An opening to a sentence, used to point out that the speaker finds the information in the rest of the sentence to be self evident. In this case, it implies that the author is aware of the typo, so you grammar Nazis can go look for trouble elsewhere. CLEARLY, it was not enough for you.
As for the "Re-design", I feel so left out. I see nothing that's much changed from what I'm used to seeing. Do you need to be using a toy computer (cell phone) to be offended?
Oh! Sorry about that. Didn't realize you were blind.
Clearly then you'd find words like "clearly" annoying since you probably hate that concept the same way a deaf person may hate someone saying that a particular color is "loud".
For a disease to do that, e.g. the plague they mention would have to be able to take over say... common cold. In such a way that when you get a common cold - you instantly get the plague too.
They should try using their disease model on dieting. One could be eating as much as one wanted and still end up with negative weight by 2017, becoming lighter than air.
Plants use you to spread their seed around by eating them. Thus, ensuring that their species lives on. They've evolved for that.
Same goes for chickens and other animals. That's why they have evolved to be tasty - so we would breed them and feed them and take care of them. Back in 2003 there were about 24 billion chickens on the planet, and only about 6 billion humans.
Insane people don't have it. By definition. We're not talking defense here - we're talking there being nothing wrong about killing.
As for the rest of your reply... That's a finest example of cherry picking I've seen yet. Really... Forget the core arguments, go for the sentences. And individual words.
And unless you're one of those borderline obsessed people who have to collect every single video or photo of their favorite porn star, sending them gifts and whatnot... Paying for it is simply not the path of least resistance.
FFS... whenever I use someone else's computer, without all the add blockers I have on my own, I can't seem to open a torrent search engine without being recommended at least a window or two of porn. It has come down to it that the path of lesser resistance for NO porn practically does not exist any more.
I believe that if we took the death penalty seriously as a society, and actually used it, it would stop being an empty threat
Let's say that for the sake of the argument the only ones deserving the death penalty are those who kill other people. And let's discard those who have done so by accident. We just want the people who have done that on purpose.
Who kills another person on purpose? As a civilian, not employed by the government, in peace time, in self defense, not trying to prevent someone else to commit murder... Who are the premeditated murderers?
You got two groups. Mentally deranged people and criminals. Now... Mentally deranged people are mentally ill. THAT is the reason they commit murders. Giving them the death penalty is basically killing people for being sick. Also, do you really believe that the insane person will take heed of the threat of death penalty? Either being with a long history of mental illness or just cracking and loosing it for a moment under the influence of stress, drugs or whatnot. Some of them even believe that they are doing god's work and that there are really good things waiting for them if they martyr themselves.
So, we're left with the other group - criminals. The kind of people who's "job description" involves "every day you may be shot and killed by police, your friends, your competition, family members and many other people not listed above". So, you're threatening the people who are already living each day expecting to be killed - with killing them unless they are killed first by almost everything and everyone in their life.
Where's the deterrence factor then? Who is being deterred?
As for prisons being unpleasant... there is no need nor value from that. I'd much rather have the criminals be reformed and taught to control their impulses while being taught how to get out of the life of crime than being trained to be "harder".
As for giving the prisoner the choice, you can't have that on account that the death penalty is punishment. You can't have the prisoner making the choice cause that would be like letting him/her commit suicide. And suicide, in the mentally deranged world where the death penalty is the remnant from the time when it was viewed as sending someone to be judged by a "higher power" than earthly laws (which is why they get priests and whatnot) - is both a sin AND the prisoner escaping prescribed punishment.
In the world that forgoes on the "sending them to god to be judged" bit, it's simply escaping the prescribed punishment. I.e. Red tape. It has to be done by the book. Not just to kill the prisoner but to make sure that he/she is really dead or some may try to game the system. And that's without going into the whole "cruel and unusual" thing.
Where Jesus tells his pals they should all be packin iron.
Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. --Luke 22:36,
Right to bear arms? Fuck that sissy shit. JESUS COMMANDS YOU TO ARM YOURSELF!
Obviously, we'd need a study that has people smoke pot with a control group that doesn't smoke pot to be sure, but that might never happen due to legal and ethical concerns.
