Yes but likewise a cow's digestive system isn't meant to process corn and grain, certainly not as a primary diet, and yet that's what we feed them to fatten them up. It also increases e-coli risk, interestingly.
The fuss about environmental footprint seems moot really. With a proper diet (which sees increase in vegetable intake, and fruit to a lesser extent) level meat consumption is more modest than what is typical today (which increased 4x from the 1940s in the U.S.). The combination of health and animal welfare concerns will raise the price of livestock somewhat which may help.
It's a good idea to jump on it (read: appropriate) early, because it's a rather left-leaning populist idea. If the Dems pushed this bill first he'd have to cry bloody murder.
This was just "I don't owe you anything" repeated a dozen times. The only discrepancies are the first and last sentences; that idea that you'd consider refraining from donating because some guy thinks you owe him, and then repeating this as a kind of threat, like you'd withhold charity out of malice. Completely laughable, and betrays the notion that you feel obligated to donate to charity. I would be amazed if you really aware wealthy considering how dull this reads. If you aren't a liar, you're at least a fucking idiot.
Mass shootings aren't quite the same level of reality elsewhere in the developed world. Hell that's an understatement. The per-capita population excuse for discrepancy doesn't hold any water. Offenders aren't "just bad" by and large, and certainly terrorism of the Islamic variety account for a small fraction of occurrences in the U.S. annually, let alone firearm homicide which apparently doesn't matter enough because it disproportionately affects those in impoverished areas. I don't see the advantage of shrugging at the 355 count and just accepting this as "reality" going forward. It seems people would rather keep on pretending nothing can be done as if no sacrifice is necessary.
I love the conceit that we could do something analogous to changing a line of code in our genes to just STOP ageing. It's like saying cancer is genetic. Preventing deterioration of our bodies in every way shape and form will take more than genetic manipulation.
Sure, I won't deny it could reduce body counts. It's just that the 'problem' as I would frame it is that mass shootings happen, at an inexcusable rate. Softening the blow is not enough initiative to my mind. Though obviously, without getting into it, the issues do extend beyond guns themselves. I'd be relieved if apologist politicians would put their money where their mouth is and push to provide mental health care to those that need it without question, reduce poverty, etc, all things that independently are not popular with the right wing but often surface as "solutions" in sound bytes.
I'd welcome security placement but of course even that doesn't guarantee safety. Shooting the shooter doesn't retroactively "protect" those who've been killed, which could include the guards. They move quickly. It's nothing to walk in to an office room, have everyone in your sights before they know what's going on, and move on to the next. By the time everyone has reason to suspect there's a shooter about, they're running the fuck out of there, not confronting the shooter: that would be stupid. A room full of people whom are carrying would not stop what's coming for them. So yeah, I'd well favor a scenario with a drastic reduction of guns in circulation over heavily armed populace.
"My house is chock-full of things that can kill people. Heck, I have cabinets full of bottles with more than 3 ounces each in them! Whether you have a gun or not is less important than how responsibly you use it."
Killing is a gun's sole utility. None of your other household items share that quality. In a pinch, of course they could do the job, given you have enough strength to overwhelm your opponent, or they're left unaware. Responsibility is kind of a moot point of comparison given how difficult it is to "accidentally" kill someone with a wrench.
So by "right hands" you mean any and all hands willing to carry one with no criminal intent. It seems police forces discourage civilians to draw weapons in the vast majority of cases as lack of training (both for high stress situations and proficiency) can lead to serious mistakes or exaberations. Such as killing the wrong person, provoking fire, etc. With a weapon drawn on you personally, drawing back would cease to be vigilantism but frankly, having a gun drawn on you and intention to kill, there's scant chance to fire back in time.
Nothing fantastical about having drastically fewer guns in circulation. It's just a highly unpopular idea in the U.S. At the very least I would imagine that sort of initiative curbing down the annual firearm homicide rate to levels typical of other developed countries, since it's overwhelmingly attributed to street thugs whom just as easily do the deed with legal guns. Highly organized groups may still manage to access weapons (as seen in France) but short of keeping tabs through surveillance there's fuck all you can do about that.
