Did you see the Amanda Knox trial? This is the same legal system that convicted 2 obviously innocent people of murder with no evidence and sentenced them to prison for over 20 years even though they had already CONVICTED SOMEONE ELSE FOR THE SAME CRIME!
My wife and I had planned on visiting Italy in the next few years. After watching the trial, we changed our minds. Italy's legal system has... "flaws."
As the AC who posted before me stated, bottle caps were the currency of Fallout 1, a game by Black Isle. They switched in Fallout 2 and it was one of the changes people didn't like. When Bethesda did Fallout 3, they switched the currency back to bottle caps.
If you're going to call something "sheer genius", please give the credit where the credit is actually due: the folks from Black Isle. I loved Fallout 3 and think Bethesda did a great job, but there is very little in Fallout 3 that Bethesda actually came up with conceptually on their own; it's nearly all expanding on Black Isle's previous work (it IS after all a sequel).
The true value of college for the most successful people in the country is not education, it's networking. Who you befriend in college and the contacts and connections you form are the greatest value you can gain from college. Successfully taking advantage of networking opportunities requires one NOT be socially inept or awkward. Being younger than everyone else puts one at a disadvantage in such situations. You only get one shot at undergrad college really. If you take that shot while too young, you'll never get the most out of it. Sure you may get an education, but you won't get the same friends.
So sure, someone who goes to college early may enter the workplace earlier as well. They are more likely to enter the workplace at a lower point of entry though. Someone who enters college at the appropriate age will have greater social opportunities in college and thus greater potential for forge contacts and connections which will in turn land them a much better job when they graduate. Obviously this is provided they take advantage of those opportunities. Someone younger will simply not have those opportunities presented.
Networking is the real value of ivy league schools. Truthfully, the difference in what you learn at an ivy league school and what you learn at a "decent" university is marginal (based more on the student than the college). The true value of ivy league schools is that they are full of rich kids. Rich kids have rich parents who frequently hold positions of power. Befriend a rich kid and their parents and your likelihood of landing an extremely high paying position after college increases dramatically. I would go so far as to argue that most executive positions are only available to such people and that without those connections you will likely NEVER be able to land such a position.
Anyway, to sum it up, college's true value isn't just education; it also has social value. A younger individual may be ready for a college education, but such a person will be at an extreme disadvantage socially. In turn this puts them at a disadvantage for life rather than giving them a "head start." If giving someone a "head start" is the real concern, then you might as well drop out of high school at 16, get a GED, and get a job. You'll be working at 16 instead of "losing years" in high school and college. Landing a good job isn't just about your education, it's about your connections.
If the regulations were such that regular inspections were required and a limited number of licenses awarded by the government, then likely the first US online casinos would be run by existing casino chains. The cost of entry, due to extreme regulation requirements would result in a very small "playing field." So if I were to guess, you'd likely have only half a dozen or so actual online casino corporations running many sites. Sands, MGM Mirage, Harrahs, Wynn, Tropicana and maybe a couple others would get licenses.
Public demand would only require 1 or 2. The strict regulation would give the public enough trust in those online casinos such that they'd likely kill any and all business from offshore online casinos in the US.
Obviously this isn't the most free market solution, but industries such as gambling inherently are more prone to fraud and thus enforcement must be stricter.
On a side note, I think this would actually benefit those brick and mortar casinos greatly. They could start by creating an online version of each of their real casinos, filling them with advertisements for the real thing complete with show previews, etc. They could link up their compensation programs etc. which would all result I think in greater business. They could also use the web as a medium to test out various themes before building them. Building a themed casino is extremely risky. That's why all the new casinos in Vegas lack any theme; they are all modern contemporary clones now. Sure it's difficult to stand out, but there's less risk of being something people deliberately avoid. If you ask anyone what their favorite casino on the strip is, I can almost guarantee it won't be any of those new themeless casinos. Most people will mention places like The Venetian, Bellagio, or Paris. By creating a website first, they can test out the possible popularity of a theme ahead of time. If it proves to be popular, demand will be obvious and creating a themed hotel/casino based on that theme becomes considerably less risky.
