I know I'm replying long after the fact, and to an AC no less, but I'm going to vent. In response to this:
They don't want to know how a computer or a network works, they just want to be on the "web" and "surf" and read emails. It takes most of their brainpower to do that, much less have the knowledge to know if they've been *hacked*.
Wrong, jackass. Repeat after me:
They do not give a shit.
Most of these people who you think are stupid, and feel *so* superior to you just could not give less of a rats ass about your tiny, self-contained, computer based existance. They want to write a letter, look something up, and THEN, get ready for this:
Go do something else.
Not diddle with their fucking computer all day long. I doubt you can put a kit car together, but I bet you fucking *drive*, right?
And then I get more steamed when someone throws out wild-assed statements like yours that have no value at all, because the numbers mean only what some group wants them to mean.
Let's try to get this through your head. Sit down, and read this slowly. Ready?
These are not my numbers.
I'm not sure how to make this any more clear for you. I'm citing a reference. Not my statement, doesn't reflect my beliefs. You really *can't* seem to get your head around this. I'm not sure why, I think it's a fairly simple concept.
You apparently would rather offer your wife up for rape instead of having a strong defense against it. Do you believe that makes you a bad person?
Seriously, what are you talking about? Do you have any idea? If you do, please, share it with the rest of the group... so, guns kill more people you know than strange intruders. What does this have to do with my wife? Or me?
Here's a hint: NOTHING
Try to get the hint. TRY to absorb what I'm saying before you come back and make an ass of yourself. I'm begging you.
Arguements like the ones you make are *worthless*. They hurt your cause. You illustrate yourself to be a nut. Why in the world do you want to hurt your own cause?
I never made a claim about anything.
Sure you did. You made a claim that the statistics put forth by the groups that I liked to are untrue. If you don't think that's making a claim, I just can't help you. You 'defended' your 'claim' with a list of eight 'reasons' (yes, I really need to put all those words in quotes) of why they might not be true.
This is a simple area. It's not confusing. Guns, kept in the home, kill more people you *know* than those you *don't*. It's simple statistics. That's what happened in the past. How you interpret these numbers are up to you. The only reasonable arguements I've heard about these statistics are about the ratio. Maybe it's 48:1. Maybe 23:1. Maybe 30:1. I've heard 'em all.
NOBODY that I can find seriously claims it to be less than that. There are *no* serious sources that claim this statement is untrue. Who gives a rats ass if it's 30:1, 50:1, 2:1 or any other ratio of X:1 where X>1? It's still a true statement!
So what the hell? Seriously, I'll state it again in the hopes that you get it. Here's how it went:
1) Someone said: Guns kept in the home are more likely to kill someone you know than a random, armed intruder. 2) Someone else said: Care to cite a source? 3) I cited a source. 4) You did some weird shit. Came up with a list of reasons why I was wrong, even though I wasn't actually saying anything. Backed it up with nothing, and then tell me I want my wife to be raped, because I did a google search.
Seriously, I don't even believe you're reading my posts. So, maybe you can get a grip on yourself? Maybe.
I never said kids can't be taught, I never said everyone else can't survive childhood, and shit, I never said half the things you tell me I'm saying. I'm not sure what my jackass shortcomings are, or if you really think I'm supposed to have an itching, burning feeling, but hey. Whatever floats your boat. If you're not a troll, you're extremely stupid.
*shrug*
If you're not a troll, what are you? Illiterate? Willfully ignorant? Picking a fight? Does it matter?
Write this down, so you can focus on it. Not every child is perfect. I'm sure you're god's gift to the world, okay? Fine, you're a perfect specimen of manhood. Great. Not every child is like that, I'm sorry. You're nuts if you believe that. Just completely, balls to the wall off your rocker. I'm not sure how else to state that, but it's a pretty simple concept, and if you'd really like to keep arguing that *all* children can be counted on to keep their best interests in mind *all* the time, you do that. You'd be completely wrong, and you know it.
I had quite a few guns in the house growing up. They're still here. I'm still here. I feel, based on *MY* experiences, that it's a risky thing, specifically because of my friends. And not friends. If I get beat up in school, because I've got the wrong skin in the wrong school, after being hospitalized, and having the police and the teachers ignore me, don't you think it occured to me that there was a gun in the house? Hey, these five fuckers think it's fun to hit this one little kid with a fucking bat every day, because he's short, because he wears glasses... because... whatever... I bet I'd have a surprise fot *them*...
