1. Considering we are still in the process of learning how to effectively achieve (self-)organization of neural networks, of testing different learning algorithms and different activation functions, it is perhaps a bit much to dismiss non-organic hardware implementations of ever becoming a substitute for organics.
2. A lot of power is wasted in organics on matters irrelevant to intelligence.
3. Size and power could be traded off for robustness, plasticity, ability to control and maintain. When did you last backup your brain? Also, try holding your breath for an hour.
My tip: massage the muscles near your elbows. A slight table soccer addiction, constant stylus use and typing caused me to have sometimes numb, sometimes 'painful' hands, but once I discovered this trick any discomfort was (and is) easily resolved.
A lot of people mistake simple cramped muscles for RSI (I've 'cured' at least six people with the trick). They focus on the wrist and hand (because that is where the discomfort is felt), even though everybody should know that a lot of the motion there is controlled by the muscles in your forearm and to a lesser extent your upper arm ( http://www.bisonstrength.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/posterior-forearm-muscles.jpg ).
Like with all massages, the trick is to find the muscles that are cramped and coerce them to relax. A two finger pinch or one finger 'twang' is usually best for small muscles. Just start with one finger and twang away at the muscles above and below your elbow until you find the muscles that feel like strings instead of mushy ropes. I guarantee that when you encounter one and give it a good twang, you will feel it all the way to the tips of your fingers. During the massage, you will experience increased blood flow in your lower arm and the numbness will generally go away.
Looking at the issue from this angle, it seems fairly obvious why and when some other methods are effective and some are not.
Disclaimer: not a doctor and I said 'often', not 'always'. Inflammations, actual muscle damage etc. will obviously not be cured instantly by massaging.
What if the originals become corrupted and I back up files which are useless because I didn't notice?
This is a solid question.
I have been burned by a crappy controller subtly corrupting many of my photos to the extent that I wanted to implement a version control system in my offsite backup uploading scheme. If no corruption occurs, version control does nothing. If it does occur, very little extra data is stored.
I ran into problems with larger (binary) files (the target offsite system is just a NAS) using SVN and switched back to a basic rsync setup. Perhaps it is time to check again for a version control style backup solution.... Apparently, such a thing has come into existence: http://code.google.com/p/boar/wiki/Rationale (have no experience with it, but it sounds like it is worth a try)
Hopefully your point was that anything over about $500 in today's dollars is a non-starter; the Neo Geo was a complete flop sales-wise.
That was not my point. My point included that what I believed to be the inflation adjusted price of the Neo Geo would be, and I quote: "a bit out of range".
You know, actual inflation numbers -- and calculators which use them to do conversions of prices -- are trivial to locate online, so why use assumptions like this?
I was lazy and I wasn't readily aware that those existed? But I did use the word 'assume', so that means I'm covered;-)
Adjusting for the actual inflation, the $299-in-2001 launch price of the Xbox is $388.68 today; the $199-in-1991 of the SNES would be $336.37 today, and the $649-in-1990 of the never-successful Neo Geo console would be $1,143.18 today.
Of course purchasing power has also increased
I have to admit, that is lower than I thought. I'll remember to Google for inflation correction tools next time.
Not so much. While I can't find 2012 figures, per capita money income in the US was lower in 2011 compared to 2001 (adjusted for inflation), though it was about 17% above where it was in 1991.
To be fair, if you assume 4% of annual inflation, the original Xbox launch price ($300) is equivalent to ~$460 today. The SNES ($199 in 1991) would be about the same. The Neo Geo ($649 in 1990) would be ~$1500.
Of course purchasing power has also increased, so although I do believe that $1000 is a bit out of range, consoles do not have to be sub $500 to sell to avid gamers. Add in a 'year free Xbox Live with access to all your favorite music/sports/VoD!' and they might stand a chance.
You assume wrongly. Technically, the bi-directional association makes it _less_ likely that A is caused by B and vice versa; it makes it _more_ likely that a third factor is causing them both.
I don't care whether cannabis is bad for me, I don't use it. There is no likely causation. That's the point. Even if the correlations were 1, no causation can be proven or deemed likely from them.