I was arguing that without any disincentive, casinos will cheat. Then you said casinos can make money without cheating. Where in my post did I say that casinos can't make money without cheating? I wasn't talking about whether or not a casino can make money without cheating, I was talking about reasons why a casino would NOT cheat. Casinos are businesses. The purpose of a business is to make money. More specifically to make as much money as possible. A simple risk benefit analysis will clearly show that if there are no repercussions for cheating, then it is in the casino's best interest to cheat. They will find the optimal balance between cheating and playing fairly to keep players playing but steal as much as they can from them.
In Vegas, it is rare for casinos to cheat because the penalty for doing so and the likelihood of being caught are both high. This risk outweighs any potential increase in revenue. So by and large, they don't cheat. The rules are fair and clearly posted for all to see.
But, if you own an online casino, why in the world would you play fair? Why wouldn't you cheat? There is no risk of being caught and no penalty if you are caught. The reward however is greatly increased income over what you already make. Money is good, more money is better. The only thing you have to worry about is word getting around that you cheat and thus driving away players. With carefully crafted cheating combined with some astroturfing and shills, you can easily avoid that.
One of the problems with overseas casinos is lack of oversight. With no oversight, there's a very good chance that the casino you are logged into will cheat. After all, why not? What have they got to lose? It's not like you can report them to some authority. Heck, even online poker they can throw in a house hand that wins in addition to taking a cut of the pot officially. Nothing to stop them.
So what does legalizing it in the US get? It allows for oversight. Sure some places will break or bend the rules, but there will be risk in that for them so it's less likely. At the very least it wouldn't likely be rampant like it is with overseas online casinos. Any online casino based in the US would be regulated by local, state, and federal gambling boards. These boards would work to ensure payout percentages, and check for cheating. it'd be tougher than regulating brick and mortar casinos, but some oversight and regulation is better than none.
I used to think that was true insight into the reality of the world. After seeing Unforgiven, I viewed all the scenes of quickdrawing and such from old westerns as Hollywood bs impossiblities.
Then I saw some of the things guys like Bob Munden and Jerry Miculek can do. Jerry Miculek can draw and fire 5 shots on target in under 1 second. I've seen Bob Munden split a playing card in half by shooting the thin edge FROM THE HIP. That means no aiming, just draw and fire from the hip. I've also seen an exhibition shooter draw, fire 6 shots, 3 targets, 2 on each target with a single action revolver all in under 3 seconds. Go shooting at a range some time and have someone time you. You'll be SHOCKED at how fast that is when you try to put yourself in that scenario.
However, these are examples of the best in the world. Hardly typical. So for MOST, Little Bill's advice is correct.
If you think about it, basic decapitation is a pretty simple injury. I think it seems to me entirely feasible for future medical technology to be able to re-attach someone's head and bring them back to life if done early enough. Doctors are able to re-attach limbs, reconnecting nerves and muscles. Re-attaching someone's head would be a logical extension of such procedures.
Kids who are more physically developed than others tend to be more popular. Kids who are more popular wind up getting more positive attention showered on them. While many put no currency in high school popularity, the skills required to attain high school popularity are actually very similar to those required to attain popularity elsewhere in life. The key to a job that pays well is networking skills, not intelligence. Looking at any top executive will tell you that. If a kid learns what it takes to make friends easily early on, the easier it will be for them to make friends when they are older. The end result is that they have a greater chance of getting a higher paying job right out of college and ultimately a higher ceiling on pay throughout their adult life.
So holding a kid back a year may deprive them of a year's worth of a crappy salary, but consequently give them a lifetime of better salary that many times over makes up for the lost year.
Cops charge you big money when you're car is stolen. They put it in an impound lot and you have to pay to get your own car back after someone else stole it.
People familiar with impound procedure but never had any dealings with theft for fraud before, and are ignorant of the law, may simply think it's similar. The legal system is rife with fees.
Becoming a doctor? But.. but... you have "Socialist Medicine"!! How could it be that your doctors make good money???
In all seriousness though, the three career paths you listed are likely to be the best 3 in nearly any nation: finance, law, medicine (in order of richest to not quite the richest).
$2,000,000 to $54,000, it's still an 8th amendment violation:
"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."
