What you're paying at the pump is not the true cost of the fuel.
Never has been; never will be.
If we weren't taxed out the wazoo for military spending, and Big Oil was forced to protect their own fields, pipelines, and shipping lanes, I expect we'd pay a hell of a lot more at the pump than we do now.
Unless you live near a major active fault line, in which case a "flimsy cardboard box" would be a really good idea. We don't see many brick houses around here.
See many brick banks or government buildings? It can be done, even in fault zones.
Brick is a far better source of thermal mass than wood. In the winter, it soaks up heat from the sun, which helps to keep the place warmer at night. In the summer, we open the windows at night, and enjoy the cool interior during the day. Indeed, low humidity in the summer (average of 10% in these parts) helps very much in staying cool in the summer.
Adobe and other earth-made homes in the southwest are a tried-and-true low tech method for reducing power consumption.
People waste power left and right. I live in Utah, and it get's damned hot during the summer. However, I don't need an air conditioner (or even an evaporative cooler) in summer because I'm smart and bought a brick house, which stays very comfortable in even the July heat. That's just one example. As with everything else in this consumerism-driven country of ours, people don't think long term about anything.
If people were smart (same goes for society as a whole, too), we'd build houses that took much less energy to heat and cool. Instead, houses are cheap, flimsy cardboard boxes, so we waste enormous resources every summer/winter fighting the laws of thermodynamics.
Don't get me started on all these "always on" devices that draw power even when they're "off".
Firstly, I think the whole sex offender registry thing is unworkable and misguided at best. However, if you really wanted to fuck w/ someone, just locate them (link to Utah's Sex Offender Registry search form), use tor, a few chained proxies, or a Starbuck's wifi spot, then sign up under the offender's name/address.
On the internet, nobody knows you're a dog, right?
Given the broad range of things that gets you the tag "sex offender" (and a lovely scarlet "S" in the bargain), the whole sex offender registry thing is kinda silly. I mean, if you got a citation for pissing in the bushes at your local park, and got into your state's sex offender registry, would *you* really take the restrictions seriously? I sure as hell wouldn't. And I imagine that "real" sex offenders wouldn't either -- at least the ones who are total morons, anyway.
I assume you're referring to the interstate highway system? I could certainly live w/o the Feds holding highway funding over state's heads when they try to show an ounce of sovereignty. State-level roads are sufficient. The US economy would not collapse if the interstate highway system suddenly vanished. Hell, maybe the rotting US rail system would get a much needed kick in the ass as a result.:)
True. But when the same blob in jeans can be seen on several consecutive cameras as he/she walks from his flat to the train, that makes ID'ing said blob more feasible.
The massive multitude of cameras is just one objection. Using them all in tandem for getting even *more* info (patterns, whether you frequent gay/straight bars, whether you like middle-eastern cuisine, etc.) is yet another objection. Such surveillance open a nasty can of worms, in terms of potential harassment and discrimination.
Looks really cool, but the idea of requiring consumables (the filters) turns me off. The French press and stove-top espresso makers are nice in that you don't need filters.
I imagine food-grade storage bags (even 1-gallon zip-lock bags) in 5-gallon food storage buckets would accomplish the same for pretty cheap. Place a small hunk of dry ice into the bag, under the coffee in the bag. Let sit in low-traffic area, then seal once the solid CO2 is gone (it's heavier than air, and will remain in the bags and buckets).
The point is, CCW permits are a violation of our rights to begin with. Do away with those, and that takes care of the anal-probe of the 5-year federal background check most states make you go through. Criminals wouldn't submit to applying for a CCW in the first place. Sure, some dumbass ones do, but they are few a and far between, I imagine.
Like most gun laws, the people who haven't broken the law are the only ones put at a disadvantage. Just ask those wise Californians who had to eat their own dog food during the LA Riots in the early 90's.
I picked up a Zassenhaus hand grinder about 8 years ago at Lehman's when I was in Ohio (they don't appear to sell it online). Sturdy, German-built, farily broad range of consistent grinds, and *quiet* in the morning -- won't wake anyone up when griding at wee hours of the morning. This particular model is what we have -- the best $50 we ever spent for our coffee.