Scientists should be careful with their suggestions, as we all know that the media will have a field day further mangling their words. Unless that was the whole point of the suggestion.
The recent election brought the Christian parties to an all-time low (21/150, not in coalition government)
Yes, let us forget that the largest Christian party has been part of the government as either the nation's largest or second largest party from 2002 until the recent election, which made a decidedly right-wing party the largest.
Also, there are about 23% less coffeeshops in The Netherlands than there were in 1999. Starting in 2014, all coffeeshops within a distance of 350m of a school will have to close.
As for the suggestion that the politics are captive to the media, facts speak against you again. This theory originates in countries with a two-party system and doesn't effectively work in multi-party systems. The chances of backing "the wrong party" are too big, and therefore the mass media befriend all parties. Also, the larger amount of parties causes a far larger amount of political brokering. The scoop will go to a friendly media organization.
Yes, because populism hasn't gained any traction in the Netherlands. It's not like there's a Dutch politician that has become a worldwide celebrity because of his populistic approach? Also, do you really believe that there hasn't been a stable government in The Netherlands since 1998 because they just couldn't get along?
Finally, your scientific argument fails too. WP notes a number of possible explanations, and a common causal variable indeed is one of them. But besides that failing Occam's razor, even the presence of a common causal variable would not disprove bidirectional causation.
I didn't say it would disprove anything, Occam's razor has nothing to do with this and no mention of a common causal variable is in the abstract (which the scientists themselves wrote). The 'suggestion' adds nothing to the correlation.
Disinformation combined with demagoguery is a powerful tool in any country with very capable profit-oriented media organizations. Apparently, science is becoming more and more corrupted in the necessary quest for money as well.
The researchers here do not deserve their titles. From the *abstract*: "Conclusions: Cannabis use predicts psychosis vulnerability in adolescents, and vice versa which suggests that there is a bi-directional causal association between the two."
Monty Python and the Quest for the Holy Grail has been released on Bluray recently. 720p (calling it 1080p is a bit of a stretch) allowed me to see even more of the awesome subtle expressions in the faces of the actors and made it even more hilarious than it already was. It's not hard to imagine how more detailed facial expressions in drama could add to the experience.
High definition sound and video definitely expose more flaws, but they can also expose more excellence. In all genres.
As for stereoscopic 3D, I'm pretty sure it adds little to the above, but a funeral scene done well could enhance a feeling of emptiness. It could add in how tiny one feels (the characters to be) when shown a vast landscape, how claustrophobic one feels when shown the perspective of someone buried alive, etc.
I really believe that directors who think of 3D in such a way can make it work.
confrontation: [...] A hostile or argumentative meeting or situation between opposing parties.
violence: [...] Behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something.
There si overlap there and in terms of filing reports you use terms like confrontation or altercation to indicate violence you don't use terms like fight.
Nobody cares how you file reports. The pdf (and reality, I might add) clearly separates the two situations. You've failed.
"gut is an awful kill shot", AC, 23rd december. Woops.
[irrelevant story about deadly force]
You claimed that shooting somebody in the gut kills someone. I've shown proof it does not. You've failed again.
I'm assuming the link points to the product that you were able to function in spite of. Because it doesn't really say anything about how 'common' it is to function when hit with it. Again, not saying it is impossible and in fact I am very interested in how easy it is to do so. Is it a matter of training by being hit with it (say) 10 times? Is it something 1% of the population can do with training? 80%? 100%?
If the situation does not call for killing the person you do not draw your gun. To do otherwise is irresponsible. You don't aim for the head, you don't aim for the knee caps, you aim for center mass. If the only target that presents itself is the head that becomes center mass. You don't aim for the head if it isn't center mass, you don't aim for the guys kneecaps if it's not center mass this is elementary shooting knowledge. Self defense is not hunting it's self defense you shoot for the biggest target and shoot to end the threat. To do otherwise is irresponsible and barbaric. Why do you shoot for center mass? Well the short answer is because thats what everyone gets trained to do. More importantly you shoot for center mass because you need to be sure of your target and what is beyond it. Aiming for the smaller target opens you up to hitting what is beyond your target. Modern self defense ammunition is designed to open up and expand preventing over penetration. When you aim for a smaller target it has less of an opportunity to expand and will have a tendency to continue on and potentially cause casualties beyond your target. This is in addition to the increased risk of missing your target. So would you think its a good idea to aim for someones kneecaps after you've put a bullet in your neighbor living below you thinking you were being humane by maiming a guy for life when the situation didn't in your eyes call for killing him but you felt deadly force was needed?
