Slashdot Mirror

but if they don't shut off the supply of poisonous water, they are to blame for that and the resulting deaths.

Lies are words — equating them with deeds is where your analogy went wrong.

America IS to blame for assuming the rest of the world has a "right to spread lies"

America believes — and has that belief codified as the very first item in its Bill of Rights — that everybody, wherever in the world they are, has a right to spread lies.

punishing [false - assumption by -mi] rumour mongers

Here in America we've agreed centuries ago, that allowing government to judge, what is and what is not true, is more dangerous than an occasional falsehood slipping through. See also Ministry of Truth — which is what you'd like established to go after these "rumour mongers".

The "cruel and unusual" thing is not to reserve such punishments to the extra-vile. It is what such punishment says about those dishing it out and what it does to them.

First, the "cruel and unusual" thing isn't a "thing"; it's part of the 8th Amendment to the US Constitution: "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." Second your assertion about its purpose is wrong. Its purpose is to protect you from the possibility of a tyrannical government imposing harsh punishments for minor infractions. Find out more here.

We have crossed that line long ago.

Because everyone "on the left" is the same person and deserves to be treated as if they are exactly the same person who humiliated you once some time in the past?

From now on, it's an eye for an eye,

Remember, kids, everybody is better off we poke out everyone's eyes! Xora said so.

you better hit the gym, boy.

Ha! You made me laugh. But, seriously, your writing makes you appear to be paranoid, delusional, hypocritical and abusive. Is that really the image you want to project?

Since, as part of my job (which includes very flexible hours/locations), I'm encouraged to blog, take part in mailing list/forum discussions, and suchlike, it could be argued that they're paying me for my Wikipedia edits about their product as well.

Dunno why I'm trying to play Devil's Advocate here, but there ya go.

OTOH, I am pretty sure that the folks in Legal would say that I'm definitely not being paid to do marketing or to post inaccurate information.

I guess I could add a disclaimer "I work for SomeMultinational but any material I post here about SomeSoftware reflects my own understanding and views and not necessarily those of my employer" to my user page... or something. <grin/>

Is that you? In other words, they only people who claim that scientists say "we have proven" are evolution deniers.

QED.

Can you provide an example of something that the Soviets did that the United States has not done?

Slaughtering 20 million of their own citizens, and that's just under Stalin.

While you're formulating your answer, consider that the United States is the only country to nuke another country.

That's true, it ended WW2 with several million fewer casualties than an invasion of the Japanese mainland would have allowed.

We used our own prisoners and citizens as guinnea pigs to conduct experiments in nuclear, biological, and chemical warfare.

Common practice at the time, as reprehensible as we now view it. We also treated our prisoners significantly better than the Soviets powers did. Also bear in mind that things like the nasty side affects from radiation simply were not known at that time.

We engaged in witch hunts, like McCarthy appearing before Congress to say he "held in his hands" a list of known communist co-conspirators.

This doesn't even count as a pimple on the ass that is known as the Gulag's. Tens of millions of people were sentenced and countless millions were killed for political dissidence.

I'm not sure your claim that the USSR and the USA were significantly different in their propaganda campaigns

They were, and to be frank the US really sucks at propaganda and the Soviets were masters at it.

All:
God save your majesty!

Cade:
I thank you, good people—there shall be no money; all shall eat
and drink on my score, and I will apparel them all in one livery,
that they may agree like brothers, and worship me their lord.

Dick:
The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers.

Cade:
Nay, that I mean to do.
Henry The Sixth, Part 2 Act 4, scene 2, 71–78

http://www.enotes.com/shakespeare-quotes/lets-kill-all-lawyers
I haven't been able to find it in the original Klingon, apologies.

From what I can tell, allowing returns is a store policy thing rather than a US law; see e.g. http://www.enotes.com/consumer-issues-reference/purchases-and-returns#returning-consumer-purchases

I've also found returns to usually be possible the other countries I've lived in (Norway, Ireland). I would suspect that this does not drive up prices, because it presumably leads to higher income for the store than not offering it, or the stores wouldn't. I know I've seen recommendations to offer this for new businesses - it makes it much easier to get customers, because the customers take less of a risk, and the amount of customers that use it is small enough that it isn't a problem. Basically, it's treated as a marketing expense, and is a fairly minor one.

