There's a difference between physical danger and social effects.
Glad to see someone making this point. The article cited is about the relative lethal dose of various drugs. Discussion of the risks/benefits of marijuana use do not generally include a debate around the risk that someone will smoke to the point of death, unlike discussion of campus alcohol consumption, which must take into account frat and other alcohol poisoning deaths. Actual deaths, though, are not the most significant social effect of widespread alcohol or pot consumption.
Son, we live in a world that has walls. And those walls have to be guarded by men with guns.
I remember breaking into laughter several times when watching Nicholson and Moore praise the men on the walls without mentioning that those walls are in someone else's country. Oh, the glory of being an occupying power maintaining an empire!
Says someone who must never have eaten actual good pizza. Pizza Hut's pizza is really nothing like, say, the pizza I've eaten from a pizzeria in Naples where the pizzas are thin-crust, baked in an oven that's about 1000 degrees F for maybe a minute or so.
Actually a shotgun is a better home defense weapon for most users than a rifle, but not the double-barrel shotgun Biden whinges about. A good, solid semi auto or pump action that holds several rounds can do wonders to an intruder or two without going through several houses like a.30-06 might.
Choice of weapon for home defense is certainly a continual subject for debate. If I am wakened by someone breaking into my house at night I'd feel my Glock is going to be easier to wield while walking around a dark house than a shotgun. I can also get off multiple shots from a 9mm much more quickly than when pumping a shotgun. On the other hand, given some visibility the shotgun has a deterrent value that the handgun does not, and a rifle also has an edge here, I think. My guess is if a home invader sees me pointing either my Mossberg or AR at him he'll be more liable to see me as seriously ready to use it than if I'm pointing a handgun, see the Ellsberg/Kissinger/Nixon "mad man theory". When debating calibers a friend of mine once said "nothing says 'Stop motherfucker!' like a.45" and I'd echo that the sound of a 12 gauge going off is more likely to cause an opponent to freeze or flee than the sound of a 9mm.
20 years ago, my dad and I came home from a camping trip a day early, but late at night. If my mom had been armed, she would have shot at both of us. Instead, the dog woofed to wake her up and then went to go greet us.
I'm trying to parse this. If your mom had been armed, she would have shot you, but instead the dog woofed to wake her up? So if she had been armed your mom would have shot you in her sleep? Did the dog only woof because your mom was not armed? Could she have called out to ask who was there before she shot?
I was eight too. Built Revell models of the command and lunar modules - seemed like most boys did. Major Matt Mason toys, Star Trek on the television, Estes rockets launched by the whole class in elementary school. I remember assuming that if there was no nuclear war in the late 20th century by the 21st century there would be space stations and moon colonies like in 2001 A Space Odyssey. Would never in my wildest dreams have imagined that in 2014 the US wouldn't have vehicles capable of putting men into earth orbit.
Phrases like "revisionist nonsense" and "it is silly to say" should likely be used sparingly unless you have a very deep grasp of your subject matter.
Conflating the Tonkin Gulf Resolution with America's war in Vietnam would be a mistake. In bringing Tonkin into an argument you may wish to acquaint yourself with records detailing the Johnson Administration's orchestration of the resolution. See Michael Beschloss's work for instance, or the Pentagon Papers, either portions of the full set or the single volume if your time is short. With Tonkin Johnson was reacting from fear of voters, but the documentary record shows clearly that the Administration wished to expand the war despite public sentiment, not because of it.
In arguing that the war in Vietnam was popular you will likely want to look at some actual polling data, http://www.gallup.com/poll/119... for instance. Anecdotal evidence such as Nixon's 1968 platform may also prove useful to you.
Modern US draft registration stems from Jimmy Carter's 1980 response to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Wikipedia has a reasonable synopsis. Those interested in reading about the draft may also be interested in using their favorite Internet search engine to query for terms like "draft resistance". There's a fair body of literature out there.
Most companies want degrees OR equivalent work experience. I went back to school as a 23 year old and quit soon after because I got tired of professors telling me things that I had taught myself years earlier as part of my job.
Varies with the discipline. I returned to school to study history after some years of political organizing and found value in professors' teaching of historiography that I never would have gained from years of reading history. After ten years of working as a software engineer I started a masters in computer science and found professors were woefully behind the industry. YMMV.
You didn't mention this gem:
"I'll attempt to time my passage such that I'll cross near my maximum speed, clearing the intersection expediently. Being through quicker reduces the chances I'll be involved in an accident there."
