Bullshit. I DID RTFA, and I just re-read it three more times. It never specified how the person was carrying it, and do you think he would admit anything less than innocuous? What it did say was this "officers advised Bungie officials to transport the gun more discretely in the future".
While I agree that there ARE cops that abuse their power and use unnecessary force (I'd even go one better and suggest that tasering an unarmed person more than once is blatantly torture, especially for officers trained in multiple techniques, especially when there is more than one officer), they are the minority. You just don't hear about all the times the police restrain themselves. And to say that the news is 'rampamnt' is specious exaggeration. I'd trust the average cop over the average joe schmo dumbass any day.
The difference being the police officer and/or government agent has been trained, certified, and undergoes continuous psychological evaluation in order to carry that firearm, and this can be reasonably assumed. On the other hand, some random idiot. I suspect the person in question was wielding the weapon in a less than innocuous manner, possibly hoping for free publicity. He very easily could have, say, wrapped it in brown paper if he was truly worried about 'harassment'. I realize common sense is about as common as common courtesy anymore, but your post takes the cake.
You are making the mistake of assuming that the shooter is sane and/or intelligent. There are multiple cases where assailants carried guns out in the open on their way to the crime scene, not caring who sees them, possibly subconsciously or even consciously wanting to be stopped. Someone who has these scenarios in their mind doesn't stop to look and see exactly what kind of weapon someone is carrying, they just see a big gun.
Considering Dubya got elected...TWICE, and how many people believe in death panels, is it really any surprise that people have become more gullible and suggestible?
In an age where it is not unheard of for a citizen to gun down schoolmates and coworkers, I think erring on the side of caution when someone is wielding a dangerous looking weapon in a populated area is appropriate no matter what the gun laws are. And I am not a fan of the police by any means.
From the parent: "He believes that health care and energy, especially, could learn a lesson from computing's innovative and relatively government-free history."
I was calling bullshit to that statement, especially where Intel is concerned.
"...computing's innovative and relatively government-free history." Is complete fantasy.
Besides, the contract in question was for software, which Intel was hardly known for before or since. Bailouts come in many forms.
Yeah, not to mention the funding of Bell Labs by the NIH when among other things, the transistor was invented. And it's not like ARPANET (what eventually became the internet, thanks to infrastructure improvements specifically for and due to the public use) had anything to do with selling microprocessors and NIC cards and communications related IC's. And he must have forgotten that 21 million dollar contract from Darpa that intel got in 1992, not to mention government orders for the i860's and i960's, also in the early 90's. Coincidentally close to the development of the Pentium, which could arguably be said to be responsible for their utter domination of the processor market until AMD came back in 1999 with the Athlon followed by the XP and 64, which finally allowed them (coincidentally) a market share almost exactly big enough to prevent claims of monopoly... Talk about revisionist history.
For what it's worth, I agree with him about patents.
It's amazing how many people call the researcher stupid, when they obviously haven't even read the parent. It clearly states that they still react negatively to heat and pressure, so it is NOTHING like the children that are born without feeling.
Actually, we (mostly Americans and Europeans) hooked the third world countries on fossil fuels long ago. With the exception of some Asian countries where motorcycles are popular, many third world countries' cars are old and inefficient, kind of like you'd see in the poorer areas of the American South, except probably more big cars and vans and lass pickup trucks.
Excellent points. I'm not sure why you got modded down. I did, however, want to point out that when I said 'cheapening', I meant less value for the same amount of money. I think you took it to mean inexpensive, as in costing less money for the same amount of value.
Yea, Koresh forbid we research anything other than cheapening products for bigger profit margins. Certainly there's no future in creating cleaner, more efficient energy solutions...
More like there might be no future (or at least a very ugly one) if we DON'T.
Government spending on R&D? That's socialism! I thought everyone knew that taxes are bullshit. It's not like government funded basic research ever gave us anything useful like the transistor.
