I'm waiting for the drones to get more miniaturized, as my current drone defense system can handle sparrows and tits.
If a DARPA project could get drones to look like tits, would you really want to sic your cat on them? Some things you just have to handle yourself, especially if they turn out not to be drones..
Expect to find lots of dead cranes now. Make your next drone look like a drug trafficker, and the problem solves itself (unless the purpose was to spy on ordinary citizens).
"I'm rich. Only I should be allowed to spy on them with camera cars, satellite imagery, photos from airplanes, and tracking everything they do on the web."
And the password would be cached for 15minutes or so, allowing kids to buy in app purchases after asking the parent to update/install software until the cache timed out. Just one minute can be enough time for some very expensive downloads.
What industry offers consumers a perfect combination of freedom of choice and customer service?
Pretty much any that doesn't involve government-enforced monopolies. Just imagine how much worse buying gasoline would be if certain companies purchased rights to supply all gasoline to individual cities, locking out competition.
Given, that 60% percent of gun related deaths are suicides, it looks as if having a gun is dangerous mainly to yourself and your close environment more than to everyone else. Not having a gun in your environment will thus lower your chance of dying by firearms down to slightly more than 1/20 (1,600 deaths vs. 31,000).
Given that nearly 100% of razor blade related deaths are suicides, it looks like having a razor blade is dangerous mainly to yourself and your close environment more than to everyone else. Not having a razor blade in your environment will thus lower your chance of dying by slit wrists.
You should be comparing the number of owned guns to the number of guns used in suicides to determine the danger of owning a gun (as if someone suicidal wouldn't find a different way to kill themselves; ie "being suicidal is dangerous mainly to yourself").
5. Our Obsession with Iran - They share a border with Israel, there is no other reason.
*Cough*
Iran was the intended recipient of the message expressed in the Afghanistan/Iraq squeeze. None of the above states shares a border with Israel, but Afghanistan and Iraq share borders with Iran.
I'm currently editing a huge svg of a hex map (D&D style) on a 4GB machine and I'm using a lot of swap. If I expand to another continent, I'll probably need more ram or swap on some software raided thumb drives. I can imagine large gimp/photoshop images using ram like gangbusters too.
In the American Civil War, Sherman destroyed anvils and railroads, burned crops, killed livestock, etc. Our society has become quite dependent on computerized organization for shipments of crops, livestock, and other goods. Destroying desktop computers can bring a company to its knees for a while.
So now you're saying that the government is restricting employment, commerce, trade, etc?
In the most technical sense of what the Chief Justice's point was, yes. Not wholly, but in [minor] part.
you're arguments are shallow and contradictory.
And your command of the English language is exemplary. (Your is possessive, you're is a contraction). Back to point, what exactly is contradictory? I'm guessing this:
Regardless of the law put in place by your nation, the special exception of 'a group' while being enforced to another group de-facto supports of the special exception group.
Technically, it doesn't unless you're thinking in only black and white terms. For example:
A tax on a business reduces its overall available funds so that it operates with less (or more likely forces it to raise prices).
A blanket tax exemption on a business allows the business to operate with all the funds it acquires through its own means.
A subsidy for a business allows a business to operate with all the funds it acquires through its own means plus extra funds from the government (taken from the populace).
"Establishment of religion" meant the type of subsidy that most European nations had: levying taxes on the populace to give money from the government to a church. Not-taxing someone can only be seen as a benefit to them if you accept the joke that "only death and taxes are certain". Taxes are not truly certain, therefore exemptions are not technically benefits that lead to establishment.
If you're not receiving taxation from the government, you're receiving a benefit.
Add a third option there. Doesn't even have to be gray. Maybe magenta?
As part of my workflow, I have to induce seizures in people who approach my desk for help instead of submitting a request ticket. Without the blink tag, I will have to show them youtube clips of pokemon.
Bullshit is commonly used to describe statements made by people more concerned with the response of the audience than in truth and accuracy, such as goal-oriented statements made in the field of politics or advertising.
Bullshit. Bullshit is just a non-PC way of saying citation needed.
"That the power to tax involves the power to destroy... [is] not to be denied" (Marshall).
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" (US Constitution, Amendment 1)
Inaction by not taxing a thing is not the same as action to establish a thing, whereas action to tax a thing is the beginning step in prohibiting the free [exercise/use] of a thing (whether the further steps are taken or not).
You are subsidizing the marginal support of homeless people.
No, the soup kitchen is subsidizing the marginal support of homeless people. The government just doesn't happen to tax the people who are receiving free meals. That doesn't affect my tax levels one iota. If you eat Thanksgiving dinner with your girlfriend's family, do you owe taxes for that? What about water from a water fountain at a business for which you do not work?
