Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Did Slick Boink Monica? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: pezz who wrote (20419)	7/5/1999 12:43:00 AM
From: ManyMoose	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 20981

<<<I am thinking of upgrading to one [450 and another 64 megs of memory ] from a 233 Pentium I.... Total cost including tax about $450. Is this worth it? What would the speed advantages be? Say.... for Internet use?>>> My web pages do seem to load a bit faster, but I'm not sure that is due to the Pentium III over the Pentium 133 that I had before. Are you talking about upgrading the guts of your system or getting a new one? From what I've seen if you are talking $450 you might as well go a couple hundred more and get a new system. I went with a new one and I guess I'm glad. I'm still getting too many "fatal exceptions." Not sure whether that's Windows, software, or the hardware. Mine is a Presario. I can sure see how they have become cheaper. The computer I had at work you could park a truck on; this one wouldn't hold up a tricycle. Thanks for not taking offense at my good natured jibes on catch and release. I don't do any kind of hunting where I can't eat the kill. Which is precisely why I don't hunt ducks or geese. I don't like duck, and since I also enjoy watching them I leave the hunting to others. I don't hunt grizzlies either for the same reason; however there was a time when I would have. It is good to avoid killing them even in cases of self defense. One should be prepared for it nonetheless. We carry 375 H&H rifles on the job, but the paperwork required if you use it is deterrent enough. Also, it is difficult to get back into the federal building since after the Murrah Building was bombed we now have armed guards and a metal detector in front of the elevators. They don't understand.

To: pezz who wrote (20419)	7/5/1999 1:25:00 AM
From: jlallen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20981

Hey Einstein, where do you think the gov't. would go first if they did want to disarm the populace. Registration lists would be a good place to start? Even a dope like you should be able to figure that out. JLA

To: pezz who wrote (20419)	7/7/1999 1:54:00 AM
From: ManyMoose	Respond to of 20981

<<the foresight of our founding fathers with regards to the basic setup of our system? >> Precisely my point, the Bill of Rights being fundamental to that setup. But, you say, the founding fathers thought they were talking about flintlocks, not assault rifles. Wrong. Flintlocks were the highest form of assault rifle in their day, and they didn't say flintlocks, they said ARMS. <<Just a little common sense. >> Well, common sense should be engaged, it's true. I personally think that no person lacking common sense should come near a firearm. Will that stop fools from acquiring them? People should be tested for common sense. But by whom? Slick Willie? He has demonstrated what he thinks is common sense, hence this list of over 20,000 messages debating the issue. And who defines common sense? See, one version of common sense is that ugly guns should be outlawed or at the very least withheld by the firearms industry. In this category I would put Uzis, Tech 9s, and machine guns, among others. Some of these guns are just too ugly to live. They have lousy balance, can't be carried easily, and are of no use to much of anybody. We should just have elegant guns like the ones I prefer: Colt Single Action Army, Model 94 Winchester, M1 Garand, Swedish Mauser, Luger, .45 ACP Model of 1911-A1, and the like. If we just had elegant guns, these guys who like to shoot up McDonald's stores would soon tire of oiling them and return to their rock. Right? But it's been clearly demonstrated that an elegant gun that is perfectly legal can be turned into an ugly gun that Clintonites could righteously ban without changing ONE single function. The reverse is also true. I once saw two perfectly beautiful .22 rifles available at any K-Mart configured to effectively function as a machine gun. Maybe we should ban them too. In fact, let's just kick ass and take names. Let's take Rosie O'Donnell's name. She should be locked up: as a PR shill for K-Mart she is endorsing these guns. That shouldn't be allowed. OK then, let's just support the NRA-sponsored "Instant" Check program. That might be a step in the right direction, but it too has no real benefit. I was in our local gunshop the other day when a Tlingit gentleman from the little native town of Kake came in to buy a pistol for halibut fishing. (It's good to have a firearm because at 200 pounds, a respectable halibut must be stone dead before you haul her on board. A non-dead one will beat the hell out of your boat and knock you into the water for a slow death by hypothermia. Perhaps a just fate for a catch-and-eat fisherman, no? Here we call them subsistence fishermen.) I watched as the gunshop owner explained how the "instant" check would work, and that about 60 percent of the time there is a delay of three days. Well, the town of Kake is 200 miles from here, and there ain't no roads so you have to float or fly, either way at considerable expense. Naturally the Tlingit gentleman was interested in getting instant approval. It did not come, so the man had to make plans to come back to get his gun. Of course, had I been so inclined, I could have met him just outside the door with the kind of gun he wanted and he could have gone straight home with it saving a pile of money and giving me a nice profit. I'm NOT so inclined because once I buy a gun I never sell it and I haven't bought one since the President belonged to the NRA. People who do, though, are everywhere in Alaska because it's still much like a frontier even in the state capital where I live. Maybe where you live they are a little harder to find, or perhaps more unsavory. But here you could ask three people and come up with two gun-owners, one willing to sell a gun. So, what was gained? Nothing except a little cultural warfare on a native American. So are we a little safer now because this man had his Second Amendment and cultural birthrights infringed? Ask Slick.

To: pezz who wrote (20419)	7/12/1999 12:15:00 AM
From: ManyMoose	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20981

Pez, I'd like to make a serious movie recommendation. The movie's title: "Limbo." A fly fisherman such as yourself would understand the surprise ending perfectly. It's not about fishing, except as local background. But that's all I can say without spoiling it. The movie was exquisite. The violence was all off-camera where it belongs, but the suspense was palpable. The acting was superb, especially a young actress whose name escapes me. Kris Kristofferson (Me and Bobbie McGee) had top billing, but his part was minuscule. The male star was David Strathairne (Or something like that). It's set in Southeast Alaska, and was filmed in Juneau last year. Several people we know served as extras. Pez, you won't like the catch-and-eat fishing parts, but they're essential background even though it's not a fishing movie. You'll like the story if you like suspense. It's a very accurate representation of the lifestyle -- well, what it was 20 years ago anyway -- and scenery here . Go see this one, Pez. I'm serious. You too Lorrie. I think JLA would like it too. Really. <<just fiction invented by some Hollywood executive to sell tickets>>