B. Hiding in the top of a hi-rise with one way in and one way out is the sort of thing a panicky idiot would do.
...or someone thinking strategically, knowing that the onslaught can only last a couple weeks, thinking there's probably enough food for everyone to survive on the upper levels, and knows there's enough guns and ammo to hold that perfect choke point for a month.
"They have more choices than those two. For one they could choose to turn off the TV, sit down with their kids and just beating them."
Yeah, beatings resolve everything. Violence to cure a psychological problem FTW!
"Or put the kids into a school that can actually handle kids with actual issues."
Good luck finding a public school in your area that has a program different from the public school in your area. Private school isn't always an option for those not obscenely rich.
"Or home school the kids."
As if nobody has to work for a living, and two income households aren't the norm.
"Or possibly find other solutions that I haven't thought of.Claiming that parents only have two choices is as incorrect as adding a third one called "drowning them in the local river".
There's less truly viable choices than you know. Hitting a problem at its' root, inside the child's brain, is also better than any solution that you've proposed.
Yes, I am. The first issue is that the Sullivan Act isn't a ban on handguns. It requires a license to carry them. Those are two very different concepts; there is no provision against requiring a license specifically to carry a handgun (only to handguns does the Sullivan Act apply, after all) in the constitution, as you can see right here:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Then, you have this, taken right from the Wikipedia article you linked:
Some question the constitutionality of the act, due to the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. While the Supreme Court has only recently ruled that the Second Amendment prevents localities from enacting outright handgun bans, (See: Incorporation), the question of whether the Second Amendment provides grounds to invalidate local gun control laws like the Sullivan Act may be addressed given the recent decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in Parker v. District of Columbia, which was affirmed by the Supreme Court in the case District of Columbia v. Heller.
If you read that block of text, it makes clear that the question isn't whether the constitution supersedes local regulation, but rather what exactly the constitution means. You see, it's completely true that the local government cannot infringe on rights given in the constitution. The question is truly "What rights does the constitution grant, and where do the lines of those rights get drawn?"
Newspapers didn't go the extra step and post a picture, which makes this a slightly different story, especially when coupled with today's ultra sensitive attitude towards the possibility that someone has done something wrong.
Companies scour Facebook constantly looking for beer cups and people generally living their private life in FB albums; the problem with posting pictures is an extension of that. It's much easier to go "Hey, I know that guy!" when there's a picture associated with the name.
You have the right to due process before the state takes away your life, liberty or property. You do not have the right to due process before the community can ridicule you. See, there's this thing called the 1st amendment. It means I can tell you and others what I think about you.
The local government is bound by the same constitution as everyone else, so your premise that the community has first amendment rights to slander a person before the slander becomes fact due to inapplicability of the law is false.
The issue isn't a need to pass out of algebra. It's a study that is showing people parenthesis which mean something different than what they've been shown for their entire high school career with the expectation that they'll understand "that other definition" (I had no idea that parenthesis could substitute for a variable, either).It's also, at least possibly, a failure to remember rules from algebra. You don't need to take calculus to remember algebraic concepts, after all.
Good thing I was talking about the area from Boston to DC, and not LA.
Now that we're talking about the same hub, which has no viable solar for a thousand miles, we can mention that wind is also not viable in this area, and say something along the lines of "The solution that is best for LA isn't going to be best for New York since they're not the same place. Nuclear is the best option in this area, due to transmission problems and other factors."
Even though you get plenty of sunshine out there, here's the reason why there are multiple states in the US (rather than the monolithic organizations seen in many other parts of the first world): It's so large that the same conditions don't apply to the entire country, whether it's due to demographic or environmental reasons.
...which creates an even more ample and cheaper supply of oil for others. I think there has been talk of building a high speed rail line between SF and LA for at least 20 years.
...assuming OPEC doesn't decide outright to produce less, and there aren't any other countries that want to take up that supply (I'm looking at you, China).
You missed his point. Most of the viable solar energy, and large portions of the viable wind energy, are located nowhere near one of the major hubs of the US. Just "switching to solar and wind" doesn't work for the area from Boston to DC; there wouldn't be enough of the renewable energy to go around, especially considering there's hardly any open space for that whole 500 mile stretch. It's all populated at least moderately densely; what would be called heavy suburban and urban areas.
"Are you asking about Vice President Biden?" McChrystal says with a laugh. "Who's that?"
"Biden?" suggests a top adviser. "Did you say: Bite Me?"
At one point on his trip to Paris, McChrystal checks his BlackBerry. "Oh, not another e-mail from Holbrooke," he groans. "I don't even want to open it." He clicks on the message and reads the salutation out loud, then stuffs the BlackBerry back in his pocket, not bothering to conceal his annoyance.
