Sorry for the second response, but I missed the point the first time. I know one area where the city limits extended well out into rural areas. However, I lived in the area when they were extended, so I know what the logic was for them being extended. The city in question was growing rapidly and the area within the city limits had been fully developed. They extended the city limits in order to facilitate further development. I have visited the area again a few years back and the area that was inside the city limits, but outside the "city" is now well within the city (although I would not call any of it "urban").
So, you are saying that developers go to the effort of setting up HOAs (Home Owners Associations) even though it does not increase the value of the houses they are building? Exactly why do you think they are doing it then?
The thing about it is that the reason developers set up HOAs when they build a new development is because they can get more for the houses if they do so. Which suggests that the majority of home buyers prefer buying into a development with an HOA (why they prefer it is another question). I am pretty sure that for the most part those who prefer HOAs are also more likely to prefer new, or relatively new, houses.
No, I am not equating being tasered with being shot. I am equating tasering someone with shooting someone. The key here is the thought process of the person taking the action, not the experience of the person who is acted upon.
Does your wife have martial arts training? If not, she is probably like many women. I have repeatedly met women who thought they were like that. Of course, if you break a cop's nose when he puts you in a bear hug, his partner is justified in shooting you. You are correct that there is plenty of room for someone to injure the police officer when the officer puts them in a bear hug. However, once the suspect has injured a police officer, the other officers are justified in using deadly force. However, they are not justified in using potentially deadly force just because they think there is a chance they might get injured otherwise. They are certainly not justified in using potentially deadly force because the suspect might otherwise sustain injury.
Tasers should only be used in situations where the use of deadly force could be justified/quote
That is a paraphrase of a statement made by a representative of the company that manufactures tasers.
No, louder means louder. If on the other hand the rule is that the average for the commercial cannot be louder than the average of the show, how do you adjust for shows that have large sections of quiet vs shows that have a lot of noise? Does this mean that advertisers will have to make different commercials for every show?
Sorry, none of that justifies the police taking the risk of killing her. Tasers should only be used in situations where the use of deadly force could be justified, but we would prefer the police not do so. Was this a situation where you would find it acceptable for the police to have shot her?
Tasers are not non-lethal weapons. They are less lethal weapons.
Back in the day, in mental hospitals they often used violence to enforce compliance by mental patients who got unruly. Then the Korean War came along and they assigned a bunch of farm boys who refused to serve in the military no matter what form of coercion was used to work as orderlies at the mental hospitals. Now these farm boys weren't going to use violence here anymore than they were going to join the military. So, what did they do? Well, they did what they did when they had a stallion or a bull that would not do what was wanted. They restrained the patient. Two, or more, if they thought that was necessary, would go into the patient's room and approach calmly and carefully despite what the patient would do to resist their approach. When they got close enough, they would take hold of the patient and prevent the patient from moving. The thing about it was that it rarely took more than two of them, even if the patient was large and the two farm boys were not so large. That's because they had learned their techniques against animals that were larger than them, animals that were valuable so you didn't do anything that might damage them. There was one other factor that was very important. They were patient. They were willing to wait until the animal or the patient gave up. The thing was it rarely took that long because there is something very "calming" about dealing with someone who will continue to move towards their goals no matter what you do.
There is something wrong when a police officer cannot wrap an 85 lb woman in a bear hug and just hold her until she realizes that continuing to struggle is going to get her nowhere. The key thing is a lack of patience and the mistaken belief that tasers are non-lethal. A taser should only be used in a situation where an officer would use a gun if necessary but would rather not. If shooting the suspect is not justified, then neither is using a taser. So, would the officers have been justified in shooting this woman?
The thing about it is that my understanding is that for most "loud" commercials, they are not technically louder than the TV show. It is just that the entire commercial is as loud as the the loudest part of the TV show while the loud point in the TV show is only for a moment or two before the volume returns to much lower normal volumes. I am sure there are exceptions, but I remember seeing a study which made this claim back right around the time this law was passed.
