Hmmm, yess, I was wondering why I wasn't receiving any mail today... then I tried to email myself from my gmail account, and got this weird message about relays.ordb.org refusing to relay mail from google's IP.
A quick google search led me here, and voila! problem solved... no more ordb in my mail server config.
Guess I shoulda noticed that 2 years ago when it went down hmmmmm....
I agree. The first thing I thought when I saw the headline was "what? More like capitalism can learn from open-source."
I mean, really, look where capitalism has gotten the USA -- A corporate controlled/heavily influenced government, and corporations that care nothing for their customers, only for the all important bottom line and "maximizing profits" at the expense of everything else.
I'm not entirely convinced that capitalism is really taking the USA to a good place...
I agree, discussions with gun-control people are pointless. I get nowhere:) I've already stated that I really don't want to shoot anyone, it's something that I don't think would be a pleasant experience. It's something that makes me think a lot, actually.
Unfortunately, the gun-control people don't believe us gun people when we say that, and that is why the discussion is pointless:) (I will admit, however, that I do enjoy shooting at targets and other inanimate objects:) )
How about you admit that your dislike of guns stems from fear and lack of knowledge...?;)
And at what point does the right of you to take your saftey onto yourself give you the right to diminsih my safety?
I don't believe I am diminishing your safety. In fact it may even improve your safety, in the event that you are the victim of a violent crime and a CCW holder happens to be nearby to help you out:)
My post was about the degree of paranoia in the US. You just seem to be reconfirming it.
I'm paranoid because I realize that there is violence in society? And that someday I might get caught up in some sort of violence? And if it does, I would rather be prepared for it than just stand around screaming "oh please someone save me"? You may call that paranoid, but I say that you're living with blinders on if you think "it'll never happen to you"... (sure it may never, but it also may -- nobody can predict the future)
Do you honestly beleive that the chance of you getting forced into a gunfight situation is higher than all the other negative scenarios such as your gun accidentally going off and hurting/killing someone? or, maybe you or your friends have kids that might find your gun... or a million other variants?
Yes, I do. Guns do not just "go off" on their own (who's being paranoid now?:). I would not carry one in my belt if I was worried that it was going to just "go off" on its own (I don't think police would be carrying them day in day out either if there was such a great chance that they would suddenly go off either). There is the occasional accidental discharge due to some sort of mechanical failure, but it's pretty rare. Most of ther "accidental discharges" are actually negligent discharges. I believe the solution to this is more education about gun safety, and a certain amount of respect for the weapon and what it can do.
The chance of a negligent discharges can be greatly reduced simply by following the 4 basic rules of gun safety: 1. The gun is always loaded 2. Don't point it at anything that you don't want to put holes in 3. Finger off the trigger until sights are on the target 4. Know your target and what is behind it.
I'm not willing to risk my safety and my families safety on the judgement of some guy who thinks the way you do.
Right, and I'm not willing to risk my safety or the safety of my family by depending on someone else to protect me. I take responsibility for my own life and safety, because nobody else will. Obviously we have differing opinions on the matter, which is fine.
Wow, if you really believe that you're going to get into a situation where you need to shoot multiple people then you need to get some mental work done. Move to Florida or Texas.
You said that you don't want me to impede on your right to be armed... what about my right to go places knowing there are not half a dozen nuts thinking they're going to have to take out multiple people at once? I'm sorry, I'd rather be walking down the street with one potentially bad person with a gun than 20 people who want to get into a shootout.
See, you're getting the completely wrong idea from my posts, so I'll try to more clear this time: I don't want to get into a shootout with anyone. I don't look to get into a shootout with anyone. In fact I really don't want to shoot anyone, I don't think it would be a pleasant experience. However, I do want to be prepared in case such a situation should arise.
what about my right to go places knowing there are not half a dozen nuts thinking they're going to have to take out multiple people at once?
And how does the law do anything to "protect" you from this situation? If it were illegal to have guns at all, then you'd simply be surrounded by lawbreaking people with guns. Since guns are not illegal, you have a mix; some bad guys w/guns, and some good guys that just want to ensure the safety of themselves and their loved ones. Take away the legal allowance, and now you've just got all bad guys:(
It's not that "I believe" I'm going to get into a situation like that... it's the same thing as a car crash... Does anyone ever plan to be in a car accident? No, it's just something that suddenly happens, and there it is. I see a potentially violent situation as the same thing. It's just something that sometimes "happens" and I want to be prepared if it does. (However, in both examples, car crash and violent encounter, it is possible to minimize your risk by being aware and paying attention to your surroundings -- but does that mean I shouldn't wear a seat belt "just in case"?)
