Well, just outlaw trucks and pressure cookers. Problem solved!
Guns are much more efficient killing machines. Trucks require a license to be able to rent, and can't easily be reused. Chances of getting away close to 0. With a gun, you can shoot from a distance and the potential to escape is there.
Pressure cookers require some know-how and some sort of explosive device within them. There haven't been many pressure-cooker attacks because the average Joe on the street can't pull it off.
Guns are a much more cowardly way to pull off an attack. Any joker can pick one up cheap. Doesn't require any knowhow. Extremely low chance of accidentally detonating it on yourself setting it up. Can attack from a distance.
Driving a truck into a crowd or mixing explosives up require a small modicum of nerves. Shooting someone from a distance is an easy cowardly way to kill people.
Cars: Improve the economy by allowing goods and services to be better distributed, and allow a more mobile workforce. Guns: Harm the economy. Increase requirements for security. Cause stock-market fluctuations every time there is a major attack.
Cars: Used more often to take people to hospital or doctor (for health) than they are to harm people. Guns: Never good for your health. Can only be used to harm other individuals.
Comparing guns to cars is the single most absolute stupid argument for why guns should be legal.
These randomly generated patterns are not designs, by definition.
Design has principals and elements that are chosen specifically for a reason. They are carefully planned and revised in order to evoke an emotion, to guide the reader's eye with a hierarchy, etc...
Not OMFG look how many different colors we can randomly mash together. Ohhh pretty!
Well it is design. The colours used, are not entirely random. If you look at the video they all blend well. Obviously the algorithm uses features from the colour wheel to ensure a pleasing look. Also, the patterns are a mix of patterns designed by humans to be pleasant and to coordinate well.
There is design principals and elements at work. This isn't 100% random colours and isn't just random dots on a jar. This is picking coordinating colours and coordinating patterns to make pleasing arrangements.
I live in Georgia. All of my politicians are bought and paid for by ATT, Verizon, Comcast and....one other... Frontier??.
They are scum who don't care about us. They throw us a bone every once in a while, but make REAL changes to better their constituency? AHAHAHAHAHAHAH!
Fuckers. I try to vote out the assholes but you see, I live where having a 'D' by your name is suicide (hopefully Ossoff will change that.) We have had trouble getting change.
The dumb hicks I live near listen to Political Talk Radio and have Fox News on all the time and think 'gubberment regulations are bad. They hurt jobs. They stop growth.' because they are told by the talking heads who make tens of millions of dollars by being lying Trolls - like Hannity, O'Reilly, Rush, that transsexual- Anne Coulter, and others.
See... I was OK with what you were saying, and agreed with it until the end there. I live in a likewise "R"- only state where people just vote straight-party tickets without learning about issues.
Unfortunately, your comment on Anne Coulter at the end can be taken two ways:
1) You're comparing her to transsexual as an insult because Transsexual is bad. 2) Her quality as a woman judged by how she looks. (you didn't mention that O'Reilly has a face that looks like it's been barraged by a bb gun, or Rush being a fat slob, ).
This is the kind of thing the left accuses the right of doing. (and they did, I heard lots of transsexual comments about Michelle Obama, and how Hillary was ugly).
Let's face it, Anne Coulter is bad because she is an evil, self-centered bigot, not because she is unattractive.
Women didn't arrive on earth until much later, they stopped off to buy shoes first, and then had to use the restroom, apply sunscreen, return the shoes because of buyer's remorse, and then get an overpriced drink from StarBucks before coming to earth.
Atlas Shrugged is a powerful book, I think her philosophy is flawed, but she makes a strong statement and case. Never read Fountainhead to know if it is even better.
The main problem with Atlas Shrugged is that it needed a strong editor. Rand tends to prattle on a lot, there are parts of the book that you could just skip over 20 pages and not have missed anything important. Overall well written though.
Population is very relevant. As is population density. A high density means people are more likely to live clustered together. Shorter commute times, more people in flats (which are more energy efficient, fewer walls/roofs to the outside elements. Typically smaller homes too). A low density means further driving distances, delivery distances, power delivery distances (uses more power to supply a home 100 miles from a power plant than a mile from a power plant).
