it's much easier for an untrained person to use a gun to defend themselves.
..against someone armed with a knife. The technical term for your statement is "DUH", although I have also heard "DOY" and "No shit, Sherlock". The key point being that in a gun-totin' society it's not just the law-abidin' folks what pack heat. Follow, homeslice?
Atlanta, eh? I'm gonna guess it was a bible. I've witnessed the exact same thing (also in Atlanta!). When I (as passenger in my car) got the attention of the guy with the book propped on his steering wheel, his attention entirely fixed on said book until that point, he raised it up to show me "it's ok, it's the bible. I gots Gawd on my side".
Atlanta drivers are a large part of why I will only be dragged kicking and screaming back to that city. Buy me a beer one day and I'll tell you all about the other road adventures I had - such as the chap hanging halfway out his window, presumably steering with his feet. Or the nice estate agent lady who seemed to think that red lights were none of her concern since she had to read a map, talk on her blackberry, and take notes on paper all concurrently. Or the other gentleman watching a DVD (Usual Suspects IIRC) while doing 85 on the top end of the perimeter..
It got so I would routinely carry a camera with me (a big DSLR, for visual effect) and photograph these and other twats while on the highway, being as obvious and noticeable as I could. It's just a pity zapatag.com didn't (at the time, at least) allow photo uploading.
Not that I (necessarily) disagree with you, but.. what do you think created the "kind of people governments are supposed to protect us against" in such apparently large numbers?
If your answer is akin to "greed, maliciousness, and evil on the part of the looters", do you not suppose that those exact qualities are what the looters perceive in those in power, and that this rioting could be a way to say "they got theirs, now we're getting ours" ?
A) If that's the Surrey St Market in Croydon, well, goodbye Croydon, you won't be missed.
B) Daily Fail? really?
C) Has anyone else noticed that this whole mess has handily diverted attention away from the whole government-in-bed-with-corrupt-cops-in-bed-with-Murdoch story?
Nice strawman. You said: "killing is part of the job". I said "killing is not part of the job". Your assertion: "they wouldn't carry firearms if killing wasn't part of the job", which does NOT refute either of a) "killing is not part of the job" or b) "to serve and protect does not imply a licence to kill".
I'm not sure how you're failing to understand this.
Yes, and yes. As a matter of fact, one of the officers involved in this altercation was the victim of a shooting back in the '90s. Got shot in the face, losing his eye in the process, and then got shot 5 times in the back. The perp made it back to the station just fine, and to trial. Got life in prison, if I remember correctly. So yeah, your conspiracy-mongering is foolish, and completely unsupported by evidence.
I think you missed the point. GP was stating if the roles were reversed, i.e. if there was a group of six "perps" beating on a single cop, how many of those perps would have made it to the station unharmed (once the cop's buddies arrived, of course).
And "licensed to kill" does not imply "to serve and protect means licensed to kill", which was the basis for the GP's question. Killing is not part of the job, though it may as a last resort occasionally be necessary. Subduing with minimum force is the requirement.
Clearly the problem lies in trusting the bank. Remove that trust, and the customer doesn't accept the non-money the bank doesn't have, meaning you don't get paid, and the bank really has to find 4 real actual dollars from somewhere. So the bank, being unable now to meet its obligations, goes bankrupt (or recently, gets bailed out - but that's another story). Net effect? no more bank, and thus direct trade between you and the customer, able to negotiate prices without any worries about non-existent money.
Just curious at the image of a consumer of abortion. Possibly you meant customer, but even that has some slightly odd connotations. The rest of your post makes just as much (read: little) sense.
So that's an arm for the upgrade-to-premium dialog, half a leg for the order-save-games-by-date feature, two ribs and a kidney for the display-white-text-on-black function, and both ears for the really-you-seriously-expect-a-patent-search-for-every-little-piece-of-OBVIOUS AND COMMON functionality?
You, sir, live up to your sign-on. Mind controlled indeed; the only question is by whom.
