Also, as a part of my concealed carry class, I was told that the best method was to keep it concealed at all times. Pay extra attention to who's looking at you, etc. Because, the lawyer teaching the class, stated: "All they have to do is tell the police you were waving it around and if they find the gun on you, you'll likely lose in court... even if you were not waving it and threatening others."
People are generally afraid of guns. There's a perception that only criminals and cops have them. "If you are not a cop, you are a criminal."
You have it totally wrong. The citizens of the US do not NEED guns to feel safe, but with the chance that someone in the store you rob MIGHT have one is sometimes enough of a deterrent.
I think you have this perception that everyone in America has to carry in order to be safe. It's really not that way. It's more of a deterrent to criminals where people are more likely to have a gun (ie: Vermont, where gun laws are less strict.) In cities like Chicago where handgun bans were (I haven't been there in a while) enacted criminals can feel free to rob a store and get away with their life because all law biding citizens sold their guns.
You say that, but how many people in the military will shoot a civilian that they are supposed to be fighting for. (Even though they are trained to kill on order, there's still that "WTF" moment when they ask themselves: "Is this right?")
I've read a few things that basically denounce the actions for which you speak stating that the military would either divide (at worse) or lay down (join) in a revolt.
I asked in another post what the intent of him even putting that statement in there was. That was my sole inquiry.
It sounded to me like a "jab" or a false stereotype. Like the Atheist is such an immoral person that they wouldn't agree that aliens have a choice. I equate it to: "Even a reasonable (Christian/Muslim/Democrat/Republican/singled out group) would agree." What does being an Atheist have to do with the alien's choice? What does being anything have to do with agreement. There seems to be some aggressiveness in his post and I pointed it out. Right or wrong, the deed's been done. It simply wasn't needed.
Whoa.. stirred up the hornet's nest. I'm simply curious why you'd say that. It sounds like a passive aggressive comment to me and it simply doesn't make sense in the grand scheme of things. Atheists do not want to take away freedom of religion. (I don't know of any that do...) However, I know some Atheists who seek to "educate" others (just as highly religious people try to "educate" others.) Both sides have their puppets and puppet masters. My post was questioning the motive as you why you put that statement in there.
I'm not sure that tone you read into my post, but I assure you it's probably not what you read into it.
Also, I see no problem with removing "God" from government, but you seem to have a problem with it? I'm curious as to why. What if someone decided to put the Flying Spaghetti Monster on money? Would you complain?
Obviously, Adam and Eve had kids, some of them built a space ship and set off to explore space while the others stayed to worship his holiness. The ones who went off to abandon their maker were deformed beyond recognition as punishment. That's why all Star Trek/Wars aliens bear similar resemblance to humans, but are all twisted and deformed by Satan.
Even a reasonable Atheist should allow such a creature the freedom to do so, despite disagreeing with it.
I must have skipped the part of my Atheist handbook that explained how we must suppress choice. I only found the chapter where it's perfectly alright for both sides to pitch their sales. There is this chapter on how it's not cool to force everyone in a nation to speak of that which they do not believe during a pledge, swearing in, or simply using money. (Maybe you got confused by that last chapter?)
It's quite another to demand some "right" to the works of others, to say that I have a perpetual right to copy, distribute, and use anything you make, for free, just because it exists. Are you going to say that any wood furniture I might make at home isn't mine, that it's freely available to anyone that can come get it? That things belong not to the people who put the time, effort, and their lives towards making them, but to whoever can take it?
The only problem here is that your wooden furniture is made from a resource that is expendable, requires transportation costs, and non-replicable (at least for the very near future.)
But let's say that you could make normal everyday things that could be freely copied... say a brownie. And let's say that you could create billions of copies of said food and transport it anywhere in the world in under a second for practically no cost... do you still demand payment for cooking that brownie? Or would you accept that cooking brownies probably isn't going to make you millions of dollars and your brownie might make some kid in a third world country happy for a while? Maybe we now have people who cook brownies out of kindness. Maybe these brownies have heart and care baked into them instead of being filled with only the most popular beats, err, ingredients, just to sell as many as you can copy yourself, for free.
I'm all for capitalism. I'm all for people making money. I'm all for people being successful. I'm for people being innovative in making money. However, I am not for people simply living off one invention the rest of their lives with no further effort. Artists, if they want to make money in their field, can go out and perform live acts for people. They can get out and do actual work instead of sitting in a golden throne room hitting a copy button and letting the government protect the income of their button pushing finger.
If Motorola were to use SkyHook, would it violate the Android license? Maybe this is where the confusion is? IE: Since SkyHook isn't a totally open platform and Android's license may or may not permit integrating non-open modules...