A large population on the other hand (or a high population density) has it's own problems. Renewables might not be as easy to use for the general population. Iceland uses a bunch of geothermal power. You couldn't heat New York City using geothermal (not only is the geography wrong), that many people in a small area, it would be impractical to use.
I'm not saying US can't improve, it obviously can, but it has a unique set of circumstances that make it more of a challenge for the US than it would be the UK or Germany.
Yeah, fuck the future! Fuck the planet! Fuck humanity! Our industrial corporate overlords need moar profits now!
The ironic thing is that mid-term (not even long-term) this hurts us financially. The more climate changes the more we need to spend preventing coastal erosion. The more we need to spend upgrading our sewage and storm drainage. The more we need to spend recovering from weather related disasters and extreme weather events.
Where is all this money going to come from? Probably future taxes, on both citizens and businesses.
Also, more farmers will hurt as their traditional crops no longer grow in their area and they need to adjust their crop output accordingly, this might require all new equipment. Climate change will affect where is a tourist zone and where isn't. Which costs money as infrastructure needs to move.
Avoiding regulation may help for the next 2 or 3 years, but it will hurt even over as short a span as 10 to 20 years.
Indeed. I think scores like Rotten Tomatoes provides are useful; however, it's not the whole story. I wouldn't see/not see a film based purely upon it's ratings. I've like films Rotten Tomatoes called rotten, and hated films it loved.
We're all individuals and none of us will always like what the mainstream always like.
China has a horrible pollution problem but they're working really hard to establish renewables and clean up their act. They've a way to go but they're working in the right direction.
High Population. High Population dispersal. (Low population density means higher per capita). Prosperous Economy. Combination of Hot Summers and Cold Winters/ continental effect across much of the country (not much off-time for in-building climate regulation).
So yes, the US has a high per capita carbon pollution, but it's because the people living their are uncaring polluting jerks (although some clearly are), it's because of the unique situation the US is in.
I'm an Engineer who specializes in Traffic lights.
They go Green, Amber, Red. Then in America they turn Green again. (other more sophisticated countries they go red and amber together before turning green).
Look at me I'm claiming I'm a judge so now the public must treat me as a fully qualified judge even though I have not government accreditation as a judge.
I remember those days. I bought a 450Mhz Pentium PC back then - it was "high-end" at the time. Upgraded the graphics to an Nvida TI-4600. Everyone asks, "What do you need a PC that fast for?"
Yeah, but I have a 5 year old "premium-budget" system that is still very comparable to the mid range PCs being sold today and still running strong. 1990 to 2000... you got a few extra years out of a PC by buying premium. 2000 to 2010 you maybe got a few extra years out of premium but wasn't much difference. 2010 to today. Even budget PCs from 2010 are still pretty relevant today. A premium PC from 2010 would still be a mid range or better PC today.
Nowadays less reason to get premium because it's not like the technology becomes obsolete very fast.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, just outlaw trucks and pressure cookers. Problem solved!
Guns are much more efficient killing machines. Trucks require a license to be able to rent, and can't easily be reused. Chances of getting away close to 0. With a gun, you can shoot from a distance and the potential to escape is there.
Pressure cookers require some know-how and some sort of explosive device within them. There haven't been many pressure-cooker attacks because the average Joe on the street can't pull it off.
Guns are a much more cowardly way to pull off an attack. Any joker can pick one up cheap. Doesn't require any knowhow. Extremely low chance of accidentally detonating it on yourself setting it up. Can attack from a distance.
Driving a truck into a crowd or mixing explosives up require a small modicum of nerves. Shooting someone from a distance is an easy cowardly way to kill people.
By definition, this is not a mass shooting. A mass shooting, by government definition, is 4 or more killed.
So if the people shot end up dying from the wounds then it is a mass shooting, but if they survive it's not?
That sounds a flakey definition. Surely a mass shooting should be based on how many people get hit, not how many people get killed.
If 100 people get shot but only one died it wouldn't be a mass shooting by that definition.
Only if every auto accident is an argument to ban automobiles...
STRAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWMAAAAAAAAAANNNNNNNNNN!
Cars are completely irrelevant to the topic of whether everyone who wants a gun should have one.
Cars primary use: Transportation.
Guns primary use: Weapon.
Cars: Improve the economy by allowing goods and services to be better distributed, and allow a more mobile workforce.
Guns: Harm the economy. Increase requirements for security. Cause stock-market fluctuations every time there is a major attack.
Cars: Used more often to take people to hospital or doctor (for health) than they are to harm people.
Guns: Never good for your health. Can only be used to harm other individuals.
Comparing guns to cars is the single most absolute stupid argument for why guns should be legal.
These randomly generated patterns are not designs, by definition.
Design has principals and elements that are chosen specifically for a reason. They are carefully planned and revised in order to evoke an emotion, to guide the reader's eye with a hierarchy, etc...
Not OMFG look how many different colors we can randomly mash together. Ohhh pretty!
Well it is design. The colours used, are not entirely random. If you look at the video they all blend well. Obviously the algorithm uses features from the colour wheel to ensure a pleasing look. Also, the patterns are a mix of patterns designed by humans to be pleasant and to coordinate well.
There is design principals and elements at work. This isn't 100% random colours and isn't just random dots on a jar. This is picking coordinating colours and coordinating patterns to make pleasing arrangements.
That is a design.
I live in Georgia. All of my politicians are bought and paid for by ATT, Verizon, Comcast and ....one other ... Frontier??.
They are scum who don't care about us. They throw us a bone every once in a while, but make REAL changes to better their constituency? AHAHAHAHAHAHAH!
Fuckers. I try to vote out the assholes but you see, I live where having a 'D' by your name is suicide (hopefully Ossoff will change that.) We have had trouble getting change.
The dumb hicks I live near listen to Political Talk Radio and have Fox News on all the time and think 'gubberment regulations are bad. They hurt jobs. They stop growth.' because they are told by the talking heads who make tens of millions of dollars by being lying Trolls - like Hannity, O'Reilly, Rush, that transsexual- Anne Coulter, and others.
See... I was OK with what you were saying, and agreed with it until the end there. I live in a likewise "R"- only state where people just vote straight-party tickets without learning about issues.
Unfortunately, your comment on Anne Coulter at the end can be taken two ways:
1) You're comparing her to transsexual as an insult because Transsexual is bad.
2) Her quality as a woman judged by how she looks. (you didn't mention that O'Reilly has a face that looks like it's been barraged by a bb gun, or Rush being a fat slob, ).
This is the kind of thing the left accuses the right of doing. (and they did, I heard lots of transsexual comments about Michelle Obama, and how Hillary was ugly).
Let's face it, Anne Coulter is bad because she is an evil, self-centered bigot, not because she is unattractive.
This is why I always point my phone camera at my junk when reading Facebook.
I don't want anonymous people on facebook seeing my face.
Well that part yeah, but the part about a girl sitting opposite me when it happened.
That was a bit far fetched. I am a Slashdot reader after all.
Of course no one wants Net Neutrality violated.
Republicans don't want the anti-business and anti-capitalism of blocking people from freely trading.
Democrats want equality of opportunity to all people.
Net Neutrality fits the rulebook for both parties.
Eh, I just finished your copy of it. It wasn't that interesting.
Did you read the part where I died. Didn't seem realistic to me.
Yeah, but what about Women?
Women didn't arrive on earth until much later, they stopped off to buy shoes first, and then had to use the restroom, apply sunscreen, return the shoes because of buyer's remorse, and then get an overpriced drink from StarBucks before coming to earth.
This book would have changed my world had I read it when I was four. But now that I'm 44, not so much.
Yaz
Then you must not be part of the illuminati and understand the secret hidden message about the book and the new world order.
Atlas Shrugged is a powerful book, I think her philosophy is flawed, but she makes a strong statement and case. Never read Fountainhead to know if it is even better.
The main problem with Atlas Shrugged is that it needed a strong editor. Rand tends to prattle on a lot, there are parts of the book that you could just skip over 20 pages and not have missed anything important. Overall well written though.
The book I wish I had read earlier...
