So is it your argument that having firearm safety, storage, handling, and permitting laws will stop criminals from shooting people? I mean, I'm all for preventing accidental shootings, but anyone with intent to kill using a weapon will go through whatever hoops the government puts up to make it more difficult to obtain a weapon.
They didn't have to wait for the police, they had an armed security detail with them at the baseball field. They probably weren't armed because even the hardest core gun nut doesn't concealed carry while playing baseball...
Concealed carry can't stop violence, but it does give victims at least a chance... I'd rather be killed as someone trying to defend myself and others than killed as a defenseless sheep.
Sure this shooter was able to use up a lot of ammo, but the shooter was not able to meticulously hunt and kill the victims BECAUSE there were good guys with guns returning fire.
Nope, I'm convinced the best course of action is to get the complacent like-minded people off their ass and in to the polls the next election. That's far more likely to be successful than trying to play damage control with a bunch of deplorables.
Modded troll as you referred to your ideological opponents as "deplorables."
It's pretty hard to see eye-to-eye with most Trump supporters, simply because they've got their head jammed so far up their own ass.
Modded to 0 probably for starting off the comment with your opponents heads being up asses.
People who are boycotting Target over a fucking bathroom issue are the ones who are the real oversensitive snowflakes.
Again, swearing and referring to opponents as "snowflakes."
Sounds like you don't like it when your trolling posts which are critical of Trump get modded down...
Umm, Jim Crow laws were for the most part passed by Democrats, not Republicans... The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed despite almost all southern legislators (mostly Democrats at the time) voting against it.
No, they are pointing out that the right to bear arms at the time meant individual citizens owning, keeping, and using the most advanced military hardware available at the time. I'm not suggesting individuals own nukes, but why not a tank?
Hard to pay taxes without a valid Social Security number... I don't know what the spread is between money sent overseas by legal vs illegal immigrants, but I'm guessing that the greater share is from illegals. I'm betting the percentage of money sent home by illegals is over 90% tax free since it's probably under the table.
20kV? Have you even heard of arc flash? For as flammable as gasoline is and as common as refueling is, gasoline is unbelievably safe. Diesel even more so.
It's also an underhanded way to encourage people with chronic health conditions (probably older) to leave for other employment and encourage healthy (probably younger) employees to hire on. This reduces their health care risk pool and reduces costs.
Thanks for doing the research for me. Bill Gates is probably one of the few there where as far back as I can find, the ancestors appeared to be wealthy, though not super wealthy. Sam Walton on the other hand was not simply born without a silver spoon, but probably didn't even have a wooden spoon. He was the literal basis of the term dirt poor growing up in a family destitute with children working to bring in a few cents to the family to buy food.
You think "work" only represents physical labor. Taking risks is work. For every venture capitalist who makes bank, many lose huge amounts of money. The value of their work was in risking money. It's called investing which is work.
Most wealthy people don't become or remain wealthy off their work, they do it off of the work of others.
Pretty sure they pay for the work of others in a voluntary exchange of services for money. That's not theft. Taxes is.
When usually they have money because they, or their family, already had money.
You got any citations for that? Bill Gates might be an example, but Sam Walton grew up literally dirt poor. Many others did too. Good luck finding a super rich person in America today whose great grandparents were rich. Most of the top wealthy people earned it in 3 generations or less.
So taxes is racketeering? It's money more or less forcibly taken to prevent a "problem" that wouldn't exist if people didn't think they had a right to other people's tax money.
Have any examples? Didn't think so. The wealthy are primarily there because of their own volition. Those that did inherit wealth are generally only 1 or 2 generations from being dirt poor. Good luck finding in the USA any individuals that are in the top 100 wealthiest people that inherited their money from more than 2 generations prior.
List me out the top 10 richest people in the world and tell me they inherited that wealth. The vast majority of wealthy earned it in their lifetime, and those that did get a significant inheritance from their parents, the parents earned it and didn't inherit it.
Out of the top 10, all of their ancestors back 3 generations were dirt poor. Most of the list were not even above middle class when they were children.
You are just jealous that you haven't succeeded even though you probably lived a pretty privileged childhood.
Right, this survey found that 8 out of 10 people will lie to a surveyor. Everyone SAYS they want cleaner air, less pollution, and to stop global warming. They just want everyone else to stop consuming so they don't have to. It's the same thing with every problem caused by a group. Everyone complains about traffic while moving further away from their workplace and not wanting to ride the bus or carpool.
