... but I would expect that if my chosen profession involved using force to compel someone to give me their money, I would pay attention to the probability of my targets being able to defend themselves. The ability of an armed citizenry to protect themselves make it very difficult for criminals like this to operate.
That is only applicable if said person is intelligent and rational enough to do so and even if they are, they may also understand that the probability of someone actually having a concealed carry permit, and having a weapon with them, is fairly low.
So while I agree that the potential for deterrent exists for the concealed carry permit to have any effect at the implied scenario, that potential must equal or exceed a significant portion of the other risks that said individual has already chosen to ignore and in practice it doesn't. In general, I think the conclusion that allowing carrying concealed weapons has a practical impact as a crime deterrent is a false one. i.e. The probability that someone close by, having a concealed weapon, and is willing to risk themselves, is less than the probability of, lets say, a police officer ( on or off duty but armed ) being close by.
With regards to the Second Amendment of the US Constitution and The Bill of Rights it states "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed". Note, it says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" and not "the right of the individual to keep and bear arms". The Constitution makes the distinction between the rights of individuals ( e.g. Third Amendment ) and the rights of the people is several places.
So, while We the People have the right to bear arms, We the People also has the ability to determine the individuals who will have the privilege to represent We the People to exercise this right ( e.g. Police, Citizens who have completed a firearms safety course, etc. ) and who will not ( e.g. mentally imbalanced, criminals, etc. ). My take on a Right is that it cannot be denied. If you ( general ) want to stand by the argument that the right to bear arms is an individual one, then you argue that individuals that are mentally imbalanced, criminals, etc. and may also legally bear arms.
Queue the infomercial fading in on a dusty and empty workshop full of well worn hand tools. Now fade in the missing workers lovingly hand crafting internets. Queue the strong and solemn voice warning of the dangers of mass production, of internets full of "pron" and the loss of the noble life of the artisan. Fade out the workers to the dusty and empty workshop. The sound of wind and a tumble weed blows by. Queue the strong and solemn voice: "Don't let this happen". Fade to black.
Actually, there was a period very early on ('50s) when it was naively thought that "we'll have thinking machines within five years!" That's a paraphrase from a now-hilarious film reel interview with an MIT prof from the early 1950's.
Defiantly in need of the silhouette of Joel, Crow and Tom then.
"sale"? You, my friend, have never been a service station off an interstate that extorts the hapless souls who trudge in and who are in need of a gas can.
In short, you can't reason someone out of something they were not reasoned into.
... that approach can run into problems with myths and religious beliefs "No, it DID happen, but it was a SPIRITUAL end to the world"...
That's when you make the sign of the Devil and tell them: "Glad to see you're still here. I'd like to be the first to officially welcome you to the team. I always enjoyed your work."
That's your opinion and just because you have one doesn't make it the correct choice.
In fact, I do remember how the web was before CMS came around. I remember people handing me MS Word documents saved as 150KB+ HTML files. Or having to clean up sections of the corporate site where someone cut-and-pasted from MS Word into the site.
And to Sopssa, He fails to realize that Drupal can be hardened and has the benefit of several years of testing and user feedback unlike a custom system.
I clearly remember the days before CMS and it looked like this.
Re:Why the need to 'discover' the elements?
on
Element 114 Verified
·
· Score: 5, Informative
Iron Oxide is not the degradation of the iron atom but the binding of the molecule to Oxygen. In fact, nuclei of the iron atom has one of the highest binding energies per nucleon.
To the right of the apex in the chart above, fission is the process to release energy. To the left of the apex, fusion. At the apex, one of the elements you will find is iron. To make a long story short, this chart is one of the reasons why you find iron cores in stars.
I can't argue with your statement, in fact I agree.
To be honest, I just think there are bigger problems right now but I know in a few months my inbox will see something like "AMAZING MATH! OBAMA IS SATAN!" in the subject header from a very specific conservative who will take it seriously. In the body will be a very complex formula that if you simplify it, will result in:
- Look at the date Obama won the prize. - Take the numeral representation for the month of October and Subtract 4 - Subtract 3 from date. - Take the last digit of the year and also subtract 3.