Thats not a fair comparison. The chances of you having a flat tire are MUCH higher than getting into a "wild-west style shootout".
I never said anything about a "wild-west style shootout"... Just that it does in fact occasionally happen when a person or persons needs to engage multiple targets, and could conceivably have trouble with ammo. Also, my point was that it is similar to a spare tire in the sense that they both are something that you carry around with you every day and most likely will not need to use, but you still carry it around "just in case" something does happen. I wasn't comparing the likelihood of one to the other neccessarily...
As for the chances, it doesn't matter what the chance is, there is still a chance. How willing are you to trust your life to chance? Apparently more willing than I am. And that's fine, that's your decision. But it is likewise my decision to take responsibility for my own personal safety, rather than depending on someone else that most likely wouldn't arrive in time for a "real emergency".
Did you ever stopped to consider that maybe if guns were not floating around so commonly you wouldn't have to worry about getting into a shootout on the way to the mall?
First off, I'm not really "worried about getting into a shootout on the way to the mall", I am simply aware of the fact that there are violent elements in our society, and violence happens everywhere. In the event of a violent confrontation, I want to be prepared in whatever ways I can be, that's all. If you don't see it the same way, that's fine, you don't have to take the same measures that I do. But don't impede my right to self-defense just because we have differing views...
As for the "guns floating around" comment, the situation you describe is impossible. Fact: Guns exist. Fact: Police and military use said guns to perform their duties, so guns will never stop being around. Another fact: criminals use guns to.... break the law.
Why would the law abiding citizen want to be the only one that didn't have access to the same defensive measures that others might potentially use against them? Like it or not, guns do exist and our society has violent elements in it.
Besides, if guns weren't "floating around so commonly" as you said, then criminals would probably just use knives or some other method to indimidate and harm their potential victims. The disadvantage to that is that other than firearms, the size and build of the user comes into effect when using a weapon. The gun is the great equalizer, it doesn't matter if you're 300lbs or 90lbs, you still can inflict an amount of force equal to the force that your assailant can inflict upon you. Without firearms, this simply isn't so.
I would have a lot harder time scaring away a 300lb guy w/a knife if all I also had was a knife because I'm significantly smaller than 300lbs. However, if both sides have firearms, the field is leveled.
As some of my packing bretheren like to say "In a real emergency, 1911 is quicker than 911."
>> Let's take a hypothetical situation where you and a buddy come under fire from multiple assailants
yeah because that happens all the time on your way to the mall right? You know its only paranoia like that, that is making Americans carry guns in the first place.
I didn't say it was a likely situation, but it is a possible situation, and it is in fact a situation that has happened in the past I'm sure. All I'm saying is that if such a situation does occur, I want every means available to defend myself. That's all.
The argument of "it's not likely" isn't a valid argument. It's not likely that you'll get a flat tire every day of the week, but you still carry a spare tire with you "just in case", don't you? The same can be said about a firearm. It's not likely that you will need it, but it's nice to have it there in case you do need it. And it's a whole lot better than needing a firearm and not having it available to you. That's a situation I would not want to find myself or anyone I cared about in.
I saw a documentary the other day that said actual figures indicate violent crime in the US is significantly decreasing
Have you also stopped to consider that this may be related to the lessening of restrictions on carry weapons in may US states? Perhaps the increase in the number of law-abiding citizens packing had something to do with the decrease in violent crime?
The best defense against violent crime (and government tyranny, coincidentally) is an armed populace. Areas that require every household to own and maintain a firearm have actually seen a decrease in crime in their area. The criminals moved away to surrounding areas where they didn't know that everyone was packing. Kennesaw, Georgia has had such a law in place for over 25 years, and watched violent crime plummet: http://www.tysknews.com/Depts/2nd_Amend/crime_rate _plummets.htm
I would have to say that I agree with most of the comments posted on the actual story page. This is a pretty stupid idea, and for a number of reasons. First, c'mon, "a tiny keypad on the gun"? Really, I don't want to have to type a code into my gun and/or bullets just to get the thing to fire. A firearm is a simple (ok, maybe not so simple) mechanical device for a reason -- reliability. They're just introducing more roadblocks into the path of someone that legally needs to defend themselves.
Another problem that I thought of: Let's take a hypothetical situation where you and a buddy come under fire from multiple assailants for whatever reason. Now what happens when you or your buddy runs low on ammo? You can't just "toss him a mag", because guess what, your rounds won't fire in his gun, even if they were identical firearms.
