There in lies the logical fallacy. It makes it for "fucking normal people" harder to posess
Your own "fallacy" is as follows: You don't realise that it will take some effort for someone to make contact with the criminal world to get their guns, many spree shooting types would be afraid of doing that. You think that serious organised criminal gangs are the same as a sad sack guy who got fired and dumped one too many times and snapped.
All laws will be broken at some time or other but this not the only (or even the best) way to judge the utility of a law.
Sad sack losers can have a really dangerous, furious low ebb and then put very little effort into getting the tools needed to go out in blaze of tragedy and death.
Where is your outrage over those deaths? Where is your call to action for those children?
You will find that many people make calls to action regarding public safety issues, especially when the death of a child is involved. There are plenty of initiatives aimed reducing the incidence of distracted driving - from awareness campaigns to changes in the law that some people oppose.
Since alcohol doesn't benefit society
Alcohol is an extremely popular drug that it seems gives net health benefits when consumed in moderation. Its purchase and consumption are regulated because (among other reasons) it can be harmful in itself, and can cause indirect harm due to its effect on your abilities. Banning alcohol has been tried in your country and was not a success, but please note that it remains restricted.
The level of your thinking is best demonstrated by your drawing a parallel between death due to grossly negligent parenting and deaths due to murder. While the dead are equally as dead, no sensible person believes these acts are equivalent - those responsible are punished in very diffrerent ways.
In an effort to explain to you why you are wrong:
If someone wants to kill people, they don't need guns.
is not false, it is (very) incomplete.
The complete statement is: "If someone wants to kill people, they don't need guns but the guns they can obtain within the law allow them to murder much more quickly and efficiently than otherwise."
How likely is it that the x37b gleaned no information from the space shuttle's development and use? very unlikely indeed. How likely is it the x37b is able to take advantage of advances in technology and materials made since the early 80s/late 70s? almost certain How much easier is it to build something not designed to carry humans? a great deal easier
They got learn from people preceding them, and got to do the job with better tools, and had an easier job to do.
Your unthinking post is there to reinforce your own dogma that government === incompetence.
Septmebr 2001 attacks depended on the murderers getting control of big planes, and decision makers absolutely don't want the murderers getting the chance to attack rich, powerful people's homes or places of work again.
The queues at airport also fulfil a security theatre purpose in that they do make people "feel" safer than they are being made. Absolutely right that they could detonate the bomb while waiting at the airport, but they wouldn't be getting to pick and choose a target as they could if they had control of a plane.
You sound equally, or perhaps greater partisan than the idealogue strawmen you try to conjure. How many deaths did the Ear Trumpet app cause before the knights in shining armor shut them down?
My specific response was to "government staying the hell out of healthcare". The previous poster set up the man for me, straw or otherwise. Probably not a great deal of harm being done by an ipad app that does a cheap -n- cheerful hearing assessment. Pretty similar to inexpensive reading glasses, I'd imagine.
But please note, the poster above me calls for total removal of government regulation from healthcare, not from ipad apps that check your hearing.
Healthcare would be a hell of a lot cheaper if the government stayed the hell out of it.
If gubmint stayed out of healthcare costs would go down, and we'd only have a few thousand extra deaths a month from con artists to balance against all that lovely freedom. You would like the USofA (fuck yeah!) to no-questions-recognise medical qualifications from the commies? Interesting freeper sentiment...
If you had a science altering discovery it would be published in peer reviewed journals and you could use those as references. Until they are published somewhere reputable, no-one has a good reason to believe science altering claims
You should be aware of the following: The BBC has 6 national tv stations, 8 national radio networks and over 20 local radio stations. ALL of the above are ad-free. It is not very useful to compare the BBC to a single US television network.
Surely you understand the difference between an untryable theory ("from each according to ability to each according to need" won't work because people are greedy/selfish/rationally self interested) and the dictatorship currently in power in China? Dictatorship of the proletariat will always become dictatorship over the proletariat.
You have a point regarding one sided accusations of social incompetence. I would also raise the point of complaints of "lack of social graces" suddenly not applying if you have enough broad shoulders, arrogance or wealth.
Where women probably suffer (if that is the right word) more than men, is in societal pressure to conform to more or less unattainable appearance standards. The amount of time and money they are be encouraged to spend on that stuff is quite depressing, as is the age the pressure starts.
What really annoys me about women is how they say they want "a nice guy", but then the knickers come off for the closest they can get to Don Draper.
Does this reflect higher concern re stalking (in the spectrum from the dangerous, life ruining/threatening kind to I don't want an old boyfriend to know about me)? Seems likely to me. I bet those of us worried about privacy in a big brother, what-can-future-employers-find-out-about-me way are more male than female, since that's probably correlated with higher computer literacy.
The problem with live pigeon shooting isn't that they're shooting pigeons, it's that they shoot them for excrements and laughter without giving them a realistic chance to escape and probably don't even eat them afterwards. And they could just use clay pigeons instead.
