Why is this even a surprise? When you look at celebrities all over, I mean really look at them, you will quickly realize they aren't terribly different from all the people around you and frankly, some are exceptionally ugly. So what makes them special? Marketing.
And the fact that people fall for it so often no longer amazes me. People are mostly sheeple and will even angrily and violently defend their sheeple ways. (Observe as I get modded troll)
The psychology behind all of this is well documented. This isn't some sort of arrogant speculation on my part. Brand names and flags and sports teams and 'taking sides' of all sorts are the ways sheeple behave. Look to who is guiding the sheeple and how they benefit to see why and how the sheeple are being exploited.
In any case, I hope people increasingly wake up to their own human natures. We can't hope to overcome them unless we are aware of them. We make laws to help limit what people can do to each other where the classics (you know, don't steal, don't kill, don't assault, don't exploiter (practice usury) and all that) are timeless inventions which are literally the basis for civilization and are keenly focused on countering the worst aspects of human nature; human nature which is simultaneously kind and cruel, generous and greedy, loving and hating. We haven't actually managed to overcome human nature so much as we manage to limit it. But it all first happens with acknowledgement.
Lately, we all seem to be denying our natures and this is largely why we seem to be having much more trouble in recent years than I have noted in decades prior.
I would encourage everyone to to the same. They have a simple email submission page on their site and it has no capcha or anything annoying like that. Let them know we do not care for the practice of locking out competition.
I know how Ouya is going to do Ouya Everywhere without Ouya equipment. They will broadcast from all cell towers on Channel 3. So just change to Channel 3 and you will get Ouya Everywhere. You call in to an 800# using your touch tone keypad to act as a controller.
It's nor a qualifier, but let's face it -- attractive people get more opportunities. "Ugly" is among the last remaining minorities. Women (especially) when two or more candidates are otherwise equalle qualified, the pretty one gets it even when the interviewer is female... unless she's unattractive and insecure about it. Often times, less qualified but attractive women still get the job over more qualified. I've just seen it far too often to ignore and if you can't see it, you're blind.
Poor people needing to move is a bigger deal than richer people moving in. Cars and trucks are less common and the welfare offices are typically closer to the poor areas as well. I don't really want to argue in favor of welfare because it sucks and people live on it too often and for too long to the point that design their lives around it and even have kids to collect more. (I have personally seen that... really freaked me out to learn that it was real and the women doing it were REALLY pretty so I was shocked they weren't able to get better jobs than "welfare recipient and mother.")
One approach says "give the poor some stuff to help them get a leg up, live slightly better and afford them some opportunities." The other says "Give the rich some room to grown in poor/bad neighborhoods and see if things trickle down to improve the local economy."
Well? I'm a little undecided which is best because frankly, the first option would work on me. I have been on public assistance in the past. I didn't like it and got off of it as soon as possible. On the other hand, some people are quite compfortable wallowing in that sh!t.
Meanwhile, the things I have seen come through gentrification have been successful. I have not seen any information related to gentrification failures other than "they say don't! whites not welcome here!" and then they don't do it. So if anyone can point to "gentrification gone bad" I'd be interested in learning about it.
All these fancy words for LIES. This is conspiracy against the American people and the people who push the documents instructing law enforcement to do that need to be tried for treason.
Yeah I am aware of the parallel construction bit. That's why we need to trap some LEOs with it.
What if I put an XBox360 in a locked room with no windows, turned it on with a kinect camera pointing at a sign which threatens a top political figure. If someone acts on it, how would they justify their actions? Legally it would be extremely questionable and ultimately, it would not be a threat as much as it would be a trap for the government to fall into. After all, discovery would result in all manner of details which should enter public record....or I could disappear into a puff of darkness.
The existing nuclear plants are definitely approaching end of life. New nuclear plants and technologies are pretty damned far away. The NRC definitely needs to shut down some of the older plants. What's more, the NRC definitely needs to start approving new plants and nuclear technologies more quickly. The licensing process is amazingly expensive. We're quickly going to arrive at an energy crisis due to lack of action.
Anyone who is Christian and believes what's in Revelations, should be against regulating money. That whole number of the beast thing should be at the front of their minds when the topic of currency regulation comes up.
Bitcoin and others have come about because a need has been recognized. What is the need? A stable currency that can't be as easily manipulated at the whim of the issuing agency? Yeah, that's probably the need they're addressing.
So if government legislators and politicians are concerned about the US Dollar, they should address the problems of the US Dollar instead of attacking the competition.