[Insert dozens of obligatory Slashdot posts here about TrueCrypt "Plausible Deniability" here.]
Cheese is christ, you can't just pre-empt discussion on the very topic at hand with this sort of nonsense, like it simply doesn't matter! This is a discussion forum - what do you hope to achieve with this pre-emption? Nothing but off-topic posts?
*sigh* really? we're really going to have to discuss that monopoly status does not mean 100% market share *again*? Oh, I see you know that from your third and fourth sentences, so I can only conclude you are trolling.
Perhaps because the US is the biggest bully in the schoolyard now, and people see what it is doing with its power now, and want to change it's behaviour BEFORE it can fuck up just as mightily as the rest of the empire-building nations once did - saying "yeah, well, England built an empire, so the English can STFU about America" is ok just as long as the situation isn't made any worse.
There are, of course, other people who think it's already too late.
Huh? How exactly would being required to be a member of a guild do away with virus writing? It's not like the virus writers are going to be motivated by the thought of breaking the law into joining the guild.
Right.. so we get faced with the situation where the patent examiner's role is essentially "rubber-stamp and let the courts sort it out". Which benefits few[*], if any, since the resources spent fighting shoulda-been-rejected patents could better be spent elsewhere, e.g., i dunno, maybe actually _innovating_.
* - the PTO of course makes money regardless of whether a patent is granted or not, so there's no benefit for the PTO in NOT simply granting every application that came down with the last rainfall, and quite likely a clear advantage (faster processing of patents == more patent application fees) in such granting.
Slashdot Mirror
it's much easier for an untrained person to use a gun to defend themselves.
..against someone armed with a knife. The technical term for your statement is "DUH", although I have also heard "DOY" and "No shit, Sherlock". The key point being that in a gun-totin' society it's not just the law-abidin' folks what pack heat. Follow, homeslice?
Re: your sig. Your premise is flawed, therefore your question is meaningless.
He's 15, she's 18. Same shotgun response?
Atlanta, eh? I'm gonna guess it was a bible. I've witnessed the exact same thing (also in Atlanta!). When I (as passenger in my car) got the attention of the guy with the book propped on his steering wheel, his attention entirely fixed on said book until that point, he raised it up to show me "it's ok, it's the bible. I gots Gawd on my side".
Atlanta drivers are a large part of why I will only be dragged kicking and screaming back to that city. Buy me a beer one day and I'll tell you all about the other road adventures I had - such as the chap hanging halfway out his window, presumably steering with his feet. Or the nice estate agent lady who seemed to think that red lights were none of her concern since she had to read a map, talk on her blackberry, and take notes on paper all concurrently. Or the other gentleman watching a DVD (Usual Suspects IIRC) while doing 85 on the top end of the perimeter..
It got so I would routinely carry a camera with me (a big DSLR, for visual effect) and photograph these and other twats while on the highway, being as obvious and noticeable as I could. It's just a pity zapatag.com didn't (at the time, at least) allow photo uploading.
Not if it's uphill.
Both ways.
In the snow.
I don't think you understand the points being raised, but nice try.
Not that I (necessarily) disagree with you, but.. what do you think created the "kind of people governments are supposed to protect us against" in such apparently large numbers?
If your answer is akin to "greed, maliciousness, and evil on the part of the looters", do you not suppose that those exact qualities are what the looters perceive in those in power, and that this rioting could be a way to say "they got theirs, now we're getting ours" ?
A) If that's the Surrey St Market in Croydon, well, goodbye Croydon, you won't be missed.
B) Daily Fail? really?
C) Has anyone else noticed that this whole mess has handily diverted attention away from the whole government-in-bed-with-corrupt-cops-in-bed-with-Murdoch story?
Nice strawman. You said: "killing is part of the job". I said "killing is not part of the job". Your assertion: "they wouldn't carry firearms if killing wasn't part of the job", which does NOT refute either of a) "killing is not part of the job" or b) "to serve and protect does not imply a licence to kill".