You keep saying that maiming is worse than killing. The judicial system disagrees with you.
Anyway, 'center mass' still includes the gut, which is still different from 'ending him'. I think it is extremely irresponsible for a cop to shoot to kill instead of incapacitate. Just recently there was a story about a teenage kid getting shot in the neck. Considering the situation, the officers very probably shouldn't have shot him at all, but I bet there are very few people that would say "well, he's lucky he wasn't shot in the gut".
So you really are an idiot. Try a course in reading comprehension.
Source is your own linked percentages. It specifies abdomen shots, not torso shots which excludes heart and lungs. The report you quoted does not specify single organ and any organ it just says singe organ. A liver shot is way different from a intestine shot.
"gut is an awful kill shot", AC, 23rd december. Woops.
Let me guess. They tried to pepper spray you in the balls?
Pepper spraying in the balls? Where are you getting this shit? In case you haven't figured it out I was an officer of the law (Got fed up with supervisors and left to pursue other higher paying careers. So In academy and out in the real world in the face. I'm one of those lucky bastards with a very high tolerance for both OC and CS.
I'll be honest with you, I am not aware of anybody that does not have problems seeing for several seconds when pepper sprayed in the eyes. I'd really have to see some statistics on how probable it is that one would meet someone with such capabilities. That, or the pepper spray you bested was actually deodorant.
Yes if lesser degrees of force have failed, ending him would be the next step. You don't knee cap him and risk hitting someone else (knee caps are way smaller targets than center mass in most instances). The reason you aim for center mass is as much about effectively ending the threat as it is not being a moron and injuring someone else. You end the threat and move on with your life, you don't put targets beyond the threat at risk just so you can cripple someone for life.
So you see the 'shoot to incapacitate' directive as pretty much irrelevant and equal to 'just shoot the fucking bastard'? Nice. You're a great cop. Don't get me wrong, I fully understand that there are some (if not many) situations where you need to aim for the biggest target. When the guy is 3 feet away however, you'd have to be a really lousy fucking shot if center mass was the only part you could hit.
Lol. You should really look at that percentage of 45.5% you quoted and what it stands for.
I'll spell it out one last time. There were an average of ~266,000 burglaries in which violence was involved. In a subset of those cases, the burglar was a stranger (~74,000 cases). In a subset of those cases, the 'burglar' had a weapon (~35,000 cases). In a subset of those cases, it was a firearm (~17,000 cases). It's not that hard, really. Look at page 10 of the linked pdf. Take your time.
So what you're saying is in 45.5% of the cases where the burglar was a stranger and confronted them he had a weapon. exactly what I said (actually your random numbers comes out to 47% but they aren't the numbers in the pdf so we'll go with 45.5% like I and the pdf said)
Don't be an idiot. Look at page 10 of the pdf. Closely. Reread the above. Slowly.
You have a hard time with understanding facts and statistics, don't you? Read the page I linked again or provide your own sources. Right now, you're just babbling.
The section of the organ that says single organ is Factors Affecting Mortality and Morbidity in Patients with Abdominal Gunshot Wounds Adesanya A single organ hit to the abdomen is likely to be the intestine which yeah wont kill you but will ruin your life even if it doesn't kill you. Your lungs aren't in the abdomen and a liver shot is less likely but will kill you very fast. There's a lot of blood in your liver I've seen animals die faster from a liver shot than from a head shot. Liver shots kill instantly.
Sources? "None." The linked percentages do not lie. Case closed.
