In a dark theater, even if there was some smoke, you could probably see the flash from the gun going off easily enough.
I doubt it would have been terribly difficult to shoot back, although the element of surprise was apparently in his favor.
But the people who are trying to blame guns in this circumstance are silly. He could have just as easily tossed in a pipe bomb or some other home-made device and done even more damage.
It wasn't a "ranking", it was an article, and (as you can tell if you read what I wrote above) it was quite a long time ago.
But as I also stated quite clearly, I am not going to give more specifics because I don't want my location to be generally known.
You can call bullshit on that all you like, but it wouldn't change the fact that my reason is a legitimate one.
If you want to go hunting for the article, go ahead. If you discover it, I would not mind if you posted as much here, because you would deserve it for your efforts... unlike most of these other deniers.
"You could have just not mentioned you lived there, and included the name."
But you see, guy (that's an assumption but I think a good one), you really can't do that, if you're a regular player here. Because some stalking jerkoff will see that a year ago you gave away this little tidbit, and a few months ago another, and next thing you know, they know what city you're in and maybe even what part of the city
If you think that's unrealistic, look at some of the crime reports.
And by the way (I an not accusing YOU)... I am really amused by the level of sockpuppetry that has been going on lately. Almost as though they think we don't recognize their socks.
Ah... and then I would have had those "personal experiences" through osmosis?
The fact that I don't want to advertise my location does not invalidate my claims. It doesn't support them either, this is true, but if anyone has a problem with them, let them present real objections in a reasonable way.
I was describing a long-term life experience, not trying to make a scientific argument, but my experience does (while only anecdotally) support such an argument.
Would I like to give solid evidence and make a stronger argument? Sure.
At the cost of all the Slashdot trolls knowing where I live?
"In all seriousness, why do you feel the need to keep the name of the lake a secret? Is it because you are pulling your entire story out of your ass? The environment is quite an important thing to say the least, but lying does not help your agenda if you truly support serious environmental evidence and action."
In all seriousness, it's because I don't want YOU to know where I live, dumbshit.
What I meant to say is: they say they believe it, and they preach it, but whenever someone proposes a solution that might mess with their lifestyle they are all "no, no, no".
That's not just NIMBY, it's "I don't truly believe".
"What I guess I'm saying is that there is a disconnect (or at least I perceive one) between the urgency of AGW when it comes to pleas for emissions reductions on the one hand, and the tepid response to these sorts of projects."
That's easy to explain: even many of the people who profess that CO2-based climate change is "proven", still don't actyally believe it enough that they want people messing with their environment.
I have seen this, very widespread, and it is very telling to me.
"No one is willing to do that, so the only proposals are things like Kyoto, which did little, or Copenhagen, which would have done nothing."
It's not that they're UNWILLING to do that, at all. It's that it would be so enormously expensive, they want SOLID proof before going down that road. Evidence that has so far not been forthcoming.
Seriously: the cost of sequestering enough carbon dioxide to prevent 0.5 degree C warming over the next hundred years, has been estimated to be about the same as the cost of completely eliminating world hunger, even after considering inflation.
Which is the better investment?
I'm not saying that it's not a good thing to do, but we HAVE to consider the question of what is the better expenditure of resources. And at this point we don't have an answer.
"I always worry about these ideas, they seem good in theory, but in reality you can just end up with a cane toad problem..."
Mod parent up.
Without any doubt. FAR more study would have to be done, over a LONG period of time, before any direct messing with the ecology should be attempted.
I live near a lake that was once called, by National Geographic, one of the 12 most beautiful lakes in the world (and it is a rather large lake, as such things go). And there were wonderful fish in the lake; salmonids, plentiful and tasty.
Local businesses, recognizing that fishing was a major tourist attraction, pressured the state Fish & Wildlife Commission to "improve" the fishery.
I could go on for a long time. But suffice it to say that they did one thing that was well-intended, and supposed to help the fish population. But it had unintended consequences. Then they fooled with the ecology again, to try to fix their first fuckup, but THAT had unintended consequences. Then they did it AGAIN, to fix that one, and THAT had unintended consequences.