Even if they were to go so far as to call it theft, she "stole" what amounted to a market value of $24. United States v. Bajakajian established some precedence for the ratio at which a fine is considered "excessive". That is, $357,000 fine for $10,000 in damage was considered "excessive." So over 35.7 times the value is "excessive". By that ratio, anything more than $856 would be a violation of 8th amendment rights.
Honestly, $856 is enough to be a deterrent if you ask me, but not enough to totally and irrevocably destroy a person's life (as a $54,000 fine would do to her).
As Robert Heinlein once said, an armed society is a polite society. Honestly it doesn't matter where you live, the potential for you being attacked is there. Simply having a firearm statistically reduces those chances. In bad neighborhoods, not being armed is a bad idea. In most assault situations, simply displaying the firearm, or drawing the firearm is enough to end the threat.
As for not feeling it's "civilized", that may be your opinion, but that opinion has no impact on reality. The reality of the matter is, if you live in a bad neighborhood, or pas through a bad neighborhood on a regular basis, you risk attack at some point. Choosing not to carry because you think you shouldn't have to is wishful thinking.
Last but not least, this nation was founded on the concept of freedom and a cornerstone of that freedom is that all citizens should be armed. There's a good reason why the ability to be well armed is ranked only just under freedom of speech, religion, and press. If you want a good example of what a fully armed society looks like, check out Switzerland. Every able bodied male citizen is REQUIRED to have a firearm. Shooting is the national sport.
I highly recommend you purchase a handgun and get a Conceal Carry permit. Florida is a "shall issue" state, so unless you have a criminal record or have been involuntarily committed to an mental institution in the past, you'll be approved. Florida also has a strong Castle Doctrine, so you are well protected by the law should you have to use a firearm in self defense. There are many holsters which are quite comfortable and fit snugly and securely.
Spiderman 2
I also really liked Hulk: Ultimate Destruction, but that wasn't based on the movie. You could say they later mad ea movie based on it though.
Well to be fair to Eugene Stoner, the infamous M16 jams turned out to be a problem with the ammo being too hot (i.e. too much powder charge), and not with the rifle itself. Despite this, AR made changes to the M16 to be able to hander much hotter loads.
It can also be an escape from RL for the disabled. I know several disabled individuals that play SL on a regular basis. For them it makes real life a little easier to cope with knowing they have someplace they can go to where they aren't limited by their disabilities.
For example, letting a company gain a monopoly in a particular region/industry is bad
Why?
Monopolies that help the monopoly holder sustain unnaturally high profits are unsustainable without coercion, and in western society, coercion is done by governments.
IOW: if there is a monopoly out there that is over charging you and reaping huge profits, they are not long for the world unless they have a government propping them up somehow.
Not necessarily. Let's say cost of entry to a particular industry is high for reasons completely outside government control. Let's say a company has grown so large that they have enough resources to buy out any smaller company that starts up. If the cost of entry is high enough, the rate at which new startups happen is fairly slow then there could be more money made via having a monopoly than the cost of buying all the competition. In such a scenario, the monopoly holder can then charge whatever they want, offer whatever level of service they want, and there is NOTHING anyone legally can do to stop them. All done without coercion.
Additionally, you ignore human nature. You say that monopolies that form naturally are not long for this world. Hogwash. Why? Because if a company has gained that kind of power, however short the tenure of that power would have been naturally, once attained they WILL use that power to purchase laws which will then enforce their control. Letting it get to that point in the first place where they would be in a position to have that level of influence is the problem; the entire reason for anti-trust laws. Anti-trust laws are about making it so it is difficult to attain a position of power that gives enough legal influence to enforce legislation and regulation which is counter to the public interest and the market interest.
If it was truly an issue of the profits being too high, a different market place entrant could provide the same or similar product/service, at the same or worse efficiency, and at a cheaper consumer price, with the difference being taken out of the healthy profit margin.
If there is a monopoly or near-monopoly without government collusion, then there is no problem, because it is by definition not fleecing customers [nothing would protect its margins from an upstart who could safetly cut into them].
Sometimes a particular company just does a really good job and gets a lot of market share. That's not a bad thing.
