...let me assure you that it is an often congenital condition that causes the eyes to be misaligned. The causal effect doesn't work in the opposite direction: misaligning your eyes does not cause strabismus. The only way to cause strabismus without it being a congenital condition is via nerve lesions, and when it develops after early childhood it usually causes double vision, not amblyopia (which is what this article is describing).
Not to mention that while watching a 3D movie, your eyes are fixating on the same point in space, just seeing different images of it--the 3D effect wouldn't work otherwise.
Not to mention that even if strabismus could be caused by intentionally mis-aligning the eyes (a sort of "don't make a face or it will stick that way"), and 3D movies misaligned the eyes, I can't imagine doing it for a couple hours at a time every few weeks would be a huge deal.
Here's why: I know that when companies over-reach, then it'll be me who's pulling the late nights and weekends to deliver, not the guy that over-sold the product.
It's surely the fault of those monks. I'm convinced that the way they determined how to transliterate using Latin characters was to get piss-drunk and throw darts at a board.
There are also several dialects of Irish that pronounce words very differently--of course, that applies to any language. Watch a New Englander trying to talk to someone from the Deep South.
No guarantee, but just handing over my wallet will most likely prevent me from coming to any harm.
What guarantee do I have that I'd survive if I had a gun and used it? Alternately, what guarantee do I have I won't get struck by lightning next time I step out my door? I don't really expect any guarantees from life.
Particularly when you consider the very strong potential that you won't shoot them dead, at least on the first shot, and there is a less-than-negligible chance they will kill you instead.
Indeed, I just enjoy the irony. At one point I really did get back into my car after buying a latte and said to myself, "Wow. I have become a stereotype."
I'm a dyed-in-the-wool leftist liberal, aside from a few disagreements with the "liberal establishment" on minor points of policy such as nuclear energy, GMO food, and gun control.
Now if you'll pardon me, my iPhone is telling me I need to go put my Macbook into my Prius, stop in for a quick latte, then head downtown to enjoy some organic sustainably-produced pizza and discuss Sartre with some friends.
Dog bite fatalities in the US in 2007: 35. Total number of coyote-attack fatalities in recorded history: 1, 27 years ago. Compare to 800-900 accidental shooting deaths in 2001, and I'll take my chances.
Fair enough, though in my case I live in an urban area. There are plenty of natural dangers outdoors, but really nothing that a gun could help me with.
One reason they don't believe it exists is because there's no "separation of church and state" in the Constitution. All it says is that Congress may not establish a religion.
It says specifically that Congress "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." That is broader than saying Congress may no establish a state religion.
It does not say that Congress can forbid the practice thereof in local communities (which are funded by local communities' taxes, not the Congress).
Supremacy clause. Local communities are also restricted under the Constitution.
Congress certainly cannot "forbid the practice" of religion anywhere, that's the very next part of the First Amendment. But the Religious Right is not worried about the government forbidding them from practicing their religion. They are intent on using the government to force everyone else to conform to their religious beliefs as well, which violates the first clause of the First Amendment.
Well whatever. I support the party that looks like it might actually win an election. That narrows my choice to either Democrats or Republicans.
Libertarian political philosophy != Libertarian Party
And the Supreme Law of the Land says I'm allowed to carry a gun.
True.
The U.S. Supreme Court has gone on record that guns may be used for self-defence
Sort of. Legal precedent related to self-defense comes all the way from English common law, and most states have their own statutes related to it.
for protection of property
False. Protection of property is not a criterion for justifiable homicide anywhere in the United States. Self-defense is, as well as very specific types of property defense, either just your home or, in some states, your home, your car, and your workplace, but only when you are present in those locations and the intruder has broken and entered.
and for overthrowing a tyrannical government.
The Declaration of Independence said that, not the Supreme Court, but close enough.
But the reason that applies only to breaking and entering into your home is that when an intruder is in your home there is an assumption of some threat to your life or limb, or at the very least, the homeowner should be relieved of the responsibility to determine whether any danger is present.