The long and short of it is: they averted total disaster from their first mistakes, but the fishery is nowhere near as healthy and strong and plentiful as when they first tried to intervene. And yes, it is all directly attributable to their actions.
BE VERY CAREFUL BEFORE YOU FUCK WITH THE ECOLOGY. THE LAW OF UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES IS LIKELY TO BITE YOU IN THE ASS.
We have seen this in so many different ways. These people should have their heads examined if they propose to do it anytime soon. Long-term study is needed, even if things get bad. Anyone who tries it before thorough long-term studies are done is probably deserving of being taken out and shot.
"Incorrect. They're not tax-paid jobs, they're DEBT-paid jobs. We're spending FUTURE taxes (revenues) on these jobs."
It's not incorrect. You're just increasing the level of indirection. Government debt is borrowed money. Money borrowed by the government is inflationary. Inflation is, in all practical sense of the term, a hidden TAX that is paid by EVERYBODY.
The old notion that government and consumer spending drive the economy is bullshit. The government has been trying to do that for 80 years and it still doesn't work. Capital investment and production are what drive the economy.
"2) The stimulus wasn't big enough or didn't work for whatever reason, the economy completely tanks, and we all declare bankruptcy."
After 80 years of doing this, the numbers are pretty clear: "stimulus" is worse than a band-aid, because it seems to help short-term, but in the long run makes everything worse through inflation. And you're finally starting to see that inflation, since last year, from the last big rounds of stimulus spending. Cross your fingers and hope it doesn't get too bad.
You can't just look at the short term and say that works. That's what Government has been doing for decades. And we are worse off now than our parents ever were.
"No, it shows that the "FOIA" requests were just a pretext for harassment, rather than a genuine request for information."
It shows nothing of the sort. People like McKitrick, for example, had tried EVERY other avenue to get the information FIRST, before resorting to FOI (not FOIA) requests. They tried being polite, they tried being polite and persistent, they tried to get the University to release the information, etc. None of it worked.
And -- as it turned out later -- people like Michaels and McKitrick had EVERY legitimate scientific reason to want that data.
They had been deliberately (as clearly reflected in the emails) denied the information for YEARS. And... as the House of Commons clearly put in their report, it SHOULD HAVE BEEN public information anyway!
Get a copy of the damned emails and read them yourself, if you don't believe me. That's what I did.
"The government can spend money it didn't get from citizens by issuing bonds."
No, it can't, because bonds are borrowed money, which is inflationary, and inflation costs everybody. It's just a hidden tax.
You can see this in the blips in consumer price levels when Government borrowed money to finance wars, clear back to the 1600s and continuing to the present.
"What a splendid parody of defending stupid race baiting."
Excuse me, but the original commenter did NOT make a racist statement.
For your information, a statement of fact is not racist, merely because it happened to mention race. If there was any implication of racism at all, the commenter implied that it was government policies that are racist.
Slashdot Mirror
In a dark theater, even if there was some smoke, you could probably see the flash from the gun going off easily enough.
I doubt it would have been terribly difficult to shoot back, although the element of surprise was apparently in his favor.
But the people who are trying to blame guns in this circumstance are silly. He could have just as easily tossed in a pipe bomb or some other home-made device and done even more damage.
Although, I should point out that there are fewer actual deniers than the number of names on the accounts would imply.
It wasn't a "ranking", it was an article, and (as you can tell if you read what I wrote above) it was quite a long time ago.
But as I also stated quite clearly, I am not going to give more specifics because I don't want my location to be generally known.
You can call bullshit on that all you like, but it wouldn't change the fact that my reason is a legitimate one.
If you want to go hunting for the article, go ahead. If you discover it, I would not mind if you posted as much here, because you would deserve it for your efforts... unlike most of these other deniers.
"You could have just not mentioned you lived there, and included the name."
