It's amusing how this went from "they can't demand" in terms of a legal viewpoint to 'sure they can, they just rough you up a little if you decline and that's if you're lucky'.
You're right, then. They can demand it in that sense.
I, a common citizen, can also demand that you give me the keys to your car, as long as I have leverage over you. I never said that it would be legal for me to do so, but hey.. what's a little rampant abuse between friends?:)
Yes, in theory, you can always refuse a search (assuming you haven't been arrested or they have a search warrant for your person). In practice, not so much.
It was *you* who said "they can't demand" a search. I never did. I suppose you could go to court to complain (many have), but few have been successful. You obviously didn't check out the myriad of abuses in the links from my previous post. Those were just the ones I could find with google in less than five minutes.
Rather than assuming the worst about you (you're a troll -- and I've been feeding you), I'm going to assume that either you just don't like having your world view questioned, or you're a cop. Which is probably the same thing.
In any case, I've had enough of your blathering, and of the comment subject. Goodbye.
You can be "stopped by" all the time. ( Not that I agree that they should be allowed to do that, but such is the law - get the law changed. ) Being stopped by doesn't mean being searched. And searched doesn't necessarily mean searched without consent. etc.
I never said it was legal or constitutional. Police abuse is rampant, and people's rights are being violated. You can blather on about refusing a search if you want, but if you find yourself getting stopped/frisked, good luck with that.
In 2002, New Yorkers were stopped by the police 97,296 times.
In 2003, New Yorkers were stopped by the police 160,851 times.
In 2004, New Yorkers were stopped by the police 313,523 times.
In 2005, New Yorkers were stopped by the police 398,191 times.
In 2006, New Yorkers were stopped by the police 506,491 times.
In 2007, New Yorkers were stopped by the police 472,096 times.
In 2008, New Yorkers were stopped by the police 540,302 times.
In 2009, New Yorkers were stopped by the police 581,168 times.
In 2010, New Yorkers were stopped by the police 601,285 times.
In 2011, New Yorkers were stopped by the police 685,724 times.
In 2012, New Yorkers were stopped by the police 532,911 times
In 2013, New Yorkers were stopped by the police 191,558 times.
Oh, didn't mention warrants yet, did I? Yeah, that's right, even if your 'find my iphone' is just pointing to a location in the middle of nowhere and there's only one person there, cops can't just demand that they empty out all their pockets;
It is partially true that both parties represent corporate entities. The primary reason for this is that too many people do not actually make an effort to change that. They do not bother voting in primaries. They do not become active in the local party and try to direct it. On top of that, too many people who do not become active, view those who do become active and are not doing so in service of corporate interests as "whack jobs".
I agree that much of our citizenry is uninvolved in the political process. This is quite unfortunate. However, I don't know anyone who considers those who do get involved in support of the public good (or at least what they consider to be the public good) rather than special interests to be, as you put it, "whack jobs."
Many of the people I know who remain uninvolved in the political process do so because they are suspicious of and cynical about it. Often, this is because they feel that they do not have a voice, or that their voice is drowned out by the vast sums of money pumped into the political process by monied (often, but not always, corporate) interests.
Changing the political climate is work, if you are not willing to do the work, do not be surprised that politics is controlled by those who are. Of course, the best way to reduce corporate influence in politics is to reduce the return on investment that corporations receive by being active in politics. If we were to reduce the amount which government at various levels controls business activity, we would reduce the amount of value corporations receive from investing in politics.
I agree with your assessment of the lack of political involvement. However, I think limiting the influence of monied interests by removing the need for vast sums of money to run elections would have a much more salutary effect.
IMHO, there are many who work very hard to get elected to office in the hopes of making our government (at all levels) better and more responsive to the needs of the citizens they serve. The problem is that in our current environment, generally the candidate who has the most money wins. The need for huge sums of money, in many (if not most) cases, forces candidates to court monied interests to get elected. Since TAANSTAAFL, those monied interests expect results for their money.
This gives much bigger voice to monied interests. If we remove money as an incentive for candidates, we will get candidates who are not beholden to the monied interests that corrupt our political system. If anyone, regardless of their economic status or that of their supporters could compete, we would have a more robust political debate and, as a result, better government.
What is more, I believe we would find that more people would engage in the political process if they felt that elected representatives were responsible to their constituents rather than monied interests.
Which is why I take significant issue with the idea that "money is speech" in the political process. It's no secret (cf. K Street lobbyists, PACs, etc.) that those who make sizable campaign contributions or spend money (cf. Citizen's United v. FEC) on behalf of candidates have significantly more access and influence with elected officials. Eliminate the need for campaign "war chests" and you eliminate the *legal* influence of the monied interests.
