Right. Most people are shot by their drug dealer or a competing drug dealer. My point about requiring a license to own a gun at all is an infringement of my second amendment rights still stands, and I add the additional note that, if a licensing system were in place, don't you think that it would be insanely easy then for the government (be it Federal or state) to gradually (or suddenly, for that matter) increase the licensing "standards" until nobody can own a gun? It gives too much power to the government in too important an issue - remember, the American Revolution was only possible because every citizen in the country owned a gun. It's part of what makes America America - we took our land away from England with our own guns, each man. Any government that has the power to take guns out of its citizens' hands will do so for this very reason. (Nazi Germany had the strictest gun control measures in Western history, for obvious reasons - if we found out that Bush was killing Jews en masse and had found a way for election reform to keep him in office indefinitely, I'm sure you'd find a lot of Americans carrying guns more regularly.) That's why we need to have no restriction on who can own guns - gun safety being taught in junior high schools is about as much infringement as the people can truly bear.
I'm a mean bastard with a muzzle-loader, but I do agree that the framers of the Constitution weren't exactly picturing a SAW in every household, which is why I completely agree with the restrictions on such guns. As to the original intent beyond that, it's hard to tell for certain, and shortsighted people might argue that that's why we have an argument in the first place. But they'd definitely be wrong, since anyone willing to put forth three minutes' worth of thought quickly comes to the conclusion that some people are going to kill people whether they have a Hawken or a Kalishnakov. Granted, it's easier to go on a killing spree with the AK, but there's no law man can pass that will prevent people from getting ahold of one if they really want to. I think it's far more important to deal with crime than the tools of crime. Prohibition and restriction of substances such as cocaine should be proof enough that if people are motivated to obtain something, they'll get it.
What we really need is a perfect society, where people don't want to kill each other. You'll say that that goal can't be achieved, but if you don't aim high, you'll hit low every time.
Another problem with a gun license in general is that it would imply a database of gun licensees, which many see as an infringement of their second amendment rights (it says "shall not be infringed", not "shall not be taken away"). The Constitution says nothing about driving (for more reasons than one, of course), so slight infringements are just fine as all driving laws are just that: laws, not constitutional mandates. I strongly feel that keeping handgun background check databases (most states do a background check when you get a concealed weapons permit, as well, and keep it on file - of course, such a permit is optional to owning a handgun) and requiring people to obtain a FFL in order to perform certain types of gun sales, as well as a Class III FFL in order to own, buy, sell, transfer ownership, etc. of a Class III weapon or device (automatic weapons and silencers being the prime such objects) are, together, enough of an infringement on my right (although I don't know anyone who can back up their disagreement with the necessity of these particular classifications of licensing with anything even close to legitimate).
I find it interesting that most Slashdot readers absolutely disagree with any kind of a national ID or other program that would restrict their privacy (which is not a Constitutional right), but so many of them desperately want stronger gun control.
That'd be no more effective than it is to ask people, true or false, whether it's legal to exceed the speed limit while passing another vehicle.
However, at least offering a gun safety class in every junior high school, if not requiring it (but we know how that'd go over), would help immensely. Kids would learn how to be safe with a gun before they get a chance to shoot their friends with it. Granted, this doesn't cover the crazy 7-year-old killers, but they're a lot less frequent than 16-year-olds. Many schools already offer this, including the one I went to (granted, we also only had one advanced-level math and/or science class, but...), and it does help, since people who would otherwise not grow up with guns in the house or whose parents don't teach them gun safety (it's just like sexual education, only more immediately deadly to not have) would then be exposed to gun safety.
I'm much more worried about Nazi TV broadcasts and original airings of Lost in Space. Here's to hoping that Lassie and Howdie Doody are on before the aliens' bedtime.
Empirically. You find places that it says there is life. Then, you go and check for life. The correlation ratio between the two sets of results should give a very good indication of the validity of said formula.
Hell no! I'm far too ugly to be donating my face. Just like people who die of heart attacks shouldn't donate their hearts and people with skin cancer shouldn't donate their skin, ugly people should not donate their faces.
See, it works like this: 'Counterprogramming' is the gerund of 'to counterprogram', unless 'to counterprogram' is not a word. In either case, 'counterprogramming' either is or at least works like a noun. However, no noun can be defined as being equivalent to an infinite verb or infinitive verb phrase, as you've done here. Either define 'to counterprogram - verb - to use...' or 'counterprogramming - noun - the act of using...'. Note the parallel nature of the word being defined and its definition, in each case.
