You shouldn't have skipped the part at 0:26 then. The part where in the background a woman gives a young man, who clearly displays a lack of concentration and of motoric skills, a basketball to hold up in the air while leading him in a walk on a raised platform of some kind. I'm guessing the platform is a bench and they are doing a balance exercise.
That might have clued you in that the room is a small gym.
Then again, since your prejudice prevented you from realizing that on your own, seeing there is a girl led through the same exercise in the very frame you chose to present - there is this part a couple of seconds earlier.
I take it, by evil, you mean things you don't like.
You can quote, but apparently you can't read what you quote. The very sentence you quoted above explains WHY religion is evil.
The fact that you apparently can't grasp (or you refuse to grasp it) its pretty straightforward language and meaning does not really represent a proof positive for my claim, but it does strongly indicate that it is true.
My point was that there's no evidence for the second claim in GP's message, and yet his message was modded "insightful".
Actually, evidence is very simple. When presented with evidence of the falseness of their particular flavor of religious teachings, religious people either simply reject the evidence or try to readjust the definitions of their religious teachings so that it is all still "true" in face of the evidence to the contrary. Basically, they try to maintain the "truth" by lying to themselves.
But that is just practical evidence. True reason for the debilitation factors of faith and religion is that every single one tries to explain EVERYTHING there is, there ever was and that there ever will be with its dogma. Dogma, which every proponent of that particular faith/religion must accept as true, undeniable and unchangeable as it contains both the principles of their faith as well as the explanation of the Universe.
Those explanations being ultimately limited by their own definition as absolute truths, undeniable and unchangeable facts are BOUND to clash with actual data sooner or later. At that moment, the religious person can either accept the new data throwing away his/her entire life and the view of the world, reject the clearly visible new data and stick to their dogma OR try to jury rig the new data onto the old dogma. And so we get people claiming that there were dinosaurs in the garden of Eden and all the way up to the Biblical flood.
Basically, the victim of religion can choose between acceptance of selective reasoning and self-immolation of their "self" by rejecting the single most important thing in their lives, on which they've built not only their view of the world but also every single relation to the world around them - social, economical, philosophical... etc.
Either way, the person is scarred for life from that point on. By a mere act of being exposed to new information, be it an idea or simply data. And anything that can damage person's most important ability, to reason, by making them basically highly allergic to the truth and knowledge is not only debilitating but essentially evil as well.
Your library card is your key to the resources the Library has to offer. Learn how to get one here.
Your library card is your key to the resources and services of all New York Public Library locations in the Bronx, Manhattan, and Staten Island. In addition to borrowing library materials, your card will let you reserve a computer, download digital media, search hundreds of electronic databases, and more.
It's a case of non enforcement of existing rules and regulations.
Rules say that you don't get to use the library without a card. Stacks or borrowing or ANYTHING that the library provides. To get a library card, you either provide identification which shows your age, OR your parents do that for you if you are under 12.
As for the age restriction, they are treating everyone above 12 years of age as a "young adult". And the burden of "thinking about the children", i.e. kids who are of 11 years old or younger, is simply being left to their parents.
I'm not saying that's bad or anything. In fact, I think that should be the way it's done generally - not treating teenagers as if they are babies, when most of them are clearly closer to adults than children.
I'm just saying that there ARE rules in place already - it's just that their enforcement is rather lax.
Even considering that type of restriction, however, I've never been to a public library that checked identification or age before allowing access to the stacks; even a kid with borrowing restrictions - or no card at all - could still pull books off the shelf and read them in the library.
Well, that's a different ballgame. Libraries clearly DO have age restrictions, only they don't follow them to the letter as it is not say... a swimming pool but a library.
On the other hand, minors being allowed access to adult-only material BECAUSE they didn't follow their own restrictions... well... Their restrictions - their responsibility.
In any case, the guy watching porn in the library and refusing to be considerate of others is a jerk and, from a community standpoint, probably needs a good talking to. But it's not a crime to be a jerk, as much as that main pain some of us.
Oh, I agree. Completely.
I'm just saying that crying out "think of the children" may be (in any case it SHOULD be) a tad bit misplaced this time.
Well... despite the ALA policy above there IS quite a bit of restriction built-in. It's probably just the case of them not considering something as basic as a "library card" an actual restriction. Note the language used and the ages in question. And the burden of "thinking about the children" being placed squarely on their parents' shoulders.
As for "actual knowledge of typical librarian policies" - I could ask my friend who is a librarian. Let me know exactly what you want to know and I'll relay it to her.
But bear in mind that "typical" and "official" policies may be two VERY different things here. Actually, considering that each canton has its own ministry of education, plus the Federal one, plus the one for Republika Srpska... That's like... what? Twenty four different things? And, while Tuzla may not be very fundie, situation in other places CAN and DOES differ.
And don't think it's just the Muslims. It is generally understood that Croat means Catholic, Serb an East Orthodox Christian and Bosnian or Bosniak a Muslim Such logic is even imposed on the constitution through the fact that only member of those three nationalities can and may be elected as presidents. Of which we have three at the same time. And couple of years ago when a Croat from a socialist-democratic party (as opposed to several Croat nationalist parties) was elected into the presidency as the representative of the Bosnian Croats - those from the Croat nationalist parties called for his resignation because he was not "a real Croat" in their mind and because they claimed that he was elected by Muslims. Remember that "Obama can't be the presidn't cause he ain't 'merican" nonsense? Well... Imagine if it was republican party that demanded his resignation cause a) he is not a U.S. citizen and b) cause only blacks voted for him.