The restaurant I buy my lunch from also pays taxes on their ingredients. That doesn't mean I get to use a tax-exempt part of my salary to buy lunches with.
Buy. Do you have to pay taxes for free samples at markets? What about soup kitchens? If the bums aren't paying taxes on their free meals, does that mean your tax dollars are funding the soup kitchens? And if the soup kitchens have a religious basis, are your tax dollars funding religion? It's an abuse of logic and the English language to say so.
Technically, if you get free parking from your employe[r] (i.e. you don't pay to park at a parking garage because they pay for the spot), that is considered a taxable event. You are supposed to report that on your taxes.
That is quite dumb. My employer also provides me with free water, electricity, heating, cooling, shelter from rain, several computers with which I do my work, etc. And I don't pay taxes on any of it. No one does because everyone gets these sorts of things from their employer including parking space unless you work in Manhattan or Chicago. Now if they gave me a parking space I could use when not working, I could see how that might be a benefit.
And before anyone complains that picking berries isn't the same as serving a free meal: You don't pay taxes when your mom heats up a hot pocket and brings it to the basement either.
I have to pay taxes to support free meals for those Google employees
Only in the most roundabout way. It's not like they're getting state funded lunches, they're just not paying a tax. Just like I don't pay a tax when I eat some raspberries that grew on my land. Of course the commissaries at Google probably pay a tax on the foodstuffs when they buy the bulk ingredients.
Students deserve academic freedom too. Maybe they're learning the subject via library books on their own time, and have no use for ebooks. The goal of the professor (at the end if the course) is to determine how much a student knows, not to enforce that the professor's method of learning was used.
And we hate both of them equally and for the same reasons: bad software, spying on users, and we're required to use them due to social or work obligations. Some of us need to use Windows for games, and some of our family members need to use Facebook for games.
It's astonishing, what with all the various gadgets enticing people's attention in the 1970s and 1980s
I remember a Goofy cartoon from the 50's where he was getting a full shave by some automated robot while he tried to drive. I'm sure it was a commentary on people shaving on their own while driving. Then of course there was this little gem of distracted driving from 1938: http://www.disneyshorts.org/shorts.aspx?shortID=270
Slashdot Mirror
I'm waiting for the drones to get more miniaturized, as my current drone defense system can handle sparrows and tits.
If a DARPA project could get drones to look like tits, would you really want to sic your cat on them? Some things you just have to handle yourself, especially if they turn out not to be drones..
Not that I'm suggesting this is for anything but spying, likely including domestic spying
given that it's a (north American?) native crane, domestic spying seems the only spying use.
Expect to find lots of dead cranes now. Make your next drone look like a drug trafficker, and the problem solves itself (unless the purpose was to spy on ordinary citizens).
"I'm rich. Only I should be allowed to spy on them with camera cars, satellite imagery, photos from airplanes, and tracking everything they do on the web."
And the password would be cached for 15minutes or so, allowing kids to buy in app purchases after asking the parent to update/install software until the cache timed out. Just one minute can be enough time for some very expensive downloads.
What industry offers consumers a perfect combination of freedom of choice and customer service?
Pretty much any that doesn't involve government-enforced monopolies. Just imagine how much worse buying gasoline would be if certain companies purchased rights to supply all gasoline to individual cities, locking out competition.
This post was removed due to polyhedral Dice content standards violations.
They have better powers than Aquaman.
Given, that 60% percent of gun related deaths are suicides, it looks as if having a gun is dangerous mainly to yourself and your close environment more than to everyone else. Not having a gun in your environment will thus lower your chance of dying by firearms down to slightly more than 1/20 (1,600 deaths vs. 31,000).
Given that nearly 100% of razor blade related deaths are suicides, it looks like having a razor blade is dangerous mainly to yourself and your close environment more than to everyone else. Not having a razor blade in your environment will thus lower your chance of dying by slit wrists.
You should be comparing the number of owned guns to the number of guns used in suicides to determine the danger of owning a gun (as if someone suicidal wouldn't find a different way to kill themselves; ie "being suicidal is dangerous mainly to yourself").
They blew stuff to smithereens!
5. Our Obsession with Iran - They share a border with Israel, there is no other reason.
*Cough*
Iran was the intended recipient of the message expressed in the Afghanistan/Iraq squeeze. None of the above states shares a border with Israel, but Afghanistan and Iraq share borders with Iran.
I'm currently editing a huge svg of a hex map (D&D style) on a 4GB machine and I'm using a lot of swap. If I expand to another continent, I'll probably need more ram or swap on some software raided thumb drives. I can imagine large gimp/photoshop images using ram like gangbusters too.