Yes. I am advocating full public financing of election campaigns at all levels of government, with a requirement that political advertising time be *given* equally to all candidates by licensed media outlets.
When everyone can, based on their ideas, drive and intellectual rigor, compete on equal terms, we will get a broader political debate, a better class of candidates and, I believe, a government focused on serving the citizens in their constituencies.
Sadly, our elected officials benefit greatly from the current system, and even those who would like to change it
I suppose you are referring to Nixon's "Southern Strategy" whereby he appealed to southern racists by actually working to desegregate southern schools (something which LBJ angered those same racists by refusing to do). I'm sorry, but the facts do not support your allegation that Nixon used some strategy to win the southern states, since he did not actually win them. They were won by George Wallace, who left the Democratic Party for that election and then returned to it.
However, That doesn't invalidate my primary points:
it's the bigoted assholes of all stripes who try to judge people according to all kinds of stupid measures.
If you're a bigoted scumbag, it doesn't matter what your party affiliation is, nor do party affiliations really tell us anything about whether a person is good or bad.
Besides, these days both parties represent the Corporate Entities of America rather than the people of the United States.
Here we describe the Geographic Population Structure (GPS) algorithm and demonstrate its accuracy with three data sets using 40,000–130,000 SNPs. GPS placed 83% of worldwide individuals in their country of origin. Applied to over 200 Sardinians villagers, GPS placed a quarter of them in their villages and most of the rest within 50km of their villages. GPS’s accuracy and power to infer the biogeography of worldwide individuals down to their country or, in some cases, village, of origin, underscores the promise of admixture-based methods for biogeography and has ramifications for genetic ancestry testing.[Emphasis added]
So the claims aren't as specific as some make it out to be. I guess it's sometimes good to read the ARRBTFA (Acutal Resources Referenced By The Fine Article). Just sayin'.
UM, apparently you are not familiar with the history of the parties in this country. It is the Democrats who try to judge people according to their racial purity(and always has been).
Actually, it's the bigoted assholes of all stripes who try to judge people according to all kinds of stupid measures. To clarify your point and the previous poster's, it worked like this:
1. Lincoln (a Republican -- no real ideological relation to the current Republican party), goosed long and hard enough by the abolitionists and the thought of all those slaves rising up against their captors, "freed" (I use quotes because most of those enslaved didn't live in states controlled by the Union army) the slaves.
2. After the US Civil War, the people who thought it was okay to own other people were really pissed off when they lost their privilege and their human possessions became Democrats (again, no real ideological relation to the current Democratic party) because they were against the party of Lincoln.
3. Things stayed this way for about 80 or so years until various members of the Democratic party saw the rise of the Middle Class after WWII and wanted a piece of that populist pie. This culminated in the early to mid 1960s when LBJ pushed through various civil rights laws.
4. Those aforementioned pissed off people were so enraged that their party would turn against their bigoted constituents, that when Nixon, using coded racist language, pulled a goodly number of those from the Democratic party to the Republican party.
Yes, this is simplistic and does not include a great deal of detail which would describe the evolution of the R and D parties into their current configurations. The point is that labels are just that. If you're a bigoted scumbag, it doesn't matter what your party affiliation is, nor do party affiliations really tell us anything about whether a person is good or bad.
Besides, these days both parties represent the Corporate Entities of America rather than the people of the United States.
It appalls me that so many people seem to be ignorant of their own history. It's not just sad. It may well be catastrophic. As Santayana famously remarked in his The Life of Reason:
Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. When change is absolute there remains no being to improve and no direction is set for possible improvement: and when experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.[Emphasis added]
The link you provided was of very little use. If you want to refer to a specific article, give an explicit link, not just a link to their home page.
In other words, I couldn't find the quote you referenced. But I suspect that it uses italics for words that are the object of discussion. If you don't have italics, the standard is to use quotes around the words.
For example, the word "facetious" has all 5 vowels, in alphabetical order. The contractions "it's" is short for "it is," while the work "its" is the possessive form of the word "it".
Next time take a little more care, especially when discussing language. It can be confusing if you aren't careful to differentiate between the words that are the object of discourse, and the words used in that discourse.
I'd give you an F in 8th-grade English, based on oyur submission.
Oh and despite the fact that you're being rather obnoxious, I'm big on cites myself so hereyougo. Perhaps you should lay off the coffee?
The link you provided was of very little use. If you want to refer to a specific article, give an explicit link, not just a link to their home page.
In other words, I couldn't find the quote you referenced. But I suspect that it uses italics for words that are the object of discussion. If you don't have italics, the standard is to use quotes around the words.
For example, the word "facetious" has all 5 vowels, in alphabetical order. The contractions "it's" is short for "it is," while the work "its" is the possessive form of the word "it".
