But what if their nurturing, education, and opportunity have failed becasue they were branded a "TROUBLEMAKER" by IBM and everybody that could have helped the child instead decided to concentrate their efforts elsewhere because it was already determined that the child was a lost cause? Talk about a self-fulfilling destiny...
If you never act on the urges because you know in reality it is wrong, but in fantasy anything is possible, then no, there is little difference in being attracted. If you had said "there is a little difference between having sex with a hot woman, and raping pre-legal kids" then you would have a point.
Just think - if England would have had a technology similar to this in the 18th century, it would have "discovered" all the rebellious founding fathers, and America never would have had a chance to earn it's freedom. The potential for heinous abuse by the government of this system far outweighs any benefit it may offer. Shame on you IBM. Again.
If by "changing the face of the internet" you mean "can only view web sites that use no Flash at all" then I think you have nailed it right on the head.
When has that ever stopped that rabid anti-MS slashdot crowd from blaming Microsoft when the same exact situation happens with a third party application on Windows?
I have no idea whether or not those making the decision actually knew about the 12, but either way it is irrelevant. Sacrificing 12 people to save thousands still makes sense whether on purpose or not. I am not trying to "spin" anything here. And libel? Puh-lease. But don't tell me you are so naive that you think those that did make the decision to bomb Japan didn't know some casualties would result from "innocent bystanders". Unfortunately that is acceptable in times of war.
Just because I don't agree with your assessment of purpose or practical use of guns, does not mean I am automatically wrong and you are right. Nor does it mean I have a diminished vocabulary. Seriously dude, your opinion is not fact, nor is it shared by 100% of the population. You can believe anything you want, but you cannot tell me what I believe. My opinion is that guns were designed to fire bullets. Maiming and killing people falls clearly under "user intent" and has zero to do with "designed purpose".
I didn't claim that state legislature made segregation legal. I stated that if left up to states, it may become legal again. And my proof for that is that when the national law was passed before, certain states still didn't want to follow it until forced with the threat of military action to comply. This is exactly the kind of situation where the federal government's authority should trump state authority.
I do think the federal government should stay out of the bedroom though, period. But so should state government. Whatever happens as long as it is between legal age consenting adults is no business of the government.
Re:Web Research right at the Store
on
The Apple Two
·
· Score: 1, Flamebait
Congratulations. You can do that on just about any smart phone without needing a 10 inch screen, or lugging around yet another object of technological panacea. (I was doing both of those exact things over a year ago with my G1.) That is the thing - the iPad doesn't do anything better than anything else that already exists. Apple just takes devices that already exist, locks down the functionality and connection offerings, puts it in a pretty box and charges a boatload for it. I don't see the big deal about an iPhone with a bigger screen that can't make calls and doesn't have a camera. I guess I am not what you would call Apples "demographic".
Sorry, but you are wrong. I shoot regular "lethal" ammunition when I shoot targets. I never have, or intend to shoot at a person to maim or kill. So your statement - "when using lethal ammunition (as I will accept that flare guns though potentially lethal I guess, does have a practical uses as do some more obscure use), has exactly one practical use. That is it." is incorrect. The one practical use I have for my gun is shooting targets. Don't try to tell me the only use my gun has is maiming or killing. That is what I will not accept becasue it is blatantly false. And yes, a gun is a tool just like a knife (or hammer or screwdriver) and comparing the two isn't a huge stretch. Seeing as inanimate objects cannot have intent, if a person picks it up and uses it to kill, it is the person with the intent and not the gun. Just becasue you think a gun only has one practical purpose does not automatically make it true, and every gun owner's intent or reason for having a gun may be different. Don't lump every gun owner into one giant homogeneous category.
I would argue that is mostly due to the fact that when Microsoft screws something up and breaks something with a patch or upgrade, millions of business workstations may be rendered useless and bring work to a screeching halt. Microsoft can't afford to screw up with a security patch, literally.
I hate to tell you this, but I am not going to lose any sleep over what you think I do is useful or practical or not. Pass judgment all you want, but don't expect me to care. And when you were shooting those guns, were you killing people, or shooting at targets? And if you were shooting at targets, may I ask why? Because firing a gun at a target is not "concerned with the production or operation of something useful", and I would hate to think you were just wasting time by doing something fun.
Oh, Ok I get it. I didn't realize you were the sole person who decides what is "the production or operation of something useful" or in other words "practical". Now that I understand it in that "context", I understand the actual meaning.
If you don't like something, it isn't "practical".