From the very same Wikipedia article linked in the post above:
The main U.S. unit in the battle was the 2nd Armored Cavalry Regiment (2nd ACR), a 4,500 man reconnaissance and security element assigned to VII Corps. It consisted of three ground squadrons (1st, 2nd and 3rd), an aviation (attack helicopter) squadron (4th), and a support squadron. The 2ACR combat team numbered around 10,000 soldiers. Each ground squadron was made up of three cavalry troops, a tank company, a self-propelled howitzer battery, and a headquarters troop. Each troop comprised 120 soldiers, 12 M3 Bradley fighting vehicles and nine M1A1 Abrams main battle tanks.[1] The corps' main body consisted of the American 3rd Armored Division (3rd AD) and 1st Infantry Division (1st ID) and 1st Armored Division (1st AD), and the British 1st Armoured Division (1 AD).
The primary battle was conducted by 2ACR's three squadrons of about 400 soldiers, along with the 1st Infantry Division's two leading brigades, who attacked and destroyed the Iraqi 18th Mechanized Brigade and 37th Armored Brigade) of the Tawakalna Division, each consisting of between 2,500 to 3,000 personnel.[1] During the battle, 2nd ACR destroyed 160 tanks, 180 personnel carriers, 12 artillery pieces and more than 80 wheeled vehicles, along with several anti-aircraft artillery systems.
That's 189 armored vehicles, plus their support. Plus air support.
Scout and attack helicopters of Fourth Squadron and 2-1 Aviation Battalion (AH 64 Apache) supported the fight as weather allowed.
Plus a shitload of TOWs.
After defeating that force, McMaster sent a scout platoon north to regain contact with Troop G. In doing that the scout platoon encountered another Iraqi tank position of thirteen T72s which they destroyed with TOW missiles.
All of the above (and more) used at the same time whenever they encountered the enemy, during 24+ hours of the battle. So, all at the same time, but not all at once.
Combat became so intense at times that only massed artillery and mortar fires, attack helicopters and Air Force close air support prevented the enemy from closing with G Troop. . . . Artillery fire and air strikes played a large role in the battle, especially in the far north. Colonel Gary Bourneâ(TM)s 210th FA Brigade in direct support of 2nd ACR fired missions out to the 78 Easting. Close air support missions struck targets in greater depth preventing some Iraqi units from closing with G Troop or escaping the battle area. Attack helicopters flew in support of air scouts at key intervals during the day and the 2-1 Aviation Battalionâ(TM)s Apache helicopters, led by Lt Colonel Jon Ward, destroyed two batteries of enemy artillery and struck march units along the IPSA Pipeline Road at 4:30 p.m. just as the battle began in earnest.
During Desert Storm Coalition troops numbered at 956600 - versus 650000 Iraqi troops. They didn't go there to test "what can happen when superior technology is used against superior numbers". That is not how you win wars.
You win wars by being the side with BOTH superior technology and superior numbers, AND by bringing both down heavily on your enemy's head. That's why during the Desert Storm US troops numbered basically the same number of battle deaths and "slipped in the shower/fell from a chair" deaths.
As long as a kid isn't running and screaming, any good librarian is pleased to see a young person with the interest and ability to utilize the adult section. I dunno, maybe your community library was different. Did you grow up in some repressive fundie backwater?
Actually, no. It was not fundie even at the time when being fundie was really popular. As for being a backwater, that's debatable. It WAS a lagoon couple of million years ago.
Like I said to the other poster, segregation according to age simply seems neater. Particularly seeing the sorry state of books in the children's section. AND the noise levels there.
when I was in elementary school the children's section got too damn boring after about a half hour.
I too was raiding the adult section (which basically meant everything besides the stuff for the elementary school kids) pretty early, but I had to use my mother's card for a while. But I assume that I would at least raise an eyebrow or two had I started picking up Marquis de Sade, Nabokov and whatnot.
Which section is that? The libraries I've used have always had their 'erotic' materials shelved in the regular stacks, wherever the catalog would normally sort them.
Do they also put The Decameron there? Or Steppenwolf (drugs)? Or Werther (suicide)?
I agree with your philosophical and cynical standpoints, but I DO contest the idea that libraries are working under complete and equal openness to all their members. I'm guessing that there MUST be some mechanism at play which ensures that kids don't go home with "erotic materials" one day, coming back with an angry loud parent in tow the next day.
And following your cynical standpoints, segregation according to age just seems... neater.
See... If I was suspecting malice, I'd go with you puling a couple of ignoratio elenchi on me there. But I'm guessing that it is rather the case of you and me having different understanding of the topic of the discussion. I.e. You think that we are discussing one facet of the subject, while I am talking about another facet thinking that you are referring to the SAME facet as I am.
Case in point...
Let's say corruption is "correlated with greed". I would like to point out the class of greed that operates flawlessly legally, like Chinese labor rates and Foxconn (sp?) hiring *100,000* new workers who are *glad* to go there. As legal as it gets - and the offshoring greed is immense
Of course greed "operates flawlessly", legally or illegally as a motivator for an individual - but I was talking about greed as a motive for a leader/decision maker to be corrupted. And there it does not work as advertised in all cases - because what may look like greed or corruption to one side, may be a heroic effort of one individual to preserve his entire society on the other.