I guess that's fine if killing innocent people doesn't bother you. Just look at the death row inmates that were on appeals in Detroit and other places when DNA evidence cleared them. The appeals process helps to ensure that there was nothing overlooked, and no shortcuts taken. This is especially necessary in an age of overzealous, dishonest police and prosecutors out to make a name for themselves. There was a case where I live of a man who was sent down as a child and spent over 20 years in jail because of an overzealous sheriff and a dishonest prosecutor who hid exculpatory evidence.
If he had been an adult, he may have gotten the death penalty, and died before anyone knew or bothered to find out the truth. Never mind the real culprit, who was free to murder again.
Then there is the case of that idiot prosecutor in Kern county, California who literally went on a modern day witch hunt (see documentary: Bakersfield's Witchhunt).
When our law system becomes infallible, then we can abolish the appeals process, and not one moment before.
And please no one try to offer the argument of: Well if they're suspected, they must have done SOMETHING wrong. That's just plain ignorant.
SC2 was first announced May 2007... but I'd still agree with you that there is absolutely NO comparison. Blizzard has a long history of pushing back release dates in order to push out extremely polished (especially compared to it's competitors) products. How the merger affects things is yet to be seen.
Fair enough. I still think a regular prison is too good for them though. I think that something along the lines of superjail might be more effective.
From a 'feelings' perspective, I can agree with you and some of the other posters. However I really don't think that's constructive or relevant.
Science requires objectivity. To view the subject objectively, you have to remove the feelings from the equation and view it like an anthropologist viewing a primitive culture. Only then can you make a rational decision based upon facts.
So you are saying that instead of killing people who will remorselessly kill as much as they get the chance* to, we should spend thousands of dollars a year securing them and keeping them alive in a high security prison, where we'll have to potentially staff extra to keep them away from other inmates?
First off, it has been known for decades that it is much more expensive to execute prisoners than to incarcerate them. Here is a collection of stats that are very well attributed:
Between the cost of the death penalty and the subject of the article, it makes complete sense to me to try to study them and try to find ways of rehabilitation and prevention.
While the story is an obvious example of bad judgment, and as such is deplorable; from my experience it is the exception. For most of 2003 and 2004 I traveled to different destinations around the US almost every Sunday and came back almost every Friday. While I obviously never went to every airport in the country, I traveled through most the major ones. I had one instance at my home airport (DIA) where some ditzy woman asked me if I would like to take my shoes off when I was running late for a flight, and I thought she really meant it was optional so said 'no thanks, I go through all the time without a problem' and she pulled me out of line for the full wanding and laptop bag perusal. Other than that, I had no problems except a line or two, but I had worse lines waiting for boarding passes and rental cars. I always checked a bag, and all but once, it was on the carousel or whatnot by the time I got off the plane or very shortly thereafter (granted, I was usually coach or business class). The one time, I think I waited ten or fifteen minutes. My boss at the time had been traveling for years and said he'd never lost a bag, and had no major complaints about the TSA at that point, or when I talked to him subsequently. I think the 'airlines always lose bags' thing is a myth. The only thing that does bother me is my loss of freedom, but I'm much more concerned with warrantless wiretapping, data mining, and blatant attempts at politicizing the Justice Department.
Because dogs are animals and the danger to multiple human beings outweighs the animals life because rabies is an infectious disease and thus can spread to others and must be contained. And the only way we know how to treat rabies before it becomes incurable (and knew at what point it becomes incurable) was by keeping the dogs (and humans) alive.
A State sanctioned murder is morally worse than a sociopath's, because we know better.
Slashdot Mirror
Bullshit. I DID RTFA, and I just re-read it three more times. It never specified how the person was carrying it, and do you think he would admit anything less than innocuous? What it did say was this "officers advised Bungie officials to transport the gun more discretely in the future".