The real fun is when you're actually in the plane and turbulence causes the wings to actually flap a few feet up and down. Anyone on the edge of not flying out of yellow-belly fear is sure to be pushed right off that edge when that happens the first time.
A tonne is, according to Merriam-Webster, defined as a metric ton, so no. It's 1000 kg, or about 2200 lbs, which is between a short ton (2000 lbs) and a long ton (2240 lbs).
Actually, a 747 is basically held up at just a few relatively small points. There is an incredible amount of torque at the points where the wing structure meets the fuselage and also where the empennage is attached. If these joints are strong enough to cause an upward acceleration against gravity, then certainly they are strong enough to effect a zero or very small acceleration with gravity.
Now, a parachute and cords strong enough to support a 747 - that is another story entirely.
Except for those cases in which the parachute fails, in which case the parachute manufacturer is going to have a whole hell of a lot of lawsuit to deal with.
He was the cute little kid that opened up any story with a child's perspective or a focus on children. Apparently the producers realized that, first off, this isn't a kiddie plot and, more importantly, Wil's gotten older and may have even gotten laid and is therefore no longer able to hold down his role.
Exactly. Star Trek is good because it's in that nasty combined 'sci fi/fantasy' genre, and because it's got action and the occasional intrigue (sounds like this one is full of it, but I'm not watching any trailers). Everyone who wants action will go to Bond when it opens, and everyone who wants sci fi/fantasy will just wait for a movie that's guaranteed to be good no matter whether it's an even or odd numbered one in the sequence.
Sorry, but I refuse to put a source of radiation powerful enough to run my laptop or cell phone that close to my brain or testicles. I can't think clearly without all of the above, and don't want to mess them up for myself. (Note that cell phone antennas help place the radiation away from the head, when you get a cell phone with a decent external antenna, so they're of lesser risk, and only affect my brain, not my reproductive organs.)
Good thing I checked before posting a (-1 Redundant) comment...
I, too, hope that we can use this kind of transportation by the dawn of the 31st century. Fortunately, though, I'll probably be dead before that point, and won't have to worry about being thrown against a brick wall because I can't figure out how to use a device with no controls, switches, or doohickeys.
Then let me rephrase: The current mindset that car manufacturers put into hybrid engine technology takes away its viability for use in sports cars and pickup trucks. (It's possible with hybrids, yes; but only possible if you put the right effort forth, which nobody appears to be doing, thus making it impossible.)
As to overcompensating for something, if you're trying to imply that the only use for a sports car or a pickup truck is as a penis extension, then you've had some kind of sick self esteem issues pounded into your head at some point. Face it, trucks are useful and sports cars are fun to drive. Why would I ever want to be bored when I could be excited, and the only necessary change is what car I'm in?
The American manufacturers will be the last to do something like this, because they understand what Americans like in vehicles. I want my sleek lines and throaty V8. I want a car that goes 79 mph down the road without a complaint about hills, and that has an extra 70 mph on top of that, at least 20 of which are right there when I ask for them in order to pass someone. I want a car that's fun to drive, with tight steering, hot acceleration, and good brakes. I want a car that's challenging and interesting to drive, with ABS and traction control that I can turn off when I feel the need to put new tires on. I want a car that expresses my personality. Or, on the other hand, I'd also love to have a truck that I can call a truck. Not a hybrid SUV. Not a POS. But a real pickup truck, like some manufacturers still make even if they forgot how for about 5 years in the mid- to late 90s. A truck with horsepower, heavy frame, fifth-wheel ball, easy-off tailgate, etc. - a truck that can haul or pull anything I throw at it within some semblance of reason.
These aren't possible with hybrids, at this point. When they are, then you'll see American vehicles with hybrid engines. But not beforehand, if they're real Americans.