What you were replying to was proving that you yourself are responsible for people thinking you'll whip out your gun at the first sign of trouble, but whatever. No, I do not think that killing them is an appropriate level of force. Seriously, I could stop a guy with pepper spray in his eyes with one hand. I mean, it's a different story if he has a weapon, but even then, I'd shoot to incapacitate, not kill.
I've had people think that and then when they're in cuffs on the ground after pepper spraying me they change their tune fast. Pepper spray is annoying but it doesn't stop everyone
Let me guess. They tried to pepper spray you in the balls?
If not, it should. Cops over here are instructed to attempt to incapacitate rather than kill when shooting.
No officer is instructed to shoot to kill, they are instructed to shoot to stop, or shoot to disable (it varies depending on the local laws.) However they are always trained to only shoot if killing is justifiable.
Yes, we already agreed on that. You have not yet indicated whether you would follow those guidelines when faced with a 'home invader'. If I recall correctly, shooting him in the knees would be 'barbaric' and the next action after trying pepper spray is to 'end him'.
Confronted by a stranger implies violence, you need to learn to read what you're responding to
Lol. You should really look at that percentage of 45.5% you quoted and what it stands for.
I'll spell it out one last time. There were an average of ~266,000 burglaries in which violence was involved. In a subset of those cases, the burglar was a stranger (~74,000 cases). In a subset of those cases, the 'burglar' had a weapon (~35,000 cases). In a subset of those cases, it was a firearm (~17,000 cases). It's not that hard, really. Look at page 10 of the linked pdf. Take your time.
Hit someone in the liver they'll drop dead almost instantly. Hit them in the lungs they'll drown in their own blood.
You have a hard time with understanding facts and statistics, don't you? Read the page I linked again or provide your own sources. Right now, you're just babbling.
So someone smashes in your door, you pepper spray them and they charge at you... you don't think killing them is appropriate level of force?
What you were replying to was proving that you yourself are responsible for people thinking you'll whip out your gun at the first sign of trouble, but whatever. No, I do not think that killing them is an appropriate level of force. Seriously, I could stop a guy with pepper spray in his eyes with one hand. I mean, it's a different story if he has a weapon, but even then, I'd shoot to incapacitate, not kill.
You can't shoot someone in the knees and say "well it wasn't deadly force because he lived!" people get shot in the head and live.
I read up on the US definition of deadly force and it is apparently as black and white is you say it to be. Nevertheless, I am fairly sure that if you are found to have used deadly force erroneously, it makes a difference whether the assailant died and whether you intended to kill him.
If not, it should. Cops over here are instructed to attempt to incapacitate rather than kill when shooting.
Slashdot Mirror
Banana Junior Computer v2 uses batteries. Moreover, depletion of energy doesn't destroy it.
Anoxia-induced apoptosis is a bitch, however.
Did I mention cancer yet?
1. Considering we are still in the process of learning how to effectively achieve (self-)organization of neural networks, of testing different learning algorithms and different activation functions, it is perhaps a bit much to dismiss non-organic hardware implementations of ever becoming a substitute for organics.
Which doesn't mean it hasn't been looked at:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S092523121000216X
http://pdf.aminer.org/000/339/993/advances_in_and_problems_of_the_implementation_of_neural_algorithms.pdf
2. A lot of power is wasted in organics on matters irrelevant to intelligence.
3. Size and power could be traded off for robustness, plasticity, ability to control and maintain.
When did you last backup your brain?
Also, try holding your breath for an hour.
Why create AIs?
Because they are the next step in evolution. Unencumbered by a legacy of irrelevant skills and adaptations, and more robust than organic life.
My tip: massage the muscles near your elbows. A slight table soccer addiction, constant stylus use and typing caused me to have sometimes numb, sometimes 'painful' hands, but once I discovered this trick any discomfort was (and is) easily resolved.
A lot of people mistake simple cramped muscles for RSI (I've 'cured' at least six people with the trick). They focus on the wrist and hand (because that is where the discomfort is felt), even though everybody should know that a lot of the motion there is controlled by the muscles in your forearm and to a lesser extent your upper arm ( http://www.bisonstrength.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/posterior-forearm-muscles.jpg ).