I know it affect me personally; I do buy some things I'm uncertain about because I can return them, and usually end up keeping them. I'll also say I don't abuse the system - with the single exception of small piece of furniture from IKEA that for complicated reasons were opened by mistake, I've only returned things in their original, shrink wrapped form, and done exchange on things that were broken when I got them.)

Still I would rather have a 1940 size US government with a 1940 size budget and 1940 amount of federal regulations.
(and a 2012 respect for civil rights)

In order for that to work out you're going to need a 1940-size population (and never let it grow -- maybe some more world wars) and a 1940-style population distribution. I've been thinking a lot lately about the implications a larger, more urban population has for the American experiment. In all the discourse I hear/read, I never come across anyone pointing out the simple fact that things are very different than they were when the founders did their thing. Hell, things are incredibly different from what they were just 2-3 generations ago, when this census was taken.

1790 population:
3.8M, 3% urban, 81% white (18% slaves!!)

1940 population:
131M, 56% urban, 88% white

2010 population:
308M, 81% urban, 75% white

Look at those numbers. Taken from census.gov. Look at those numbers and tell me that they're not striking. In 72 years, the population has increased by nearly 2.5 times, it's become far more urban (i.e. more people cheek-by-jowl with far less community), and less homogenous.

Some people will say those are good things, some say they're bad. I think that's silly. They're facts. They just are. But no one seems to want to explore those facts. What does it mean that so many of us now live in cities? There is interesting work (Dunbar Rule, Monkeysphere, etc.) which indicates that we're wired to perform best socially in smaller groups. Social mores hold stronger sway when anonymity is limited.

I think the fact that people don't police themselves (why shouldn't I cut off this asshole, he doesn't know me, I won't see him again!) has led to the crazy layering of laws put in place by politicians who have to be seen to be "doing something" even if that something is passing new laws which overlap with laws already passed to "do something", leading to unintended consequences and a dysfunctional legal system which is now based almost entirely around plea bargaining (90+ %!!) rather than trial by jury of one's peers, as the framers envisioned. Think about that. As most of us don't wind up in the criminal justice system, I think most of us still have this romanticized notion of how law works -- lawyers make their cases before a jury of our peers, the jury goes away and weighs evidence, then makes a decision, etc. etc. No, actually what happens is someone from the AD's office and your defense lawyer sit down and play the bargaining game. If your lawyer is good enough, they bargain down so you get the minimum time possible, it goes to a judge, and you go serve your sentence. No jury. No courtroom drama. If everyone demanded a trial by jury, the system would grind to a halt.

What's the point of all this ranting? I don't know. Mostly I'm just venting to get this idea out there, to get people thinking and talking about the idea that the systems we have in place now (government, law, etc) may have gone well beyond their ability to scale to the size of our population. It's like any other scaling problem... Take the technology that is working now, keep throwing band-aids and duct tape at it until it completely crumbles under the load, and then throw it out in search of what works at the next level. Often times that changeout in technology isn't a clean progression -- some things have to work differently in order to deal with the increased load. Just because it's different doesn't mean that it's worse, though.

450 ish plants world wide, 99+ incidents? Not exactly a stellar record. And that's just what the US law says they have to report.

This doesn't begin to quantify the 'potential' problems should worst case scenarios come to pass. There's a reason nuke plants cost so damned much. Because they simply can not be allowed to fail. And yet we see time and again, things that weren't expected do happen. It's not a good recipe for long term sucess.

Nukes will be required for another 50-100 years until we can fully switch to renewables, but that does not make them 'safe'.

The case is irrelevant - it is old law, and not representative of the current legal situation. It is also widely misinterpreted, because Ford's reasons for withholding dividends are often misattributed to a desire to do public good -- he wanted to do no such thing, but rather starve the complainants (the founders of the Dodge motor co) of resources that they were using to set up in competition to him.

