The trouble with the Faraday solution is that it would also stop radios from working, which means communications between the guards inside the building and outside in the yard would be impossible.
You'd think so wouldn't you. Actually my HS was in one of the more affluent suburbs of my city.
Of course, I've a theory that this affluence is why the kids were such rotten little shits. Spoiled rich kids with superiority attitudes is a good recipe for trouble.
Kids in my high school threw acid on the principal's van and one of 'em sliced a history teacher with a razor blade. And my high school wasn't considered rough or abnormal.
I think there was room to be placing blame. NASA launched, and in fact pressured Thiokol to go the SRBs for launch against their better judgment. They knew what the O rings did in the cold. That experiment that Feynman performed in front of the cameras came about because he talked to an O-ring specialist who told him "Hey, guess what these things do when it gets cold."
And "linked to" violent video games isn't good enough.
Exactly.
The earth rotates around the sun every time a murder is committed. They're linked! Ban the sun!
"linking" video games to childhood violence is equally stupid. I bet the kids also ate breakfast that morning. Perhaps they shouldn't, as all violent offenders eat and therefore eating has been linked to violent behavior.
Now, all that said, I'm not trying to say that it's appropriate to let Johnny 8-year-old play GTA. It's not, for any number of reasons. I'm just saying that blaming the game for murder is as dumb as blaming Pac Man for making you over eat.
The really sad part about this story isn't that people are jumping on the "blame the video game bandwagon" again. It's that science and logic understanding in this country is so poor that people will see the "linked to" sticker and think it means something.
They're our next-door neighbors, and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska.
I didn't say that she said she could see Russia from her house. Did you not read my post?
For the record, what she actually said was "They're our next-door neighbors, and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska."
And she also said "As Putin rears his head and comes into the air space of the United States of America, where do they go? It's Alaska. It's just right over the border. It is from Alaska that we send those out to make sure that an eye is being kept on this very powerful nation, Russia, because they are right there, they are right next to our state."
Clear now?
She did not draw crosshairs on ANYBODY
OK, so drawing crosshairs on people's locations, then naming which person in each location the crosshairs are indicating, and telling those reading the list of names to not retreat, but instead "RELOAD" does not at all give you pause? As to the rest of that line, I'll paraphrase you: "Keep getting your news from Limbaugh, O'Reilly, and Beck if you like, but. . . " Well, you know the rest.
did not see her map
Understand that I am not accusing Palin of actually intending for Giffords to get shot but. . Prove that he didn't see the map. And since you can't prove that, stop spouting it.
The liberal outlets were very careful to specify that they were not accusing her of ordering a murder, but rather of extreme poor judgment - something you'd know if you turned the dial from FNC from time to time.
She could easily have completed her time as governor, but the Democrats who hate her with such venom kept filing baseless ethics charges in Alaska
monkeys fling poo, people should engage in actual discussions
Anyone running around starting sentences with "you libs" (note that I have not once called you a republitard or a con or any of the other pejoratives that are bandied about on the airwaves), and who spouts lies, assumptions, and misinformation in his rebuttal, has absolutely no grounds to criticize the discussion tactics of anyone.
The real answer is to get active in either the Republican or Democratic party and then work to change it to become something more along the lines of what you want to see. If the Democratic party were filled with selfless politicians who wanted what's best for America, instant runoff voting would be a breeze to pass because they'd all get behind it.
She's not a 10th amendment conservative. She probably couldn't even tell you what the 10th amendment is. She thinks she has foreign relations experience because you can see a Russian-owned island from an Alaskan island. She thinks the vice president gets to tell the Senate how to vote. She thinks the White House has a Department of Law. She thinks it's OK to draw crosshairs on people she doesn't like while tweeting "don't retreat, reload," and then she thinks it's ok to make herself out to be the victim when someone on her hit list gets shot. Blood libel indeed. The only interview she can make it through without getting confused is one in which Hannity tosses softball questions at her and then answers them himself.
She's a vapid, incurious, self-serving knownothing ignoramus who couldn't even get through a whole term as governor, yet people still want her to be President because she's a "mavericky hockey mom."
No, it's the lack of instant runoff voting that prevents third parties from winning most of the time. (Saying they never win is forgetting people like Bernie Sanders, who is one of the finest politicians we have today).
