Okay here's my experience of using virtualization at home and with a bit of office work:
Xen - for the time I started using it in 2008, a really big advantage was paravitualization mode which allows to run virtualized linux instances really fast -- in that respect Xen is awesome, however there are several disadvantages: in theory you could run anything that supports paravirtualization mode, so that means you could run All the BSDs, but I never succeeded of installing any of them when I tried, windows of course is out. You could run "fully virtual" environment if you hardware supports it, but you're going to just use some bits of Qemu, so there isn't much advantage of running xen if you have the hardware. The nastier bit about Xen, that has been always a pain to initially configure Hypervisor and get bridged networking going, I see it got better in recent years, but it's still a pain, and I just configure network bridge and omit Xen network config entirely; the other thing, at least in Debian, the most recent version of linux kernel it supports is 2.6.26, and generally seems like it's on its way out. On the plus side, xen-tools would let you create a guest in seconds, be that debian, fedora, centOS or any other popular distribution, also libvirt-bin supports xen, so you get a nice GUI management tool, still it's kind of painful to configure and maintain all of this.
VMWare -- I tried server, and this is an example why proprietary software on open source system really sucks. It's not as painful to install as xen, but it is a lot more painful to maintain; every time you update the kernel you need to run a script to rebuild all the kernel modules, this could be automated, but really, why bother? 'm taking about Vmware Server 1.X here, I tried 2.X and instead of a venerable VmWare Console that everyone with more or less success tries to copy (see "Virtual Manager", "VritualBox OSE"), they threw it away and came up with some web-based solution, for which you have to install browser plugin, and it is generally even more painful and slower that server 1.x. Also it's pretty much mandatory to run it on CentOS (Not fedora, because it has too recent kernel, not ubuntu becase there hasn't been a package since 8.10, if I remember correctly, and not in debian because there never been a package, you can always install Vmware from an archive file insted of a package, but it would only result in more maintenance overhead). On the upside your virtual host would get a lot of SMBIOS info if you need that for testing software, but in general VirtualBox seems to be the one-to-one replacement of VmWare.
VirtualBox -- I've only been playing with it recently and it seems that everything that VMWare gets wrong VirtualBox gets right, although it seems a bit desktop-y for me as I haven't tired to run it in a headless server config, also it doesn't seem to support Linux LVM and only stores virtual images as files; but that's all more of a nitpicking I guess it's more of a matter of preferences between it and KVM. I haven't tried reading SMBIOS info so I don't know if it works.
KVM -- it's in kernel and it's always will be supported, I use it and if you have the hardware, it's the first option to be tried out. This thing works out of the box, just install the packages and make sure that amd/intel hardware support is enabled, configure bridge (default option is NAT, but I haven't tried it) and you're done. I'm in the process of converting some VMware images to KVM and I can't be happier, it's fast, Virtual Manager works so well that I don't even have to use command line, which is also available, it supports LVM and for all intensive purposes this is industrial grade virtualization solution, the only problem -- no snapshot support, but I think that was added in the kernel recently (see yesterday's article about new version of linux kernel), and there are ways to get around that using LVM.
As much as I love snarky comments it doesn't quite work in this case, there could be no Government Jesus because government isn't run by an abstract idea, 'liberals' think that in a set of cases decisions are better made by a government official with a defined set of goals and responsibilities, as opposed to some random person in the industry who has no responsibilities before the public, thus we have such things as social services, healthcare, police, army, breathable air and drinkable water.
Also, why are you so sure that Free Market Jesus wouldn't be sacrificing your liberties, or for that matter your life (I've got so many examples, where do I start?). While being so scared of government boogeyman, you fail to see the elephant in the room.
Try going to a college and calling some black women making a huge amount of noise under your dorm room "water buffalo" and see if you get expelled or suspended (it's happened).
Where was that article in the last 2 weeks about some English kid who disagreed with Obama -- seems that he's now forbidden from ever traveling to the United States. Sorry. you're delusional if you think you have freedom of speech under the Democrats.
Yes I remember the story too, I cant find links right now, for me the whole story wasn't as black and white as you describe it to me.
* Smoke weed but not tobacco -- perhaps means you get new freedoms of legally doing drugs, but the government wants to regulate how much tobacco you consume, and not completely stop you from doing so.
* Censure from saying hateful words -- since when? There's such thing as first amendment, but it doesn't guarantee that no one would think you're an arsehole after you exercised it.