We went to French press method in our house many year ago. Good stuff. Been contemplating the Turkish method as of late, but haven't invested in a set of hardware yet.
I had to get fingerprinted to get my carry permit.
So is it justified there? To force me to submit to fingerprinting just to exercise my civil right to self defense under the second amendment?
This is precisely why I haven't applied for a CCW permit, and probably never will. Why should a person, who doesn't have a criminal record, acquire as much of a rap sheet as a person who does? It's such bullshit. A convicted felon cannot even possess a firearm legally, never mind buying or carrying one. The CCW requirements in most states just amount to tagging the sheep.
I admire your patriotism for wanting to Do The Right Thing in order to protect your own by exercising your 2nd Amendment rights. However, I feel that submitting to The Man's will in this particular case dilutes the right to bear arms to near worthlessness. We should all *default* to being able to carry and only lose it after due process deems us unfit to, just like pretty much anything else in this allegedly free country of ours.
Alice is pretty decent for a gentle intro to programming concepts. More useful, IMHO, than the Turtle Logo I learned on at that age. My home schooled kids (8 & 11) use it daily as part of their work. After a while, I'm going to introduce them to a more "real" programming system with Phrogram.
If anyone's interested in Alice, there's an archive of Alice summer camp projects here.
I like Chris Rock's solution. Make bullets cost $5000 each.
For all intents and purposes, this is already the case within the context of this thread. If one were to simply discharge a weapon in public, $5000 *might* cover your legal costs to justify the shot. If you actually injured or killed someone with that shot, $5k would seem like a bargain -- even if you were justified in your use of force. I'd rather be bankrupt than dead.
Personally, I think that any civilian who wants to walk around armed is a lunatic and should by no means be allowed to carry a weapon.
Personally, I think that anyone who believes the authorities can (or are even willing to) always prevent tragedy is deluding themselves. Furthermore, anyone who would demonize those who wish to take responsibility for their own safety are power-grabbing control freaks and should by no means be allowed to dictate public policy.
One day, a student walks in with a realistic looking toy gun, says "bang bang, you're dead"...not a wise decision, but kids do stupid things...the teacher quickly draws and fires, killing the student, and the completely innocent student who just walked in the door behind him. He had the best of intentions, but does it sound *responsible* to you?
Nice hypothetical. Sounds like those police shootings where some dude reaching for his wallet gets 32 bullets in return from the cops. Except the cops *are* trained. Oh, so you think that *supports* your argument? Perhaps. Personally, I think the general impunity and unionization under which cops operate results in such problems. Sure, teachers are unionized, too. However, they're generally not given free reign to use deadly force, and, as such, would likely think twice (or thrice) about endangering anyone, else they be sued into oblivion.
Now, if the kid in your hypothetical scenario was wielding a chicken nugget, then the hypothetical teacher couldn't be blamed at all.
But seriously.... if it was widely known that a teacher was armed (even if they fancied themselves like Sledge Hammer), do you think any punk in their right mind would chose that classroom to start something?
I would argue that preventing guns from entering your country is the best way to ensure safety. True, criminals by definition don't follow laws and will use a weapon if given one - but what if there are none to be had?? Legislate guns out of existence.
Great idea. It worked so well with alcohol and drugs. Guns would be a cake walk, eh?:)
With the exception of the rare fatalist shooter with a death wish (like Cho), most criminals are cowards who would not put themselves in danger if they knew with great certainty that they didn't have the upper hand. I don't have citations on-hand, but I've read that robberies and break-ins typically increase in areas where its known that residents are not allowed to own guns in the home. Criminals don't seek out cops to shoot down (generally) -- cops intervene and get shot at while performing their role as keepers of the peace.
Gangs and organized crime (both exist in Japan, btw) are closer to countries at war with one another, and should not really be compared to the more common 7-11 robber or the guy who picks a fight at a bar.
Both sides can appeal to logical extremes and make seemingly valid points. The fact is that the the road we're going down at present is *not* helping us in the US. Gun "control" has been on the steady rise for a while, yet the violence hasn't ceased. This is contrary to the trend going *back* in time. Maybe fighting for the extreme of disarming everyone is the wrong direction. Perhaps making it "personal", arming more people, and giving everyone some actual responsibility might make a difference.