Next time take a little more care, especially when discussing language. It can be confusing if you aren't careful to differentiate between the words that are the object of discourse, and the words used in that discourse.
I'd give you an F in 8th-grade English, based on oyur submission.
Man you are dumb. Assuming you're the same AC who complained about quoting the incorrect usage, I gave you that link to blow you off. The quote, while I'm sure it was originally from "Edpress News," is, not actually on that site. I originally (probably when you were still crapping your diaper) saw this as a Unix fortune. If you don't like how and what I post, note my login and don't read what I write.
I don't need instructions on how to write in English, and certainly not on in my comments on the Internet. Go bug someone else.
SF has a sizable homeless population because SF isn't that homeless-hostile. Compare San Diego.
As I recall, SF actually provides better than most places for the homeless. I'm reminded of a news article I read a number of years ago about a city in Florida (sorry, no cite) that, since SF was so homeless friendly, decided to devote their minimal allocation of funds for the homeless to pay for bus tickets to SF for their homeless population.
And people say Republicans are dumb. Bus tickets, FTW!
The housing issues are nothing new. I don't live in the bay area now, but back in 2000 I did live in Santa Clara for about six months. I recall reading an article in the San Jose Mercury News back then about full-time public school teachers in San Jose who were living in homeless shelters because they couldn't afford to rent or buy in the area. I also recall at least a couple of colleagues commuted 2.5-3 hours each way because they couldn't afford to house their families any closer to the bay area.
I *never* said that I thought that those with a concealed carry permit believed they have the right to kill.
That wasn't quite true. However, I didn't say those with a CC permit believed that, I said:
...if you feel you have the right to kill people and endanger others by discharging your firearm in public, then I suggest you get some professional help, and insist that you stay the hell away from me.
I can see, given the context, that folks might think I was painting all CC permit holders with a broad brush. I was not and apologize for not being more cogent in my earlier statement.
I enjoy interacting with those who hold viewpoints that differ from my own, especially if the discourse remains rational. Though we are unlikely to convince one another of our chosen viewpoint, perhaps increased understanding can be accomplished for both of us.
yes, that can be useful.
I am curious: do you know anyone who owns a firearm for self-defense, or does firearm ownership for this purpose preclude your association with a person? Would you terminate a friendship if you subsequently discovered the person had a concealed carry permit?
Yes, no and no.
I can attest that you are applying prejudicial stereotypes to those with concealed carry permits/weapons (I am stressing that these people are of the law abiding type rather than criminals who concealed carry illegally). Standard training includes the appropriate use of deadly force. For example, there is a duty to retreat in public places if possible, which implies that drawing the firearm is the last resort. I sense you presume that concealed carry people will draw down on an unarmed mugger, or boldly stride into dangerous areas due to the false security of carrying a firearm. This isn't the case. In fact, training also indicates that if you draw a gun you must be ready to use it (i.e. brandishing and threatening with a firearm is not allowed). You are supposed to hand over your keys/wallet if mugged, as these are just possessions. Only if there is a legitimate fear for your life or someone else's is deadly force allowable.
You can attest anything you like. If there are no guns around me, there is a zero probability that I will end up with extra holes from gunshots. If there are guns around, that probability is non-zero regardless of who is in possession of the weapon.
I don't know what people will or won't do. When it comes to humanity, experience tells me that betting on stupidity is usually the best option. That said, I'm pretty sure that most of the folks I know who own and carry firearms are responsible with them and would only use them with serious provocation. But again, that assumes that those people have the absolute ability to maintain control of the weapon (not a good assumption to make, yes?). What is more, the decision that deadly force is *required* is always a subjective one. Is everyone always rational at all times and under all circumstances? I think not.
Regardless, if a weapon is present, the probability of being shot is non-zero.
So, that means if I had a CCW, I would surrender my possessions during a nonviolent mugging and let the mugger walk away without ever knowing I had a firearm. By the same token, if someone breaks into my home at night, they have forfeit their right to live in favor of my right and duty to protect my family.
I understood the first time, thanks. And I'm sure that everyone with a CCW is as cool-headed and decent as you are. Especially the police. Yeah.
What you do in your own home is none of my business unless I'm there with you. Although I would point out that there are many non-lethal weapons that could incapacitate an intruder without killing them. And this brings me to the place where I have the biggest qualms: I understand your desire and responsibility in protecting your home and loved ones. But life is precious friend. Have you ever killed anyone? If so, do you feel the weight of your actions?
I did. And I do. The events of that day had an enormous impact on me and that will be with me for the rest of my life. And I had no intention of killing (or even harming) anyone. It was a straight up accident. It was my fault, but an accident nonetheless. Even so, I feel the weight of my actions. Do you have so little empathy that taking someone's life wouldn't affect you? I suspect not. Even if that person threatened you or someone under your protection.