OMG!!!! 666!!!!!
/facepalm
I'll try to explain but then I'll get something like "I don't have to explain my position" as a response. To which I'll surrender any hope of any meaningful political dialogue, vow to send everything that person sends into the spam folder. Yet I relent and I keep trying like a fool.
I have complete faith in the fact that as technology changes, someone will find a way to cash in. It just boils down to the fact that those playing the copyright martyrdom card* have come to understand that, that someone might not be them and the situation is intolerable.
* not to be confused with an actual copyright issue.
But Nobel's will stated that the Prize should go "to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses."
First, you better define "the best". Then hire your lawyer.
"...have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations..."
How do you define "the best"?
While "the most" does require time, "the best" has no time constraint. "the best" work for fraternity between nations could very well be a change in foreign policy.
Also, does "the best" require that the initial act must have a direct goal of creating peace? Can the act be something else and have a secondary profound effect on promoting peace?
Folks are simply pointing out that by turning a once deeply-respected "Peace Prize" into a prize for "Politics With Which The Committee Happens to Agree", they cheapen the value of the prize. That mild criticism in no way undermines anyone's right.
But as I have previously pointed out, that's what the Nobel Peace Prize has been since the first prize was awarded. Someone can't win the peace prize unless that person acts in a certain way that promotes the Foundation's political view point and goals. Correct?
And this cheapening is not new - they've been going down that unfortunate road for years. Picking a President who's so early in his term that he hasn't had a chance to enact any of his initiatives just makes the farce even more obvious.
and
Even the recipient seemed embarrassed by it (to Obama's credit).
He should politely refuse it. All the detractors who say he does not deserve it will be disarmed and yet he'll still be able to use what political clout the Prize grants.
However, deep down, the cynic in me is telling me some hacker is celebrating and getting drunk off his ass for pulling off the ultimate hack.
Mobilized or not, agreed with or not, the Nobel Foundation is a private institution and, according to a common stance held by most conservatives, it is completely within their right to award their prizes how they damn well choose.
Slashdot Mirror
... but I would expect that if my chosen profession involved using force to compel someone to give me their money, I would pay attention to the probability of my targets being able to defend themselves. The ability of an armed citizenry to protect themselves make it very difficult for criminals like this to operate.
That is only applicable if said person is intelligent and rational enough to do so and even if they are, they may also understand that the probability of someone actually having a concealed carry permit, and having a weapon with them, is fairly low.
So while I agree that the potential for deterrent exists for the concealed carry permit to have any effect at the implied scenario, that potential must equal or exceed a significant portion of the other risks that said individual has already chosen to ignore and in practice it doesn't. In general, I think the conclusion that allowing carrying concealed weapons has a practical impact as a crime deterrent is a false one. i.e. The probability that someone close by, having a concealed weapon, and is willing to risk themselves, is less than the probability of, lets say, a police officer ( on or off duty but armed ) being close by.
With regards to the Second Amendment of the US Constitution and The Bill of Rights it states "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed". Note, it says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" and not "the right of the individual to keep and bear arms". The Constitution makes the distinction between the rights of individuals ( e.g. Third Amendment ) and the rights of the people is several places.
So, while We the People have the right to bear arms, We the People also has the ability to determine the individuals who will have the privilege to represent We the People to exercise this right ( e.g. Police, Citizens who have completed a firearms safety course, etc. ) and who will not ( e.g. mentally imbalanced, criminals, etc. ). My take on a Right is that it cannot be denied. If you ( general ) want to stand by the argument that the right to bear arms is an individual one, then you argue that individuals that are mentally imbalanced, criminals, etc. and may also legally bear arms.
That's my position on the matter anyway
You don't really get the concept of deterrents do you?
Sorry, you mention "deterrents" in connection with concealed carry permits and I cannot help but think of the following quote.
Dr. Strangelove: Of course, the whole point of a Doomsday Machine is lost, if you keep it a secret!
