You're obviously not reading, so I'm not wasting any more time on you.
For you to suggest that someone else is distortionary after this kind of nonsense? Hard to fathom, really. I bet you even believe it. I sat there arguing the definintion of "defense," and you said I was ignoring it. Come up for air, kid.
Wow, a link to a self published book, with no actual commentary. And I'm the stupid one, for citing the things I lived through. You, sir, are a debate champion.
Microsoft actually released these fonts with the last Office batch, and also allows you to download them freely from MSDN (just like the T series and the V series.) This all happened about 18 months ago. Thanks for noticing. (And, yes, people should download them, because Candara is just gorgeous.)
No, the fact remains that in most US states, you have the right to use deadly force to defend yourself.
And, time and time again, in court, it has been shown that just having someone in your house doesn't mean that when you open fire you're defending yourself. You can use all the bold and the suggestive phrasing you want, but no amount of you pretending to know what you're talking about changes the body of precedent that is already in place under the law.
Careful, don't get that strawman too close to any open flames...
A straw man is a disconnected argument. If I said that Toyota Corporation was behind it, that would be a straw man. Try not to trip on all those big words; it's a counterexample, plain and simple.
"If SWAT shows up at your house, if you really haven't done anything wrong, and if you resist arrest, then I hope you get shot, to get you the hell out of the gene pool."
Except that requires actually knowing that the people busting down your door are police.
Can you name even one situation under which twenty armed men break into your home with assault weaponry, flash grenades, lexan shields and riot gear, screaming "clear" at the top of their lungs? This isn't Bogota, and nobody's being taken out as a political dissident. Put down the patchouli oil and think for a minute.
I've actually been through this. You can tell me how hard it is to figure out the situation until you're blue in the face, but I've been there, and it actually isn't hard to figure out at all, even when you've done absolutely nothing wrong. (In fact, if you've done nothing wrong, you're facing 20 people whose vests are printed "POLICE" in extremely visible yellow, and you still can't figure it out, then maybe there's a second reason to remove you from the breeding population.)
This isn't some bad 1970's movie where
Yeah, I've been there. Have you? Are you maybe trying to preach something you don't actually know about? Here's a quick refresher on adrenaline. Step 1: notice gun flavor in mouth. Step 2: crap pants. Step 3: cooperate. Step 4: survive. If you're feeling something muzzle shaped against your tongue, evolution kicks in and reminds you to sit still and use the power of terror to sit still.
The whole point to these raids is that you don't get a chance to respond, "adult" or otherwise.
It turns out that you can't actually not respond. They're not freezing you in carbonite, nor are they catching you in a time dilation device. Don't confuse "enough time to formulate a prosaic essay" with "not grabbing a gun." Sitting still is a response, and you can do that with a gun pointed at you. Please stop telling me that what I've done to survive isn't possible. You haven't the faintest idea what you're talking about, because you've never been closer to police action than NBC primetime. Ignorant soapboxing is only annoying when it's in a crowd of neophytes. When you tell someone who's been there that they're wrong about how a situation you've never been through actually works, you cross into the realm of offensive.
What amazes me is that I believe you actually think you know better than someone who's been through it. How you function in society is a mystery to me.
This isn't "Put your hands on the hood, sir," this is "GET ON THE GROUND NOW!"
Yeah. And if you do it, you don't die. If you reach for a gun, you do. What part of that is complicated for you? Sit still, shut up, and let the cops sort it out. That's all you have to do. I hope you figure that out before an authority figure ever deals with you. They walked out of my house in under ten minutes, apologizing, telling me the city would pay for my door.
I hope you don't get shot for your unwillingness to behave.
You cannot, however, buy nineteen other SWAT officers, or flash grenades. For that matter, if someone's got an assault rifle in your face, it pretty much doesn't matter who they are; if you react badly you're going to die, and that means only assholes react badly in those situations.
Believe it or not, lashing out is not in fact the best response to possible danger.
At 2 am in the morning, it's difficult to think straight after someone kicks in your door & points a gun at you.
I'm still alive because I managed. Has it happened to you? Because, frankly, I'm calling your bluff. It turns out that if there's a whole bunch of noise and suddenly a dozen dudes are pointing heavy weaponry at you, you suddenly begin to think very, very clearly.