As explained, not necessarily true. The large company could potentially purchase all market entrants to prevent competition. If the cost of entry is great enough, the frequency and number of entrants will be low enough to make this economically feasible to the larger company.
Additionally, there are legal ways in which a large company can potentially artificially increase the cost of entry without use of government power. For example, if cost of entry to an industry requires the use of a limited resource of which the larger company has already cornered the market on, then the larger company can inflate the price of that resource to a level that makes cost of entry to the market too high to be economically feasible. Worse still they can simply refuse to sell that resource to parties interested in entering the marketplace in that other industry making entry flat out impossible.
It is true that such behavior, when let to run rampant will eventually lead to the demise of those companies; it will only do so when there is a world-wide economic crash. Said crash would be a direct result of this behavior. We know this happens because there is a history of this happening about once every 20 years during the 19th century. There were very minimal business regulations of the time, and the results were disastrous.
Ultimately the reason the free market doesn't work is the same reason true communism doesn't work. Not because the idea is unsound, but because it simply can't exist in a world run by corruptible human beings.
Not all regulation is created equal, and that is why the argument from the "free market" folks is a false dichotomy. For example, letting a company gain a monopoly in a particular region/industry is bad. Enacting regulations which actually FORCE a monopoly is even worse. One is free market, the other is not, both are bad.
It is not a matter of free market or not a free market. It is a matter of what regulation.
I would be willing to sacrifice my time, and give the gift of my knowledge and skills to the task of reviewing grant proposals.
But first, let me just right up this grant proposal...
Ok, I have an odd question. If a patient comes in with one or more ailments, and those ailments can all be cured by exercise, then why can't a doctor prescribe exercise and that's it? Why isn't the doctor allowed to say "no, a pill won't help you, exercise will"?
You can try to say it's because the person isn't statistically likely to follow up and actually do the exercise, but by the same token, that's the same as if a person is prescribed one or more pills and doesn't take them. Once the doctor gives the prescription, if the patient doesn't follow it, it's their own fault.
Of course we know why doctors prescribe pills and surgery where exercise would work better. Because they make more money that way. They get kickbacks from pharmaceutical companies. They make tons of cash from expensive surgeries. They make practically nothing when someone goes and exercises to cure themselves of their ailments. So really, the problem with the healthcare system is that the incentives are out of whack. Doctors do not have an incentive to cure people, they have an incentive to bill them as much as possible. So the real answer to fixing the healthcare system is finding a way to change the incentives to improving the health of patients. In a private system, I just don't see that as possible. For government run hospitals and government paid doctors though, it could be done by showing how many to what degree patients' health has improved, and issue bonuses and pay raises based on that alone, rather than basing compensation on how much was billed.
If you look at the trial manuscript and evidence presented, you'll see that the woman didn't just get burned. She had the flesh literally melted off of half her thigh. It was remarked that her burns looked like something from a napalm victim. Additionally, all she and her family had asked of McD's was that they pay her medical bills and no more. FFS, she had to have multiple skin grafts and couldn't walk because of the incident. McD's didn't serve "hot coffee." They served napalm in a cup.
You know, taking every last thing a person has leaves you with someone who has nothing to lose. One of these days the RIAA's laywers are going to win a punitive suit against the wrong person, and I just hope that I am nowhere near the building the lawfirm is in when it happens.
I was just going to say the same thing. Stripping someone of all they have leaves them with nothing to lose, and people with nothing to lose have a tendency to do very rash and sometimes very violent things.
They aren't just making her penniless. They aren't just taking everything she HAS. They are taking everything she has, and everything she ever WILL have. This doesn't just take away a person's possessions, it takes away their entire ability to ever hope to gain anything. In that scenario, prison may be far more attractive than life on the street. Essentially, the RIAA are incentivising felony crime through this judgement.
In other words, they aren't just inviting violence against them and their associates via injustice. They are actually indirectly REWARDING violent reaction by those they strip of property and capability to generic income.
Do that to one or two people and you can keep track of them. But do it to dozens, hundreds, and don't expect your buildings to stay standing for very long.