The problem with "voting for someone good" is that there are a lot of third-party candidates out there. It is statistically almost impossible for one of them to become President, because no matter how many people you convince to vote for *a* third-party candidate, you'll never convince enough of them to vote for *one* third-party candidate. The solution to that is rank-order/instant runoff voting, in which you rank all of the candidates in order of your preference. That way when Nader loses again, your vote still counts for something and can prevent Palin from getting in.
Of course, this will never happen because the Republicans and Democrats are not about to release their stranglehold on American politics by introducing actual competition.
Your mistake is in your assumption that I am prejudiced against Texas accents (thereby exposing your own prejudice against non-Texans).
I have no particular objection to the accent, except that in W's case it's largely contrived as the man was raised by East Coast moneyed elites, not cowboys as he would have you believe.
Is it not enough to use his own comments to judge his intelligence? You know: "I don't read," and, regarding news, "I glance at the headlines / I rarely read the stories," and "Brownie, you're doin' a heckuva job?"
Statements like those aren't enough to judge the man to be stupid? I'll grant you that there's a possibility that he may actually have intelligence buried somewhere deep in the recesses, but if he does, he refuses to use it. Willful stupidity is no better than, and in fact to my way of thinking worse than, actual sub-optimal intelligence.
As for credentials, Bush has an M.B.A. from Yale. He's got the credentials - not that you'd know it since every business his dad bought him failed under his stalwart leadership.
You seem to be arguing against yourself with that last line.
As I said in another reply, the Supreme Court would appoint us a president if there was no "clear victor." They did before, they'll do it again. And with the conservative bent of the court, they'll give us another W.
Sometimes (hell, alright, oftentimes) an election is one of defeat strategy: You know you're going to lose - now you have to figure out which losing position will cause the least damage.
Heh. You could argue that this is what happened in the Bush/Gore race. The Supreme Court appointed a president in that case. Why would it be any different next time?
If by "tried to carry them out" you mean "would have, but folded at the first hint of pressure," I'll agree with you.
Sometimes you just have to get things done, or show very noisily that you would get them done but for the obstructionist bastards in your way that need to be voted out next election.
Obama is better than W only because he has a normal IQ. As to his politics, he's a corporatist who's broken enough campaign promises (close gitmo! Stop military tribunals of suspected terrists! Get out of Iraq! End welfare for the rich!) to lose 3 re-election bids. Nonetheless, I'll probably have to vote for him because the other side will be running some jackass like Palin, Pawlenty or Bachmann, and letting them get within 3 miles of the White House would be disastrous.
I'm not sure they could. If the metalworker made a duplicate of the screw, sure. But if the metalworker made a car-door-window-safety-hammer with a point that just so happened to fit that screw. . .
"Your honor, I was frisking the individual to determine whether or not he had a dangerous weapon on him as allowed by Terry v. Ohio. On feeling his front right pocket I felt a hard slim object that in my professional judgment could have been a knife. I removed it based on that belief and discovered that it was instead a spoon with charring on the bowl. This gave me probable cause to suspect the use of narcotics, and so I initiated a full search based on the requirements set forth in the Fourth Amendment."
Of course, 9 times out of 10, the cop doesn't have to use such subterfuge. It's amazing how many people give consent to "do you mind if I look inside your car?" (Always. ALWAYS tell them that you do not give consent. Even if you know you don't have anything illegal, say no.)
Plus remember that unless it's a traffic stop with the cop's dash cam rolling, it's again your word against the cop's as to whether or not he searched you legally. He can search you, find contraband, and then claim he saw evidence of it prior to the search, giving him probable cause. And even if there's a dash cam vid that shows this didn't happen, in many departments, by astonishing coincidence the dash cam "fails" right at the moment that your defense attorney is interested in.
In fact in some cases there were multiple squad cars, and all of the cars experienced an amazingly coincidental dash cam failure at the critical moment. Funny how that happens.
The bottom line is that (and you can verify this by reading the forums at officer.com) whether you are innocent or not, cops assume you're guilty, and they assume you're lying to them. This then puts them into the mindset of "I'm gonna get that goddamn dirtbag (that is a term they use, and not just in bad movies, also verifiable on officer.com) if it's the last thing I do," and so even some cops who aren't specifically out to harass innocent civilians end up doing so because they don't view us as innocent, and think the ends of getting another dirtbag off the street justify the illegal means of doing it.