I almost never quote from movies to make a point, but as Clint Eas
Now you can pay $4000 for a drive that won't last 2 years! Yeah.. sign me up.
Huh? What are you blathering on about, AC? From TFA:
In all, SanDisk announced four new data center-class SSDs. As the drives are enterprise-class, which are typically sold through third parties, SanDisk did not announce pricing with the new drives.[Emphasis added]
oh yeah, everythings a BIG CONSPIRACY to by everyone to gain a WHOLE TWO CENTS from google.
Fuckin tard.
I generally apply Hanlon's Razor. I'm thinking it applies in spades to you. Unless, of course that's you Wade Roush. In which case, I guess the truth hurts.
If it's not you, then I wonder what happened to your sense of humor. Sigh.
The author states that Silicon Valley is a bubble. What does he mean by that? Does he mean that real estate prices in Silicon Valley are over-valued? Does he mean that the tech companies in Silicon Valley are over-valued? Does he mean that the advantages for a tech company, or a technology professional to be located in Silicon Valley are over-valued? Or does he mean something else?
I did not read the article because the summary made me think that the author never defined what he meant by that statement. Without that meaning being defined there is no way to evaluate the soundness of his arguments about it (well, actually, there is. One concludes that the reason it is left poorly defined is to hide how unsound his arguments are).
He means, "please visit my site. I want more ad revenue. I don't have anything approaching interesting, coherent, relevant or even moderately useful to say, so I'll just string a bunch of random crap about the SF bay area together and see if I can get slashdotted.
I wish extra apostrophes would pop. Jesus Christ, it's not quantum mechanics! it's means it is!
It's is not, it isn't ain't, and it's it's, not its, if you mean it is. If you don't, it's its. Then too, it's hers. It isn't her's. It isn't our's either. It's ours, and likewise yours and theirs.
-Oxford University Press, Edpress News
This is a public service announcement. With apostrophes.
I disagree with your line of reasoning, and I doubt we would associate with one another due to incompatibility in our basic outlooks. However, I do respect your right to your opinion and viewpoint because you are not attempting to meddle in the affairs of others by calling for laws to strip away rights. Returning the favor, as it were.
Your viewpoint does trend toward denigrating those who disagree with you, and I will withhold my rejoinders except to ask: have you ever spent much time shooting firearms? Many people (though perhaps not you) fear what they do not understand. Find someone to take you to the range for an afternoon if you have never been. Don't be xenophobic and prejudicial against those who use firearms. Learn the safety rules and give it a try with a friend who will give you a demonstration.
At the very least, you will be able to claim you applied an open, critical mind to your chosen philosophy.
I do not fear guns. And I do understand what they are and how they work. I am not a xenophobe at all. I live in what is probably the most diverse place in the US and have friends and acquaintances from many different ethnic groups, creeds and viewpoints.
I don't like golf. I'm not big on going to movie theaters either. Does that make me a xenophobe or prejudiced? Just because I'm not interested in the same things you are doesn't make me so. I don't even object to gun ownership. What I object to is the premise that it's okay (for anyone, police included) to prepare to use deadly force in a non-combat situation. Sentient life is precious and every attempt should be made to preserve it, even when the object of those attempts doesn't share those beliefs.
My experiences in the last half-century have shown me that in normal civilian life that deadly force is unnecessary and that the threat of deadly force will generally make people more dangerous, not less so.
If you want to use guns for target shooting or hunting, more power to you. Knock yourself out.
However, what I don't want around *me* are people who are either unable or unwilling to live their lives without the psychological shield of a deadly weapon against notional bad guys, which makes them feel safer even though they are not. Such a person is more dangerous to those around them.
Statistically speaking, situations where using a gun to defend yourself would be useful are quite rare, and even in those cases using a gun will often escalate or otherwise make the risk of injury or death even higher. The chances of such a situation are vanishingly small compared to the risks of injury or death by other means. And so, if you are carrying a weapon for self-defense against the possibility that you might find yourself in such a situation, do you also expend proportionate resources to protect against the myriad of other, much more likely, situations which might cause injury or death? If not, why not?
I'm not sure what you mean about applying a critical, open mind to my chosen philosophy. I am an empiricist. And the evidence I've collected over the years tells me that I'm much more likely to have additional holes (and I have quite enough of those already) in my body in the presence of guns than when not in the presence of guns. I have also found myself in a variety of life-threatening situations, both with and without the presence of guns. In all of those situations, having a gun would not have made me any safer.