Slashdot Mirror
Did you see the Amanda Knox trial? This is the same legal system that convicted 2 obviously innocent people of murder with no evidence and sentenced them to prison for over 20 years even though they had already CONVICTED SOMEONE ELSE FOR THE SAME CRIME!
... "flaws."
My wife and I had planned on visiting Italy in the next few years. After watching the trial, we changed our minds. Italy's legal system has
As the AC who posted before me stated, bottle caps were the currency of Fallout 1, a game by Black Isle. They switched in Fallout 2 and it was one of the changes people didn't like. When Bethesda did Fallout 3, they switched the currency back to bottle caps.
If you're going to call something "sheer genius", please give the credit where the credit is actually due: the folks from Black Isle. I loved Fallout 3 and think Bethesda did a great job, but there is very little in Fallout 3 that Bethesda actually came up with conceptually on their own; it's nearly all expanding on Black Isle's previous work (it IS after all a sequel).
The true value of college for the most successful people in the country is not education, it's networking. Who you befriend in college and the contacts and connections you form are the greatest value you can gain from college. Successfully taking advantage of networking opportunities requires one NOT be socially inept or awkward. Being younger than everyone else puts one at a disadvantage in such situations. You only get one shot at undergrad college really. If you take that shot while too young, you'll never get the most out of it. Sure you may get an education, but you won't get the same friends.
So sure, someone who goes to college early may enter the workplace earlier as well. They are more likely to enter the workplace at a lower point of entry though. Someone who enters college at the appropriate age will have greater social opportunities in college and thus greater potential for forge contacts and connections which will in turn land them a much better job when they graduate. Obviously this is provided they take advantage of those opportunities. Someone younger will simply not have those opportunities presented.
Networking is the real value of ivy league schools. Truthfully, the difference in what you learn at an ivy league school and what you learn at a "decent" university is marginal (based more on the student than the college). The true value of ivy league schools is that they are full of rich kids. Rich kids have rich parents who frequently hold positions of power. Befriend a rich kid and their parents and your likelihood of landing an extremely high paying position after college increases dramatically. I would go so far as to argue that most executive positions are only available to such people and that without those connections you will likely NEVER be able to land such a position.
Anyway, to sum it up, college's true value isn't just education; it also has social value. A younger individual may be ready for a college education, but such a person will be at an extreme disadvantage socially. In turn this puts them at a disadvantage for life rather than giving them a "head start." If giving someone a "head start" is the real concern, then you might as well drop out of high school at 16, get a GED, and get a job. You'll be working at 16 instead of "losing years" in high school and college. Landing a good job isn't just about your education, it's about your connections.
If the regulations were such that regular inspections were required and a limited number of licenses awarded by the government, then likely the first US online casinos would be run by existing casino chains. The cost of entry, due to extreme regulation requirements would result in a very small "playing field." So if I were to guess, you'd likely have only half a dozen or so actual online casino corporations running many sites. Sands, MGM Mirage, Harrahs, Wynn, Tropicana and maybe a couple others would get licenses.
Public demand would only require 1 or 2. The strict regulation would give the public enough trust in those online casinos such that they'd likely kill any and all business from offshore online casinos in the US.
Obviously this isn't the most free market solution, but industries such as gambling inherently are more prone to fraud and thus enforcement must be stricter.
On a side note, I think this would actually benefit those brick and mortar casinos greatly. They could start by creating an online version of each of their real casinos, filling them with advertisements for the real thing complete with show previews, etc. They could link up their compensation programs etc. which would all result I think in greater business. They could also use the web as a medium to test out various themes before building them. Building a themed casino is extremely risky. That's why all the new casinos in Vegas lack any theme; they are all modern contemporary clones now. Sure it's difficult to stand out, but there's less risk of being something people deliberately avoid. If you ask anyone what their favorite casino on the strip is, I can almost guarantee it won't be any of those new themeless casinos. Most people will mention places like The Venetian, Bellagio, or Paris. By creating a website first, they can test out the possible popularity of a theme ahead of time. If it proves to be popular, demand will be obvious and creating a themed hotel/casino based on that theme becomes considerably less risky.
Nice straw man.