That's easy. Just check the records of all psychotics who haven't smoked pot prior to their first episode - then compare their ages.
Actually, that's EXACTLY what the did in this study.
The earliest onset was seen among those who used high-potency cannabis daily - on average their first psychosis was 6 years earlier than for non-users.
And since the study focused on people who had psychotic episodes in the first place (i.e. people who likely had mental issues to start with), it's unlikely self-medication is the explanation. Possible, of course, but unlikely.
Why would it be unlikely? Under the assumption that the psychotic episode has an underlying cause other than just smoking pot, they could have been treating that underlying cause by self-medicating with pot.
As for the study we'd need (har-har), it would have to include many thousands of children who would be separated into several groups. The study would last for several decades during which time participants would be tested for drug use daily. Groups would be given either a single potent dose, several less potent ones, a single less potent dose but the participant would be told that it IS a very potent one, several groups would get several levels of both single and several doses, one group would be carefully kept clean of any pot use by having them handcuffed to a police officer (one per participant) and one group would get a full blown placebo.
Then, we sit back and wait until they all die while we gather the psychotic episode incidence among all the groups.
Study could be funded through well informed investments into snack and bong industries. As for the legal and ethical concerns, one way to get around that is to convince military that it is actually a study to create super-soldier serum.
And if anyone doesn't get the reference (or even more so if you think you do, but don't get what the archetypal ludicrously demanding rock band rider has to do with tunnel boring), read the linked article.
The Iowa State AIDS research project had been awarded $19 million in federal grants over the past several years.
There's money in it for someone. And plenty of it. "Iowa State University assistant professor Dong-Pyou Han" may not have the money for fancy lawyers but "Iowa State AIDS research project" or the "Iowa State University" most probably have some on they payrolls.
As for the quote... I have no idea what are you trying to point out as funny. I have this nagging feeling that you haven't really understood what I wrote there.
I have a felling that you somehow understood that as if I was talking about a single car. Those sentences you are quoting are about different cars, drivers, situations and my hypothetical position regarding to the car at hand.
When out walking to and from the grocery store in the evening I would occasionally encounter a group of youths...I kept my eyes fixed on their eyes as I approached and walked past them...They usually stepped aside even when there was plenty of space between us to pass with them widening the berth. Apparently, a clean-cut guy wearing a t-shirt, jeans, and polished boots sent a message to them.
Hmm... sounds to me more like they wanted to have nothing with a crazy-eyed man who walks around looking like he's trying to pick a fight, while wearing polished boots in Texas heat. There's probably some "veteran with untreated PTSD" vibe going on there.
As for guns, it's the same as with cars. I have no problems with driving, owning or being in a car with a capable and conscientious driver if a car is in a working order. It's all those who are "simply better" drivers, "smarter" owners and those driving drunk that worry me. I could be walking through the park, just minding my own business, and still a drunk driver could run me over. Or someone "good enough" to drive with worn out breaks. Some people simply shouldn't be allowed to drive.
Now, extend that same logic to guns, only take into account the range of guns, ease of use and carry, and number of projectiles a single person can "spread" across that same park I was taking a stroll through.
To turn that old saying around, if guns are allowed not only outlaws will have guns - nutcases will have them too.
That the issue is about availability of people killing machines to the mentally unstable and criminals in the USA - not some European superiority bullshit. As for the '40s in Germany, from what I recall, the issue was more about organized arming of the civilians.
Slashdot Mirror
If it was clear, why did you need to clarify?
It's a figure of speech.
An opening to a sentence, used to point out that the speaker finds the information in the rest of the sentence to be self evident.
In this case, it implies that the author is aware of the typo, so you grammar Nazis can go look for trouble elsewhere.
CLEARLY, it was not enough for you.
As for the "Re-design", I feel so left out. I see nothing that's much changed from what I'm used to seeing. Do you need to be using a toy computer (cell phone) to be offended?
Oh! Sorry about that. Didn't realize you were blind.
Clearly then you'd find words like "clearly" annoying since you probably hate that concept the same way a deaf person may hate someone saying that a particular color is "loud".
That show is crap.
Clearly what I meant to say there is "Fuck it up ITS stupid ass".
