For a start, I'd tell her to learn some new fucking choices, and right now.
Anybody willing and capable of killing and raping a woman has a very good chance of being able to prevent her shooting him too. So relying on that as the sole defence is pretty fucking stupid.
Or just move somewhere that this isn't a regular issue or a terribly high risk. I mean, I've managed to go my entire life without knowing anybody that's been raped and killed.
The thing that is finally starting to bug me is that guns with clips exist for one reason: killing people efficiently. That's what a gun is for. That is the purpose of a gun. Yes, you can take your semi-auto to the range, or to hunt, but that's not what it was created for.
Bullshit. Killing people is one of its potential uses, but that doesn't invalidate its other uses, remove the markets for guns that allow those other uses or prevent the gun manufacturers and customers from creating and buying weapons for those uses.
Shit, design a gun incapable of shooting other people but able to instakill a coke can at 200 paces and I'll buy it. Shooting guns is fun.
No, good points. I too can't believe that Australia doesn't consider self defence a justifiable reason for gun ownership, what with all those bears, wolves and lions running around.
I bring this up to support your point that what you do with your stuff on your property is your own business, so long as you are not committing some other crime with said stuff.
Surely 'my gun on my land is my business so the state has no right interfering' has the same arguments and justifications as 'I killed you on this land and the state has no right interfering as it's now my land'
Face it, the land doesn't belong to you. The state kindly grants you a number of freedoms associated with control of that land, but avoiding registration of guns could be a freedom that they don't grant.
If something seems remarkably ill-timed, what's biased about pointing this out?
It's not challenging the website, the service it offers, the needs it claims to meet, the prices it charges, the quality of the guns on offer. It's highlighting that this seems an awkward time to be advertising a shiny new gun store, given recent media stories relating to gun use.
You're far too fucking sensitive. Or stupid. Or both. Lets hope you're not a gun owner too.
When your company has 2200 server applications from 200 different vendors, inevitably some of those are going to be "Windows only".
Add in AD, Exchange and the relatively cheap licenses for SQL Server (compared to DB2 or Oracle, or fuck it, even the third party support overheads for the open source stuff) and the relative ease of acquiring Windows admins, it's a pretty straightforward decision to make Windows Server one of your core supported platforms.
Along with and (sadly at the last four companies I've worked for) a bloody expensive computer from IBM.
He didn't claim he could secure a conviction in court with his evidence, he stated that he could accurately determine their speed.
I believe him, within certain tolerances.
"Dear Police, this bloke was speeding" will get a polite "Thank you" "Dear Police, here's evidence of this bloke doing 53 in a 35 limit. I know it wont hold up in court but perhaps a friendly word would help" will get someone a knock on the door.
I think it is smart to have a 30 year mortgage rather than a 15 year one because my rate is much less than I expect from my investments, and the difference in payments is being invested.
So. Monthly payment: M Principle (amount borrowed): P Interest rate (monthly): i Number of repayments: n
So 30 year mortgage: T = P(i(1+i)^360) / ((1+i)^360 -1) vs 15 year mortgage: F = P(i(1+i)^180) / ((1+i)^180 -1)
Frankly that's a pain in the arse for me to calculate while drunk - and wolfram alpha can't tell me the difference between T and F. So lets assume
i = 4% annually, so 0.04/12 = 0.00333 recurring P = 400,000, on the grounds any less means you're not investing enough to generate a decent return anyway
T = 1910 F = 2959
Now, you're stating that you can generate greater returns than the mortgage would cost. That equates over a 30 year timeframe to:
Ok, that's ignoring the time value of money. However, at no point on that equation does any value of (x) actually translate to a real number. You have to start using the square root of -1 to make that equation resolve.
Maybe my maths is broken. I'm not terribly good at it and I'm drunk, but frankly it's looking pretty unlikely for you.
Unfortunately, if we're still talking about the UK here, your comment deserves (+5, Funny) for that suggestion alone...
Lets just say that my annual income crossed a very specific threshold and my bank (that I've been with for over twenty years) contacted me to let me know that I'm now a very valued customer; here's a new contact number, here are some additional services we'd like to offer you, here are some benefits we'll grant to you for no fee.
It's fairly safe to say that someone with over 100k in the bank will get all that and rather a lot more. Banks LIKE money.
Thanks for that. I now need to design an internet enabled bullet that can identify and broadcast its terminal action.
"Shot into air. Landed in remote sandy location" "Shot at fast moving man. Hit brick wall" "Travelled 800 metres before dismembering slow moving woman" "Shot at paper target. Almost hit."
