IOW, just like in California, if you don't want to be sued for knowingly having a Carcinogen that you didn't warn about, in Texas, you have to post a sign if you don't want to be sued for telling people they can't have a hand-gun on your property.
That's what the law stipulates. It imposes a liability for those who do something without posting about it.
Which are strictly dictated according to arcane technical parameters of no merit in Texas.
And if you're off by one quarter inch, some gun-toting fag will come into your place of business, wave their.357 magnum in your face, and threaten you with it just because they can.
The rest of your rant makes it clear that you're an idiot, but I will address this section just so that anyone reading it doesn't get the wrong impression.
You've basically just made all that shit up. The law says nothing like that; in fact it quite clearly states the opposite. Section 30.07:
"TRESPASS BY LICENSE HOLDER WITH AN OPENLY CARRIED HANDGUN. (a) A license holder commits an offense if the license holder:
(1) openly carries a handgun under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, on property of another without effective consent; and
(2) received notice that entry on the property by a license holder openly carrying a handgun was forbidden.
(b) For purposes of this section, a person receives notice if the owner of the property or someone with apparent authority to act for the owner provides notice to the person by oral or written communication."
In other words, I don't even need a sign; if I verbally tell you not to bring a gun onto my property and you do, that's a $200 fine. If I tell you to take your gun and leave, and you refuse, it becomes a Class A misdemeanour.
The sign law has nothing to do with anyone suing you and everything to do with regulating what constitutes a reasonable warning, so that you don't end up with situations where gun owners are being charged for disobeying a sign which they couldn't see.
Now what does Texas law regarding concealed carry of weapons have to do with California's requiring stupid, B.S. warnings for chemicals found in COFFEE? The fact that the state government is in BOTH cases requiring the posting of warning signs that people will largely ignore
Oh boy, you're really reaching. There's no law in Texas requiring you to post such signs. That's just bullshit. People are free to post them or not post them, depending on their own desires. The only thing which the laws stipulate is that IF you decide to post then, THEN the signs must meet certain criteria; otherwise you don't get to have someone arrested/fined just because they didn't see your shitty sign which you stuck in a back room somewhere.
You're not even comparing apples and oranges here; you're comparing an apple to a gerbil which you're calling an orange.
Nonsense. Most countries have some form of arbitration outside the regular court system. For instance, the Sharia courts operating in England do so under the guise of Arbitration.
The problem with those is that there's essentially no interest in the development community for creating CM based ROMs... and I don't trust the software that they come with.
As soon as someone ports LineageOS to a decent Chinese phone I'll definitely consider buying one. Until then... not so much.
Those sorts of cases already exist but I don't think they go far enough. What I'm suggesting is something more deeply integrated into the smartphone.
Zerolemon makes replacement batteries and cases for some phones which replace the stock battery and the original rear of the phone. I had one for my LG G3; the battery was 9,500 mAh. Made it thick and heavy but not unbearably so. They make one for the LG V20 as well as some other models.
You do realize it's the market that wants thin, and not Apple?
Says who? I'll bet my left arm that, were one of the manufacturers to take a chance and pit out a phone that's twice as thick but features triple the battery life, it would sell like crazy.
It was a stupid statement, so whatever question you think was implied is equally stupid. You can easily demonstrate it's stupidity by just supplying it to a different field:
"So then, with all the specialized training and assessment which doctors undergo, I guess we're forced to assume that all botched surgeries are deliberate and premeditated."
I'm gonna guess it's more than that, so let's round it to an even $10 trillion.
You can make up whatever numbers you want while you're guessing, but over in the real world the highest credible estimate - including not only the money actually spent but also projected medical spending as well as the interest on borrowed money - comes in at under $6 trillion.
So yeah, he exaggerated.
Yeah. What's an order of magnitude between friends.
Add in Iran and I can get us to $125k easy.
Man, if you add in the war with the Klingons we're probably hitting $1,000,000 easy!
So you tell me, when's it all gonna stop?
Never. Why would you expect it to? The story of mankind is one of constant conflict. What in the world makes you think that you live in a special time which will usher in an end to war?
Yeah I do pretty much the same thing. Whip up a big batch of chili, portion out into individual servings in Tupperware, freeze it, and I've got lunch or dinner for a couple weeks. Make a batch of egg salad and that's breakfast for 4 days. Tuna salad, same thing but for lunch. It's not hard, it just limits your options a little bit. The biggest pain is trying to get enough fresh fruit and vegetables.
I don't understand the objection to precision drone strikes. Would the objects prefer to just fire a missile in the general area and kill everyone in the vicinity? Would they prefer dumb drones that can't determine who the target is and kills the wrong people?
Yes, they would. You see, their real objection to the military has nothing to do with innocents being killed. They just hate the very idea of the military as a whole. Even if every single strike took out some horrible monster of a man, and didn't harm a single innocent, they would still be opposed to it. The problem, in that case, is that they would have no way to rationally voice their opposition, so they need civilian casualties. They need weddings being blown up; the more the better. It lets them rant and rave about how horrible the military is; anything which reduces the civilian body count runs contrary to their interests.