The can of worms this could potentially open digs much further than ridding diseases and improving cognitive function. What of sexual orientation, or skin color? What of a "height" race? What of corporate encouragement of a particular set of cognitive preferences that lend well to obedient drones and not so much creative iconoclasts? What of privileged access to certain gene modifications that are disallowed to the large bulk of the population?
If this technology were made accessible it would lead to so many clusterfucks that could not be legislated out of existence. Worry for the future. If we get there.
A 'real' programmer, in vast majority of cases, doesn't code in a dozen languages during work hours. We all specialize and as such are pigeonholed dealing with certain problems.
From elsewhere: "Did you know that one of the most common ways for a con artist to gain the confidence of their victim is to say they are the same religion? One of the basic tenets of using charisma is to know what your target wants to hear. There is a dissatisfaction among the people of the middle east, and that dissatisfaction is being leveraged by charismatic opportunists who are able to become what these dissatisfied people want them to be...it doesn't matter if they believe what they are saying or not, what matters is that they are leveraging culture, beliefs, dissatisfaction, poverty, tribalism, or whatever works in order to manipulate them. That IS charisma. There is a portion of every single population on earth who are vulnerable to this sort of opportunist, and the greater that opportunist's charisma, the more followers he will have.
[...] Not to mention the more fucked up, violent and socially and economically unstable a region is, the greater the proportion of the population open to such charisma as a means to find 'solutions' for their grievances. You're seeing that effect play out now almost across the entire world now and it will only get worse as the various crises converge and intensify. I think I've said it before, but political ideologies and raw nationalism/ethnic identification can be very similar to religions in how they play upon and interact with whole populations of people, and the results of such fanaticism are usually about the same, and often intersect and intermingle with each other. All these are forms of anti-reason which appeal to myths, selective and tendentious interpretation of history and emotional and tribal identification end up having something like the same horrific consequences for those caught up in its effects. I don't think I need to present many examples of what should now be self-evident given that human history is a litany of this phenomenon playing out in one grotesque fashion or another. I also think it is too ingrained in human nature for it to be any other way, also. I've come to the conclusion that only works of sublime art and craftsmanship, products of ingenious engineering, scientific discoverers and writings that are the product of of minds of rationalist doubt are about the only products of human civilisation and history of any value and worthy of surviving."
Terrorists gain access to illicit materials and arms through an international network on a level beyond the scope of the average criminal. Beyond that a few armed citizens, with no experience dealing with a crisis and insufficient training, would not only do little to help but could make matters worse, which is why the police even in the U.S. urge citizens not to fire unless absolutely necessary. Try to find a street rat criminal with a gun in Canada. They're exceedingly rare.
And people like to say "don't judge a book by it's cover". Nothing more disingenuous than that. We all self-label, present ourselves the way we want to be seen.
"It will just get screwed up" - It's not as though it hasn't worked elsewhere, but I concede that this is the U.S. we're talking about. Still it could be a lesser of evils, depending. Bear in mind that the most hated companies in America year after year are either a) big Telecom, or b) big banks.
I get the sense that most (but not all) commodities for which this strategy is applied could be nationalized and consumers would all be better off. Electricity and internet are monopoly controlled yet so fundamental to infrastructure everywhere.
"just claimed that the reason they lag is due to some magical preference keeping women out." - This was referring to women's preferences, not everyone else's.
"which means there is a problem" - No. Asking certain questions in good faith would be equally uncomfortable for feminist groups whom will have none of it, as I'm sure you think. This is ace-level misconstruing on your part. You projected too much and overreached. If anything any real insinuation here could only be interpreted as thinly veiled anti-feminism, and it's amazing that you don't see it.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes but likewise a cow's digestive system isn't meant to process corn and grain, certainly not as a primary diet, and yet that's what we feed them to fatten them up. It also increases e-coli risk, interestingly. The fuss about environmental footprint seems moot really. With a proper diet (which sees increase in vegetable intake, and fruit to a lesser extent) level meat consumption is more modest than what is typical today (which increased 4x from the 1940s in the U.S.). The combination of health and animal welfare concerns will raise the price of livestock somewhat which may help.