While I agree that there ARE cops that abuse their power and use unnecessary force (I'd even go one better and suggest that tasering an unarmed person more than once is blatantly torture, especially for officers trained in multiple techniques, especially when there is more than one officer), they are the minority. You just don't hear about all the times the police restrain themselves. And to say that the news is 'rampamnt' is specious exaggeration. I'd trust the average cop over the average joe schmo dumbass any day.
I guess the truth hurts. ROFLMAO
You comment is specious in the extreme. It is no wonder you chose to comment anonymously.
The difference being the police officer and/or government agent has been trained, certified, and undergoes continuous psychological evaluation in order to carry that firearm, and this can be reasonably assumed. On the other hand, some random idiot. I suspect the person in question was wielding the weapon in a less than innocuous manner, possibly hoping for free publicity. He very easily could have, say, wrapped it in brown paper if he was truly worried about 'harassment'. I realize common sense is about as common as common courtesy anymore, but your post takes the cake.
You are making the mistake of assuming that the shooter is sane and/or intelligent. There are multiple cases where assailants carried guns out in the open on their way to the crime scene, not caring who sees them, possibly subconsciously or even consciously wanting to be stopped. Someone who has these scenarios in their mind doesn't stop to look and see exactly what kind of weapon someone is carrying, they just see a big gun.
Considering Dubya got elected...TWICE, and how many people believe in death panels, is it really any surprise that people have become more gullible and suggestible?
In an age where it is not unheard of for a citizen to gun down schoolmates and coworkers, I think erring on the side of caution when someone is wielding a dangerous looking weapon in a populated area is appropriate no matter what the gun laws are. And I am not a fan of the police by any means.
Said the guy who obviously gets his information from Glenn Beck or some other nut-job.
From the parent: "He believes that health care and energy, especially, could learn a lesson from computing's innovative and relatively government-free history."
I was calling bullshit to that statement, especially where Intel is concerned.
"...computing's innovative and relatively government-free history." Is complete fantasy.
Besides, the contract in question was for software, which Intel was hardly known for before or since. Bailouts come in many forms.
Yeah, not to mention the funding of Bell Labs by the NIH when among other things, the transistor was invented. And it's not like ARPANET (what eventually became the internet, thanks to infrastructure improvements specifically for and due to the public use) had anything to do with selling microprocessors and NIC cards and communications related IC's. And he must have forgotten that 21 million dollar contract from Darpa that intel got in 1992, not to mention government orders for the i860's and i960's, also in the early 90's. Coincidentally close to the development of the Pentium, which could arguably be said to be responsible for their utter domination of the processor market until AMD came back in 1999 with the Athlon followed by the XP and 64, which finally allowed them (coincidentally) a market share almost exactly big enough to prevent claims of monopoly... Talk about revisionist history.
For what it's worth, I agree with him about patents.
As stated above, at the time they invented the t4ransistor, the majority of their funding came from the NIH, a government institution.
Which was at the time primarily funded by the NIH.
It's amazing how many people call the researcher stupid, when they obviously haven't even read the parent. It clearly states that they still react negatively to heat and pressure, so it is NOTHING like the children that are born without feeling.
Actually, we (mostly Americans and Europeans) hooked the third world countries on fossil fuels long ago. With the exception of some Asian countries where motorcycles are popular, many third world countries' cars are old and inefficient, kind of like you'd see in the poorer areas of the American South, except probably more big cars and vans and lass pickup trucks.
Excellent points. I'm not sure why you got modded down. I did, however, want to point out that when I said 'cheapening', I meant less value for the same amount of money. I think you took it to mean inexpensive, as in costing less money for the same amount of value.
See http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cheap
I meant definition 3a, not 1a.
Yea, Koresh forbid we research anything other than cheapening products for bigger profit margins. Certainly there's no future in creating cleaner, more efficient energy solutions...
More like there might be no future (or at least a very ugly one) if we DON'T.