It has often been the hallmark of "sneaky children" to ask another parent when the first parent says "no." This is rightly viewed as unethical behavior and is disrespectful of the authority of a parent.
In this case, it is the police who are being disrespectful of the rights of a person who lawfully refuses an illegal search. It is important to note that it is not illegal for police to lie to people. The means that they might likely say "the other person said ____ but to be more complete, I would just like to get your consent on this before proceeding."
Everyone needs to collect their families or their room mates together and agree the answer is ALWAYS "NO!" regardless of what police tell you. A warrant should ALWAYS be acquired prior to a search if only because a warrant requires a certain degree of specificity as to what they are looking for.
Moreover, as more and more people begin carrying guns (which is happening now) people will become decidedly less inclined to do ANYTHING threatening at all.
What changes? Oh! More people with guns to act as deterrent to behavior like that. You seem to believe more people are like Curtis Reeves and Michael Dunn. I hold they are a tiny minority and that most people don't use deadly devices for deadly purposes most of the time -- the department of transportation data seems to reflect this.
I had written a well-crafted response to yours but for some reason I neglected to commit the reply... an error on my part. Now I won't respond in quite the same way as before.
"Fight back against whom? Who is attacking you? Dude, you're going to kill the fuckin' UPS guy! True story: it was well after dark one evening, maybe 8PM. The UPS guy pulls up and we heard him shouting "UPS! UPS!" and he had a thick accent so we didn't know at first what he was saying. If I had been armed he could've been shot. "
Overreact much? First of all, "fighting chance" does not mean what you think it means. As long as we're using anecdotes (more on that later) I offer one of my own. I was in Texas when this happened. There was a lot wrong in that situation but the most significant was that the people there did not have a fighting chance. They literally cowered in place waiting their turn to have a bullet put into their head. One, now famous lady, is the daughter of one man who attempted to rush the gunman and was dropped immediately. The man's wife hovered over her dead husband and was shot in the head as well. The daughter was able to make her escape during her father's rush, but her gun was in her vehicle as required by law leaving her helpless... her mother... her father and the large body count of people. All helpless.
This is just a single story. These things do not happen as often as you might think. But times are getting increasingly more difficult and as that happens, people become more on-edge. Look to history or even the news to discover what it takes to lead up to these nightmarish situations. We've been in a global financial crisis for quite some time. Some increase in frequency is to be expected. You seem to draw comfort in knowing you do not live in a "3rd world country." Well, Europe isn't exactly a 3rd world country. My only response to that comfort is "yet."
"But anyway, I think gun owners have a right to their guns, but they should be way more heavily regulated by the (evil) govt. There should be regular training requirements and restrictions on ammo (same as for buying Sudafed, for example), national database registration, you know, all that stuff."
Heh... really? And I suppose the fox should guard the hen house too. You know who doesn't have restrictions on ammo? You guessed it, the foxes... and not just the government foxes, but the criminal foxes too -- the same ones who use sudafed in an unrestricted manner. And a database? Really? You know? At some point, and it has been that way in the past in other places, having a radio to receive the news or other communications once required registration. And then not long after that, they were confiscated to prevent enemy communications from getting in.
We're talking about good, common, decent people and you're talking about tracking and limiting what they can do. Why? Punishment follows what people do -- it doesn't come before it. And we're not talking about children. We're talking about adults in a free society. Restricting access to drugs (and alcohol) has led to an increase in violence. Industrial scale violence. That was why the prohibition on alcohol was repealed and why the war on drugs should be ended. It certainly hasn't saved the lives of those who want drugs but has managed to add to the pile. And to top it all off, someone like you would want to limit the amount of defensive power innocent people would have?
"Why are you so fearful? Where do you live? People absolutely have a right to defend themselves, but guns are really a lousy way of doing that."
Fearful? I wouldn't characterize my position as fearful. Fear decreases IQ points. I'm glad you agree people have the right to defend themselves, so how do you propose people do that? And how are guns a lousy way to do that? That requires explanation. Personally owned firearms provide a tremendous amount of equalization against threats. A person with a pistol can defend
When you have spent as much time in Japan and working with Japanese people as I have, come back and speak again. Their mass transit infrastructure is generally better, but by no means is it as ubiquitous as you seem to think. But the actual FEAR aspect is another matter entirely. It was first called to my attention not in Japan, but in the US. I must admit I had apprehensions about driving in Japan if only because they drive on the wrong side, but also because they literally have roads which are too narrow for some cars... intentionally. But the fear thing? It was hard to wrap my head around but it was right there in spoken language that they were afraid of cars due to safety and other concerns.