I was arguing that without any disincentive, casinos will cheat. Then you said casinos can make money without cheating. Where in my post did I say that casinos can't make money without cheating? I wasn't talking about whether or not a casino can make money without cheating, I was talking about reasons why a casino would NOT cheat. Casinos are businesses. The purpose of a business is to make money. More specifically to make as much money as possible. A simple risk benefit analysis will clearly show that if there are no repercussions for cheating, then it is in the casino's best interest to cheat. They will find the optimal balance between cheating and playing fairly to keep players playing but steal as much as they can from them.
In Vegas, it is rare for casinos to cheat because the penalty for doing so and the likelihood of being caught are both high. This risk outweighs any potential increase in revenue. So by and large, they don't cheat. The rules are fair and clearly posted for all to see.
But, if you own an online casino, why in the world would you play fair? Why wouldn't you cheat? There is no risk of being caught and no penalty if you are caught. The reward however is greatly increased income over what you already make. Money is good, more money is better. The only thing you have to worry about is word getting around that you cheat and thus driving away players. With carefully crafted cheating combined with some astroturfing and shills, you can easily avoid that.
One of the problems with overseas casinos is lack of oversight. With no oversight, there's a very good chance that the casino you are logged into will cheat. After all, why not? What have they got to lose? It's not like you can report them to some authority. Heck, even online poker they can throw in a house hand that wins in addition to taking a cut of the pot officially. Nothing to stop them.
So what does legalizing it in the US get? It allows for oversight. Sure some places will break or bend the rules, but there will be risk in that for them so it's less likely. At the very least it wouldn't likely be rampant like it is with overseas online casinos. Any online casino based in the US would be regulated by local, state, and federal gambling boards. These boards would work to ensure payout percentages, and check for cheating. it'd be tougher than regulating brick and mortar casinos, but some oversight and regulation is better than none.
I used to think that was true insight into the reality of the world. After seeing Unforgiven, I viewed all the scenes of quickdrawing and such from old westerns as Hollywood bs impossiblities.
Then I saw some of the things guys like Bob Munden and Jerry Miculek can do. Jerry Miculek can draw and fire 5 shots on target in under 1 second. I've seen Bob Munden split a playing card in half by shooting the thin edge FROM THE HIP. That means no aiming, just draw and fire from the hip. I've also seen an exhibition shooter draw, fire 6 shots, 3 targets, 2 on each target with a single action revolver all in under 3 seconds. Go shooting at a range some time and have someone time you. You'll be SHOCKED at how fast that is when you try to put yourself in that scenario.
However, these are examples of the best in the world. Hardly typical. So for MOST, Little Bill's advice is correct.
If you think about it, basic decapitation is a pretty simple injury. I think it seems to me entirely feasible for future medical technology to be able to re-attach someone's head and bring them back to life if done early enough. Doctors are able to re-attach limbs, reconnecting nerves and muscles. Re-attaching someone's head would be a logical extension of such procedures.
Kids who are more physically developed than others tend to be more popular. Kids who are more popular wind up getting more positive attention showered on them. While many put no currency in high school popularity, the skills required to attain high school popularity are actually very similar to those required to attain popularity elsewhere in life. The key to a job that pays well is networking skills, not intelligence. Looking at any top executive will tell you that. If a kid learns what it takes to make friends easily early on, the easier it will be for them to make friends when they are older. The end result is that they have a greater chance of getting a higher paying job right out of college and ultimately a higher ceiling on pay throughout their adult life.
So holding a kid back a year may deprive them of a year's worth of a crappy salary, but consequently give them a lifetime of better salary that many times over makes up for the lost year.
Cops charge you big money when you're car is stolen. They put it in an impound lot and you have to pay to get your own car back after someone else stole it.
People familiar with impound procedure but never had any dealings with theft for fraud before, and are ignorant of the law, may simply think it's similar. The legal system is rife with fees.
Becoming a doctor? But .. but ... you have "Socialist Medicine"!! How could it be that your doctors make good money???
In all seriousness though, the three career paths you listed are likely to be the best 3 in nearly any nation: finance, law, medicine (in order of richest to not quite the richest).
$2,000,000 to $54,000, it's still an 8th amendment violation:
"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."