But you see, guy (that's an assumption but I think a good one), you really can't do that, if you're a regular player here. Because some stalking jerkoff will see that a year ago you gave away this little tidbit, and a few months ago another, and next thing you know, they know what city you're in and maybe even what part of the city
If you think that's unrealistic, look at some of the crime reports.
And by the way (I an not accusing YOU)... I am really amused by the level of sockpuppetry that has been going on lately. Almost as though they think we don't recognize their socks.
Ah... and then I would have had those "personal experiences" through osmosis?
The fact that I don't want to advertise my location does not invalidate my claims. It doesn't support them either, this is true, but if anyone has a problem with them, let them present real objections in a reasonable way.
I was describing a long-term life experience, not trying to make a scientific argument, but my experience does (while only anecdotally) support such an argument.
Would I like to give solid evidence and make a stronger argument? Sure.
At the cost of all the Slashdot trolls knowing where I live?
Haha. Like that would happen.
"In all seriousness, why do you feel the need to keep the name of the lake a secret? Is it because you are pulling your entire story out of your ass? The environment is quite an important thing to say the least, but lying does not help your agenda if you truly support serious environmental evidence and action."
In all seriousness, it's because I don't want YOU to know where I live, dumbshit.
I really should have included the time scale: they have been trying to correct their original mistake now for 30 years, and haven't managed to do it.
"Before we have to drop giant blocks of ice in the ocean..."
If you mean like asteroids, the amount of energy they added at impact would far surpass the amount they subtracted from their inherent coldness.
What I meant to say is: they say they believe it, and they preach it, but whenever someone proposes a solution that might mess with their lifestyle they are all "no, no, no".
That's not just NIMBY, it's "I don't truly believe".
"What I guess I'm saying is that there is a disconnect (or at least I perceive one) between the urgency of AGW when it comes to pleas for emissions reductions on the one hand, and the tepid response to these sorts of projects."
That's easy to explain: even many of the people who profess that CO2-based climate change is "proven", still don't actyally believe it enough that they want people messing with their environment.
I have seen this, very widespread, and it is very telling to me.
"No one is willing to do that, so the only proposals are things like Kyoto, which did little, or Copenhagen, which would have done nothing."
It's not that they're UNWILLING to do that, at all. It's that it would be so enormously expensive, they want SOLID proof before going down that road. Evidence that has so far not been forthcoming.
Seriously: the cost of sequestering enough carbon dioxide to prevent 0.5 degree C warming over the next hundred years, has been estimated to be about the same as the cost of completely eliminating world hunger, even after considering inflation.
Which is the better investment?
I'm not saying that it's not a good thing to do, but we HAVE to consider the question of what is the better expenditure of resources. And at this point we don't have an answer.
I can't resist replying just to say: "HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!"
Best I've had all day.
"I always worry about these ideas, they seem good in theory, but in reality you can just end up with a cane toad problem..."
Mod parent up.
Without any doubt. FAR more study would have to be done, over a LONG period of time, before any direct messing with the ecology should be attempted.
I live near a lake that was once called, by National Geographic, one of the 12 most beautiful lakes in the world (and it is a rather large lake, as such things go). And there were wonderful fish in the lake; salmonids, plentiful and tasty.
Local businesses, recognizing that fishing was a major tourist attraction, pressured the state Fish & Wildlife Commission to "improve" the fishery.
I could go on for a long time. But suffice it to say that they did one thing that was well-intended, and supposed to help the fish population. But it had unintended consequences. Then they fooled with the ecology again, to try to fix their first fuckup, but THAT had unintended consequences. Then they did it AGAIN, to fix that one, and THAT had unintended consequences.
The long and short of it is: they averted total disaster from their first mistakes, but the fishery is nowhere near as healthy and strong and plentiful as when they first tried to intervene. And yes, it is all directly attributable to their actions.
BE VERY CAREFUL BEFORE YOU FUCK WITH THE ECOLOGY. THE LAW OF UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES IS LIKELY TO BITE YOU IN THE ASS.
