A few years ago, my girlfriend and I were in Minneapolis for a concert and we stopped at the Bakken Museum.

If you are in the area, I would recommend visiting it. It was very interesting to see the history of pacemakers and similar devices.

So.... exactly how will the government of Uganda use the revenue raised from the tax to "to cope with the consequences?"
Perhaps to identify those who do not think like the government to "re-educate" them?

Did he do anything about this during the 6 years that he was the Attorney General?

If the answer is "no,", then why do you think it would be different now? Besides wishful thinking?

Yes, you are correct. Thank you for that.

Was it really necessary to call me a moron?
Oh, that's right. You are a anonymous coward, so that explains it.

Here, here.

I also enjoy use of vague terms that are generally understood by everyone, but whose exact meaning in the context is left undefined. Then, if you disagree with the argument, you can immediately be deemed an outcast.

Like, "reasonable" or "common-sense legislation."

To the GP, what is "reasonable legislation" or "reasonable rent revenue?"
What constitutes a "wealthy real-estate investors or corporations?"
Who gets to determine it?

Yes. My Dell XPS M1330 (going on memory on the model as that was a few years ago) had problems with the Nvidia GPU and heat. The system fan would almost always run on high. There were also many mb failures reported. I put a copper shim between the GPU and the heat sink.

I used a copper tube strap for copper pipes from Menards. Pounded it flat and cut a piece to size.

Ta-da. Problem solved.

...then perhaps it really isn't a problem.

"If a problem has no solution, it may not be a problem, but a fact - not to be solved, but to be coped with over time."
- Shimon Peres

I used news groups a lot in the 90s. After I went to a provider that didn't have decent news group coverage, I subscribed to (Free)Agent's service and even bought the full of Agent.

In the last 10 years, my use has decline to pretty much nothing.

Excellent

Expressing the desire to do something (ban Mexicans and Muslims, in this example) is not the same as doing it.

The issue is not tolerance of intolerance. It is tolerance of other people's ideas and beliefs, whether or not you agree with them. Tolerance is, by definition, the willingness to allow (not necessarily accept) ideas which are contrary to your own. Acceptance of ideas which are similar to one's own is not tolerance; it is agreement.

You may certainly "ban every trace of Trump" within spaces you own or control. Attempting to do the same anywhere else (especially in my space), is simply an attempt to exert control over others and -that- is an act of intolerance.

It's probably pretty safe to say that you will not vote for Trump, assuming you are a US citizen. That's fine. I cannot see myself voting for him either, however, for different reasons.

If you do not find that argument compelling, let me try another one. Let him talk. If you are right and his ideas are so repugnant, then those ideas will simply die in the open air. To quote a well-know political commentator, "Sunlight kills bacteria."

That's interesting. I would counter to the chief that because they are allowed to do something the general public is not allowed to do (as a result of being "trained professionals"), the consequences to them should be higher than the general public rather than being exempt.

The same way that we hold licensed engineer professionals to higher standards, law enforcement should be held to a higher standard with higher rewards for demonstrated competence and higher punishments for demonstrated failure.

On a related note, what exactly is it that makes these "trained professionals" better at texting while driving than the general public? Do they go through specialized training where they learn techniques of scanning the road while manipulating the phone? Do they go through a practical exercise and exam that involves a closed course with obstacles and are graded to a time standard and number of cones that can be hit? I am really curious about this.

If a known state cannot be shown as being implied by the theory, then how can the theory be valid?

But, what if Allah doesn't will it?

crap... i screwed up the quoting.
The first two lines were supposed to be a quote from the parent. My bad.

Patents now also don't protect the inventor, but rather some corporations.

The worse part is having to hear that litany about capitalism being good, when it's carefully avoided by said corporations...

First, it's not a matter of patent. It's copyright. There is a big difference.
Second, the artist had the "protection" up to the point where they signed to contract to allow the distribution. If the artist is getting paid for use of their product (music, in this case) and the terms do not give them the ability to control to whom the usage is sold, then they have nothing to say about the usage.

Capitalism is good. The artist got / gets revenue for usage of their product in exchange for giving up some level of control. The level of control is determined by the contract which they signed. They had a choice; sign, don't sign, or negotiate to get the level of control they want.