But I didn't. I grew over 6' by 8th grade. One day I got my hands on that bat. Sucked to be them that day.
However, unless you've been living in a hole, not everyone makes that choice. Kids shoot other kids. And funny, you never hear on the news, "I knew he was a problem kid! I was just waiting for this!"
Always, he was such a nice boy. They could all be lying, I suppose, but I doubt it.
Hey, listen. If you want to insult me, go right ahead. You don't know me, and I don't care. You think I'm stupid, I know I'm not. I'm trying to make you see what I think is an important point. If you read my other posts, I stated that New Jersey shouldn't have made it a law. But I think it's a great tech, and a great idea. I'd go so far as to say it could be state subsidised - buy a gun with this locking mech, and we'll give you a $x tax credit, to make it not much more expensive than a dumb handgun. And I think if you leave your gun unsecured around a young child, no matter how brilliant, well behaved, or anything else you think he is, I think it's a bad idea.
If somehow that means I have jock itch, or the clap, well, I guess that's just your opinion, then.
You certainly seem a little worked up considering all I was doing was answering a reference question. Got some kind of itch up your ass, or what?
You've got nothing to back up your thoughts, and you know it. You call my reference asinine, almost as if I'm the American Bar Association, and the Journal all rolled into one. I've got actual facts behind me, and you've got drool streaming down your chin as you pound away at the keyboard. Guess how much that means your thoughts affect me?
Seriously, you're a maladjusted zealot. Not to mention you see the world as black and white. It's shades of grey, friend. Please seek help as soon as possible.
Well, I'm not saying it's impossible to keep loaded unlocked guns and children together under all circumstances, but I think if you have kids under five, it's just too risky. Knives, and electrcal outlets, power tools... it's just easier to shoot yourself than stab yourself to death, or take apart an outlet to figure out a way to actually get electrocuted, rather than just badly shocked.
For kids under five, you just don't know. And for older kids, even if your kids are the best, they have friends. Your kid drops a comment, his friend gets out the gun, says, "Cool!" and uh...
Well.
If I was a parent, and could get a locking gun that would respond to my wedding ring, and my wifes, I'd be glad to have it. It'll take some serious effort for something terrible to happen then.
However!
I don't agree with the state of New Jersey passing this law. It should be my choice. The fact that I would choose the same tech as this law states doesn't make it any easier to accept.
I know I wouldn't want to have to look at that monstrosity every day of my life...
That's what damn near everyone said when the origional towers were being built. Of course, you probably didn't realize that, as you're too busy running your porn site, and all. It's a good thing some people aren't as small minded as you, isn't it?
You might have been too stupid to follow simple "don't touch" directions, but that doesn't mean everyone else is that dumb.
Oh yeah. I shot myself in the head, died, and I'm writing this to you from beyond the grave. Do you have any fucking idea how tough it was to get TCP/IP working in the afterlife?
Do you have some sort of special jackass gene that makes you think you're witty, or something? I'm sure you've never done anything stupid in your life. Furthermore, I'm sure everyone who is important to you is just as fucking brilliant and perfect as you are. Well, that's just great.
I'd love to say something like: Okay, you're so sure, I'm glad for you. Take a nice loaded gun, keep it in an easy to reach drawer, unlocked and loaded. Tell your five year old child to not touch it. Make sure he knows it's there!
No, really. Don't do that. You're practically daring bad shit to happen. And I don't care that it's *your* kid, and will probably be just as snotty and self-centered as you, I'd still rather have him be alive.
Yes, I know I'm being trolled. Whatever. The fact that you can get modded insightful saying that kids always listen to their parents, and never do anything dangerous burns my nuts. I'm sure you don't smoke, drink, or do any drugs, right sport? Certainly not as a kid, either.
Re-read the post retard. any kid that respects guns wouldn't be playing with them.
Well, the first sign that they don't respect the gun could very well be their cold, dead body. I'm sure you know that children *never* lie, and never do dangerous things, even when they know they're dangerous, right?
Guns kept in the home for self-protection are more often used to kill somebody you know than to kill in self-defense; 22 times more likely...