The person I replied to was answering a person who had provided examples of charitable organizations started by people who self-identified as Christians by asking that person to identify how many were started by people self-identifying as atheists. Their post implied that the number was at least as large, yet provided no basis for such a claim. The fact that I can name off of the top of my head multiple charitable organizations founded by people self-identifying as Christian (and with a little thought, several by those self-identifying as other religions), yet the person who wants to suggest that atheists are as charitable as religious people was unable to name any started by people self-identifying as atheists, leads me to suspect that the number of such organizations is vanishingly small. Meaning that if you are going to make the argument that there are a comparable number of charitable organizations started by atheists as there are those started by the religious, you are obligated to name at least one.
Translation: Someone whose beliefs superficially resemble yours did something evil, proving that your beliefs are evil. Someone with beliefs that resemble mine did something evil, proving that the similarity was only superficial.
The "voter suppression" was a series of text messages that many would find offensive, but whether they were intended to suppress votes or to convince people to vote differently is a matter of interpretation.
Well, $250,000 a year gets you into Obama's "millionaires and billionaires" club. The club that he will raise everybody else's taxes if that is what he has to do to raise theirs.
That is the act cited in both of the links to government websites in the summary. Do you have a source to back up your claim that the White House is lying about what Act authorized the money given to A123 Systems?
Well according to the government websites that are linked to in the summary (energy.gov and whitehouse.gov) he got the correct act. Can you provide a link that shows that the government is lying about the law that authorized the funding in question?
That is absolutely a good idea, if you are familiar with the area/route. That is, if you regularly make a trip to someplace so that you know the destination, it may be a good idea to follow your GPS (assuming it has up to date maps) every now and again to see if something has changed so that the route you use by default is no longer the best way to your destination. There are multiple reasons why an alternate route may have become better than your established default (changed traffic patterns and/or new roads are just two of the possibilities). However, if you are in an unfamiliar area, it is probably a good idea to follow the route given to you by someone familiar with the area, especially if they are driving in front of you and you can just follow them (having the directions just in case you lose them).
Slashdot Mirror
Right because if he didn't have access to a gun, he could never have done this...Oh wait this guy used a knife to kill 23 people at a school.
Sorry for the second response, but I missed the point the first time. I know one area where the city limits extended well out into rural areas. However, I lived in the area when they were extended, so I know what the logic was for them being extended. The city in question was growing rapidly and the area within the city limits had been fully developed. They extended the city limits in order to facilitate further development. I have visited the area again a few years back and the area that was inside the city limits, but outside the "city" is now well within the city (although I would not call any of it "urban").
I do not know where you live, but at least three of the states near me use a points system for all traffic violations (as well as a monetary fine).
So, you are saying that developers go to the effort of setting up HOAs (Home Owners Associations) even though it does not increase the value of the houses they are building? Exactly why do you think they are doing it then?
The thing about it is that the reason developers set up HOAs when they build a new development is because they can get more for the houses if they do so. Which suggests that the majority of home buyers prefer buying into a development with an HOA (why they prefer it is another question). I am pretty sure that for the most part those who prefer HOAs are also more likely to prefer new, or relatively new, houses.
No, I am not equating being tasered with being shot. I am equating tasering someone with shooting someone. The key here is the thought process of the person taking the action, not the experience of the person who is acted upon.
Look up the definition of "less lethal" weapons.
So, you would have been ok with the police officers shooting her?
Does your wife have martial arts training? If not, she is probably like many women. I have repeatedly met women who thought they were like that. Of course, if you break a cop's nose when he puts you in a bear hug, his partner is justified in shooting you. You are correct that there is plenty of room for someone to injure the police officer when the officer puts them in a bear hug. However, once the suspect has injured a police officer, the other officers are justified in using deadly force. However, they are not justified in using potentially deadly force just because they think there is a chance they might get injured otherwise. They are certainly not justified in using potentially deadly force because the suspect might otherwise sustain injury.
Tasers should only be used in situations where the use of deadly force could be justified/quote That is a paraphrase of a statement made by a representative of the company that manufactures tasers.
No, louder means louder. If on the other hand the rule is that the average for the commercial cannot be louder than the average of the show, how do you adjust for shows that have large sections of quiet vs shows that have a lot of noise? Does this mean that advertisers will have to make different commercials for every show?
