You should start playing bullshit bingo. It's great. Here's how you do it:
1. Get a bullshit bingo generator. Print a few of the bingo cards. 2. Distribute them in your office. Everyone gets about 5-10 sheets, depending on how long the speech it. 3. Bring the sheets to the speech, hide them in your ledger. 4. During the speech, you cross off the words that the speaker uses. You may only use the topmost sheet. 5. Once you have bingo, shuffle the sheet to the bottom and continue with the next sheet. 6. After the talk, go back to your office and compare the amount of sheets everyone has. Who managed to fill the fewest sheets has to pay the beers.
We started with just one sheet and indicating who is done by closing the ledger (and whoever was last had to pay) but that game was over after just ten minutes and hour long speeches can get awfully long when you got nothing sensible to do. Now you have a whole security team hanging on the lips of whatever manager or markedroid is babbling, we look highly motivated, we look like we're taking notes and we actually have quite a bit of fun. Not to mention we get beer.
If the individual has shown that he is a threat to society as a whole then yes, he should be deprived the right to a gun, or any device that enables someone to be a serious threat to society. I do expect someone who wishes to handle a gun that he knows how to do so responsibly. This would of course include cases where said individual has killed someone under circumstances other than self defense (or relevant similar scenarios), but I would even include cases where criminal negligence handling firearms would warrant removing the right to it, e.g. when you have kids around and leave loaded weapons lying about. Weapons are dangerous and need to be handled with care. And I do expect people who wish to do so to do it responsibly and in a way that minimizes the chance of innocents coming to harm.
And I do think that nuclear, biological and chemical weapons do not belong into the hands of untrained personnel. For safety reasons. It's very hard to store them safely and even harder to handle them in a way that ensures no damage to bystanders (or yourself). I would also think that handling more intricate and complicated weapons to be dependent on showing that you know what you're doing, this could take the form of a test similar to a driving test, and I could envision this being handled by local weapon owner societies, who have an interest in keeping more destructive and complicated weapons in the hands of trained and responsible individuals, if only for the reason that accidents with such weapons could lead to legislation against owning them.
I think you should be allowed to have a gun unless there's a reason you shouldn't. Sounds similar, I know, but I want the burden of proof on the one trying to take it away, not the one trying to get it. You needn't prove that you should have one, I need to prove that you shouldn't.
Aside of that, please just say what you want to say. It's kinda tedious trying to guess what someone implies. It's usually used by people who try to hedge their bets, because you guess what they meant, refute it, only to get "Oh, that's not what I meant" with the implied "keep guessing, maybe you come up with something you can't refute".
Actually no. I don't know about your media, but ours are doing their best to downplay any crime committed by a Muslim. And twice so our politicians and police. Actually, our media are even getting more and more wary to give out any details of the origin of a criminal.
And I am really sure you can name a SINGLE case where someone tried to scientifically discuss aspects of the holocaust and was jailed for it. Be aware, though, that I do know quite a bit about the subject and I WILL respond to your claim. And rectify it if necessary.
Not just China. You can have the same with "objectionable" content on social media where this content simply does not make it to your feed unless you specifically already subscribed. You might have noticed that you get suggestions from most media pages (YouTube being one of the best examples) where they suggest something for you based on what you have been watching and what others are watching. And of course the things you already sub to.
If someone is "questionable", he will not be suggested. He will not be outright suppressed, but his content will not be shown to people that not already know about him and even have his channel sub'ed. I usually find out about such things when someone I did already sub to talks about a certain other person and what they published, and I sit there wondering why I never hear about that person since someone like this should very obviously be part of my "suggested reading" list.
Umm... what am I? I think social services, taxes and government spending are a good idea. but I also like guns and think that using them isn't outright wrong as long as the reason is right.
I wasn't the one pretending that money is the motivation behind publishing such findings. I was actually responding to someone claiming that these scientists publish results that support global warming with the sole intent to make money that way.
My rebuttal was that if the goal is money, there was more to be had by pretending that global warming is a myth and becoming the "science" mouthpiece of some corporations that have a vested interest in fossil fuels and heavy industry.
The difference is maybe that on/., it's me who decides what I will see and what I won't. If I read/. at -1, I should be fully aware that I will get to see GNAA postings along with the "apps" and "cows" and all the other/. memes that clog your day and make this site so immensely enjoyable that I decided to put the threshold to +1. That was MY decision. And I do actually expect everyone to be able to decide for themselves what kind of content they can "suffer" through.
As for children, this is something the parents may decide for their children. Not mine, not anyone else's, theirs. They may block certain content if they so please and yes, content should be labeled according to specs so people can decide whether they wish to see it. Improperly labeled content may well be taken down, but if you label some video that allegedly has cartoon content properly as adult, why should it not be permitted? Welcome to parody and satire.
Li'l hint: If you want to throw your hat into this game for the money, bet on the other team. The ones that want you to believe that everything is fine and that we shouldn't change a thing have way, way deeper pockets.
You want to kill me? Our corporate drinking game includes the word "cyber" (among other meaningless buzzwords). I mean, how else do you survive the average management bullshit speech?
Slashdot Mirror
Boars with lasers, I hope?
Careful, everyone picks France as a target. Didn't you learn anything from your Simpsons?
Damn. What's sodomy good for if you can't get whipped and drunk?
Amen.
I mean, Enter.
France.
I think the correct term is Tech Priest.
So Dick spends his Summer in the Hole?
Sounds dirty, somehow. Dunno why.