Better gun safety comes from training and education, not by impeding law-abiding citizens from exercising their rights when they may need them most...
I remember those, some were made by osborne and some were made by compac; I think they had 5.5 inch CRT's and the keyboard doubled as the cover.
That's like the first computer I had to work on (my dad's computer, really, but anway): the Kaypro 2. Ah, the memories... It was a CP/M machine, and had this strange version of BASIC called "MBASIC" (the m was the first letter of the company that made is... nowadays more commonly referred to as MS:) ). I remember all the "BASIC games" books we had, and I remember keying in all the program listings from the books and then reveling in the glory of ASCII-games:)
My parents still used their Kaypro 2 to print the labels for their Christmas cards up until a few years ago when my Dad couldn't find the disk the labels were saved on or something like that. The Kaypro is still working... boots up in like 2 seconds to:P
eh, that's ok, because if they really are "concerned parents", then they can pay attention to their kids' lives, and monitor the games and entertainment that their kids partake of. And since they are concerned and involved in their kids' lives, then they wouldn't be buying the same games that I am with the blood, guts, and hookers, right?:)
There's going to be a lot of money lost the next few years, a lot of articles written, a lot of panic, a lot of changes. And when gaming comes back, it will hopefully be different and innovative and based on something other than eye candy and the shock value of blood and guts and hookers.
That's all well and good, and I really couldn't care less if something like that happened (which I'm kind of skeptical of anyway). But if they create something "different and innovative", I sure hope they they don't take away my blood, guts, and hookers!!! I for one like blood, guts and hookers. Who wouldn't?:)
I know, it doesn't fit the requirements capture (being tasteless) but I would highly recommend water. Tap, preferably because it's cheap, but bottled is good too. If you can get used to it you'll save a bundle and it's a lot healther (and generally more refreshing.)
Yes, water I too would recommend. But I must strongly disagree with your recommendation of tap water.:)
Just get a countertop water distiller and you'll be set. Distilled water is so much better tasting (and better for you) than any other water you can get. It's the only pure water left on the planet... Yeah, I'm a water snob, so what?:)
Cheaper than buying bottled too (well, I would imagine...) Not to mention that most bottled water you buy is "spring water". Have you any idea what comes out of some of those springs...? Just cuz it bubbled out of the ground doesn't neccessarily make it better for you. And don't try to tell me about how my hair will fall out from drinking only distilled because I'm missing out on those "vital minerals and nutrients" that you get from spring water, that's a myth. Been drinking only distilled for years now and my hair hasn't started falling out yet... (humans get our nutrients from the stuff we eat, not from the water... water is just there to keep us hydrated and lubricate the cells or something like that)
That will get you oil (seed), biodeisel (at much greater ratios than corn) and it can be grown at lower cost with greater yield...
but, someone might try to smoke it... so we can't have that.
Exactly. Not to mention that it would threaten a few other "big money" industries... like the oil industry, the paper industry, the textile industry, etc... And the people that get their money from these industries don't want to let go of their cash cows. It's not about doing what's smart, environmental, or anything else so noble... Nope, it's all about greed, money, and power.
We're not really interested in finding alternative fuel sources. It's just a show put on to keep the peasants happy while the big players continue to rake in the profits. Sad, really. And not too bright of future it paints either...
Yeah, a lot of the religious stuff in Evangelion seems tacked-on. It's more accurately described as "pseudo-religious" anyway, because aside from stealing a bunch of names from old Christian mythology it doesn't really have much of anything to do with Christianity. That's OK, though -- it makes it interesting.
I remember reading one article that had Anno talking about the christian mythology and symbols used in the series... He said that he wanted to have a "religious theme" to the whole series, and he chose christianity because as a religion it wasn't very widespread in Japan, so it was more interesting to the Japanese audience because of that or something. He liked the symbols from christianity and the way it all looked, and the fact the it wasn't a big religion in Japan made it more "mysterious" or something.. He/They never really expected the series to get distributed to the US/UK and rest of the world like it did... or he/they may have chosen a different religion for the symbols and mythology (I'm glad he/they didn't though, as I like the christian symbology in Evangelion)
The main character of Evangelion, Shinji, is extremely introverted in a way that a lot of Japanese anime fans are.
I believe Shinji was based on Anno's personal experiences as well... If I recall correctly, he was suffering from pretty sever depression during or previous to the creation of NGE.
There is a theory floating around that they are both different views of the same ending.
POSSIBLE SPOILERS(?)
Yesh... that's the way it is from what I understand. From what I understand the original episodes were the ending from Shinji's point of view (or from w/in his mind), and the EoE movie was the same story/events from the point of view of the rest of the world/other characters.