I'm not sure how you're failing to understand this.
Yes, and yes. As a matter of fact, one of the officers involved in this altercation was the victim of a shooting back in the '90s. Got shot in the face, losing his eye in the process, and then got shot 5 times in the back. The perp made it back to the station just fine, and to trial. Got life in prison, if I remember correctly. So yeah, your conspiracy-mongering is foolish, and completely unsupported by evidence.
I think you missed the point. GP was stating if the roles were reversed, i.e. if there was a group of six "perps" beating on a single cop, how many of those perps would have made it to the station unharmed (once the cop's buddies arrived, of course).
And "licensed to kill" does not imply "to serve and protect means licensed to kill", which was the basis for the GP's question. Killing is not part of the job, though it may as a last resort occasionally be necessary. Subduing with minimum force is the requirement.
What makes you think those two choices are colinear?
Clearly the problem lies in trusting the bank. Remove that trust, and the customer doesn't accept the non-money the bank doesn't have, meaning you don't get paid, and the bank really has to find 4 real actual dollars from somewhere. So the bank, being unable now to meet its obligations, goes bankrupt (or recently, gets bailed out - but that's another story). Net effect? no more bank, and thus direct trade between you and the customer, able to negotiate prices without any worries about non-existent money.
Tell me again why this is a bad thing?
Just curious at the image of a consumer of abortion. Possibly you meant customer, but even that has some slightly odd connotations. The rest of your post makes just as much (read: little) sense.
Please lend me $1000. I will pay you back at $100 a day for the next seven days, after which time I shall owe you nothing.
So that's an arm for the upgrade-to-premium dialog, half a leg for the order-save-games-by-date feature, two ribs and a kidney for the display-white-text-on-black function, and both ears for the really-you-seriously-expect-a-patent-search-for-every-little-piece-of-OBVIOUS AND COMMON functionality?
You, sir, live up to your sign-on. Mind controlled indeed; the only question is by whom.
[Insert dozens of obligatory Slashdot posts here about TrueCrypt "Plausible Deniability" here.]
Cheese is christ, you can't just pre-empt discussion on the very topic at hand with this sort of nonsense, like it simply doesn't matter! This is a discussion forum - what do you hope to achieve with this pre-emption? Nothing but off-topic posts?
The android platform, not your PC, is the Linux desktop. Period.
Guess I need to erase the last 10 or so years of my life then.
*sigh* really? we're really going to have to discuss that monopoly status does not mean 100% market share *again*? Oh, I see you know that from your third and fourth sentences, so I can only conclude you are trolling.
Perhaps because the US is the biggest bully in the schoolyard now, and people see what it is doing with its power now, and want to change it's behaviour BEFORE it can fuck up just as mightily as the rest of the empire-building nations once did - saying "yeah, well, England built an empire, so the English can STFU about America" is ok just as long as the situation isn't made any worse.
There are, of course, other people who think it's already too late.
Actually, thank the RNC (for the policy) and the cops (for the shameful enforcement). WBC is as entitled to spout their hateful drivel as you and I.
Please, put down the, comma, key and, walk, away.
Because Apple do not have monopoly status.
Huh? How exactly would being required to be a member of a guild do away with virus writing? It's not like the virus writers are going to be motivated by the thought of breaking the law into joining the guild.
Right.. so we get faced with the situation where the patent examiner's role is essentially "rubber-stamp and let the courts sort it out". Which benefits few[*], if any, since the resources spent fighting shoulda-been-rejected patents could better be spent elsewhere, e.g., i dunno, maybe actually _innovating_.
* - the PTO of course makes money regardless of whether a patent is granted or not, so there's no benefit for the PTO in NOT simply granting every application that came down with the last rainfall, and quite likely a clear advantage (faster processing of patents == more patent application fees) in such granting.
If the parents have been *that* irresponsible, it's unlikely that a few hours' of GTA is going to cause the kid any more harm.