OH GOD THEY TOOK CHRISTOPHER WALKEN HOSTAGE????
Quick, someone go to Tehran and pretend to make a movie!
no one would believe you want him as an actor in your movie.
In the American Civil War, Sherman destroyed anvils and railroads, burned crops, killed livestock, etc. Our society has become quite dependent on computerized organization for shipments of crops, livestock, and other goods. Destroying desktop computers can bring a company to its knees for a while.
So now you're saying that the government is restricting employment, commerce, trade, etc?
In the most technical sense of what the Chief Justice's point was, yes. Not wholly, but in [minor] part.
you're arguments are shallow and contradictory.
And your command of the English language is exemplary. (Your is possessive, you're is a contraction). Back to point, what exactly is contradictory? I'm guessing this:
Regardless of the law put in place by your nation, the special exception of 'a group' while being enforced to another group de-facto supports of the special exception group.
Technically, it doesn't unless you're thinking in only black and white terms. For example:
"Establishment of religion" meant the type of subsidy that most European nations had: levying taxes on the populace to give money from the government to a church. Not-taxing someone can only be seen as a benefit to them if you accept the joke that "only death and taxes are certain". Taxes are not truly certain, therefore exemptions are not technically benefits that lead to establishment.
If you're not receiving taxation from the government, you're receiving a benefit.
Add a third option there. Doesn't even have to be gray. Maybe magenta?
As part of my workflow, I have to induce seizures in people who approach my desk for help instead of submitting a request ticket. Without the blink tag, I will have to show them youtube clips of pokemon.
Bullshit is commonly used to describe statements made by people more concerned with the response of the audience than in truth and accuracy, such as goal-oriented statements made in the field of politics or advertising.
Bullshit. Bullshit is just a non-PC way of saying citation needed.
Why don't religions pay property taxes?
"That the power to tax involves the power to destroy ... [is] not to be denied" (Marshall).
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" (US Constitution, Amendment 1)
Inaction by not taxing a thing is not the same as action to establish a thing, whereas action to tax a thing is the beginning step in prohibiting the free [exercise/use] of a thing (whether the further steps are taken or not).
You are subsidizing the marginal support of homeless people.
No, the soup kitchen is subsidizing the marginal support of homeless people. The government just doesn't happen to tax the people who are receiving free meals. That doesn't affect my tax levels one iota. If you eat Thanksgiving dinner with your girlfriend's family, do you owe taxes for that? What about water from a water fountain at a business for which you do not work?
The restaurant I buy my lunch from also pays taxes on their ingredients. That doesn't mean I get to use a tax-exempt part of my salary to buy lunches with.
Buy. Do you have to pay taxes for free samples at markets? What about soup kitchens? If the bums aren't paying taxes on their free meals, does that mean your tax dollars are funding the soup kitchens? And if the soup kitchens have a religious basis, are your tax dollars funding religion? It's an abuse of logic and the English language to say so.
Technically, if you get free parking from your employe[r] (i.e. you don't pay to park at a parking garage because they pay for the spot), that is considered a taxable event. You are supposed to report that on your taxes.
That is quite dumb. My employer also provides me with free water, electricity, heating, cooling, shelter from rain, several computers with which I do my work, etc. And I don't pay taxes on any of it. No one does because everyone gets these sorts of things from their employer including parking space unless you work in Manhattan or Chicago. Now if they gave me a parking space I could use when not working, I could see how that might be a benefit.
And before anyone complains that picking berries isn't the same as serving a free meal: You don't pay taxes when your mom heats up a hot pocket and brings it to the basement either.
I have to pay taxes to support free meals for those Google employees
Only in the most roundabout way. It's not like they're getting state funded lunches, they're just not paying a tax. Just like I don't pay a tax when I eat some raspberries that grew on my land. Of course the commissaries at Google probably pay a tax on the foodstuffs when they buy the bulk ingredients.
Students deserve academic freedom too. Maybe they're learning the subject via library books on their own time, and have no use for ebooks. The goal of the professor (at the end if the course) is to determine how much a student knows, not to enforce that the professor's method of learning was used.
And we hate both of them equally and for the same reasons: bad software, spying on users, and we're required to use them due to social or work obligations. Some of us need to use Windows for games, and some of our family members need to use Facebook for games.
It's astonishing, what with all the various gadgets enticing people's attention in the 1970s and 1980s
I remember a Goofy cartoon from the 50's where he was getting a full shave by some automated robot while he tried to drive. I'm sure it was a commentary on people shaving on their own while driving. Then of course there was this little gem of distracted driving from 1938: http://www.disneyshorts.org/shorts.aspx?shortID=270