Any well-informed person has always tried to hunt down different versions of news stories, with different biases. [citation needed]
People tend to say that but all of the people I know who might claim to be 'well informed' are really seem to live in a echo chamber. The yellow journalism of years past have morphed past the control of media moguls and now constitute something different. So much of the media is built upon FUD that it's hard to escape it, no matter where you look for news.
As if satellite phone service was free; You'll need do drop calling cards too; and chargers; don't forget power. Why don't you just fork cash out the back of the C-130s?
How exactly is President Obama imprisoning Liu Xiaobo?
Why is that comment 'insightful', all I see is a 'dog-wistle' comment designed to appeal to talk-radio supplicants.
So, six months of passive aggressive maneuvering has driven a man from his home (a.k.a. your living room), now he's pissed; I wonder how that happened.
While statistically, it's most likely that he's just blowing off steam, it's never a good idea to ignore a threatening message. However, I wouldn't count on a judge sending him to jail (unless he is already on probation). Either way, I suspect that he will hate you even worse, sorry.
Does anyone really think we wouldn't benefit from a total rewrite?...You know, sometimes you have to give up on version 1.112 and start working on a clean 2.0..., I hope to see this trend catch on.
Sure, but we will need martyrs; how about your family? Would you like to be the first to die today, or the last? People like you seem to assume that they'd somehow manage to scratch and claw your way to the top in a jumbled society. However, if your 'dreams' ever did come to fruition, you'd be lucky enough to live though it until order is restored.
Then just keep voting for the one who is more progressive than the other, both in the general election and the primaries. Maybe eventually, you'll find your choices more palatable, but at the very least you'd actually be doing something other than whining about it.
It might surprise you to find out that there is a whole subgroup of people who enjoy torture, perhaps we just need to give the detainees 'safe-words'. Also, one doesn't have to be into BDSM to be a Marine, but I'm told that it helps.
Well, then quit and move to some other society where you'll get taxed less, or are you 'entitled' to all of the benefits of civilization without any of the cost. Sure some of the programs don't directly provide you with a more comfortable existence, but I'd swear people like you would wish to see children starving in the streets if it'd mean 1% more in your 'pocket'. If corporations paid more of their fair share (after all they're people too), we might be able to afford your Bush era tax cuts.
Besides, I seem to remember that those tax cuts were supposed to give us more tax revenue over time. Do you think that it worked?
December 2007, in MN. We have a winner. I never said that it never could happen, just that it must be very, very rare. It's a big country after all. Now compare this one, to the number of dead/jailed homeowners.
Once I had his name, it was interesting reading more, including details on the raid and settlement "It's a miracle we survived that night.", yes, it was.
Calling an NRA "secondary source that maintains records on such" is like saying that Fox News is a good source for, well, news. If you want a point a view, both work well, but if you want even a moderate amount of objectivity, you can't depend on them.
Knee-jerk, might be a bit of an overstatement for the pace of the conversation but you did bounce into this discussion with an admitted misreading of my original comment, which of course is a knee-jerk reaction. Zealotry is apparent when every one of my queries for demanding better data is met with what would seem to be 'but the NRA tells me so'. Sure, you may not be a foul-mouthed conservative (bully for you on that, it's seemingly rare these days), but you are fully indoctrinated to the message broadcast on talk radio every day.
I had missed a sentence on the child lock, but meant to indicate that having a gun safely stored would also mean that it would be hard to get to in an 'emergency'. Perhaps responsible gun owners are the reason why a statically significant number of intruders are not shot.
Also, I wanted to indicate that I'm not just 'some anti-gun guy', but someone who believes that some people (like you) have a unrealistic view of how guns can be 'used'.
Ok, so what is the percentage of buglers who get 'instant justice' 10%, 1%,.01%,.00002%? I'm haven't disputed that it happens, just that its rare enough that counting one's ability to use a gun for 'everyday home defense' is stupid. People are better served taking an interest in local law enforcement, and crime diversion programs than thinking that they'll be the feature in a feel good article in an NRA monthly.
they should not keep a firearm accessible as such. It should be locked via gun safe, or trigger lock (required as such in some states).
Personally, I think it's a good thing that potential criminals have no idea if one home or another has an armed resident, but you're certainly not making your case that it's a good line of defense. If that's the case you are really trying to make, I'm not really sure that it is. Likely I'm just seeing the 'knee-jerk conservative' reaction where any criticisms of guns are met with an almost zealot reading of NRA talking points.
I'll ignore for a minute the fact that you missed my original point by a mile, and address the spirit of your reply
Just because someone wins the lottery every week, it doesn't make it a good investment choice. More than 20% of Americans own guns. So the average burglar has at least a one in five chance of walking into a home where there is a least one armed resident. If such home defense was as common as you would seem to think, then that NRA monthly column would be the size of a novel (at least).