Adrenaline doesn't care if you just woke up. When you've been there, let us know. For now, you're guessing, and you're not correct.
I can state with confidence, as another/. poster pointed out I wold have been shot if this prank had been played out on me.
What's amazing is that you still think the problem isn't you, even though almost everyone else survives such episodes. SWAT's false kill rate is less than a tenth of one percent. What does that tell you about the appropriacy of how you react to the world?
You also presume someone would care about the difference, rather than considering the police just as dangerous (if not more) than most actual criminals.
People who shoot at cops because they find them dangerous deserve to be in jail. That's called being a paranoid sociopath. Believe it or not, you don't get to shoot people just because they make you nervous, even if you have flimsy logic to prop it up. And please, spare me the "but they're in my house;" that only holds water when there's the reasonable presumption of danger, and it turns out that saying "I think cops are dangerous" isn't actually reasonable presumption of danger under the law.
The myth that pervades America that you're allowed to shoot people you find in your house is distressing. If there's a mentally retarded man in your living room and you shoot him because you don't know him, you're not defending your home, you're a fucking murderer.
Burglars, murderers, and rapists can yell "Police!" too.
Usually, burglars, murderers and rapists don't show up in riot gear in squads of 20 with assault rifles and flash grenades. And frankly, if they did, I really doubt they'd bother to yell police.
If a person sees twenty people in riot gear that says police in huge yellow letters, with flash grenades and lexan shields coming in with assault rifles and screaming "clear!" at the top of their lungs, and thinks it's a robbery, then do you really want the genes that made their brain going back into the species?
The suspension of disbelief that it takes to equate SWAT with burglary borders on the absurd.
If SWAT shows up at your house, if you really haven't done anything wrong, and if you resist arrest, then I hope you get shot, to get you the hell out of the gene pool. Paranoia is one of the most pervasive and damaging things to a democratic republic, and the last thing I want are citizens fucking with the cops because they spent too much time reading blogs and think they live in an Orwellian society. The day occam's razor starts taking heads, I'm cheerleading. We need some goddamned natural selection for intelligence, and this seems as good a way as any, to me.
If you've never had the cops try to bust you for something you didn't do, then don't even bother to respond, because I've been there, and I responded like an adult. That's probably why I didn't even get sore handcuff wrists, much less shot. You keep your voice low, you ask what's happening, you cooperate, and you say "after I'm handcuffed, please show me the warrant."
If you can't handle that, I don't want you breeding. Lock and load.
Yeah, because if there's one thing that SWAT does, it's to bide its time and take it slow. Surely the team meant for fast response to extremely dangerous situations shouldn't, y'know, go to the place and make sure that no violence happens. Because SWAT is totally unreasonable to show up at a location and handcuff people. I could see you getting all up in arms about the bad things that were done, but maybe you could point the finger away from the people that not only took the biggest risk but also did absolutely nothing wrong?
Surely, let's put the brakes on every one of the tens of thousands of high speed responses that keep people alive because there have been a half dozen or so breakins of the system over the last decade that have resulted in, at last count, zero deaths.
I might be inclined to agree with you that the tariffs were progressive if they were going to foster competitive industry. Unfortunately, they are not. Raising the price of foreign goods doesn't actually pay for the manufacture of factories. This is good old fashioned corrupt pocket lining, plain and simple.
Yahoo! Mail went to unlimited like six months ago. Anyone still watching their mail space should focus their time fending off mastodon with their obsidian knives.
Because with only the violence it was rated for 17+, while with the sex scene it had to be rated 18+, and this was a major issue?
The major issue wasn't the year's difference in rating, it was that the developer lied to the ratings board. It didn't help that games with sexual content weren't announcing the sexual content - our rating system is more than just an age number, and requires expository labelling - but the real problem was that the developer lied to the ratings board.
That's funny. The developer can't even get the BBFC to give them the reason the game was rejected, and yet you think the reasoning is public. If you search for manhunt, you get a bunch of films, you get the first game, but you don't get the second game. Perhaps you could find this explanation for me? I can't find it, the developer can't find it, and frankly I don't really believe it exists.