"A cop needs an "articulable reason" to search you"
Yes, and that's why they all say "OK I'm gonna pat you down for your safety and mine, sir. Do you have anything on you I should know about?"
Their "articulable reason" is "Well you might have a knife and I don't want you to stab me with it. Yeah, that's the ticket." Since anyone wearing any sort of clothing could conceivably conceal a weapon, they never have to think hard to come up with a reason to frisk you.
As for having a reason to stop you in the first place, "I judged him to be acting suspiciously as he glanced at me and then quickly looked away while putting his hand in his pocket."
Did you actually do that? Probably not. and even if you did, it probably wasn't because you're doing something criminal. But it's your word against the cop's. Who do you think the judge is going to side with?
Plus you have to remember that there is such a thing as a "contempt of cop" arrest, where they put you in handcuffs simply because you pissed them off, whether you were breaking the law or not. It's illegal as hell, but they get to lock you up for a few hours (and of course once they arrest you they can paw through all your stuff either on trumped up probable cause or to "inventory it for later return." And most people, once released, won't sue because it takes time and money for a lawsuit that you stand a very good chance of not winning.
I dimly recall them trying this in theaters back in the late 70's/early 80's. Smellovision, I think it was called. As I recall, it was a flop because audiences didn't give a damn. I somehow doubt that has changed. Smell won't be an important aspect of video gaming until VR reaches the full-immersion point. I suppose I would want to smell the environment on the holodeck, but I don't care so much in games.
Plus since most games are variations of shooting things, I'd imagine the smells could be rather unpleasant. GTA 7, now blood-scented? No thanks.
Slashdot Mirror
The trouble with the Faraday solution is that it would also stop radios from working, which means communications between the guards inside the building and outside in the yard would be impossible.
And. . What warmed the air currents?
You'd think so wouldn't you. Actually my HS was in one of the more affluent suburbs of my city.
Of course, I've a theory that this affluence is why the kids were such rotten little shits. Spoiled rich kids with superiority attitudes is a good recipe for trouble.
Why would that stop them?
Kids in my high school threw acid on the principal's van and one of 'em sliced a history teacher with a razor blade. And my high school wasn't considered rough or abnormal.
I think there was room to be placing blame. NASA launched, and in fact pressured Thiokol to go the SRBs for launch against their better judgment. They knew what the O rings did in the cold. That experiment that Feynman performed in front of the cameras came about because he talked to an O-ring specialist who told him "Hey, guess what these things do when it gets cold."
Indeed.
In the same way as a tornado is a type of wind.
We do not say "It was windy yesterday" when we actually mean "a freaking tornado leveled my whole town."
google it. There are already 1 or 2 vids of human trebuchets.
And "linked to" violent video games isn't good enough.
Exactly.
The earth rotates around the sun every time a murder is committed. They're linked! Ban the sun!
"linking" video games to childhood violence is equally stupid. I bet the kids also ate breakfast that morning. Perhaps they shouldn't, as all violent offenders eat and therefore eating has been linked to violent behavior.
Now, all that said, I'm not trying to say that it's appropriate to let Johnny 8-year-old play GTA. It's not, for any number of reasons. I'm just saying that blaming the game for murder is as dumb as blaming Pac Man for making you over eat.
The really sad part about this story isn't that people are jumping on the "blame the video game bandwagon" again. It's that science and logic understanding in this country is so poor that people will see the "linked to" sticker and think it means something.
They're our next-door neighbors, and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska.
I didn't say that she said she could see Russia from her house. Did you not read my post?
For the record, what she actually said was "They're our next-door neighbors, and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska."
And she also said "As Putin rears his head and comes into the air space of the United States of America, where do they go? It's Alaska. It's just right over the border. It is from Alaska that we send those out to make sure that an eye is being kept on this very powerful nation, Russia, because they are right there, they are right next to our state."
Clear now?
She did not draw crosshairs on ANYBODY
OK, so drawing crosshairs on people's locations, then naming which person in each location the crosshairs are indicating, and telling those reading the list of names to not retreat, but instead "RELOAD" does not at all give you pause? As to the rest of that line, I'll paraphrase you: "Keep getting your news from Limbaugh, O'Reilly, and Beck if you like, but. . . " Well, you know the rest.
did not see her map
Understand that I am not accusing Palin of actually intending for Giffords to get shot but. . Prove that he didn't see the map. And since you can't prove that, stop spouting it.