And by corrupted, I mean a corrupted leader/decision maker OF THE PEOPLE he/she represents. Doing a disservice to them, being motivated by either personal gain or some other group's gain.
You say that those people in China are working out of greed - how about a desire to provide a better life to their children through self-sacrifice? Greed is what's pushing people when they have more than they will need in foreseeable future. People polishing iPhones for Foxconn have a way to go to get there.
Yes you can rally people both around malice, and against malice. K Street in Washington is rallied around malice. The Internet Blackout Day against SOPA was rallying against malice.
Umm, no. I may have been not... exactly clear with my explanation above, but...
K Street is an example of group A which, being motivated by unknown factors (we can't really say with certainty are they uninformed, stupid, malicious, greedy, BAD etc. or sacrificing, heroic, in possession of superior ideology or facts, GOOD etc.), hires group K as they provide professional means of influence on a group that designs and votes in laws. You may say that the group K is working motivated by greed (which does not have to be necessarily true) but you can't attach negative moral points to the group A - because the group B is doing the same thing. Cause that IS how it's done. Which is a sad moral situation, but apparently legal one.
Anyway - there is no certain malice there. At best, it may be greed on account of the K Street - but as they are still bound by laws and contracts, you can't really blame them for doing their perfectly legal jobs. No more than you can blame a guy making axes if one of his axes gets used by a serial killer. Or a lumberjack.
As for malice being the motivator in rallying AGAINST malice - to use Nazis again, that would be like calling WWII Allies Nazis. What is malice against malice? Enemy of my enemy is my...? Minus and minus make a...?
SOPA protesters weren't rallied around their common malice - in fact, they were rallied around their common desire for the protection of their and other people's freedoms.
Your next thing about hating and herds is called the Prisoner's Dilemma. The "1%" are all in the same 100 lunch clubs, they have it all orchestrated on their side. The 99% then squabble among themselves, trying to fix it all, but... well,... it's harder to both orchestrate by the numbers, and with plenty of disadvantages to boot. Occupy Wall Street was laughed off by the media but it was one of the Protests of the Year, followed by (yes, mild) Internet Blackout Day. The fundmental problem is how to "beat the Prisoner's Dilemma so that we gain force in unity."
Umm... no. Prisoner's dilemma is about the supposed rational solution for looking out for the
Don't most libraries already enforce age restriction and segregation, as it is deemed that some books are not suited to a younger audience, either due to their racy and violent content or due to being "too damn boring" to the kids?
In other words - what children? There are no children around in the adult section of the library. You know... that section of the library that holds the Marquis de Sade books.
First off, greed and corruption are the same thing - one is the motive for the other. Now, if it was all corruption it would be a very simply problem - simply pay more to have it your way. After all, the subject is motivated only by greed and self interest, right?
Malice is fine but.. you can't rally people around malice. Note the lack of "hate clubs" in any society - as opposed to fan clubs. Humans are social animals. We like to be the part of the herd we like for what we like to like. And be liked because of it. No herd will take you in simply because you hate the same thing as everyone else. Because they don't all hate the same things. A herd may LIKE the same things, but they don't all love or hate the same things - cause hate and love are individual preferences.
And in politics - you need your herds. So, while a single individual may have his/her own personal reason for malice they can't teach others their hate. He/she must give them a reason and logic on which they will build their own hate - i.e. indoctrinate them with false logic and ideology. Delude them.
They don't even have to hate - they simply have to believe that the other side hates them or the things that they care about. You know... like morals, god, puppies... America. Whatever. And the less they know - the more they will believe.
The best part is, once they got the ball rolling, they don't even have to validate their position to anyone. The other side is BOUND to do (or not do) something that will be construed as "evil" by their righteous followers. After that, they have it made. Kids will be running away from home for a chance to die fighting those puppy hating bastards.
And all that time, they won't actually hate the other side - they will simply be "doing the right thing", backed by their own ignorance and lack of wisdom. Or "ideals", as some people like to call that.
Even Nazis were dead certain that they were doing the right thing. Exterminating the "lower races", avenging their betrayed ancestors, liberating the world from communism, conquering the world so it would be run properly by those with superior genes and culture... They had both science AND magic backing their cause - how could they've been wrong?
Says the man promoting the tried and true road to failure.
Here's a novel approach. How about we deregulate the rich? 50% tax on everything over say... 10 million dollars (number to be adjusted over time according to inflation). Add 5% for each 10 million beyond that, capping at 90% max. And since we're talking about "What's in it for US?" - prevent that money from going offshore by taxing accordingly (to the tax above) every transfer above 50k - unless it is intended for the purchase of raw materials needed for production within US borders. Make them spend that money at home, and make them keep spending it.
Prior to all that, pull back all that money circulating around the world being used for trading in oil and other resources. Government should cover the basic living and health costs for everyone during the transition period as the value of the dollar would go from current to worthless to extremely valuable withing years if not months. They'll have plenty of money coming in from all those taxes.
There. Now I get to call you a pussy and a "nowecan'ter" if you don't accept my proposal. What? You expressly wanted something new and in a "Yes we can!"-style. Not something sensible, balanced and thought-through.
(and at the rate things are going viz. immigration, welcome to Europe c. 2112).