It's a good idea to jump on it (read: appropriate) early, because it's a rather left-leaning populist idea. If the Dems pushed this bill first he'd have to cry bloody murder.
The magic word is "escort". It would be genius because it would work without divulging contact information to the public.
This was just "I don't owe you anything" repeated a dozen times. The only discrepancies are the first and last sentences; that idea that you'd consider refraining from donating because some guy thinks you owe him, and then repeating this as a kind of threat, like you'd withhold charity out of malice. Completely laughable, and betrays the notion that you feel obligated to donate to charity. I would be amazed if you really aware wealthy considering how dull this reads. If you aren't a liar, you're at least a fucking idiot.
This
Mass shootings aren't quite the same level of reality elsewhere in the developed world. Hell that's an understatement. The per-capita population excuse for discrepancy doesn't hold any water. Offenders aren't "just bad" by and large, and certainly terrorism of the Islamic variety account for a small fraction of occurrences in the U.S. annually, let alone firearm homicide which apparently doesn't matter enough because it disproportionately affects those in impoverished areas. I don't see the advantage of shrugging at the 355 count and just accepting this as "reality" going forward. It seems people would rather keep on pretending nothing can be done as if no sacrifice is necessary.
I love the conceit that we could do something analogous to changing a line of code in our genes to just STOP ageing. It's like saying cancer is genetic. Preventing deterioration of our bodies in every way shape and form will take more than genetic manipulation.
Sure, I won't deny it could reduce body counts. It's just that the 'problem' as I would frame it is that mass shootings happen, at an inexcusable rate. Softening the blow is not enough initiative to my mind. Though obviously, without getting into it, the issues do extend beyond guns themselves. I'd be relieved if apologist politicians would put their money where their mouth is and push to provide mental health care to those that need it without question, reduce poverty, etc, all things that independently are not popular with the right wing but often surface as "solutions" in sound bytes.
I'd welcome security placement but of course even that doesn't guarantee safety. Shooting the shooter doesn't retroactively "protect" those who've been killed, which could include the guards. They move quickly. It's nothing to walk in to an office room, have everyone in your sights before they know what's going on, and move on to the next. By the time everyone has reason to suspect there's a shooter about, they're running the fuck out of there, not confronting the shooter: that would be stupid. A room full of people whom are carrying would not stop what's coming for them. So yeah, I'd well favor a scenario with a drastic reduction of guns in circulation over heavily armed populace.
Yeah, just as you can stab someone with a kitchen knife, you can put a few rounds into a can of beans with a firearm. Doesn't change it's purpose.
"My house is chock-full of things that can kill people. Heck, I have cabinets full of bottles with more than 3 ounces each in them! Whether you have a gun or not is less important than how responsibly you use it."
Killing is a gun's sole utility. None of your other household items share that quality. In a pinch, of course they could do the job, given you have enough strength to overwhelm your opponent, or they're left unaware. Responsibility is kind of a moot point of comparison given how difficult it is to "accidentally" kill someone with a wrench.
So by "right hands" you mean any and all hands willing to carry one with no criminal intent. It seems police forces discourage civilians to draw weapons in the vast majority of cases as lack of training (both for high stress situations and proficiency) can lead to serious mistakes or exaberations. Such as killing the wrong person, provoking fire, etc. With a weapon drawn on you personally, drawing back would cease to be vigilantism but frankly, having a gun drawn on you and intention to kill, there's scant chance to fire back in time.
Nothing fantastical about having drastically fewer guns in circulation. It's just a highly unpopular idea in the U.S. At the very least I would imagine that sort of initiative curbing down the annual firearm homicide rate to levels typical of other developed countries, since it's overwhelmingly attributed to street thugs whom just as easily do the deed with legal guns. Highly organized groups may still manage to access weapons (as seen in France) but short of keeping tabs through surveillance there's fuck all you can do about that.