#1 -- While I'm on the fringe of even the pro-gun crowd, I believe that anyone of legal age and standing to purchase/own a firearm should be able to carry it concealed w/o any further government meddling. I think the state of Vermont has it right. I'd love to carry a handgun, but I can't because I don't trust the government with such a database of information, and thus refuse to go through the necessary paperwork. Some day, I may decide to simply disobey the law, as a form of civil disobedience, and pack concealed, but it saddens me to think I'd have the same legal status as some street thug who respects neither life nor liberty. Like drugs, a total ban on firearms will likely never succeed, so why wish for the Utopian state of "nobody has guns"? The police sure did a good job of protecting people at VA Tech, eh? We need to try something else, as the current state of affairs isn't that good. So far as I know, "gun control" was virtually non-existant before the 50's and we had fewer (none?) of the bizarre mass shootings we've since then. People of my father's generation toted rifles and shotguns to high school in the hopes of landing some dinner on the walk home, yet those days were pretty peaceful.
#2 -- This is a good point. However, when it comes down to it, such places are still "soft targets" even if most adversaries (to date) have not targeted them as such. They still suffer the same fate. That dude who shot up Trolley Square in Salt Lake City a couple of months ago may not have speficially thought to himself, "Hmmm... I bet nobody *there* is armed. I'll go shoot up everyone!" However, the fact that nobody, save an off-duty cop, was armed made his job much easier.
Anyway, the problem with the idea of allowing anybody to carry a concealed weapon, as has been proposed in Texas, is that the assumption is made that all gun-owners are responsible, upstanding citizens. That's clearly not the case.
I concede to this point. However, we allow these same people all sorts of other privileges. We let them navigate large masses of steel at high speeds (yes, there's registration -- won't touch that one for now), we let them purchase other dangerous substances (compressed gases, chemicals, poisons, etc.) w/o any oversight, and we even let them *breed* unchecked.
If you believe that the State should not meddle in your procreation, travel, or shopping habbits, then you should reasonably conclude that your own self defense (even with a weapon of deadly force) should fall into this category as well.
I agree with the courthouse thing, though. I didn't think through my list well enough in my example. A courthouse is probably the *last* place I'd "go postal" at.:)
Like Texas, where legislators are arguing that guns should be allowed in schools and courtrooms. That logic makes no sense to me...
(Note: While I live in UT -- as Red as they come, these days -- I'm a liberal-leaning person with a strong belief in personal responsibility. I proudly own and use several firearms.)
I'm one of those pro-gun folks who does (and did, after VA Tech) suggest that if everyone (or a non-trivial percentage) was packing on campus, that there may have been fewer deaths. I won't mod you down for having a difference of opinion, though. That's just lame -- discourse is a cornerstone of any civilized community.
Anyway, as to what I quoted from your post... I can't speak for anyone else, but if I were to "go postal" (and were still in control of my mind, as it were) I'd actively seek out a place where I *knew* everyone would be disarmed if they were good law-following citizens. That is, post offices, courthouses, any K-12 public school grounds, many churches (being a private property), and gun-free college campuses like the University of Utah and, say, VA Tech.
While many would see the logical conclusion to arming *everyone* as a recipe for anarchy and accidents waiting to happen, those of us on the other side of the issue believe that it is wrong (and downright silly) to place law-abiding people at an inherent disadvantage by default for simply following the law. After all, criminals don't give a flying fig about the laws, so they will always have an advantage. There's a good Dark Helmet quote a about Good vs Evil that addresses this very issue.;)
I'm not sure if you've noticed the ports freeze holding steady these past 2 weeks or so, but from what I hear, it's a freeze to get X.org 7.2 into ports (we're at 6.9 now). Maybe it'll work then.:)
Slashdot Mirror
Never has been; never will be.
If we weren't taxed out the wazoo for military spending, and Big Oil was forced to protect their own fields, pipelines, and shipping lanes, I expect we'd pay a hell of a lot more at the pump than we do now.
See many brick banks or government buildings? It can be done, even in fault zones.
Adobe and other earth-made homes in the southwest are a tried-and-true low tech method for reducing power consumption.