* There is no health benefits of eating fast food, there is an obesity epidemic, government must regulate it. See tobacco, catalytic converters. No one is saying that you'd be prohibited from eating it, but all the government could do is: make it more healthy, make people eat less of it, remove corn subsidies, and in general be more proactive about it.
* Alcohol is regulated soda isn't, soda is almost just as bad for you (see alcoholic cirrhosis vs. fatty liver disease). Also it's partially government's fault that we decrease our intake of fats and instead started eating really unhealthy carbs. Also I recommend watching this video that exactly explains why soft drinks, and sugar in general are really bad -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM .
* To the credit of democrats I'm yet to see anyone who doesn't agree with them to be called 'terrorist enabler' or 'traitor' or anything like that.
You also generalize to a great degree, there's liberal wing of democrats and there's a conservative wing of democrats, there's constant infighting. Name one elected republican politician except Ron Paul who is for personal freedoms? I dare you.
I hate this false equivalences, yes democrats are pussies and are bargaining away too much of their principles, but republicans are batshit crazy at this point they have no principles, have you seen new republican manifesto -- all empty slogans. What is common here? Now you propagating an idea of being complete cynic and not doing anything about the situation, and feeling at the same time; that's just counterproductive.
A libertarian website runs an old rehash of a story which was already been discussed here on Jun 27, where everyone agreed that Liberman is an idiot.
Nothing new happened since then, but the midterms on the horizon and the libertarians need to show that the government(Democrats) is bad and everyone needs to vote for them(Republicans, tea party, whatever).
Slashdot editors, of course, posted this story without giving it so as much as a single thought, I mean is it that hard to google 'internet kill switch site:slashdot.org" ? I'm not new here, still, can I blame slashdot editors for everything, can I?
Nope, your analogy is still flawed. The illegality of drug trafficking means high upfront costs and high penalties for everyone doing business, but for the free market you need equal access for all participants, and in this case you got all the conditions for oligopolies to form. Thus cartels. This isn't an example of a natural progression of a free market.
Meh, I've got Lexmark 250dn, I've could have gotten the chip when I last refilled it, but I opted not to and as a result a yellow warning light for 'low toner' is constantly on.
Although what I've got is a cheap model, maybe they haven't bothered with a proper chip.
I just followed a few links from the one you've given. And yeah, apparently there is a national intranet in North Korea Kwangmyong with 'free' dial-up access. I wonder if anyone getting on that network is being monitored.
Anyway this whole thing looks so deliciously similar to a network in movie Avalon. Actually it's like that movie is reenacted in real life in North Korea. Oppressive communist government? Check. Network somewhat accessible to the general public, from whimsically unreliable terminals. Check (I got a hunch that all the network equipment in NK is old an whimsically unreliable). Brain-computer interface. Not so much, but I believe in the movie it was more of a plot device than anything.
Hahaha, I wish I had mod points, because your post is hilarious, though I'm not entirely sure if you did that on purpose or not.
Also I truly appreciate the internal inconsistency of your argument: we achieve sustainable growth & consumption, but if democrats try to do anything about it, republicans are better because they are worse.
All in all it's a jolly good idea of fixing our current environmental problems by eliminating majority of the population.
I'm intrigued by your ideas and would like to subscribe you your newsletter.
Oh please, nature doesn't really care of us either, and the planet doesn't have a point of view, so please don't presuppose that it was in some sort of balance and we somehow ruining it.
Also, I really like your prophetic statement about collapse of global 'ecology/economy' and what do you mean by it in the first place?
Coundn't plastics be made out of coal? I mean it is easier to make them out of oil, but it's not like oil contains fairy dust that makes it unique, and not just chains of hydrocarbons. And what about actually recycling plastics, they don't degrade in the environment so they could be collected from landfills and well.. recycling containers.
I don't think it's a big deal that we're burning that oil and some day may run out of it, I'm much more worried about all that carbon that we're putting in the atmosphere and causing global warming. Nuclear power plants and electric cars seem to be the way to go if not solving then mitigating the problem.
You're getting my whole point wrong. Not socialism, but social democracy, not eliminated, but reduced.
I don't see the government as a solid entity that gets everything in its hands that that's the only way to make it right; I see it as arbiter to capitalist system which does produce goods but is inherently unjust, and the government upholds the law, and gives a level playing field for everybody, which has to be paid by taxes. In that view most of the western democracies fit this category, I already mentioned Great Britain (use any metric of comparison from the time of industrial revolution and now), but it seems like every Western democracy after WW2 would fit the description.