See notes here, paying particular attention to the "significance" section: http://www.enotes.com/topic/Dodge_v._Ford_Motor_Company

There are micro-organisms that live in stone. They would have survived the mining, and they might not be adverse to living in water, as long as there's enough food for them. And proliferating in water ought to be easier than proliferating in stone.

So perhaps what we're seeing are not new types of microbes.

Perhaps they're ancient life forms that have been released from the depths of the earth. (Queue dramatic music and image of intelligent sludge rising from the lake.)

Seriously though, I think that's pefectly possible.

Quick search...
http://nanopatentsandinnovations.blogspot.com/2010/09/yummy-basalt-tasty-granite-how-microbes.html
http://www.enotes.com/science/q-and-a/there-stone-eating-bacteria-286363

Before anybody gets freaky, "the year they hanged the lawyers" is a cultural reference to Robert Anson Heinlein, which in his science fiction work "The Number of the Beast" happened in 1965 in an alternate universe from which time there is no entry "lawyer" in the phone book (A tell for which universe you're in).

It's not a cultural reference to Shakespeare's Henry VI (1591), nor any prior work Shakespeare stole his inspiration from (which was his habit).

Your 15 year-old statement for automotive defects is incorrect. From http://www.enotes.com/everyday-law-encyclopedia/recalls-by-manufacturers:

There are a few restrictions on consumers' rights to take advantage of recalls. For example, there is a limitation regarding the age of the vehicle. In order to be eligible for free repairs, refund, or replacement, the vehicle must be less than 8 years old on the date the defect.

So you'll be notified...but it'll be up to you to fix it out of your own pocket after that. The equivalent here would be that you'd have to buy a new OS. Besides you're comparing safety recalls, which can cause death, to a software "bug" that is actually caused by the user themselves. Also your statement about "free software getting patched seemingly forever" is totally false, incorrect, and missleading. There are tons of free software that is unsafe and no longer being maintained or patched. Does that sound like fraud too? No...more like the EoL of software (that sounds familiar...)

Human beings only live for 700,000 hours. The TSA is wasting over 1000 lifetimes each year.

Repent Harlequin! Said the Ticktockman

Oh well, when it comes to robotic overlords of any sort I surmise discretion is the better part of valor (play dead and run away)

It's probably much ado about nothing anyway

Basically, it's important for VOIP to have a certain quality of service for clear voice calls, but different QOS rules may make sense for other data types

Do you remember when the millimeter wave full-body scans weren't going to be recorded? But now they routinely are? Remember when seatbelt laws would only be enforced in conjunction with another type of violation, but now they are an arrestable violation all on its own? Maybe you don't remember these things, but I do, with countless other examples I could name, I see a trend....

If it's possible, they'll do it and they already have (Comcast vs Torrents, anyone?) and the only reason they don't do it more is because people got pissy about it. We need to get pissy about this, too. Somehow, despite lacking all these vital QoS rules, the Internet has grown to become the dominant global information network, winning out over many other networks having such things as QoS enforcement. (EG: Proprietary ATM networks, etc)

Sorry, but I like my Internet the way it is, spam and all. It really needs to be nothing more than a Network of Endpoints all sharing equivalent potential value. Let people decide what's valuable and what's not.

We need to be pissy about this issue.

He'd be lucky if he was stoned. He might be able to weasel out based on not having the capacity to make a binding contract.

"Competency and Capacity

A natural person who enters a contract possesses complete legal capacity to be held liable for the duties he or she agrees to undertake, unless the person is a minor, mentally incapacitated, or intoxicated. "

http://www.enotes.com/everyday-law-encyclopedia/contracts

heya,

If you're trying to paraphrase Hamlet, the "methinks" actually goes at the end, lol.

The original quote is:

The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

But it's often mis-quoted as:

Methinks the lady doth protest too much

e.g. http://www.enotes.com/shakespeare-quotes/lady-doth-protest-too-much-methinks

Cheers,
Victor

You didn't end up murdering them. You ended up manslaughtering them. The difference is precisely intent.

http://www.enotes.com/forensic-science/murder-vs-manslaughter

http://www.enotes.com/shakespeare-quotes/lets-kill-all-lawyers

Guess they were unpopular even before Brooks Bro's suits were invented

The Supreme Court has already ruled it is perfectly legal to make membership in the Communist party illegal:

http://www.enotes.com/major-acts-congress/communist-control-act

Libel is not protected. That is why it is called libel, and not protected speech. Not that you would get that through your thick skull.