My Diary.
Population is irrelevant.
Population is very relevant. As is population density. A high density means people are more likely to live clustered together. Shorter commute times, more people in flats (which are more energy efficient, fewer walls/roofs to the outside elements. Typically smaller homes too). A low density means further driving distances, delivery distances, power delivery distances (uses more power to supply a home 100 miles from a power plant than a mile from a power plant).
A large population on the other hand (or a high population density) has it's own problems. Renewables might not be as easy to use for the general population. Iceland uses a bunch of geothermal power. You couldn't heat New York City using geothermal (not only is the geography wrong), that many people in a small area, it would be impractical to use.
I'm not saying US can't improve, it obviously can, but it has a unique set of circumstances that make it more of a challenge for the US than it would be the UK or Germany.
Yeah, fuck the future! Fuck the planet! Fuck humanity! Our industrial corporate overlords need moar profits now!
The ironic thing is that mid-term (not even long-term) this hurts us financially. The more climate changes the more we need to spend preventing coastal erosion. The more we need to spend upgrading our sewage and storm drainage. The more we need to spend recovering from weather related disasters and extreme weather events.
Where is all this money going to come from? Probably future taxes, on both citizens and businesses.
Also, more farmers will hurt as their traditional crops no longer grow in their area and they need to adjust their crop output accordingly, this might require all new equipment. Climate change will affect where is a tourist zone and where isn't. Which costs money as infrastructure needs to move.
Avoiding regulation may help for the next 2 or 3 years, but it will hurt even over as short a span as 10 to 20 years.
The book was better.
/ kidding. Please tell me there isn't a Baywatch book.
Indeed. I think scores like Rotten Tomatoes provides are useful; however, it's not the whole story. I wouldn't see/not see a film based purely upon it's ratings. I've like films Rotten Tomatoes called rotten, and hated films it loved.
We're all individuals and none of us will always like what the mainstream always like.
China has a horrible pollution problem but they're working really hard to establish renewables and clean up their act. They've a way to go but they're working in the right direction.
The USA has a unique mix of:
High Population.
High Population dispersal. (Low population density means higher per capita).
Prosperous Economy.
Combination of Hot Summers and Cold Winters/ continental effect across much of the country (not much off-time for in-building climate regulation).
So yes, the US has a high per capita carbon pollution, but it's because the people living their are uncaring polluting jerks (although some clearly are), it's because of the unique situation the US is in.
Without nitrates, nitrites and ammonia plants would die off, and animals would follow, yet they are definitely pollutants for animals.
Metals such as copper, iron, and magnesium are highly toxic in high concentrations to most life forms, yet are essential for most life.
Pollutants might be beneficial for life in small doses, but too much IS a pollutant even if it is needed for life.
Heck, if the earth was buried 3 feet deep in pizza. Pizza would be considered a pollutant. Being needed for life does not mean it isn't a pollutant.
I'm an Engineer who specializes in Traffic lights.
They go Green, Amber, Red. Then in America they turn Green again. (other more sophisticated countries they go red and amber together before turning green).
Suck it Oregon!
Look at me I'm claiming I'm a judge so now the public must treat me as a fully qualified judge even though I have not government accreditation as a judge.
I'm a sex instructor for Swimsuit models.
What's a "nickle"?
It's something people that make annoying music put on their backs.
I remember those days. I bought a 450Mhz Pentium PC back then - it was "high-end" at the time. Upgraded the graphics to an Nvida TI-4600. Everyone asks, "What do you need a PC that fast for?"
Yeah, but I have a 5 year old "premium-budget" system that is still very comparable to the mid range PCs being sold today and still running strong. 1990 to 2000... you got a few extra years out of a PC by buying premium. 2000 to 2010 you maybe got a few extra years out of premium but wasn't much difference. 2010 to today. Even budget PCs from 2010 are still pretty relevant today. A premium PC from 2010 would still be a mid range or better PC today.
Nowadays less reason to get premium because it's not like the technology becomes obsolete very fast.
What game needs 18 cores? Who will this benefit ( besides Intel )?
Pong.
Really, Really, fast pong.