Even if they were to go so far as to call it theft, she "stole" what amounted to a market value of $24. United States v. Bajakajian established some precedence for the ratio at which a fine is considered "excessive". That is, $357,000 fine for $10,000 in damage was considered "excessive." So over 35.7 times the value is "excessive". By that ratio, anything more than $856 would be a violation of 8th amendment rights.
Honestly, $856 is enough to be a deterrent if you ask me, but not enough to totally and irrevocably destroy a person's life (as a $54,000 fine would do to her).
As Robert Heinlein once said, an armed society is a polite society. Honestly it doesn't matter where you live, the potential for you being attacked is there. Simply having a firearm statistically reduces those chances. In bad neighborhoods, not being armed is a bad idea. In most assault situations, simply displaying the firearm, or drawing the firearm is enough to end the threat.
As for not feeling it's "civilized", that may be your opinion, but that opinion has no impact on reality. The reality of the matter is, if you live in a bad neighborhood, or pas through a bad neighborhood on a regular basis, you risk attack at some point. Choosing not to carry because you think you shouldn't have to is wishful thinking.
Last but not least, this nation was founded on the concept of freedom and a cornerstone of that freedom is that all citizens should be armed. There's a good reason why the ability to be well armed is ranked only just under freedom of speech, religion, and press. If you want a good example of what a fully armed society looks like, check out Switzerland. Every able bodied male citizen is REQUIRED to have a firearm. Shooting is the national sport.
I highly recommend you purchase a handgun and get a Conceal Carry permit. Florida is a "shall issue" state, so unless you have a criminal record or have been involuntarily committed to an mental institution in the past, you'll be approved. Florida also has a strong Castle Doctrine, so you are well protected by the law should you have to use a firearm in self defense. There are many holsters which are quite comfortable and fit snugly and securely.
Spiderman 2
I also really liked Hulk: Ultimate Destruction, but that wasn't based on the movie. You could say they later mad ea movie based on it though.
Well to be fair to Eugene Stoner, the infamous M16 jams turned out to be a problem with the ammo being too hot (i.e. too much powder charge), and not with the rifle itself. Despite this, AR made changes to the M16 to be able to hander much hotter loads.
It can also be an escape from RL for the disabled. I know several disabled individuals that play SL on a regular basis. For them it makes real life a little easier to cope with knowing they have someplace they can go to where they aren't limited by their disabilities.
Why?
Monopolies that help the monopoly holder sustain unnaturally high profits are unsustainable without coercion, and in western society, coercion is done by governments.
IOW: if there is a monopoly out there that is over charging you and reaping huge profits, they are not long for the world unless they have a government propping them up somehow.
Not necessarily. Let's say cost of entry to a particular industry is high for reasons completely outside government control. Let's say a company has grown so large that they have enough resources to buy out any smaller company that starts up. If the cost of entry is high enough, the rate at which new startups happen is fairly slow then there could be more money made via having a monopoly than the cost of buying all the competition. In such a scenario, the monopoly holder can then charge whatever they want, offer whatever level of service they want, and there is NOTHING anyone legally can do to stop them. All done without coercion.
Additionally, you ignore human nature. You say that monopolies that form naturally are not long for this world. Hogwash. Why? Because if a company has gained that kind of power, however short the tenure of that power would have been naturally, once attained they WILL use that power to purchase laws which will then enforce their control. Letting it get to that point in the first place where they would be in a position to have that level of influence is the problem; the entire reason for anti-trust laws. Anti-trust laws are about making it so it is difficult to attain a position of power that gives enough legal influence to enforce legislation and regulation which is counter to the public interest and the market interest.
If it was truly an issue of the profits being too high, a different market place entrant could provide the same or similar product/service, at the same or worse efficiency, and at a cheaper consumer price, with the difference being taken out of the healthy profit margin.
If there is a monopoly or near-monopoly without government collusion, then there is no problem, because it is by definition not fleecing customers [nothing would protect its margins from an upstart who could safetly cut into them].
Sometimes a particular company just does a really good job and gets a lot of market share. That's not a bad thing.
