Sorry, but check the number of accidental deaths by firearms compared to drowning (thats what I was getting at in that last sentence of mine). My point still being that the illegality of firearms is only going to affect that (i.e. the accidental deaths caused by gun) and not the Assault by Firearms.
Webster also gives three additionaly definitions at that link than you quote in your comment. Two of them concern the term 'Oriental' being used in reference to Asia.
The question, I think, is if you are more frightened of someone that goes through the process to carry a concealed weapon (and infact does so) than you are of some fuckin' nut who goes around shooting people? I for one can gladly say that I'd rather have the former.
Also, to date, no legislation has been very effective at keeping firearms out of the hands of criminals (you might note that historically no prohibition has been effective). Most legislation is more of a burden to an honest person owning a gun than to a criminal (who often will just steal a gun). And at most, such legislation only cuts down on the number of accidents involving firearms. Note, drowning kills more people and no where in the Constitution does it mention a "right to swim."
Far more damage to the country resulted not directly from terrorist attacks, but from the policies our own government has put into place
The difference, of course, is that things like the Patriot Act can be repealed while planes crashing into buildings cannot.
"who've done nothing to inject themselves into public discourse."
They're publicly playing basketball on TV. They certainly present proper discourse for a sports journalist. But the ol' "we can't offend anyone that'd be terrible" has struck again. Here's the thing, no one really takes Imus too seriously. He's a dude on a radio station that you quickly turn the dial from or the white-haired Crypt-Keeper on MSNBC that you can't help but watch 'cause he looks like a lich from D&D. And he said something, predicatably, stupid. Wow, what a big surprise. And, in the drunken overcompensation from one shoulder of the road to the other that our country exhibits, first amendment rights are put on notice and he gets canned. I guess if he had called them "natty-headed hos" he'd have only been sexist:)
You say, "It is not necessary for the Gates Foundation to be investing in corporations that are destroying people's way of life, and causing them to be too sick to work."
But isn't there a way to invest in these corporations in order to change them? Now I'm not saying that this is what is going on concerning Gates' investments, but what better way to change a corporation's behavior than to buy it? Would you call a person who purchased controlling shares of some corporation in order to change its harmful ways neccesarily just a little evil (just not in comic book fashion)? Just wondering.
So, whoever you are, are you really arguing that 70k for a Knight Rider car (whether it is fake or not) will have a good ROI?
1. I don't believe I ever said "rich people are stupider than shit."
2. No, I did not Google it.
3. I really don't believe that any amount of custom electronics, fiberglass, and leather makes this a 'good investment.' For example, my Dad has some old tractors that he has restored. He's put some money and time into them. Does it mean (and remember jackass that I'm talking about ROI here) that they're worth the amount of money and time he has invested in them? No it does not.
To close, a knight rider car is not a good investment. Not saying that you wouldn't be able to ever sell one for more, but as long as this person makes replicas why would a person pay you more?
Oh, I disagree. Just imagine the warm fuzzy feeling you'd have driving it around. And just think. We've all been in the situation where we come across some strange substance while investigating a mystery. But no more! 'Cause this car has a built in mass spectrometer (unless the H-Man kept that for himself). With this and the A-Team van, there's really no stopping you.
On a more serious note, $70,000 is too much. What do you get, a circa 1980s trans-am with ground effects? Unless a person just has a huge amount of wealth to waste, most people could find a better use for 70K. Anyone could get a better ROI.
If I remember correctly, Rule 11 of the Federal Code of Civil Procedure has some sanctions that can be brought against attorneys who file frivolous suits. 'Course, CivPro was my worst class lol
It is legal to bring such a suit. A 1L example would be a simple tresspass claim where no damage was done to the plantiff's property. If the P wins, then he would be awarded a nominal award - say $1 - and the D would know beyond a doubt that they had tresspassed.
That's why robots, such as mentioned in another story today, should accompany each and every person. To protect us from terrorists and beat down any deviant thought.
I agree with mothballing the shuttle. If my memory serves, the original planning for the shuttle was for it to already have been taken out of service to make way for a more economical orbital craft. However, and this is my take on it, since every Congressman has companies within their district that make parts for the Shuttle - when budget time comes around the shuttle program doesn't take many hits. A more efficient craft might not take 10000 contractors 1000000 man hours to make 2 widgets and thus some people/voters/companies would be out of a job/contract.