Hm, well, I've never carried a gun in my life, and I've also never been robbed or subjected to violent crime, despite living in a not-very-good part of midtown Atlanta for a couple years. Worst that's happened to me was getting a bike stolen from a sidewalk rack.
Mostly because I was smart about where I went, and when, and with whom. No gun necessary, which is good because even had I wanted to carry, I couldn't have afforded one back then. Can eat a lot of ramen noodles on the price of a handgun.
We live in a society that has this thing called the "rule of law." Under the society in which we live, property crimes are investigated by our criminal justice system, criminals are given trials by a jury of their peers, and punishment is decided by a judge based on laws giving penalties commensurate to the crime convicted.
You appear to be operating under the principle of "frontier justice," wherein the law is essentially "touch my stuff and I'll fucking kill you."
If you decide to act on the latter societal framework, please be prepared to experience the former first-hand.
Heh, Bishop Rock. Awesome. I need somebody to be Cardinal Metal now.
But no, you cut off the sentence. It is:
But I suspect you would be tried for murder, and I hope you'd get convicted, if you "nailed a bastard" trying to steal a car stereo. Theft is not a capital crime and you are not judge, jury, and executioner.
Shooting someone invading your home: justifiable homicide. Shooting someone stealing a car stereo: not justifiable homicide.
Slashdot Mirror
Relevant Dresden Codak: http://dresdencodak.com/2009/09/22/caveman-science-fiction/
"Hey look, Homer's got one of those robot cars."
[CRASH]
"...One of those American robot cars."
...let me assure you that it is an often congenital condition that causes the eyes to be misaligned. The causal effect doesn't work in the opposite direction: misaligning your eyes does not cause strabismus. The only way to cause strabismus without it being a congenital condition is via nerve lesions, and when it develops after early childhood it usually causes double vision, not amblyopia (which is what this article is describing).
Not to mention that while watching a 3D movie, your eyes are fixating on the same point in space, just seeing different images of it--the 3D effect wouldn't work otherwise.
Not to mention that even if strabismus could be caused by intentionally mis-aligning the eyes (a sort of "don't make a face or it will stick that way"), and 3D movies misaligned the eyes, I can't imagine doing it for a couple hours at a time every few weeks would be a huge deal.
I'm 26 and already experiencing this joy.
Pissed means drunk, but I suspect this would only be the beginning of our linguistic difficulties...
A poor attempt at linguistic humour. In my defence, I will cheque with a friend next time and ask him to analyse a rough draught before I post.
Nope, I'm quite sure I meant Irish.
And why would you have to be angry to explain it? :(
It's surely the fault of those monks. I'm convinced that the way they determined how to transliterate using Latin characters was to get piss-drunk and throw darts at a board.
There are also several dialects of Irish that pronounce words very differently--of course, that applies to any language. Watch a New Englander trying to talk to someone from the Deep South.
Could be worse, could be Irish. It's a proven scientific fact that the pronunciation of an Irish word has zero correlation with the way it is written.
Note for example "bhfaighfear" being pronounced "wee-hur." I shit you not. But we digress.
No guarantee, but just handing over my wallet will most likely prevent me from coming to any harm.
What guarantee do I have that I'd survive if I had a gun and used it? Alternately, what guarantee do I have I won't get struck by lightning next time I step out my door? I don't really expect any guarantees from life.
Not being in the situation in the first place.
Particularly when you consider the very strong potential that you won't shoot them dead, at least on the first shot, and there is a less-than-negligible chance they will kill you instead.
Indeed, I just enjoy the irony. At one point I really did get back into my car after buying a latte and said to myself, "Wow. I have become a stereotype."
My self-labeling, or theaveng?
I'm a dyed-in-the-wool leftist liberal, aside from a few disagreements with the "liberal establishment" on minor points of policy such as nuclear energy, GMO food, and gun control.