Sorry, none of that justifies the police taking the risk of killing her. Tasers should only be used in situations where the use of deadly force could be justified, but we would prefer the police not do so. Was this a situation where you would find it acceptable for the police to have shot her?
Tasers are not non-lethal weapons. They are less lethal weapons.
Back in the day, in mental hospitals they often used violence to enforce compliance by mental patients who got unruly. Then the Korean War came along and they assigned a bunch of farm boys who refused to serve in the military no matter what form of coercion was used to work as orderlies at the mental hospitals. Now these farm boys weren't going to use violence here anymore than they were going to join the military. So, what did they do? Well, they did what they did when they had a stallion or a bull that would not do what was wanted. They restrained the patient. Two, or more, if they thought that was necessary, would go into the patient's room and approach calmly and carefully despite what the patient would do to resist their approach. When they got close enough, they would take hold of the patient and prevent the patient from moving. The thing about it was that it rarely took more than two of them, even if the patient was large and the two farm boys were not so large. That's because they had learned their techniques against animals that were larger than them, animals that were valuable so you didn't do anything that might damage them. There was one other factor that was very important. They were patient. They were willing to wait until the animal or the patient gave up. The thing was it rarely took that long because there is something very "calming" about dealing with someone who will continue to move towards their goals no matter what you do.
There is something wrong when a police officer cannot wrap an 85 lb woman in a bear hug and just hold her until she realizes that continuing to struggle is going to get her nowhere. The key thing is a lack of patience and the mistaken belief that tasers are non-lethal. A taser should only be used in a situation where an officer would use a gun if necessary but would rather not. If shooting the suspect is not justified, then neither is using a taser. So, would the officers have been justified in shooting this woman?
The thing about it is that my understanding is that for most "loud" commercials, they are not technically louder than the TV show. It is just that the entire commercial is as loud as the the loudest part of the TV show while the loud point in the TV show is only for a moment or two before the volume returns to much lower normal volumes. I am sure there are exceptions, but I remember seeing a study which made this claim back right around the time this law was passed.
The person I replied to was answering a person who had provided examples of charitable organizations started by people who self-identified as Christians by asking that person to identify how many were started by people self-identifying as atheists. Their post implied that the number was at least as large, yet provided no basis for such a claim. The fact that I can name off of the top of my head multiple charitable organizations founded by people self-identifying as Christian (and with a little thought, several by those self-identifying as other religions), yet the person who wants to suggest that atheists are as charitable as religious people was unable to name any started by people self-identifying as atheists, leads me to suspect that the number of such organizations is vanishingly small. Meaning that if you are going to make the argument that there are a comparable number of charitable organizations started by atheists as there are those started by the religious, you are obligated to name at least one.
So, I take it that you do not believe the sun will come up this morning?
Until you provide citation for a different answer, I believe that the answer is zero.
Please explain the basis for morality in non-religious terms.
Translation: Someone whose beliefs superficially resemble yours did something evil, proving that your beliefs are evil. Someone with beliefs that resemble mine did something evil, proving that the similarity was only superficial.
The "voter suppression" was a series of text messages that many would find offensive, but whether they were intended to suppress votes or to convince people to vote differently is a matter of interpretation.
Well, $250,000 a year gets you into Obama's "millionaires and billionaires" club. The club that he will raise everybody else's taxes if that is what he has to do to raise theirs.
That is the act cited in both of the links to government websites in the summary. Do you have a source to back up your claim that the White House is lying about what Act authorized the money given to A123 Systems?
Well according to the government websites that are linked to in the summary (energy.gov and whitehouse.gov) he got the correct act. Can you provide a link that shows that the government is lying about the law that authorized the funding in question?
That is absolutely a good idea, if you are familiar with the area/route. That is, if you regularly make a trip to someplace so that you know the destination, it may be a good idea to follow your GPS (assuming it has up to date maps) every now and again to see if something has changed so that the route you use by default is no longer the best way to your destination. There are multiple reasons why an alternate route may have become better than your established default (changed traffic patterns and/or new roads are just two of the possibilities). However, if you are in an unfamiliar area, it is probably a good idea to follow the route given to you by someone familiar with the area, especially if they are driving in front of you and you can just follow them (having the directions just in case you lose them).