If carrying a firearm to "defend" yourself outside your home (let's be clear, I'm not talking about owning firearms or using them responsibly for hunting, target shooting, etc.) makes you feel safer, the statistics show that's a false sense of security. And if you feel you have the right to kill people and endanger others by discharging your firearm in public, then I suggest you get some professional help, and insist that you stay the hell away from me.
If you disagree, rock on. If you think I'm wrongheaded, boo-yah! Good for you. But your guns are not welcome around me. Have a nice day.
I would like it if different pass codes unlocked to different layouts. This way I can have a more restricted layout and app for my son.
But then you wouldn't need to have one for you *and* one for him. Those Apple folks need to buy new yachts, my friend. What are you trying to do, kill the global economy? Geez Louise!
Slashdot Mirror
It's amusing how this went from "they can't demand" in terms of a legal viewpoint to 'sure they can, they just rough you up a little if you decline and that's if you're lucky'.
You're right, then. They can demand it in that sense.
I, a common citizen, can also demand that you give me the keys to your car, as long as I have leverage over you. I never said that it would be legal for me to do so, but hey.. what's a little rampant abuse between friends? :)
Yes, in theory, you can always refuse a search (assuming you haven't been arrested or they have a search warrant for your person). In practice, not so much.
It was *you* who said "they can't demand" a search. I never did. I suppose you could go to court to complain (many have), but few have been successful. You obviously didn't check out the myriad of abuses in the links from my previous post. Those were just the ones I could find with google in less than five minutes.
Rather than assuming the worst about you (you're a troll -- and I've been feeding you), I'm going to assume that either you just don't like having your world view questioned, or you're a cop. Which is probably the same thing.
In any case, I've had enough of your blathering, and of the comment subject. Goodbye.
You can be "stopped by" all the time. ( Not that I agree that they should be allowed to do that, but such is the law - get the law changed. ) Being stopped by doesn't mean being searched. And searched doesn't necessarily mean searched without consent. etc.
You obviously don't know what you're talking about, friend.
I never said it was legal or constitutional. Police abuse is rampant, and people's rights are being violated. You can blather on about refusing a search if you want, but if you find yourself getting stopped/frisked, good luck with that.
Check this out as well.
As I quoted:
Which is where the "they can't just demand" bit comes in.
And that worked so well too:
Please.
As you quoted:
Oh, didn't mention warrants yet, did I? Yeah, that's right, even if your 'find my iphone' is just pointing to a location in the middle of nowhere and there's only one person there, cops can't just demand that they empty out all their pockets;
Really? That's news to me.
It is partially true that both parties represent corporate entities. The primary reason for this is that too many people do not actually make an effort to change that. They do not bother voting in primaries. They do not become active in the local party and try to direct it. On top of that, too many people who do not become active, view those who do become active and are not doing so in service of corporate interests as "whack jobs".
I agree that much of our citizenry is uninvolved in the political process. This is quite unfortunate. However, I don't know anyone who considers those who do get involved in support of the public good (or at least what they consider to be the public good) rather than special interests to be, as you put it, "whack jobs."
Many of the people I know who remain uninvolved in the political process do so because they are suspicious of and cynical about it. Often, this is because they feel that they do not have a voice, or that their voice is drowned out by the vast sums of money pumped into the political process by monied (often, but not always, corporate) interests.
Changing the political climate is work, if you are not willing to do the work, do not be surprised that politics is controlled by those who are. Of course, the best way to reduce corporate influence in politics is to reduce the return on investment that corporations receive by being active in politics. If we were to reduce the amount which government at various levels controls business activity, we would reduce the amount of value corporations receive from investing in politics.
I agree with your assessment of the lack of political involvement. However, I think limiting the influence of monied interests by removing the need for vast sums of money to run elections would have a much more salutary effect.
IMHO, there are many who work very hard to get elected to office in the hopes of making our government (at all levels) better and more responsive to the needs of the citizens they serve. The problem is that in our current environment, generally the candidate who has the most money wins. The need for huge sums of money, in many (if not most) cases, forces candidates to court monied interests to get elected. Since TAANSTAAFL, those monied interests expect results for their money.
This gives much bigger voice to monied interests. If we remove money as an incentive for candidates, we will get candidates who are not beholden to the monied interests that corrupt our political system. If anyone, regardless of their economic status or that of their supporters could compete, we would have a more robust political debate and, as a result, better government.
What is more, I believe we would find that more people would engage in the political process if they felt that elected representatives were responsible to their constituents rather than monied interests.
Which is why I take significant issue with the idea that "money is speech" in the political process. It's no secret (cf. K Street lobbyists, PACs, etc.) that those who make sizable campaign contributions or spend money (cf. Citizen's United v. FEC) on behalf of candidates have significantly more access and influence with elected officials. Eliminate the need for campaign "war chests" and you eliminate the *legal* influence of the monied interests.