"OK, Mr Greased Lightning,..."
Are you incapable of pointing your finger at a thing you wish to indicate to others? If so, then I agree with you, be careful. And as I read back, I see no indication of saying "quick draw" or any dramatics such as that. You really, really need to learn a thing or two. One of the first and probably most important things to learn is how to feel it right. You already do this for many things in your life. Keyboards, for one and probably your hands on the steering wheel (providing you're not afraid of cars). And are you also able to raise a spoon to your mouth without visual guidance? How about tying your shoes without looking? You probably do hundreds of things without a great deal of visual qualification. Sure, sites are great at first. But depending on them requires hesitation. Sites are more like training wheels or if you're shooting at a distance. Pistol distance is closer than you might imagine if you don't already know and understand things like this.
"And I would invite you to look into a mirror and ask yourself what you are so afraid of."
I am afraid of my own disappointment. Missed opportunities to help and to protect people I care about. It is a man's duty to protect his family and to be as trained, informed and prepared as possible. And the world around us is filled with humans of all sorts. If you agree we don't live in a peaceful world, then you already understand the answer to what I must presume is a rhetorical question. And to be clear, firearms do nothing to provide a sense of comfort or warmth against fear of danger. Nothing. If someone gets that feeling from having a tool on their belt, I would invite them to just the rest of the world in reality. But, as in the spare tire analogy, I keep air in my spare tire and I always keep one in my car. I have never actually needed a spare tire but I wouldn't think of traveling without one.
You completely misread just about everything to do with the use of firearms. What we are talking about is a device which launches tiny projectiles at high speed through a tube which directs it. There's nothing magic there. Nothing insidious. You seem to be suffering from an associative disorder if you imagine more than that. To help remedy the problem, start by turning off your TV.
Slashdot Mirror
Why is this even a surprise? When you look at celebrities all over, I mean really look at them, you will quickly realize they aren't terribly different from all the people around you and frankly, some are exceptionally ugly. So what makes them special? Marketing.
And the fact that people fall for it so often no longer amazes me. People are mostly sheeple and will even angrily and violently defend their sheeple ways. (Observe as I get modded troll)
The psychology behind all of this is well documented. This isn't some sort of arrogant speculation on my part. Brand names and flags and sports teams and 'taking sides' of all sorts are the ways sheeple behave. Look to who is guiding the sheeple and how they benefit to see why and how the sheeple are being exploited.
In any case, I hope people increasingly wake up to their own human natures. We can't hope to overcome them unless we are aware of them. We make laws to help limit what people can do to each other where the classics (you know, don't steal, don't kill, don't assault, don't exploiter (practice usury) and all that) are timeless inventions which are literally the basis for civilization and are keenly focused on countering the worst aspects of human nature; human nature which is simultaneously kind and cruel, generous and greedy, loving and hating. We haven't actually managed to overcome human nature so much as we manage to limit it. But it all first happens with acknowledgement.
Lately, we all seem to be denying our natures and this is largely why we seem to be having much more trouble in recent years than I have noted in decades prior.
Well, if Moore got his own law, I'm going to go ahead and call it erroneus's law. "batteries will get better."
I made it more simple and easier not to fail in the future too. So is it me or are they creating batteries out of just about everything?
For some welfare is a hammock and they learn to get quite comfortable in it.
I would encourage everyone to to the same. They have a simple email submission page on their site and it has no capcha or anything annoying like that. Let them know we do not care for the practice of locking out competition.
I dunno... Ikea seems to be doing pretty well.
I know how Ouya is going to do Ouya Everywhere without Ouya equipment. They will broadcast from all cell towers on Channel 3. So just change to Channel 3 and you will get Ouya Everywhere. You call in to an 800# using your touch tone keypad to act as a controller.
It's nor a qualifier, but let's face it -- attractive people get more opportunities. "Ugly" is among the last remaining minorities. Women (especially) when two or more candidates are otherwise equalle qualified, the pretty one gets it even when the interviewer is female... unless she's unattractive and insecure about it. Often times, less qualified but attractive women still get the job over more qualified. I've just seen it far too often to ignore and if you can't see it, you're blind.
It's here as a reminder that Facebook is a REALLY dumb idea and that people should realize it's not private.
Poor people needing to move is a bigger deal than richer people moving in. Cars and trucks are less common and the welfare offices are typically closer to the poor areas as well. I don't really want to argue in favor of welfare because it sucks and people live on it too often and for too long to the point that design their lives around it and even have kids to collect more. (I have personally seen that... really freaked me out to learn that it was real and the women doing it were REALLY pretty so I was shocked they weren't able to get better jobs than "welfare recipient and mother.")
