Yes, more guns - along with proper "regulation" (i.e. aim) would have greatly reduced the number of casualties... but as that doesn't align with the anti-gun narrative you wish to project, you probably leave that out...
That's because more guns wouldn't have helped the situation. Heck police can't be counted on to aim properly half the time and they're supposed to be in training regularly. It's a video game tournament the chances of them training their marksmanship instead of their stickwork in laughably slim. With more guns you have more shooters. It's harder to tell who to run from because the bad guy isn't going to be wearing a red vest. So no only will you have way more stray bullets but also more people putting themselves in danger running from whatever person looks more scary potentially at the bad guy shooter.
It was a mass shooting, so why was it put in quotes? Seems rather disrespectful to me, like someone saying, "so you were in a 'mass shooting' and you're a 'victim'? Sure you were."
It was a mass shooting, so why was it put in quotes? Seems rather disrespectful to me, like someone saying, "so you were in a 'mass shooting' and you're a 'victim'? Sure you were."
depending on the economics you use mass shootings might or might not include the Madden shooting.
If neighboring states had the same gun control laws as Illinois Chicago wouldn't have a gun problem. for all the talk about how bad guys don't care if their guns are legal... their guns are legally purchased.
Hmm. 80 hour day. Could you direct me to the person that has accomplished this? I'd really like to know how to increase my daily productivity even further. 24 hours simply isn't enough!
an 80 hour day is when you work four jobs at the same time for 20 hours a day.
i mean "be careful of that academic language" don't hire people "who are trained to argue their ideas to authority". We don't want that in professional settings.
that's when you're being arrested. It doesn't work like that in the courtroom. What you say in the courtroom can't be twisted against you like what you say to police because int he courtroom you have legal representation.
that doesn't mean it doesn't happen. I think sending a 2 year old court to an immigration court to please their case on why they should not be deported back to the country where angry men want to kill them is immoral and the densest concentration of wrongness I've heard this decade and yet this has happened. Mom gets deported, child gets deported, both end up dead. Almost like they weren't crossing the border for kicks and giggles.
it depends on what you mean by criminals. I think what's naive is that you assume criminals in the streets will cause a lot of damage when in fact "criminals" are people who have personal amounts of weed. People who don't have the money for bail. People who have parking tickets. The justice system is in need of serious repair. Get over it.
dude being locked up for 6 months can be it's own type of record. your life can come crashing down in six months of being unable to do things like pay your bills on time and continue to go to your job.
difference is the crowbar is nicer. Bones heal, bruises heal. But being locked up for six months can ruin your life. You can lose your job, you can lose your kids, you can lose your credit. You can lose your car. You can lose your house. You can go from being an average middle class person to abject poverty in six months. Because in six months your fiscal obligations can go from 60% of your income to 95% of your income and now you don't have that income.
Heaven forbid this dude doesn't actually know this lock codes.
I'll buy what I believe is good for me. I don't like the government using my money against my choices. I assume that Canada has elections? Seems to me that the people voted for a government to hand them some economic freedom.
Here's why I don't like government enforced environmental subsidies. There was a subsidy on compact florescent lights, perhaps it's still there. I bought some of these CFLs and they sucked. They took a long time to light up, didn't last near as long as advertised, contained mercury (which is a toxic mess if it should break), was hard on the eyes, and tended to interfere with IR remotes (that drove me batty until I figured that out). Then came LED lights. They produced light immediately, often cost less than CFL even after the subsidy, didn't contain anything toxic, lasts seemingly forever (hadn't seen one fail yet in years), but sometimes still kind of "funny" in the color of the light. The government spent a lot of MY MONEY on these shitty lights that I hated and possibly poisoned many children from broken bulbs. I can't get this money back, I saw no benefit, and the open market beat the government to picking the winner in competition to the old Edison bulb.
I got to visit my sister recently and see her new house. Every light in the house is LED and the lights are awesome. My guess is that these were expensive lights but they will last a very long time and the lighting is a very natural color. They didn't need a subsidy for these energy efficient lights because they recognized the return on investment, both in the value of money and the value of comfort/convenience. The government chose poorly and I'm left paying the bill
While I agree LEDs are better than CFLs the irony is that without the subsidies people wouldn't have switched bulbs at all. The light bulb subsidy galvanized an unchanging market. People have complained for generations about light bulbs but until the subsidy the market didn't care. Even with your hyperbole (possibly poisoned many children from broken bulbs) there's more mercury in older thermometers and even when broken only a fraction is released, it would take weeks to poison a child and honestly even with the subsidy older bulbs would still be in fashion if it wasn't for the ban.