Fuck it up it's stupid ass.
Because, thanks to the above quoted internet meme it has become a very well known and much used pronoun.
The problem I have with English is that there is no impersonal pronoun like "man" in German or "on" in French.
One does not simply walk into Mordor.
According to Picasso and Warhol - yes.
By buying Instagram.
For a disease to do that, e.g. the plague they mention would have to be able to take over say... common cold.
In such a way that when you get a common cold - you instantly get the plague too.
They should try using their disease model on dieting.
One could be eating as much as one wanted and still end up with negative weight by 2017, becoming lighter than air.
If they thought that he was someone else...
Some other Levandowski who WAS Jewish... and then they peed on his rug?
Besides... Maybe he converted when he got married.
Plants use you to spread their seed around by eating them. Thus, ensuring that their species lives on. They've evolved for that.
Same goes for chickens and other animals.
That's why they have evolved to be tasty - so we would breed them and feed them and take care of them.
Back in 2003 there were about 24 billion chickens on the planet, and only about 6 billion humans.
One could say the same for rabbits or chickens.
In fact... there's a jokular word in German for cat meat which roughly translated would be "roof rabbit".
Insanity isn't boolean.
Grasping of reality IS though.
Insane people don't have it. By definition. We're not talking defense here - we're talking there being nothing wrong about killing.
As for the rest of your reply... That's a finest example of cherry picking I've seen yet.
Really... Forget the core arguments, go for the sentences. And individual words.
And unless you're one of those borderline obsessed people who have to collect every single video or photo of their favorite porn star, sending them gifts and whatnot...
Paying for it is simply not the path of least resistance.
FFS... whenever I use someone else's computer, without all the add blockers I have on my own, I can't seem to open a torrent search engine without being recommended at least a window or two of porn.
It has come down to it that the path of lesser resistance for NO porn practically does not exist any more.
I believe that if we took the death penalty seriously as a society, and actually used it, it would stop being an empty threat
Let's say that for the sake of the argument the only ones deserving the death penalty are those who kill other people.
And let's discard those who have done so by accident. We just want the people who have done that on purpose.
Who kills another person on purpose? As a civilian, not employed by the government, in peace time, in self defense, not trying to prevent someone else to commit murder...
Who are the premeditated murderers?
You got two groups. Mentally deranged people and criminals.
Now... Mentally deranged people are mentally ill. THAT is the reason they commit murders.
Giving them the death penalty is basically killing people for being sick.
Also, do you really believe that the insane person will take heed of the threat of death penalty?
Either being with a long history of mental illness or just cracking and loosing it for a moment under the influence of stress, drugs or whatnot.
Some of them even believe that they are doing god's work and that there are really good things waiting for them if they martyr themselves.
So, we're left with the other group - criminals.
The kind of people who's "job description" involves "every day you may be shot and killed by police, your friends, your competition, family members and many other people not listed above".
So, you're threatening the people who are already living each day expecting to be killed - with killing them unless they are killed first by almost everything and everyone in their life.
Where's the deterrence factor then? Who is being deterred?
As for prisons being unpleasant... there is no need nor value from that.
I'd much rather have the criminals be reformed and taught to control their impulses while being taught how to get out of the life of crime than being trained to be "harder".
As for giving the prisoner the choice, you can't have that on account that the death penalty is punishment.
You can't have the prisoner making the choice cause that would be like letting him/her commit suicide.
And suicide, in the mentally deranged world where the death penalty is the remnant from the time when it was viewed as sending someone to be judged by a "higher power" than earthly laws (which is why they get priests and whatnot) - is both a sin AND the prisoner escaping prescribed punishment.
In the world that forgoes on the "sending them to god to be judged" bit, it's simply escaping the prescribed punishment.
I.e. Red tape. It has to be done by the book.
Not just to kill the prisoner but to make sure that he/she is really dead or some may try to game the system.
And that's without going into the whole "cruel and unusual" thing.
Where Jesus tells his pals they should all be packin iron.
Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.
--Luke 22:36,
Right to bear arms? Fuck that sissy shit.
JESUS COMMANDS YOU TO ARM YOURSELF!