But if you're trying to make me say that socialism eliminated inequality -- good luck fighting strawman.
Thanks for quoting back most of my post to me, I love seeing my words cited. But I have to tell you, since I'm the one who wrote it, I sort of already knew what it said.
That's quite a bit narcissistic. Good for you.
Did you have a point in any of that, or were you just so excited that somebody said something Rachel Maddow would disagree with, you had to repeat it?
If you haven't understood what my point was, then I'm sorry, and what of anything I said has to do with Rachel Maddow?
I'm well aware that socialism, when combined with proper amounts of fairy dust, kitten whiskers, double rainbows, and the earnest wishes of 6 year olds, will eliminate "social inequalities". I'm also well aware that it doesn't do that in practice, because all socialism does is concentrate wealth in the hands of the central government, which special interests then wrestle with each other to control - often with bloody results.
Why do you have to do it again, these are truly random ramblings, it looks like there's a burned out circuit responsible for the knowledge of civics and rational thinking, you're trying to use it but it's just isn't there. You're not even trying to make counter arguments but instead you end up running in circles mindlessly repeating -- "socialism -- bad, socialism -- fairytales, socialism -- bloodbath".
Dude, I just hope that one day you'd realize that you're wrong.
Dear God, you just went out of your way to prove his point. You should really go back and find definitions of socialism and social democracy and look them up.
You're using this tortured, wrapped logic to somehow argue against your own rights. Are you implying that the gold standard of national economy is 19th century Britain? And, what with the talking points?
- your preferred liberal (socialist) agenda - who doesn't love free shit? You know what they don't love? Paying for it, as they eventually will. - of very good reasons to not support socialism in practice - most notably that it's not financially sustainable as an economic solution - pay for entitlements given to others - Can you think of a worse way to encourage creativity and industry - this country has been governed as a socialist state for many years now - they're both beholden to their corporate & wealthy masters who are giving them their marching orders - Socialism - in practice - is just another way for a wealthy and privileged few to amass more power and wealth - rich few who enjoy privilege far beyond what the serfs tilling the land are entitled to
Also, I got to give you extra points for using an extreme case of social inequality, a signature feature of a capitalist system, to be blamed on a socialist ideology, the whole point of which, is to fight such inequality. Also, I'd like to point out this sentence --
"Great, you're very skilled with programming. Now you need to go work an extra 20 hours this week to pay for your neighbor's food, since he's kind of dumb?"
First of all, I really hope that it makes any sense for you, and second, I hope you enjoy 40 hour week and 1.5x overtime that the evil subversive socialists brought to you.
Dude, you should really stop watching that Glenn Beck show and step away from the TV set.
The question could go either: Did Bush have the intelligence warning that there is going to be an imminent attack on US but didn't do anything about it? (my answer is Yes, just google 'Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US') OR Did US government orchestrated the destruction of WTC? (Then my answer is a definite no.)
Anyway I don't think that the belief that US government might be behind 9/11, given that how the administration lied about the invasion of Iraq, is as misguided as anything that contains words 'Obama', 'secret', 'terrorist' and 'muslim' in the same sentence.
Actually, it's even easier, add cobalt to several nukes on site, blow them up on site and let winds and currents take care of the rest. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cobalt_bomb
Actually I do mind, as you completely missed my point. I just was poking fun at the parent by using exactly the same broad generalizing statements as the parent only flipping ideological side of the argument.
About crimes committed with legally purchased guns out of the state -- I heard about a study being sited on some news program, I don't think can find it right now.
And yet conservatives plug their ears and scream "I CANT HEAR YOU" when you present the solid and provenfact that gun laws STOP gun violence as criminals, unsuprisingly, have to jump through extra hoops to get a weapon and could be arrested for mere posession of a firearm. Most of the crimes in states that enforce gun laws are comitted with firearms legally purchased in the states with more relaxed gun laws.
The absense of gun laws simply arms the criminals. That is it. There is no other use.
