Unfortunately, none of those arguments are valid when put in the light of the overwhelming evidence coming from other countries that don't have guns.
This leaves the only true reason why guns are so prevalent in the US. People who own guns like the feeling of personal power that they give. However, in a sane society regulators will recognize the consequences of this and act accordingly. Unfortunately in the US the vested interests in the gun lobby are so strong that politicians are powerless (often by choice) to act.
I seem to remember last December being pretty OK. No one was losing their job, people weren't too concerned about the future and we would laugh at the absurdity of NINJA mortgages.
People don't seem to be laughing so much this December.
But, hey, I must be remembering it wrong - maybe last year it was this bleak. Who am I to argue with NBER about how I feel about the economy?
Having a referendum for every EU treaty is an attempt to manage it though direct democracy.
In a constitutional democracy the constitution provides a mechanism whereby the government doesn't have to have a referendum every time it needs to act. The current EU treaties should be implemented by simple acts of parliament and not by complex referendum processes. If those treaties are in conflict with the constitution then they can be rejected at any time. If the GP has a problem with the constitution then he should work to have it changed so that it can provide the protection he desires.
Unfortunately, most recent referendums on Europe have been polls on national government policy by a disgruntled electorate and nothing to do with the EU.
Sure they are more accurate but they are mixing up precise esoteric terms with the 'generally understood' terms.
People understand what the general term means in terms of their daily lives and for them "recession" is bad. What started in 2007 it wasn't "bad" for the ordinary Joe - in fact a recovery might have occurred and we'd never have known about it. Now that it's the 2 quarters of negative growth thing, it's a real recession.
The 3 strikes clause comes under the Telecommunications policy area of the Trans European Network. And, while Transport is covered by co-decision, Energy and Telecoms are not (yet). Now while, the whole proposal comes under co-decision, this element does not and so they can bypass the approval process, if the changes are to element not requiring co-decision.
The reason democracy is failing you and most other people is that you don't seem to have the faintest idea how it works.
The European Constitution would have superseded your own constitution, therefore without a referendum you would not have been able to accept it.
Voting against the Constitution did not change the underlying fact that in order to expand the EU required reform - hence the 'Reform Treaty/The Treaty of Lisbon' was born. Lisbon does not supersede your constitution, it is subservient to it and therefore does not need a referendum.
This continuous clamour for direct democracy in Europe is just ridiculous. If you want direct democracy, first establish it locally, then nationally, and if you manage to live through all that get it at a European level - but until then you live in a representative democracy, don't be expecting the rules to change every time you don't like the way things are going.
I find that politicians give you what you want - it's a cowardly approach to say that you have no responsibility for not examining their offerings critically and then blaming them after the fact.
No, the commission is not elected they are appointed, and here's some more bad news, on the same basis neither are the cabinets of the majority of the governments of the European nations elected.
Democracies hold elections, the send representatives to parliaments, they elect a group to govern and then they appoint a cabinet. There's that word again - cabinets are appointed and EU commissioners are appointed both by the governments they represent. You trying to suggest that the commission just walked in off the street and were given the job because the security guard like the cut of their jib is typically disingenuous in the grand traditions of euroskepticism.
And then you complain that the commission must act apolitically. Exactly the way ministers of state are supposed to act - in best interest of the country, not their constituencies. What would happen if Gordon Brown decided not to act on the current financial crisis because some landlord in Scotland wanted people to lose their houses? Madness!
The council of ministers consists of ministers from each country in the EU. Those ministers represent the democratically elected governments of each of the EU member states. Those governments are answerable to their parliaments and as such are directly answerable to the electorate. How much more democratic do you need?
There is of course a slight imbalance in that smaller states have proportionally greater power than larger states - this is a common problem in the EU which could be rectified if the EU parliament had a little more say in the decisions in the EU.
If only there was a Reform Treaty that could sort all this out? They could call it after one of the capital cities of Europe - maybe say Portugal's capital, yes that's a good idea - call it the Treaty of Lisbon. Then we can all ratify it and there will be reform.
What's that you say? 25 of the 27 countries have already ratified it - Wow! They work fast in Europe.
