Restricting felons from gun ownership certainly puts the lie to the claim of prison being "rehabilitation", don't it? Cuz if they were "rehabilitated" they should once again have the same rights as everyone else.
"That's what guns really are, the canary in the coalmine. They are the first indicator that government has lost a proper fear of the citizenry. They are allowing their open contempt to show."
I'd put it that CU is a crappy decision because of what it had to deal with, not because of what it decided. It was kind of a choice of "shit" and "worse shit". Corporate "speech" may be shit, but restricting speech, or the right of assembly, is worse shit.
Deciding the other way would have been a case of silencing speech we don't like, and a very bad precedent.
I immediately wondered if stand-your-ground laws result in more gun-related deaths because more aggressive punks get themselves shot in acts of self-defense.... which would otherwise become an equal number of muggings and rapes.
It's been pointed out that if you throw out all the shootings that are related to gangs and drugs, America's "gun violence" suddenly shrinks to one of the lowest on Earth.
WinXP SP3 and XP64 SP2 here, updates off from the gitgo. (I've tried Win7/8, hate 'em both. I feel no desire to install the Windows Store, aka Win10.) My boxen live behind a router/firewall and I know better than to do the Usual Stupid User Shit. The only downside is that since I never see any malware, my virus collection has fallen into neglect.
Someone pointed this out a while back, and in my observation it's apparently true: Hackers aren't magicians and they don't have Windows source code (reputedly now some 160 million lines). So HOW do they find vulnerabilities?
A: They reverse-engineer the patches, which tell them exactly where to look and how to attack, then they go looking for unpatched machines.
Seriously, when did you last see an attack on Win98? Nope, nothing much since support ended. Same with XP. No new patches means way fewer clues about how to attack it.
Most of the last several linux distros I tested came with SeaMonkey as their default browser. And I was like -- yes! someone gives a shit about everyday usability!
Elements in different proportions just means you get more or less of whatever results; it won't change what reactions are possible. More carbon and less everything else, you probably get more ring-carbon compounds; more hydrogen and oxygen, you probably get more long-chain hydrocarbons with higher reactivity, thus more potential for future reactions that produce life-usable energy (eg. sugars; DNA is at root a conglomeration of sugars). And so on.
A large moon to "stir" the oceans is probably a bonus toward development of land-living forms because it creates tides and tidal pools, but oceans and atmosphere will mix regardless because of solar input and planetary rotation, and you still get storm-caused coastal action.
I'm looking at it from a chemistry standpoint. Chemistry isn't going to be materially different on other planets.
The base requirement is a reactive atom that naturally makes complex compounds that don't really have a necessary stopping point. (Which is why silicon-based life is unlikely; it too-quickly reaches a stable state.) Carbon (which readily forms unstable chains) plus some mix of hydrogen and oxygen would therefore be the base requirement, with nitrogen to make the leap from a hydrocarbon that requires input to react further (eg. coal or petroleum) to a hydrocarbon that gloms onto other compounds in its immediate neighborhood and makes more of same (eg. simple DNA like in a primitive virus).
The next requirement is probably a liquid environment (water or dense gas) so these compounds can mix freely. Doesn't do much good if the carbon is solid and the oxygen is frozen on the other side of the planet, or the gas (atmosphere) is so thin that they have no real opportunity to interact.
And then there has to be some energy input to keep things unstable enough for continued mixing and reacting, so we need proximity to a star, or perhaps to a planet's internal heat, tho that would probably be too self-limiting and likely would not get beyond short-lived microbes.
So that's why I think wherever there's C-H-O-N and a stable energy source (ie. a star in the correct range to keep water mostly liquid but without cooking the carbon chains apart) there will be life... even if it's just self-replicating carbon chains that make a virus look advanced.
Judging by where life is found on Earth, the "conditions for life" seem to be "anywhere you find carbon and something reactive with carbon" which makes the possibilities pretty broad.
Saying Earth is unique among the probabilities is kind like saying 6 is unique among the numbers; there is only one 6 and can never be another one. It says nothing about 5.9999999999 or 6.0000000001.
That looks like it might be nice for printing instant business cards, promotional postcards, and the like, without having to haul around a preprinted inventory.
I gather it's not practical to cap and exploit it.
There are asphalt seeps up near Agua Dulce, and I think they built the new Hwy 14 over it but there used to be an oil seep north of Canyon Country, too. Fact is, the earth is not so pristine as the enviros would like us to believe. And how much has NOT leaked into the open because we've used it up? Per your linked article, our use has helped reduce that considerably.
If there are rodents, there is lepto -- good rule of thumb. We vaccinate dogs and cattle against it, tho the vaccine is short-lived and not entirely reliable (still much better than nothing).
Well, we used to vaccinate dogs... Most vets no longer do, because OMG-vaccine-reactions (which haven't actually been since since the 1960s) with the result of lepto epidemics in pets in some parts of California like nothing we've seen since before the vaccine went into common use.
Slashdot Mirror
Restricting felons from gun ownership certainly puts the lie to the claim of prison being "rehabilitation", don't it? Cuz if they were "rehabilitated" they should once again have the same rights as everyone else.
"That's what guns really are, the canary in the coalmine. They are the first indicator that government has lost a proper fear of the citizenry. They are allowing their open contempt to show."
Good insight.
I'd put it that CU is a crappy decision because of what it had to deal with, not because of what it decided. It was kind of a choice of "shit" and "worse shit". Corporate "speech" may be shit, but restricting speech, or the right of assembly, is worse shit.
Deciding the other way would have been a case of silencing speech we don't like, and a very bad precedent.