There has been some arguement about the number most often bandied about by gun control advocates, which is 43:1. An article that argues that this number is unfair states:
According to the study's classification of the deaths, there were 389 noncriminal deaths for only 2 intruder deaths, for a ratio of 194.5 to 1 so quoting the "43 times" in relation to intruders is a misrepresentation of the findings.
I guess they're trying to show that guns kill more noncriminals than even gun control advocates suggest. That's not what I would do if I was debating the point, but oh well. *shrug*
Of course, the power will be out, hospitals, fire departments, and police response will be in serious trouble, and everyone *else's* car will have stopped, blocking all roads. The fact that society around you will be in chaos will probably seem more important to you than the fact that your car will start, don't you think?
Someone of your obvious intelligence should be a little more careful before whipping out the word 'ignorant', okay?
Let's look at the title of the article:
Hudson Shipwrecks Found, but No Loose Lips
Did that say shipwrecks? I thought it did. Not tiny little sunken dugout canoes, but shipwrecks.
Then they go on to talk about the various types of ships they're talking about - a 19th century sailing sloop, and revolutionary war vessels. Hey, here's an idea!
1a) A vessel of considerable size for deep-water navigation. b) A sailing vessel having three or more square-rigged masts.
2) An aircraft or spacecraft.
So uh... right. Please point me to the Native American tribe that built such vessels, and sailed them on the hudson. I'll be right here holding my breath!
Hey, this *is* Slashdot... not the Harvard debating team.:)
Oh, but if only it were! I won't sit around holding my breath, though.
As for American-(style/wise/ish) hegemonic consumerism, there's something in that statement that makes me want to hit you about the head and shoulders with a club, but you're too nice a person! Dammit. I can't tolerate niceness in response to a good, solid flame. It makes some of my wiring go all wonky. =p
Anyway, I'll express my origional opinion, like some other people said - even if you hear the pitch, you don't have to buy. It holds true for DVD players, and religion! So uh... I dunno. I can't feel bad for the natives, especially when they sit on their rears, and make the Brits carry the piano. =)
What was wrong with their belief system before that some missionary felt it their duty to "save" these "savages"? The history of missionary work is rife with "forced" conversions (Inquisition, anyone?).
Mmmm. Hmmm....
I realize this probably wasn't the case in the 1950's, but who knows.
Ah, right. So you knew your statement was misleading, and inflammatory, but you provided it anyway. And nice use of 'who knows'! After all, perhaps the inquisition *was* in the 1950's! Or, maybe they were whipped with noodles!
Those American missionaries also taught them "Christian modesty", which could be a thin disguise (in my tin-foil hat world) for "American hegemonic consumerism". Why else would they favour shorts and T-shirts[...?]
Too right! Why else indeed. Only Americans wear shorts and T-shirts!
In fact, it is based on the assumption that the indigenous Good Word[...]
This is a "just in case" post. No down moderations are necessary. If the site remains up, leave this post at 2. Otherwise (as I suspect), please mod this up just so that others can read his story.
Seriously, since you're the THIRD person posting this, *and* the site is performing fine, I assure you, down moderations are *extremely* necessary for your karma-whoring ass. Please mod this up just so that others can read his story my ass. I'll put my +2 up here so I can get modded down right along with you.
If you're really posting this so that other people (people who are not YOU, or YOUR KARMA) can benefit, please post AC. You contributed nothing, and don't deserve to be modded up.
We as a species are already getting into trouble because of the (unintentional) consequenses of unfettered growth, such as increasing water scarcity, desertification, and pollution. These suggest there ought to be another way of looking at an economy (maybe redefine it as a "monetary ecology"?)...
Too right. But I don't think you have to look at things quite that differently - recycled old consumer products, if properly done, is just as much of a 'natural resource' as anything else. (As far as economic growth goes, anyway.)
I'm going to ramble for a bit, and not make any sense, or really, be on topic, but it might prove interesting. A few years ago, Wired magazine had, on its cover, something to the tune of "As industry becomes more efficient, retirement can happen sooner, until eventually, retirement can happen at birth." Which is a very odd statement, if you bother to think about it - and I hope they did, they put it on the cover of their magazine after all. So I've been keeping it in the back of my head for way too many years.
The problem is, it's true, and it's not. Assuming your life as a consumer *never* changes, it's true. But that's not what happens. Let's say that all you wanted out of life is what people had prior to, or in the very beginning of the industrial revolution - a nice wooden house, a few acres of farmland, and maybe a nice musket. All that wealth can be achieved in maybe a year of working in our 'modern' economy. And so you can retire, since you have all the material items you'd ever want, and the means to sustain your standard of living until you die.