The can of worms this could potentially open digs much further than ridding diseases and improving cognitive function. What of sexual orientation, or skin color? What of a "height" race? What of corporate encouragement of a particular set of cognitive preferences that lend well to obedient drones and not so much creative iconoclasts? What of privileged access to certain gene modifications that are disallowed to the large bulk of the population?
If this technology were made accessible it would lead to so many clusterfucks that could not be legislated out of existence. Worry for the future. If we get there.
This ought to collapse insurance rates in the long-run, so I'm all for it. What a racket that is.
A 'real' programmer, in vast majority of cases, doesn't code in a dozen languages during work hours. We all specialize and as such are pigeonholed dealing with certain problems.
From elsewhere: "Did you know that one of the most common ways for a con artist to gain the confidence of their victim is to say they are the same religion? One of the basic tenets of using charisma is to know what your target wants to hear. There is a dissatisfaction among the people of the middle east, and that dissatisfaction is being leveraged by charismatic opportunists who are able to become what these dissatisfied people want them to be...it doesn't matter if they believe what they are saying or not, what matters is that they are leveraging culture, beliefs, dissatisfaction, poverty, tribalism, or whatever works in order to manipulate them. That IS charisma. There is a portion of every single population on earth who are vulnerable to this sort of opportunist, and the greater that opportunist's charisma, the more followers he will have.
[...] Not to mention the more fucked up, violent and socially and economically unstable a region is, the greater the proportion of the population open to such charisma as a means to find 'solutions' for their grievances. You're seeing that effect play out now almost across the entire world now and it will only get worse as the various crises converge and intensify. I think I've said it before, but political ideologies and raw nationalism/ethnic identification can be very similar to religions in how they play upon and interact with whole populations of people, and the results of such fanaticism are usually about the same, and often intersect and intermingle with each other. All these are forms of anti-reason which appeal to myths, selective and tendentious interpretation of history and emotional and tribal identification end up having something like the same horrific consequences for those caught up in its effects. I don't think I need to present many examples of what should now be self-evident given that human history is a litany of this phenomenon playing out in one grotesque fashion or another. I also think it is too ingrained in human nature for it to be any other way, also. I've come to the conclusion that only works of sublime art and craftsmanship, products of ingenious engineering, scientific discoverers and writings that are the product of of minds of rationalist doubt are about the only products of human civilisation and history of any value and worthy of surviving."
Terrorists gain access to illicit materials and arms through an international network on a level beyond the scope of the average criminal. Beyond that a few armed citizens, with no experience dealing with a crisis and insufficient training, would not only do little to help but could make matters worse, which is why the police even in the U.S. urge citizens not to fire unless absolutely necessary. Try to find a street rat criminal with a gun in Canada. They're exceedingly rare.
And people like to say "don't judge a book by it's cover". Nothing more disingenuous than that. We all self-label, present ourselves the way we want to be seen.
Refugees aren't illegal immigrants.
"It will just get screwed up" - It's not as though it hasn't worked elsewhere, but I concede that this is the U.S. we're talking about. Still it could be a lesser of evils, depending. Bear in mind that the most hated companies in America year after year are either a) big Telecom, or b) big banks.
I get the sense that most (but not all) commodities for which this strategy is applied could be nationalized and consumers would all be better off. Electricity and internet are monopoly controlled yet so fundamental to infrastructure everywhere.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
"just claimed that the reason they lag is due to some magical preference keeping women out." - This was referring to women's preferences, not everyone else's.
"which means there is a problem" - No. Asking certain questions in good faith would be equally uncomfortable for feminist groups whom will have none of it, as I'm sure you think. This is ace-level misconstruing on your part. You projected too much and overreached. If anything any real insinuation here could only be interpreted as thinly veiled anti-feminism, and it's amazing that you don't see it.
Well, hence the modifier *most*.