You should start playing bullshit bingo. It's great. Here's how you do it:
1. Get a bullshit bingo generator. Print a few of the bingo cards.
2. Distribute them in your office. Everyone gets about 5-10 sheets, depending on how long the speech it.
3. Bring the sheets to the speech, hide them in your ledger.
4. During the speech, you cross off the words that the speaker uses. You may only use the topmost sheet.
5. Once you have bingo, shuffle the sheet to the bottom and continue with the next sheet.
6. After the talk, go back to your office and compare the amount of sheets everyone has. Who managed to fill the fewest sheets has to pay the beers.
We started with just one sheet and indicating who is done by closing the ledger (and whoever was last had to pay) but that game was over after just ten minutes and hour long speeches can get awfully long when you got nothing sensible to do. Now you have a whole security team hanging on the lips of whatever manager or markedroid is babbling, we look highly motivated, we look like we're taking notes and we actually have quite a bit of fun. Not to mention we get beer.
Government was faster, they dismantled the middle class.
If the individual has shown that he is a threat to society as a whole then yes, he should be deprived the right to a gun, or any device that enables someone to be a serious threat to society. I do expect someone who wishes to handle a gun that he knows how to do so responsibly. This would of course include cases where said individual has killed someone under circumstances other than self defense (or relevant similar scenarios), but I would even include cases where criminal negligence handling firearms would warrant removing the right to it, e.g. when you have kids around and leave loaded weapons lying about. Weapons are dangerous and need to be handled with care. And I do expect people who wish to do so to do it responsibly and in a way that minimizes the chance of innocents coming to harm.
And I do think that nuclear, biological and chemical weapons do not belong into the hands of untrained personnel. For safety reasons. It's very hard to store them safely and even harder to handle them in a way that ensures no damage to bystanders (or yourself). I would also think that handling more intricate and complicated weapons to be dependent on showing that you know what you're doing, this could take the form of a test similar to a driving test, and I could envision this being handled by local weapon owner societies, who have an interest in keeping more destructive and complicated weapons in the hands of trained and responsible individuals, if only for the reason that accidents with such weapons could lead to legislation against owning them.
They're victims? Of what?
I think you should be allowed to have a gun unless there's a reason you shouldn't. Sounds similar, I know, but I want the burden of proof on the one trying to take it away, not the one trying to get it. You needn't prove that you should have one, I need to prove that you shouldn't.
Aside of that, please just say what you want to say. It's kinda tedious trying to guess what someone implies. It's usually used by people who try to hedge their bets, because you guess what they meant, refute it, only to get "Oh, that's not what I meant" with the implied "keep guessing, maybe you come up with something you can't refute".
No. Sorry. Not playing. What do you mean?
Actually no. I don't know about your media, but ours are doing their best to downplay any crime committed by a Muslim. And twice so our politicians and police. Actually, our media are even getting more and more wary to give out any details of the origin of a criminal.
And I am really sure you can name a SINGLE case where someone tried to scientifically discuss aspects of the holocaust and was jailed for it. Be aware, though, that I do know quite a bit about the subject and I WILL respond to your claim. And rectify it if necessary.
Not just China. You can have the same with "objectionable" content on social media where this content simply does not make it to your feed unless you specifically already subscribed. You might have noticed that you get suggestions from most media pages (YouTube being one of the best examples) where they suggest something for you based on what you have been watching and what others are watching. And of course the things you already sub to.
If someone is "questionable", he will not be suggested. He will not be outright suppressed, but his content will not be shown to people that not already know about him and even have his channel sub'ed. I usually find out about such things when someone I did already sub to talks about a certain other person and what they published, and I sit there wondering why I never hear about that person since someone like this should very obviously be part of my "suggested reading" list.
Now, now. It's not fantasy and fakery. It's religi... ok, it's fantasy and fakery.
Umm... what am I? I think social services, taxes and government spending are a good idea. but I also like guns and think that using them isn't outright wrong as long as the reason is right.
Care to point me to my pigeon-hole?
I wasn't the one pretending that money is the motivation behind publishing such findings. I was actually responding to someone claiming that these scientists publish results that support global warming with the sole intent to make money that way.
My rebuttal was that if the goal is money, there was more to be had by pretending that global warming is a myth and becoming the "science" mouthpiece of some corporations that have a vested interest in fossil fuels and heavy industry.
"People" being a bigger group here than the immediate victims.
The difference is maybe that on /., it's me who decides what I will see and what I won't. If I read /. at -1, I should be fully aware that I will get to see GNAA postings along with the "apps" and "cows" and all the other /. memes that clog your day and make this site so immensely enjoyable that I decided to put the threshold to +1. That was MY decision. And I do actually expect everyone to be able to decide for themselves what kind of content they can "suffer" through.
As for children, this is something the parents may decide for their children. Not mine, not anyone else's, theirs. They may block certain content if they so please and yes, content should be labeled according to specs so people can decide whether they wish to see it. Improperly labeled content may well be taken down, but if you label some video that allegedly has cartoon content properly as adult, why should it not be permitted? Welcome to parody and satire.
Umm... the article is linked in the summary?
Li'l hint: If you want to throw your hat into this game for the money, bet on the other team. The ones that want you to believe that everything is fine and that we shouldn't change a thing have way, way deeper pockets.
Not voting these lowlifes into an office of power would be a good start.
I know they have no marketable skills, but still, there has to be something sensible these bozos can do.
You want to kill me? Our corporate drinking game includes the word "cyber" (among other meaningless buzzwords). I mean, how else do you survive the average management bullshit speech?
Propaganda only works if it is believed. I'd rather want to know why people believe that bullshit.