Where I am going to find this polluted water to drink? How about Flint where the government poisoned it? Somalia does have a very small, very NON FREE, government. Somalia is not libertarian just like the Vatican is not libertarian despite having a TINY government.
Those same people would expect to have some verifiable evidence from the Clinton email investigation, but the public never really got that evidence and no reasonable prosecutor would apparently look at it despite the director of the FBI laying out the evidence that is unavailable for review that laws were likely broken (but with no assumed intent).
"The electrical grid" can in no way handle the load of millions of cars charging overnight with no additional investment. That's not even figuring in the new power plants that would have to be constructed...
Fully autonomous semi-trucks will arrive well before electric ones. The amount of batteries you'd need to 1) haul that much weight and 2) last for the long haul trips that most of these trucks make would severely reduce the cargo capacity both volumetrically and more importantly by weight.
Let's assume a low number of 200 gallons of fuel for a semi truck. Diesel is roughly 7lbs/gallon so around 1400 lbs of fuel. Current estimates are that average semi-trucks get around 6.5 MPG, so a range of 1300 mi per fill up. Let's just simplify this to a mile per pound of fuel. This is to haul a maximum of 80,000 lbs of vehicle and cargo. So 80,000 lb(vehicle)-mi/lb(fuel).
What do electric cars currently get? The Model S is one of the newer ones (the X doesn't have full specs yet). It has a generous range of 300 miles, has a weight of around 5000 lbs, and the battery weighs about 1200 lbs of that. So that's 5000*300/1200 or 1,250 lb(vehicle)-mi/lb(battery).
So diesel is around 64x more weight efficient for hauling stuff than batteries at this point. How much would a Tesla battery have to weigh to transport 80,000 lbs 1300 miles? Around 30,000 lbs. Throw in the actual motor you'd have to put in it and all the tires, wheels, driver, cabin, wires, brakes etc, and only half the weight of the vehicle cargo...
300,000 km isn't even a 5th of the way to 1 million miles. There is no way a car can go a million miles without a severe overhaul of components. Sure the body is probably still fine, but no motor, bearings, lubrication, or any wear part will last that long.
Slashdot Mirror
So is it your argument that having firearm safety, storage, handling, and permitting laws will stop criminals from shooting people? I mean, I'm all for preventing accidental shootings, but anyone with intent to kill using a weapon will go through whatever hoops the government puts up to make it more difficult to obtain a weapon.
They didn't have to wait for the police, they had an armed security detail with them at the baseball field. They probably weren't armed because even the hardest core gun nut doesn't concealed carry while playing baseball...
Seems to me that armed people were able to stop this shooter before they were able to kill anyone. Sounds like a pro-gun situation to me...
Concealed carry can't stop violence, but it does give victims at least a chance... I'd rather be killed as someone trying to defend myself and others than killed as a defenseless sheep.
Sure this shooter was able to use up a lot of ammo, but the shooter was not able to meticulously hunt and kill the victims BECAUSE there were good guys with guns returning fire.
Nope, I'm convinced the best course of action is to get the complacent like-minded people off their ass and in to the polls the next election. That's far more likely to be successful than trying to play damage control with a bunch of deplorables.
Modded troll as you referred to your ideological opponents as "deplorables."
It's pretty hard to see eye-to-eye with most Trump supporters, simply because they've got their head jammed so far up their own ass.
Modded to 0 probably for starting off the comment with your opponents heads being up asses.
People who are boycotting Target over a fucking bathroom issue are the ones who are the real oversensitive snowflakes.
Again, swearing and referring to opponents as "snowflakes."
Sounds like you don't like it when your trolling posts which are critical of Trump get modded down...
Umm, Jim Crow laws were for the most part passed by Democrats, not Republicans... The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed despite almost all southern legislators (mostly Democrats at the time) voting against it.
No, they are pointing out that the right to bear arms at the time meant individual citizens owning, keeping, and using the most advanced military hardware available at the time. I'm not suggesting individuals own nukes, but why not a tank?
I love Menards and miss having them since moving to the South.
It's not STEM anymore, it's STEAM now... Because apparently you can't focus on the technical stuff without pissing off all the artsy folks.
Hard to pay taxes without a valid Social Security number... I don't know what the spread is between money sent overseas by legal vs illegal immigrants, but I'm guessing that the greater share is from illegals. I'm betting the percentage of money sent home by illegals is over 90% tax free since it's probably under the table.
Umm, door locks were the fix that prevented any other 9/11s from occurring. The security theater hasn't done a thing.
20kV? Have you even heard of arc flash? For as flammable as gasoline is and as common as refueling is, gasoline is unbelievably safe. Diesel even more so.