The liberal outlets were very careful to specify that they were not accusing her of ordering a murder, but rather of extreme poor judgment - something you'd know if you turned the dial from FNC from time to time.
She could easily have completed her time as governor, but the Democrats who hate her with such venom kept filing baseless ethics charges in Alaska
You mean baseless ethics charges like these? http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article4924041.ece
monkeys fling poo, people should engage in actual discussions
Anyone running around starting sentences with "you libs" (note that I have not once called you a republitard or a con or any of the other pejoratives that are bandied about on the airwaves), and who spouts lies, assumptions, and misinformation in his rebuttal, has absolutely no grounds to criticize the discussion tactics of anyone.
And that will solve what, exactly?
And, as for the argument "But if I don't vote for D, then R may get in office", it's totally moronic
If the argument is moronic, then counter it. Prove that it's wrong.
Agreed.
The real answer is to get active in either the Republican or Democratic party and then work to change it to become something more along the lines of what you want to see. If the Democratic party were filled with selfless politicians who wanted what's best for America, instant runoff voting would be a breeze to pass because they'd all get behind it.
Change has to come from within.
She's not a 10th amendment conservative. She probably couldn't even tell you what the 10th amendment is. She thinks she has foreign relations experience because you can see a Russian-owned island from an Alaskan island. She thinks the vice president gets to tell the Senate how to vote. She thinks the White House has a Department of Law. She thinks it's OK to draw crosshairs on people she doesn't like while tweeting "don't retreat, reload," and then she thinks it's ok to make herself out to be the victim when someone on her hit list gets shot. Blood libel indeed. The only interview she can make it through without getting confused is one in which Hannity tosses softball questions at her and then answers them himself.
She's a vapid, incurious, self-serving knownothing ignoramus who couldn't even get through a whole term as governor, yet people still want her to be President because she's a "mavericky hockey mom."
No, it's the lack of instant runoff voting that prevents third parties from winning most of the time. (Saying they never win is forgetting people like Bernie Sanders, who is one of the finest politicians we have today).
The problem with "voting for someone good" is that there are a lot of third-party candidates out there. It is statistically almost impossible for one of them to become President, because no matter how many people you convince to vote for *a* third-party candidate, you'll never convince enough of them to vote for *one* third-party candidate. The solution to that is rank-order/instant runoff voting, in which you rank all of the candidates in order of your preference. That way when Nader loses again, your vote still counts for something and can prevent Palin from getting in.
Of course, this will never happen because the Republicans and Democrats are not about to release their stranglehold on American politics by introducing actual competition.
Your mistake is in your assumption that I am prejudiced against Texas accents (thereby exposing your own prejudice against non-Texans).
I have no particular objection to the accent, except that in W's case it's largely contrived as the man was raised by East Coast moneyed elites, not cowboys as he would have you believe.
Is it not enough to use his own comments to judge his intelligence? You know: "I don't read," and, regarding news, "I glance at the headlines / I rarely read the stories," and "Brownie, you're doin' a heckuva job?"
Statements like those aren't enough to judge the man to be stupid? I'll grant you that there's a possibility that he may actually have intelligence buried somewhere deep in the recesses, but if he does, he refuses to use it. Willful stupidity is no better than, and in fact to my way of thinking worse than, actual sub-optimal intelligence.
As for credentials, Bush has an M.B.A. from Yale. He's got the credentials - not that you'd know it since every business his dad bought him failed under his stalwart leadership.
You seem to be arguing against yourself with that last line.
As I said in another reply, the Supreme Court would appoint us a president if there was no "clear victor." They did before, they'll do it again. And with the conservative bent of the court, they'll give us another W.
Sometimes (hell, alright, oftentimes) an election is one of defeat strategy: You know you're going to lose - now you have to figure out which losing position will cause the least damage.
Heh. You could argue that this is what happened in the Bush/Gore race. The Supreme Court appointed a president in that case. Why would it be any different next time?
It's thinking like that which got us 8 years of W.
If by "tried to carry them out" you mean "would have, but folded at the first hint of pressure," I'll agree with you.
Sometimes you just have to get things done, or show very noisily that you would get them done but for the obstructionist bastards in your way that need to be voted out next election.