I am glad I live in a country that guarantees me freedom for the pursuit of happiness, and I don't need a "practical" reason to do things. I like to target shoot. Something that makes you happy doesn't need any other purpose. I care very little if you think it is useful to society or not. I am sure there are things that you do that I don't deem practical, but I know you have the freedom to pursue them if you wish. I wouldn't want to interfere with that.
Ok, so to recap an extremely narrow view on firearms=bad but an extremely narrow view on firearm ammunition=good. How is that any better? What if I want to shoot targets with a.50 caliber (I haven't yet, but would love to try) or with hollow points (which I have shot targets with)? The whole point is you cannot regulate intention with laws.
And as soon as you can give me another practical use of a firearm, for the average citizen
Good god is it international illiterate day? Here you go TARGET SHOOTING. I would say that your view is also pretty narrow on what firearms can be used for.
It is desirable becasue that is all part of shooting real bullets out of a gun. If I wanted to shoot lasers, I would. The recoil isn't that hard to simulate - I shot a gun loaded with blanks that had a laser targeting system on it. Probably the closest you can get to simulating the firing of a real bullet. That said it still wasn't even close to the real thing, but closer than some other alternatives.
And I object to you thinking you know every gun owner's intention. You don't.
IF you truly believe the only purpose for guns is maiming and killing people AND you claim you are not against people having or carrying guns, THEN you don't seem to have a problem with people wanting to maim and kill others. Pretty messed up logic there pal. So as long as someone admits they want to kill or maim someone, you have no problem with them owning a gun. Please do us all a favor and have lots of children.
Yeah, and 500 years we would have been too busy worrying about falling off the ends of the flat Earth. Good thing it is now, and not 200 or 500 years ago, huh?
No. A laser isn't affected by gravity, moves faster than bullets, and the guns do not have any kick to them. I have shot using lasers before and comparing them to real firearms is like comparing apples to oranges. If that is your thing, play laser tag. I like shooting actual guns.
"I said that the point of a gun is to kill or maim someone."
That is inferring that the only reason to buy a gun is to kill or maim someone. So yes, technically you didn't say those exact words, but you sure meant them. I use my gun expressly for the purpose that I bought it for - target shooting.
Slashdot Mirror
But what if their nurturing, education, and opportunity have failed becasue they were branded a "TROUBLEMAKER" by IBM and everybody that could have helped the child instead decided to concentrate their efforts elsewhere because it was already determined that the child was a lost cause? Talk about a self-fulfilling destiny...
If you never act on the urges because you know in reality it is wrong, but in fantasy anything is possible, then no, there is little difference in being attracted. If you had said "there is a little difference between having sex with a hot woman, and raping pre-legal kids" then you would have a point.
Just think - if England would have had a technology similar to this in the 18th century, it would have "discovered" all the rebellious founding fathers, and America never would have had a chance to earn it's freedom. The potential for heinous abuse by the government of this system far outweighs any benefit it may offer. Shame on you IBM. Again.
If by "changing the face of the internet" you mean "can only view web sites that use no Flash at all" then I think you have nailed it right on the head.
When has that ever stopped that rabid anti-MS slashdot crowd from blaming Microsoft when the same exact situation happens with a third party application on Windows?
Well duh, what do you think the ice cubes are made out of?
I have no idea whether or not those making the decision actually knew about the 12, but either way it is irrelevant. Sacrificing 12 people to save thousands still makes sense whether on purpose or not. I am not trying to "spin" anything here. And libel? Puh-lease. But don't tell me you are so naive that you think those that did make the decision to bomb Japan didn't know some casualties would result from "innocent bystanders". Unfortunately that is acceptable in times of war.
Is at at least cheaper now being residential rather than business class?
For far too long the Mods and the Rockers
I'm a Mocker you insensitive clod!
I think that sacrificing 12 Americans to end the war and save thousands and thousands more was probably acceptable to those making the decisions.
Just because I don't agree with your assessment of purpose or practical use of guns, does not mean I am automatically wrong and you are right. Nor does it mean I have a diminished vocabulary. Seriously dude, your opinion is not fact, nor is it shared by 100% of the population. You can believe anything you want, but you cannot tell me what I believe. My opinion is that guns were designed to fire bullets. Maiming and killing people falls clearly under "user intent" and has zero to do with "designed purpose".
I didn't claim that state legislature made segregation legal. I stated that if left up to states, it may become legal again. And my proof for that is that when the national law was passed before, certain states still didn't want to follow it until forced with the threat of military action to comply. This is exactly the kind of situation where the federal government's authority should trump state authority.