Very interesting series to be sure... but we'll never know the "true meaning" of all of it, because Anno has said that he intentionally left it somewhat open so that people could draw their own conclusions. He didn't want to tell people "how it ended" so much as to let them figure it out or wonder about it on their own...
what I found funny is that the next/previous page buttons would highlight and then actually work when my pointer was halfway up the text, inches away from the button.
heh, yeah, that's pretty neat. Looks like you can click anywhwere in the column of text and it'll take u to the next page. Actually kinda convenient... don't have to move the mouse down to the button after reading, just click anywhere in the column of text! Not sure if it was intentional or not, but interesting nonetheless:)
I think more data is needed to avoid making an oversimplified generalization from these results.
Data??? What have you been smoking?!!?!? No data is needed, sensationalist assumptions based on flimsy evidence is all we need! We've proven it: video games are evil and make kids evil!!!
Yeah that's exactly how it always starts. All the "honest citizens" sign away all their rights in hopes of catching the criminals. However, in order to do that, you have to treat the "honest citizens" like criminals.
I don't care who you are, there is something in your lifestyle or habits that resembles something a criminal would do. Where do you draw the line?
Hear hear!
Those who would sacrifice essential liberties for temporary security deserve neither liberty or security! (yeah, I know, I'm probably mis-quoting but I don't really care right now, you get the point:P )
...can lead young men to believe it is acceptable to smoke marijuana and drink alcohol
But it is acceptable! Nothing wrong with either of those activities, as long as you do so responsibly:)
Besides that... aren't those 2 activities (and playing video games) the primary activities for most college-aged males? Sure was when I was in college:)
I don't do this too often, but I'm just going to go ahead and tell you that you're wrong and why: you've taught the child to 'get somebody else to solve their poblems.'
Hear hear!
Rather than a counter argument, I want to say that you are 100% correct IMO.
There is no other person or establishment that you can depend on to defend your right to exist better than you can do for yourself. Period. Calling the cops or filing lawsuits can even make matters worse, because it can piss off the person/people that are doing the bullying. And guess what? When they come looking for retribution for your reporting them, do you think the people that you reported them to are going to be there (or get there in time) to stop them from taking it out on you?
Sure, it's possible that by doing so the bully could incur further consequences for themselves, but it's also possible that by the time "help" arrives it could be too late for the victim.
I am not a violent person by nature either (at least I don't think so), but I am a passionate person. And one of the things I'm most passionate about is my right to continued existence. In fact, I can only remember a few experiences where things have actually escalated to the physical level in my experience (but I would have to say that I was probably lucky growing up in that sense). As the parent said, most of the time when I "fight back" it's done verbally, or done verbally in such a way to de-fuse the situation. But that doesn't mean that I don't think there aren't certain situations that could require a physical defense, and it is every person's right to defend themselves in such situations.
(it is of course up to a "jury of their peers" to decide if the physical force was warranted...;) )
Yeah, I completely agree... Heh, I never thought of running them @ the end, that's a great counter-point to the theaters supposed reasoning!
I too enjoy going to the "dollar shows" that I can find around... Unfortunately there seem to be less and less of them around nowadays:(
I also agree with you on the "slide-show" advertising. I don't mind that at all. Most theaters I've ever been to have had that sort of advertising for many years, and as you said, it's not a big deal because it's not intrusive.
It's when I go to the theater and have to sit through an extended version of the Ford commercial that I see on network television that it starts to bother me.:) (just using Ford as an example here because it was one of the first companies that started advertising in this way in my aread, and so it made an impression in my memory) I put up with it on network TV because that's how they pay for the shows and how they can have "free over the air broadcasts" (or in the case of cable, cheaper "basic" channels). But in the theater, I feel I've already paid a sizable fee to see the movie, and then even more for concessions, isn't that enough for them to make money? Do they really need to take on advertisers to "stay afloat" or are they just being greedy and trying to get as much money as they can..?
Answers to these questions I do not know, however... but that's why I "vote with my wallet" and don't go to the big theaters a whole lot anymore. It's a shame too, because I really did enjoy going to movies every week with my friends "back in the day".... oh well, times change, now I just have my friends over on the weekends and we watch DVD's:)
Slashdot Mirror
Hmmm, yess, I was wondering why I wasn't receiving any mail today... then I tried to email myself from my gmail account, and got this weird message about relays.ordb.org refusing to relay mail from google's IP.
A quick google search led me here, and voila! problem solved... no more ordb in my mail server config.