No tax credits for retrofitting homes for more power efficiency (insulation, windows, furnaces,...etc.)
I'm doing that with no credits because it saves me money. More power efficient windows and furnaces have an inherent value because they are cheaper - again why are you stealing from others to give money to people well off enough to afford homes?
Um... you clearly don't know how and why tax credits work. Retrofitting a house is expensive. They demonstrably aren't cheaper or everyone would be doing it. But they save money. A $5 light bulb isn't as efficient as a $25 light bulb. The former will cost you $100 more over 10 years whereas the latter will only cost you $20 but when you only have $10 to spend on light bulbs you can't just buy the $25 light bulb because "hey it's $60 cheaper". It's not. It's $20 more expensive but worth $60 more.
If you can afford to retrofit I'm happy for you but a lot of people can't afford that. This is why tax incentives exists so that I can afford to spend an extra $100 on refitting and still have enough money to pay my mortgage or car insurance
I tried the article and the sources but I couldn't find the details on the tax credit. The article implies the tax credit will be removed only from those who buy Teslas but will remain for other electric cars.
I assumed from the headline that it was a tax credit on making the cars which it would make sense to make. But a tax credit on BUYING the cars... that just incentivizes someone to not be first but be prepared to be second. Because of exactly moments like this when Tesla prices skyrocket and you can sweep in with your cheaper price and an already established eco system and social narrative constructed.
Why not just remove the tax incentives from all the companies at the same time (whatever time that is). This encourages someone to be first because they'll enjoy the credit the longest. Rather than now with Tesla having done a majority of the work establishing the viability of the electric car to the public and now the other auto makers who weren't able to do that will be able to reap the Tax Credit now that the market has been taught to want their new product. Whatever congress passed this incentive was idiotic.
The TECHNICALLY best solutions should win in a free market
That's moronic. That leads capitalists to do whatever makes more money. not what people want. It leads to corporations ignoring humanity in favor of cost savings. It's precisely because the maximum free market doesn't work that we have controls. The free market only works when customers are informed and able to make choices. It implies that people are able to communicate their needs to corporate hierarchies whether though purchasing decisions or other means. With modern advertising and disgustingly insane wealth inequality, that doesn't work.
In the sentence Jane ate spaghetti with a fork, Mr. Computer Head should be able to figure out that the fork is a utensil, and not something that is eaten in addition to the spaghetti. Likewise, if the sentence is Jane ate spaghetti with meatballs, it should be obvious that meatballs are part of the dish, not an instrument for eating spaghetti.
For instance if you say Jane ate spaghetti with veramissimo no one knows what you're talking about until you know whether that's an herb, an adjective, or a utensil.
B-b-b-but Rick, I can't get any stations where I live!
Move to where the food is. Otherwise I guess it sucks to be you.
That's just my flippant way of saying "not my problem if you can't get TV stations where you are, that doesn't invalidate OTA TV as being a good thing".
no but it does invalidate OTA as being the solution for everyone. Solution for some people sure, solution for most people maybe but a lot of us need the cord. We don't deny that OTA would be nicer and cheaper but it's not an option for us.
we're in agreement on plastic degradation. The point is that he was saying articles ignore that plastic will degrade. My point is that even this article doesn't ignore that.
It is to the drug manufacturers.
Johnson and Johnson made serious billions from Rogaine.
I'm not saying it's not lucrative. I'm saying it isn't serious and we should stop putting so much effort into worrying about it so that drug companies won't find it so lucrative.
This isn't a Y DO/. CAREZ moment but literally who cares? Baldness isn't a serious situation. I'm not bald yet but when I start to show (which honestly I think will be sooner rather than later contrary to what my family is trying to tell me) I'll just shave it off and call it a day. I shaved bald in middle school every other month or so and it wasn't a big deal.
I mean we have cures for baldness and erectile dysfunction but it's scary how many things that matter we've made like no progress on. The horror stories I hear from women about the how period technology is basically unchanged in the past 7 generations or so. Like no one knows what causes endometriosis. And that affects a lot more people a lot worse than baldness. Baldness might be an issue for women but even that is fading. Baldness is something that doesn't even need a cure.
Just because today's fonts breaks something doesn't make them correct. Two spaces make paragraphs easier to dissect and find information. If your font doesn't allow that effect, then your font is bad not the rule it is breaking.
according to the data in their research. that only applies to people who two spaces. As most people single space (unless required to) it thus makes more sense to just single space. That of course ignores the many OTHER flaws in their research like the font they choose (fixed) and the medium (screen).
