Just for clarity, can you define just how much distance you need between the bullet and the person pulling the trigger before you can pretend that there are no people involved in the action?
He never said people weren't involved, he said they weren't in Iraq. He's decoding government double speak, not defending it.
Mostly, I am a little surprised at how people want to treat everyone like an American citizen, including subjecting them to our laws.
That's generally how it works--if I commit a crime under a foreign nation's laws and jurisdiction, I am liable to charged, tried, convicted, sentenced, and punished in that jurisdiction.
The prisoners still in Gitmo fall under two categories--enemy combatants who were captured while fighting without being sanctioned by a foreign power to repatriate them to (i.e. there's no where to release them to, or in the case of Uighurs their home country will execute the shit out of them) or those suspected of violating American criminal law (providing material assistance to terrorists or conspiring to commit acts of terrorism generally). The latter group should be tried for those crimes, and imprisoned in proper prisons if convicted. Of course, most of the latter group has the same problem as the former group--there's no where to send them if they're exonerated.
Depends entirely on which department they're in. DHHS people will be bluer than 15 year-old teenager's balls on homecoming, DOD and DOE people will frequently be bible thumping fundamentalists (based on my personal experiences at LANL anyway).
Are you really dumb enough to think oil usage will stay at current levels? Oil demand has risen exponentially for the last century--doubling the reserves does not double the amount of time it will take to deplete them if that trend continues.
Which is good, because the term is Anthropogenic Global Warming. Anthropomorphic Global Warming would be Global Warming in the shape of a human body. Anthropogenic Global Warming would be human-caused global warming.
Setting that aside, what the fuck are you one about? Lots of people use the term, on both sides of the screaming match.
You know what else it doesn't do? Waste my vertical screen space (a major issue when almost all laptops are 16:9 or 16:10) on useless bullshit promulgated as "UI design principles."
That alone is why I have never considered going back to FF.
My point rather was that the use of the term has nothing to do with/., but goes back to before/. existed. Trust me, you don't want/. collectively coining new terms--it'll all be n****r-this and nazi-that.
Because people don't actually want their internet censored--government wants it censored, or, rather, government wants censorship infrastructure in place, and 'think of the children and the pr0ns' is a good make believe reason to justify it.
There's a very good reason for government involvement here--a reason that is only good for government.
Is this some attempt at meta humor, a joke about not knowing the definition of irony?
Or are you one of those people who think dictionaries define the meaning of words?
Irony is a (slightly) different case -- while yes, there is the popular meaning of irony in its usage, that doesn't change the fact that the term has a TECHNICAL meaning (just as resistance has a technical meaning in the field of electronics that is quite different from its meaning in other contexts) that is still well defined. The use of a word in other senses and contexts does not negate the TECHNICAL meaning of the term, it only adds to and, in some cases, confuses it.
Ultimately a publisher these days is simply a one stop shop offering a loan, editing, typesetting, cover art, promotion, distribution and a selection of other tasks that are needed to make a book successful.
No, 30 years ago that's what a publisher was. These days only a very, very small minority of those authors who get picked up by publishers get that (i.e. the ones who are already best sellers). Everyone else gets a negligible advance, negligible editing, typesetting they could have done themselves, cover art, no promotion, minimal distribution (their book goes into the distribution catalogues, but hardly onto shelves, which the author could have done on their own) and no other services.
Protip: "Non-lethal" does NOT mean safe to use indiscriminately.
Alcohol (at low enough doses) is non-lethal to consume. Long term non-lethal consumption will still kill you though. Tear-gas and similar have the same problem. These are not zero-impact systems, and they CAN be lethal.
Slashdot Mirror
Just for clarity, can you define just how much distance you need between the bullet and the person pulling the trigger before you can pretend that there are no people involved in the action?
He never said people weren't involved, he said they weren't in Iraq. He's decoding government double speak, not defending it.
Mostly, I am a little surprised at how people want to treat everyone like an American citizen, including subjecting them to our laws.
That's generally how it works--if I commit a crime under a foreign nation's laws and jurisdiction, I am liable to charged, tried, convicted, sentenced, and punished in that jurisdiction.