Obama is better than W only because he has a normal IQ. As to his politics, he's a corporatist who's broken enough campaign promises (close gitmo! Stop military tribunals of suspected terrists! Get out of Iraq! End welfare for the rich!) to lose 3 re-election bids. Nonetheless, I'll probably have to vote for him because the other side will be running some jackass like Palin, Pawlenty or Bachmann, and letting them get within 3 miles of the White House would be disastrous.
I'm not sure they could. If the metalworker made a duplicate of the screw, sure. But if the metalworker made a car-door-window-safety-hammer with a point that just so happened to fit that screw. . .
Look at it another way:
Thanks, Apple, for giving an enterprising metalworker a great side business of making tools that will fit your idiotic screws!
"Your honor, I was frisking the individual to determine whether or not he had a dangerous weapon on him as allowed by Terry v. Ohio. On feeling his front right pocket I felt a hard slim object that in my professional judgment could have been a knife. I removed it based on that belief and discovered that it was instead a spoon with charring on the bowl. This gave me probable cause to suspect the use of narcotics, and so I initiated a full search based on the requirements set forth in the Fourth Amendment."
Of course, 9 times out of 10, the cop doesn't have to use such subterfuge. It's amazing how many people give consent to "do you mind if I look inside your car?" (Always. ALWAYS tell them that you do not give consent. Even if you know you don't have anything illegal, say no.)
Plus remember that unless it's a traffic stop with the cop's dash cam rolling, it's again your word against the cop's as to whether or not he searched you legally. He can search you, find contraband, and then claim he saw evidence of it prior to the search, giving him probable cause. And even if there's a dash cam vid that shows this didn't happen, in many departments, by astonishing coincidence the dash cam "fails" right at the moment that your defense attorney is interested in.
In fact in some cases there were multiple squad cars, and all of the cars experienced an amazingly coincidental dash cam failure at the critical moment. Funny how that happens.
( http://www.myfoxboston.com/dpp/news/local/police-dash-cameras-not-operational-during-dj-henry-student-shooting-25-apx-20101103
http://www.wtopnews.com/?nid=708&sid=1938732
http://www.wtop.com/?nid=428&sid=1116072 )
The bottom line is that (and you can verify this by reading the forums at officer.com) whether you are innocent or not, cops assume you're guilty, and they assume you're lying to them. This then puts them into the mindset of "I'm gonna get that goddamn dirtbag (that is a term they use, and not just in bad movies, also verifiable on officer.com) if it's the last thing I do," and so even some cops who aren't specifically out to harass innocent civilians end up doing so because they don't view us as innocent, and think the ends of getting another dirtbag off the street justify the illegal means of doing it.
"A cop needs an "articulable reason" to search you"
Yes, and that's why they all say "OK I'm gonna pat you down for your safety and mine, sir. Do you have anything on you I should know about?"
Their "articulable reason" is "Well you might have a knife and I don't want you to stab me with it. Yeah, that's the ticket." Since anyone wearing any sort of clothing could conceivably conceal a weapon, they never have to think hard to come up with a reason to frisk you.
As for having a reason to stop you in the first place, "I judged him to be acting suspiciously as he glanced at me and then quickly looked away while putting his hand in his pocket."
Did you actually do that? Probably not. and even if you did, it probably wasn't because you're doing something criminal. But it's your word against the cop's. Who do you think the judge is going to side with?
Plus you have to remember that there is such a thing as a "contempt of cop" arrest, where they put you in handcuffs simply because you pissed them off, whether you were breaking the law or not. It's illegal as hell, but they get to lock you up for a few hours (and of course once they arrest you they can paw through all your stuff either on trumped up probable cause or to "inventory it for later return." And most people, once released, won't sue because it takes time and money for a lawsuit that you stand a very good chance of not winning.
I dimly recall them trying this in theaters back in the late 70's/early 80's. Smellovision, I think it was called. As I recall, it was a flop because audiences didn't give a damn. I somehow doubt that has changed. Smell won't be an important aspect of video gaming until VR reaches the full-immersion point. I suppose I would want to smell the environment on the holodeck, but I don't care so much in games.
Plus since most games are variations of shooting things, I'd imagine the smells could be rather unpleasant. GTA 7, now blood-scented? No thanks.