It is very obvious that American military bases are changing the world, the question is to what degree and in what fashion. And American bases in Germany most certainly did keep West Germany out of Soviet hands. Remeber the Berlin Airdrop? Of course not, such an activity by the US probably does not fit into your particular ideology so it is not mentioned. And, though I am sure that military bases did indeed add to the Cold War spying extravaganza, to imagine that the Soviets stayed out of West Germany for no reason other that the US military is naive.
The point I was trying to make about Palestinians is that the Palestinian people are used by all sides in order to further their own plans. E.g. Iran may wax on about a Palestinian state, but I doubt they have any intention of taking proactive measures to make this happen - it is only a ploy to keep their regional enemey (Israel) off balance.
To close, I suggest that you cease use of the ad hominem attack. Oh, and why don't you go to dictionary.com and check out the definition of vitriolic - you'll find that the third definition states, "very caustic; scathing." Which, upon review of what I wrote the other day, makes perfect sense. It is really a delight when a person makes derogatory comments about another's vocabulary based solely upon their own error. Perhaps when you looked that word up, you should have read all of the possible definitions.
Unfortunately, no one cares about Palestinians except Palestinians. The US doesn't, Israel doesn't, and other Muslim nations do not. Sure, some countries are concerned about spillover (think Jordan), some countries use it as a base for propaganda (think Israel and Iran, for instance), some countries like the fact the whatever Palestine exactly is destabilizes Israel (think Egypt), and some countries use it as a stick/carrot (think the US). I'd also offer the observation that there have been more than a few nations who have enjoyed the US's presence on "their continents" (such as West Germany, South Korea, Poland (they'd still be a Soviet satellite if not for the US's presence within Europe occupying the USSR's time/resources). Another observation, your vitriolic statements only serve to put up the back of those who - apparently - you are trying to convince.
Oh... but this is Slashdot. Surely most/.ers will agree that this requires heavy government regulation - I mean, come one, we can't let the market fix this.... can we? Only an anarchocapitalist would believe that Adam Smith's invisible hand could fix this. To reiterate, come on.
Slashdot Mirror
Nah, the one you're thinking of is Passion: SG1
But the return fire from the lubney shooter would have been just like the movies?
Sorry, but check the number of accidental deaths by firearms compared to drowning (thats what I was getting at in that last sentence of mine). My point still being that the illegality of firearms is only going to affect that (i.e. the accidental deaths caused by gun) and not the Assault by Firearms.
Webster also gives three additionaly definitions at that link than you quote in your comment. Two of them concern the term 'Oriental' being used in reference to Asia.
The question, I think, is if you are more frightened of someone that goes through the process to carry a concealed weapon (and infact does so) than you are of some fuckin' nut who goes around shooting people? I for one can gladly say that I'd rather have the former.
Also, to date, no legislation has been very effective at keeping firearms out of the hands of criminals (you might note that historically no prohibition has been effective). Most legislation is more of a burden to an honest person owning a gun than to a criminal (who often will just steal a gun). And at most, such legislation only cuts down on the number of accidents involving firearms. Note, drowning kills more people and no where in the Constitution does it mention a "right to swim."
Two words, res judicata.
Far more damage to the country resulted not directly from terrorist attacks, but from the policies our own government has put into place
The difference, of course, is that things like the Patriot Act can be repealed while planes crashing into buildings cannot.
"who've done nothing to inject themselves into public discourse."
:)
They're publicly playing basketball on TV. They certainly present proper discourse for a sports journalist. But the ol' "we can't offend anyone that'd be terrible" has struck again. Here's the thing, no one really takes Imus too seriously. He's a dude on a radio station that you quickly turn the dial from or the white-haired Crypt-Keeper on MSNBC that you can't help but watch 'cause he looks like a lich from D&D. And he said something, predicatably, stupid. Wow, what a big surprise. And, in the drunken overcompensation from one shoulder of the road to the other that our country exhibits, first amendment rights are put on notice and he gets canned. I guess if he had called them "natty-headed hos" he'd have only been sexist
You say, "It is not necessary for the Gates Foundation to be investing in corporations that are destroying people's way of life, and causing them to be too sick to work."
But isn't there a way to invest in these corporations in order to change them? Now I'm not saying that this is what is going on concerning Gates' investments, but what better way to change a corporation's behavior than to buy it? Would you call a person who purchased controlling shares of some corporation in order to change its harmful ways neccesarily just a little evil (just not in comic book fashion)? Just wondering.So, whoever you are, are you really arguing that 70k for a Knight Rider car (whether it is fake or not) will have a good ROI?