We have seen this in so many different ways. These people should have their heads examined if they propose to do it anytime soon. Long-term study is needed, even if things get bad. Anyone who tries it before thorough long-term studies are done is probably deserving of being taken out and shot.
Balls. A few million people in a hundred thousand square miles is just a blip, eh? I don't think you really appreciate the scale.
Some of our states are bigger than entire countries. Did that even occur to you?
"When they lie about one form of homicide, what makes you think they aren't lying about all of them?"
I don't know, dude. Do you lie about your kittycat, but not your mistress? Or maybe vice versa?
"Supply-side economics makes no, zero, nada sense. People don't buy stuff because there's more of it."
What I stated is not "supply-side" economics, at all. It is plain old, original Adam Smith.
Pick up a (preferably non-Keynesian) book on economics one of these days. Or better yet, read the original Smith. You can find it free online.
"Incorrect. They're not tax-paid jobs, they're DEBT-paid jobs. We're spending FUTURE taxes (revenues) on these jobs."
It's not incorrect. You're just increasing the level of indirection. Government debt is borrowed money. Money borrowed by the government is inflationary. Inflation is, in all practical sense of the term, a hidden TAX that is paid by EVERYBODY.
The old notion that government and consumer spending drive the economy is bullshit. The government has been trying to do that for 80 years and it still doesn't work. Capital investment and production are what drive the economy.
"2) The stimulus wasn't big enough or didn't work for whatever reason, the economy completely tanks, and we all declare bankruptcy."
After 80 years of doing this, the numbers are pretty clear: "stimulus" is worse than a band-aid, because it seems to help short-term, but in the long run makes everything worse through inflation. And you're finally starting to see that inflation, since last year, from the last big rounds of stimulus spending. Cross your fingers and hope it doesn't get too bad.
You can't just look at the short term and say that works. That's what Government has been doing for decades. And we are worse off now than our parents ever were.
"No, it shows that the "FOIA" requests were just a pretext for harassment, rather than a genuine request for information."
It shows nothing of the sort. People like McKitrick, for example, had tried EVERY other avenue to get the information FIRST, before resorting to FOI (not FOIA) requests. They tried being polite, they tried being polite and persistent, they tried to get the University to release the information, etc. None of it worked.
And -- as it turned out later -- people like Michaels and McKitrick had EVERY legitimate scientific reason to want that data.
They had been deliberately (as clearly reflected in the emails) denied the information for YEARS. And... as the House of Commons clearly put in their report, it SHOULD HAVE BEEN public information anyway!
Get a copy of the damned emails and read them yourself, if you don't believe me. That's what I did.
"Stupid doesn't mean uneducated."
Well said! And the contrapositive of that statement must also therefore be true:
Being educated does not necessarily mean you're smart.
... and of course you use E to communicate with people on Slashdot.
You will perform better at ANY of these things if you have a decent STEM education.
"Seriously, most people are not going to be using STEM skills on a daily basis."
Really?
You use M to balance your checkbook, make a budget, buy your groceries.
You use M and S both to figure out how much Sodium Bicarbonate to put in your soda bread.
You use M and T to figure out which DVR or cable service or DVD (Blu-Ray) player is the better deal, or what TV to buy to play them on.
I could go on all day. In fact I do.
"The government can spend money it didn't get from citizens by issuing bonds."
No, it can't, because bonds are borrowed money, which is inflationary, and inflation costs everybody. It's just a hidden tax.
You can see this in the blips in consumer price levels when Government borrowed money to finance wars, clear back to the 1600s and continuing to the present.
"This is simply a Union pass-through program to funnel tax money into Democrat re-election campaigns."
Except that it can't be, because Unions don't want good teachers to be singled out and rewarded. They have fought it every time.
Union pass-throughs almost always involve benefits for ALL teachers, not just one group. After all... it's a Union.
"What a splendid parody of defending stupid race baiting."
Excuse me, but the original commenter did NOT make a racist statement.
For your information, a statement of fact is not racist, merely because it happened to mention race. If there was any implication of racism at all, the commenter implied that it was government policies that are racist.
Get a clue.