Guess I shoulda noticed that 2 years ago when it went down hmmmmm....
I agree. The first thing I thought when I saw the headline was "what? More like capitalism can learn from open-source."
I mean, really, look where capitalism has gotten the USA -- A corporate controlled/heavily influenced government, and corporations that care nothing for their customers, only for the all important bottom line and "maximizing profits" at the expense of everything else.
I'm not entirely convinced that capitalism is really taking the USA to a good place...
Ok, last post on this topic...
:) I've already stated that I really don't want to shoot anyone, it's something that I don't think would be a pleasant experience. It's something that makes me think a lot, actually.
:) (I will admit, however, that I do enjoy shooting at targets and other inanimate objects :) )
;)
I agree, discussions with gun-control people are pointless. I get nowhere
Unfortunately, the gun-control people don't believe us gun people when we say that, and that is why the discussion is pointless
How about you admit that your dislike of guns stems from fear and lack of knowledge...?
Ok, I'm done. (really!)
And at what point does the right of you to take your saftey onto yourself give you the right to diminsih my safety?
:)
I don't believe I am diminishing your safety. In fact it may even improve your safety, in the event that you are the victim of a violent crime and a CCW holder happens to be nearby to help you out
My post was about the degree of paranoia in the US. You just seem to be reconfirming it.
:). I would not carry one in my belt if I was worried that it was going to just "go off" on its own (I don't think police would be carrying them day in day out either if there was such a great chance that they would suddenly go off either). There is the occasional accidental discharge due to some sort of mechanical failure, but it's pretty rare. Most of ther "accidental discharges" are actually negligent discharges. I believe the solution to this is more education about gun safety, and a certain amount of respect for the weapon and what it can do.
I'm paranoid because I realize that there is violence in society? And that someday I might get caught up in some sort of violence? And if it does, I would rather be prepared for it than just stand around screaming "oh please someone save me"? You may call that paranoid, but I say that you're living with blinders on if you think "it'll never happen to you"... (sure it may never, but it also may -- nobody can predict the future)
Do you honestly beleive that the chance of you getting forced into a gunfight situation is higher than all the other negative scenarios such as your gun accidentally going off and hurting/killing someone? or, maybe you or your friends have kids that might find your gun... or a million other variants?
Yes, I do. Guns do not just "go off" on their own (who's being paranoid now?
The chance of a negligent discharges can be greatly reduced simply by following the 4 basic rules of gun safety:
1. The gun is always loaded
2. Don't point it at anything that you don't want to put holes in
3. Finger off the trigger until sights are on the target
4. Know your target and what is behind it.
I'm not willing to risk my safety and my families safety on the judgement of some guy who thinks the way you do.
Right, and I'm not willing to risk my safety or the safety of my family by depending on someone else to protect me. I take responsibility for my own life and safety, because nobody else will. Obviously we have differing opinions on the matter, which is fine.
Wow, if you really believe that you're going to get into a situation where you need to shoot multiple people then you need to get some mental work done. Move to Florida or Texas.
:(
You said that you don't want me to impede on your right to be armed... what about my right to go places knowing there are not half a dozen nuts thinking they're going to have to take out multiple people at once? I'm sorry, I'd rather be walking down the street with one potentially bad person with a gun than 20 people who want to get into a shootout.
See, you're getting the completely wrong idea from my posts, so I'll try to more clear this time: I don't want to get into a shootout with anyone. I don't look to get into a shootout with anyone. In fact I really don't want to shoot anyone, I don't think it would be a pleasant experience. However, I do want to be prepared in case such a situation should arise.
what about my right to go places knowing there are not half a dozen nuts thinking they're going to have to take out multiple people at once?
And how does the law do anything to "protect" you from this situation? If it were illegal to have guns at all, then you'd simply be surrounded by lawbreaking people with guns. Since guns are not illegal, you have a mix; some bad guys w/guns, and some good guys that just want to ensure the safety of themselves and their loved ones. Take away the legal allowance, and now you've just got all bad guys
It's not that "I believe" I'm going to get into a situation like that... it's the same thing as a car crash... Does anyone ever plan to be in a car accident? No, it's just something that suddenly happens, and there it is. I see a potentially violent situation as the same thing. It's just something that sometimes "happens" and I want to be prepared if it does. (However, in both examples, car crash and violent encounter, it is possible to minimize your risk by being aware and paying attention to your surroundings -- but does that mean I shouldn't wear a seat belt "just in case"?)
Thats not a fair comparison. The chances of you having a flat tire are MUCH higher than getting into a "wild-west style shootout".