People waste power left and right. I live in Utah, and it get's damned hot during the summer. However, I don't need an air conditioner (or even an evaporative cooler) in summer because I'm smart and bought a brick house, which stays very comfortable in even the July heat. That's just one example. As with everything else in this consumerism-driven country of ours, people don't think long term about anything.
If people were smart (same goes for society as a whole, too), we'd build houses that took much less energy to heat and cool. Instead, houses are cheap, flimsy cardboard boxes, so we waste enormous resources every summer/winter fighting the laws of thermodynamics.
Don't get me started on all these "always on" devices that draw power even when they're "off".
Hilarity will soon follow, I'm sure.
Given the broad range of things that gets you the tag "sex offender" (and a lovely scarlet "S" in the bargain), the whole sex offender registry thing is kinda silly. I mean, if you got a citation for pissing in the bushes at your local park, and got into your state's sex offender registry, would *you* really take the restrictions seriously? I sure as hell wouldn't. And I imagine that "real" sex offenders wouldn't either -- at least the ones who are total morons, anyway.
I assume you're referring to the interstate highway system? I could certainly live w/o the Feds holding highway funding over state's heads when they try to show an ounce of sovereignty. State-level roads are sufficient. The US economy would not collapse if the interstate highway system suddenly vanished. Hell, maybe the rotting US rail system would get a much needed kick in the ass as a result. :)
The massive multitude of cameras is just one objection. Using them all in tandem for getting even *more* info (patterns, whether you frequent gay/straight bars, whether you like middle-eastern cuisine, etc.) is yet another objection. Such surveillance open a nasty can of worms, in terms of potential harassment and discrimination.
That's rich -- toss in a reference to terrorism into the bid, and you get federal dollars for your project. Lame... and expensive.
However, I think the grid's greatest enemy is it's own users. This country is too power hungry.
One of the *worst* movies I've endured.
Looks really cool, but the idea of requiring consumables (the filters) turns me off. The French press and stove-top espresso makers are nice in that you don't need filters.
I imagine food-grade storage bags (even 1-gallon zip-lock bags) in 5-gallon food storage buckets would accomplish the same for pretty cheap. Place a small hunk of dry ice into the bag, under the coffee in the bag. Let sit in low-traffic area, then seal once the solid CO2 is gone (it's heavier than air, and will remain in the bags and buckets).
Like most gun laws, the people who haven't broken the law are the only ones put at a disadvantage. Just ask those wise Californians who had to eat their own dog food during the LA Riots in the early 90's.
We went to French press method in our house many year ago. Good stuff. Been contemplating the Turkish method as of late, but haven't invested in a set of hardware yet.
This is precisely why I haven't applied for a CCW permit, and probably never will. Why should a person, who doesn't have a criminal record, acquire as much of a rap sheet as a person who does? It's such bullshit. A convicted felon cannot even possess a firearm legally, never mind buying or carrying one. The CCW requirements in most states just amount to tagging the sheep.
I admire your patriotism for wanting to Do The Right Thing in order to protect your own by exercising your 2nd Amendment rights. However, I feel that submitting to The Man's will in this particular case dilutes the right to bear arms to near worthlessness. We should all *default* to being able to carry and only lose it after due process deems us unfit to, just like pretty much anything else in this allegedly free country of ours.
If anyone's interested in Alice, there's an archive of Alice summer camp projects here.
You sure your not thinking of the U. of Texas incident, where a few students pinned down a sniper until the authorities could subdue him?
For all intents and purposes, this is already the case within the context of this thread. If one were to simply discharge a weapon in public, $5000 *might* cover your legal costs to justify the shot. If you actually injured or killed someone with that shot, $5k would seem like a bargain -- even if you were justified in your use of force. I'd rather be bankrupt than dead.
Personally, I think that anyone who believes the authorities can (or are even willing to) always prevent tragedy is deluding themselves. Furthermore, anyone who would demonize those who wish to take responsibility for their own safety are power-grabbing control freaks and should by no means be allowed to dictate public policy.