If you're talking about the home user, then they will change as soon as they buy new hardware. They will take what they are given and they will like it. Just go into any computer shop and open your ears: Dad is in there, he's heard bad things about Vista and he's fairly sure he doesn't want it - but he still leaves the shop with it under his arm. When he gets home, he finds he's not happy, but there is nothing he can do - and unless he can get someone to downgrade it (which he's not comfortable about either) he's stuck with it. Whether that means that he will switch really depends on what Mac/Linux can offer to that market segment.
Small businesses will operate in a similar fashion, but because they have better budgets for hardware upgrades and the availability of technically capable individuals for advice and support, they won't take the crap and will be a lot less resistant to change (except for the accounts "department" - because they use balance sheets to determine software quality).
As for the medium to large business user - they cannot use unsupported software, so if XP ever ends up in that state they will have to change.
The problem they have right now is that Vista represents too much of a cost overhead to support internally, for at best no advantage, or more typically severe costs in terms of reduced productivity or hardware upgrades.
They currently live in an overlap which XP represents, but as that overlap shrinks they will start seriously looking at alternatives.
On top of this, those involved in making the decisions may be going one step further and projecting a future where every 12-24 months a new version of Windows appears and with it a repeat of the current uncertainty. If they are, then good business sense says that, unless Microsoft put guarantees in place (which must be based on what they have, not what the intend to have), then it is time to start planning for change.
Feed the trolls, tuppence a bag, tuppence, tuppence, tuppence a bag....
Sorry, got a bit carried away there....
It may have escaped your attention, but the next president of the United States is not exactly fair-skinned. I think it's a safe bet that fine upstanding racist bigots such as yourself are going to have to take a back seat for the next 4 (probably 8) years.
Now, I know you won't be idle - I'm sure there are many acts of domestic terrorism you are already working on. Careful now, don't blow yourself up - that lack of opposable thumbs thing is a bitch.
My 2c (with the proviso that I just about know how to raise my own kids, and I'm a firm believer in not telling anyone else how to raise theirs).
I notice with kids that those that are very good at one particular thing are grossly deficient in others, and I think this is a problem with a lot of so-called 'prodigies', many of whom end up with severe social and psychological problems in later life.
I have seen over and over again, the parent that thinks their kid is really bright and works really hard to encourage the emerging talent. The parent thinks this child is amazing - but other parents in school, say, recognise this effort but also see the deficiencies it causes. (Social and interaction skills is a huge one)
I think it is vital that a parent encourages their child to discover the world and is there to pick them up when they fall, but to do it in the most informal way possible - especially at age 2.
A computer is just tool that extends how we interact with the real world - but we need to learn that interaction without the computer first.
No need to go shopping with the Mrs any more! Woo hoo!
Here let me give you head start on the code: onShopperTalk(text) {
if (text == "Does my bum look big in this?") {
output("No, it looks fine");
sleep(2000);
output("What do you mean I wasn't looking? - of course I was");
} }
Or do something related, that (initially) supports the existing product, making it faster or better? This will allow you to exploit the knowledge you already have and use your current employer as a reference/sales source.
Most start-ups I've ever worked for spawned from another (bloated) company in a symbiotic, but evolved to outstrip them.
(And you and I both know that on your computer somewhere are a load of tools that only you know about which could easily be suborned to your needs.)
I seem to remember that the reason soldiers in WWI walked towards enemy positions was because some general thought it was safer that way for non-veteran troops.
Slashdot Mirror
"Gun ownership" is neither an ethical issue nor any thing to do with human rights.
Human rights and ethics are about respecting people. Freedom of speech is good example of this, requiring that we respect to opinions of others.
No matter how you use it, a gun is not about respect.
...if you were arguing strictly from logic.
Unfortunately, none of those arguments are valid when put in the light of the overwhelming evidence coming from other countries that don't have guns.
This leaves the only true reason why guns are so prevalent in the US. People who own guns like the feeling of personal power that they give. However, in a sane society regulators will recognize the consequences of this and act accordingly. Unfortunately in the US the vested interests in the gun lobby are so strong that politicians are powerless (often by choice) to act.