What the guy who decided to shoot him for what he did deserves at least 2 decades behind bars.
Considering he's 71, and a retired police captain... that's kinda ironic. In several ways.
Obviously, we'd need a study that has people smoke pot with a control group that doesn't smoke pot to be sure, but that might never happen due to legal and ethical concerns.
That's easy.
Just check the records of all psychotics who haven't smoked pot prior to their first episode - then compare their ages.
Actually, that's EXACTLY what the did in this study.
The earliest onset was seen among those who used high-potency cannabis daily - on average their first psychosis was 6 years earlier than for non-users.
And since the study focused on people who had psychotic episodes in the first place (i.e. people who likely had mental issues to start with), it's unlikely self-medication is the explanation. Possible, of course, but unlikely.
Why would it be unlikely?
Under the assumption that the psychotic episode has an underlying cause other than just smoking pot, they could have been treating that underlying cause by self-medicating with pot.
As for the study we'd need (har-har), it would have to include many thousands of children who would be separated into several groups. The study would last for several decades during which time participants would be tested for drug use daily.
Groups would be given either a single potent dose, several less potent ones, a single less potent dose but the participant would be told that it IS a very potent one, several groups would get several levels of both single and several doses, one group would be carefully kept clean of any pot use by having them handcuffed to a police officer (one per participant) and one group would get a full blown placebo.
Then, we sit back and wait until they all die while we gather the psychotic episode incidence among all the groups.
Study could be funded through well informed investments into snack and bong industries.
As for the legal and ethical concerns, one way to get around that is to convince military that it is actually a study to create super-soldier serum.
And if anyone doesn't get the reference (or even more so if you think you do, but don't get what the archetypal ludicrously demanding rock band rider has to do with tunnel boring), read the linked article.
Iggy Pop has taken that to a whole new level.
This scenario may take place pretty soon then?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JdrcOGoszlE
*their payrolls.
The Iowa State AIDS research project had been awarded $19 million in federal grants over the past several years.
There's money in it for someone. And plenty of it.
"Iowa State University assistant professor Dong-Pyou Han" may not have the money for fancy lawyers but "Iowa State AIDS research project" or the "Iowa State University" most probably have some on they payrolls.
"Ihr" is a bit... formal.
As for the quote... I have no idea what are you trying to point out as funny.
I have this nagging feeling that you haven't really understood what I wrote there.
I have a felling that you somehow understood that as if I was talking about a single car.
Those sentences you are quoting are about different cars, drivers, situations and my hypothetical position regarding to the car at hand.
Yeah.
Like having bigger pots and pans and organizing pot-placing drills as a solution for dealing with a leaky roof.
When out walking to and from the grocery store in the evening I would occasionally encounter a group of youths...I kept my eyes fixed on their eyes as I approached and walked past them...They usually stepped aside even when there was plenty of space between us to pass with them widening the berth. Apparently, a clean-cut guy wearing a t-shirt, jeans, and polished boots sent a message to them.
Hmm... sounds to me more like they wanted to have nothing with a crazy-eyed man who walks around looking like he's trying to pick a fight, while wearing polished boots in Texas heat.
There's probably some "veteran with untreated PTSD" vibe going on there.
As for guns, it's the same as with cars.
I have no problems with driving, owning or being in a car with a capable and conscientious driver if a car is in a working order.
It's all those who are "simply better" drivers, "smarter" owners and those driving drunk that worry me.
I could be walking through the park, just minding my own business, and still a drunk driver could run me over. Or someone "good enough" to drive with worn out breaks.
Some people simply shouldn't be allowed to drive.
Now, extend that same logic to guns, only take into account the range of guns, ease of use and carry, and number of projectiles a single person can "spread" across that same park I was taking a stroll through.
To turn that old saying around, if guns are allowed not only outlaws will have guns - nutcases will have them too.
That the issue is about availability of people killing machines to the mentally unstable and criminals in the USA - not some European superiority bullshit.
As for the '40s in Germany, from what I recall, the issue was more about organized arming of the civilians.
As for, "had everyone been armed Nazis would never get into power" and similar nonsense, look up Warsaw Uprising.
Also, Hungarian Revolution of 1956 if that's not enough.