Comments like this make me nervous because they insinuate that other companies (such as Google, Apple) will not behave the same way Microsoft did if they have a chance to.... Your welfare is not their primary concern unless it boosts their profits. I'm not necessarily against public corporations. They're like fire. They can help you when you need them but given the right circumstances they will burn indiscriminately.
ANY competition in a "free market" economy is good. It doesn't matter where it comes from.
But come on now. Even you have to admit that giving Microsoft domination on the mobile platform as well as the desktop would be like lighting fire to all the forests of the world all at one time, using napalm.
Before Windows Phone 7, WM was a great and extremely secure OS
Did we use different versions of Windows Mobile?
WinMo is not something I'd call stable. I've known people who had it lock up playing certain sound clips (sometimes even reboot), I have one friend who had an HD2 that was possibly the slowest device he's ever owned (and it's not the hardware) and having direct experience using it on over 50,000 devices (that I have applications on, which doesn't include another large chunk used for... let say "inventory" management) at my workplace we still have to be concerned with memory usage or it will crash.
Of course, since the guys in charge of the next version of our devices are probably "Microsoft Certified" they plan on using WinMo devices again.
I've always enjoyed Flash for what it has enabled on the browser (being a part time Actionscript developer, I have that bias as well)... the only thing I don't enjoy about it is that it's still fairly tied to Adobe because they control the licenses for the video decoding and can't open that part up. HTML5 in all it's wonder is still a ways off. Until that gets as ubiquitous as Flash, Flash is here to stay.
I installed the new player under Chrome and left the old 64-bit plugin in Firefox on this same machine. The old player stutters still. The new one doesn't.
I have only found Pepsi Throwbacks... Coke seems absent from that lineup.:( I have heard about specialty foods having "Kosher Coke" made with sugar but have not been able to find one.
Slashdot Mirror
Also, as a part of my concealed carry class, I was told that the best method was to keep it concealed at all times. Pay extra attention to who's looking at you, etc. Because, the lawyer teaching the class, stated: "All they have to do is tell the police you were waving it around and if they find the gun on you, you'll likely lose in court... even if you were not waving it and threatening others."
People are generally afraid of guns. There's a perception that only criminals and cops have them. "If you are not a cop, you are a criminal."
You have it totally wrong. The citizens of the US do not NEED guns to feel safe, but with the chance that someone in the store you rob MIGHT have one is sometimes enough of a deterrent.
I think you have this perception that everyone in America has to carry in order to be safe. It's really not that way. It's more of a deterrent to criminals where people are more likely to have a gun (ie: Vermont, where gun laws are less strict.) In cities like Chicago where handgun bans were (I haven't been there in a while) enacted criminals can feel free to rob a store and get away with their life because all law biding citizens sold their guns.
You say that, but how many people in the military will shoot a civilian that they are supposed to be fighting for. (Even though they are trained to kill on order, there's still that "WTF" moment when they ask themselves: "Is this right?")
I've read a few things that basically denounce the actions for which you speak stating that the military would either divide (at worse) or lay down (join) in a revolt.
Sorry for the double post, but this is what I get when I search for "javascript":
http://i.imgur.com/y8lCh.png
(I only cut off the top bar with my username and some of the bottom results... there were no ads down there either.)
Yes, I realize that. But I only see the search results. No sponsored links, no special background or divider. Just relevant search links/sites.
I asked in another post what the intent of him even putting that statement in there was. That was my sole inquiry.
It sounded to me like a "jab" or a false stereotype. Like the Atheist is such an immoral person that they wouldn't agree that aliens have a choice. I equate it to: "Even a reasonable (Christian/Muslim/Democrat/Republican/singled out group) would agree." What does being an Atheist have to do with the alien's choice? What does being anything have to do with agreement. There seems to be some aggressiveness in his post and I pointed it out. Right or wrong, the deed's been done. It simply wasn't needed.
Odd, I'm on FF 3.6.3 (yeah, I need to update) with only Adblock Plus (disabled) and Firebug plugins and I get no ads.
Are you logged in? (Maybe since I'm logged in they don't show? I don't know.)
Whoa.. stirred up the hornet's nest. I'm simply curious why you'd say that. It sounds like a passive aggressive comment to me and it simply doesn't make sense in the grand scheme of things. Atheists do not want to take away freedom of religion. (I don't know of any that do...) However, I know some Atheists who seek to "educate" others (just as highly religious people try to "educate" others.) Both sides have their puppets and puppet masters. My post was questioning the motive as you why you put that statement in there.
I'm not sure that tone you read into my post, but I assure you it's probably not what you read into it.
Also, I see no problem with removing "God" from government, but you seem to have a problem with it? I'm curious as to why. What if someone decided to put the Flying Spaghetti Monster on money? Would you complain?
Even if I disable adblock, I see no ads on Google Instant. I must be missing something.