Are we just a figment of a cat's imagination?
But then I realise that this is just pure nonsense - cats don't give a shit.
Good point.
For every successful FOSS company that made it big there are 10 that didn't.
But here's another similar fact:
For every successful company that made it big there are 10 that didn't.
Do you see what I did there?
I seem to remember last December being pretty OK. No one was losing their job, people weren't too concerned about the future and we would laugh at the absurdity of NINJA mortgages.
People don't seem to be laughing so much this December.
But, hey, I must be remembering it wrong - maybe last year it was this bleak. Who am I to argue with NBER about how I feel about the economy?
Having a referendum for every EU treaty is an attempt to manage it though direct democracy.
In a constitutional democracy the constitution provides a mechanism whereby the government doesn't have to have a referendum every time it needs to act. The current EU treaties should be implemented by simple acts of parliament and not by complex referendum processes. If those treaties are in conflict with the constitution then they can be rejected at any time. If the GP has a problem with the constitution then he should work to have it changed so that it can provide the protection he desires.
Unfortunately, most recent referendums on Europe have been polls on national government policy by a disgruntled electorate and nothing to do with the EU.
Yeah! Not only has the bank repossessed your house, now it turns out that you owe them 12 months rent.
Sure they are more accurate but they are mixing up precise esoteric terms with the 'generally understood' terms.
People understand what the general term means in terms of their daily lives and for them "recession" is bad. What started in 2007 it wasn't "bad" for the ordinary Joe - in fact a recovery might have occurred and we'd never have known about it. Now that it's the 2 quarters of negative growth thing, it's a real recession.
IANAL definitely required here, but....
The 3 strikes clause comes under the Telecommunications policy area of the Trans European Network. And, while Transport is covered by co-decision, Energy and Telecoms are not (yet). Now while, the whole proposal comes under co-decision, this element does not and so they can bypass the approval process, if the changes are to element not requiring co-decision.
(I'm totally open to correction on this).
The reason democracy is failing you and most other people is that you don't seem to have the faintest idea how it works.
The European Constitution would have superseded your own constitution, therefore without a referendum you would not have been able to accept it.
Voting against the Constitution did not change the underlying fact that in order to expand the EU required reform - hence the 'Reform Treaty/The Treaty of Lisbon' was born. Lisbon does not supersede your constitution, it is subservient to it and therefore does not need a referendum.
This continuous clamour for direct democracy in Europe is just ridiculous. If you want direct democracy, first establish it locally, then nationally, and if you manage to live through all that get it at a European level - but until then you live in a representative democracy, don't be expecting the rules to change every time you don't like the way things are going.
I find that politicians give you what you want - it's a cowardly approach to say that you have no responsibility for not examining their offerings critically and then blaming them after the fact.
No, the commission is not elected they are appointed, and here's some more bad news, on the same basis neither are the cabinets of the majority of the governments of the European nations elected.
Democracies hold elections, the send representatives to parliaments, they elect a group to govern and then they appoint a cabinet. There's that word again - cabinets are appointed and EU commissioners are appointed both by the governments they represent. You trying to suggest that the commission just walked in off the street and were given the job because the security guard like the cut of their jib is typically disingenuous in the grand traditions of euroskepticism.
And then you complain that the commission must act apolitically. Exactly the way ministers of state are supposed to act - in best interest of the country, not their constituencies. What would happen if Gordon Brown decided not to act on the current financial crisis because some landlord in Scotland wanted people to lose their houses? Madness!
The council of ministers consists of ministers from each country in the EU. Those ministers represent the democratically elected governments of each of the EU member states. Those governments are answerable to their parliaments and as such are directly answerable to the electorate. How much more democratic do you need?
There is of course a slight imbalance in that smaller states have proportionally greater power than larger states - this is a common problem in the EU which could be rectified if the EU parliament had a little more say in the decisions in the EU.
If only there was a Reform Treaty that could sort all this out? They could call it after one of the capital cities of Europe - maybe say Portugal's capital, yes that's a good idea - call it the Treaty of Lisbon. Then we can all ratify it and there will be reform.