Nice hypothetical. Sounds like those police shootings where some dude reaching for his wallet gets 32 bullets in return from the cops. Except the cops *are* trained. Oh, so you think that *supports* your argument? Perhaps. Personally, I think the general impunity and unionization under which cops operate results in such problems. Sure, teachers are unionized, too. However, they're generally not given free reign to use deadly force, and, as such, would likely think twice (or thrice) about endangering anyone, else they be sued into oblivion.
Now, if the kid in your hypothetical scenario was wielding a chicken nugget, then the hypothetical teacher couldn't be blamed at all.
But seriously.... if it was widely known that a teacher was armed (even if they fancied themselves like Sledge Hammer), do you think any punk in their right mind would chose that classroom to start something?
Great idea. It worked so well with alcohol and drugs. Guns would be a cake walk, eh? :)
With the exception of the rare fatalist shooter with a death wish (like Cho), most criminals are cowards who would not put themselves in danger if they knew with great certainty that they didn't have the upper hand. I don't have citations on-hand, but I've read that robberies and break-ins typically increase in areas where its known that residents are not allowed to own guns in the home. Criminals don't seek out cops to shoot down (generally) -- cops intervene and get shot at while performing their role as keepers of the peace.
Gangs and organized crime (both exist in Japan, btw) are closer to countries at war with one another, and should not really be compared to the more common 7-11 robber or the guy who picks a fight at a bar.
Both sides can appeal to logical extremes and make seemingly valid points. The fact is that the the road we're going down at present is *not* helping us in the US. Gun "control" has been on the steady rise for a while, yet the violence hasn't ceased. This is contrary to the trend going *back* in time. Maybe fighting for the extreme of disarming everyone is the wrong direction. Perhaps making it "personal", arming more people, and giving everyone some actual responsibility might make a difference.
#2 -- This is a good point. However, when it comes down to it, such places are still "soft targets" even if most adversaries (to date) have not targeted them as such. They still suffer the same fate. That dude who shot up Trolley Square in Salt Lake City a couple of months ago may not have speficially thought to himself, "Hmmm... I bet nobody *there* is armed. I'll go shoot up everyone!" However, the fact that nobody, save an off-duty cop, was armed made his job much easier.
I concede to this point. However, we allow these same people all sorts of other privileges. We let them navigate large masses of steel at high speeds (yes, there's registration -- won't touch that one for now), we let them purchase other dangerous substances (compressed gases, chemicals, poisons, etc.) w/o any oversight, and we even let them *breed* unchecked.
If you believe that the State should not meddle in your procreation, travel, or shopping habbits, then you should reasonably conclude that your own self defense (even with a weapon of deadly force) should fall into this category as well.
I agree with the courthouse thing, though. I didn't think through my list well enough in my example. A courthouse is probably the *last* place I'd "go postal" at. :)
I believe that Sonny Bono's widow and Republican representative from California is a $cientologist. See Bono's wikipedia entry as a launch point.
(Note: While I live in UT -- as Red as they come, these days -- I'm a liberal-leaning person with a strong belief in personal responsibility. I proudly own and use several firearms.)
I'm one of those pro-gun folks who does (and did, after VA Tech) suggest that if everyone (or a non-trivial percentage) was packing on campus, that there may have been fewer deaths. I won't mod you down for having a difference of opinion, though. That's just lame -- discourse is a cornerstone of any civilized community.
Anyway, as to what I quoted from your post... I can't speak for anyone else, but if I were to "go postal" (and were still in control of my mind, as it were) I'd actively seek out a place where I *knew* everyone would be disarmed if they were good law-following citizens. That is, post offices, courthouses, any K-12 public school grounds, many churches (being a private property), and gun-free college campuses like the University of Utah and, say, VA Tech.
While many would see the logical conclusion to arming *everyone* as a recipe for anarchy and accidents waiting to happen, those of us on the other side of the issue believe that it is wrong (and downright silly) to place law-abiding people at an inherent disadvantage by default for simply following the law. After all, criminals don't give a flying fig about the laws, so they will always have an advantage. There's a good Dark Helmet quote a about Good vs Evil that addresses this very issue. ;)
I'm not sure if you've noticed the ports freeze holding steady these past 2 weeks or so, but from what I hear, it's a freeze to get X.org 7.2 into ports (we're at 6.9 now). Maybe it'll work then. :)