Like with all massages, the trick is to find the muscles that are cramped and coerce them to relax. A two finger pinch or one finger 'twang' is usually best for small muscles. Just start with one finger and twang away at the muscles above and below your elbow until you find the muscles that feel like strings instead of mushy ropes. I guarantee that when you encounter one and give it a good twang, you will feel it all the way to the tips of your fingers. During the massage, you will experience increased blood flow in your lower arm and the numbness will generally go away.
Looking at the issue from this angle, it seems fairly obvious why and when some other methods are effective and some are not.
Disclaimer: not a doctor and I said 'often', not 'always'. Inflammations, actual muscle damage etc. will obviously not be cured instantly by massaging.
I think you have that backwards.
In this specific case, it is something that needs to get the fuck off of Slashdot.
Anybody that bothers to zoom out can see that there is absolutely nothing interesting about this location. Nothing.
Most significant browsers have a setting to enable click to load plugins:
http://howto.cnet.com/8301-11310_39-57536917-285/enable-click-to-play-for-chrome-plug-ins/
http://www.howtogeek.com/123986/how-to-enable-click-to-play-plugins-in-firefox/
http://www.medalspercapita.com/
http://www.medaltracker.eu/
I guess it depends on how you look at it.
The Mars thing is pretty awesome though. But what was that thing about having to borrow satellites from Germany?
What if the originals become corrupted and I back up files which are useless because I didn't notice?
This is a solid question.
I have been burned by a crappy controller subtly corrupting many of my photos to the extent that I wanted to implement a version control system in my offsite backup uploading scheme. If no corruption occurs, version control does nothing. If it does occur, very little extra data is stored.
I ran into problems with larger (binary) files (the target offsite system is just a NAS) using SVN and switched back to a basic rsync setup. Perhaps it is time to check again for a version control style backup solution. ...
Apparently, such a thing has come into existence: http://code.google.com/p/boar/wiki/Rationale (have no experience with it, but it sounds like it is worth a try)
What the fuck, Slashdot?!
Mmm, those are interesting numbers. They seem quite low, though.
How about these:
http://www.ofm.wa.gov/trends/economy/fig101.asp
http://www.demographia.com/db-pc1929.pdf
http://www.advisorperspectives.com/dshort/updates/Household-Income-Distribution.php
Looking at the last one, it seems that the xls describes income levels for the 4th quintile. Do you have a link to the page that links to the xls?
Hopefully your point was that anything over about $500 in today's dollars is a non-starter; the Neo Geo was a complete flop sales-wise.
That was not my point. My point included that what I believed to be the inflation adjusted price of the Neo Geo would be, and I quote: "a bit out of range".
You know, actual inflation numbers -- and calculators which use them to do conversions of prices -- are trivial to locate online, so why use assumptions like this?
I was lazy and I wasn't readily aware that those existed? ;-)
But I did use the word 'assume', so that means I'm covered
Adjusting for the actual inflation, the $299-in-2001 launch price of the Xbox is $388.68 today; the $199-in-1991 of the SNES would be $336.37 today, and the $649-in-1990 of the never-successful Neo Geo console would be $1,143.18 today.
I have to admit, that is lower than I thought. I'll remember to Google for inflation correction tools next time.
Not so much. While I can't find 2012 figures, per capita money income in the US was lower in 2011 compared to 2001 (adjusted for inflation), though it was about 17% above where it was in 1991.
http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&ctype=l&met_y=ny_gnp_pcap_pp_cd#!ctype=l&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=ny_gnp_pcap_pp_cd&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=region&idim=country:USA&ifdim=region&tdim=true&hl=en_US&dl=en_US&ind=false
Looks pretty healthy to me.
To be fair, if you assume 4% of annual inflation, the original Xbox launch price ($300) is equivalent to ~$460 today.
The SNES ($199 in 1991) would be about the same.
The Neo Geo ($649 in 1990) would be ~$1500.