.... break the law.
I never said anything about a "wild-west style shootout"... Just that it does in fact occasionally happen when a person or persons needs to engage multiple targets, and could conceivably have trouble with ammo. Also, my point was that it is similar to a spare tire in the sense that they both are something that you carry around with you every day and most likely will not need to use, but you still carry it around "just in case" something does happen. I wasn't comparing the likelihood of one to the other neccessarily...
As for the chances, it doesn't matter what the chance is, there is still a chance. How willing are you to trust your life to chance? Apparently more willing than I am. And that's fine, that's your decision. But it is likewise my decision to take responsibility for my own personal safety, rather than depending on someone else that most likely wouldn't arrive in time for a "real emergency".
Did you ever stopped to consider that maybe if guns were not floating around so commonly you wouldn't have to worry about getting into a shootout on the way to the mall?
First off, I'm not really "worried about getting into a shootout on the way to the mall", I am simply aware of the fact that there are violent elements in our society, and violence happens everywhere. In the event of a violent confrontation, I want to be prepared in whatever ways I can be, that's all. If you don't see it the same way, that's fine, you don't have to take the same measures that I do. But don't impede my right to self-defense just because we have differing views...
As for the "guns floating around" comment, the situation you describe is impossible. Fact: Guns exist. Fact: Police and military use said guns to perform their duties, so guns will never stop being around. Another fact: criminals use guns to
Why would the law abiding citizen want to be the only one that didn't have access to the same defensive measures that others might potentially use against them? Like it or not, guns do exist and our society has violent elements in it.
Besides, if guns weren't "floating around so commonly" as you said, then criminals would probably just use knives or some other method to indimidate and harm their potential victims. The disadvantage to that is that other than firearms, the size and build of the user comes into effect when using a weapon. The gun is the great equalizer, it doesn't matter if you're 300lbs or 90lbs, you still can inflict an amount of force equal to the force that your assailant can inflict upon you. Without firearms, this simply isn't so.
I would have a lot harder time scaring away a 300lb guy w/a knife if all I also had was a knife because I'm significantly smaller than 300lbs. However, if both sides have firearms, the field is leveled.
As some of my packing bretheren like to say "In a real emergency, 1911 is quicker than 911."
>> Let's take a hypothetical situation where you and a buddy come under fire from multiple assailants
e _plummets.htm
yeah because that happens all the time on your way to the mall right? You know its only paranoia like that, that is making Americans carry guns in the first place.
I didn't say it was a likely situation, but it is a possible situation, and it is in fact a situation that has happened in the past I'm sure. All I'm saying is that if such a situation does occur, I want every means available to defend myself. That's all.
The argument of "it's not likely" isn't a valid argument. It's not likely that you'll get a flat tire every day of the week, but you still carry a spare tire with you "just in case", don't you? The same can be said about a firearm. It's not likely that you will need it, but it's nice to have it there in case you do need it. And it's a whole lot better than needing a firearm and not having it available to you. That's a situation I would not want to find myself or anyone I cared about in.
I saw a documentary the other day that said actual figures indicate violent crime in the US is significantly decreasing
Have you also stopped to consider that this may be related to the lessening of restrictions on carry weapons in may US states? Perhaps the increase in the number of law-abiding citizens packing had something to do with the decrease in violent crime?
The best defense against violent crime (and government tyranny, coincidentally) is an armed populace. Areas that require every household to own and maintain a firearm have actually seen a decrease in crime in their area. The criminals moved away to surrounding areas where they didn't know that everyone was packing. Kennesaw, Georgia has had such a law in place for over 25 years, and watched violent crime plummet: http://www.tysknews.com/Depts/2nd_Amend/crime_rat
I would have to say that I agree with most of the comments posted on the actual story page. This is a pretty stupid idea, and for a number of reasons. First, c'mon, "a tiny keypad on the gun"? Really, I don't want to have to type a code into my gun and/or bullets just to get the thing to fire. A firearm is a simple (ok, maybe not so simple) mechanical device for a reason -- reliability. They're just introducing more roadblocks into the path of someone that legally needs to defend themselves.
Another problem that I thought of: Let's take a hypothetical situation where you and a buddy come under fire from multiple assailants for whatever reason. Now what happens when you or your buddy runs low on ammo? You can't just "toss him a mag", because guess what, your rounds won't fire in his gun, even if they were identical firearms.
Better gun safety comes from training and education, not by impeding law-abiding citizens from exercising their rights when they may need them most...
Real. Stupid. Idea.
