See, we Americans have a widespread cultural mistrust of government.
Don't go accusing all of us Americans of being as paranoid as you. There are plenty of us who find it perfectly reasonable for the state to ensure that weapons are only owned by people who know how to properly and safely use them.
And it's not that hard to measure knowledge of guns, especially if you force people to take a course on them (or perhaps test out of the course). You could ask about safe storage methods, situations in which gun use is legal, etc. There's nothing arbitrary about it- we rely on certifications in almost every part of our society to ensure that somebody has the knowledge they claim they have, and there's no reason that gun ownership should be any different, given the consequences to the people around the gun owner should they not properly handle the weapon.
Education, like medical care or any other service, is not a right.
What a jolly, friendly person you must be.
I don't know that much about German
That much was completely obvious from your fist post. I would add you also don't know a damn thing about Germany (it's culture, people, or political system)
The idea that Germany is in any way less free than the US or anywhere else is laughable. They have tons of political parties to choose from in each election. We Americans get 2, 4 if you include the libertarians and greens who barely ever win anyway.
Your attempt to translate Staatsangehöriger is simply ridiculous. Although German involves combining words to form new ones, the sum of the parts does not necessarily equal the whole in any literal sense. Staatsangehöriger is the exact equivalent of the english word "citizen". There is no hidden meaning to the word that is somehow meant to allow the German government to lord over its citizens.
I assure you there is no nazi influence left on the German government, other than its resistance to those ideas.
Have you looked at Bibble 5? It was just released in december, and the new interface and featureset is a drastic improvement over version 4. It's now pretty comparable to Lightroom and Aperture, and it runs natively on Linux as well as OSX and Windows. The developers focused heavily on workflow and speed issues, with an eye towards sensible keyboard shortcuts.
I'm not an employee, just a happy customer, even if I do get the evil eye from fellow nerds whenever I fire up a $200 closed-source app on my Slackware machine.
not totally true, if they use VOIP or IPTV then the connection is faster than the internet connection to accomodate, if they throttle, they will only throttle the internet, and not their internal services. This is how it should be to ensure reliability of the services their users pay for that require a certain speed.
Can they make HP ink?
Yes.
But they haven't figured out how to reset the chip in the ink cartridge to accept that it's been refilled.
"Materialism" is not a right. You do not have a right to stuff. Free speech, the right to bear arms, a common trait of all things that are actually rights is that they do not cost money. They are intangible.
If the common trait of all things that are actually rights is that they do not cost money, then why do you include the right to have weapons on your list? Last time I checked, they were far from free, and shouldn't be on your list at all. Furthermore, I'm going to ignore all of your god talk, because these rights were indeed invented by men. The idea of free speech is a concept dreamed up by man. It isn't tangible, so obviously man did not build it or make it, but I do not require God to have the right to free speech, life, etc.
I agree that materialism is not a right, but lumping electricity in with the right to buy stuff is a stretch. I have never seen an electric bill that doesn't include provisions for people who do not have to pay it under certain circumstances. For example, families with small children in the house, the elderly, (there are more exceptions) can request to not have their electricity cut off even if they can't pay the bill.
That example demonstrates that as a society we value electricity as something more than just a materialistic indulgence, and that's how it should be viewed. Electricity is necessary in the modern world to survive, and if we value some other rights such as the right to continue living, it is easy to extend a right to electricity to certain people in dire need of it to survive.
To bring this back onto the topic of broadband, in many ways it should be viewed as a right, but not in that everyone deserves to have access to it in their home. Internet access is an important and enriching aspect of our lives, and denying it to someone just because they are poor will simply create a knowledge gap between those who can afford internet and those who can't. But, as I said earlier, this doesn't mean everyone necessarily has a right to free internet in their home. We can satisfy the right to free internet by providing access in public libraries and schools, and ensuring that all communities and people have access to these resources.
Ultimately my argument comes down to one of a right to knowledge. Whether it is from books, classrooms, or the internet, this is an undeniable human right. And if the internet is the primary way to gain knowledge in our times, then we should ensure that people have access to it.
Listen kid, it's the rich ppl who hire you or these skulls full of mush once you decide to grow up and work in the real world.
It's the rich ppl who provide goods & services to skulls full of mush consumers.
Ridiculous- I don't owe people with more money than me a damn bit of thanks for anything, in the same way they don't owe me any. They aren't the ones providing goods and services. Millions of workers are providing the goods and services you speak of, with many companies having some nice fat-cat CEO/other 3 letter titles at the making the big bucks pretending to be important.
Supposedly a "supergun". But like the rest of Iraqs' WMDs, it may may have been mythical. It's really not that absurd that Saddam would actually want a facility to launch peaceful satellites. I mean, the guy was a dictator, but he liked money; having a facility to hire out would have given him the cash to build even more palaces for himself.
Could have happened that way, but it didn't. Saddam Hussein's decades of development of WMDs are pretty well documented. He even used chemical weapons in the 80's on both Iran and his own people. He has a nuclear weapons program that was going on since the 70's. And he dabbled with biological weapons like anthrax. Now, he might have intended to develop a private space program instead of superguns capable of reaching his neighbors like Israel, Iran, and Saudi Arabia. But that doesn't fit his MO.
Because this makes much more sense than (God forbid!) Apple sticking a CDMA chip in some of their phones for compatibility with other networks.
No, that wouldn't make sense. It's not simply a matter of "sticking a CDMA chip in" as the two systems require different antennae, etc. So, Apple would have to re-engineer the product and have multiple SKUs just to service a small amount of users, when the rest of the world uses GSM. The real question is why the hell did Sprint and Verizon choose CDMA in the first place?
I've seen all of these in cover letters. The "dating the boss" one was fascinating to deal with.
I remember having to deal with the same letter. I miss those Whitehouse HR days.
Welcome to unregulated "capitalism", where a bunch of slick lunatics in $2,000 suits eat all of their seed corn in the spring, then piss and moan in the fall that they're starving, before demanding that the peasants come feed them.
One of these days, the peasants are gonna wise up, and our fatted executive class is gonna find itself on the dinner plate.
Ironic turn of phrase considering Stalin's Agricultural policies. Maybe it isn't "capitalism" but "humans."
Too many people are thinking of security instead of opportunity. They seem more afraid of life than death. -- James F. Byrnes