His point is that people with low income/assets are unable to pay the fine, and any money that they do pay goes on interest and fees, not the fine.
This means that irrespective of whether the fine adequately compensates for the risk to human health or not, someone's getting fucked over by the system.
The amount of the fine is totally fucking irrelevant, it's the way in which it's levied that's the issue.
Now do you understand, or should we offer to cover the fine for the person that aims for you?
I didn't conflate prostitution with trafficking, merely pointed out that there are a non-zero number of cases with factual evidence.
Maybe you didn't read the US State Department report I linked. It is evidence based, includes global assessments and doesn't make up spurious numbers because it doesn't need to.
I don't think 0.4% sounds credible but your position that there are fewer cases than have been actually recorded is even less tenable.
Clearly you don't give a shit about modern slavery. I do.
First it was Archie. On the web usually it was a mix of lycos, altavista and yahoo, then dogpile, then Google provided a search engine that actually found what you were looking for.
Anybody that wasn't around back then can't imagine the difference Google made.
Slashdot Mirror
For a start, I'd tell her to learn some new fucking choices, and right now.
Anybody willing and capable of killing and raping a woman has a very good chance of being able to prevent her shooting him too. So relying on that as the sole defence is pretty fucking stupid.
Or just move somewhere that this isn't a regular issue or a terribly high risk. I mean, I've managed to go my entire life without knowing anybody that's been raped and killed.
So either issue a rifle and a rocket launcher to every muslim in America or accept that you don't support armed insurrection at all.
You could, maybe, I don't know, arm a militia instead of letting every cunt in America buy any fucking firearm they like.
Before you reply: I know they can't buy _any_ firearm they like, but on the flipside half the cunts in America also don't own any firearms
I guess so.
http://www.london-fire.gov.uk/
The thing that is finally starting to bug me is that guns with clips exist for one reason: killing people efficiently. That's what a gun is for. That is the purpose of a gun. Yes, you can take your semi-auto to the range, or to hunt, but that's not what it was created for.
Bullshit. Killing people is one of its potential uses, but that doesn't invalidate its other uses, remove the markets for guns that allow those other uses or prevent the gun manufacturers and customers from creating and buying weapons for those uses.
Shit, design a gun incapable of shooting other people but able to instakill a coke can at 200 paces and I'll buy it. Shooting guns is fun.
That's where England is today. If you injure someone who is trying to hurt you, YOU go to jail.
As someone living in England, I should inform you that you're talking nonsense.
Self defence is legal, permissible and a valid defence in law here.
No, good points. I too can't believe that Australia doesn't consider self defence a justifiable reason for gun ownership, what with all those bears, wolves and lions running around.
I bring this up to support your point that what you do with your stuff on your property is your own business, so long as you are not committing some other crime with said stuff.
Surely 'my gun on my land is my business so the state has no right interfering' has the same arguments and justifications as 'I killed you on this land and the state has no right interfering as it's now my land'
Face it, the land doesn't belong to you. The state kindly grants you a number of freedoms associated with control of that land, but avoiding registration of guns could be a freedom that they don't grant.
If you disagree, try seceding from your state.
It is, but I'm looking forward to using it when arguing with feminists.
"So if she regrets it the morning after, it's rape? That's like saying if he leaves $10 tucked into her torn-off panties, it's prostitution."
If something seems remarkably ill-timed, what's biased about pointing this out?
It's not challenging the website, the service it offers, the needs it claims to meet, the prices it charges, the quality of the guns on offer. It's highlighting that this seems an awkward time to be advertising a shiny new gun store, given recent media stories relating to gun use.
You're far too fucking sensitive. Or stupid. Or both. Lets hope you're not a gun owner too.
That would be rather awkward for the MS account manager, if they try and pull that one where I work.
We already have extensive skillsets in other DBs, switching would be a massive pain - but $70k/year pays for a lot of pain.
When your company has 2200 server applications from 200 different vendors, inevitably some of those are going to be "Windows only".
Add in AD, Exchange and the relatively cheap licenses for SQL Server (compared to DB2 or Oracle, or fuck it, even the third party support overheads for the open source stuff) and the relative ease of acquiring Windows admins, it's a pretty straightforward decision to make Windows Server one of your core supported platforms.
Along with and (sadly at the last four companies I've worked for) a bloody expensive computer from IBM.
He didn't claim he could secure a conviction in court with his evidence, he stated that he could accurately determine their speed.
I believe him, within certain tolerances.