The problem is, now there are DVD players! But I'm sure you see the problem - people aren't happy living the way they have before. As industry becomes *way* more efficient, you don't gain the ability to retire earlier... you gain the ability to retire at the same time, with much more neat crap. This presents us with two major solutions:
1) Say 'the heck with the DVD players' and go back to ye olden days. Or just freeze technology where it is, artifically (commercially) by everyone not buying the next new gadget, whatever it may be.
(I don't think that'll happen, but it might be the best solution)
2) Figure out how to relentlessly recycle *anything*. I'm not sure exactly what you'd have to do, but all you have to do, practically, is make it way more expensive to get natural resources than to get old crap to recycle. Clearly this would have to be a governed choice - ban mining, or make permits so expensive... whatever. It's not that things just *can't* be recycled, it's just that there's no economic reason to do so, and until there is, it won't be done.
#2 relies a lot on the fact that stuff doesn't last forever. Fortunatly, it doesn't. Complain about how crappy consumer goods are *now*, fine. But even at their best, nothing manmade ever, ever lasts forever, and there's nothing that can be done about it. Artifically shortening somethings lifespan is wasteful, that's clear, but you still have to wonder what the right thing to do when the end of life of (insert product here) reaches end of life. Turning it into something new is the best answer - no waste, except for time (manhours) which, in itself, is another 'natural resource' all to itself.
I realize that was barely coherent. I somehow wish I could give you 90 seconds of your life back if you got this far. =)
Okay, I'll show my ignorance, probably. Or maybe make a good point. Who knows, this can go either way!
Isn't that the only thing you can possibly base an economy on? Or, rather, economic growth on? Added value into natural resources? Be it growing food from the earth, or mining iron out of it to make a car, that's where an economy grows, not relentlessly passing those goods around.
Or, in this case, taking some oil and sand, turning it into plastic, glass, and electronics, and selling it as a DVD player... In my opinion, that's why a service economy is the death warrant that America has been pushing upon itself for ages - you rely on other people to make your economic growth for you, and then take the weath they create, and give it to you for services... While being industrial has other problems - think polution - at least you're *making* something.
Keep in mind I've never had an economics course. Ever. Be gentle! =p
Re:It's wasn't jesus who said that it was gandhi
on
Helping Your Ex-Employer?
·
· Score: 3, Informative
"You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' But I say to you, Do not resist one who is evil. But if any one strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also; and if any one would sue you and take your coat, let him have your cloak as well; and if any one forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to him who begs from you, and do not refuse him who would borrow from you. You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust." (Matthew 5:38:45 RSV)
How would you feel about telling kids how the United States Army carried out genocide attacks and slaughtered most of the Native American Indians in North America for several decades in the late 1800's?
I don't know about anyone else, but I certainly want kids to know that. I also want them to know that we were wrong to do it.
Further, that is pretty much what I was taught in school, though only once I got to high school; I went to a very good non-public high school on scholarship. I ask this question sincerely - are most kids told something different, or not taught this at all?
Therefore they are evil and that is a FACT that kids can be taught.
"Therefore they are evil" is not a fact. Evil is something created by storytellers, primarily. There's no Snidely Whiplash, tying girls to the train tracks for the sheer evil glee of it, and there's no Dudley Do-Right to stop him, either. The Army, *at that time* did something wrong. And it was very wrong. But they didn't do it for evil's own sake. As for your other comments, In the history of humanity, it's always about us and them. But as globalism progresses, while it's not all picnics and roses, it expands on 'us', until maybe the world can be at peace. In the meantime, history is another tool to achieve that end, so we don't repeat our old mistakes.
Slashdot Mirror
So, again, where is the market for these PCs?
I'm sure you could sell one to nearly everyone who owns a BMW, it's nearly the same thing.
That's a great idea. And on the database side, the PC could just discount a goal if it's made within x seconds from another goal.
Do that!
I know I'm replying long after the fact, and to an AC no less, but I'm going to vent. In response to this:
They don't want to know how a computer or a network works, they just want to be on the "web" and "surf" and read emails. It takes most of their brainpower to do that, much less have the knowledge to know if they've been *hacked*.
Wrong, jackass. Repeat after me:
They do not give a shit.