Free market! Free market! Free market! la la la
Government spending on R&D? That's socialism! I thought everyone knew that taxes are bullshit. It's not like government funded basic research ever gave us anything useful like the transistor.
I guess that's fine if killing innocent people doesn't bother you. Just look at the death row inmates that were on appeals in Detroit and other places when DNA evidence cleared them. The appeals process helps to ensure that there was nothing overlooked, and no shortcuts taken. This is especially necessary in an age of overzealous, dishonest police and prosecutors out to make a name for themselves. There was a case where I live of a man who was sent down as a child and spent over 20 years in jail because of an overzealous sheriff and a dishonest prosecutor who hid exculpatory evidence.
http://www.coloradoan.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/99999999/NEWS01/71107031
If he had been an adult, he may have gotten the death penalty, and died before anyone knew or bothered to find out the truth. Never mind the real culprit, who was free to murder again.
Then there is the case of that idiot prosecutor in Kern county, California who literally went on a modern day witch hunt (see documentary: Bakersfield's Witchhunt).
When our law system becomes infallible, then we can abolish the appeals process, and not one moment before.
And please no one try to offer the argument of: Well if they're suspected, they must have done SOMETHING wrong. That's just plain ignorant.
SC2 was first announced May 2007... but I'd still agree with you that there is absolutely NO comparison. Blizzard has a long history of pushing back release dates in order to push out extremely polished (especially compared to it's competitors) products. How the merger affects things is yet to be seen.
Fair enough. I still think a regular prison is too good for them though. I think that something along the lines of superjail might be more effective.
From a 'feelings' perspective, I can agree with you and some of the other posters. However I really don't think that's constructive or relevant.
Science requires objectivity. To view the subject objectively, you have to remove the feelings from the equation and view it like an anthropologist viewing a primitive culture. Only then can you make a rational decision based upon facts.
So you are saying that instead of killing people who will remorselessly kill as much as they get the chance* to, we should spend thousands of dollars a year securing them and keeping them alive in a high security prison, where we'll have to potentially staff extra to keep them away from other inmates?
First off, it has been known for decades that it is much more expensive to execute prisoners than to incarcerate them. Here is a collection of stats that are very well attributed:
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty
Between the cost of the death penalty and the subject of the article, it makes complete sense to me to try to study them and try to find ways of rehabilitation and prevention.
And who has the right to decide who lives and who dies? And by what authority?
While the story is an obvious example of bad judgment, and as such is deplorable; from my experience it is the exception. For most of 2003 and 2004 I traveled to different destinations around the US almost every Sunday and came back almost every Friday. While I obviously never went to every airport in the country, I traveled through most the major ones. I had one instance at my home airport (DIA) where some ditzy woman asked me if I would like to take my shoes off when I was running late for a flight, and I thought she really meant it was optional so said 'no thanks, I go through all the time without a problem' and she pulled me out of line for the full wanding and laptop bag perusal. Other than that, I had no problems except a line or two, but I had worse lines waiting for boarding passes and rental cars. I always checked a bag, and all but once, it was on the carousel or whatnot by the time I got off the plane or very shortly thereafter (granted, I was usually coach or business class). The one time, I think I waited ten or fifteen minutes. My boss at the time had been traveling for years and said he'd never lost a bag, and had no major complaints about the TSA at that point, or when I talked to him subsequently. I think the 'airlines always lose bags' thing is a myth. The only thing that does bother me is my loss of freedom, but I'm much more concerned with warrantless wiretapping, data mining, and blatant attempts at politicizing the Justice Department.
Because dogs are animals and the danger to multiple human beings outweighs the animals life because rabies is an infectious disease and thus can spread to others and must be contained. And the only way we know how to treat rabies before it becomes incurable (and knew at what point it becomes incurable) was by keeping the dogs (and humans) alive.
A State sanctioned murder is morally worse than a sociopath's, because we know better.
Revenge is NOT justice.