The prisoners still in Gitmo fall under two categories--enemy combatants who were captured while fighting without being sanctioned by a foreign power to repatriate them to (i.e. there's no where to release them to, or in the case of Uighurs their home country will execute the shit out of them) or those suspected of violating American criminal law (providing material assistance to terrorists or conspiring to commit acts of terrorism generally). The latter group should be tried for those crimes, and imprisoned in proper prisons if convicted. Of course, most of the latter group has the same problem as the former group--there's no where to send them if they're exonerated.
The price, however, would've been several times higher without the russians.
The price would have been roughly the same. It's just that we would have been paying it instead of the Russian.s
Depends entirely on which department they're in. DHHS people will be bluer than 15 year-old teenager's balls on homecoming, DOD and DOE people will frequently be bible thumping fundamentalists (based on my personal experiences at LANL anyway).
Are you really dumb enough to think oil usage will stay at current levels? Oil demand has risen exponentially for the last century--doubling the reserves does not double the amount of time it will take to deplete them if that trend continues.
Hickory dickory dock
shit! A mouse is on my
Which is good, because the term is Anthropogenic Global Warming. Anthropomorphic Global Warming would be Global Warming in the shape of a human body. Anthropogenic Global Warming would be human-caused global warming.
Setting that aside, what the fuck are you one about? Lots of people use the term, on both sides of the screaming match.
If your really skeptical you've followed those links.
You might want to look up the meaning of skeptic again. It is unrelated to giving a fuck.
No, no one left IE over that, unless they left it five years after the rest of us. The rest of us left because it was a piece of shit to begin with.
You know what else it doesn't do? Waste my vertical screen space (a major issue when almost all laptops are 16:9 or 16:10) on useless bullshit promulgated as "UI design principles."
That alone is why I have never considered going back to FF.
My point rather was that the use of the term has nothing to do with /., but goes back to before /. existed. Trust me, you don't want /. collectively coining new terms--it'll all be n****r-this and nazi-that.
Because sometimes they serve us by accident.
Because people don't actually want their internet censored--government wants it censored, or, rather, government wants censorship infrastructure in place, and 'think of the children and the pr0ns' is a good make believe reason to justify it.
There's a very good reason for government involvement here--a reason that is only good for government.
If you can't see that, there's no hope.
Is this some attempt at meta humor, a joke about not knowing the definition of irony?
Or are you one of those people who think dictionaries define the meaning of words?
Irony is a (slightly) different case -- while yes, there is the popular meaning of irony in its usage, that doesn't change the fact that the term has a TECHNICAL meaning (just as resistance has a technical meaning in the field of electronics that is quite different from its meaning in other contexts) that is still well defined. The use of a word in other senses and contexts does not negate the TECHNICAL meaning of the term, it only adds to and, in some cases, confuses it.
Really? Even though that's THE FUCKING TERM!?!?! /endpsychoticrage
Me, we will I couldn't care less.
Whatchu talkin bout Willis?
...Elephants. Elephants work for peanuts. Monkeys work for bananas. Saying monkeys work for peanuts is like saying cars run on milk.
Check your reading comprehension skills--your parent was bemoaning the issuance of the task to a private corporation.
Which is still better than what traditional publishers do.
Ultimately a publisher these days is simply a one stop shop offering a loan, editing, typesetting, cover art, promotion, distribution and a selection of other tasks that are needed to make a book successful.
No, 30 years ago that's what a publisher was. These days only a very, very small minority of those authors who get picked up by publishers get that (i.e. the ones who are already best sellers). Everyone else gets a negligible advance, negligible editing, typesetting they could have done themselves, cover art, no promotion, minimal distribution (their book goes into the distribution catalogues, but hardly onto shelves, which the author could have done on their own) and no other services.
Good publishers refine author's works into something readable in many cases and they distribute and market.
Too bad good publishers do not exist anymore.
Amazon is the only place I do get books, so ...
I come here for INTELLIGENT comments
That's your first mistake.
And that's why alcohol is illegal, because if they legalized it we would just see organized crime balloon!
Protip: "Non-lethal" does NOT mean safe to use indiscriminately.
Alcohol (at low enough doses) is non-lethal to consume. Long term non-lethal consumption will still kill you though.
Tear-gas and similar have the same problem. These are not zero-impact systems, and they CAN be lethal.