Most of these people who you think are stupid, and feel *so* superior to you just could not give less of a rats ass about your tiny, self-contained, computer based existance. They want to write a letter, look something up, and THEN, get ready for this:
Go do something else.
Not diddle with their fucking computer all day long. I doubt you can put a kit car together, but I bet you fucking *drive*, right?
So get a fucking grip, okay?
And then I get more steamed when someone throws out wild-assed statements like yours that have no value at all, because the numbers mean only what some group wants them to mean.
Let's try to get this through your head. Sit down, and read this slowly. Ready?
These are not my numbers.
I'm not sure how to make this any more clear for you. I'm citing a reference. Not my statement, doesn't reflect my beliefs. You really *can't* seem to get your head around this. I'm not sure why, I think it's a fairly simple concept.
You apparently would rather offer your wife up for rape instead of having a strong defense against it. Do you believe that makes you a bad person?
Seriously, what are you talking about? Do you have any idea? If you do, please, share it with the rest of the group... so, guns kill more people you know than strange intruders. What does this have to do with my wife? Or me?
Here's a hint: NOTHING
Try to get the hint. TRY to absorb what I'm saying before you come back and make an ass of yourself. I'm begging you.
Arguements like the ones you make are *worthless*. They hurt your cause. You illustrate yourself to be a nut. Why in the world do you want to hurt your own cause?
I never made a claim about anything.
Sure you did. You made a claim that the statistics put forth by the groups that I liked to are untrue. If you don't think that's making a claim, I just can't help you. You 'defended' your 'claim' with a list of eight 'reasons' (yes, I really need to put all those words in quotes) of why they might not be true.
This is a simple area. It's not confusing. Guns, kept in the home, kill more people you *know* than those you *don't*. It's simple statistics. That's what happened in the past. How you interpret these numbers are up to you. The only reasonable arguements I've heard about these statistics are about the ratio. Maybe it's 48:1. Maybe 23:1. Maybe 30:1. I've heard 'em all.
NOBODY that I can find seriously claims it to be less than that. There are *no* serious sources that claim this statement is untrue. Who gives a rats ass if it's 30:1, 50:1, 2:1 or any other ratio of X:1 where X>1? It's still a true statement!
So what the hell? Seriously, I'll state it again in the hopes that you get it. Here's how it went:
1) Someone said: Guns kept in the home are more likely to kill someone you know than a random, armed intruder.
2) Someone else said: Care to cite a source?
3) I cited a source.
4) You did some weird shit. Came up with a list of reasons why I was wrong, even though I wasn't actually saying anything. Backed it up with nothing, and then tell me I want my wife to be raped, because I did a google search.
Christ! GET YOURSELF LOOKED AT!
*sigh*
Seriously, I don't even believe you're reading my posts. So, maybe you can get a grip on yourself? Maybe.
I never said kids can't be taught, I never said everyone else can't survive childhood, and shit, I never said half the things you tell me I'm saying. I'm not sure what my jackass shortcomings are, or if you really think I'm supposed to have an itching, burning feeling, but hey. Whatever floats your boat. If you're not a troll, you're extremely stupid.
*shrug*
If you're not a troll, what are you? Illiterate? Willfully ignorant? Picking a fight? Does it matter?
Write this down, so you can focus on it. Not every child is perfect. I'm sure you're god's gift to the world, okay? Fine, you're a perfect specimen of manhood. Great. Not every child is like that, I'm sorry. You're nuts if you believe that. Just completely, balls to the wall off your rocker. I'm not sure how else to state that, but it's a pretty simple concept, and if you'd really like to keep arguing that *all* children can be counted on to keep their best interests in mind *all* the time, you do that. You'd be completely wrong, and you know it.
I had quite a few guns in the house growing up. They're still here. I'm still here. I feel, based on *MY* experiences, that it's a risky thing, specifically because of my friends. And not friends. If I get beat up in school, because I've got the wrong skin in the wrong school, after being hospitalized, and having the police and the teachers ignore me, don't you think it occured to me that there was a gun in the house? Hey, these five fuckers think it's fun to hit this one little kid with a fucking bat every day, because he's short, because he wears glasses... because... whatever... I bet I'd have a surprise fot *them*...
But I didn't. I grew over 6' by 8th grade. One day I got my hands on that bat. Sucked to be them that day.