I remember those, some were made by osborne and some were made by compac; I think they had 5.5 inch CRT's and the keyboard doubled as the cover.
:) ). I remember all the "BASIC games" books we had, and I remember keying in all the program listings from the books and then reveling in the glory of ASCII-games :)
:P
That's like the first computer I had to work on (my dad's computer, really, but anway): the Kaypro 2. Ah, the memories... It was a CP/M machine, and had this strange version of BASIC called "MBASIC" (the m was the first letter of the company that made is... nowadays more commonly referred to as MS
My parents still used their Kaypro 2 to print the labels for their Christmas cards up until a few years ago when my Dad couldn't find the disk the labels were saved on or something like that. The Kaypro is still working... boots up in like 2 seconds to
When was the last time you paid for something you 'almost' got?
:)
Apparently any time you bought music, a movie, software, etc...
'Concerned parents'?
:)
eh, that's ok, because if they really are "concerned parents", then they can pay attention to their kids' lives, and monitor the games and entertainment that their kids partake of. And since they are concerned and involved in their kids' lives, then they wouldn't be buying the same games that I am with the blood, guts, and hookers, right?
There's going to be a lot of money lost the next few years, a lot of articles written, a lot of panic, a lot of changes. And when gaming comes back, it will hopefully be different and innovative and based on something other than eye candy and the shock value of blood and guts and hookers.
:)
That's all well and good, and I really couldn't care less if something like that happened (which I'm kind of skeptical of anyway). But if they create something "different and innovative", I sure hope they they don't take away my blood, guts, and hookers!!! I for one like blood, guts and hookers. Who wouldn't?
I know, it doesn't fit the requirements capture (being tasteless) but I would highly recommend water. Tap, preferably because it's cheap, but bottled is good too. If you can get used to it you'll save a bundle and it's a lot healther (and generally more refreshing.)
:)
:)
Yes, water I too would recommend. But I must strongly disagree with your recommendation of tap water.
Just get a countertop water distiller and you'll be set. Distilled water is so much better tasting (and better for you) than any other water you can get. It's the only pure water left on the planet... Yeah, I'm a water snob, so what?
Cheaper than buying bottled too (well, I would imagine...) Not to mention that most bottled water you buy is "spring water". Have you any idea what comes out of some of those springs...? Just cuz it bubbled out of the ground doesn't neccessarily make it better for you. And don't try to tell me about how my hair will fall out from drinking only distilled because I'm missing out on those "vital minerals and nutrients" that you get from spring water, that's a myth. Been drinking only distilled for years now and my hair hasn't started falling out yet... (humans get our nutrients from the stuff we eat, not from the water... water is just there to keep us hydrated and lubricate the cells or something like that)
*cough* hemp *cough*
That will get you oil (seed), biodeisel (at much greater ratios than corn) and it can be grown at lower cost with greater yield...
but, someone might try to smoke it... so we can't have that.
Exactly. Not to mention that it would threaten a few other "big money" industries... like the oil industry, the paper industry, the textile industry, etc... And the people that get their money from these industries don't want to let go of their cash cows. It's not about doing what's smart, environmental, or anything else so noble... Nope, it's all about greed, money, and power.
We're not really interested in finding alternative fuel sources. It's just a show put on to keep the peasants happy while the big players continue to rake in the profits. Sad, really. And not too bright of future it paints either...
meh.
Yeah, a lot of the religious stuff in Evangelion seems tacked-on. It's more accurately described as "pseudo-religious" anyway, because aside from stealing a bunch of names from old Christian mythology it doesn't really have much of anything to do with Christianity. That's OK, though -- it makes it interesting.
I remember reading one article that had Anno talking about the christian mythology and symbols used in the series... He said that he wanted to have a "religious theme" to the whole series, and he chose christianity because as a religion it wasn't very widespread in Japan, so it was more interesting to the Japanese audience because of that or something. He liked the symbols from christianity and the way it all looked, and the fact the it wasn't a big religion in Japan made it more "mysterious" or something.. He/They never really expected the series to get distributed to the US/UK and rest of the world like it did... or he/they may have chosen a different religion for the symbols and mythology (I'm glad he/they didn't though, as I like the christian symbology in Evangelion)
The main character of Evangelion, Shinji, is extremely introverted in a way that a lot of Japanese anime fans are.
I believe Shinji was based on Anno's personal experiences as well... If I recall correctly, he was suffering from pretty sever depression during or previous to the creation of NGE.
There is a theory floating around that they are both different views of the same ending.
:)
POSSIBLE SPOILERS(?)