1. Welfare
2. Gentrification
One approach says "give the poor some stuff to help them get a leg up, live slightly better and afford them some opportunities." The other says "Give the rich some room to grown in poor/bad neighborhoods and see if things trickle down to improve the local economy."
Well? I'm a little undecided which is best because frankly, the first option would work on me. I have been on public assistance in the past. I didn't like it and got off of it as soon as possible. On the other hand, some people are quite compfortable wallowing in that sh!t.
Meanwhile, the things I have seen come through gentrification have been successful. I have not seen any information related to gentrification failures other than "they say don't! whites not welcome here!" and then they don't do it. So if anyone can point to "gentrification gone bad" I'd be interested in learning about it.
All these fancy words for LIES. This is conspiracy against the American people and the people who push the documents instructing law enforcement to do that need to be tried for treason.
Yeah I am aware of the parallel construction bit. That's why we need to trap some LEOs with it.
How about just unplugging the sh!t?
What if I put an XBox360 in a locked room with no windows, turned it on with a kinect camera pointing at a sign which threatens a top political figure. If someone acts on it, how would they justify their actions? Legally it would be extremely questionable and ultimately, it would not be a threat as much as it would be a trap for the government to fall into. After all, discovery would result in all manner of details which should enter public record. ...or I could disappear into a puff of darkness.
The existing nuclear plants are definitely approaching end of life. New nuclear plants and technologies are pretty damned far away. The NRC definitely needs to shut down some of the older plants. What's more, the NRC definitely needs to start approving new plants and nuclear technologies more quickly. The licensing process is amazingly expensive. We're quickly going to arrive at an energy crisis due to lack of action.
BATFECES; Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, Encrypted Currency and Explosive Stuff
Full disclosure: I am atheist.
I just think it's often convenient to use their religion against them when possible.
Yeah, that worked for Alcohol and Drugs, so why not money?
Anyone who is Christian and believes what's in Revelations, should be against regulating money. That whole number of the beast thing should be at the front of their minds when the topic of currency regulation comes up.
Bitcoin and others have come about because a need has been recognized. What is the need? A stable currency that can't be as easily manipulated at the whim of the issuing agency? Yeah, that's probably the need they're addressing.
So if government legislators and politicians are concerned about the US Dollar, they should address the problems of the US Dollar instead of attacking the competition.
It has often been the hallmark of "sneaky children" to ask another parent when the first parent says "no." This is rightly viewed as unethical behavior and is disrespectful of the authority of a parent.
In this case, it is the police who are being disrespectful of the rights of a person who lawfully refuses an illegal search. It is important to note that it is not illegal for police to lie to people. The means that they might likely say "the other person said ____ but to be more complete, I would just like to get your consent on this before proceeding."
Everyone needs to collect their families or their room mates together and agree the answer is ALWAYS "NO!" regardless of what police tell you. A warrant should ALWAYS be acquired prior to a search if only because a warrant requires a certain degree of specificity as to what they are looking for.
I'm afraid it shouldn't be a negotiable detail. It is a free speech right of Google/YouTube to explain why something isn't available.
Moreover, as more and more people begin carrying guns (which is happening now) people will become decidedly less inclined to do ANYTHING threatening at all.
Tell that reasoning to the passengers on the 9-11 hijacking.
You cannot predict what an assailant has in mind. You can only reasonably guess if your life may be in danger and act accordingly.
What changes? Oh! More people with guns to act as deterrent to behavior like that. You seem to believe more people are like Curtis Reeves and Michael Dunn. I hold they are a tiny minority and that most people don't use deadly devices for deadly purposes most of the time -- the department of transportation data seems to reflect this.
I had written a well-crafted response to yours but for some reason I neglected to commit the reply... an error on my part. Now I won't respond in quite the same way as before.
"Fight back against whom? Who is attacking you? Dude, you're going to kill the fuckin' UPS guy! True story: it was well after dark one evening, maybe 8PM. The UPS guy pulls up and we heard him shouting "UPS! UPS!" and he had a thick accent so we didn't know at first what he was saying. If I had been armed he could've been shot. "
Overreact much? First of all, "fighting chance" does not mean what you think it means. As long as we're using anecdotes (more on that later) I offer one of my own. I was in Texas when this happened. There was a lot wrong in that situation but the most significant was that the people there did not have a fighting chance. They literally cowered in place waiting their turn to have a bullet put into their head. One, now famous lady, is the daughter of one man who attempted to rush the gunman and was dropped immediately. The man's wife hovered over her dead husband and was shot in the head as well. The daughter was able to make her escape during her father's rush, but her gun was in her vehicle as required by law leaving her helpless... her mother... her father and the large body count of people. All helpless.
