There are tons of things you shouldn't set on fire and then breath deeply. Like computers and crack. Generally if something is on fire and it's not supposed to be you have a whole host of problems.
Some questions only have one "relevant" answer because they are not subjective. If you type 5 + 5 into google, it will tell you "5 + 5 = 10". It does not suggest that I go and use the windows calculator or ask bing. It just answers my question. Same thing if I ask it for a location. It just answers the question. If google's answers started telling us to go drive 30 miles into the Australian outback, people would stop asking it those questions and would instead ask bing.
If I wanted a Bing map to tell me where the business was I wouldn't have gone to Google's website. That's like complaining that a pub serves beer they brewed themselves instead of the beer brewed next door.
We were in the car with my mother in law and my 2 year old. My mother in law said "damn" for some reason. My two year old begins chanting "damn damn damn damn...." So yes, that is how people actually acquire language. Children hear a word and they immediately begin spouting it out until someone tells them not to.
So in your opinion, it is better that you are raped and murdered than if you kill yourself?
Your logic is "guns make suicide easy so having a gun around is bad." By that logic, "swimming pools make drowning easy so having a swimming pool is bad." Correlation != causation. Owning a gun doesn't make someone suicidal. Taking anti-depressants also is linked to suicide. There are a wide range of things linked to suicide. What about alcohol? Should we make it illegal too?
Besides, shouldn't that be a decision that individuals make on their own? When making life choices it is our job as individuals to perform our own personal risk assessment and make a decision appropriate for our individual needs. Who are you to tell me that you think I might try to off myself so it's better for me to be raped and murdered? Next thing you are going to be telling me that I can't drink soda because you think it's bad for me... oh wait...
You assume that people prone to kill themselves wouldn't use another tool than a gun. That if a gun wasn't available they wouldn't down a bottle of pills or hang themselves. I can also tell you that owning a car equates with an increased risk of dieing in a car accident. Swimming equates with an increased risk of drowning. Working in the banking industry equates to an increased risk of you committing financial fraud. Only people who have speak English will be telemarketers. Only people with law degrees will be patent lawyers. What's your point?
I like your plan! In order to win an election you have to not only attract voters, but scare them enough to spend their negative votes elsewhere! There is something to be said for the party who pissed off the least number of people winning.
In all honesty though, a system where you rank the candidates or everyone has say 3 votes to cast however they want would probably be better. Game theory has a lot to say about voting methods and almost any other system is better than the one we use as Americans.
HAH! When I was a freshman in college a long long time ago, I lost points in a computer science assignment because I did not perform error checking to ensure the user enter temperatures were above absolute 0. Prof didn't believe me when I told her that wasn't a hard limit, so there!
The tricky part about civil wars is that the government is asking the military to fire upon their own citizens. These are the friends and family of military members. When conquering a foreign nation, the military doesn't have such ties to the populace. Simply look at the last civil war the US fought. Civil wars are terrible things because you are killing your own people. Lee did not agree with secession, but he still led the southern armies quite successfully because of his personal ties to Virginia. In the beginning of the war, the south even tried fighting a defensive war because they did not want to attack and kill their own countrymen. The north had a very difficult time turning the war to their favor even though they had superior manufacturing capabilities, etc. Convincing the national guard to attack their own people will not be an easy thing.
I would also argue that guns are still tools of personal support. Meat is one of the most expensive things in the grocery stores today and if you can go out and shoot a deer or two, you can fill your freezer. My father-in-law has shot several from his back porch, so I assure you there isn't really all that much effort involved.
Which is why the Germans used chlorine gas a weapon? It's a matter of dosage and treatment. There are a whole lists of common chemicals we can mix to create 'irritating' poisonous gasses that will kill you if you are locked in a room with them. Besides, I'm pretty sure 'irritating' is a bit of an understatement for chlorine.