The domain was not declared protected speech, the arbiter determined that no trademark violation had occurred. FULL STOP.

The only thing it had to do with free speech is that Glenn Beck was attempting to use a completely undemocratic international institution to suppress protected speech.

I'm with William Shakespeare on this one.

http://www.enotes.com/shakespeare-quotes/lets-kill-all-lawyers

Remember, you don't change laws in court, you change them in Congress.

If only more Americans understood this.

Please no. That will only do more harm.

You are apparently failing to understand the concept of the US Government check and balance system with the division of power. While in general congress has the power to make law, the executive the power to enforce law, and the judicial to judge a case based on law, each branch has the ability to effect the law in different ways. The executive has the ability to make law by signing of treaty with foreign powers, or to render a law useless by failing to enforce it. The judicial branch has the ability to make and remove laws as well in the form of rulings on the law or the result of jury nullification in the later case.

Unfortunately many people, for whatever reason, fail to understand exactly how the US government is organized, and what powers each branch of government really have over the others. A good read can be had at : http://www.enotes.com/government-checks-balances/legislative-judicial-checks-balances for more detailed information on this.

http://www.enotes.com/shakespeare-quotes/lady-doth-protest-too-much-methinks

I no longer see a reason why these subpeople should be allowed to walk freely among the citizens of our country.

Shakespeare was ahead of his time, it seems. http://www.enotes.com/shakespeare-quotes/lets-kill-all-lawyers

Does your company fall under doctor-patient confidentiality or would I or a police officer or just anyone off the street who is willing to ask - be able to get the information?

I am guessing that your company does not have any such system of protecting your clients privacy and information.
Doctors on the other hand...

Based on what we know about Earth, they say that it's difficult to imagine life arising in acidic, oxidizing brines like those inferred for ancient Mars.

er, ahem --

Hamlet:

And therefore as a stranger give it welcome.

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,

Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

Hamlet Act 1, scene 5, 159-167

Wm. Shakespeare

Two billion years from now it may be difficult to imagine life evolving on the Earth. If you can still find the Earth, that is. Time has a way of hiding things.

Who was the ignorant mod-kiddy, who gave this Cato +1 Insightful? History is repeating itself again. This comment-at-each-article must be stopped before the reign of C++ devours us all!

I have got enough of the old masters! Brown says he has "shook" them, and I think I will shake them, too. You wander through a mile of picture galleries and stare stupidly at ghastly old nightmares done in lampblack and lightning, and listen to the ecstatic encomiums of the guides, and try to get up some enthusiasm, but it won't come.

He goes on at length here, down around page 190.

You Can't END a war with weapons...

"Wise man say, those that pursue the politics of fifty years ago are either historians or idiots."

Wise men don't call others idiots without having some excellent points to refute their arguments with instead of childish excuses for the fact that the Chinese have done far less damage transitioning over a billion people from an agrarian economy to an industrial one than we did in the same period merely sustaining our far smaller population. I suggest you actually check up on what Western industries have been doing, and in many cases still are doing since China started to industrialise in the late 1970s.

"My only concern is what is happening today and what will be happening tomorrow, history is just lessons, that people should not repeat, you kinda missed that whole not repeating history bit didn't you."

It's you that's missed the fact that the US and EU are _still_ polluting far more than China is with half their population. If we can't learn from our own history, then why should the Chinese be expected to do so?

"You kind of idiot logic means it is ok to keep repeating the same mistakes, the same abuses, the same lies over and over and over again."

My kind of logic holds China to the same standard as the rest of us. In case you hadn't noticed, the US generates more pollution than they do with 1/4 their population, so I suggest that you take the advice of a truly wise man, and avoid throwing stones while living inside a glass house.

"Why don't reach further back into history and cite Roman slavery at brick factories, I hear China repeated that example just in the last year, hey that's ok after all the ancient Romans did it too."