This
I cannot believe the mentality that thinks he is being a Big Man by shooting a pigeon with a shotgun. A scatter firearm? Woo, what a marksman you are!!!!! A real tough guy, too. Firing metal at 200m/s + into the body of a bird. Does it give you a boner or something?
Maybe the Streisand Effect will get more eyeballs on their sites? They claim that their message is being suppressed by the forces of evil anyway. Their target audience might just see the leaks as the work of the conspiracy of freedom haters and lap up the message.
Here in Britain electronics retailers have been being annoying by calling LCD panels that are lit with LEDs "LED TVs". Do North American retailers do that?
Top Gear has a record of out and out faking when "reviewing" Tesla cars. As an entertainment show, I am not sure how much credence I would give them for any brand, when it comes to Tesla they are on record as lying.
Robert Llewellyn has pointed out that Top Gear's roadshows are sponsored by Shell (who are invested in hydrogen as the alternative fuel of the future) and that Top Gear has talked up the potential of hydrogen as superior to electric vehicles.
Robert Llewellyn is of course a very vocal electric car advocate. I recommend his web series Carpool: just as entertaining as Top Gear, but in a different way.
Rural means farms to people who speak English of any dialect. I have been to Riverside, it is not rural. It has poor public transport. I have seen it myself. Go to any suburb in California and you are stuck on island it is nearly impossible to leave safely without a private car.
What do you mean? Than who is? I'm pretty sure the head of government is the head of state since state and government mean the same thing.
Is it true that you need a link to tell you what Head of Governemnt and Head of State mean? Not giving you the link, look up the government of Ireland, Germany, Japan, United Kingdom, Netherlands. Commonwealth countries are interesting in that their nominal head of state is from somewhere else. France is also an interesting mix. You are suffering from the problems of growing up in a very insular country. You cannot compare countries' systems of government without realising that the frameworks may or may not be the same.
Spend a little of your commie-fighting time learning about other countries and how they operate. It could be quite profitable for you.
As stated before it is already the rich who have personal private transport. I live in an industrialised country and have no car (or driveway.) My transport? bicycle, bus, train and very occasional taxi.
I think that your idea of cars = freedom comes from living in a place that was planned based on near total car ownership.
Slashdot Mirror
There in lies the logical fallacy. It makes it for "fucking normal people" harder to posess
Your own "fallacy" is as follows:
You don't realise that it will take some effort for someone to make contact with the criminal world to get their guns, many spree shooting types would be afraid of doing that.
You think that serious organised criminal gangs are the same as a sad sack guy who got fired and dumped one too many times and snapped.
All laws will be broken at some time or other but this not the only (or even the best) way to judge the utility of a law.
Sad sack losers can have a really dangerous, furious low ebb and then put very little effort into getting the tools needed to go out in blaze of tragedy and death.
Where is your outrage over those deaths? Where is your call to action for those children?
You will find that many people make calls to action regarding public safety issues, especially when the death of a child is involved. There are plenty of initiatives aimed reducing the incidence of distracted driving - from awareness campaigns to changes in the law that some people oppose.
Since alcohol doesn't benefit society
Alcohol is an extremely popular drug that it seems gives net health benefits when consumed in moderation. Its purchase and consumption are regulated because (among other reasons) it can be harmful in itself, and can cause indirect harm due to its effect on your abilities. Banning alcohol has been tried in your country and was not a success, but please note that it remains restricted.
The level of your thinking is best demonstrated by your drawing a parallel between death due to grossly negligent parenting and deaths due to murder.
While the dead are equally as dead, no sensible person believes these acts are equivalent - those responsible are punished in very diffrerent ways.
In an effort to explain to you why you are wrong:
If someone wants to kill people, they don't need guns.
is not false, it is (very) incomplete.
The complete statement is:
"If someone wants to kill people, they don't need guns
but the guns they can obtain within the law allow them to murder much more quickly and efficiently than otherwise."
How likely is it that the x37b gleaned no information from the space shuttle's development and use?
very unlikely indeed.
How likely is it the x37b is able to take advantage of advances in technology and materials made since the early 80s/late 70s?
almost certain
How much easier is it to build something not designed to carry humans?
a great deal easier
They got learn from people preceding them, and got to do the job with better tools, and had an easier job to do.
Your unthinking post is there to reinforce your own dogma that government === incompetence.
For two reasons that spring to mind:
Septmebr 2001 attacks depended on the murderers getting control of big planes, and decision makers absolutely don't want the murderers getting the chance to attack rich, powerful people's homes or places of work again.
The queues at airport also fulfil a security theatre purpose in that they do make people "feel" safer than they are being made.
Absolutely right that they could detonate the bomb while waiting at the airport, but they wouldn't be getting to pick and choose a target as they could if they had control of a plane.
You sound equally, or perhaps greater partisan than the idealogue strawmen you try to conjure.
How many deaths did the Ear Trumpet app cause before the knights in shining armor shut them down?
My specific response was to "government staying the hell out of healthcare".
The previous poster set up the man for me, straw or otherwise.