However, unless you've been living in a hole, not everyone makes that choice. Kids shoot other kids. And funny, you never hear on the news, "I knew he was a problem kid! I was just waiting for this!"
Always, he was such a nice boy. They could all be lying, I suppose, but I doubt it.
Hey, listen. If you want to insult me, go right ahead. You don't know me, and I don't care. You think I'm stupid, I know I'm not. I'm trying to make you see what I think is an important point. If you read my other posts, I stated that New Jersey shouldn't have made it a law. But I think it's a great tech, and a great idea. I'd go so far as to say it could be state subsidised - buy a gun with this locking mech, and we'll give you a $x tax credit, to make it not much more expensive than a dumb handgun. And I think if you leave your gun unsecured around a young child, no matter how brilliant, well behaved, or anything else you think he is, I think it's a bad idea.
If somehow that means I have jock itch, or the clap, well, I guess that's just your opinion, then.
Wow, buddy. Care to cite *YOUR* source?
You certainly seem a little worked up considering all I was doing was answering a reference question. Got some kind of itch up your ass, or what?
You've got nothing to back up your thoughts, and you know it. You call my reference asinine, almost as if I'm the American Bar Association, and the Journal all rolled into one. I've got actual facts behind me, and you've got drool streaming down your chin as you pound away at the keyboard. Guess how much that means your thoughts affect me?
Seriously, you're a maladjusted zealot. Not to mention you see the world as black and white. It's shades of grey, friend. Please seek help as soon as possible.
Well, I'm not saying it's impossible to keep loaded unlocked guns and children together under all circumstances, but I think if you have kids under five, it's just too risky. Knives, and electrcal outlets, power tools... it's just easier to shoot yourself than stab yourself to death, or take apart an outlet to figure out a way to actually get electrocuted, rather than just badly shocked.
For kids under five, you just don't know. And for older kids, even if your kids are the best, they have friends. Your kid drops a comment, his friend gets out the gun, says, "Cool!" and uh...
Well.
If I was a parent, and could get a locking gun that would respond to my wedding ring, and my wifes, I'd be glad to have it. It'll take some serious effort for something terrible to happen then.
However!
I don't agree with the state of New Jersey passing this law. It should be my choice. The fact that I would choose the same tech as this law states doesn't make it any easier to accept.
Hey, thanks for sharing.
I know I wouldn't want to have to look at that monstrosity every day of my life...
That's what damn near everyone said when the origional towers were being built. Of course, you probably didn't realize that, as you're too busy running your porn site, and all. It's a good thing some people aren't as small minded as you, isn't it?
That just proves that Darwin was right.
You might have been too stupid to follow simple "don't touch" directions, but that doesn't mean everyone else is that dumb.
Oh yeah. I shot myself in the head, died, and I'm writing this to you from beyond the grave. Do you have any fucking idea how tough it was to get TCP/IP working in the afterlife?
Do you have some sort of special jackass gene that makes you think you're witty, or something? I'm sure you've never done anything stupid in your life. Furthermore, I'm sure everyone who is important to you is just as fucking brilliant and perfect as you are. Well, that's just great.
I'd love to say something like: Okay, you're so sure, I'm glad for you. Take a nice loaded gun, keep it in an easy to reach drawer, unlocked and loaded. Tell your five year old child to not touch it. Make sure he knows it's there!
No, really. Don't do that. You're practically daring bad shit to happen. And I don't care that it's *your* kid, and will probably be just as snotty and self-centered as you, I'd still rather have him be alive.
Yes, I know I'm being trolled. Whatever. The fact that you can get modded insightful saying that kids always listen to their parents, and never do anything dangerous burns my nuts. I'm sure you don't smoke, drink, or do any drugs, right sport? Certainly not as a kid, either.
Re-read the post retard. any kid that respects guns wouldn't be playing with them.
Well, the first sign that they don't respect the gun could very well be their cold, dead body. I'm sure you know that children *never* lie, and never do dangerous things, even when they know they're dangerous, right?
Care to quote your statistical source?
How about the American Bar Association? They're citing the Journal of Trauma and say:
Guns kept in the home for self-protection are more often used to kill somebody you know than to kill in self-defense; 22 times more likely...