100 years from now Europe may be officially under Sharia Law? Now that's a cause for alarm and quick and resolute action if I ever saw one. We have only 100 years to come up with a solution - and these days 100 years ain't what it used to be.
You of all people should be able to recognize that my post's aim was to satirize the original poster's flamebait-loaded, hatespeech-filled post, by comparing his ideas to those of a serial killer nut-job.
And yes, suggesting murder of someone just because they pronounce their adherence to an idea IS motherfucking insane. AND people making such suggestions should be if not closely watched at all times, then at least examined by trained professionals, both medical and by those in law enforcement. Cause, you never know. He may be in the process of making room in the crawl space of his house.
TLDR: I was joking about him being much like psycho serial killer.
Ok, so what are the links supposed to be telling me other than there are small quakes associated with this sort of project. I don't care about small quakes because small quakes don't damage anything. Big quakes cause damage. And those links tell me nothing about the likelihood of big quakes.
Well, I am stunned at you continuing this conversation since you clearly can't read. Or is your problem actually with comprehending words and ideas?
At any EXPERIMENTAL level so far (as in not economically feasible) they produced constant, unexpected and uncontrollable earthquakes. Scale that up to anything close to economical and you have to shut the project down as earthquakes increase in magnitude and frequency - as you are basically spending any money you got out of the project on lawsuits and settlements.
And "small" earthquakes DO damage things - only not as often, and not as much. But start hitting one a day like they did in Basel, and it's simply math and time when that damage is going to start showing. And again - that is all in the experimental phase. Not even close to running at 100% capacity/profit. And there's your "problem". Those "small earthquakes" might as well be computer simulations compared to the actual seismic events once they go commercial - i.e. when they increase the intensity of watershearing, thereby directly increasing the intensity of the earthquakes.
No, and you aren't so aware either.
Wait, what? All that what you said above, about the difference between regulation and the enforcement of, is fine and dandy - but how is ANY of that "a solved problem" to corporation's greed guided agenda? And no, "violation of regulation usually results in considerable loss of profit and possibly other serious penalties" IS NOT the answer - corporations have insurances and budgets and lawyers so that they would not lose profit regardless what they do. And that's all just the "above the board" stuff for WHEN they get caught.
It does not matter how tough the regulation enforcement is or how precise the regulations if the regulated side bends them or ignores them completely counting on not getting caught. Which is what actually happened at Deepwater Horizon. Responsibilities were very clearly stated and regulated - they simply ignored them.
And then there is that tiny thing about corporations, how they set aside a part of their profit for lobbying for "more deregulation" as it "limits business opportunities".
I've been trying to figure something in my head, and maybe you can help me out, yeah? When a person is insane, as you clearly are, do you know that you're insane? Maybe you're just sitting around, reading "Guns and Ammo", masturbating in your own feces, do you just stop and go, "Wow! It is amazing how fucking crazy I really am!"? Yeah. Do you guys do that?
How can small quakes get out of control and why hasn't it happened yet?
Links above. There are there for your benefit, not to show that I know how to link.
Deepwater Horizon also happened due to poor regulatory oversight.
And that changes the part where corporations WILL ALWAYS set profit first how exactly? Crying "It's their fault too!" doesn't remove corporate (ir)responsibility.
Irrelevant since we both know of the problem and have adequate solutions in place.
You're saying that there are NO deaths from accidental shootings anymore? What planet or time period ARE you posting from?
If the same were true of geothermal power, then there'd be no issue of uncertainty since it is already known and already solved. There'd still be the matter of whether the plant in question follows the resulting regulation, but that also is a solved problem.
Well, that sounds like you are posting from La La Land.
Issue is both known AND there is a solution for it. I even linked AND copy/pasted it above. Stopping pumping water into the ground stops the earthquakes. At this stage at least.
And you are aware that you are contradicting yourself? On one side admitting that regulation is not a perfect or often even adequate solution, while on the other side you present it as a "solved problem".
But earthquakes are zero-sum. They're just releases of stresses which have built up in the Earth's crust. Those stresses come from natural movements of the crust, not from the fracking. If fracking causes an earthquake, that means it's releasing those stresses a little at a time, before it would have released naturally, thereby decreasing the chances of an even larger natural earthquake. Like controlled man-induced avalanches, if fracking causes an earthquake that means it's making the area safer, not more dangerous.
First off... these are not natural earthquakes, caused by the movements in Earth's crust due to settling or whatever. These are man-made earthquakes, a byproduct of a rather chaotic process - just take a look at the link on Basel above.
Second - there would be NO stresses to be reduced, naturally. Pumping water through the cracks is what is causing the stress. There's no "if" about it. Both fracking and hydroshearing cause earthquakes.
As for avalanches analogy... Try instead mining for precious minerals using nothing but large quantities of explosives. That's a bit closer to the actual situation.
Slashdot Mirror
Now, had he planked, batmanned and plumbked the South Pole, all at the same time...
You shouldn't have skipped the part at 0:26 then.
The part where in the background a woman gives a young man, who clearly displays a lack of concentration and of motoric skills, a basketball to hold up in the air while leading him in a walk on a raised platform of some kind.
I'm guessing the platform is a bench and they are doing a balance exercise.
That might have clued you in that the room is a small gym.
Then again, since your prejudice prevented you from realizing that on your own, seeing there is a girl led through the same exercise in the very frame you chose to present - there is this part a couple of seconds earlier.
It's not any meaningful restriction.