Slashdot Mirror
Okay here's my experience of using virtualization at home and with a bit of office work:
Xen - for the time I started using it in 2008, a really big advantage was paravitualization mode which allows to run virtualized linux instances really fast -- in that respect Xen is awesome, however there are several disadvantages: in theory you could run anything that supports paravirtualization mode, so that means you could run All the BSDs, but I never succeeded of installing any of them when I tried, windows of course is out. You could run "fully virtual" environment if you hardware supports it, but you're going to just use some bits of Qemu, so there isn't much advantage of running xen if you have the hardware. The nastier bit about Xen, that has been always a pain to initially configure Hypervisor and get bridged networking going, I see it got better in recent years, but it's still a pain, and I just configure network bridge and omit Xen network config entirely; the other thing, at least in Debian, the most recent version of linux kernel it supports is 2.6.26, and generally seems like it's on its way out. On the plus side, xen-tools would let you create a guest in seconds, be that debian, fedora, centOS or any other popular distribution, also libvirt-bin supports xen, so you get a nice GUI management tool, still it's kind of painful to configure and maintain all of this.
VMWare -- I tried server, and this is an example why proprietary software on open source system really sucks. It's not as painful to install as xen, but it is a lot more painful to maintain; every time you update the kernel you need to run a script to rebuild all the kernel modules, this could be automated, but really, why bother? 'm taking about Vmware Server 1.X here, I tried 2.X and instead of a venerable VmWare Console that everyone with more or less success tries to copy (see "Virtual Manager", "VritualBox OSE"), they threw it away and came up with some web-based solution, for which you have to install browser plugin, and it is generally even more painful and slower that server 1.x. Also it's pretty much mandatory to run it on CentOS (Not fedora, because it has too recent kernel, not ubuntu becase there hasn't been a package since 8.10, if I remember correctly, and not in debian because there never been a package, you can always install Vmware from an archive file insted of a package, but it would only result in more maintenance overhead). On the upside your virtual host would get a lot of SMBIOS info if you need that for testing software, but in general VirtualBox seems to be the one-to-one replacement of VmWare.
VirtualBox -- I've only been playing with it recently and it seems that everything that VMWare gets wrong VirtualBox gets right, although it seems a bit desktop-y for me as I haven't tired to run it in a headless server config, also it doesn't seem to support Linux LVM and only stores virtual images as files; but that's all more of a nitpicking I guess it's more of a matter of preferences between it and KVM. I haven't tried reading SMBIOS info so I don't know if it works.
KVM -- it's in kernel and it's always will be supported, I use it and if you have the hardware, it's the first option to be tried out. This thing works out of the box, just install the packages and make sure that amd/intel hardware support is enabled, configure bridge (default option is NAT, but I haven't tried it) and you're done. I'm in the process of converting some VMware images to KVM and I can't be happier, it's fast, Virtual Manager works so well that I don't even have to use command line, which is also available, it supports LVM and for all intensive purposes this is industrial grade virtualization solution, the only problem -- no snapshot support, but I think that was added in the kernel recently (see yesterday's article about new version of linux kernel), and there are ways to get around that using LVM.
As much as I love snarky comments it doesn't quite work in this case, there could be no Government Jesus because government isn't run by an abstract idea, 'liberals' think that in a set of cases decisions are better made by a government official with a defined set of goals and responsibilities, as opposed to some random person in the industry who has no responsibilities before the public, thus we have such things as social services, healthcare, police, army, breathable air and drinkable water.
Also, why are you so sure that Free Market Jesus wouldn't be sacrificing your liberties, or for that matter your life (I've got so many examples, where do I start?). While being so scared of government boogeyman, you fail to see the elephant in the room.
Try going to a college and calling some black women making a huge amount of noise under your dorm room "water buffalo" and see if you get expelled or suspended (it's happened).
It was a private college and charges were later dropped -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_buffalo_incident
Where was that article in the last 2 weeks about some English kid who disagreed with Obama -- seems that he's now forbidden from ever traveling to the United States. Sorry. you're delusional if you think you have freedom of speech under the Democrats.
Yes I remember the story too, I cant find links right now, for me the whole story wasn't as black and white as you describe it to me.
GTFO.
Sincerely.
The rest of the world.
I you're being overly simplistic:
* Smoke weed but not tobacco -- perhaps means you get new freedoms of legally doing drugs, but the government wants to regulate how much tobacco you consume, and not completely stop you from doing so.
* Censure from saying hateful words -- since when? There's such thing as first amendment, but it doesn't guarantee that no one would think you're an arsehole after you exercised it.
* There is no health benefits of eating fast food, there is an obesity epidemic, government must regulate it. See tobacco, catalytic converters. No one is saying that you'd be prohibited from eating it, but all the government could do is: make it more healthy, make people eat less of it, remove corn subsidies, and in general be more proactive about it.