"Make sure you don't get any of that on your leg," an aide jokes, referring to the e-mail.
If not insubordination, the remarks in the Rolling Stone magazine article were at least an indirect challenge to civilian management of the war in Washington by its top military commander. Military leaders rarely challenge their commander in chief publicly, and, when they do, consequences tend to be more severe than a scolding. -FOX article
What was that again? Even according to FOX it had nothing to do with the strategy being used in the war, or the comments about the war, but rather the insubordination of a superior office. Obviously you missed something.
Didn't he just replace the general who said we'll never win in Afghanistan, simply for saying as much?
No, he didn't. Obama replaced general McChrystal for remarks made by McChrystal and his staff about the administration, not about the war itself.
Since you didn't know that, and therefore the premise of the rest of your post is invalid, here's the Rolling Stone article where those comments came to light, for your reading pleasure.
That is, until you get to the point where the people in the factories have low morale since they don't have pop music and crappy movies to go home and relax with, of course. Then you lose industry altogether.
That's not quite right for this event.
Here's a forecast for tonight's event, it's possible that anyone north of about 55 degrees in North America will get a glimmer.
True, that leaves most of us SOL. But that's why CME events are special -- people who can't normally see the aurora borealis get a chance to view it.
The only people in the US that will be able to see it live in Alaska - likely an extremely insignificant portion of the/. crowd.
Good thing the Europeans focus on disliking us, the Middle East mostly hates us (with a small fraction who love us), South America mostly hates us, Russia hates us, India is taking all our orders literally, and China is too busy making all of our stuff to hate us.
Good thing nothing is actually about the USA, except for, you know, everything.
I think this might be a win in the sense that the court recognized the GPL as being a valid license, regardless as to how well contested the case was. It also sets precedent that the GPL is valid for use in future cases.
Slashdot Mirror
B. Hiding in the top of a hi-rise with one way in and one way out is the sort of thing a panicky idiot would do.
...or someone thinking strategically, knowing that the onslaught can only last a couple weeks, thinking there's probably enough food for everyone to survive on the upper levels, and knows there's enough guns and ammo to hold that perfect choke point for a month.
Don't worry. There will be pie instead.
"They have more choices than those two. For one they could choose to turn off the TV, sit down with their kids and just beating them."
Yeah, beatings resolve everything. Violence to cure a psychological problem FTW!
"Or put the kids into a school that can actually handle kids with actual issues."
Good luck finding a public school in your area that has a program different from the public school in your area. Private school isn't always an option for those not obscenely rich.
"Or home school the kids."
As if nobody has to work for a living, and two income households aren't the norm.
"Or possibly find other solutions that I haven't thought of.Claiming that parents only have two choices is as incorrect as adding a third one called "drowning them in the local river".
There's less truly viable choices than you know. Hitting a problem at its' root, inside the child's brain, is also better than any solution that you've proposed.
Despite my agreement with your interpretation of the law, your well reasoned interpretation of the law is not a fact, but rather an opinion.
....but it does leave you rich enough where you have a chance to spend time learning instead of working at McDonald's.
Yes, I am. The first issue is that the Sullivan Act isn't a ban on handguns. It requires a license to carry them. Those are two very different concepts; there is no provision against requiring a license specifically to carry a handgun (only to handguns does the Sullivan Act apply, after all) in the constitution, as you can see right here:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Then, you have this, taken right from the Wikipedia article you linked:
Some question the constitutionality of the act, due to the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. While the Supreme Court has only recently ruled that the Second Amendment prevents localities from enacting outright handgun bans, (See: Incorporation), the question of whether the Second Amendment provides grounds to invalidate local gun control laws like the Sullivan Act may be addressed given the recent decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in Parker v. District of Columbia, which was affirmed by the Supreme Court in the case District of Columbia v. Heller.
If you read that block of text, it makes clear that the question isn't whether the constitution supersedes local regulation, but rather what exactly the constitution means. You see, it's completely true that the local government cannot infringe on rights given in the constitution. The question is truly "What rights does the constitution grant, and where do the lines of those rights get drawn?"
Newspapers didn't go the extra step and post a picture, which makes this a slightly different story, especially when coupled with today's ultra sensitive attitude towards the possibility that someone has done something wrong.
Companies scour Facebook constantly looking for beer cups and people generally living their private life in FB albums; the problem with posting pictures is an extension of that. It's much easier to go "Hey, I know that guy!" when there's a picture associated with the name.
The local government can't take away rights granted by the federal constitution. Federal law overrides state law.
You have the right to due process before the state takes away your life, liberty or property. You do not have the right to due process before the community can ridicule you. See, there's this thing called the 1st amendment. It means I can tell you and others what I think about you.
