injb

>>> But the root of gun violence is not what we think it is. Both the Left and Right, despite their heated disagreements, share an implicit assumption about gun violence: That before anyone pulls a trigger, they carefully weigh the pros and cons beforehand. That gun violence is a deliberate, rational act.

Show me one person who actually thinks that.

If it's just a drawing of a mouse, then anyone can create the same value by just drawing a different mouse. Of course, you can't because of the millions of dollars that have been pumped into that particular mouse. That investment is what the copyright laws are protecting.

I would say that if something doesn't get published when there is a guaranteed, government-backed monopoly in place, then it's even less likely to get published when there isn't.

I don't think it's common for stuff to go unpublished when no one can find the copyright holder. In that case, just publish it and wait to see who complains.

That's fair enough but it's an arbitrary place to draw the line. If you pay tax in the US then you build weapons. If you live in a country that doesn't either build weapons or pay someone else to build them for you, then you'll soon be getting told what do by some country that does, and building weapons is one of the things they'll probably tell you to do.

Exactly. How is this so called problem even possible without the restaurants allowing it? If they don't like it, stop allowing it. If they don't care, then why should the public care?

US federal law excludes antiques from this, antiques being defined as 1898 or older.

>> I wanted to understand what Trump voters liked and didn’t like about the president, what they were nervous about, what they thought about the left’s response so far, and most importantly, what would convince them not to vote for him in the future.

I would really like to understand why he considers this last question to be the most important.

The most amazing theory I ever read was from The Second Messiah, which is totally fanciful and speculative, but even as a work of the imagination its strikingly impressive.

What they said was that it's not fake, but its not exactly real either, in the sense that its not Jesus. What we're seeing is the image of a man who was tortured the way Jesus was said to have been tortured, including the crucifixion. But the man was a crusading Knight, and the authors even think they can name him: Jaques de Molay, commander of the Knights Templar. After being tortured he was wrapped in his linen shroud (one of the few personal possessions that the template owned) and he recovered to be put on trial and ultimately burned at the stake. The shroud was folded up and put away and then he image formed slowly over years, by some chemical process which the authors explained but I can't remember.

This explains the carbon dating and the apparent mystery regarding the details of the crucifixion injuries: traditionally Jesus is depicted with holes in his hands but apparently that does not actually work. The wrists must be nailed instead, as seen in the shroud.

They also claim to have proven that the mans knees were bent as apparently this is the only way to explain the proportions.

I doubt it was a very scientific assessment but it was still fascinating to read.They even claimed that the shroud first appeared in the possession of someone who might have been a relative based on the name (can't remember the details now)

That haircut made a comeback in the 90s in Ireland, usually with the head shaved pretty close except for the fringe over the eyes

What's the context here? What is he responding to?

So what though? I don't know exactly the reasoning for standing requirements, but they clearly weren't intended to prevent suits over things that affect millions of people in exactly the same way. I mean, standing would prevent man from suing to overturn a ban on women voting, but that's clearly a bug, not a feature.

Does anyone else feel struck with a sense of shameful naivety when you discover (as I just did now) that your beloved local whatever store is actually a nationwide chain?

To ensure the natural advantage that strong people have over weak people, of course. Nature has ordained that the strong should subjugate the weak, and the equalizing force of firearms is thus an afront to nature, and is not to be tolerated!

>> The minority argued that if you are exerting constant pressure backwards

But that isn't how it works. The pressure on the trigger has to be varied for the gun to keep firing. She seems to think that keeping your finger in the same place constitutes "constant pressure" but that's simply not true. If there was constant backward pressure, then your finger would follow the trigger when it moves backwards in recoil. In that case, the bump system wouldn't work. To be fair I think she just genuinely doesn't understand this and the majority are partially to blame for overcomplicating it.

With a semi-automatic firearm, you must relieve the pressure/force on the trigger between shots and for that reason it cannot be "a single operation of the trigger". If this fits the definition of "single operation" then you'd only be allowed to fire a semi auto once. Firing it again the following year on your birthday would make it a machinegun.

+1 the OP hasn't offered anything resembling evidence for their position anyway. It's worth noting that 3 of the supreme court justices who voted to lift this ban were appointed by the president who ordered the ban. Is this an example of the famous "4D chess" we've been hearing about?

It's not on that basis that it was overturned though. It was overturned because the definition of machinegun requires that it fires more than one round with a single operation of the trigger. Everyone knows bump stocks don't do that, thus they're not machineguns. The president just ordered the ATF to pretend that they were, that's all. States will probably still be able to ban them by legislation though.

They probably selling the bottoms to someone else

At the risk of sounding like a smartass...AI? seriously its worth thinking about.

>> Ever think of how many more people would be willing to buy a table saw if they knew they weren't going to cut their fingers off?

There is literally nothing stopping those people from buying the saw that prevents that right now.

Whenever that kind if thing happens, a wizard did it.

I literally just had to shoot this exact idea down this sprint.

"on originality he just isn’t quite good enough." A bizarre way to judge someone who's supposed to be doing science, surely.

That's cool! I think it would be nice to show the actual % chance that the change seen is random when the slider is moved below the significant threshold. Is that possible?

I'm not much of a C programmer but my gut feeling on this is that is isn't ever going to be resolved by debating or reasoning of any kind. It'll be fixed when someone does something that makes some other language more relevant. C didn't get popular because of a consensus. It got popular because of Unix. Python got popular because of Django.

We're stuck with C until someone builds something more important than Linux using some other language.

That's a good question to think about actually. I don't think they handled it the way Russia is handling it now (assuming that this is in fact what's happening with Russia).

Actually the big European powers gave up their empires fairly quietly. Yes they sometimes fought wars to keep them on a case by case basis, but I don't think any of them launched large scale campaigns of invasion as a response.

Yes it's true that the system is difficult to navigate, but that's a problem that only the lucky few have. The vast majority of people who would like to emigrate to the US aren't qualified anyway, so for them it's much simpler. But as the article explains, over 30 million people want to come to the US in one year and that's just not realistic so there isn't really a solution to this. The population of the US is less than 400 million. Can you imagine 30 million more per year?

They could fix things to make it more streamlined for the 1 million or so who are qualified to get a green card, or even increase the quotas, or even easier, guarantee that unused quotas carry over. But then it will remain true that the vast majority of people who want to come, can't. This is a function of America's success.

For this to change, i.e. where most people who want to come here can, it would take nothing less than the US losing it's status as the best country in the world for opportunity.

>> Martha Stewart is an "outsider" and not an insider of drug company ImClone but she was found guilty of insider trading

Minor correction: she was not convicted of insider trading. That charge was dismissed. She was only convicted of lying to investigators.

Tldr: she was arrested under a state statute that ended up getting overturned as unconstitutional. She sued but the court decided that the police acted in good faith and could not be expected to know that the law was unconstitutional, thus they are protected by qualified immunity.

Just ask someone from Wexford

I would be inclined not to. IMO GraphQL is great when you have a frontend team that wants to make changes without requiring a new backend build. If your team isn't structured that way (i.e. you have full stack devs and/or very frequent, low overhead backend releases), or the nature of the changes is that they frequently don't require backend changes anyway, then I would just stick with REST.

I can't shed any light on your question, but I can't help wondering - just out of curiosity - if it could be dangerous for the internet. Suppose there's some replicating worm from years ago on that machine that everyone has forgotten about. My guess is that it wouldn't get far though. Like how if you find some old disease in a cave somewhere, chances are we're all vaccinated against it already.