It's also an underhanded way to encourage people with chronic health conditions (probably older) to leave for other employment and encourage healthy (probably younger) employees to hire on. This reduces their health care risk pool and reduces costs.
Thanks for doing the research for me. Bill Gates is probably one of the few there where as far back as I can find, the ancestors appeared to be wealthy, though not super wealthy. Sam Walton on the other hand was not simply born without a silver spoon, but probably didn't even have a wooden spoon. He was the literal basis of the term dirt poor growing up in a family destitute with children working to bring in a few cents to the family to buy food.
You think "work" only represents physical labor. Taking risks is work. For every venture capitalist who makes bank, many lose huge amounts of money. The value of their work was in risking money. It's called investing which is work.
Most wealthy people don't become or remain wealthy off their work, they do it off of the work of others.
Pretty sure they pay for the work of others in a voluntary exchange of services for money. That's not theft. Taxes is.
When usually they have money because they, or their family, already had money.
You got any citations for that? Bill Gates might be an example, but Sam Walton grew up literally dirt poor. Many others did too. Good luck finding a super rich person in America today whose great grandparents were rich. Most of the top wealthy people earned it in 3 generations or less.
So taxes is racketeering? It's money more or less forcibly taken to prevent a "problem" that wouldn't exist if people didn't think they had a right to other people's tax money.
Have any examples? Didn't think so. The wealthy are primarily there because of their own volition. Those that did inherit wealth are generally only 1 or 2 generations from being dirt poor. Good luck finding in the USA any individuals that are in the top 100 wealthiest people that inherited their money from more than 2 generations prior.
List me out the top 10 richest people in the world and tell me they inherited that wealth. The vast majority of wealthy earned it in their lifetime, and those that did get a significant inheritance from their parents, the parents earned it and didn't inherit it.
Out of the top 10, all of their ancestors back 3 generations were dirt poor. Most of the list were not even above middle class when they were children.
You are just jealous that you haven't succeeded even though you probably lived a pretty privileged childhood.
Right, this survey found that 8 out of 10 people will lie to a surveyor. Everyone SAYS they want cleaner air, less pollution, and to stop global warming. They just want everyone else to stop consuming so they don't have to. It's the same thing with every problem caused by a group. Everyone complains about traffic while moving further away from their workplace and not wanting to ride the bus or carpool.
Yes, trucks will be on the road for 23 hours straight. Autonomous trucks on the highway will be here before they ever go electric.
Where I am going to find this polluted water to drink? How about Flint where the government poisoned it? Somalia does have a very small, very NON FREE, government. Somalia is not libertarian just like the Vatican is not libertarian despite having a TINY government.
Those same people would expect to have some verifiable evidence from the Clinton email investigation, but the public never really got that evidence and no reasonable prosecutor would apparently look at it despite the director of the FBI laying out the evidence that is unavailable for review that laws were likely broken (but with no assumed intent).
"The electrical grid" can in no way handle the load of millions of cars charging overnight with no additional investment. That's not even figuring in the new power plants that would have to be constructed...
Fully autonomous semi-trucks will arrive well before electric ones. The amount of batteries you'd need to 1) haul that much weight and 2) last for the long haul trips that most of these trucks make would severely reduce the cargo capacity both volumetrically and more importantly by weight.
Let's assume a low number of 200 gallons of fuel for a semi truck. Diesel is roughly 7lbs/gallon so around 1400 lbs of fuel. Current estimates are that average semi-trucks get around 6.5 MPG, so a range of 1300 mi per fill up. Let's just simplify this to a mile per pound of fuel. This is to haul a maximum of 80,000 lbs of vehicle and cargo. So 80,000 lb(vehicle)-mi/lb(fuel).
What do electric cars currently get? The Model S is one of the newer ones (the X doesn't have full specs yet). It has a generous range of 300 miles, has a weight of around 5000 lbs, and the battery weighs about 1200 lbs of that. So that's 5000*300/1200 or 1,250 lb(vehicle)-mi/lb(battery).
So diesel is around 64x more weight efficient for hauling stuff than batteries at this point. How much would a Tesla battery have to weigh to transport 80,000 lbs 1300 miles? Around 30,000 lbs. Throw in the actual motor you'd have to put in it and all the tires, wheels, driver, cabin, wires, brakes etc, and only half the weight of the vehicle cargo...
300,000 km isn't even a 5th of the way to 1 million miles. There is no way a car can go a million miles without a severe overhaul of components. Sure the body is probably still fine, but no motor, bearings, lubrication, or any wear part will last that long.