Yes. I am advocating full public financing of election campaigns at all levels of government, with a requirement that political advertising time be *given* equally to all candidates by licensed media outlets.
When everyone can, based on their ideas, drive and intellectual rigor, compete on equal terms, we will get a broader political debate, a better class of candidates and, I believe, a government focused on serving the citizens in their constituencies.
Sadly, our elected officials benefit greatly from the current system, and even those who would like to change it
I suppose you are referring to Nixon's "Southern Strategy" whereby he appealed to southern racists by actually working to desegregate southern schools (something which LBJ angered those same racists by refusing to do). I'm sorry, but the facts do not support your allegation that Nixon used some strategy to win the southern states, since he did not actually win them. They were won by George Wallace, who left the Democratic Party for that election and then returned to it.
I stand corrected. Thank you.
However, That doesn't invalidate my primary points:
According to the actual paper's abstract:
So the claims aren't as specific as some make it out to be. I guess it's sometimes good to read the ARRBTFA (Acutal Resources Referenced By The Fine Article). Just sayin'.
UM, apparently you are not familiar with the history of the parties in this country. It is the Democrats who try to judge people according to their racial purity(and always has been).
Actually, it's the bigoted assholes of all stripes who try to judge people according to all kinds of stupid measures. To clarify your point and the previous poster's, it worked like this:
1. Lincoln (a Republican -- no real ideological relation to the current Republican party), goosed long and hard enough by the abolitionists and the thought of all those slaves rising up against their captors, "freed" (I use quotes because most of those enslaved didn't live in states controlled by the Union army) the slaves.
2. After the US Civil War, the people who thought it was okay to own other people were really pissed off when they lost their privilege and their human possessions became Democrats (again, no real ideological relation to the current Democratic party) because they were against the party of Lincoln.
3. Things stayed this way for about 80 or so years until various members of the Democratic party saw the rise of the Middle Class after WWII and wanted a piece of that populist pie. This culminated in the early to mid 1960s when LBJ pushed through various civil rights laws.
4. Those aforementioned pissed off people were so enraged that their party would turn against their bigoted constituents, that when Nixon, using coded racist language, pulled a goodly number of those from the Democratic party to the Republican party.
Yes, this is simplistic and does not include a great deal of detail which would describe the evolution of the R and D parties into their current configurations. The point is that labels are just that. If you're a bigoted scumbag, it doesn't matter what your party affiliation is, nor do party affiliations really tell us anything about whether a person is good or bad.
Besides, these days both parties represent the Corporate Entities of America rather than the people of the United States.
It appalls me that so many people seem to be ignorant of their own history. It's not just sad. It may well be catastrophic. As Santayana famously remarked in his The Life of Reason :
Sigh.
The link you provided was of very little use. If you want to refer to a specific article, give an explicit link, not just a link to their home page.
In other words, I couldn't find the quote you referenced. But I suspect that it uses italics for words that are the object of discussion. If you don't have italics, the standard is to use quotes around the words.
For example, the word "facetious" has all 5 vowels, in alphabetical order. The contractions "it's" is short for "it is," while the work "its" is the possessive form of the word "it".
Next time take a little more care, especially when discussing language. It can be confusing if you aren't careful to differentiate between the words that are the object of discourse, and the words used in that discourse.
I'd give you an F in 8th-grade English, based on oyur submission.
Oh and despite the fact that you're being rather obnoxious, I'm big on cites myself so here you go. Perhaps you should lay off the coffee?
The link you provided was of very little use. If you want to refer to a specific article, give an explicit link, not just a link to their home page.
In other words, I couldn't find the quote you referenced. But I suspect that it uses italics for words that are the object of discussion. If you don't have italics, the standard is to use quotes around the words.
For example, the word "facetious" has all 5 vowels, in alphabetical order. The contractions "it's" is short for "it is," while the work "its" is the possessive form of the word "it".
Next time take a little more care, especially when discussing language. It can be confusing if you aren't careful to differentiate between the words that are the object of discourse, and the words used in that discourse.
I'd give you an F in 8th-grade English, based on oyur submission.
Man you are dumb. Assuming you're the same AC who complained about quoting the incorrect usage, I gave you that link to blow you off. The quote, while I'm sure it was originally from "Edpress News," is, not actually on that site. I originally (probably when you were still crapping your diaper) saw this as a Unix fortune. If you don't like how and what I post, note my login and don't read what I write.
I don't need instructions on how to write in English, and certainly not on in my comments on the Internet. Go bug someone else.
Now get off my lawn,
u took the silicon valley bashing bait. u hurt bro?
Buying alphabets on the installment plan there champ?
SF has a sizable homeless population because SF isn't that homeless-hostile. Compare San Diego.