There has been some arguement about the number most often bandied about by gun control advocates, which is 43:1. An article that argues that this number is unfair states:
According to the study's classification of the deaths, there were 389 noncriminal deaths for only 2 intruder deaths, for a ratio of 194.5 to 1 so quoting the "43 times" in relation to intruders is a misrepresentation of the findings.
I guess they're trying to show that guns kill more noncriminals than even gun control advocates suggest. That's not what I would do if I was debating the point, but oh well. *shrug*
Of course, the power will be out, hospitals, fire departments, and police response will be in serious trouble, and everyone *else's* car will have stopped, blocking all roads. The fact that society around you will be in chaos will probably seem more important to you than the fact that your car will start, don't you think?
Is the point of that to achieve a lameness or 37331 factor?
31337 there, champ!
Someone of your obvious intelligence should be a little more careful before whipping out the word 'ignorant', okay?
Let's look at the title of the article:
Hudson Shipwrecks Found, but No Loose Lips
Did that say shipwrecks? I thought it did. Not tiny little sunken dugout canoes, but shipwrecks.
Then they go on to talk about the various types of ships they're talking about - a 19th century sailing sloop, and revolutionary war vessels. Hey, here's an idea!
SHIP:
1a) A vessel of considerable size for deep-water navigation.
b) A sailing vessel having three or more square-rigged masts.
2) An aircraft or spacecraft.
So uh... right. Please point me to the Native American tribe that built such vessels, and sailed them on the hudson. I'll be right here holding my breath!
Ah yes, those pesky Indians with large sailing vessels. Which ones were those, exactly?
Are the artifacts down there worth all the shots you'd have to get to swim in the Hudson?
People swim in it all the time. Honestly, your biggest danger is uh...
Okay, being hit by a floating telephone pole. Satisfied? But you don't need any shots!
Um.
Henry Hudson was exploring the river in 1609. What do you mean by *old*, exactly?
Hey, this *is* Slashdot ... not the Harvard debating team. :)
Oh, but if only it were! I won't sit around holding my breath, though.
As for American-(style/wise/ish) hegemonic consumerism, there's something in that statement that makes me want to hit you about the head and shoulders with a club, but you're too nice a person! Dammit. I can't tolerate niceness in response to a good, solid flame. It makes some of my wiring go all wonky. =p
Anyway, I'll express my origional opinion, like some other people said - even if you hear the pitch, you don't have to buy. It holds true for DVD players, and religion! So uh... I dunno. I can't feel bad for the natives, especially when they sit on their rears, and make the Brits carry the piano. =)
What was wrong with their belief system before that some missionary felt it their duty to "save" these "savages"? The history of missionary work is rife with "forced" conversions (Inquisition, anyone?).
Mmmm. Hmmm....
I realize this probably wasn't the case in the 1950's, but who knows.
Ah, right. So you knew your statement was misleading, and inflammatory, but you provided it anyway. And nice use of 'who knows'! After all, perhaps the inquisition *was* in the 1950's! Or, maybe they were whipped with noodles!
Those American missionaries also taught them "Christian modesty", which could be a thin disguise (in my tin-foil hat world) for "American hegemonic consumerism". Why else would they favour shorts and T-shirts[...?]
Too right! Why else indeed. Only Americans wear shorts and T-shirts!
In fact, it is based on the assumption that the indigenous Good Word[...]
Er. What? The indigenous... oh, forget it.
This is a "just in case" post. No down moderations are necessary. If the site remains up, leave this post at 2. Otherwise (as I suspect), please mod this up just so that others can read his story.
Seriously, since you're the THIRD person posting this, *and* the site is performing fine, I assure you, down moderations are *extremely* necessary for your karma-whoring ass. Please mod this up just so that others can read his story my ass. I'll put my +2 up here so I can get modded down right along with you.
If you're really posting this so that other people (people who are not YOU, or YOUR KARMA) can benefit, please post AC. You contributed nothing, and don't deserve to be modded up.
Cheers!
We as a species are already getting into trouble because of the (unintentional) consequenses of unfettered growth, such as increasing water scarcity, desertification, and pollution. These suggest there ought to be another way of looking at an economy (maybe redefine it as a "monetary ecology"?)...
Too right. But I don't think you have to look at things quite that differently - recycled old consumer products, if properly done, is just as much of a 'natural resource' as anything else. (As far as economic growth goes, anyway.)
