Perhaps in a few decades' time, a city somewhere in North America will start building a subway and, instead of Germany or Japan, will go to Mexico for the boring machines?
Well, no. Mexico isn't building the machines. They might well hire a Mexican operator to drive the machine, however, since he'll have the practical experience.
It's a good thing Mexico isn't building the machines, either. Compare Mexican-built VW Golf to German-built.
It's just heaps more difficult to produce high quality booze or cigs. If people can get plastered on drugs they can grow at home at the same quality that you could sell them
You'd be surprised at how many people can't grow a decent tomato.
Heck, I'd briefed everybody never to tell me their password.
I've never abused a password but I even don't want to know my SOs' passwords. If I don't know them, I can never be tempted to use them. I'm root anyway.
and GPs statistics don't show anything either.. so please post ANY evidence suggesting that a higher percentage of people in iceland own guns, i certainly can't find any.
I can't either, but that still doesn't excuse your misrepresentation of the statistics.
getting a gun in iceland requires written tests and mental exams
There's no mental exam, but you do need the recommendation of two gun owners who will vouch for you and you have to provide a passport photo. That's literally the only requirements that Iceland has which you don't have to meet in California or New York. You're lying again. Stop lying, that's what liars do.
It's ridiculous to compare the USA to Iceland anyway, without many caveats; we have a number of cities with more people than their whole country. It's just not a directly comparable situation.
Well, that clears that up. I was sure that it was possible to go out of state and buy guns, and I was right. Sometimes
I think we already do this to some extent in most jurisdictions
Not to my knowledge. (Though sound recordings tended to be treated unusually for a while) And not in the US anyway, which is what I'm most concerned with, being a USian.
Here I do disagree, for the simple reason that as someone trying to run multiple small businesses, overhead is the #1 enemy, and registration of routine practices is a particularly wasteful form of overhead. We don't all have accountants, lawyers or admin staff; for some of us, any time taken to deal with the paperwork is time directly taken away from the handful of people doing actual creative work, and if we're developing work for others then presumably that overhead roughly doubles because there's going to have to be some sort of assignment executed around the time we get paid as well for any such system to work.
Well for most businesses, they simply won't care, and neither will their clients. Automatically granting copyrights results in the ridiculous situation of granting copyrights even to individual Slashdot posts, not to mention many emails, text messages, and other ephemera that do not deserve copyrights because of the simple fact that copyrights were not necessary in order to cause those works to be created and published. A registration system is the best way of separating the wheat from the chaff. If an author wants a copyright enough to timely file for it, it likely was an incentive for him to create and publish the work. If he doesn't seek one, it's safe to assume that he didn't care about copyright, that it wasn't an incentive for him, and therefore shouldn't be granted because it would be unnecessary.
I'm not interested in creating paperwork for paperwork's sake, but an opt-in registration system is the best method I know of for reducing the number of copyrights granted to only those which need to be granted. The actual registration can be quite simple, around the burden of filling out a change of address form; likewise there ought to be a fee, but only enough of a token one to get authors to seriously decide whether they want a copyright or not, as opposed to applying whether they really care or not.
The additional benefit to a registration system is the same as with our existing registration systems for land, and for certain movable property, such as cars: to identify individual items, and to identify the people who claim them, so that in the event of a dispute or a desired business transaction or if the item and the claimant are separated, they can be found.
Copyright incurs costs on the public that ultimately grants them and permit them to exist. We have copyrights to serve the public interest, and if this means that the authors and publishers who enjoy great benefits from the gift of copyright which they have been granted have to do a little paperwork, forgive me if I'm not sympathetic.
The catch here is that there are plenty of other reasons the holder might fail to act. I'm not against the idea of a renewable right in all cases, but the burden of enforcing copyright can already be prohibitive for a small business with limited legal resources. The last thing they need is for a manager who also has statutory obligations relating to everything from business registration and rent payments through to filing tax statements and signing client contracts to find they've lost all rights to their only product because of a paperwork screw-up while they were off sick or simply because they didn't understand the rules (which my accountants and lawyers tell me happens all the time for small businesses when it comes to other legal/tax regs, not least because the way the rules are written is itself not always clear).
Well, we had this in the US for nearly 200 years and it always worked fine. Most copyright holders didn't ever renew, but the sky didn't fall down. It's because only a handful of copyrights have value lasting beyond a short period. I have no problem with the registration process being made as easy as possible while still requiring the author to make a real decision as to whether or not to get a copyright. At that point, all they need to do is to leave themselves a note in the calendar. Patents require regular paperwork to keep, and registered trademarks do too. Every year I have to pay my bar license fee to keep practicing law. It's not rocket science.
If we are guaranteed the right to defend ourselves, then why are we limited to guns?
The constitution doesn't specify.
My point isn't whether or not you have the right to defend yourself, my point is that the 2nd amendment (which is mentioned in the summary here on the front page) isn't about self-defense.
That's true, but it's not interesting or relevant.
I'm sorry that this caused you to come completely unhinged like that.
That is not even vaguely close to what happens when my hinge pins go missing.
If I just took the access point out of the box, and I am connecting to it on a local network, I am fairly sure I know EXACTLY the identity of the computer I am connecting to.
The computer doesn't know you did that, and there's no good way for it to know that which wouldn't involve digital signatures...
What about devices which update FROM an SD card or USB stick? It's still secure.
Those devices might be the bulk of the market in China, but they're the minority here in the USA, where the dominant GPS units all have updater applications. You can get those devices here, but odds are against you ever getting good map data, let alone an update with any such.
It's even worse than that since in America you're no longer considered a minor when you turn 18 or 19 depending on the state, but you can't drink or own a pistol until you're 21.
Oh no, my friend, it's much, much worse than that. We try minors as adults all the time. Responsibilities without rights? That's called slavery. Institutionalized, in this case, much like privatized prisons. America is keeping its legacy of slavery strong.
And emancipated minors can obtain all rights at an age younger than the general age of majority.
All rights? Not regarding controlled substances.
Among non-gun nuts it is not well know that you can no legally sale or transfer a handgun across state lines. So unless you move somewhere with your handguns you have to buy them in the state or territory where you live.
Wait, what? Last I checked it was only illegal for them to sell you a gun that's illegal where you live, and illegal for you to buy it (or to cross lines with the intent of breaking your state's firearm laws.)
Actually the so-called "wild west" was sometimes open carry, and sometimes not. And that shootout was down the street from the OK Corral. Per your own reference, guns were prohibited in town by local ordinance enacted while Wyatt Earp was serving as Pima County deputy sheriff.
The SCOTUS ruling on DOMA reinforces that states are in charge of marriage; married people get treated as married by the fed as long as their state says they're married.
What you want is for people to be slaves to states. I suppose you also don't recognize that nationalism is simply feudalism writ larger.
And race baiters, and race enablers are the primary cause of this. Followed by the belief that "they're owed something."
They and their forebears are and were systematically punished for being born. You don't think they're owed something for being deliberately set back by our government repeatedly? Guess that's your own sense of entitlement talking.
HELP!!!! I'm being held prisoner in /usr/games/lib!