Are any of those examples germane to my query? None that I skimmed showed a cop being 'lawfully' shot by a homeowner.
Also the first couple stories were all dateless, and without sources. Well, there were links to another website with the exact same text posing as 'details' ('Police say', with recursive links, odd). Sometimes armed victims do get the drop on criminals, it happens, sometimes, but shoot a cop and your ass is dead or going to jail or maybe both.
I looked for statistics on the number of robberies thwarted with deadly force by an armed homeowner, and could not find it. However I did find plenty of numbers on 'home invasions', 'homicides committed by buglers', etc, but those numbers are useless to support my 'off the cuff' guess of 'a dozen more', perhaps I was wildly underestimating the number.
These are NOT the sort of situations that get reported to authorities
Well, I've heard plenty of people tell some great tales, seemly often 'topping' the story right before it, but I wasn't talking about 'scaring'. I was talking about the number of dead robbers vs. their dead victims. However, I'm sure that some number of robbers are scared away by armed threatening people, but, again, that wasn't my point.
I'm not against the 2nd amendment, but one should be realistic as to the ability of people to defend themselves.
Furthermore, many studies exists that indicate crime drops in an area when gun laws are relaxed, and there tends to be sharply lower violent crime rates in areas with lax gun control laws that neighbor areas with tight controls.
Odd how the person who lead off his comment with the snarky 'citation needed' gives no such detail to a comment which screams for it. However, it's not like Washington D.C. criminals (or their girlfriends) can't buy their guns in VA. Frankly this country is too awash with weapons to make any gun law stick for anyone except those who stay within the law on principal.
This sentiment is what's leading to the erosion of our liberty at an alarming rate.
Yea, because things are 'better' when people starve in the streets. Sure you'all claim that 'charity' will fill the void, but it's not like they're well funded now, just wait until social programs retract (if you guys get your way). Given the choice between a starving child or a life of crime, what would you choose? It amazes me that some of the people who benefit the most from society, actually think that society 'owes' them. Sure there are some people who 'coast along' on food stamps and government assistance, but many will eventually get back to being productive (or at least their non-starving, educated children)
The end result of a genie granting your wish is the former Soviet Union. Worked out really well for them, didn't it?
Yea, because the soviet leaders really 'cared' for people. There are many successful countries like England, who have much more of a social welfare program than we do, yet I don't see you making such more realistic comparisons. But hey, why be realistic when you can be bombastic.
means tighter oversight by government into our private lives
No, my father was a police officer, I mean people like him. Don't try to rephrase my statements to make room for your little thoughts.
So, those meddling teenagers were what? Cops? Sure someone occasionally shoots an intruder, it's a big country. However, cops and other authorities tend to shoot back and if they can't they have 'friends' that will. One *may* be able to hold them off for a couple of hours, but 'successfully defend', no.
Also, for every time someone in their jammies actually gets the drop on 'average' intruders, a dozen more take the lead themselves. The best general defense against criminal activity is reduction of poverty (fewer desperate people), and well paid professional police.
Can you tell me the last time a citizen was able to successfully use weapons to defend his property from 'intrusion' by any determined authority, local or federal? Rambo fantasies are so lame.
And, to be honest, its one reason I didn't vote for him.
You might not have noticed that every politician runs on a bigger platform than they can deliver, trying to act like Obama is any different is part of the new 'typical'
Their only value in my mind is that they will gridlock the addition of more crap to the government.
One of the problems with having 'conversations' with 'conservatives' is that despite easily accessable fact they often repeat ad nauseum 'facts' hawked on talk radio. For example, the 'fights' between Bill Clinton, and Newt Gingrich famously shut down the government. Conservative pundits have been crowing about this 'victory' for the last decade, but they fail to realize that Bill Clinton won in 1996 in part because the shutdown hurt Americans. Millions of people found that they were 'missing' Social Security checks, Medicare processing, etc. This didn't sit well with voters, but the boomers seemed determined to repeat past mistakes.
I swear that libertarians think that having children starving the streets is the path to riches.
Ownership is just a concept created and enforced by a civil authority. If no one paid taxes, there wouldn't be a government to enforce your 'right' to own land.
Slashdot Mirror
Any well-informed person has always tried to hunt down different versions of news stories, with different biases.
[citation needed]
People tend to say that but all of the people I know who might claim to be 'well informed' are really seem to live in a echo chamber. The yellow journalism of years past have morphed past the control of media moguls and now constitute something different. So much of the media is built upon FUD that it's hard to escape it, no matter where you look for news.
As if satellite phone service was free; You'll need do drop calling cards too; and chargers; don't forget power. Why don't you just fork cash out the back of the C-130s?