* Alcohol is regulated soda isn't, soda is almost just as bad for you (see alcoholic cirrhosis vs. fatty liver disease). Also it's partially government's fault that we decrease our intake of fats and instead started eating really unhealthy carbs. Also I recommend watching this video that exactly explains why soft drinks, and sugar in general are really bad -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM .
* To the credit of democrats I'm yet to see anyone who doesn't agree with them to be called 'terrorist enabler' or 'traitor' or anything like that.
You also generalize to a great degree, there's liberal wing of democrats and there's a conservative wing of democrats, there's constant infighting. Name one elected republican politician except Ron Paul who is for personal freedoms? I dare you.
I hate this false equivalences, yes democrats are pussies and are bargaining away too much of their principles, but republicans are batshit crazy at this point they have no principles, have you seen new republican manifesto -- all empty slogans. What is common here? Now you propagating an idea of being complete cynic and not doing anything about the situation, and feeling at the same time; that's just counterproductive.
Yes we do, Glenn Back hasn't, so I though you were trying to humor us.
DR. Glenn Beck ???!
You must be joking.
A libertarian website runs an old rehash of a story which was already been discussed here on Jun 27, where everyone agreed that Liberman is an idiot.
Nothing new happened since then, but the midterms on the horizon and the libertarians need to show that the government(Democrats) is bad and everyone needs to vote for them(Republicans, tea party, whatever).
Slashdot editors, of course, posted this story without giving it so as much as a single thought, I mean is it that hard to google 'internet kill switch site:slashdot.org" ? I'm not new here, still, can I blame slashdot editors for everything, can I?
Nope, your analogy is still flawed. The illegality of drug trafficking means high upfront costs and high penalties for everyone doing business, but for the free market you need equal access for all participants, and in this case you got all the conditions for oligopolies to form. Thus cartels. This isn't an example of a natural progression of a free market.
Cocaine.
Err... No. If you think about it "Columbian drug cartels', and a cartel is the farthest thing from free market.
Meh, I've got Lexmark 250dn, I've could have gotten the chip when I last refilled it, but I opted not to and as a result a yellow warning light for 'low toner' is constantly on.
Although what I've got is a cheap model, maybe they haven't bothered with a proper chip.
I just followed a few links from the one you've given. And yeah, apparently there is a national intranet in North Korea Kwangmyong with 'free' dial-up access. I wonder if anyone getting on that network is being monitored.
Anyway this whole thing looks so deliciously similar to a network in movie Avalon. Actually it's like that movie is reenacted in real life in North Korea. Oppressive communist government? Check. Network somewhat accessible to the general public, from whimsically unreliable terminals. Check (I got a hunch that all the network equipment in NK is old an whimsically unreliable). Brain-computer interface. Not so much, but I believe in the movie it was more of a plot device than anything.
Hahaha, I wish I had mod points, because your post is hilarious, though I'm not entirely sure if you did that on purpose or not.
Also I truly appreciate the internal inconsistency of your argument: we achieve sustainable growth & consumption, but if democrats try to do anything about it, republicans are better because they are worse.
All in all it's a jolly good idea of fixing our current environmental problems by eliminating majority of the population.
I'm intrigued by your ideas and would like to subscribe you your newsletter.
Oh please, nature doesn't really care of us either, and the planet doesn't have a point of view, so please don't presuppose that it was in some sort of balance and we somehow ruining it.
Also, I really like your prophetic statement about collapse of global 'ecology/economy' and what do you mean by it in the first place?
I just went to wikipedia and read all about it.
The really scary thing about maggots, that their infestation may lead to myiasis.
Coundn't plastics be made out of coal? I mean it is easier to make them out of oil, but it's not like oil contains fairy dust that makes it unique, and not just chains of hydrocarbons. And what about actually recycling plastics, they don't degrade in the environment so they could be collected from landfills and well.. recycling containers.
I don't think it's a big deal that we're burning that oil and some day may run out of it, I'm much more worried about all that carbon that we're putting in the atmosphere and causing global warming. Nuclear power plants and electric cars seem to be the way to go if not solving then mitigating the problem.
Jesus, man, how far up your own ass CAN you be?
You're getting my whole point wrong. Not socialism, but social democracy, not eliminated, but reduced.