I died laughing when someone opened the box.
What about the Muzak?
Blame it on mass production...
Queue the infomercial fading in on a dusty and empty workshop full of well worn hand tools. Now fade in the missing workers lovingly hand crafting internets. Queue the strong and solemn voice warning of the dangers of mass production, of internets full of "pron" and the loss of the noble life of the artisan. Fade out the workers to the dusty and empty workshop. The sound of wind and a tumble weed blows by. Queue the strong and solemn voice: "Don't let this happen". Fade to black.
Fin
My very own Internet! Gee, Thanks!...
I think
And if Microsoft and Windows are one of your biggest concerns in the World, you really need to get a grip and a life.
Where does feeling compelled to pontificate about personal philosophy on the internet fit in on that scale?
Actually, there was a period very early on ('50s) when it was naively thought that "we'll have thinking machines within five years!" That's a paraphrase from a now-hilarious film reel interview with an MIT prof from the early 1950's.
Defiantly in need of the silhouette of Joel, Crow and Tom then.
Must have been wearing a Foreigner belt
HUGE sale on extension cords...
"sale"? You, my friend, have never been a service station off an interstate that extorts the hapless souls who trudge in and who are in need of a gas can.
... the robots won't go berserk for at least another 24 hours.
In short, you can't reason someone out of something they were not reasoned into.
... that approach can run into problems with myths and religious beliefs "No, it DID happen, but it was a SPIRITUAL end to the world" ...
That's when you make the sign of the Devil and tell them: "Glad to see you're still here. I'd like to be the first to officially welcome you to the team. I always enjoyed your work."
heh, I can see all the windows-1252 curved quotes showing up as garbage text even now...
That's your opinion and just because you have one doesn't make it the correct choice.
In fact, I do remember how the web was before CMS came around. I remember people handing me MS Word documents saved as 150KB+ HTML files. Or having to clean up sections of the corporate site where someone cut-and-pasted from MS Word into the site.
Heck, people made a living off writing software just to clean up the mess. Eliminate clutter in Microsoft Word generated HTML files with the Office 2000 HTML Filter
And to Sopssa, He fails to realize that Drupal can be hardened and has the benefit of several years of testing and user feedback unlike a custom system.
I clearly remember the days before CMS and it looked like this.
<html xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40" > <head > <meta name=Title content="This is normal unformatted text" > <meta name=Keywords content="" > <meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8" > <meta name=ProgId content=Word.Document > <meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 10" > <meta name=Originator content="Microsoft Word 10" > <link rel=File-List href="WordtoHTML_files/filelist.xml" > <title >This is normal unformatted text </title > <!--[if gte mso 9] > <xml > <o:DocumentProperties > <o:Author >Elizabeth Pyatt </o:Author > <o:Template >Normal </o:Template > <o:LastAuthor >Elizabeth Pyatt </o:LastAuthor > <o:Revision >1 </o:Revision > <o:TotalTime >1 </o:TotalTime > <o:Created >2003-10-22T19:05:00Z </o:Created > <o:LastSaved >2003-10-22T19:06:00Z </o:LastSaved > <o:Pages >1 </o:Pages > <o:Company >ETS </o:Company > <o:Lines >1 </o:Lines > <o:Paragraphs >1 </o:Paragraphs > <o:Version >10.2418 </o:Version > </o:DocumentProperties > </xml > <![endif]-- > <!--[if gte mso 9] > <xml > <w:WordDocument > <w:DisplayHorizontalDrawingGridEvery >0 </w:DisplayHorizontalDrawingGridEvery > <w:DisplayVerticalDrawingGridEvery >0 </w:DisplayVerticalDrawingGridEvery > <w:UseMarginsForDrawingGridOrigin/ > <w:Compatibility > <w:SpaceForUL/ > <w:BalanceSingleByteDoubleByteWidth/ > <w:DoNotLeaveBackslashAlone/ > <w:ULTrailSpace/ > <w:DoNotExpandShiftReturn/ > <w:AdjustLineHeightInTable/ > </w:Compatibility > </w:WordDocument > </xml > <![endif]-- > <style > <!-- /* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Times New Roman";
panose-1:0 2 2 6 3 5 4 5 2 3;
mso-font-charset:0;
mso-generic-font-family:auto;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:50331648 0 0 0 1 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:Arial;
panose-1:0 2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2;
mso-font-charset:0;
mso-generic-font-family:auto;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:50331648 0 0 0 1 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:Palatino;
panose-1:0 2 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0;
mso-font-charset:0;
mso-generic-font-family:auto;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:50331648 0 0 0 1 0;} /* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{mso-style-parent:"";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:Palatino;}
h3
{mso-style-next:Normal;
margin-top:12.0pt;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:3.0pt;
margin-left:0in;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
page-break-after:avoid;
mso-outline-level:3;
font-size:13.0pt;
font-family:Helvetica;}
p.MsoBodyText, li.M
Wait... aren't laws based on precedent and if, as you say "they are producing legal art", are they not violating the copyright of that previous work?