How exactly is President Obama imprisoning Liu Xiaobo? Why is that comment 'insightful', all I see is a 'dog-wistle' comment designed to appeal to talk-radio supplicants.
Some time ago radiation wasn't well understood, and a number of tools were built to take advantage of it for personal use. The radioactive shoe sizer came to mind right off the bat, but a searching for it I found a number of tools that were certainly ill advised. http://www.thingamababy.com/baby/2006/05/fun_with_radiat.html http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com/offbeat-news/10-radioactive-products-that-people-actually-used/1388
So, six months of passive aggressive maneuvering has driven a man from his home (a.k.a. your living room), now he's pissed; I wonder how that happened. While statistically, it's most likely that he's just blowing off steam, it's never a good idea to ignore a threatening message. However, I wouldn't count on a judge sending him to jail (unless he is already on probation). Either way, I suspect that he will hate you even worse, sorry.
You are standing in a steamy prison shower...
....I reach into my bag of holding for the +3 anal protection lube.
Personally, I'd be wearing my +5 shield of protection so that it covered my rear, but that's just me; obviously the perils you see are 'different'.
Does anyone really think we wouldn't benefit from a total rewrite?...You know, sometimes you have to give up on version 1.112 and start working on a clean 2.0..., I hope to see this trend catch on.
Sure, but we will need martyrs; how about your family? Would you like to be the first to die today, or the last? People like you seem to assume that they'd somehow manage to scratch and claw your way to the top in a jumbled society. However, if your 'dreams' ever did come to fruition, you'd be lucky enough to live though it until order is restored.
Then just keep voting for the one who is more progressive than the other, both in the general election and the primaries. Maybe eventually, you'll find your choices more palatable, but at the very least you'd actually be doing something other than whining about it.
As I'm hungry, I'd rather have a ham sandwich rather than mass produced 8 and 16 GB modules. -- is that insightful too?
what else can Chrome OS do that Chrome Browser can't?
Force the user to maintain a google account. From 'the three differences link':
It's not a traditional fat-client...all of it's "applications" will be cloud-based.
It might surprise you to find out that there is a whole subgroup of people who enjoy torture, perhaps we just need to give the detainees 'safe-words'. Also, one doesn't have to be into BDSM to be a Marine, but I'm told that it helps.
Well, then quit and move to some other society where you'll get taxed less, or are you 'entitled' to all of the benefits of civilization without any of the cost. Sure some of the programs don't directly provide you with a more comfortable existence, but I'd swear people like you would wish to see children starving in the streets if it'd mean 1% more in your 'pocket'. If corporations paid more of their fair share (after all they're people too), we might be able to afford your Bush era tax cuts.
Besides, I seem to remember that those tax cuts were supposed to give us more tax revenue over time. Do you think that it worked?
December 2007, in MN. We have a winner. I never said that it never could happen, just that it must be very, very rare. It's a big country after all. Now compare this one, to the number of dead/jailed homeowners.
Once I had his name, it was interesting reading more, including details on the raid and settlement "It's a miracle we survived that night.", yes, it was.
Calling an NRA "secondary source that maintains records on such" is like saying that Fox News is a good source for, well, news. If you want a point a view, both work well, but if you want even a moderate amount of objectivity, you can't depend on them.
Knee-jerk, might be a bit of an overstatement for the pace of the conversation but you did bounce into this discussion with an admitted misreading of my original comment, which of course is a knee-jerk reaction. Zealotry is apparent when every one of my queries for demanding better data is met with what would seem to be 'but the NRA tells me so'. Sure, you may not be a foul-mouthed conservative (bully for you on that, it's seemingly rare these days), but you are fully indoctrinated to the message broadcast on talk radio every day.
I had missed a sentence on the child lock, but meant to indicate that having a gun safely stored would also mean that it would be hard to get to in an 'emergency'. Perhaps responsible gun owners are the reason why a statically significant number of intruders are not shot.
Also, I wanted to indicate that I'm not just 'some anti-gun guy', but someone who believes that some people (like you) have a unrealistic view of how guns can be 'used'.
Ok, so what is the percentage of buglers who get 'instant justice' 10%, 1%, .01%, .00002%? I'm haven't disputed that it happens, just that its rare enough that counting one's ability to use a gun for 'everyday home defense' is stupid. People are better served taking an interest in local law enforcement, and crime diversion programs than thinking that they'll be the feature in a feel good article in an NRA monthly.
they should not keep a firearm accessible as such. It should be locked via gun safe, or trigger lock (required as such in some states).