Assuming for the moment that we accept this reasoning, might this then be an argument for drivers, too, to accelerate when approaching stop signs, so that they might also minimize the time spent in an intersection?
I think the tacit implication here is that if Tsarnaev had been questioned on exiting the country the Boston Marathon bombing might have been averted, but is there really any substance to this? Do we think he would have changed plans had he been questioned? Pressure cooker outlets would have been alerted to refuse to sell him cookware? What exactly would the outcome likely have been had he been questioned?
50 years ago it used to be a hot-bed of science and technological innovation. Now it is a magnet for designer coffee-swigging social cloud blog web 2.0 get rich quick smartphone app hipsters.
Look for real companies designing and building real products for proper customers. Silicon Valley's day is gone.
Can you give us a hint as to where we would look for those real companies? "Outside of Silicon Valley" covers a lot of ground - where specifically are those real companies designing real products located?
Trader Joe's has equally good vegetables, nuts, grains, etc. without the Whole Foods ego trip, and with better prices.
I don't know where you've been shopping, or what your view of produce is, but at least in San Francisco TJ's absolutely does not have equally good fruits and vegetables. TJ's has berries, it's true, but for any other produce Whole Foods is always better. TJ's has plenty of good values in packaged goods.
Yeah, I've been enjoying the produce for years while managing to ignore the hype and tolerating the faux-personal interaction of the checkers. I'm not sure that "many of us perceive Whole Foods and the Creation Museum so differently" as far as belief systems and evaluation of empirical evidence are concerned. Many of us go to Whole Foods for the food.
Slashdot Mirror
He's just in a very deep state of meditation.
You've got a very dry sense of humor.
There's a difference between physical danger and social effects.
Glad to see someone making this point. The article cited is about the relative lethal dose of various drugs. Discussion of the risks/benefits of marijuana use do not generally include a debate around the risk that someone will smoke to the point of death, unlike discussion of campus alcohol consumption, which must take into account frat and other alcohol poisoning deaths. Actual deaths, though, are not the most significant social effect of widespread alcohol or pot consumption.
Son, we live in a world that has walls. And those walls have to be guarded by men with guns.
I remember breaking into laughter several times when watching Nicholson and Moore praise the men on the walls without mentioning that those walls are in someone else's country. Oh, the glory of being an occupying power maintaining an empire!
Says someone who must never have eaten actual good pizza. Pizza Hut's pizza is really nothing like, say, the pizza I've eaten from a pizzeria in Naples where the pizzas are thin-crust, baked in an oven that's about 1000 degrees F for maybe a minute or so.
If was Naples wouldn't that be degrees C?
So this.
Dave's not here.
Actually a shotgun is a better home defense weapon for most users than a rifle, but not the double-barrel shotgun Biden whinges about. A good, solid semi auto or pump action that holds several rounds can do wonders to an intruder or two without going through several houses like a .30-06 might.
Choice of weapon for home defense is certainly a continual subject for debate. If I am wakened by someone breaking into my house at night I'd feel my Glock is going to be easier to wield while walking around a dark house than a shotgun. I can also get off multiple shots from a 9mm much more quickly than when pumping a shotgun. On the other hand, given some visibility the shotgun has a deterrent value that the handgun does not, and a rifle also has an edge here, I think. My guess is if a home invader sees me pointing either my Mossberg or AR at him he'll be more liable to see me as seriously ready to use it than if I'm pointing a handgun, see the Ellsberg/Kissinger/Nixon "mad man theory". When debating calibers a friend of mine once said "nothing says 'Stop motherfucker!' like a .45" and I'd echo that the sound of a 12 gauge going off is more likely to cause an opponent to freeze or flee than the sound of a 9mm.
I'm trying to parse this. If your mom had been armed, she would have shot you, but instead the dog woofed to wake her up? So if she had been armed your mom would have shot you in her sleep? Did the dog only woof because your mom was not armed? Could she have called out to ask who was there before she shot?
Powder is really easy to make. It is, after all, 9th century technology.
Nitrocellulose is not black powder.
I think you mean "vein satisfaction".
Hmm. I know what vain satisfaction is, but what are the vane and vein variants? I'm feeling like I just can't get no.
What's the nautical speed velocity of an unladen seal?
Too sophisticated a question for me. I'm still working on what "speed velocity" is.
Well written wikipedia pages have sitings.
And really well-written pages have citations.