What's that you say? 25 of the 27 countries have already ratified it - Wow! They work fast in Europe.
This really puts a causality twist on that old chestnut.
Can't agree with that.
If you're talking about the home user, then they will change as soon as they buy new hardware. They will take what they are given and they will like it. Just go into any computer shop and open your ears: Dad is in there, he's heard bad things about Vista and he's fairly sure he doesn't want it - but he still leaves the shop with it under his arm. When he gets home, he finds he's not happy, but there is nothing he can do - and unless he can get someone to downgrade it (which he's not comfortable about either) he's stuck with it. Whether that means that he will switch really depends on what Mac/Linux can offer to that market segment.
Small businesses will operate in a similar fashion, but because they have better budgets for hardware upgrades and the availability of technically capable individuals for advice and support, they won't take the crap and will be a lot less resistant to change (except for the accounts "department" - because they use balance sheets to determine software quality).
As for the medium to large business user - they cannot use unsupported software, so if XP ever ends up in that state they will have to change.
The problem they have right now is that Vista represents too much of a cost overhead to support internally, for at best no advantage, or more typically severe costs in terms of reduced productivity or hardware upgrades.
They currently live in an overlap which XP represents, but as that overlap shrinks they will start seriously looking at alternatives.
On top of this, those involved in making the decisions may be going one step further and projecting a future where every 12-24 months a new version of Windows appears and with it a repeat of the current uncertainty. If they are, then good business sense says that, unless Microsoft put guarantees in place (which must be based on what they have, not what the intend to have), then it is time to start planning for change.
Feed the trolls, tuppence a bag, tuppence, tuppence, tuppence a bag....
Sorry, got a bit carried away there....
It may have escaped your attention, but the next president of the United States is not exactly fair-skinned. I think it's a safe bet that fine upstanding racist bigots such as yourself are going to have to take a back seat for the next 4 (probably 8) years.
Now, I know you won't be idle - I'm sure there are many acts of domestic terrorism you are already working on. Careful now, don't blow yourself up - that lack of opposable thumbs thing is a bitch.
My 2c (with the proviso that I just about know how to raise my own kids, and I'm a firm believer in not telling anyone else how to raise theirs).
I notice with kids that those that are very good at one particular thing are grossly deficient in others, and I think this is a problem with a lot of so-called 'prodigies', many of whom end up with severe social and psychological problems in later life.
I have seen over and over again, the parent that thinks their kid is really bright and works really hard to encourage the emerging talent. The parent thinks this child is amazing - but other parents in school, say, recognise this effort but also see the deficiencies it causes. (Social and interaction skills is a huge one)
I think it is vital that a parent encourages their child to discover the world and is there to pick them up when they fall, but to do it in the most informal way possible - especially at age 2.
A computer is just tool that extends how we interact with the real world - but we need to learn that interaction without the computer first.
No need to go shopping with the Mrs any more! Woo hoo!
Here let me give you head start on the code:
onShopperTalk(text) {
if (text == "Does my bum look big in this?") {
output("No, it looks fine");
sleep(2000);
output("What do you mean I wasn't looking? - of course I was");
}
}
WTF is that "pseudo fire hose" anyway? I can't see any pattern or sense in the posts on it. I'd rather not see it one way or the other.
The Karma Whores have spoken /.!
Or do something related, that (initially) supports the existing product, making it faster or better? This will allow you to exploit the knowledge you already have and use your current employer as a reference/sales source.
Most start-ups I've ever worked for spawned from another (bloated) company in a symbiotic, but evolved to outstrip them.
(And you and I both know that on your computer somewhere are a load of tools that only you know about which could easily be suborned to your needs.)
What if this ethical robot/computer decides that "War is Hell" and decides not to fight?
Or, given that generally wars are not started by people who are ethical, what if it decides to changes sides and fight for what is right?
Sorry, I got a bit carried away there. Eh, what was the article about again?
I seem to remember that the reason soldiers in WWI walked towards enemy positions was because some general thought it was safer that way for non-veteran troops.
Didn't work out to well, that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xiangqi
How about a nice game of chess?