People ostensibly working for a civilian data-harvesting company; don't want to contribute directly to the development of systems designed to decrease the number of civilians killed by existing killing machines. They're 'sociopaths' who have no notion of right or wrong.
That's pretty much what already happens. Drone operators are told "we have a report of a training camp holding a meeting here... go find it". Then the op flies around looking for a meeting, sees a bunch of gathered people, and with no indication to the contrary, command orders the strike. The idea that it might be a wedding never crosses anyone's mind.
No. There are personnel separate from the drone operator who analyze the footage and advise on whether or not to engage. Video analysis is their only job, and they undergo specialized training and assessment using footage of previous missions to ensure that they're not just going to randomly blow up whatever they see.
More horseshit. In 1990 the number of people globally living in extreme poverty was 1.9 billion. Today it is 836 million. This has induces some erosion of the middle class in "first world" nations, yeah, but a far bigger effect has been the increase in single parent households. Neither "the poor" nor the "the middle class" are earning less; people are getting compensated the same or more than they were a few decades ago, they're just making worse life choices. Meanwhile poverty on a global level is massively decreasing.
According to Wikipedia the current wave of violence started with anti-Muslim riots in 2012 triggered by the gang rape of a Buddhist woman, despite a medical examiner saying she wasn't raped, and at least one of the alleged rapists being Buddhist.
Framing this as "anti-muslim riots" is asinine. From your own article:
"As of 22 August, officially there had been 88 casualties â" 57 Muslims and 31 Buddhists. An estimated 90,000 people were displaced by the violence. About 2,528 houses were burned; of those, 1,336 belonged to Rohingyas and 1,192 belonged to Rakhines."
This doesn't seem to be consistent with your claims that "they started it".
"They started it" would be far too simplistic of an analysis, which is why I never said any such thing. This conflict, like most such conflicts around the world, is the result of centuries of back-and-forth attacks between two distinct groups with a very long history of animosity. I'm not particularly interested in pointing fingers; I'm just annoyed by your determination to paint the Muslims as a besieged group of guiltless victims.
Slashdot Mirror
IOW, just like in California, if you don't want to be sued for knowingly having a Carcinogen that you didn't warn about, in Texas, you have to post a sign if you don't want to be sued for telling people they can't have a hand-gun on your property.
That's what the law stipulates. It imposes a liability for those who do something without posting about it.
Which are strictly dictated according to arcane technical parameters of no merit in Texas.
And if you're off by one quarter inch, some gun-toting fag will come into your place of business, wave their .357 magnum in your face, and threaten you with it just because they can.
The rest of your rant makes it clear that you're an idiot, but I will address this section just so that anyone reading it doesn't get the wrong impression.
You've basically just made all that shit up. The law says nothing like that; in fact it quite clearly states the opposite. Section 30.07:
"TRESPASS BY LICENSE HOLDER WITH AN OPENLY CARRIED HANDGUN. (a) A license holder commits an offense if the license holder:
(1) openly carries a handgun under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, on property of another without effective consent; and
(2) received notice that entry on the property by a license holder openly carrying a handgun was forbidden.
(b) For purposes of this section, a person receives notice if the owner of the property or someone with apparent authority to act for the owner provides notice to the person by oral or written communication."
In other words, I don't even need a sign; if I verbally tell you not to bring a gun onto my property and you do, that's a $200 fine. If I tell you to take your gun and leave, and you refuse, it becomes a Class A misdemeanour.
The sign law has nothing to do with anyone suing you and everything to do with regulating what constitutes a reasonable warning, so that you don't end up with situations where gun owners are being charged for disobeying a sign which they couldn't see.
Now what does Texas law regarding concealed carry of weapons have to do with California's requiring stupid, B.S. warnings for chemicals found in COFFEE? The fact that the state government is in BOTH cases requiring the posting of warning signs that people will largely ignore
Oh boy, you're really reaching. There's no law in Texas requiring you to post such signs. That's just bullshit. People are free to post them or not post them, depending on their own desires. The only thing which the laws stipulate is that IF you decide to post then, THEN the signs must meet certain criteria; otherwise you don't get to have someone arrested/fined just because they didn't see your shitty sign which you stuck in a back room somewhere.
You're not even comparing apples and oranges here; you're comparing an apple to a gerbil which you're calling an orange.
There is nothing sociopathic about wanting to avoid your lifes work to directly go into creating weapons for war.
True; if you're referring to video analysis as "weapons of war" you're psychotic rather than sociopathic.
You're welcome.
So do banks. Guess my mortgage contract is null and void.
Nonsense. Most countries have some form of arbitration outside the regular court system. For instance, the Sharia courts operating in England do so under the guise of Arbitration.
The problem with those is that there's essentially no interest in the development community for creating CM based ROMs ... and I don't trust the software that they come with.
As soon as someone ports LineageOS to a decent Chinese phone I'll definitely consider buying one. Until then ... not so much.
Those sorts of cases already exist but I don't think they go far enough. What I'm suggesting is something more deeply integrated into the smartphone.