Slashdot Mirror
Right. Most people are shot by their drug dealer or a competing drug dealer. My point about requiring a license to own a gun at all is an infringement of my second amendment rights still stands, and I add the additional note that, if a licensing system were in place, don't you think that it would be insanely easy then for the government (be it Federal or state) to gradually (or suddenly, for that matter) increase the licensing "standards" until nobody can own a gun? It gives too much power to the government in too important an issue - remember, the American Revolution was only possible because every citizen in the country owned a gun. It's part of what makes America America - we took our land away from England with our own guns, each man. Any government that has the power to take guns out of its citizens' hands will do so for this very reason. (Nazi Germany had the strictest gun control measures in Western history, for obvious reasons - if we found out that Bush was killing Jews en masse and had found a way for election reform to keep him in office indefinitely, I'm sure you'd find a lot of Americans carrying guns more regularly.) That's why we need to have no restriction on who can own guns - gun safety being taught in junior high schools is about as much infringement as the people can truly bear.
I'm a mean bastard with a muzzle-loader, but I do agree that the framers of the Constitution weren't exactly picturing a SAW in every household, which is why I completely agree with the restrictions on such guns. As to the original intent beyond that, it's hard to tell for certain, and shortsighted people might argue that that's why we have an argument in the first place. But they'd definitely be wrong, since anyone willing to put forth three minutes' worth of thought quickly comes to the conclusion that some people are going to kill people whether they have a Hawken or a Kalishnakov. Granted, it's easier to go on a killing spree with the AK, but there's no law man can pass that will prevent people from getting ahold of one if they really want to. I think it's far more important to deal with crime than the tools of crime. Prohibition and restriction of substances such as cocaine should be proof enough that if people are motivated to obtain something, they'll get it.
What we really need is a perfect society, where people don't want to kill each other. You'll say that that goal can't be achieved, but if you don't aim high, you'll hit low every time.
Another problem with a gun license in general is that it would imply a database of gun licensees, which many see as an infringement of their second amendment rights (it says "shall not be infringed", not "shall not be taken away"). The Constitution says nothing about driving (for more reasons than one, of course), so slight infringements are just fine as all driving laws are just that: laws, not constitutional mandates. I strongly feel that keeping handgun background check databases (most states do a background check when you get a concealed weapons permit, as well, and keep it on file - of course, such a permit is optional to owning a handgun) and requiring people to obtain a FFL in order to perform certain types of gun sales, as well as a Class III FFL in order to own, buy, sell, transfer ownership, etc. of a Class III weapon or device (automatic weapons and silencers being the prime such objects) are, together, enough of an infringement on my right (although I don't know anyone who can back up their disagreement with the necessity of these particular classifications of licensing with anything even close to legitimate).
I find it interesting that most Slashdot readers absolutely disagree with any kind of a national ID or other program that would restrict their privacy (which is not a Constitutional right), but so many of them desperately want stronger gun control.
Is it still 1993 in some part of the world?
[Some indeterminate music is heard in the background, probably Spin Doctors]
What? 1993? Um, dude...let me check Webcrawler on that.
That'd be no more effective than it is to ask people, true or false, whether it's legal to exceed the speed limit while passing another vehicle.
However, at least offering a gun safety class in every junior high school, if not requiring it (but we know how that'd go over), would help immensely. Kids would learn how to be safe with a gun before they get a chance to shoot their friends with it. Granted, this doesn't cover the crazy 7-year-old killers, but they're a lot less frequent than 16-year-olds. Many schools already offer this, including the one I went to (granted, we also only had one advanced-level math and/or science class, but...), and it does help, since people who would otherwise not grow up with guns in the house or whose parents don't teach them gun safety (it's just like sexual education, only more immediately deadly to not have) would then be exposed to gun safety.
How about the following:
US Dollars --> $
Canadian Dollars --> 2/3$
Australian Dollars --> 1/$
I'm much more worried about Nazi TV broadcasts and original airings of Lost in Space. Here's to hoping that Lassie and Howdie Doody are on before the aliens' bedtime.
Empirically. You find places that it says there is life. Then, you go and check for life. The correlation ratio between the two sets of results should give a very good indication of the validity of said formula.
Would you [donate your face]?
Hell no! I'm far too ugly to be donating my face. Just like people who die of heart attacks shouldn't donate their hearts and people with skin cancer shouldn't donate their skin, ugly people should not donate their faces.
counterprogramming - noun - to use ...
...' or 'counterprogramming - noun - the act of using ...'. Note the parallel nature of the word being defined and its definition, in each case.