We don't need to go anything like as far back as the Romans, because the US and Europe are using slave and forced labour domestically, and their corporations are making big profits from foreign industries that use slaves:

http://www.antislavery.org/homepage/news/CMA%20agr ee%20161001.htm
http://www.injusticeline.com/slave2.html
http://soc.enotes.com/slavery-today-article/slaver y-united-states-serious-problem
http://www.iabolish.org/slavery_today/country_repo rts/do.html

There are plenty of other examples that somebody with enough brain cells to do a little research could find. So once again, we have you, the hypocrite, holding the Chinese up to a standard that your own country doesn't meet. And before you pipe up with some pathetically childish point about slavery being illegal in the Western world, it's also illegal in China, hence the fact that they arrested those responsible for using slaves in the _illegal_ brick kilns you were blathering about.

"as for China, let's have a democracy and really see what the 'Chinese People' actually think, rather than just a few corrupt politicians."

Because democracies have never been governed by a few corrupt politicians.

Oh come on, I am not alone on this. Many respected critics say the same thing.

His writing style was frankly laughable, and not what you would expect from an Philologist. Have you read it recently? Everything in that books on the lines of "bog, son of log, son of Tog, son of Dog who begat...". He's a ham author.

I'm a big fan of the books and the film, but they are not well written prose. Give me an example from the books that is! And please don't get me started on the Silmarillion.

Some more references (some good, mostly bad) on Tolkien:
http://www.rilstone.talktalk.net/tolk.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/3935561.s tm http://www.theferrett.com/showarticle.php?Rant=69
http://www.enotes.com/twentieth-century-criticism/ lord-rings-j-r-r-tolkien
http://www.reflectionsedge.com/archives/mar2005/dt w_sm.html

This is my point with Potter. The story in interesting and engaging. But the books are definitely not well written. This does not stop them being very successful, but does stop them being in par with the literary greats.

And please don't think I am needlessly bashing either of them. I am (as I have stated several times) a big fan of them and a few other (Elenium and Tamuli for starters?) - my point simply that I do not rate them on writing quality.

Life can exist in that environment. It does here on Earth.

http://science.enotes.com/earth-science/geothermal -deep-ocean-vents

It's called the "rational basis test." To be constitutional, a law (in the US anyway) must have a rational basis.

See http://law.enotes.com/wests-law-encyclopedia/ratio nal-basis-test and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_basis_test

This isn't to say that all laws have a rational basis. It merely means that, if a law's rational basis is challenged (which often does not happen), then it should be found unconstitutional if the court finds the law has no rational basis. Any law's rational basis may be challenged, not merely laws that hit upon a particular point (whereas, laws that intrude on certain rights must pass higher levels of review, but not all laws need to pass these higher levels of review).

This is very basic constitutional law.

That depends...

Generally, users may install a satellite dish that is 1 meter (39.37 inches) or less on their own property or property on which they have the exclusive use, such as leased or rented property. In Section 207 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Congress adopted the Over-the-Air Reception Devices Rule. This rule applies to governmental and nongovernmental restrictions imposed on a consumer's ability to receive video programming signals from direct broadcast satellites, wireless cable providers, and television broadcast stations. The rule outlaws restrictions intended to prevent a consumer from installing, maintaining, or using an antenna. The rule applies to a broad range of potential regulatory bodies, laws, or regulations:

        * Building regulations
        * Condominium or cooperative association restrictions
        * Homeowner association rules
        * Land-use regulations
        * Lease restrictions
        * Other restrictions on property within the exclusive use or control of the antenna user where the user has an ownership or leasehold interest in the property
        * Private covenants
        * Zoning regulations

There is a three-part test to determine whether a particular restriction is illegal under the rule. It must:

      1. Unreasonably delay or prevent the use of the antenna
      2. Unreasonably increases the cost of the antenna or service
      3. Prevent a person from receiving or transmitting an acceptable quality signal

The rule does not prohibit restrictions based on legitimate safety concerns, nor does it prohibit restrictions intended to preserve designated or eligible historic or prehistoric properties. In such cases, the restriction must be no more burdensome than necessary to accomplish its safety or preservation purposes.