1. I don't believe I ever said "rich people are stupider than shit."
2. No, I did not Google it.
3. I really don't believe that any amount of custom electronics, fiberglass, and leather makes this a 'good investment.' For example, my Dad has some old tractors that he has restored. He's put some money and time into them. Does it mean (and remember jackass that I'm talking about ROI here) that they're worth the amount of money and time he has invested in them? No it does not.
To close, a knight rider car is not a good investment. Not saying that you wouldn't be able to ever sell one for more, but as long as this person makes replicas why would a person pay you more?
Oh, but we should all be as students.
Oh, I disagree. Just imagine the warm fuzzy feeling you'd have driving it around. And just think. We've all been in the situation where we come across some strange substance while investigating a mystery. But no more! 'Cause this car has a built in mass spectrometer (unless the H-Man kept that for himself). With this and the A-Team van, there's really no stopping you.
On a more serious note, $70,000 is too much. What do you get, a circa 1980s trans-am with ground effects? Unless a person just has a huge amount of wealth to waste, most people could find a better use for 70K. Anyone could get a better ROI.
And it all comes full circle...
If I remember correctly, Rule 11 of the Federal Code of Civil Procedure has some sanctions that can be brought against attorneys who file frivolous suits. 'Course, CivPro was my worst class lol
It is legal to bring such a suit. A 1L example would be a simple tresspass claim where no damage was done to the plantiff's property. If the P wins, then he would be awarded a nominal award - say $1 - and the D would know beyond a doubt that they had tresspassed.
That's why robots, such as mentioned in another story today, should accompany each and every person. To protect us from terrorists and beat down any deviant thought.
So, does that mean most people do not exhibit sentience?
I agree with mothballing the shuttle. If my memory serves, the original planning for the shuttle was for it to already have been taken out of service to make way for a more economical orbital craft. However, and this is my take on it, since every Congressman has companies within their district that make parts for the Shuttle - when budget time comes around the shuttle program doesn't take many hits. A more efficient craft might not take 10000 contractors 1000000 man hours to make 2 widgets and thus some people/voters/companies would be out of a job/contract.
It is very obvious that American military bases are changing the world, the question is to what degree and in what fashion. And American bases in Germany most certainly did keep West Germany out of Soviet hands. Remeber the Berlin Airdrop? Of course not, such an activity by the US probably does not fit into your particular ideology so it is not mentioned. And, though I am sure that military bases did indeed add to the Cold War spying extravaganza, to imagine that the Soviets stayed out of West Germany for no reason other that the US military is naive.
The point I was trying to make about Palestinians is that the Palestinian people are used by all sides in order to further their own plans. E.g. Iran may wax on about a Palestinian state, but I doubt they have any intention of taking proactive measures to make this happen - it is only a ploy to keep their regional enemey (Israel) off balance.
To close, I suggest that you cease use of the ad hominem attack. Oh, and why don't you go to dictionary.com and check out the definition of vitriolic - you'll find that the third definition states, "very caustic; scathing." Which, upon review of what I wrote the other day, makes perfect sense. It is really a delight when a person makes derogatory comments about another's vocabulary based solely upon their own error. Perhaps when you looked that word up, you should have read all of the possible definitions.
Unfortunately, no one cares about Palestinians except Palestinians. The US doesn't, Israel doesn't, and other Muslim nations do not. Sure, some countries are concerned about spillover (think Jordan), some countries use it as a base for propaganda (think Israel and Iran, for instance), some countries like the fact the whatever Palestine exactly is destabilizes Israel (think Egypt), and some countries use it as a stick/carrot (think the US). I'd also offer the observation that there have been more than a few nations who have enjoyed the US's presence on "their continents" (such as West Germany, South Korea, Poland (they'd still be a Soviet satellite if not for the US's presence within Europe occupying the USSR's time/resources). Another observation, your vitriolic statements only serve to put up the back of those who - apparently - you are trying to convince.
You need to lay off the coffee, dude.
Oh... but this is Slashdot. Surely most /.ers will agree that this requires heavy government regulation - I mean, come one, we can't let the market fix this.... can we? Only an anarchocapitalist would believe that Adam Smith's invisible hand could fix this. To reiterate, come on.
I mean that "pursed" does not mean "smirk." Its more of a pucker.
Right.... picking a president based on their (as if they themselves set up the sites) OS choice is... stupid? I think we can all agree that it is.
And replace STD with SUV and you lose a disease and gain a vehicle.