I didn't say down, nor destroy. I said prevent it from operating properly. It could misfire or not fire at all.
What is preferable? It landing in a major city and killing 80% of the population or it burning up and possible spreading radioactive material of a larger area.
If you can hit the actual missile, change its course, dent up the surface or damage stuff needed for reentry, you can prevent it from hitting its target with a fission or fusion reaction.
Now the radioactive materials will still be spread around so its a trade off you have to make.
I think saying that Bush is trying to be a dictator is giving him way to much credit. That is an assumption that he can SLOWLY take away rights so the populace doesn't notice. He is at worst misguided and at best he is an idiot.
To an extent, that last 5% would probably be in several groupings, which would get smaller since the population in the groupings can't support breeding.
I like having a physical copy too, however eventually sometime in the future you won't be buying much on a physical medium. YOur going to buy most things online and for the most part you won't be able to get a physical copy unless you make one yourself.
Do people complain about those little coke codes that you can redeem?
Hell no, why? Because only an idiot goes out and buys the coke bottle just for the code. They code is a little reward for drinking the coke. Its not a consolation prize, it is a little reward for a bit of brand loyalty. Hell the rewards for the soda are less useful.
God, what an ass. I'm gonna buy a ccq so i can win a freaking e-penis enhancement. Oh boy, I pay 15 bucks a month already, why don't I just bend over some more then bitch about it. You have not been kidnapped, you don't have a knife at your throat, DON'T BUY THE FUCKING CARD GAME YOU MORON, GOD DAMMIT ITS THAT SIMPLE. ITS ONLY A FIASCO IF YOU ARE A FUCKING MORON.
Sorry, maybe I didn't make something clear in my earlier posts. This has spawned alot of branches, so I may not have said something in yours.
It would requires that Bush does not accept the protests and orders soldiers to shoot them or suppress them in some way. If you really want to be a dictator an order like that isn't that much of a big deal to you anymore.
Please note, the situation in which I speak of would be Bush using this law to create a dictatorship. That is the only eventual end of this law if used once. It would escalate.
However, an armed resistance, because frankly in all cases that what it is, can be effective. It would be more effective here.
First there would be mass desertions.
Then there is the issue of bring back a fighting force from the middle east. While a short time it would be time none the less.
It would still be a restrained war, maybe even more restrained in Iraq. We don't fight total war in Iraq, I don't see it happening here.
The military would not have the people to fight an insurgency in the United States.
Also, we do not have a "vast" military.
Sorry, but most of those "grunts" are not mindless.
One day of bombing Dresden resulted in somewhere between 40k to 60k civillain deaths. That was with the gloves off. Now imagine that but more widespread.
I know people in the military. I know many of them WOULD refuse to fight if Bush tried to use them to put himself in charge as a military dictator. The same thing would happen if a US general tried to do the same thing. Yes, there would always be those who are loyal to the military and not their country. However they are in the minority.
Sorry, but I plan to live a long damn time. That doesn't include doing very stupid things. I wouldn't stage a 1 man assault on a military check point. That is called a suicide mission. There are much more effective tactics against a well trained military force.
I didn't vote the republicans in. In fact you have no idea which way I voted, or even if I could have voted at that point. So take that little assumption and shove it.
A government should fear the people, as it is the servant of the people.
A government that does not fear the people is a broken one, and should be replaced.
Through democracy, or if necessary through force.
Slashdot Mirror
I didn't say down, nor destroy. I said prevent it from operating properly. It could misfire or not fire at all.
What is preferable? It landing in a major city and killing 80% of the population or it burning up and possible spreading radioactive material of a larger area.
If you can hit the actual missile, change its course, dent up the surface or damage stuff needed for reentry, you can prevent it from hitting its target with a fission or fusion reaction. Now the radioactive materials will still be spread around so its a trade off you have to make.
I think saying that Bush is trying to be a dictator is giving him way to much credit. That is an assumption that he can SLOWLY take away rights so the populace doesn't notice. He is at worst misguided and at best he is an idiot.