As I recall, SF actually provides better than most places for the homeless. I'm reminded of a news article I read a number of years ago about a city in Florida (sorry, no cite) that, since SF was so homeless friendly, decided to devote their minimal allocation of funds for the homeless to pay for bus tickets to SF for their homeless population.
And people say Republicans are dumb. Bus tickets, FTW!
Thank you. You should have written the article. :)
The housing issues are nothing new. I don't live in the bay area now, but back in 2000 I did live in Santa Clara for about six months. I recall reading an article in the San Jose Mercury News back then about full-time public school teachers in San Jose who were living in homeless shelters because they couldn't afford to rent or buy in the area. I also recall at least a couple of colleagues commuted 2.5-3 hours each way because they couldn't afford to house their families any closer to the bay area.
In my previous post I said:
That wasn't quite true. However, I didn't say those with a CC permit believed that, I said:
I can see, given the context, that folks might think I was painting all CC permit holders with a broad brush. I was not and apologize for not being more cogent in my earlier statement.
I enjoy interacting with those who hold viewpoints that differ from my own, especially if the discourse remains rational. Though we are unlikely to convince one another of our chosen viewpoint, perhaps increased understanding can be accomplished for both of us.
yes, that can be useful.
I am curious: do you know anyone who owns a firearm for self-defense, or does firearm ownership for this purpose preclude your association with a person? Would you terminate a friendship if you subsequently discovered the person had a concealed carry permit?
Yes, no and no.
I can attest that you are applying prejudicial stereotypes to those with concealed carry permits/weapons (I am stressing that these people are of the law abiding type rather than criminals who concealed carry illegally). Standard training includes the appropriate use of deadly force. For example, there is a duty to retreat in public places if possible, which implies that drawing the firearm is the last resort. I sense you presume that concealed carry people will draw down on an unarmed mugger, or boldly stride into dangerous areas due to the false security of carrying a firearm. This isn't the case. In fact, training also indicates that if you draw a gun you must be ready to use it (i.e. brandishing and threatening with a firearm is not allowed). You are supposed to hand over your keys/wallet if mugged, as these are just possessions. Only if there is a legitimate fear for your life or someone else's is deadly force allowable.
You can attest anything you like. If there are no guns around me, there is a zero probability that I will end up with extra holes from gunshots. If there are guns around, that probability is non-zero regardless of who is in possession of the weapon.
I don't know what people will or won't do. When it comes to humanity, experience tells me that betting on stupidity is usually the best option. That said, I'm pretty sure that most of the folks I know who own and carry firearms are responsible with them and would only use them with serious provocation. But again, that assumes that those people have the absolute ability to maintain control of the weapon (not a good assumption to make, yes?). What is more, the decision that deadly force is *required* is always a subjective one. Is everyone always rational at all times and under all circumstances? I think not.
Regardless, if a weapon is present, the probability of being shot is non-zero.
So, that means if I had a CCW, I would surrender my possessions during a nonviolent mugging and let the mugger walk away without ever knowing I had a firearm. By the same token, if someone breaks into my home at night, they have forfeit their right to live in favor of my right and duty to protect my family.
I understood the first time, thanks. And I'm sure that everyone with a CCW is as cool-headed and decent as you are. Especially the police. Yeah.
What you do in your own home is none of my business unless I'm there with you. Although I would point out that there are many non-lethal weapons that could incapacitate an intruder without killing them. And this brings me to the place where I have the biggest qualms: I understand your desire and responsibility in protecting your home and loved ones. But life is precious friend. Have you ever killed anyone? If so, do you feel the weight of your actions?
I did. And I do. The events of that day had an enormous impact on me and that will be with me for the rest of my life. And I had no intention of killing (or even harming) anyone. It was a straight up accident. It was my fault, but an accident nonetheless. Even so, I feel the weight of my actions. Do you have so little empathy that taking someone's life wouldn't affect you? I suspect not. Even if that person threatened you or someone under your protection.
I almost never quote from movies to make a point, but as Clint Eas
Now you can pay $4000 for a drive that won't last 2 years! Yeah.. sign me up.
Huh? What are you blathering on about, AC? From TFA:
oh yeah, everythings a BIG CONSPIRACY to by everyone to gain a WHOLE TWO CENTS from google.
Fuckin tard.
I generally apply Hanlon's Razor. I'm thinking it applies in spades to you. Unless, of course that's you Wade Roush. In which case, I guess the truth hurts.
If it's not you, then I wonder what happened to your sense of humor. Sigh.
You (or perhaps Oxford) should have put quotation marks around the invalid words.
Since I was quoting, I feel it would be inappropriate for me to modify the text. Please contact the source with your comment. Thanks.