Now if you'll pardon me, my iPhone is telling me I need to go put my Macbook into my Prius, stop in for a quick latte, then head downtown to enjoy some organic sustainably-produced pizza and discuss Sartre with some friends.
Dog bite fatalities in the US in 2007: 35. Total number of coyote-attack fatalities in recorded history: 1, 27 years ago. Compare to 800-900 accidental shooting deaths in 2001, and I'll take my chances.
In other news, the United States has been officially canine rabies free for over a year.
Fair enough, though in my case I live in an urban area. There are plenty of natural dangers outdoors, but really nothing that a gun could help me with.
The preservation of life by ANY MEANS is the TOP MEDICAL PRIORITY OF ANY DOCTOR.
By watching you pay at a convenience store (as an example). When somebody's wallet has a lot of cash in it, it shows.
He didn't say it had to be their own muscles or bones. For a reliable and cheap weapon, you can't beat a geezer-femur shiv.
One reason they don't believe it exists is because there's no "separation of church and state" in the Constitution. All it says is that Congress may not establish a religion.
It says specifically that Congress "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." That is broader than saying Congress may no establish a state religion.
It does not say that Congress can forbid the practice thereof in local communities (which are funded by local communities' taxes, not the Congress).
Supremacy clause. Local communities are also restricted under the Constitution.
Congress certainly cannot "forbid the practice" of religion anywhere, that's the very next part of the First Amendment. But the Religious Right is not worried about the government forbidding them from practicing their religion. They are intent on using the government to force everyone else to conform to their religious beliefs as well, which violates the first clause of the First Amendment.
Well whatever. I support the party that looks like it might actually win an election. That narrows my choice to either Democrats or Republicans.
Libertarian political philosophy != Libertarian Party
And the Supreme Law of the Land says I'm allowed to carry a gun.
True.
The U.S. Supreme Court has gone on record that guns may be used for self-defence
Sort of. Legal precedent related to self-defense comes all the way from English common law, and most states have their own statutes related to it.
for protection of property
False. Protection of property is not a criterion for justifiable homicide anywhere in the United States. Self-defense is, as well as very specific types of property defense, either just your home or, in some states, your home, your car, and your workplace, but only when you are present in those locations and the intruder has broken and entered.
and for overthrowing a tyrannical government.
The Declaration of Independence said that, not the Supreme Court, but close enough.
But the reason that applies only to breaking and entering into your home is that when an intruder is in your home there is an assumption of some threat to your life or limb, or at the very least, the homeowner should be relieved of the responsibility to determine whether any danger is present.
Hm, well, I've never carried a gun in my life, and I've also never been robbed or subjected to violent crime, despite living in a not-very-good part of midtown Atlanta for a couple years. Worst that's happened to me was getting a bike stolen from a sidewalk rack.
Mostly because I was smart about where I went, and when, and with whom. No gun necessary, which is good because even had I wanted to carry, I couldn't have afforded one back then. Can eat a lot of ramen noodles on the price of a handgun.
What gives them the right to steal a year's worth of my life (how much it cost to pay for the car)? Absolutely no such right exists.
There's some old saying about "two wrongs"...
We live in a society that has this thing called the "rule of law." Under the society in which we live, property crimes are investigated by our criminal justice system, criminals are given trials by a jury of their peers, and punishment is decided by a judge based on laws giving penalties commensurate to the crime convicted.
You appear to be operating under the principle of "frontier justice," wherein the law is essentially "touch my stuff and I'll fucking kill you."
If you decide to act on the latter societal framework, please be prepared to experience the former first-hand.
Heh, Bishop Rock. Awesome. I need somebody to be Cardinal Metal now.
But no, you cut off the sentence. It is:
But I suspect you would be tried for murder, and I hope you'd get convicted, if you "nailed a bastard" trying to steal a car stereo. Theft is not a capital crime and you are not judge, jury, and executioner.
Shooting someone invading your home: justifiable homicide. Shooting someone stealing a car stereo: not justifiable homicide.