|
|
 | | Re: What happened?
|
| (...) True. (...) And the fact that you don't have a gun in your house meant that every day when the troops came by to drag your grandfather off to work even though he didn't think it was safe, he went instead of resisting? (...) Larry "very tired (...) (25 years ago, 15-Jul-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: What happened?
|
| (...) Good point, Scott. In particular try article 8 in the Federalist Papers. Seems pretty clear to me what was intended by the Second Amendment. Then read article 10 to understand why even if the majority thinks that we, for example, should (...) (25 years ago, 15-Jul-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: ValuJet double jeopardy?
|
| (...) :-P Thanks, Mike. I agree they screwed up, but I had the impression that, in the U.S. there was an upper limit on the number of books that can be thrown at any given person. Jus' wanted to clarify. Cheers, - jsproat (25 years ago, 14-Jul-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Photo Radar
|
| (...) pushes (...) Fair enough. In Alberta, you can only have 1 person on a vehicle registration. (AFAIK, anyway) (...) Ah. Another difference. Because our license plates are on the back of the car only, that's the part that gets photo'ed, and there (...) (25 years ago, 14-Jul-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Photo Radar
|
| (...) Both good and valid points. My point is that it was *possibly* a family member who was driving the vehicle, and I am not required to testify against them. If they determine which family member *might* have been driving then I would gladly pay (...) (25 years ago, 14-Jul-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Photo Radar
|
| (...) Don't know about other localities, but here (Phoenix AZ), if you get a photo-radar ticket, the drivers face *must* be clearly visible. If it is obscured, they will not process the ticket. So, when driving though photo-radar country, keep the (...) (25 years ago, 14-Jul-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: ValuJet double jeopardy?
|
| (...) Without reading the link I would say they might be charged with murder of the passengers and manslaughter of the pilots, but I'm probably wrong. (...) Dunno, but who cares? They screwed up, and they ought to pay. (25 years ago, 14-Jul-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: What happened?
|
| (...) One of my friends has been looking for any job anywhere doing virtually anything and yet still is unemployed - the European economy is very different to the booming US Economy - and we all know what happens after a boom. (25 years ago, 13-Jul-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Photo Radar
|
| (...) Hmm. Maybe it's different in the States, but here, if you are the registered owner of a vehicle, then you are responsible for that vehicle.(1) If someone else is driving it, they are driving it either: a) with your permission, either implicit (...) (25 years ago, 13-Jul-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | ValuJet double jeopardy?
|
| Huh? I've been reading about 110 charges of 3rd degree murder and manslaughter brought against SabreTech by the state of Florida for the 1996 ValuJet crash: (URL) federal government is expected to follow suit. What I don't understand is how someone (...) (25 years ago, 13-Jul-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Photo Radar
|
| (...) I have been the recipient of one of these tickets, and I have yet to hear of any final outcome. I recieved a letter in the mail with a picture of one of my vehicles, showing the posted speed limit and the speed that the car was going. The (...) (25 years ago, 13-Jul-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Perl rules!
|
| (...) I was that way too. That's why god invented spellcheck. (25 years ago, 13-Jul-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
| | | | | Re: Perl rules!
|
| (...) It's a good thing human minds are good at language -- can you imagine if parents actually had to teach their children to speak? That would be painful. Believe me, I know -- I tried for 4 years. *Then* my kid decided he was ready to talk. But (...) (25 years ago, 13-Jul-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
| | | | | Re: Photo Radar
|
| (...) My biggest complaint about photo radar is, is that it's up to me to prove that I wasn't behind the wheel. Guilty before proven innocent and all that. For example: last week, I was mugged and car-jacked and left on the side of the road. After (...) (25 years ago, 13-Jul-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Photo Radar
|
| Just a blatant troll for opinions...Around here there's a big squabble about photo radar, and just this morning, someone in the office was grumbling about getting a ticket, and everyone else was encouraging her to fight it. Now, I'm wondering what (...) (25 years ago, 13-Jul-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Perl rules!
|
| (...) Luckily human beings are very good at that. In fact, the rules seem to be mostly descriptive -- we naturally say things a certain way, and then retroactively we look and say, "ok, that's the right way to say it because of such-and-such-rule". (...) (25 years ago, 13-Jul-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
| | | | | Re: Perl rules!
|
| (...) It also means there are 50 thousand rules to learn, and 50 million exceptions to those rules. At least we don't have to cojugate (sp?) anything... Steve (25 years ago, 13-Jul-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
| | | | | Re: Perl rules!
|
| (...) Another great strength of English is that through years of borrowing ideas from other languages, you end up with many ways to express the same idea, allowing the flexibilty both to make things beautiful and to find just the precise way to (...) (25 years ago, 13-Jul-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
| | | | | Re: Perl rules!
|
| (...) Hey, I'm going to have to take issue with that. English can be a very beautiful language. It can also be an ugly language, but that doesn't mean that it can't be amazing poetry in the right hands. So actually it's a pretty good analogy. :) (25 years ago, 13-Jul-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
| | | | | Re: Perl rules!
|
| (...) I'd put correctness above maintainability, in the sense that, although maintainable code needs to be able to stay correct, code ought to be correct in the first place. And above correctness, the code ought to be solving the right problems (...) (25 years ago, 13-Jul-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
|