Yesh... that's the way it is from what I understand. From what I understand the original episodes were the ending from Shinji's point of view (or from w/in his mind), and the EoE movie was the same story/events from the point of view of the rest of the world/other characters.
Very interesting series to be sure... but we'll never know the "true meaning" of all of it, because Anno has said that he intentionally left it somewhat open so that people could draw their own conclusions. He didn't want to tell people "how it ended" so much as to let them figure it out or wonder about it on their own...
Or so "they" say...
what I found funny is that the next/previous page buttons would highlight and then actually work when my pointer was halfway up the text, inches away from the button.
:)
heh, yeah, that's pretty neat. Looks like you can click anywhwere in the column of text and it'll take u to the next page. Actually kinda convenient... don't have to move the mouse down to the button after reading, just click anywhere in the column of text! Not sure if it was intentional or not, but interesting nonetheless
I think more data is needed to avoid making an oversimplified generalization from these results.
/sarcasm
Data??? What have you been smoking?!!?!? No data is needed, sensationalist assumptions based on flimsy evidence is all we need! We've proven it: video games are evil and make kids evil!!!
Yeah that's exactly how it always starts. All the "honest citizens" sign away all their rights in hopes of catching the criminals. However, in order to do that, you have to treat the "honest citizens" like criminals.
:P )
I don't care who you are, there is something in your lifestyle or habits that resembles something a criminal would do. Where do you draw the line?
Hear hear!
Those who would sacrifice essential liberties for temporary security deserve neither liberty or security! (yeah, I know, I'm probably mis-quoting but I don't really care right now, you get the point
...can lead young men to believe it is acceptable to smoke marijuana and drink alcohol
:)
:)
But it is acceptable! Nothing wrong with either of those activities, as long as you do so responsibly
Besides that... aren't those 2 activities (and playing video games) the primary activities for most college-aged males? Sure was when I was in college
Banks don't rely on four guys carrying a locked box of money when they transfer money.
:)
Uhhh... so I take it you've never seen an armored car? Or said armored car delivering fresh money to a bank...?
I don't do this too often, but I'm just going to go ahead and tell you that you're wrong and why: you've taught the child to 'get somebody else to solve their poblems.'
;) )
Hear hear!
Rather than a counter argument, I want to say that you are 100% correct IMO.
There is no other person or establishment that you can depend on to defend your right to exist better than you can do for yourself. Period. Calling the cops or filing lawsuits can even make matters worse, because it can piss off the person/people that are doing the bullying. And guess what? When they come looking for retribution for your reporting them, do you think the people that you reported them to are going to be there (or get there in time) to stop them from taking it out on you?
Sure, it's possible that by doing so the bully could incur further consequences for themselves, but it's also possible that by the time "help" arrives it could be too late for the victim.
I am not a violent person by nature either (at least I don't think so), but I am a passionate person. And one of the things I'm most passionate about is my right to continued existence. In fact, I can only remember a few experiences where things have actually escalated to the physical level in my experience (but I would have to say that I was probably lucky growing up in that sense). As the parent said, most of the time when I "fight back" it's done verbally, or done verbally in such a way to de-fuse the situation. But that doesn't mean that I don't think there aren't certain situations that could require a physical defense, and it is every person's right to defend themselves in such situations.
(it is of course up to a "jury of their peers" to decide if the physical force was warranted...
Yeah, I completely agree... Heh, I never thought of running them @ the end, that's a great counter-point to the theaters supposed reasoning!
:(
:) (just using Ford as an example here because it was one of the first companies that started advertising in this way in my aread, and so it made an impression in my memory) I put up with it on network TV because that's how they pay for the shows and how they can have "free over the air broadcasts" (or in the case of cable, cheaper "basic" channels). But in the theater, I feel I've already paid a sizable fee to see the movie, and then even more for concessions, isn't that enough for them to make money? Do they really need to take on advertisers to "stay afloat" or are they just being greedy and trying to get as much money as they can..?
:)
I too enjoy going to the "dollar shows" that I can find around... Unfortunately there seem to be less and less of them around nowadays
I also agree with you on the "slide-show" advertising. I don't mind that at all. Most theaters I've ever been to have had that sort of advertising for many years, and as you said, it's not a big deal because it's not intrusive.
It's when I go to the theater and have to sit through an extended version of the Ford commercial that I see on network television that it starts to bother me.
Answers to these questions I do not know, however... but that's why I "vote with my wallet" and don't go to the big theaters a whole lot anymore. It's a shame too, because I really did enjoy going to movies every week with my friends "back in the day".... oh well, times change, now I just have my friends over on the weekends and we watch DVD's