...what are they going to call sparkplugs now?
Iron Oxide is not the degradation of the iron atom but the binding of the molecule to Oxygen. In fact, nuclei of the iron atom has one of the highest binding energies per nucleon.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Binding_energy_curve_-_common_isotopes.svg
To the right of the apex in the chart above, fission is the process to release energy. To the left of the apex, fusion. At the apex, one of the elements you will find is iron. To make a long story short, this chart is one of the reasons why you find iron cores in stars.
Our solar system is gay.
I can't argue with your statement, in fact I agree.
To be honest, I just think there are bigger problems right now but I know in a few months my inbox will see something like "AMAZING MATH! OBAMA IS SATAN!" in the subject header from a very specific conservative who will take it seriously. In the body will be a very complex formula that if you simplify it, will result in:
- Look at the date Obama won the prize.
- Take the numeral representation for the month of October and Subtract 4
- Subtract 3 from date.
- Take the last digit of the year and also subtract 3.
OMG!!!! 666!!!!!
/facepalm
I'll try to explain but then I'll get something like "I don't have to explain my position" as a response. To which I'll surrender any hope of any meaningful political dialogue, vow to send everything that person sends into the spam folder. Yet I relent and I keep trying like a fool.
I have complete faith in the fact that as technology changes, someone will find a way to cash in. It just boils down to the fact that those playing the copyright martyrdom card* have come to understand that, that someone might not be them and the situation is intolerable.
* not to be confused with an actual copyright issue.
From Stradivarius' comment
But Nobel's will stated that the Prize should go "to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses."
First, you better define "the best". Then hire your lawyer.
Please read Stradivarius' comment and my reply to it.
"...have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations..."
How do you define "the best"?
While "the most" does require time, "the best" has no time constraint. "the best" work for fraternity between nations could very well be a change in foreign policy.
Also, does "the best" require that the initial act must have a direct goal of creating peace? Can the act be something else and have a secondary profound effect on promoting peace?
Folks are simply pointing out that by turning a once deeply-respected "Peace Prize" into a prize for "Politics With Which The Committee Happens to Agree", they cheapen the value of the prize. That mild criticism in no way undermines anyone's right.
But as I have previously pointed out, that's what the Nobel Peace Prize has been since the first prize was awarded. Someone can't win the peace prize unless that person acts in a certain way that promotes the Foundation's political view point and goals. Correct?
And this cheapening is not new - they've been going down that unfortunate road for years. Picking a President who's so early in his term that he hasn't had a chance to enact any of his initiatives just makes the farce even more obvious.
and
Even the recipient seemed embarrassed by it (to Obama's credit).
He should politely refuse it. All the detractors who say he does not deserve it will be disarmed and yet he'll still be able to use what political clout the Prize grants.
However, deep down, the cynic in me is telling me some hacker is celebrating and getting drunk off his ass for pulling off the ultimate hack.
Mobilized or not, agreed with or not, the Nobel Foundation is a private institution and, according to a common stance held by most conservatives, it is completely within their right to award their prizes how they damn well choose.