This past summer a teenager pulled out onto a busy road without looking. A car swerved to avoid her and plowed through a crowded restaurant at 60MPH killing over a dozen people. Last year a drunk drove off the road and into a house where he collided with the propane tank they use for heat with disastrous consequences. Yes, people where I live apparently suck at driving. I would say that a car is even easier to use than a gun since it is so easy to unintentionally kill large groups of people with it and it is pathetically easy to get one legally.
This past year over 20 children died the slow death of heatstroke/hypothermia after their parents locked them in cars. A toddler died because his mother was an idiot and let him stand on a ledge at a zoo. Where is your outrage over those deaths? Where is your call to action for those children? Those children died not out of malice, but because their parents and all the bystanders that ignored or didn't notice them were too stupid/uncaring to bother keeping them alive.
More people have been killed this year (including children) by drunk or distracted driving. Since alcohol doesn't benefit society, should we bring back prohibition for the safety of the children?
How about instead of banning things, we focus our resources on figuring out why people go nuts and try to kill children? Why don't we try to help the nutters before they kill our children? If someone wants to kill people, they don't need guns.
I can go into a store today and buy everything needed to blow a building to bits. Remember Oklahoma City? If you don't want a big boom, you can always go the bleach and ammonia route. If you want to kill or maim people in mass quantities, you don't need a gun. You can use a car. Or a plane. I suppose banning planes is next?
Humor in general doesn't translate very well. Even between Americans and Brits and we speak the same language (more or less) and have similar cultural roots. Yes, we have a lot of common humor, but we still find different things funny. Simply look at how British TV shows are modified when ported to the US.
Asians and Americans have entirely different cultural roots and languages that aren't related in the slightest. I'm sure there are tons of stuff they think is hysterical and we just don't get it.
Don't you somehow manage to pay your property and school taxes? Your electric bill? You don't have to pay people to pay those bills and chances are that you are paying someone to help you file your return every year anyway.
The difference between automated payments and payroll deduction is with payroll deduction you never see the money so many people never feel that it is theirs. They only take ownership of money they 'see'. With automated payments you see the money flow into your possession and right back out so you get the since of loss. There is no loss if the money was never really yours.
Consider the psychological impact of seeing your paycheck be a couple hundred dollars more but then immediately getting a bill for that extra couple hundred.
Go read your taxes again. Look at the amount of taxes you paid all year and compare that to your return. If you paid the govt 10k over 12 months and they give you 2k back at the end of the year, you still gave them 8k plus an interest free loan of 2k.
This is why automated payroll deductions are a bad idea. People don't realize how much they are paying. If you had to write a check every week/month/year you would damn well know exactly how much you paid the govt.
So if someone was standing on the street corner with a bag of money and they said "whosoever approaches while hopping on one foot gets $1000 cash", would you do it? Or would you say "someone else needs the money" and ignore him?
Should I not claim the mortgage interest deduction and the child tax credit? The original idea behind tax credits/deductions is for the government to encourage desirable behavior. You can't cry foul when you say "People who do X will get money!" and then people do X and take the money. If you don't want to give them money, stop providing the hoops to be jumped through. But then don't complain when they stop jumping.
I took no gen eds at college because they all transferred in. I graduated a year early with a double major in Math and Comp Sci and had to take piano my final semester to be a full time student.
My job as an engineer has always been to make my job obsolete. I am lazy and thus create tools so that the dumb monkey can come along and repeate the tasks I was doing. I stay employed by constantly redefining my job. The world changes. It has changed since the beginning of time and will continue to change until the end of time. In 50 years I will not be doing the job I am doing today. I do not find this distressing and in fact welcome the change. There will always be tasks for creative people to do and there will always be people complaining that their business model has been made obsolete. The world will not stand still. To expect it to is foolish. Just because you do not know what roles we will be filling 50 years from now doesn't mean they will not exist.
Slashdot Mirror
There are tons of things you shouldn't set on fire and then breath deeply. Like computers and crack. Generally if something is on fire and it's not supposed to be you have a whole host of problems.