Of course purchasing power has also increased, so although I do believe that $1000 is a bit out of range, consoles do not have to be sub $500 to sell to avid gamers. Add in a 'year free Xbox Live with access to all your favorite music/sports/VoD!' and they might stand a chance.
You assume wrongly. Technically, the bi-directional association makes it _less_ likely that A is caused by B and vice versa; it makes it _more_ likely that a third factor is causing them both.
I don't care whether cannabis is bad for me, I don't use it.
There is no likely causation. That's the point. Even if the correlations were 1, no causation can be proven or deemed likely from them.
Scientists should be careful with their suggestions, as we all know that the media will have a field day further mangling their words. Unless that was the whole point of the suggestion.
The recent election brought the Christian parties to an all-time low (21/150, not in coalition government)
Yes, let us forget that the largest Christian party has been part of the government as either the nation's largest or second largest party from 2002 until the recent election, which made a decidedly right-wing party the largest.
Also, there are about 23% less coffeeshops in The Netherlands than there were in 1999. Starting in 2014, all coffeeshops within a distance of 350m of a school will have to close.
As for the suggestion that the politics are captive to the media, facts speak against you again. This theory originates in countries with a two-party system and doesn't effectively work in multi-party systems. The chances of backing "the wrong party" are too big, and therefore the mass media befriend all parties. Also, the larger amount of parties causes a far larger amount of political brokering. The scoop will go to a friendly media organization.
Yes, because populism hasn't gained any traction in the Netherlands. It's not like there's a Dutch politician that has become a worldwide celebrity because of his populistic approach?
Also, do you really believe that there hasn't been a stable government in The Netherlands since 1998 because they just couldn't get along?
Finally, your scientific argument fails too. WP notes a number of possible explanations, and a common causal variable indeed is one of them. But besides that failing Occam's razor, even the presence of a common causal variable would not disprove bidirectional causation.
I didn't say it would disprove anything, Occam's razor has nothing to do with this and no mention of a common causal variable is in the abstract (which the scientists themselves wrote). The 'suggestion' adds nothing to the correlation.
Which still does not imply or suggest causation.
You'd think that, but 'hard on crime' and 'good (Christian) morals' have been pretty influential there lately. The current thing is that weed sold in the infamous coffee shops may only be sold to residents of the country (although enforcement is left to the cities):
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2012/10/30/dutch-amsterdam-weed-marijuana/1668761/
Disinformation combined with demagoguery is a powerful tool in any country with very capable profit-oriented media organizations. Apparently, science is becoming more and more corrupted in the necessary quest for money as well.
The researchers here do not deserve their titles. From the *abstract*:
"Conclusions: Cannabis use predicts psychosis vulnerability in adolescents, and vice versa which suggests that there is a bi-directional causal association between the two."
Please tell me nobody here on Slashdot gives any credibility to that 'suggestion'. If you do, read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation#Third_factor_C_.28the_common-causal_variable.29_causes_both_A_and_B
Facial emotions and subtleties.
Monty Python and the Quest for the Holy Grail has been released on Bluray recently. 720p (calling it 1080p is a bit of a stretch) allowed me to see even more of the awesome subtle expressions in the faces of the actors and made it even more hilarious than it already was. It's not hard to imagine how more detailed facial expressions in drama could add to the experience.
High definition sound and video definitely expose more flaws, but they can also expose more excellence. In all genres.
As for stereoscopic 3D, I'm pretty sure it adds little to the above, but a funeral scene done well could enhance a feeling of emptiness. It could add in how tiny one feels (the characters to be) when shown a vast landscape, how claustrophobic one feels when shown the perspective of someone buried alive, etc.
I really believe that directors who think of 3D in such a way can make it work.
confrontation: [...] A hostile or argumentative meeting or situation between opposing parties.
violence: [...] Behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something.
There si overlap there and in terms of filing reports you use terms like confrontation or altercation to indicate violence you don't use terms like fight.
Nobody cares how you file reports. The pdf (and reality, I might add) clearly separates the two situations. You've failed.
"gut is an awful kill shot", AC, 23rd december.
Woops.