Zerolemon makes replacement batteries and cases for some phones which replace the stock battery and the original rear of the phone. I had one for my LG G3; the battery was 9,500 mAh. Made it thick and heavy but not unbearably so. They make one for the LG V20 as well as some other models.
You do realize it's the market that wants thin, and not Apple?
Says who? I'll bet my left arm that, were one of the manufacturers to take a chance and pit out a phone that's twice as thick but features triple the battery life, it would sell like crazy.
Try $18,461, all in.
https://research.hks.harvard.e...
It was a stupid statement, so whatever question you think was implied is equally stupid. You can easily demonstrate it's stupidity by just supplying it to a different field:
"So then, with all the specialized training and assessment which doctors undergo, I guess we're forced to assume that all botched surgeries are deliberate and premeditated."
Another side of the argument, are the people than think that wars should be messy.
That's not "another side"; that's exactly the dipshits I was talking about. And you called it a strawman.
He didn't ask a question.
I'm gonna guess it's more than that, so let's round it to an even $10 trillion.
You can make up whatever numbers you want while you're guessing, but over in the real world the highest credible estimate - including not only the money actually spent but also projected medical spending as well as the interest on borrowed money - comes in at under $6 trillion.
So yeah, he exaggerated.
Yeah. What's an order of magnitude between friends.
Add in Iran and I can get us to $125k easy.
Man, if you add in the war with the Klingons we're probably hitting $1,000,000 easy!
So you tell me, when's it all gonna stop?
Never. Why would you expect it to? The story of mankind is one of constant conflict. What in the world makes you think that you live in a special time which will usher in an end to war?
Don't be naive.
Yeah I do pretty much the same thing. Whip up a big batch of chili, portion out into individual servings in Tupperware, freeze it, and I've got lunch or dinner for a couple weeks. Make a batch of egg salad and that's breakfast for 4 days. Tuna salad, same thing but for lunch. It's not hard, it just limits your options a little bit. The biggest pain is trying to get enough fresh fruit and vegetables.
You think they spent $50 trillion on two wars?
Someone's been hitting the medical marijuana.
If you had no idea how to think critically, yes, I suppose you would make exactly that kind of assumption.
I don't understand the objection to precision drone strikes. Would the objects prefer to just fire a missile in the general area and kill everyone in the vicinity? Would they prefer dumb drones that can't determine who the target is and kills the wrong people?
Yes, they would. You see, their real objection to the military has nothing to do with innocents being killed. They just hate the very idea of the military as a whole. Even if every single strike took out some horrible monster of a man, and didn't harm a single innocent, they would still be opposed to it. The problem, in that case, is that they would have no way to rationally voice their opposition, so they need civilian casualties. They need weddings being blown up; the more the better. It lets them rant and rave about how horrible the military is; anything which reduces the civilian body count runs contrary to their interests.
People ostensibly working for a civilian data-harvesting company; don't want to contribute directly to the development of systems designed to decrease the number of civilians killed by existing killing machines. They're 'sociopaths' who have no notion of right or wrong.
FTFY
That's pretty much what already happens. Drone operators are told "we have a report of a training camp holding a meeting here... go find it". Then the op flies around looking for a meeting, sees a bunch of gathered people, and with no indication to the contrary, command orders the strike. The idea that it might be a wedding never crosses anyone's mind.
No. There are personnel separate from the drone operator who analyze the footage and advise on whether or not to engage. Video analysis is their only job, and they undergo specialized training and assessment using footage of previous missions to ensure that they're not just going to randomly blow up whatever they see.
Pitch your idea to the pentagon. If it's as good as you seem to think it us you could get yourself a very lucrative contract.
Sounds like a very useful algorithm. I'm sure some snowflake will pay you good money for that.
More horseshit. In 1990 the number of people globally living in extreme poverty was 1.9 billion. Today it is 836 million. This has induces some erosion of the middle class in "first world" nations, yeah, but a far bigger effect has been the increase in single parent households. Neither "the poor" nor the "the middle class" are earning less; people are getting compensated the same or more than they were a few decades ago, they're just making worse life choices. Meanwhile poverty on a global level is massively decreasing.
You're adorable.
According to Wikipedia the current wave of violence started with anti-Muslim riots in 2012 triggered by the gang rape of a Buddhist woman, despite a medical examiner saying she wasn't raped, and at least one of the alleged rapists being Buddhist.
Framing this as "anti-muslim riots" is asinine. From your own article:
"As of 22 August, officially there had been 88 casualties â" 57 Muslims and 31 Buddhists. An estimated 90,000 people were displaced by the violence. About 2,528 houses were burned; of those, 1,336 belonged to Rohingyas and 1,192 belonged to Rakhines."
This doesn't seem to be consistent with your claims that "they started it".
"They started it" would be far too simplistic of an analysis, which is why I never said any such thing. This conflict, like most such conflicts around the world, is the result of centuries of back-and-forth attacks between two distinct groups with a very long history of animosity. I'm not particularly interested in pointing fingers; I'm just annoyed by your determination to paint the Muslims as a besieged group of guiltless victims.