Some questions only have one "relevant" answer because they are not subjective. If you type 5 + 5 into google, it will tell you "5 + 5 = 10". It does not suggest that I go and use the windows calculator or ask bing. It just answers my question. Same thing if I ask it for a location. It just answers the question. If google's answers started telling us to go drive 30 miles into the Australian outback, people would stop asking it those questions and would instead ask bing.
If I wanted a Bing map to tell me where the business was I wouldn't have gone to Google's website. That's like complaining that a pub serves beer they brewed themselves instead of the beer brewed next door.
We were in the car with my mother in law and my 2 year old. My mother in law said "damn" for some reason. My two year old begins chanting "damn damn damn damn...." So yes, that is how people actually acquire language. Children hear a word and they immediately begin spouting it out until someone tells them not to.
So in your opinion, it is better that you are raped and murdered than if you kill yourself?
Your logic is "guns make suicide easy so having a gun around is bad." By that logic, "swimming pools make drowning easy so having a swimming pool is bad." Correlation != causation. Owning a gun doesn't make someone suicidal. Taking anti-depressants also is linked to suicide. There are a wide range of things linked to suicide. What about alcohol? Should we make it illegal too?
Besides, shouldn't that be a decision that individuals make on their own? When making life choices it is our job as individuals to perform our own personal risk assessment and make a decision appropriate for our individual needs. Who are you to tell me that you think I might try to off myself so it's better for me to be raped and murdered? Next thing you are going to be telling me that I can't drink soda because you think it's bad for me... oh wait...
You assume that people prone to kill themselves wouldn't use another tool than a gun. That if a gun wasn't available they wouldn't down a bottle of pills or hang themselves. I can also tell you that owning a car equates with an increased risk of dieing in a car accident. Swimming equates with an increased risk of drowning. Working in the banking industry equates to an increased risk of you committing financial fraud. Only people who have speak English will be telemarketers. Only people with law degrees will be patent lawyers. What's your point?
I like your plan! In order to win an election you have to not only attract voters, but scare them enough to spend their negative votes elsewhere! There is something to be said for the party who pissed off the least number of people winning.
In all honesty though, a system where you rank the candidates or everyone has say 3 votes to cast however they want would probably be better. Game theory has a lot to say about voting methods and almost any other system is better than the one we use as Americans.
HAH! When I was a freshman in college a long long time ago, I lost points in a computer science assignment because I did not perform error checking to ensure the user enter temperatures were above absolute 0. Prof didn't believe me when I told her that wasn't a hard limit, so there!
The tricky part about civil wars is that the government is asking the military to fire upon their own citizens. These are the friends and family of military members. When conquering a foreign nation, the military doesn't have such ties to the populace. Simply look at the last civil war the US fought. Civil wars are terrible things because you are killing your own people. Lee did not agree with secession, but he still led the southern armies quite successfully because of his personal ties to Virginia. In the beginning of the war, the south even tried fighting a defensive war because they did not want to attack and kill their own countrymen. The north had a very difficult time turning the war to their favor even though they had superior manufacturing capabilities, etc. Convincing the national guard to attack their own people will not be an easy thing.
I would also argue that guns are still tools of personal support. Meat is one of the most expensive things in the grocery stores today and if you can go out and shoot a deer or two, you can fill your freezer. My father-in-law has shot several from his back porch, so I assure you there isn't really all that much effort involved.
And that is why we need to go to Mars!
Water works just fine. You should need more of it. What is it.. 1 foot of water per inch of lead?
Which is why the Germans used chlorine gas a weapon? It's a matter of dosage and treatment. There are a whole lists of common chemicals we can mix to create 'irritating' poisonous gasses that will kill you if you are locked in a room with them. Besides, I'm pretty sure 'irritating' is a bit of an understatement for chlorine.