[irrelevant story about deadly force]
You claimed that shooting somebody in the gut kills someone. I've shown proof it does not. You've failed again.
http://www.defensivechemicals.com/product_info.php?products_id=4?osCsid=gkcdvnfllwvl
It's not altogether uncommon to be capable of functioning after exposure especially if you're already acquainted with it
I'm assuming the link points to the product that you were able to function in spite of. Because it doesn't really say anything about how 'common' it is to function when hit with it. Again, not saying it is impossible and in fact I am very interested in how easy it is to do so. Is it a matter of training by being hit with it (say) 10 times? Is it something 1% of the population can do with training? 80%? 100%?
If the situation does not call for killing the person you do not draw your gun. To do otherwise is irresponsible. You don't aim for the head, you don't aim for the knee caps, you aim for center mass. If the only target that presents itself is the head that becomes center mass. You don't aim for the head if it isn't center mass, you don't aim for the guys kneecaps if it's not center mass this is elementary shooting knowledge. Self defense is not hunting it's self defense you shoot for the biggest target and shoot to end the threat. To do otherwise is irresponsible and barbaric. Why do you shoot for center mass? Well the short answer is because thats what everyone gets trained to do. More importantly you shoot for center mass because you need to be sure of your target and what is beyond it. Aiming for the smaller target opens you up to hitting what is beyond your target. Modern self defense ammunition is designed to open up and expand preventing over penetration. When you aim for a smaller target it has less of an opportunity to expand and will have a tendency to continue on and potentially cause casualties beyond your target. This is in addition to the increased risk of missing your target. So would you think its a good idea to aim for someones kneecaps after you've put a bullet in your neighbor living below you thinking you were being humane by maiming a guy for life when the situation didn't in your eyes call for killing him but you felt deadly force was needed?
You keep saying that maiming is worse than killing. The judicial system disagrees with you.
Anyway, 'center mass' still includes the gut, which is still different from 'ending him'. I think it is extremely irresponsible for a cop to shoot to kill instead of incapacitate. Just recently there was a story about a teenage kid getting shot in the neck. Considering the situation, the officers very probably shouldn't have shot him at all, but I bet there are very few people that would say "well, he's lucky he wasn't shot in the gut".
confronted by a stranger (Read VIOLENCE)
So you really are an idiot. Try a course in reading comprehension.
Source is your own linked percentages. It specifies abdomen shots, not torso shots which excludes heart and lungs. The report you quoted does not specify single organ and any organ it just says singe organ. A liver shot is way different from a intestine shot.
"gut is an awful kill shot", AC, 23rd december.
Woops.
Let me guess. They tried to pepper spray you in the balls?
Pepper spraying in the balls? Where are you getting this shit? In case you haven't figured it out I was an officer of the law (Got fed up with supervisors and left to pursue other higher paying careers. So In academy and out in the real world in the face. I'm one of those lucky bastards with a very high tolerance for both OC and CS.
I'll be honest with you, I am not aware of anybody that does not have problems seeing for several seconds when pepper sprayed in the eyes. I'd really have to see some statistics on how probable it is that one would meet someone with such capabilities. That, or the pepper spray you bested was actually deodorant.
Yes if lesser degrees of force have failed, ending him would be the next step. You don't knee cap him and risk hitting someone else (knee caps are way smaller targets than center mass in most instances). The reason you aim for center mass is as much about effectively ending the threat as it is not being a moron and injuring someone else. You end the threat and move on with your life, you don't put targets beyond the threat at risk just so you can cripple someone for life.
So you see the 'shoot to incapacitate' directive as pretty much irrelevant and equal to 'just shoot the fucking bastard'? Nice. You're a great cop.
Don't get me wrong, I fully understand that there are some (if not many) situations where you need to aim for the biggest target. When the guy is 3 feet away however, you'd have to be a really lousy fucking shot if center mass was the only part you could hit.
Lol. You should really look at that percentage of 45.5% you quoted and what it stands for.
I'll spell it out one last time. There were an average of ~266,000 burglaries in which violence was involved. In a subset of those cases, the burglar was a stranger (~74,000 cases). In a subset of those cases, the 'burglar' had a weapon (~35,000 cases). In a subset of those cases, it was a firearm (~17,000 cases).