How is a need to fend off the Gestapo not a political grievance?
I immediately wondered if stand-your-ground laws result in more gun-related deaths because more aggressive punks get themselves shot in acts of self-defense.... which would otherwise become an equal number of muggings and rapes.
It's been pointed out that if you throw out all the shootings that are related to gangs and drugs, America's "gun violence" suddenly shrinks to one of the lowest on Earth.
You're downright newfangled :)
WinXP SP3 and XP64 SP2 here, updates off from the gitgo. (I've tried Win7/8, hate 'em both. I feel no desire to install the Windows Store, aka Win10.) My boxen live behind a router/firewall and I know better than to do the Usual Stupid User Shit. The only downside is that since I never see any malware, my virus collection has fallen into neglect.
Someone pointed this out a while back, and in my observation it's apparently true: Hackers aren't magicians and they don't have Windows source code (reputedly now some 160 million lines). So HOW do they find vulnerabilities?
A: They reverse-engineer the patches, which tell them exactly where to look and how to attack, then they go looking for unpatched machines.
Seriously, when did you last see an attack on Win98? Nope, nothing much since support ended. Same with XP. No new patches means way fewer clues about how to attack it.
True, given that SM is basically an updated Netscape.
TL;DR: Men rape glaciers.
Clearly, we need a study on how the depth of scholarly horseshit parallels the feminist stack.
Most of the last several linux distros I tested came with SeaMonkey as their default browser. And I was like -- yes! someone gives a shit about everyday usability!
I use Prefbar which has a flash enable/disable checkbox.
http://prefbar.tuxfamily.org/
Prefbar and NoScript, are the two add-ons I can't live without.
I just go here, and hit reload for hours of fun:
http://www.elsewhere.org/pomo/
Mercury may be functionally a lump of charcoal. :)
Elements in different proportions just means you get more or less of whatever results; it won't change what reactions are possible. More carbon and less everything else, you probably get more ring-carbon compounds; more hydrogen and oxygen, you probably get more long-chain hydrocarbons with higher reactivity, thus more potential for future reactions that produce life-usable energy (eg. sugars; DNA is at root a conglomeration of sugars). And so on.
A large moon to "stir" the oceans is probably a bonus toward development of land-living forms because it creates tides and tidal pools, but oceans and atmosphere will mix regardless because of solar input and planetary rotation, and you still get storm-caused coastal action.
I'm looking at it from a chemistry standpoint. Chemistry isn't going to be materially different on other planets.
The base requirement is a reactive atom that naturally makes complex compounds that don't really have a necessary stopping point. (Which is why silicon-based life is unlikely; it too-quickly reaches a stable state.) Carbon (which readily forms unstable chains) plus some mix of hydrogen and oxygen would therefore be the base requirement, with nitrogen to make the leap from a hydrocarbon that requires input to react further (eg. coal or petroleum) to a hydrocarbon that gloms onto other compounds in its immediate neighborhood and makes more of same (eg. simple DNA like in a primitive virus).
The next requirement is probably a liquid environment (water or dense gas) so these compounds can mix freely. Doesn't do much good if the carbon is solid and the oxygen is frozen on the other side of the planet, or the gas (atmosphere) is so thin that they have no real opportunity to interact.
And then there has to be some energy input to keep things unstable enough for continued mixing and reacting, so we need proximity to a star, or perhaps to a planet's internal heat, tho that would probably be too self-limiting and likely would not get beyond short-lived microbes.
So that's why I think wherever there's C-H-O-N and a stable energy source (ie. a star in the correct range to keep water mostly liquid but without cooking the carbon chains apart) there will be life... even if it's just self-replicating carbon chains that make a virus look advanced.
Judging by where life is found on Earth, the "conditions for life" seem to be "anywhere you find carbon and something reactive with carbon" which makes the possibilities pretty broad.
Saying Earth is unique among the probabilities is kind like saying 6 is unique among the numbers; there is only one 6 and can never be another one. It says nothing about 5.9999999999 or 6.0000000001.
That looks like it might be nice for printing instant business cards, promotional postcards, and the like, without having to haul around a preprinted inventory.
Yes, I'm very familiar with what happens when paint is hidden or doesn't exist: most people take their half out of the middle.
Sure to improve with this new trend of no painted lines on the road! /sarcasm
That's what I thought.
I gather it's not practical to cap and exploit it.
There are asphalt seeps up near Agua Dulce, and I think they built the new Hwy 14 over it but there used to be an oil seep north of Canyon Country, too. Fact is, the earth is not so pristine as the enviros would like us to believe. And how much has NOT leaked into the open because we've used it up? Per your linked article, our use has helped reduce that considerably.
Yeah, I was gonna ask... how does this compare to the natural leakage in the area?
For the gov't, it's a whole lot simpler than that: the cash economy can't be involuntarily taxed.
The vaccine is a bacterin. It's effective for 6-12 months.
If there are rodents, there is lepto -- good rule of thumb. We vaccinate dogs and cattle against it, tho the vaccine is short-lived and not entirely reliable (still much better than nothing).
Well, we used to vaccinate dogs... Most vets no longer do, because OMG-vaccine-reactions (which haven't actually been since since the 1960s) with the result of lepto epidemics in pets in some parts of California like nothing we've seen since before the vaccine went into common use.
I have a sneaking suspicion that may be exactly what happened here.
It's basically the same question as "how many guilty men should go free to prevent the jailing of one innocent?"
Thank you for doing this. Maybe they aren't so useful today but I would really hate for this material to be lost.
And there are a few old DOS and Win3.x programs that still don't seem to have good replacements.