Because it is unenforced. But just like all those laws it is still valid.
For purely financial reasons the library needs a responsible non-minor on record whom they can bill in case materials are not returned.
Financial and LEGAL reasons.
That is why kids 11 and younger must bring their parents to sign the papers, and not a cash deposit.
I take it, by evil, you mean things you don't like.
You can quote, but apparently you can't read what you quote. The very sentence you quoted above explains WHY religion is evil.
The fact that you apparently can't grasp (or you refuse to grasp it) its pretty straightforward language and meaning does not really represent a proof positive for my claim, but it does strongly indicate that it is true.
My point was that there's no evidence for the second claim in GP's message, and yet his message was modded "insightful".
Actually, evidence is very simple.
When presented with evidence of the falseness of their particular flavor of religious teachings, religious people either simply reject the evidence or try to readjust the definitions of their religious teachings so that it is all still "true" in face of the evidence to the contrary.
Basically, they try to maintain the "truth" by lying to themselves.
But that is just practical evidence.
True reason for the debilitation factors of faith and religion is that every single one tries to explain EVERYTHING there is, there ever was and that there ever will be with its dogma.
Dogma, which every proponent of that particular faith/religion must accept as true, undeniable and unchangeable as it contains both the principles of their faith as well as the explanation of the Universe.
Those explanations being ultimately limited by their own definition as absolute truths, undeniable and unchangeable facts are BOUND to clash with actual data sooner or later.
At that moment, the religious person can either accept the new data throwing away his/her entire life and the view of the world, reject the clearly visible new data and stick to their dogma OR try to jury rig the new data onto the old dogma.
And so we get people claiming that there were dinosaurs in the garden of Eden and all the way up to the Biblical flood.
Basically, the victim of religion can choose between acceptance of selective reasoning and self-immolation of their "self" by rejecting the single most important thing in their lives, on which they've built not only their view of the world but also every single relation to the world around them - social, economical, philosophical... etc.
Either way, the person is scarred for life from that point on.
By a mere act of being exposed to new information, be it an idea or simply data.
And anything that can damage person's most important ability, to reason, by making them basically highly allergic to the truth and knowledge is not only debilitating but essentially evil as well.
From your own link:
Your library card is your key to the resources the Library has to offer. Learn how to get one here.
Your library card is your key to the resources and services of all New York Public Library locations in the Bronx, Manhattan, and Staten Island. In addition to borrowing library materials, your card will let you reserve a computer, download digital media, search hundreds of electronic databases, and more.
It's a case of non enforcement of existing rules and regulations.
Rules say that you don't get to use the library without a card. Stacks or borrowing or ANYTHING that the library provides.
To get a library card, you either provide identification which shows your age, OR your parents do that for you if you are under 12.
As for the age restriction, they are treating everyone above 12 years of age as a "young adult".
And the burden of "thinking about the children", i.e. kids who are of 11 years old or younger, is simply being left to their parents.
I'm not saying that's bad or anything.
In fact, I think that should be the way it's done generally - not treating teenagers as if they are babies, when most of them are clearly closer to adults than children.
I'm just saying that there ARE rules in place already - it's just that their enforcement is rather lax.
Thanks for the link above, spared me some time.
Even considering that type of restriction, however, I've never been to a public library that checked identification or age before allowing access to the stacks; even a kid with borrowing restrictions - or no card at all - could still pull books off the shelf and read them in the library.
Well, that's a different ballgame.
Libraries clearly DO have age restrictions, only they don't follow them to the letter as it is not say... a swimming pool but a library.
On the other hand, minors being allowed access to adult-only material BECAUSE they didn't follow their own restrictions... well...
Their restrictions - their responsibility.
In any case, the guy watching porn in the library and refusing to be considerate of others is a jerk and, from a community standpoint, probably needs a good talking to. But it's not a crime to be a jerk, as much as that main pain some of us.
Oh, I agree. Completely.
I'm just saying that crying out "think of the children" may be (in any case it SHOULD be) a tad bit misplaced this time.
Well... despite the ALA policy above there IS quite a bit of restriction built-in.
It's probably just the case of them not considering something as basic as a "library card" an actual restriction.
Note the language used and the ages in question.
And the burden of "thinking about the children" being placed squarely on their parents' shoulders.
As for "actual knowledge of typical librarian policies" - I could ask my friend who is a librarian. Let me know exactly what you want to know and I'll relay it to her.
But bear in mind that "typical" and "official" policies may be two VERY different things here.
Actually, considering that each canton has its own ministry of education, plus the Federal one, plus the one for Republika Srpska...
That's like... what? Twenty four different things?
And, while Tuzla may not be very fundie, situation in other places CAN and DOES differ.
I mean, every couple of years some idiot comes out against Santa Claus - cause that's Christian propaganda aimed at Muslim children.
And naturally, those are not the most serious cases.
And don't think it's just the Muslims.
It is generally understood that Croat means Catholic, Serb an East Orthodox Christian and Bosnian or Bosniak a Muslim Such logic is even imposed on the constitution through the fact that only member of those three nationalities can and may be elected as presidents. Of which we have three at the same time.
And couple of years ago when a Croat from a socialist-democratic party (as opposed to several Croat nationalist parties) was elected into the presidency as the representative of the Bosnian Croats - those from the Croat nationalist parties called for his resignation because he was not "a real Croat" in their mind and because they claimed that he was elected by Muslims.