It's not that hard, really. Look at page 10 of the linked pdf. Take your time.
So what you're saying is in 45.5% of the cases where the burglar was a stranger and confronted them he had a weapon. exactly what I said (actually your random numbers comes out to 47% but they aren't the numbers in the pdf so we'll go with 45.5% like I and the pdf said)
Don't be an idiot. Look at page 10 of the pdf. Closely. Reread the above. Slowly.
You have a hard time with understanding facts and statistics, don't you? Read the page I linked again or provide your own sources. Right now, you're just babbling.
The section of the organ that says single organ is Factors Affecting Mortality and Morbidity in Patients with Abdominal Gunshot Wounds Adesanya
A single organ hit to the abdomen is likely to be the intestine which yeah wont kill you but will ruin your life even if it doesn't kill you. Your lungs aren't in the abdomen and a liver shot is less likely but will kill you very fast. There's a lot of blood in your liver I've seen animals die faster from a liver shot than from a head shot. Liver shots kill instantly.
Sources?
"None."
The linked percentages do not lie.
Case closed.
What you were replying to was proving that you yourself are responsible for people thinking you'll whip out your gun at the first sign of trouble, but whatever.
No, I do not think that killing them is an appropriate level of force. Seriously, I could stop a guy with pepper spray in his eyes with one hand. I mean, it's a different story if he has a weapon, but even then, I'd shoot to incapacitate, not kill.
I've had people think that and then when they're in cuffs on the ground after pepper spraying me they change their tune fast. Pepper spray is annoying but it doesn't stop everyone
Let me guess. They tried to pepper spray you in the balls?
If not, it should. Cops over here are instructed to attempt to incapacitate rather than kill when shooting.
No officer is instructed to shoot to kill, they are instructed to shoot to stop, or shoot to disable (it varies depending on the local laws.) However they are always trained to only shoot if killing is justifiable.
Yes, we already agreed on that. You have not yet indicated whether you would follow those guidelines when faced with a 'home invader'. If I recall correctly, shooting him in the knees would be 'barbaric' and the next action after trying pepper spray is to 'end him'.
Confronted by a stranger implies violence, you need to learn to read what you're responding to
Lol. You should really look at that percentage of 45.5% you quoted and what it stands for.
I'll spell it out one last time. There were an average of ~266,000 burglaries in which violence was involved. In a subset of those cases, the burglar was a stranger (~74,000 cases). In a subset of those cases, the 'burglar' had a weapon (~35,000 cases). In a subset of those cases, it was a firearm (~17,000 cases).
It's not that hard, really. Look at page 10 of the linked pdf. Take your time.
Hit someone in the liver they'll drop dead almost instantly. Hit them in the lungs they'll drown in their own blood.
You have a hard time with understanding facts and statistics, don't you? Read the page I linked again or provide your own sources. Right now, you're just babbling.
So someone smashes in your door, you pepper spray them and they charge at you... you don't think killing them is appropriate level of force?
What you were replying to was proving that you yourself are responsible for people thinking you'll whip out your gun at the first sign of trouble, but whatever.
No, I do not think that killing them is an appropriate level of force. Seriously, I could stop a guy with pepper spray in his eyes with one hand. I mean, it's a different story if he has a weapon, but even then, I'd shoot to incapacitate, not kill.
You can't shoot someone in the knees and say "well it wasn't deadly force because he lived!" people get shot in the head and live.
I read up on the US definition of deadly force and it is apparently as black and white is you say it to be. Nevertheless, I am fairly sure that if you are found to have used deadly force erroneously, it makes a difference whether the assailant died and whether you intended to kill him.
If not, it should. Cops over here are instructed to attempt to incapacitate rather than kill when shooting.
There are a lot of proxies:
http://about.piratereverse.info/proxy/list.html
Actually, there are a lot of proxy lists:
https://www.google.com/search?q=tpb+proxies
Really, trying to legal block proxies on the internet is one of the dumbest things ever.