This is just a single story. These things do not happen as often as you might think. But times are getting increasingly more difficult and as that happens, people become more on-edge. Look to history or even the news to discover what it takes to lead up to these nightmarish situations. We've been in a global financial crisis for quite some time. Some increase in frequency is to be expected. You seem to draw comfort in knowing you do not live in a "3rd world country." Well, Europe isn't exactly a 3rd world country. My only response to that comfort is "yet."
"But anyway, I think gun owners have a right to their guns, but they should be way more heavily regulated by the (evil) govt. There should be regular training requirements and restrictions on ammo (same as for buying Sudafed, for example), national database registration, you know, all that stuff."
Heh... really? And I suppose the fox should guard the hen house too. You know who doesn't have restrictions on ammo? You guessed it, the foxes... and not just the government foxes, but the criminal foxes too -- the same ones who use sudafed in an unrestricted manner. And a database? Really? You know? At some point, and it has been that way in the past in other places, having a radio to receive the news or other communications once required registration. And then not long after that, they were confiscated to prevent enemy communications from getting in.
We're talking about good, common, decent people and you're talking about tracking and limiting what they can do. Why? Punishment follows what people do -- it doesn't come before it. And we're not talking about children. We're talking about adults in a free society. Restricting access to drugs (and alcohol) has led to an increase in violence. Industrial scale violence. That was why the prohibition on alcohol was repealed and why the war on drugs should be ended. It certainly hasn't saved the lives of those who want drugs but has managed to add to the pile. And to top it all off, someone like you would want to limit the amount of defensive power innocent people would have?
"Why are you so fearful? Where do you live? People absolutely have a right to defend themselves, but guns are really a lousy way of doing that."
Fearful? I wouldn't characterize my position as fearful. Fear decreases IQ points. I'm glad you agree people have the right to defend themselves, so how do you propose people do that? And how are guns a lousy way to do that? That requires explanation. Personally owned firearms provide a tremendous amount of equalization against threats. A person with a pistol can defend
"This is just plain utter bullshit."
When you have spent as much time in Japan and working with Japanese people as I have, come back and speak again. Their mass transit infrastructure is generally better, but by no means is it as ubiquitous as you seem to think. But the actual FEAR aspect is another matter entirely. It was first called to my attention not in Japan, but in the US. I must admit I had apprehensions about driving in Japan if only because they drive on the wrong side, but also because they literally have roads which are too narrow for some cars... intentionally. But the fear thing? It was hard to wrap my head around but it was right there in spoken language that they were afraid of cars due to safety and other concerns.
"OK, Mr Greased Lightning, ..."
Are you incapable of pointing your finger at a thing you wish to indicate to others? If so, then I agree with you, be careful. And as I read back, I see no indication of saying "quick draw" or any dramatics such as that. You really, really need to learn a thing or two. One of the first and probably most important things to learn is how to feel it right. You already do this for many things in your life. Keyboards, for one and probably your hands on the steering wheel (providing you're not afraid of cars). And are you also able to raise a spoon to your mouth without visual guidance? How about tying your shoes without looking? You probably do hundreds of things without a great deal of visual qualification. Sure, sites are great at first. But depending on them requires hesitation. Sites are more like training wheels or if you're shooting at a distance. Pistol distance is closer than you might imagine if you don't already know and understand things like this.
"And I would invite you to look into a mirror and ask yourself what you are so afraid of."
I am afraid of my own disappointment. Missed opportunities to help and to protect people I care about. It is a man's duty to protect his family and to be as trained, informed and prepared as possible. And the world around us is filled with humans of all sorts. If you agree we don't live in a peaceful world, then you already understand the answer to what I must presume is a rhetorical question. And to be clear, firearms do nothing to provide a sense of comfort or warmth against fear of danger. Nothing. If someone gets that feeling from having a tool on their belt, I would invite them to just the rest of the world in reality. But, as in the spare tire analogy, I keep air in my spare tire and I always keep one in my car. I have never actually needed a spare tire but I wouldn't think of traveling without one.
You completely misread just about everything to do with the use of firearms. What we are talking about is a device which launches tiny projectiles at high speed through a tube which directs it. There's nothing magic there. Nothing insidious. You seem to be suffering from an associative disorder if you imagine more than that. To help remedy the problem, start by turning off your TV.