Remember that "Obama can't be the presidn't cause he ain't 'merican" nonsense?
Well... Imagine if it was republican party that demanded his resignation cause a) he is not a U.S. citizen and b) cause only blacks voted for him.
From the very same Wikipedia article linked in the post above:
The main U.S. unit in the battle was the 2nd Armored Cavalry Regiment (2nd ACR), a 4,500 man reconnaissance and security element assigned to VII Corps.
It consisted of three ground squadrons (1st, 2nd and 3rd), an aviation (attack helicopter) squadron (4th), and a support squadron.
The 2ACR combat team numbered around 10,000 soldiers.
Each ground squadron was made up of three cavalry troops, a tank company, a self-propelled howitzer battery, and a headquarters troop.
Each troop comprised 120 soldiers, 12 M3 Bradley fighting vehicles and nine M1A1 Abrams main battle tanks.[1]
The corps' main body consisted of the American 3rd Armored Division (3rd AD) and 1st Infantry Division (1st ID) and 1st Armored Division (1st AD), and the British 1st Armoured Division (1 AD).
The primary battle was conducted by 2ACR's three squadrons of about 400 soldiers, along with the 1st Infantry Division's two leading brigades, who attacked and destroyed the Iraqi 18th Mechanized Brigade and 37th Armored Brigade) of the Tawakalna Division, each consisting of between 2,500 to 3,000 personnel.[1]
During the battle, 2nd ACR destroyed 160 tanks, 180 personnel carriers, 12 artillery pieces and more than 80 wheeled vehicles, along with several anti-aircraft artillery systems.
That's 189 armored vehicles, plus their support.
Plus air support.
Scout and attack helicopters of Fourth Squadron and 2-1 Aviation Battalion (AH 64 Apache) supported the fight as weather allowed.
Plus a shitload of TOWs.
After defeating that force, McMaster sent a scout platoon north to regain contact with Troop G. In doing that the scout platoon encountered another Iraqi tank position of thirteen T72s which they destroyed with TOW missiles.
All of the above (and more) used at the same time whenever they encountered the enemy, during 24+ hours of the battle.
So, all at the same time, but not all at once.
Combat became so intense at times that only massed artillery and mortar fires, attack helicopters and Air Force close air support prevented the enemy from closing with G Troop.
.
.
.
Artillery fire and air strikes played a large role in the battle, especially in the far north. Colonel Gary Bourneâ(TM)s 210th FA Brigade in direct support of 2nd ACR fired missions out to the 78 Easting. Close air support missions struck targets in greater depth preventing some Iraqi units from closing with G Troop or escaping the battle area. Attack helicopters flew in support of air scouts at key intervals during the day and the 2-1 Aviation Battalionâ(TM)s Apache helicopters, led by Lt Colonel Jon Ward, destroyed two batteries of enemy artillery and struck march units along the IPSA Pipeline Road at 4:30 p.m. just as the battle began in earnest.
During Desert Storm Coalition troops numbered at 956600 - versus 650000 Iraqi troops.
They didn't go there to test "what can happen when superior technology is used against superior numbers".
That is not how you win wars.
You win wars by being the side with BOTH superior technology and superior numbers, AND by bringing both down heavily on your enemy's head.
That's why during the Desert Storm US troops numbered basically the same number of battle deaths and "slipped in the shower/fell from a chair" deaths.
As long as a kid isn't running and screaming, any good librarian is pleased to see a young person with the interest and ability to utilize the adult section. I dunno, maybe your community library was different. Did you grow up in some repressive fundie backwater?
Actually, no. It was not fundie even at the time when being fundie was really popular.
As for being a backwater, that's debatable. It WAS a lagoon couple of million years ago.
Like I said to the other poster, segregation according to age simply seems neater.
Particularly seeing the sorry state of books in the children's section. AND the noise levels there.
when I was in elementary school the children's section got too damn boring after about a half hour.
I too was raiding the adult section (which basically meant everything besides the stuff for the elementary school kids) pretty early, but I had to use my mother's card for a while.
But I assume that I would at least raise an eyebrow or two had I started picking up Marquis de Sade, Nabokov and whatnot.
Which section is that? The libraries I've used have always had their 'erotic' materials shelved in the regular stacks, wherever the catalog would normally sort them.
Do they also put The Decameron there? Or Steppenwolf (drugs)? Or Werther (suicide)?
I agree with your philosophical and cynical standpoints, but I DO contest the idea that libraries are working under complete and equal openness to all their members.
I'm guessing that there MUST be some mechanism at play which ensures that kids don't go home with "erotic materials" one day, coming back with an angry loud parent in tow the next day.
And following your cynical standpoints, segregation according to age just seems... neater.
See... If I was suspecting malice, I'd go with you puling a couple of ignoratio elenchi on me there.
But I'm guessing that it is rather the case of you and me having different understanding of the topic of the discussion.
I.e. You think that we are discussing one facet of the subject, while I am talking about another facet thinking that you are referring to the SAME facet as I am.
Case in point...
Let's say corruption is "correlated with greed". I would like to point out the class of greed that operates flawlessly legally, like Chinese labor rates and Foxconn (sp?) hiring *100,000* new workers who are *glad* to go there. As legal as it gets - and the offshoring greed is immense
Of course greed "operates flawlessly", legally or illegally as a motivator for an individual - but I was talking about greed as a motive for a leader/decision maker to be corrupted.