I do think the federal government should stay out of the bedroom though, period. But so should state government. Whatever happens as long as it is between legal age consenting adults is no business of the government.
Congratulations. You can do that on just about any smart phone without needing a 10 inch screen, or lugging around yet another object of technological panacea. (I was doing both of those exact things over a year ago with my G1.) That is the thing - the iPad doesn't do anything better than anything else that already exists. Apple just takes devices that already exist, locks down the functionality and connection offerings, puts it in a pretty box and charges a boatload for it. I don't see the big deal about an iPhone with a bigger screen that can't make calls and doesn't have a camera. I guess I am not what you would call Apples "demographic".
I think the State Legislatures, acting on behalf of the people, should be given the power to nullify acts of congress.
Would pretty much just make this -
stupid decisions in the past, like making Segregation legal
happen again in certain states. If you remember correctly, some states didn't want to de-segregate until the military was sent in to force them to.
Sorry, but you are wrong. I shoot regular "lethal" ammunition when I shoot targets. I never have, or intend to shoot at a person to maim or kill. So your statement - "when using lethal ammunition (as I will accept that flare guns though potentially lethal I guess, does have a practical uses as do some more obscure use), has exactly one practical use. That is it." is incorrect. The one practical use I have for my gun is shooting targets. Don't try to tell me the only use my gun has is maiming or killing. That is what I will not accept becasue it is blatantly false. And yes, a gun is a tool just like a knife (or hammer or screwdriver) and comparing the two isn't a huge stretch. Seeing as inanimate objects cannot have intent, if a person picks it up and uses it to kill, it is the person with the intent and not the gun. Just becasue you think a gun only has one practical purpose does not automatically make it true, and every gun owner's intent or reason for having a gun may be different. Don't lump every gun owner into one giant homogeneous category.
I would argue that is mostly due to the fact that when Microsoft screws something up and breaks something with a patch or upgrade, millions of business workstations may be rendered useless and bring work to a screeching halt. Microsoft can't afford to screw up with a security patch, literally.
I hate to tell you this, but I am not going to lose any sleep over what you think I do is useful or practical or not. Pass judgment all you want, but don't expect me to care. And when you were shooting those guns, were you killing people, or shooting at targets? And if you were shooting at targets, may I ask why? Because firing a gun at a target is not "concerned with the production or operation of something useful", and I would hate to think you were just wasting time by doing something fun.
Oh, Ok I get it. I didn't realize you were the sole person who decides what is "the production or operation of something useful" or in other words "practical". Now that I understand it in that "context", I understand the actual meaning.
If you don't like something, it isn't "practical".
I am glad I live in a country that guarantees me freedom for the pursuit of happiness, and I don't need a "practical" reason to do things. I like to target shoot. Something that makes you happy doesn't need any other purpose. I care very little if you think it is useful to society or not. I am sure there are things that you do that I don't deem practical, but I know you have the freedom to pursue them if you wish. I wouldn't want to interfere with that.
And as soon as you can give me another practical use of a firearm, for the average citizen
Good god is it international illiterate day? Here you go TARGET SHOOTING. I would say that your view is also pretty narrow on what firearms can be used for.
Well, in that case the dog had requested real bacon, and got Beggin Strips instead. It was a justified shooting, so no it doesn't count.
It is desirable becasue that is all part of shooting real bullets out of a gun. If I wanted to shoot lasers, I would. The recoil isn't that hard to simulate - I shot a gun loaded with blanks that had a laser targeting system on it. Probably the closest you can get to simulating the firing of a real bullet. That said it still wasn't even close to the real thing, but closer than some other alternatives.
And I object to you thinking you know every gun owner's intention. You don't.
IF you truly believe the only purpose for guns is maiming and killing people AND you claim you are not against people having or carrying guns, THEN you don't seem to have a problem with people wanting to maim and kill others. Pretty messed up logic there pal. So as long as someone admits they want to kill or maim someone, you have no problem with them owning a gun. Please do us all a favor and have lots of children.
Yeah, and 500 years we would have been too busy worrying about falling off the ends of the flat Earth. Good thing it is now, and not 200 or 500 years ago, huh?
No. A laser isn't affected by gravity, moves faster than bullets, and the guns do not have any kick to them. I have shot using lasers before and comparing them to real firearms is like comparing apples to oranges. If that is your thing, play laser tag. I like shooting actual guns.
"I said that the point of a gun is to kill or maim someone."
That is inferring that the only reason to buy a gun is to kill or maim someone. So yes, technically you didn't say those exact words, but you sure meant them. I use my gun expressly for the purpose that I bought it for - target shooting.