Probably not a great deal of harm being done by an ipad app that does a cheap -n- cheerful hearing assessment. Pretty similar to inexpensive reading glasses, I'd imagine.
But please note, the poster above me calls for total removal of government regulation from healthcare, not from ipad apps that check your hearing.
If gubmint stayed out of healthcare costs would go down, and we'd only have a few thousand extra deaths a month from con artists to balance against all that lovely freedom.
You would like the USofA (fuck yeah!) to no-questions-recognise medical qualifications from the commies?
Interesting freeper sentiment...
If you had a science altering discovery it would be published in peer reviewed journals and you could use those as references.
Until they are published somewhere reputable, no-one has a good reason to believe science altering claims
You should be aware of the following:
The BBC has 6 national tv stations,
8 national radio networks and over 20 local radio stations.
ALL of the above are ad-free.
It is not very useful to compare the BBC to a single US television network.
in case you were wondering
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Sea_Company
Sorry, no mod points.
+ (a lot) funny
Surely you understand the difference between an untryable theory ("from each according to ability to each according to need" won't work because people are greedy/selfish/rationally self interested) and the dictatorship currently in power in China?
Dictatorship of the proletariat will always become dictatorship over the proletariat.
You have a point regarding one sided accusations of social incompetence. I would also raise the point of complaints of "lack of social graces" suddenly not applying if you have enough broad shoulders, arrogance or wealth.
Where women probably suffer (if that is the right word) more than men, is in societal pressure to conform to more or less unattainable appearance standards. The amount of time and money they are be encouraged to spend on that stuff is quite depressing, as is the age the pressure starts.
What really annoys me about women is how they say they want "a nice guy", but then the knickers come off for the closest they can get to Don Draper.
Completely true.
Mod this up
Fingers crossed also that it might prompt a return to a more useful aspect ratio in affordable monitors.
Does this reflect higher concern re stalking (in the spectrum from the dangerous, life ruining/threatening kind to I don't want an old boyfriend to know about me)?
Seems likely to me.
I bet those of us worried about privacy in a big brother, what-can-future-employers-find-out-about-me way are more male than female, since that's probably correlated with higher computer literacy.
The problem with live pigeon shooting isn't that they're shooting pigeons, it's that they shoot them for excrements and laughter without giving them a realistic chance to escape and probably don't even eat them afterwards.
And they could just use clay pigeons instead.
This
I cannot believe the mentality that thinks he is being a Big Man by shooting a pigeon with a shotgun. A scatter firearm? Woo, what a marksman you are!!!!!
A real tough guy, too. Firing metal at 200m/s + into the body of a bird. Does it give you a boner or something?
My guess is that in addition to being anti-hunting, they are also anti-gun (those two often go together)
Hmmmmmm. From my point of view being pro-gun and pro-hunting tend to go together.
Maybe the Streisand Effect will get more eyeballs on their sites?
They claim that their message is being suppressed by the forces of evil anyway. Their target audience might just see the leaks as the work of the conspiracy of freedom haters and lap up the message.
Content providers and cable co.s won't hand another market to Apple (or Google). That lesson was learned with music.
Here in Britain electronics retailers have been being annoying by calling LCD panels that are lit with LEDs "LED TVs".
Do North American retailers do that?
surely you mean mechanical boogaloo?
Top Gear has a record of out and out faking when "reviewing" Tesla cars. As an entertainment show, I am not sure how much credence I would give them for any brand, when it comes to Tesla they are on record as lying.
http://articles.businessinsider.com/2008-12-29/green_sheet/30080624_1_electric-car-drag-race-lotus-elise
Robert Llewellyn has pointed out that Top Gear's roadshows are sponsored by Shell (who are invested in hydrogen as the alternative fuel of the future) and that Top Gear has talked up the potential of hydrogen as superior to electric vehicles.
Robert Llewellyn is of course a very vocal electric car advocate. I recommend his web series Carpool: just as entertaining as Top Gear, but in a different way.
A) Riverside is extremely rural
Rural means farms to people who speak English of any dialect. I have been to Riverside, it is not rural. It has poor public transport. I have seen it myself. Go to any suburb in California and you are stuck on island it is nearly impossible to leave safely without a private car.
What do you mean? Than who is? I'm pretty sure the head of government is the head of state since state and government mean the same thing.
Is it true that you need a link to tell you what Head of Governemnt and Head of State mean?
Not giving you the link, look up the government of Ireland, Germany, Japan, United Kingdom, Netherlands. Commonwealth countries are interesting in that their nominal head of state is from somewhere else. France is also an interesting mix.
You are suffering from the problems of growing up in a very insular country. You cannot compare countries' systems of government without realising that the frameworks may or may not be the same.
Spend a little of your commie-fighting time learning about other countries and how they operate. It could be quite profitable for you.
As stated before it is already the rich who have personal private transport.
I live in an industrialised country and have no car (or driveway.)
My transport? bicycle, bus, train and very occasional taxi.
I think that your idea of cars = freedom comes from living in a place that was planned based on near total car ownership.
They also get good hours. Another reason why it appeals