And there it does not work as advertised in all cases - because what may look like greed or corruption to one side, may be a heroic effort of one individual to preserve his entire society on the other.
And by corrupted, I mean a corrupted leader/decision maker OF THE PEOPLE he/she represents.
Doing a disservice to them, being motivated by either personal gain or some other group's gain.
You say that those people in China are working out of greed - how about a desire to provide a better life to their children through self-sacrifice?
Greed is what's pushing people when they have more than they will need in foreseeable future.
People polishing iPhones for Foxconn have a way to go to get there.
Yes you can rally people both around malice, and against malice. K Street in Washington is rallied around malice. The Internet Blackout Day against SOPA was rallying against malice.
Umm, no. I may have been not... exactly clear with my explanation above, but...
K Street is an example of group A which, being motivated by unknown factors (we can't really say with certainty are they uninformed, stupid, malicious, greedy, BAD etc. or sacrificing, heroic, in possession of superior ideology or facts, GOOD etc.), hires group K as they provide professional means of influence on a group that designs and votes in laws.
You may say that the group K is working motivated by greed (which does not have to be necessarily true) but you can't attach negative moral points to the group A - because the group B is doing the same thing.
Cause that IS how it's done. Which is a sad moral situation, but apparently legal one.
Anyway - there is no certain malice there.
At best, it may be greed on account of the K Street - but as they are still bound by laws and contracts, you can't really blame them for doing their perfectly legal jobs.
No more than you can blame a guy making axes if one of his axes gets used by a serial killer. Or a lumberjack.
As for malice being the motivator in rallying AGAINST malice - to use Nazis again, that would be like calling WWII Allies Nazis.
What is malice against malice? Enemy of my enemy is my...? Minus and minus make a...?
SOPA protesters weren't rallied around their common malice - in fact, they were rallied around their common desire for the protection of their and other people's freedoms.
Your next thing about hating and herds is called the Prisoner's Dilemma. The "1%" are all in the same 100 lunch clubs, they have it all orchestrated on their side. The 99% then squabble among themselves, trying to fix it all, but ... well, ... it's harder to both orchestrate by the numbers, and with plenty of disadvantages to boot. Occupy Wall Street was laughed off by the media but it was one of the Protests of the Year, followed by (yes, mild) Internet Blackout Day. The fundmental problem is how to "beat the Prisoner's Dilemma so that we gain force in unity."
Umm... no.
Prisoner's dilemma is about the supposed rational solution for looking out for the
Don't most libraries already enforce age restriction and segregation, as it is deemed that some books are not suited to a younger audience, either due to their racy and violent content or due to being "too damn boring" to the kids?
In other words - what children? There are no children around in the adult section of the library.
You know... that section of the library that holds the Marquis de Sade books.
First off, greed and corruption are the same thing - one is the motive for the other.
Now, if it was all corruption it would be a very simply problem - simply pay more to have it your way.
After all, the subject is motivated only by greed and self interest, right?
Malice is fine but.. you can't rally people around malice. Note the lack of "hate clubs" in any society - as opposed to fan clubs.
Humans are social animals. We like to be the part of the herd we like for what we like to like. And be liked because of it.
No herd will take you in simply because you hate the same thing as everyone else. Because they don't all hate the same things.
A herd may LIKE the same things, but they don't all love or hate the same things - cause hate and love are individual preferences.
And in politics - you need your herds.
So, while a single individual may have his/her own personal reason for malice they can't teach others their hate.
He/she must give them a reason and logic on which they will build their own hate - i.e. indoctrinate them with false logic and ideology.
Delude them.
They don't even have to hate - they simply have to believe that the other side hates them or the things that they care about.
You know... like morals, god, puppies... America. Whatever.
And the less they know - the more they will believe.
The best part is, once they got the ball rolling, they don't even have to validate their position to anyone.
The other side is BOUND to do (or not do) something that will be construed as "evil" by their righteous followers.
After that, they have it made. Kids will be running away from home for a chance to die fighting those puppy hating bastards.
And all that time, they won't actually hate the other side - they will simply be "doing the right thing", backed by their own ignorance and lack of wisdom.
Or "ideals", as some people like to call that.
Even Nazis were dead certain that they were doing the right thing.
Exterminating the "lower races", avenging their betrayed ancestors, liberating the world from communism, conquering the world so it would be run properly by those with superior genes and culture...
They had both science AND magic backing their cause - how could they've been wrong?
Also, in that light, it's more kinda purple.
Why would older adults' social interactions differ from younger adults'?
It is explained in detail here, here and here.
Or if you don't have the time for all that, this basically sums it up.
Says the man promoting the tried and true road to failure.
Here's a novel approach. How about we deregulate the rich?
50% tax on everything over say... 10 million dollars (number to be adjusted over time according to inflation). Add 5% for each 10 million beyond that, capping at 90% max.
And since we're talking about "What's in it for US?" - prevent that money from going offshore by taxing accordingly (to the tax above) every transfer above 50k - unless it is intended for the purchase of raw materials needed for production within US borders.
Make them spend that money at home, and make them keep spending it.
Prior to all that, pull back all that money circulating around the world being used for trading in oil and other resources.
Government should cover the basic living and health costs for everyone during the transition period as the value of the dollar would go from current to worthless to extremely valuable withing years if not months.
They'll have plenty of money coming in from all those taxes.
There.
