concealed carry, because some coked up mugger is going to hit up an 'easy' target instead / anyway?
Are you seriously suggesting that it is the fault of the people who support gun rights that old ladies are getting mugged?
You're arguing two separate issues as if they were connected. Lower crime; yes it's a great and admirable goal. But you don't have to eliminate guns to reduce crime. People don't commit crimes because they have guns, they commit crimes with guns. Knifes, bombs, it's all a symptom of society and not the object itself.
It's the same thing with nuclear weapons. It all depends on who has them and uses them. The object inherits the intent of the person who weilds the guy or has their thumb on the button.
http://cities.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsi d=207343
Here's one such article. These people were evacuated decades ago, back when Bush and Global warming were a figment of everyones imagination.
Sorry, but there really isn't much 'even' about the discussion at all. I don't understand how some science gets accepted....world is round, earth isn't at the center of the universe, and other parts aren't. Science is definately a long term work in progress, but saying that his site isn't bent in one direction, or even effectively suggesting that because he gives equal time to both ideas that he's neutral is just a way of trying to qualify an idea that doesn't warrant the comparison.
I have less problems with people who believe in creationsim as a matter of faith than those who try to justify it's existence through pseudo science. Maybe if I took the time to RTFM I'd have a different opinion, but my gripe is really with your comment, not the site. It's like political correctness run amok....lets give the believers a chance to table their ideas and we'll all discuss them like gentlemen, when neither side substantially gives a crap what the other thinks, and it just wastes everyones time in the process. Thousands of pages 'discussing' evolution in an even tone - not being whaco, it just doesn't add up.
Not only has that issue been licked for some of the UAV's, but they've even gone to far as to make them invisible to boot.
http://veratech.aero/phantom.html This URL shows a fancy cross between a boomerang and a helicopter that falls to the ground in a controlled fashion when it suffers a problem.
Hungh?
.32% of the population? When I chose to use the highest average private school tuition for law school to arbitrarily inflate my numbers several times over, that was 'sensationalist' by merit of my conscious decision to use numbers that skew my example in a way that is favorable to my point. Either that or unethical, but nothing really depended on my post so I think it's more sensationlist than unethical, but I'd wager a semantic argument like that is already lost in this conversation.
.321% more like 1 in 321?
When what comes up on a ballot? Having lawyers earn a minimum wage salary?
But I'll try and understand:
When (it)=(the minimum wage proposal the GP proposed for laywers,) comes up on a ballot, the rest of the country (that aren't lawyers) votes (them)=(the laywers) out of power. But, (they'll)=(the lawyers) never let that=(the voting by the people to....wait....vote on a minimum wage proposal that 'moves them out of power'?) happen.
What are you talking about? Lawyers aren't exactly elected...
And whats sensationalist about finding out that lawyers by your numbers make up
Also, Isn't
You're charming, thanks for sharing.
Lets see....for sensationalisms sake, lets assume you go to the best law school out then and have a 150,000 bill for your law degree. Even at $10.00 an hour, billing 80 hour weeks for 3 years, you not paid off, assuming every dollar of your minimum wage goes to paying off your bill. Putting $4 an hour into your tuition reimbursement, still working 80 hour weeks, but this time for 9 years, and you're barely there, assuming no interest on your initial debt.
More fun, lets say you get stuck at the 'best buy' of 'full time' minimum wage new age law companies, and can only work 32 hours a week before you get benefits.
23 years, not including interest.
I wonder where the line is for people hopping on this idea?
I agree on your other points however, patents being limited to certain types of innovation, limited on their legnth, and designed to support advancements in our society not stifle them
soo....tell us how you REALLY feel about them
ahh...but what about the marlboro man? Whats his position?
The point in their post was not that they're saying changing ram or hardware is the SAME as breaking deep freeze, but that awareness at THEIR school, and likely by extension many others, is low enough that they can get into the boxes if necessary....and that relates to an even earlier post where they talk about resetting the CMOS battery to bypass Deep Freeze.
I don't know if resetting the CMOS battery is still a valid way to bypass DF, I'm just saying that you shouldn't tell someone they're stupid without reading their post more thoroughly.
Your point on locks is important, that makes his moot, but you're direct attack at his 'stupid' post only makes yours all the more amusing.
EK
http://leeloodallas.ytmnd.com/
Duh
From the midwest USA.
I suppose wanker is more of an irritating person...someone who's irked you in some way.
I always have a very fluid approach to vocabulary...I enjoy amalgamating words together and suppose wang or weiner would have been better....but so much of language is as you said the gist of the meaning and not the vehicles used to get there.
Not to mention USA, UK, and the rest of the world all getting different versions, spellings, etc. Thanks for enjoying however, I originally meant to be more helpful than funny.
The 'decrese in fertility' is totally unrelated to the temporary discomfort of burning your wanker by having something too hot sitting on it.
l l/129/4/505
r act/20/4/1022
Do a google search for "intra scrotal temperature fertility" and you'll find all kinds of interesting tests that basically say that heat messes with how the dna in your sperm is formed. An increase in heat doesn't damage what you've got, but your newly forming sperm goes 'all out of whack'
Also, wearing tight underpants is worse the boxers or commando, and sitting is worse that walking.
http://www.reproduction-online.org/cgi/content/fu
http://humrep.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abst
Only fix, I suppose, is to get your computer off your lap, strip naked, stand up, walk around, and eject any damanged sperm. You can just tell whoever walks in that you're busy saving the human race.
816597 aol
816597 aol evil
816597 sue aol
816597 lawyers to sue aol
816597 evil french free pc
816597 aol sucks
816597 make money by suing aol
816597 class action lawsuit
816597 cookies
816597 hide porn from girlfriend
816597 clear cache
816597 stupid aol
816597 games for people from the midwest
816597 Adult bookstores near Dayton, OH
816597 fake ID
816597 search for embarrassing stuff online
816597 have my innermost thoughts and desires posted online for the world to see
816597 ?????
816597 Sue AOL - PROFIT!!!!!
Did anyone else read this as:
How a Winning Rack Should Look
and think that it was going to be full of posts with links to pictures of supermodels? Not that learning more abour WIRING RACKS is a bad thing, but this late at night I wouldn't mind some nice WINNING RACK photos.
There are several posts that I think are missing the point this guy / gal is making and some that try to point it out, can someone confirm that:
The artists are paid by the record labels for their contract, not for specific albums sold, as one poster points out
(Thereby nullifying the loss per sale argument....leaving behind supply / demand type one where a popular artist might be less appealing to a company because more of their 'potential sales' will be 'stolen'....leading to a lower general contract for signing the popular ones)
and / or
The artists are paid estimated on the 'sales' of their item, but not based upon 'lost sales' to piracy
(thereby allowing the corporations to recoup lost sales without having to funnel that back to their artists)
Both are related but both are interesting points that I haven't heard before.