The author states that Silicon Valley is a bubble. What does he mean by that? Does he mean that real estate prices in Silicon Valley are over-valued? Does he mean that the tech companies in Silicon Valley are over-valued? Does he mean that the advantages for a tech company, or a technology professional to be located in Silicon Valley are over-valued? Or does he mean something else? I did not read the article because the summary made me think that the author never defined what he meant by that statement. Without that meaning being defined there is no way to evaluate the soundness of his arguments about it (well, actually, there is. One concludes that the reason it is left poorly defined is to hide how unsound his arguments are).
He means, "please visit my site. I want more ad revenue. I don't have anything approaching interesting, coherent, relevant or even moderately useful to say, so I'll just string a bunch of random crap about the SF bay area together and see if I can get slashdotted.
I wish extra apostrophes would pop. Jesus Christ, it's not quantum mechanics! it's means it is!
It's is not, it isn't ain't, and it's it's, not its, if you mean it is. If you don't, it's its. Then too, it's hers. It isn't her's. It isn't our's either. It's ours, and likewise yours and theirs.
-Oxford University Press, Edpress News
This is a public service announcement. With apostrophes.
It was disjointed and didn't really seem to have any sort of point or theme. Now I can't get that time back. :(
I disagree with your line of reasoning, and I doubt we would associate with one another due to incompatibility in our basic outlooks. However, I do respect your right to your opinion and viewpoint because you are not attempting to meddle in the affairs of others by calling for laws to strip away rights. Returning the favor, as it were.
Your viewpoint does trend toward denigrating those who disagree with you, and I will withhold my rejoinders except to ask: have you ever spent much time shooting firearms? Many people (though perhaps not you) fear what they do not understand. Find someone to take you to the range for an afternoon if you have never been. Don't be xenophobic and prejudicial against those who use firearms. Learn the safety rules and give it a try with a friend who will give you a demonstration.
At the very least, you will be able to claim you applied an open, critical mind to your chosen philosophy.
I do not fear guns. And I do understand what they are and how they work. I am not a xenophobe at all. I live in what is probably the most diverse place in the US and have friends and acquaintances from many different ethnic groups, creeds and viewpoints.
I don't like golf. I'm not big on going to movie theaters either. Does that make me a xenophobe or prejudiced? Just because I'm not interested in the same things you are doesn't make me so. I don't even object to gun ownership. What I object to is the premise that it's okay (for anyone, police included) to prepare to use deadly force in a non-combat situation. Sentient life is precious and every attempt should be made to preserve it, even when the object of those attempts doesn't share those beliefs.
My experiences in the last half-century have shown me that in normal civilian life that deadly force is unnecessary and that the threat of deadly force will generally make people more dangerous, not less so.
If you want to use guns for target shooting or hunting, more power to you. Knock yourself out.
However, what I don't want around *me* are people who are either unable or unwilling to live their lives without the psychological shield of a deadly weapon against notional bad guys, which makes them feel safer even though they are not. Such a person is more dangerous to those around them.
Statistically speaking, situations where using a gun to defend yourself would be useful are quite rare, and even in those cases using a gun will often escalate or otherwise make the risk of injury or death even higher. The chances of such a situation are vanishingly small compared to the risks of injury or death by other means. And so, if you are carrying a weapon for self-defense against the possibility that you might find yourself in such a situation, do you also expend proportionate resources to protect against the myriad of other, much more likely, situations which might cause injury or death? If not, why not?
I'm not sure what you mean about applying a critical, open mind to my chosen philosophy. I am an empiricist. And the evidence I've collected over the years tells me that I'm much more likely to have additional holes (and I have quite enough of those already) in my body in the presence of guns than when not in the presence of guns. I have also found myself in a variety of life-threatening situations, both with and without the presence of guns. In all of those situations, having a gun would not have made me any safer.
If carrying a firearm to "defend" yourself outside your home (let's be clear, I'm not talking about owning firearms or using them responsibly for hunting, target shooting, etc.) makes you feel safer, the statistics show that's a false sense of security. And if you feel you have the right to kill people and endanger others by discharging your firearm in public, then I suggest you get some professional help, and insist that you stay the hell away from me.
If you disagree, rock on. If you think I'm wrongheaded, boo-yah! Good for you. But your guns are not welcome around me. Have a nice day.
So, what you're saying is that thinking like an American is not akin to this?
But sometimes it's like this.
I'd think you should be a little more circumspect about that. Folks might decide to blame Canada.
I would like it if different pass codes unlocked to different layouts. This way I can have a more restricted layout and app for my son.
But then you wouldn't need to have one for you *and* one for him. Those Apple folks need to buy new yachts, my friend. What are you trying to do, kill the global economy? Geez Louise!