"Dear Police, this bloke was speeding" will get a polite "Thank you"
"Dear Police, here's evidence of this bloke doing 53 in a 35 limit. I know it wont hold up in court but perhaps a friendly word would help" will get someone a knock on the door.
No, he's a realist and a pragmatist.
Record conversations in the office and people will go elsewhere to talk.
Exploit?
Or, assuming some machine translation fubar, whatever the complex concatenated German word for 'put out on a massive scale' is.
Forget that. Hook it up to 'police vehicle recognition' (pretty easy in the UK, they all have common markers) and start tracking police vehicles.
"3am, on the A42 just south of Oxford. Nope, hasn't seen a police car for eight months: Hit it!"
Your property is over 900 square metres? Nice.
I can pick from 2-3 squares, including my garden, although it's a bit awkward because my neighbour shares a couple of them.
I'm too drunk for this, but..
I think it is smart to have a 30 year mortgage rather than a 15 year one because my rate is much less than I expect from my investments, and the difference in payments is being invested.
So.
Monthly payment: M
Principle (amount borrowed): P
Interest rate (monthly): i
Number of repayments: n
M = P [ i(1 + i)^n ] / [ (1 + i)^n â" 1]
(stolen from https://www.nerdwallet.com/blo... )
So 30 year mortgage:
T = P(i(1+i)^360) / ((1+i)^360 -1)
vs 15 year mortgage:
F = P(i(1+i)^180) / ((1+i)^180 -1)
Frankly that's a pain in the arse for me to calculate while drunk - and wolfram alpha can't tell me the difference between T and F. So lets assume
i = 4% annually, so 0.04/12 = 0.00333 recurring
P = 400,000, on the grounds any less means you're not investing enough to generate a decent return anyway
T = 1910
F = 2959
Now, you're stating that you can generate greater returns than the mortgage would cost. That equates over a 30 year timeframe to:
((2959-1910) * ( (1 + x)^360 â" 1) / ( x(1 + x)^360)) - (30 * 12 * 1910) > (2959 * ( (1 + x)^180 â" 1) / ( x(1 + x)^180 )) - (15 * 12 * 2959)
Ok, that's ignoring the time value of money. However, at no point on that equation does any value of (x) actually translate to a real number. You have to start using the square root of -1 to make that equation resolve.
Maybe my maths is broken. I'm not terribly good at it and I'm drunk, but frankly it's looking pretty unlikely for you.
Unfortunately, if we're still talking about the UK here, your comment deserves (+5, Funny) for that suggestion alone...
Lets just say that my annual income crossed a very specific threshold and my bank (that I've been with for over twenty years) contacted me to let me know that I'm now a very valued customer; here's a new contact number, here are some additional services we'd like to offer you, here are some benefits we'll grant to you for no fee.
It's fairly safe to say that someone with over 100k in the bank will get all that and rather a lot more. Banks LIKE money.
Thanks for that. I now need to design an internet enabled bullet that can identify and broadcast its terminal action.
"Shot into air. Landed in remote sandy location"
"Shot at fast moving man. Hit brick wall"
"Travelled 800 metres before dismembering slow moving woman"
"Shot at paper target. Almost hit."
Seems to almost perfectly require Evelyn Hall's pithy description of Voltaire's attitude.
Nice to see a judge agreeing.
You're missing his point entirely.
His point is that people with low income/assets are unable to pay the fine, and any money that they do pay goes on interest and fees, not the fine.
This means that irrespective of whether the fine adequately compensates for the risk to human health or not, someone's getting fucked over by the system.
The amount of the fine is totally fucking irrelevant, it's the way in which it's levied that's the issue.
Now do you understand, or should we offer to cover the fine for the person that aims for you?
I didn't conflate prostitution with trafficking, merely pointed out that there are a non-zero number of cases with factual evidence.
Maybe you didn't read the US State Department report I linked. It is evidence based, includes global assessments and doesn't make up spurious numbers because it doesn't need to.
I don't think 0.4% sounds credible but your position that there are fewer cases than have been actually recorded is even less tenable.
Clearly you don't give a shit about modern slavery. I do.
A correctly functioning one, maybe not.
But one that's started to fail? Shit, you've never seen a fluorescent tube making a 'bzzzzt' sound and flickering?
Is it so hard to believe that some people can perceive that failure in between 'standard behaviour' and 'will someone replace that fucking light?' ?
Breaching ethics because some other cunt is a cunt makes you a cunt too.
First it was Archie. On the web usually it was a mix of lycos, altavista and yahoo, then dogpile, then Google provided a search engine that actually found what you were looking for.
Anybody that wasn't around back then can't imagine the difference Google made.