Excerpt From:
http://law.enotes.com/everyday-law-encyclopedia/sa tellite-and-cable

You know, there are millions of undernourished people in the U.S. too. It would have been nice if our government fed it's citizens before acting on all of it's "world-stage aspirations."

Well, it already provided everyone a free, compulsory education, and you didn't bother to learn the difference between "it's" and "its". There is only so much the government can do, and beyond that, people have to help themselves.

In the United States, it's really damn hard to literally go hungry. I know this because I've known people who couldn't afford to feed themselves without government assistance, and I've seen what the government provides. Heck, I even been to the grocery store several times with one guy I knew who paid for essentially 100% of his food with the public money available to him as a single guy. It wasn't super, super generous, but he was able to get enough to eat despite his penchant for buying $15.00/lb salmon and the most expensive organic free-range chicken you can buy and despite his tendency to shop at the high-end grocery stores in town, all of which is, incidentally, perfectly legal when buying food on government assistance.

Oh, and speaking of legalities, this same guy would also sometimes have some credit left over at the end of the month and be in a "use it or lose it" situation, so he'd try to get people he knew to go to the grocery store with him, buy their groceries with his remaining credit, and get them to give him cash. (The astute reader will have noticed that I described him as a "guy I knew" rather than a "guy I still know".)

And this all happened in Texas, which is not exactly on the "hey, let's tax people to institute more government programs" center of the universe. So tell me again: why is it that you think there is a hunger problem in the US?

"What effect on the rest of the world does the death of 30% of Botswana have?"

The plight of the poor and downtrodden is the "Shakespear's spot" of my soul, what about you?

If the ACLU or whoever they're representing is talking about illegal stuff with people overseas, then the government should probably be listening, right?

What if a lawyer in the employ of the ACLU is speaking to a client? What if a doctor calls up their patient to inform them of the results of some medical tests the doctor performed on the patient? What if someone calls their priest to confess something they've done?

If the government is listening in, and the conversation with the lawyer or the priest allows them to find some evidence that they would not have otherwise found, should that evidence be allowed? Should Medicare be allowed to use information the government overheard during the conversation to determine a person's coverage?

If you hadn't already divined I have already found justification for doing this. I agree with you, as I've said--being hung up on is legitimate. I have a box that I check to notify the data enterer that this person would not like to be contacted any further. But I think it's discourteous and I used a rhetorical device earlier; I think I'm doing something justifiable and going about it in a justifiable manner. You disagree. Fine. My methodology's efficacy isn't something I know figures about. I'm a student of science, but I am not a scientist. The national, state and local parties do employ scientists and they've directed me to do this. There are people with whom I've shared literature or opinions and there are people who have eagerly requested campaign signs. I do not believe they view what I do as an intrusion, or if they do, it seems to be a welcome one.

If I'm hung up on or called an asshole or interrupted and told they're not interested I check the box that signifies to not contact the person again. I don't redial upon being hung up on. I had some friends in high school who worked at telephone survey places, and they would call people back if they were hung up on. I do not. I've been asked to hold and consequently hung up on; I don't call back in those situations, either.

We have another fundamental disagreement. You believe calling a stranger for a politial cause is inherently impolite. I disagree. In my weltanschauung if I am treated politely I am obliged to treat one with politeness; I find what I am doing polite-neutral but I go about it on the phone politely, so I would like to be treated with dignity. If I'm not obliged I'm not going to start crying and be temporarily disabled.

You mention privacy in regard to my mention of freedom of speech and assembly. You say "prove it," and that you'll throw privacy at me. Not to be a nitpick but I am operating within the law in doing this. Don't you suppose there have been lawsuits? Stratton, Ohio was sick of Jehovah's Witnesses going door-to-door so they forced anybody who wished to talk to their neighbors to get a permit from the mayor. The Supreme Court in an 8-1 decision, with the late Chief Justice Rehnquist the sole dissenter (O'Connor, Scalia, Thomas, Souter, Stevens, Ginsburg, Kennedy, Breyer in the majority), found the provision unconstitutional.

snip: "It is offensive - not only to the values protected by the First Amendment, but to the very notion of a free society - that in the context of everyday public discourse a citizen must first inform the government of her desire to speak to her neighbors and then obtain a permit to do so." Here's a page on freedom of speech and expression, which notes that political speech is an elevated kind of speech insofar as protection goes. Whereas I may be prohibited from calling you to ask about satellite dish installation, calling you to ask about political figures is permissible until you signify to me it is not. That's the law.