To an extent, that last 5% would probably be in several groupings, which would get smaller since the population in the groupings can't support breeding.
Ya, the water at the docks seemed really low to me.
Sharks and Ebola, natures really good killing machines.
Ebolas with friggen laser beams on their heads.
The only one that I have seen so far that might be true is that 40 years after i was born i will turn 40. Exactly 40 years.
However, I am doing every stupid thing in my power to prevent this from happening.
It uses specialized/modified IBM powerPc processors.
I like having a physical copy too, however eventually sometime in the future you won't be buying much on a physical medium. YOur going to buy most things online and for the most part you won't be able to get a physical copy unless you make one yourself.
I prefer safety razors actually.
Occam's razor?
I was being sarcastic.
I can't read the tone of people posts very well.
I can't wait for the UN. I can't wait for them to start shutting down sites with "hate" speech, what ever the hell that will finally be defined as.
What do you mean someone nuked the drive? MY FUCKING LIFE'S WORK IS GONE!.
How many of of those people played the game with those cards?
Oh goody, my sleep deprived ranting haven't gotten me in trouble once again.
Do people complain about those little coke codes that you can redeem?
Hell no, why? Because only an idiot goes out and buys the coke bottle just for the code. They code is a little reward for drinking the coke. Its not a consolation prize, it is a little reward for a bit of brand loyalty. Hell the rewards for the soda are less useful.
God, what an ass. I'm gonna buy a ccq so i can win a freaking e-penis enhancement. Oh boy, I pay 15 bucks a month already, why don't I just bend over some more then bitch about it. You have not been kidnapped, you don't have a knife at your throat, DON'T BUY THE FUCKING CARD GAME YOU MORON, GOD DAMMIT ITS THAT SIMPLE. ITS ONLY A FIASCO IF YOU ARE A FUCKING MORON.
cough. ahem. sorry.
I'm not really sure what you are really talking about, maybe I missed something?
Once again, not ever gun owner likes the current administration. So please come back once you are done frothing at the mouth.
Sorry, maybe I didn't make something clear in my earlier posts. This has spawned alot of branches, so I may not have said something in yours.
It would requires that Bush does not accept the protests and orders soldiers to shoot them or suppress them in some way. If you really want to be a dictator an order like that isn't that much of a big deal to you anymore.
You act as if every gun owner is a gun nut.
Yes, minorities are the only ones who break into homes.
ya... right.
You have several good points.
Please note, the situation in which I speak of would be Bush using this law to create a dictatorship. That is the only eventual end of this law if used once. It would escalate.
However, an armed resistance, because frankly in all cases that what it is, can be effective. It would be more effective here.
First there would be mass desertions.
Then there is the issue of bring back a fighting force from the middle east. While a short time it would be time none the less.
It would still be a restrained war, maybe even more restrained in Iraq. We don't fight total war in Iraq, I don't see it happening here.
The military would not have the people to fight an insurgency in the United States.
Also, we do not have a "vast" military.
Sorry, but most of those "grunts" are not mindless.
One day of bombing Dresden resulted in somewhere between 40k to 60k civillain deaths. That was with the gloves off. Now imagine that but more widespread.
I find it funny.
I know people in the military. I know many of them WOULD refuse to fight if Bush tried to use them to put himself in charge as a military dictator. The same thing would happen if a US general tried to do the same thing. Yes, there would always be those who are loyal to the military and not their country. However they are in the minority.
Sorry, but I plan to live a long damn time. That doesn't include doing very stupid things. I wouldn't stage a 1 man assault on a military check point. That is called a suicide mission. There are much more effective tactics against a well trained military force.
I didn't vote the republicans in. In fact you have no idea which way I voted, or even if I could have voted at that point. So take that little assumption and shove it.
A government should fear the people, as it is the servant of the people.
A government that does not fear the people is a broken one, and should be replaced.
Through democracy, or if necessary through force.