So you're angry that the "old type-writer-using geezer" is reading ten words per minute more than you and you're trying to sabotage his productivity?
And millennials wonder why nobody likes them...
If you read the article you'll note that the increased reading only happens to people who normally type with double spaces. Otherwise there's no real speed increase with double spaces. Thus doing that only helps the minority of people who are still double spaces. Most do not.
Slashdot Mirror
And more guns of course.
Yes, more guns - along with proper "regulation" (i.e. aim) would have greatly reduced the number of casualties... but as that doesn't align with the anti-gun narrative you wish to project, you probably leave that out...
That's because more guns wouldn't have helped the situation. Heck police can't be counted on to aim properly half the time and they're supposed to be in training regularly. It's a video game tournament the chances of them training their marksmanship instead of their stickwork in laughably slim. With more guns you have more shooters. It's harder to tell who to run from because the bad guy isn't going to be wearing a red vest. So no only will you have way more stray bullets but also more people putting themselves in danger running from whatever person looks more scary potentially at the bad guy shooter.
It was a mass shooting, so why was it put in quotes? Seems rather disrespectful to me, like someone saying, "so you were in a 'mass shooting' and you're a 'victim'? Sure you were."
It was a mass shooting, so why was it put in quotes? Seems rather disrespectful to me, like someone saying, "so you were in a 'mass shooting' and you're a 'victim'? Sure you were."
depending on the economics you use mass shootings might or might not include the Madden shooting.
How does that work for Chicago?
If neighboring states had the same gun control laws as Illinois Chicago wouldn't have a gun problem. for all the talk about how bad guys don't care if their guns are legal... their guns are legally purchased.
Hmm. 80 hour day. Could you direct me to the person that has accomplished this? I'd really like to know how to increase my daily productivity even further. 24 hours simply isn't enough!
an 80 hour day is when you work four jobs at the same time for 20 hours a day.
i mean "be careful of that academic language" don't hire people "who are trained to argue their ideas to authority". We don't want that in professional settings.
you mean clubhouse "No Gurlz Allowed"
that's when you're being arrested. It doesn't work like that in the courtroom. What you say in the courtroom can't be twisted against you like what you say to police because int he courtroom you have legal representation.
that doesn't mean it doesn't happen. I think sending a 2 year old court to an immigration court to please their case on why they should not be deported back to the country where angry men want to kill them is immoral and the densest concentration of wrongness I've heard this decade and yet this has happened. Mom gets deported, child gets deported, both end up dead. Almost like they weren't crossing the border for kicks and giggles.
it depends on what you mean by criminals. I think what's naive is that you assume criminals in the streets will cause a lot of damage when in fact "criminals" are people who have personal amounts of weed. People who don't have the money for bail. People who have parking tickets. The justice system is in need of serious repair. Get over it.
dude.. that's not how bullies work. That's not how bullies ever worked.
dude being locked up for 6 months can be it's own type of record. your life can come crashing down in six months of being unable to do things like pay your bills on time and continue to go to your job.
difference is the crowbar is nicer. Bones heal, bruises heal. But being locked up for six months can ruin your life. You can lose your job, you can lose your kids, you can lose your credit. You can lose your car. You can lose your house. You can go from being an average middle class person to abject poverty in six months. Because in six months your fiscal obligations can go from 60% of your income to 95% of your income and now you don't have that income.
Heaven forbid this dude doesn't actually know this lock codes.
stupid government stealing meh monez and building stupid bridges that I don't even get to name. I hates teh government.
While I agree LEDs are better than CFLs the irony is that without the subsidies people wouldn't have switched bulbs at all. The light bulb subsidy galvanized an unchanging market. People have complained for generations about light bulbs but until the subsidy the market didn't care. Even with your hyperbole (possibly poisoned many children from broken bulbs) there's more mercury in older thermometers and even when broken only a fraction is released, it would take weeks to poison a child and honestly even with the subsidy older bulbs would still be in fashion if it wasn't for the ban.
No tax credits for retrofitting homes for more power efficiency (insulation, windows, furnaces, ...etc.)
I'm doing that with no credits because it saves me money. More power efficient windows and furnaces have an inherent value because they are cheaper - again why are you stealing from others to give money to people well off enough to afford homes?