When you assume, you don't actually make an ass out of me.
I'm not necessarily agreeing with the decision, but clearly they can't just go telling everyone the exact reasons for their decision otherwise they will run afoul of the copyright of the developer.
They could tell the developer, though.
Their decision is going to be based on plot and events from the game
I don't see any reason to believe this. The ESRB's isn't.
They do say that the developer knows the reasons
RTFA. The problem is that they won't tell the developer.
The idea that a regulatory or inspectory agency should be unable to cite reasons for its decision is essentially the exposition that it has no rules. I'm an American video game developer, and whereas I write kids' games and have dodged this bullet, I can say for certain that the ESRB is full of crap and has no idea what it's doing. It sounds, however, like Europe is winning the war in arbitrary judgements based on personal beliefs and associations with retailers.
This is absurd, and the BBFC should be replaced with an agency willing to set their rules out in black and white.
Well, while it's funny that MS doesn't support their own DRM, it's not exactly a reason to say the Zune sucks.
So, what you're saying is, if some car company sold you a car with a lifetime warranty, then stopped making parts for that car, you wouldn't have a problem with it? The amount of money involved is different, but the concept is the same: the whole reason people bought PlaysForSure was so that it would certainly play on Microsoft devices in the future, and they promptly lied and backed out on their agreement. Enough with the apologism already. You're starting to sound like an employee, as desperate as you are to point out that there's nothing wrong with what amounts to fraud.
Sorry, I interpreted your comment a bit differently than what you intended maybe.
What's there to misinterpret? Microsoft sold music under the PFS license explicitly to promise that it would play, for sure. Now they're not doing it. I had two intents: one, to point out that the devices are ethically corrupt, and two, to point out that I think that too many SlashDot stories appear to be transparent advertising these days. I really don't care how you "interpreted what I said;" your response was both aggressive and full of crap. It doesn't matter how you try to handwave it away after the fact. I'm not a fanboy, I don't use Apple, and I'm sick of people like you who make public assumptions in the desperation to appear clueful.
Go back to Digg and 4-chan where you belong. I believe you call yourselves "epic-tards" or something.
Perhaps if it had been modded funny instead of insightful...
It was modded both. And, frankly, you shouldn't need other people's moderation to figure out what someone's saying.
Slashdot Mirror
For you to suggest that someone else is distortionary after this kind of nonsense? Hard to fathom, really. I bet you even believe it. I sat there arguing the definintion of "defense," and you said I was ignoring it. Come up for air, kid.
Wow, a link to a self published book, with no actual commentary. And I'm the stupid one, for citing the things I lived through. You, sir, are a debate champion.
Microsoft actually released these fonts with the last Office batch, and also allows you to download them freely from MSDN (just like the T series and the V series.) This all happened about 18 months ago. Thanks for noticing. (And, yes, people should download them, because Candara is just gorgeous.)
Since when has Canada been attached to real life? They have actual money now, they got electricity six months ago, and now this?
I'm out of the loop.
I've actually been through this. You can tell me how hard it is to figure out the situation until you're blue in the face, but I've been there, and it actually isn't hard to figure out at all, even when you've done absolutely nothing wrong. (In fact, if you've done nothing wrong, you're facing 20 people whose vests are printed "POLICE" in extremely visible yellow, and you still can't figure it out, then maybe there's a second reason to remove you from the breeding population.)Yeah, I've been there. Have you? Are you maybe trying to preach something you don't actually know about? Here's a quick refresher on adrenaline. Step 1: notice gun flavor in mouth. Step 2: crap pants. Step 3: cooperate. Step 4: survive. If you're feeling something muzzle shaped against your tongue, evolution kicks in and reminds you to sit still and use the power of terror to sit still.It turns out that you can't actually not respond. They're not freezing you in carbonite, nor are they catching you in a time dilation device. Don't confuse "enough time to formulate a prosaic essay" with "not grabbing a gun." Sitting still is a response, and you can do that with a gun pointed at you. Please stop telling me that what I've done to survive isn't possible. You haven't the faintest idea what you're talking about, because you've never been closer to police action than NBC primetime. Ignorant soapboxing is only annoying when it's in a crowd of neophytes. When you tell someone who's been there that they're wrong about how a situation you've never been through actually works, you cross into the realm of offensive.