I don't see the government as a solid entity that gets everything in its hands that that's the only way to make it right; I see it as arbiter to capitalist system which does produce goods but is inherently unjust, and the government upholds the law, and gives a level playing field for everybody, which has to be paid by taxes. In that view most of the western democracies fit this category, I already mentioned Great Britain (use any metric of comparison from the time of industrial revolution and now), but it seems like every Western democracy after WW2 would fit the description.
But if you're trying to make me say that socialism eliminated inequality -- good luck fighting strawman.
Thanks for quoting back most of my post to me, I love seeing my words cited. But I have to tell you, since I'm the one who wrote it, I sort of already knew what it said.
That's quite a bit narcissistic. Good for you.
Did you have a point in any of that, or were you just so excited that somebody said something Rachel Maddow would disagree with, you had to repeat it?
If you haven't understood what my point was, then I'm sorry, and what of anything I said has to do with Rachel Maddow?
I'm well aware that socialism, when combined with proper amounts of fairy dust, kitten whiskers, double rainbows, and the earnest wishes of 6 year olds, will eliminate "social inequalities". I'm also well aware that it doesn't do that in practice, because all socialism does is concentrate wealth in the hands of the central government, which special interests then wrestle with each other to control - often with bloody results.
Why do you have to do it again, these are truly random ramblings, it looks like there's a burned out circuit responsible for the knowledge of civics and rational thinking, you're trying to use it but it's just isn't there. You're not even trying to make counter arguments but instead you end up running in circles mindlessly repeating -- "socialism -- bad, socialism -- fairytales, socialism -- bloodbath".
Dude, I just hope that one day you'd realize that you're wrong.
Dear God, you just went out of your way to prove his point. You should really go back and find definitions of socialism and social democracy and look them up.
You're using this tortured, wrapped logic to somehow argue against your own rights. Are you implying that the gold standard of national economy is 19th century Britain? And, what with the talking points?
- your preferred liberal (socialist) agenda
- who doesn't love free shit? You know what they don't love? Paying for it, as they eventually will.
- of very good reasons to not support socialism in practice - most notably that it's not financially sustainable as an economic solution
- pay for entitlements given to others
- Can you think of a worse way to encourage creativity and industry
- this country has been governed as a socialist state for many years now
- they're both beholden to their corporate & wealthy masters who are giving them their marching orders
- Socialism - in practice - is just another way for a wealthy and privileged few to amass more power and wealth
- rich few who enjoy privilege far beyond what the serfs tilling the land are entitled to
Also, I got to give you extra points for using an extreme case of social inequality, a signature feature of a capitalist system, to be blamed on a socialist ideology, the whole point of which, is to fight such inequality. Also, I'd like to point out this sentence --
"Great, you're very skilled with programming. Now you need to go work an extra 20 hours this week to pay for your neighbor's food, since he's kind of dumb?"
First of all, I really hope that it makes any sense for you, and second, I hope you enjoy 40 hour week and 1.5x overtime that the evil subversive socialists brought to you.
Dude, you should really stop watching that Glenn Beck show and step away from the TV set.
There's lies, damned lies, and statistics.
In this pool the question is somewhat unclear.
The question could go either: Did Bush have the intelligence warning that there is going to be an imminent attack on US but didn't do anything about it? (my answer is Yes, just google 'Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US') OR Did US government orchestrated the destruction of WTC? (Then my answer is a definite no.)
Anyway I don't think that the belief that US government might be behind 9/11, given that how the administration lied about the invasion of Iraq, is as misguided as anything that contains words 'Obama', 'secret', 'terrorist' and 'muslim' in the same sentence.
Actually, it's even easier, add cobalt to several nukes on site, blow them up on site and let winds and currents take care of the rest. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cobalt_bomb
Actually I do mind, as you completely missed my point. I just was poking fun at the parent by using exactly the same broad generalizing statements as the parent only flipping ideological side of the argument.
About crimes committed with legally purchased guns out of the state -- I heard about a study being sited on some news program, I don't think can find it right now.
And yet conservatives plug their ears and scream "I CANT HEAR YOU" when you present the solid and provenfact that gun laws STOP gun violence as criminals, unsuprisingly, have to jump through extra hoops to get a weapon and could be arrested for mere posession of a firearm. Most of the crimes in states that enforce gun laws are comitted with firearms legally purchased in the states with more relaxed gun laws.
The absense of gun laws simply arms the criminals. That is it. There is no other use.
I wonder if he can repair my constituency' side wall?
--Simon