This past summer a teenager pulled out onto a busy road without looking. A car swerved to avoid her and plowed through a crowded restaurant at 60MPH killing over a dozen people. Last year a drunk drove off the road and into a house where he collided with the propane tank they use for heat with disastrous consequences. Yes, people where I live apparently suck at driving. I would say that a car is even easier to use than a gun since it is so easy to unintentionally kill large groups of people with it and it is pathetically easy to get one legally.
This past year over 20 children died the slow death of heatstroke/hypothermia after their parents locked them in cars. A toddler died because his mother was an idiot and let him stand on a ledge at a zoo. Where is your outrage over those deaths? Where is your call to action for those children? Those children died not out of malice, but because their parents and all the bystanders that ignored or didn't notice them were too stupid/uncaring to bother keeping them alive.
More people have been killed this year (including children) by drunk or distracted driving. Since alcohol doesn't benefit society, should we bring back prohibition for the safety of the children?
How about instead of banning things, we focus our resources on figuring out why people go nuts and try to kill children? Why don't we try to help the nutters before they kill our children? If someone wants to kill people, they don't need guns.
But that is hard... You are telling me that we should care about our fellow man and help him? That costs money...
How many children died last year in car crashes? Will you give up your car for the children?
I can go into a store today and buy everything needed to blow a building to bits. Remember Oklahoma City? If you don't want a big boom, you can always go the bleach and ammonia route. If you want to kill or maim people in mass quantities, you don't need a gun. You can use a car. Or a plane. I suppose banning planes is next?
Humor in general doesn't translate very well. Even between Americans and Brits and we speak the same language (more or less) and have similar cultural roots. Yes, we have a lot of common humor, but we still find different things funny. Simply look at how British TV shows are modified when ported to the US.
Asians and Americans have entirely different cultural roots and languages that aren't related in the slightest. I'm sure there are tons of stuff they think is hysterical and we just don't get it.
Don't you somehow manage to pay your property and school taxes? Your electric bill? You don't have to pay people to pay those bills and chances are that you are paying someone to help you file your return every year anyway.
The difference between automated payments and payroll deduction is with payroll deduction you never see the money so many people never feel that it is theirs. They only take ownership of money they 'see'. With automated payments you see the money flow into your possession and right back out so you get the since of loss. There is no loss if the money was never really yours.
Consider the psychological impact of seeing your paycheck be a couple hundred dollars more but then immediately getting a bill for that extra couple hundred.
Go read your taxes again. Look at the amount of taxes you paid all year and compare that to your return. If you paid the govt 10k over 12 months and they give you 2k back at the end of the year, you still gave them 8k plus an interest free loan of 2k.
This is why automated payroll deductions are a bad idea. People don't realize how much they are paying. If you had to write a check every week/month/year you would damn well know exactly how much you paid the govt.
So if someone was standing on the street corner with a bag of money and they said "whosoever approaches while hopping on one foot gets $1000 cash", would you do it? Or would you say "someone else needs the money" and ignore him?
Should I not claim the mortgage interest deduction and the child tax credit? The original idea behind tax credits/deductions is for the government to encourage desirable behavior. You can't cry foul when you say "People who do X will get money!" and then people do X and take the money. If you don't want to give them money, stop providing the hoops to be jumped through. But then don't complain when they stop jumping.
It's not price fixing if its an industry standard.
I took no gen eds at college because they all transferred in. I graduated a year early with a double major in Math and Comp Sci and had to take piano my final semester to be a full time student.
Shush! We have no place for you and your logic!
My job as an engineer has always been to make my job obsolete. I am lazy and thus create tools so that the dumb monkey can come along and repeate the tasks I was doing. I stay employed by constantly redefining my job. The world changes. It has changed since the beginning of time and will continue to change until the end of time. In 50 years I will not be doing the job I am doing today. I do not find this distressing and in fact welcome the change. There will always be tasks for creative people to do and there will always be people complaining that their business model has been made obsolete. The world will not stand still. To expect it to is foolish. Just because you do not know what roles we will be filling 50 years from now doesn't mean they will not exist.