I don't see these ads you speak of...
I just disabled adblock to see if that's what was blocking these ads, but the Google Instant page simply has no ads.
Obviously, Adam and Eve had kids, some of them built a space ship and set off to explore space while the others stayed to worship his holiness. The ones who went off to abandon their maker were deformed beyond recognition as punishment. That's why all Star Trek/Wars aliens bear similar resemblance to humans, but are all twisted and deformed by Satan.
Even a reasonable Atheist should allow such a creature the freedom to do so, despite disagreeing with it.
I must have skipped the part of my Atheist handbook that explained how we must suppress choice. I only found the chapter where it's perfectly alright for both sides to pitch their sales. There is this chapter on how it's not cool to force everyone in a nation to speak of that which they do not believe during a pledge, swearing in, or simply using money. (Maybe you got confused by that last chapter?)
It's quite another to demand some "right" to the works of others, to say that I have a perpetual right to copy, distribute, and use anything you make, for free, just because it exists. Are you going to say that any wood furniture I might make at home isn't mine, that it's freely available to anyone that can come get it? That things belong not to the people who put the time, effort, and their lives towards making them, but to whoever can take it?
The only problem here is that your wooden furniture is made from a resource that is expendable, requires transportation costs, and non-replicable (at least for the very near future.)
But let's say that you could make normal everyday things that could be freely copied... say a brownie. And let's say that you could create billions of copies of said food and transport it anywhere in the world in under a second for practically no cost... do you still demand payment for cooking that brownie? Or would you accept that cooking brownies probably isn't going to make you millions of dollars and your brownie might make some kid in a third world country happy for a while? Maybe we now have people who cook brownies out of kindness. Maybe these brownies have heart and care baked into them instead of being filled with only the most popular beats, err, ingredients, just to sell as many as you can copy yourself, for free.
I'm all for capitalism. I'm all for people making money. I'm all for people being successful. I'm for people being innovative in making money. However, I am not for people simply living off one invention the rest of their lives with no further effort. Artists, if they want to make money in their field, can go out and perform live acts for people. They can get out and do actual work instead of sitting in a golden throne room hitting a copy button and letting the government protect the income of their button pushing finger.
There are other foods? ... besides mac and cheese and grilled cheese sandwiches?
Oh, and I'm no little kid! Don't make me get my dad to beat you up.
The question I have...
If Motorola were to use SkyHook, would it violate the Android license? Maybe this is where the confusion is? IE: Since SkyHook isn't a totally open platform and Android's license may or may not permit integrating non-open modules...
Comments like this make me nervous because they insinuate that other companies (such as Google, Apple) will not behave the same way Microsoft did if they have a chance to. ...
Your welfare is not their primary concern unless it boosts their profits. I'm not necessarily against public corporations. They're like fire. They can help you when you need them but given the right circumstances they will burn indiscriminately.
ANY competition in a "free market" economy is good. It doesn't matter where it comes from.
But come on now. Even you have to admit that giving Microsoft domination on the mobile platform as well as the desktop would be like lighting fire to all the forests of the world all at one time, using napalm.
Before Windows Phone 7, WM was a great and extremely secure OS
Did we use different versions of Windows Mobile?
WinMo is not something I'd call stable. I've known people who had it lock up playing certain sound clips (sometimes even reboot), I have one friend who had an HD2 that was possibly the slowest device he's ever owned (and it's not the hardware) and having direct experience using it on over 50,000 devices (that I have applications on, which doesn't include another large chunk used for... let say "inventory" management) at my workplace we still have to be concerned with memory usage or it will crash.
Of course, since the guys in charge of the next version of our devices are probably "Microsoft Certified" they plan on using WinMo devices again.
As well as the post above, the iPhone was/is only on one carrier. So Android had Verizon, T-Mobile (and others) pushing them.
Google makes it easy... Manufacturers make it hard.
I've always enjoyed Flash for what it has enabled on the browser (being a part time Actionscript developer, I have that bias as well)... the only thing I don't enjoy about it is that it's still fairly tied to Adobe because they control the licenses for the video decoding and can't open that part up. HTML5 in all it's wonder is still a ways off. Until that gets as ubiquitous as Flash, Flash is here to stay.
I'll bet pretty much all of them (besides video.) I've been running the old 64-bit player as well. This new one is VERY nice for video.
I installed the new player under Chrome and left the old 64-bit plugin in Firefox on this same machine. The old player stutters still. The new one doesn't.
I noticed that I can now watch 720p video without hitches, and neither of my cores were maxed out. You may need a new room heater.
I have only found Pepsi Throwbacks... Coke seems absent from that lineup. :( I have heard about specialty foods having "Kosher Coke" made with sugar but have not been able to find one.
You want the "Corn Refiners" to stop refining corn?