As it so happens I don't find much people hanging up on me. I would estimate the figure at less than five percent.

Yeah. I prefer the implementation on eNotes. You can highlight any word, and press Shift-D to get a definition. Shift-T shows the thesaurus entry, and Shift-S brings up a mini-search.

Much less intrusive than repurposing the right mouse button.

FPSes don't train you for firing a real weapon, are you sure those kids didn't have range training?

That really doesn't make sense, the way you worded it. But I just figured out what you were trying to say. My problem is your choice of the words "random" and "average." There is no average human. That doesn't make sense. You can't compare an individual with a population, but you can compare two populations with each other.

Let me try: There is such a wide degree of variance within human subpopulations (communities, races, ethnicities, whatever) that there is no statistical difference between human subpopulations. I.e., we have to accept the null hypothesis that there is no genetic difference between races.

Unfortunately, the differences that do exist (recessive genes in certain ethnicities) are pretty important. Otherwise there would be no Tay-Sachs, sickle-cell anemia, or any other genetic disorders caused by people marrying within their own isolated groups. To be fair, you should really look at the DNA that matters, the 1% or so that distinguishs us from other primates. And also realize that not all DNA is equally important. What if most of the variation in DNA is due to noncoding repeat units? Should that be counted? What if there was once much greater variation between ethnic groups, but that diversity was destroyed by, say, smallpox? Only those individuals with certain genes survived, regardless of ethnicity. In other words, an American Indian alive today is certainly not genetically representative of the "average" American Indian pre-conquest, given that at least 90% of all indigenous people in North America died from European diseases.

If I had mod points, I would give some to you.

This has crossed my mind many times and it scares the crap out of me. I do not understand the mindset of someone whose only goals are safety and comfort.

Maybe I have read into Harrison Bergeron too much, but I see this as the ultimate end result of this mindset. No one can be better than me because it makes me feel bad. No one can have more than me because it limits me. There is no accountability there. No desire to make yourself more than you are. Maybe I liked Atlas Shrugged a little too much also.

The other subtle, yet substantial, danger this perspective facilitates is that in order to provide for it you must take away from someone else. In order to facilitate greater security on an airplane, I must remove some privacy from citizens. In order to provide healthcare for everyone, I must take funding from everyone. In order to provide entertainment objectionable by none, I must limit what is allowable entertainment. In order to provide everyone with bread, I must ration it.

Every situation must be taken on a case by case basis, but over time the whole can equal up to a very disturbing future.

His short story The Star is well worth a read.

Just under 20% of sex offenders will commit another sex related offense. With approximately 700 000 offenses in the US each year alone the numbers of people released each year who are likely to re-offend is quite high.

http://www.selfhelpmagazine.com/articles/trauma/of fender.html [selfhelpmagazine.com]
http://www.enotes.com/sexual-violence/ [enotes.com]

Ok pervert protector, next time how about citing some better sources than a self help magazine (maybe you need help?) and enotes....hmm, like some credible medical or psych sites asshole..

Just under 20% of sex offenders will commit another sex related offense. With approximately 700 000 offenses in the US each year alone the numbers of people released each year who are likely to re-offend is quite high.

http://www.selfhelpmagazine.com/articles/trauma/of fender.html
http://www.enotes.com/sexual-violence/

Rule #1: All spaces are created empty ... but some are more empty than others

Geoffery Chaucer is credited with inventing the English novel with his (alas, unfinished) collection of short stories "The Cantebury Tales". If you think this technical manual is tricky to understand, the book is written in prose! Fortunately, some excellent modern translations exist.

Outside of writing, he spent most of his life as a civil servant. He is buried in Poet's Corner in Westminster Abbey.

More information here.

If you've ever seen the movie, A Knights Tale there's an amusing (if not particularly historically correct!) portrayl of him by Paul Bettany. The movie also contains characters from The Cantebury Tales.