Personally, I think it's a good thing that potential criminals have no idea if one home or another has an armed resident, but you're certainly not making your case that it's a good line of defense. If that's the case you are really trying to make, I'm not really sure that it is. Likely I'm just seeing the 'knee-jerk conservative' reaction where any criticisms of guns are met with an almost zealot reading of NRA talking points.
I'll ignore for a minute the fact that you missed my original point by a mile, and address the spirit of your reply
Just because someone wins the lottery every week, it doesn't make it a good investment choice. More than 20% of Americans own guns. So the average burglar has at least a one in five chance of walking into a home where there is a least one armed resident. If such home defense was as common as you would seem to think, then that NRA monthly column would be the size of a novel (at least).
Also the first couple stories were all dateless, and without sources. Well, there were links to another website with the exact same text posing as 'details' ('Police say', with recursive links, odd). Sometimes armed victims do get the drop on criminals, it happens, sometimes, but shoot a cop and your ass is dead or going to jail or maybe both.
I looked for statistics on the number of robberies thwarted with deadly force by an armed homeowner, and could not find it. However I did find plenty of numbers on 'home invasions', 'homicides committed by buglers', etc, but those numbers are useless to support my 'off the cuff' guess of 'a dozen more', perhaps I was wildly underestimating the number.
These are NOT the sort of situations that get reported to authorities
Well, I've heard plenty of people tell some great tales, seemly often 'topping' the story right before it, but I wasn't talking about 'scaring'. I was talking about the number of dead robbers vs. their dead victims. However, I'm sure that some number of robbers are scared away by armed threatening people, but, again, that wasn't my point.
I'm not against the 2nd amendment, but one should be realistic as to the ability of people to defend themselves.
Furthermore, many studies exists that indicate crime drops in an area when gun laws are relaxed, and there tends to be sharply lower violent crime rates in areas with lax gun control laws that neighbor areas with tight controls.
Odd how the person who lead off his comment with the snarky 'citation needed' gives no such detail to a comment which screams for it. However, it's not like Washington D.C. criminals (or their girlfriends) can't buy their guns in VA. Frankly this country is too awash with weapons to make any gun law stick for anyone except those who stay within the law on principal.
This sentiment is what's leading to the erosion of our liberty at an alarming rate.
Yea, because things are 'better' when people starve in the streets. Sure you'all claim that 'charity' will fill the void, but it's not like they're well funded now, just wait until social programs retract (if you guys get your way). Given the choice between a starving child or a life of crime, what would you choose? It amazes me that some of the people who benefit the most from society, actually think that society 'owes' them. Sure there are some people who 'coast along' on food stamps and government assistance, but many will eventually get back to being productive (or at least their non-starving, educated children)
The end result of a genie granting your wish is the former Soviet Union. Worked out really well for them, didn't it?
Yea, because the soviet leaders really 'cared' for people. There are many successful countries like England, who have much more of a social welfare program than we do, yet I don't see you making such more realistic comparisons. But hey, why be realistic when you can be bombastic.
means tighter oversight by government into our private lives
No, my father was a police officer, I mean people like him. Don't try to rephrase my statements to make room for your little thoughts.
Also, for every time someone in their jammies actually gets the drop on 'average' intruders, a dozen more take the lead themselves. The best general defense against criminal activity is reduction of poverty (fewer desperate people), and well paid professional police.
lawful execution by Castle Doctrine law.
Can you tell me the last time a citizen was able to successfully use weapons to defend his property from 'intrusion' by any determined authority, local or federal? Rambo fantasies are so lame.
This is why government is often ineffective, and why both left and right wing parties want to streamline it.
So, what you're saying is it's those darn moderates who really muck things up!
And, to be honest, its one reason I didn't vote for him.
You might not have noticed that every politician runs on a bigger platform than they can deliver, trying to act like Obama is any different is part of the new 'typical'
Their only value in my mind is that they will gridlock the addition of more crap to the government.
One of the problems with having 'conversations' with 'conservatives' is that despite easily accessable fact they often repeat ad nauseum 'facts' hawked on talk radio. For example, the 'fights' between Bill Clinton, and Newt Gingrich famously shut down the government. Conservative pundits have been crowing about this 'victory' for the last decade, but they fail to realize that Bill Clinton won in 1996 in part because the shutdown hurt Americans. Millions of people found that they were 'missing' Social Security checks, Medicare processing, etc. This didn't sit well with voters, but the boomers seemed determined to repeat past mistakes.
I swear that libertarians think that having children starving the streets is the path to riches.
Ownership is just a concept created and enforced by a civil authority. If no one paid taxes, there wouldn't be a government to enforce your 'right' to own land.
I'm quite sure Wikipedia will give a skewed image of the past compared to what people actually thought.
As opposed to the totally inclusive image of history given by book publishers/editors/collectors though the ages?