The local government is bound by the same constitution as everyone else, so your premise that the community has first amendment rights to slander a person before the slander becomes fact due to inapplicability of the law is false.
The issue isn't a need to pass out of algebra. It's a study that is showing people parenthesis which mean something different than what they've been shown for their entire high school career with the expectation that they'll understand "that other definition" (I had no idea that parenthesis could substitute for a variable, either).It's also, at least possibly, a failure to remember rules from algebra. You don't need to take calculus to remember algebraic concepts, after all.
Interesting point, considering he's talking about the flaw being fixed 11 hours after the first articles.
Good thing I was talking about the area from Boston to DC, and not LA.
Now that we're talking about the same hub, which has no viable solar for a thousand miles, we can mention that wind is also not viable in this area, and say something along the lines of "The solution that is best for LA isn't going to be best for New York since they're not the same place. Nuclear is the best option in this area, due to transmission problems and other factors."
Even though you get plenty of sunshine out there, here's the reason why there are multiple states in the US (rather than the monolithic organizations seen in many other parts of the first world): It's so large that the same conditions don't apply to the entire country, whether it's due to demographic or environmental reasons.
/.'s target audience is American. You know, the ones who are great at geography.
...which creates an even more ample and cheaper supply of oil for others. I think there has been talk of building a high speed rail line between SF and LA for at least 20 years.
...assuming OPEC doesn't decide outright to produce less, and there aren't any other countries that want to take up that supply (I'm looking at you, China).
You missed his point. Most of the viable solar energy, and large portions of the viable wind energy, are located nowhere near one of the major hubs of the US. Just "switching to solar and wind" doesn't work for the area from Boston to DC; there wouldn't be enough of the renewable energy to go around, especially considering there's hardly any open space for that whole 500 mile stretch. It's all populated at least moderately densely; what would be called heavy suburban and urban areas.
"Are you asking about Vice President Biden?" McChrystal says with a laugh. "Who's that?" "Biden?" suggests a top adviser. "Did you say: Bite Me?"
At one point on his trip to Paris, McChrystal checks his BlackBerry. "Oh, not another e-mail from Holbrooke," he groans. "I don't even want to open it." He clicks on the message and reads the salutation out loud, then stuffs the BlackBerry back in his pocket, not bothering to conceal his annoyance. "Make sure you don't get any of that on your leg," an aide jokes, referring to the e-mail.
The president said he had no disagreements with McChrystal's policy or conduct in the war in Afghanistan, and the change in personnel does not mean a change in policy. He said the two were on the same page in terms of war strategy, but no "diversion" to the mission was acceptable. "I don't make this decision based on any difference in policy with General McChrystal, as we are in full agreement about our strategy. Nor do I make this decision out of any sense of personal insult. Stan McChrystal has always shown great courtesy and carried out my orders faithfully. I've got great admiration for him and for his long record of service in uniform," he said.
If not insubordination, the remarks in the Rolling Stone magazine article were at least an indirect challenge to civilian management of the war in Washington by its top military commander. Military leaders rarely challenge their commander in chief publicly, and, when they do, consequences tend to be more severe than a scolding. -FOX article
What was that again? Even according to FOX it had nothing to do with the strategy being used in the war, or the comments about the war, but rather the insubordination of a superior office. Obviously you missed something.
Didn't he just replace the general who said we'll never win in Afghanistan, simply for saying as much?
No, he didn't. Obama replaced general McChrystal for remarks made by McChrystal and his staff about the administration, not about the war itself.
Since you didn't know that, and therefore the premise of the rest of your post is invalid, here's the Rolling Stone article where those comments came to light, for your reading pleasure.
Well, not word for word, and not immediately, but the intent was there.
You're as delusional as the Nobel prize board.
You think he intends to make war?
That is, until you get to the point where the people in the factories have low morale since they don't have pop music and crappy movies to go home and relax with, of course. Then you lose industry altogether.
That's not quite right for this event. Here's a forecast for tonight's event, it's possible that anyone north of about 55 degrees in North America will get a glimmer. True, that leaves most of us SOL. But that's why CME events are special -- people who can't normally see the aurora borealis get a chance to view it.
The only people in the US that will be able to see it live in Alaska - likely an extremely insignificant portion of the /. crowd.
The likelihood of useful returns from the trips to the moon was also nearly zero.
I guess being home 24/7/365 has it's security advantages, eh?
Good thing the Europeans focus on disliking us, the Middle East mostly hates us (with a small fraction who love us), South America mostly hates us, Russia hates us, India is taking all our orders literally, and China is too busy making all of our stuff to hate us.
Good thing nothing is actually about the USA, except for, you know, everything.
I think this might be a win in the sense that the court recognized the GPL as being a valid license, regardless as to how well contested the case was. It also sets precedent that the GPL is valid for use in future cases.