Um... you clearly don't know how and why tax credits work. Retrofitting a house is expensive. They demonstrably aren't cheaper or everyone would be doing it. But they save money. A $5 light bulb isn't as efficient as a $25 light bulb. The former will cost you $100 more over 10 years whereas the latter will only cost you $20 but when you only have $10 to spend on light bulbs you can't just buy the $25 light bulb because "hey it's $60 cheaper". It's not. It's $20 more expensive but worth $60 more.
If you can afford to retrofit I'm happy for you but a lot of people can't afford that. This is why tax incentives exists so that I can afford to spend an extra $100 on refitting and still have enough money to pay my mortgage or car insurance
I tried the article and the sources but I couldn't find the details on the tax credit. The article implies the tax credit will be removed only from those who buy Teslas but will remain for other electric cars.
I assumed from the headline that it was a tax credit on making the cars which it would make sense to make. But a tax credit on BUYING the cars... that just incentivizes someone to not be first but be prepared to be second. Because of exactly moments like this when Tesla prices skyrocket and you can sweep in with your cheaper price and an already established eco system and social narrative constructed.
Why not just remove the tax incentives from all the companies at the same time (whatever time that is). This encourages someone to be first because they'll enjoy the credit the longest. Rather than now with Tesla having done a majority of the work establishing the viability of the electric car to the public and now the other auto makers who weren't able to do that will be able to reap the Tax Credit now that the market has been taught to want their new product. Whatever congress passed this incentive was idiotic.
That's moronic. That leads capitalists to do whatever makes more money. not what people want. It leads to corporations ignoring humanity in favor of cost savings. It's precisely because the maximum free market doesn't work that we have controls. The free market only works when customers are informed and able to make choices. It implies that people are able to communicate their needs to corporate hierarchies whether though purchasing decisions or other means. With modern advertising and disgustingly insane wealth inequality, that doesn't work.
For instance if you say Jane ate spaghetti with veramissimo no one knows what you're talking about until you know whether that's an herb, an adjective, or a utensil.
B-b-b-but Rick, I can't get any stations where I live!
Move to where the food is. Otherwise I guess it sucks to be you.
That's just my flippant way of saying "not my problem if you can't get TV stations where you are, that doesn't invalidate OTA TV as being a good thing".
no but it does invalidate OTA as being the solution for everyone. Solution for some people sure, solution for most people maybe but a lot of us need the cord. We don't deny that OTA would be nicer and cheaper but it's not an option for us.
we're in agreement on plastic degradation. The point is that he was saying articles ignore that plastic will degrade. My point is that even this article doesn't ignore that.
plastic straws of course degrade in nature, polypropylene and polyethylene especially so in sunlight...but will decompose anyway.
might be slower than we like, but they do go away
no most articles do say "they won't degrade for X-ish years".
Even this article summary says
Dude you lie like the president, in ways that are so easily proven wrong I don't understand why you tried.
Baldness isn't a serious situation.
It is to the drug manufacturers. Johnson and Johnson made serious billions from Rogaine.
I'm not saying it's not lucrative. I'm saying it isn't serious and we should stop putting so much effort into worrying about it so that drug companies won't find it so lucrative.
This isn't a Y DO /. CAREZ moment but literally who cares? Baldness isn't a serious situation. I'm not bald yet but when I start to show (which honestly I think will be sooner rather than later contrary to what my family is trying to tell me) I'll just shave it off and call it a day. I shaved bald in middle school every other month or so and it wasn't a big deal.
I mean we have cures for baldness and erectile dysfunction but it's scary how many things that matter we've made like no progress on. The horror stories I hear from women about the how period technology is basically unchanged in the past 7 generations or so. Like no one knows what causes endometriosis. And that affects a lot more people a lot worse than baldness. Baldness might be an issue for women but even that is fading. Baldness is something that doesn't even need a cure.
Just because today's fonts breaks something doesn't make them correct. Two spaces make paragraphs easier to dissect and find information. If your font doesn't allow that effect, then your font is bad not the rule it is breaking.
according to the data in their research. that only applies to people who two spaces. As most people single space (unless required to) it thus makes more sense to just single space. That of course ignores the many OTHER flaws in their research like the font they choose (fixed) and the medium (screen).
So you're angry that the "old type-writer-using geezer" is reading ten words per minute more than you and you're trying to sabotage his productivity?
And millennials wonder why nobody likes them...
If you read the article you'll note that the increased reading only happens to people who normally type with double spaces. Otherwise there's no real speed increase with double spaces. Thus doing that only helps the minority of people who are still double spaces. Most do not.