I'm going to ramble for a bit, and not make any sense, or really, be on topic, but it might prove interesting. A few years ago, Wired magazine had, on its cover, something to the tune of "As industry becomes more efficient, retirement can happen sooner, until eventually, retirement can happen at birth." Which is a very odd statement, if you bother to think about it - and I hope they did, they put it on the cover of their magazine after all. So I've been keeping it in the back of my head for way too many years.
The problem is, it's true, and it's not. Assuming your life as a consumer *never* changes, it's true. But that's not what happens. Let's say that all you wanted out of life is what people had prior to, or in the very beginning of the industrial revolution - a nice wooden house, a few acres of farmland, and maybe a nice musket. All that wealth can be achieved in maybe a year of working in our 'modern' economy. And so you can retire, since you have all the material items you'd ever want, and the means to sustain your standard of living until you die.
The problem is, now there are DVD players! But I'm sure you see the problem - people aren't happy living the way they have before. As industry becomes *way* more efficient, you don't gain the ability to retire earlier... you gain the ability to retire at the same time, with much more neat crap. This presents us with two major solutions:
1) Say 'the heck with the DVD players' and go back to ye olden days. Or just freeze technology where it is, artifically (commercially) by everyone not buying the next new gadget, whatever it may be.
(I don't think that'll happen, but it might be the best solution)
2) Figure out how to relentlessly recycle *anything*. I'm not sure exactly what you'd have to do, but all you have to do, practically, is make it way more expensive to get natural resources than to get old crap to recycle. Clearly this would have to be a governed choice - ban mining, or make permits so expensive... whatever. It's not that things just *can't* be recycled, it's just that there's no economic reason to do so, and until there is, it won't be done.
#2 relies a lot on the fact that stuff doesn't last forever. Fortunatly, it doesn't. Complain about how crappy consumer goods are *now*, fine. But even at their best, nothing manmade ever, ever lasts forever, and there's nothing that can be done about it. Artifically shortening somethings lifespan is wasteful, that's clear, but you still have to wonder what the right thing to do when the end of life of (insert product here) reaches end of life. Turning it into something new is the best answer - no waste, except for time (manhours) which, in itself, is another 'natural resource' all to itself.
I realize that was barely coherent. I somehow wish I could give you 90 seconds of your life back if you got this far. =)
Okay, I'll show my ignorance, probably. Or maybe make a good point. Who knows, this can go either way!
Isn't that the only thing you can possibly base an economy on? Or, rather, economic growth on? Added value into natural resources? Be it growing food from the earth, or mining iron out of it to make a car, that's where an economy grows, not relentlessly passing those goods around.
Or, in this case, taking some oil and sand, turning it into plastic, glass, and electronics, and selling it as a DVD player... In my opinion, that's why a service economy is the death warrant that America has been pushing upon itself for ages - you rely on other people to make your economic growth for you, and then take the weath they create, and give it to you for services... While being industrial has other problems - think polution - at least you're *making* something.
Keep in mind I've never had an economics course. Ever. Be gentle! =p
"You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' But I say to you, Do not resist one who is evil. But if any one strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also; and if any one would sue you and take your coat, let him have your cloak as well; and if any one forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to him who begs from you, and do not refuse him who would borrow from you. You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust." (Matthew 5:38:45 RSV)
From the Sermon on the Mount. Okay, smart guy?
How would you feel about telling kids how the United States Army carried out genocide attacks and slaughtered most of the Native American Indians in North America for several decades in the late 1800's?
I don't know about anyone else, but I certainly want kids to know that. I also want them to know that we were wrong to do it.
Further, that is pretty much what I was taught in school, though only once I got to high school; I went to a very good non-public high school on scholarship. I ask this question sincerely - are most kids told something different, or not taught this at all?
Therefore they are evil and that is a FACT that kids can be taught.
"Therefore they are evil" is not a fact. Evil is something created by storytellers, primarily. There's no Snidely Whiplash, tying girls to the train tracks for the sheer evil glee of it, and there's no Dudley Do-Right to stop him, either. The Army, *at that time* did something wrong. And it was very wrong. But they didn't do it for evil's own sake. As for your other comments, In the history of humanity, it's always about us and them. But as globalism progresses, while it's not all picnics and roses, it expands on 'us', until maybe the world can be at peace. In the meantime, history is another tool to achieve that end, so we don't repeat our old mistakes.
Well, you will now.
I thought of this. I actually registered a *different* completely random address. =p