Now I get to call you a pussy and a "nowecan'ter" if you don't accept my proposal.
What? You expressly wanted something new and in a "Yes we can!"-style.
Not something sensible, balanced and thought-through.
let's repeal a small number of laws that act as a barrier to business in the US
Sure, why not. Let's give it a whirl one more time.
If you keep flogging a dead horse it's gotta get up and start galloping eventually, right?
Welcome to Sharia Law made official.
(and at the rate things are going viz. immigration, welcome to Europe c. 2112).
100 years from now Europe may be officially under Sharia Law?
Now that's a cause for alarm and quick and resolute action if I ever saw one.
We have only 100 years to come up with a solution - and these days 100 years ain't what it used to be.
You of all people should be able to recognize that my post's aim was to satirize the original poster's flamebait-loaded, hatespeech-filled post, by comparing his ideas to those of a serial killer nut-job.
And yes, suggesting murder of someone just because they pronounce their adherence to an idea IS motherfucking insane.
AND people making such suggestions should be if not closely watched at all times, then at least examined by trained professionals, both medical and by those in law enforcement.
Cause, you never know. He may be in the process of making room in the crawl space of his house.
TLDR: I was joking about him being much like psycho serial killer.
Ok, so what are the links supposed to be telling me other than there are small quakes associated with this sort of project. I don't care about small quakes because small quakes don't damage anything. Big quakes cause damage. And those links tell me nothing about the likelihood of big quakes.
Well, I am stunned at you continuing this conversation since you clearly can't read.
Or is your problem actually with comprehending words and ideas?
At any EXPERIMENTAL level so far (as in not economically feasible) they produced constant, unexpected and uncontrollable earthquakes.
Scale that up to anything close to economical and you have to shut the project down as earthquakes increase in magnitude and frequency - as you are basically spending any money you got out of the project on lawsuits and settlements.
And "small" earthquakes DO damage things - only not as often, and not as much.
But start hitting one a day like they did in Basel, and it's simply math and time when that damage is going to start showing.
And again - that is all in the experimental phase. Not even close to running at 100% capacity/profit.
And there's your "problem".
Those "small earthquakes" might as well be computer simulations compared to the actual seismic events once they go commercial - i.e. when they increase the intensity of watershearing, thereby directly increasing the intensity of the earthquakes.
No, and you aren't so aware either.
Wait, what?
All that what you said above, about the difference between regulation and the enforcement of, is fine and dandy - but how is ANY of that "a solved problem" to corporation's greed guided agenda?
And no, "violation of regulation usually results in considerable loss of profit and possibly other serious penalties" IS NOT the answer - corporations have insurances and budgets and lawyers so that they would not lose profit regardless what they do.
And that's all just the "above the board" stuff for WHEN they get caught.
It does not matter how tough the regulation enforcement is or how precise the regulations if the regulated side bends them or ignores them completely counting on not getting caught.
Which is what actually happened at Deepwater Horizon.
Responsibilities were very clearly stated and regulated - they simply ignored them.
And then there is that tiny thing about corporations, how they set aside a part of their profit for lobbying for "more deregulation" as it "limits business opportunities".
I've been trying to figure something in my head, and maybe you can help me out, yeah?
When a person is insane, as you clearly are, do you know that you're insane?
Maybe you're just sitting around, reading "Guns and Ammo", masturbating in your own feces, do you just stop and go, "Wow! It is amazing how fucking crazy I really am!"?
Yeah. Do you guys do that?
How can small quakes get out of control and why hasn't it happened yet?
Links above. There are there for your benefit, not to show that I know how to link.
Deepwater Horizon also happened due to poor regulatory oversight.
And that changes the part where corporations WILL ALWAYS set profit first how exactly?
Crying "It's their fault too!" doesn't remove corporate (ir)responsibility.
Irrelevant since we both know of the problem and have adequate solutions in place.
You're saying that there are NO deaths from accidental shootings anymore? What planet or time period ARE you posting from?
If the same were true of geothermal power, then there'd be no issue of uncertainty since it is already known and already solved.
There'd still be the matter of whether the plant in question follows the resulting regulation, but that also is a solved problem.
Well, that sounds like you are posting from La La Land.
Issue is both known AND there is a solution for it. I even linked AND copy/pasted it above.
Stopping pumping water into the ground stops the earthquakes. At this stage at least.
And you are aware that you are contradicting yourself?
On one side admitting that regulation is not a perfect or often even adequate solution, while on the other side you present it as a "solved problem".
But earthquakes are zero-sum. They're just releases of stresses which have built up in the Earth's crust. Those stresses come from natural movements of the crust, not from the fracking. If fracking causes an earthquake, that means it's releasing those stresses a little at a time, before it would have released naturally, thereby decreasing the chances of an even larger natural earthquake. Like controlled man-induced avalanches, if fracking causes an earthquake that means it's making the area safer, not more dangerous.
First off... these are not natural earthquakes, caused by the movements in Earth's crust due to settling or whatever.
These are man-made earthquakes, a byproduct of a rather chaotic process - just take a look at the link on Basel above.
Second - there would be NO stresses to be reduced, naturally. Pumping water through the cracks is what is causing the stress.
There's no "if" about it. Both fracking and hydroshearing cause earthquakes.
As for avalanches analogy...
Try instead mining for precious minerals using nothing but large quantities of explosives. That's a bit closer to the actual situation.