See, it works like this: 'Counterprogramming' is the gerund of 'to counterprogram', unless 'to counterprogram' is not a word. In either case, 'counterprogramming' either is or at least works like a noun. However, no noun can be defined as being equivalent to an infinite verb or infinitive verb phrase, as you've done here. Either define 'to counterprogram - verb - to use
I see two possible solutions to your assertion that it'll distract people and cause wrecks:
1. It will cause a wreck, which will itself draw far more attention than any billboard, no matter how mundane wrecks are at that spot
-or-
2. Nobody will look at it anyhow after about week 3
The real fun is when you're actually in the plane and turbulence causes the wings to actually flap a few feet up and down. Anyone on the edge of not flying out of yellow-belly fear is sure to be pushed right off that edge when that happens the first time.
A tonne is, according to Merriam-Webster, defined as a metric ton, so no. It's 1000 kg, or about 2200 lbs, which is between a short ton (2000 lbs) and a long ton (2240 lbs).
Actually, a 747 is basically held up at just a few relatively small points. There is an incredible amount of torque at the points where the wing structure meets the fuselage and also where the empennage is attached. If these joints are strong enough to cause an upward acceleration against gravity, then certainly they are strong enough to effect a zero or very small acceleration with gravity.
Now, a parachute and cords strong enough to support a 747 - that is another story entirely.
Except for those cases in which the parachute fails, in which case the parachute manufacturer is going to have a whole hell of a lot of lawsuit to deal with.
He was the cute little kid that opened up any story with a child's perspective or a focus on children. Apparently the producers realized that, first off, this isn't a kiddie plot and, more importantly, Wil's gotten older and may have even gotten laid and is therefore no longer able to hold down his role.
Exactly. Star Trek is good because it's in that nasty combined 'sci fi/fantasy' genre, and because it's got action and the occasional intrigue (sounds like this one is full of it, but I'm not watching any trailers). Everyone who wants action will go to Bond when it opens, and everyone who wants sci fi/fantasy will just wait for a movie that's guaranteed to be good no matter whether it's an even or odd numbered one in the sequence.
Jokes, you fool. They're jokes. At least someone caught on and posted a joke in reply.
Both kinds of which are, AFAIK, potentially harmful to brain and reproductive cells.
Sorry, but I refuse to put a source of radiation powerful enough to run my laptop or cell phone that close to my brain or testicles. I can't think clearly without all of the above, and don't want to mess them up for myself. (Note that cell phone antennas help place the radiation away from the head, when you get a cell phone with a decent external antenna, so they're of lesser risk, and only affect my brain, not my reproductive organs.)
Don't worry - we'll only claim 2/3 of it.
I doubt it'll last long if Slashdot's users care enough to compete - just don't Slashdot the bug reporting page.
Good thing I checked before posting a (-1 Redundant) comment...
I, too, hope that we can use this kind of transportation by the dawn of the 31st century. Fortunately, though, I'll probably be dead before that point, and won't have to worry about being thrown against a brick wall because I can't figure out how to use a device with no controls, switches, or doohickeys.
Then let me rephrase: The current mindset that car manufacturers put into hybrid engine technology takes away its viability for use in sports cars and pickup trucks. (It's possible with hybrids, yes; but only possible if you put the right effort forth, which nobody appears to be doing, thus making it impossible.)
As to overcompensating for something, if you're trying to imply that the only use for a sports car or a pickup truck is as a penis extension, then you've had some kind of sick self esteem issues pounded into your head at some point. Face it, trucks are useful and sports cars are fun to drive. Why would I ever want to be bored when I could be excited, and the only necessary change is what car I'm in?
The American manufacturers will be the last to do something like this, because they understand what Americans like in vehicles. I want my sleek lines and throaty V8. I want a car that goes 79 mph down the road without a complaint about hills, and that has an extra 70 mph on top of that, at least 20 of which are right there when I ask for them in order to pass someone. I want a car that's fun to drive, with tight steering, hot acceleration, and good brakes. I want a car that's challenging and interesting to drive, with ABS and traction control that I can turn off when I feel the need to put new tires on. I want a car that expresses my personality. Or, on the other hand, I'd also love to have a truck that I can call a truck. Not a hybrid SUV. Not a POS. But a real pickup truck, like some manufacturers still make even if they forgot how for about 5 years in the mid- to late 90s. A truck with horsepower, heavy frame, fifth-wheel ball, easy-off tailgate, etc. - a truck that can haul or pull anything I throw at it within some semblance of reason.
These aren't possible with hybrids, at this point. When they are, then you'll see American vehicles with hybrid engines. But not beforehand, if they're real Americans.