What amazes me is that I believe you actually think you know better than someone who's been through it. How you function in society is a mystery to me.Yeah. And if you do it, you don't die. If you reach for a gun, you do. What part of that is complicated for you? Sit still, shut up, and let the cops sort it out. That's all you have to do. I hope you figure that out before an authority figure ever deals with you. They walked out of my house in under ten minutes, apologizing, telling me the city would pay for my door.
I hope you don't get shot for your unwillingness to behave.
Believe it or not, lashing out is not in fact the best response to possible danger.I'm still alive because I managed. Has it happened to you? Because, frankly, I'm calling your bluff. It turns out that if there's a whole bunch of noise and suddenly a dozen dudes are pointing heavy weaponry at you, you suddenly begin to think very, very clearly.
Adrenaline doesn't care if you just woke up. When you've been there, let us know. For now, you're guessing, and you're not correct.
You're misunderstanding. Murder requires intent. The worst he could get would be reckless endangerment / manslaughter 1.
The myth that pervades America that you're allowed to shoot people you find in your house is distressing. If there's a mentally retarded man in your living room and you shoot him because you don't know him, you're not defending your home, you're a fucking murderer.
Grow up.
If a person sees twenty people in riot gear that says police in huge yellow letters, with flash grenades and lexan shields coming in with assault rifles and screaming "clear!" at the top of their lungs, and thinks it's a robbery, then do you really want the genes that made their brain going back into the species?
The suspension of disbelief that it takes to equate SWAT with burglary borders on the absurd.
If SWAT shows up at your house, if you really haven't done anything wrong, and if you resist arrest, then I hope you get shot, to get you the hell out of the gene pool. Paranoia is one of the most pervasive and damaging things to a democratic republic, and the last thing I want are citizens fucking with the cops because they spent too much time reading blogs and think they live in an Orwellian society. The day occam's razor starts taking heads, I'm cheerleading. We need some goddamned natural selection for intelligence, and this seems as good a way as any, to me.
If you've never had the cops try to bust you for something you didn't do, then don't even bother to respond, because I've been there, and I responded like an adult. That's probably why I didn't even get sore handcuff wrists, much less shot. You keep your voice low, you ask what's happening, you cooperate, and you say "after I'm handcuffed, please show me the warrant."
If you can't handle that, I don't want you breeding. Lock and load.
Yeah, because if there's one thing that SWAT does, it's to bide its time and take it slow. Surely the team meant for fast response to extremely dangerous situations shouldn't, y'know, go to the place and make sure that no violence happens. Because SWAT is totally unreasonable to show up at a location and handcuff people. I could see you getting all up in arms about the bad things that were done, but maybe you could point the finger away from the people that not only took the biggest risk but also did absolutely nothing wrong?
Surely, let's put the brakes on every one of the tens of thousands of high speed responses that keep people alive because there have been a half dozen or so breakins of the system over the last decade that have resulted in, at last count, zero deaths.
Power off, Einstein.
I might be inclined to agree with you that the tariffs were progressive if they were going to foster competitive industry. Unfortunately, they are not. Raising the price of foreign goods doesn't actually pay for the manufacture of factories. This is good old fashioned corrupt pocket lining, plain and simple.
Yahoo! Mail went to unlimited like six months ago. Anyone still watching their mail space should focus their time fending off mastodon with their obsidian knives.
When you assume, you don't actually make an ass out of me.
The idea that a regulatory or inspectory agency should be unable to cite reasons for its decision is essentially the exposition that it has no rules. I'm an American video game developer, and whereas I write kids' games and have dodged this bullet, I can say for certain that the ESRB is full of crap and has no idea what it's doing. It sounds, however, like Europe is winning the war in arbitrary judgements based on personal beliefs and associations with retailers.
This is absurd, and the BBFC should be replaced with an agency willing to set their rules out in black and white.
Go back to Digg and 4-chan where you belong. I believe you call yourselves "epic-tards" or something.It was modded both. And, frankly, you shouldn't need other people's moderation to figure out what someone's saying.