As explained, not necessarily true. The large company could potentially purchase all market entrants to prevent competition. If the cost of entry is great enough, the frequency and number of entrants will be low enough to make this economically feasible to the larger company.
Additionally, there are legal ways in which a large company can potentially artificially increase the cost of entry without use of government power. For example, if cost of entry to an industry requires the use of a limited resource of which the larger company has already cornered the market on, then the larger company can inflate the price of that resource to a level that makes cost of entry to the market too high to be economically feasible. Worse still they can simply refuse to sell that resource to parties interested in entering the marketplace in that other industry making entry flat out impossible.
It is true that such behavior, when let to run rampant will eventually lead to the demise of those companies; it will only do so when there is a world-wide economic crash. Said crash would be a direct result of this behavior. We know this happens because there is a history of this happening about once every 20 years during the 19th century. There were very minimal business regulations of the time, and the results were disastrous.
Ultimately the reason the free market doesn't work is the same reason true communism doesn't work. Not because the idea is unsound, but because it simply can't exist in a world run by corruptible human beings.
Not all regulation is created equal, and that is why the argument from the "free market" folks is a false dichotomy. For example, letting a company gain a monopoly in a particular region/industry is bad. Enacting regulations which actually FORCE a monopoly is even worse. One is free market, the other is not, both are bad.
It is not a matter of free market or not a free market. It is a matter of what regulation.
I would be willing to sacrifice my time, and give the gift of my knowledge and skills to the task of reviewing grant proposals. But first, let me just right up this grant proposal...
There's an Emacs command for that.
Umm, what does the Flu, a VIRUS, have to do with antibiotics, which are treatment for BACTERIAL infections?
Ok, I have an odd question. If a patient comes in with one or more ailments, and those ailments can all be cured by exercise, then why can't a doctor prescribe exercise and that's it? Why isn't the doctor allowed to say "no, a pill won't help you, exercise will"?
You can try to say it's because the person isn't statistically likely to follow up and actually do the exercise, but by the same token, that's the same as if a person is prescribed one or more pills and doesn't take them. Once the doctor gives the prescription, if the patient doesn't follow it, it's their own fault.
Of course we know why doctors prescribe pills and surgery where exercise would work better. Because they make more money that way. They get kickbacks from pharmaceutical companies. They make tons of cash from expensive surgeries. They make practically nothing when someone goes and exercises to cure themselves of their ailments. So really, the problem with the healthcare system is that the incentives are out of whack. Doctors do not have an incentive to cure people, they have an incentive to bill them as much as possible. So the real answer to fixing the healthcare system is finding a way to change the incentives to improving the health of patients. In a private system, I just don't see that as possible. For government run hospitals and government paid doctors though, it could be done by showing how many to what degree patients' health has improved, and issue bonuses and pay raises based on that alone, rather than basing compensation on how much was billed.
If you look at the trial manuscript and evidence presented, you'll see that the woman didn't just get burned. She had the flesh literally melted off of half her thigh. It was remarked that her burns looked like something from a napalm victim. Additionally, all she and her family had asked of McD's was that they pay her medical bills and no more. FFS, she had to have multiple skin grafts and couldn't walk because of the incident. McD's didn't serve "hot coffee." They served napalm in a cup.
You know, taking every last thing a person has leaves you with someone who has nothing to lose. One of these days the RIAA's laywers are going to win a punitive suit against the wrong person, and I just hope that I am nowhere near the building the lawfirm is in when it happens.
I was just going to say the same thing. Stripping someone of all they have leaves them with nothing to lose, and people with nothing to lose have a tendency to do very rash and sometimes very violent things.
They aren't just making her penniless. They aren't just taking everything she HAS. They are taking everything she has, and everything she ever WILL have. This doesn't just take away a person's possessions, it takes away their entire ability to ever hope to gain anything. In that scenario, prison may be far more attractive than life on the street. Essentially, the RIAA are incentivising felony crime through this judgement.
In other words, they aren't just inviting violence against them and their associates via injustice. They are actually indirectly REWARDING violent reaction by those they strip of property and capability to generic income.
Do that to one or two people and you can keep track of them. But do it to dozens, hundreds, and don't expect your buildings to stay standing for very long.