I was eight too. Built Revell models of the command and lunar modules - seemed like most boys did. Major Matt Mason toys, Star Trek on the television, Estes rockets launched by the whole class in elementary school. I remember assuming that if there was no nuclear war in the late 20th century by the 21st century there would be space stations and moon colonies like in 2001 A Space Odyssey. Would never in my wildest dreams have imagined that in 2014 the US wouldn't have vehicles capable of putting men into earth orbit.
Yes, but this is still 2014, not the future, silly!
I am shocked, SHOCKED, at the gambling that goes on in this establishment! http://youtu.be/SjbPi00k_ME
"I am shocked, shocked, to find that gambling is going on in here" is the quote.
Phrases like "revisionist nonsense" and "it is silly to say" should likely be used sparingly unless you have a very deep grasp of your subject matter.
Conflating the Tonkin Gulf Resolution with America's war in Vietnam would be a mistake. In bringing Tonkin into an argument you may wish to acquaint yourself with records detailing the Johnson Administration's orchestration of the resolution. See Michael Beschloss's work for instance, or the Pentagon Papers, either portions of the full set or the single volume if your time is short. With Tonkin Johnson was reacting from fear of voters, but the documentary record shows clearly that the Administration wished to expand the war despite public sentiment, not because of it.
In arguing that the war in Vietnam was popular you will likely want to look at some actual polling data, http://www.gallup.com/poll/119... for instance. Anecdotal evidence such as Nixon's 1968 platform may also prove useful to you.
Modern US draft registration stems from Jimmy Carter's 1980 response to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Wikipedia has a reasonable synopsis. Those interested in reading about the draft may also be interested in using their favorite Internet search engine to query for terms like "draft resistance". There's a fair body of literature out there.
Most companies want degrees OR equivalent work experience. I went back to school as a 23 year old and quit soon after because I got tired of professors telling me things that I had taught myself years earlier as part of my job.
Varies with the discipline. I returned to school to study history after some years of political organizing and found value in professors' teaching of historiography that I never would have gained from years of reading history. After ten years of working as a software engineer I started a masters in computer science and found professors were woefully behind the industry. YMMV.
Read your history. There was a reason why it was called the "Greatest Generation".
Tom Brokaw's feelings of guilt and inferiority?
The two times USA has been bombed during the WW2 were the Pearl Harbor incident and the bombing of Fort Stevens.
Hawaii didn't become a state until 1959, and Fort Stevens was shelled, rather than bombed.
You didn't mention this gem: "I'll attempt to time my passage such that I'll cross near my maximum speed, clearing the intersection expediently. Being through quicker reduces the chances I'll be involved in an accident there."
Assuming for the moment that we accept this reasoning, might this then be an argument for drivers, too, to accelerate when approaching stop signs, so that they might also minimize the time spent in an intersection?
150 % safer is 2.5 times safer (as 0 % safer is 1.0 times safer).
Wouldn't 0% safer be another way of saying 1.0 times as safe? I don't believe this is synonymous with safer.
I think the tacit implication here is that if Tsarnaev had been questioned on exiting the country the Boston Marathon bombing might have been averted, but is there really any substance to this? Do we think he would have changed plans had he been questioned? Pressure cooker outlets would have been alerted to refuse to sell him cookware? What exactly would the outcome likely have been had he been questioned?
Ignore Silicon Valley.
50 years ago it used to be a hot-bed of science and technological innovation. Now it is a magnet for designer coffee-swigging social cloud blog web 2.0 get rich quick smartphone app hipsters.
Look for real companies designing and building real products for proper customers. Silicon Valley's day is gone.
Can you give us a hint as to where we would look for those real companies? "Outside of Silicon Valley" covers a lot of ground - where specifically are those real companies designing real products located?
Trader Joe's has equally good vegetables, nuts, grains, etc. without the Whole Foods ego trip, and with better prices.
I don't know where you've been shopping, or what your view of produce is, but at least in San Francisco TJ's absolutely does not have equally good fruits and vegetables. TJ's has berries, it's true, but for any other produce Whole Foods is always better. TJ's has plenty of good values in packaged goods.
Yeah, I've been enjoying the produce for years while managing to ignore the hype and tolerating the faux-personal interaction of the checkers. I'm not sure that "many of us perceive Whole Foods and the Creation Museum so differently" as far as belief systems and evaluation of empirical evidence are concerned. Many of us go to Whole Foods for the food.