you're saying the democrats gave universities more money and this *caused* tuition rates to go up?
do you even try to think about the ignorant propaganda that is fed to you?
university costs have risen at all universities. why have they risen at private ones genius?
you don't understand the topic, nevermind basic cause and effect
and now that republicans are cutting funding, where do you think they will make up income? where do you think bright poor kids with good grades will go to school now? oh right, fuck them, they're daddy doesn't contribute to a PAC
do you see the fucking slashdot topic we're commenting under right now? do you see the problem? do you think countries that have good STEM programs are cutting funding to education? how much do children in those countries pay for higher education? evil "socialist" countries?
i'm no luddite, technological advance gives us just as much good as bad
but as we advance further and further, the power to do greater and greater good, and greater and greater evil, will be in the hands of smaller and smaller groups of people
such that some deranged cult will be able to kill us all in a few centuries. and then one of them will choose to do that
so tuition will increase and quality will decrease, and those who are bright but come from limited backgrounds will wind up working in retail or fast food instead of becoming good STEM candidates
of course, this makes sense, as poor and stupid is the republican base
The sword used at the Degree Ceremony is independent Finland's official civilian sword. The sword comes with a scabbard and a black or golden holder. The University's golden symbol will also be on the sword. Other traditional swords can also be used if available.
The sword is traditionally carried on the left side. Men carry the sword in its holder. A loop for the holder can be sewn into pants and the sword will stay firmly in place because there is a catch on the scabbard. Female doctors should also have a sword. In most cases the sword cannot be directly attached to dresses, because the material is not strong enough. A belt with a loop can be used, or the sword can be attached to a skirt at the waist by taking out some of the seam, or the fastening can be hidden under the top of a two-piece outfit. There is also the option of carrying the sword in hand.
The person's name, the date of their dissertation and the date of the Degree Ceremony is etched on the sword. One does not need to attend a Degree Ceremony to purchase a sword.
To buy the doctoral sword the Promovendi can join the collective order. Additional information on the collective order will be sent later for all registered Doctors.
i mean, that's just awesome. if we gave our graduates swords, i think they would try harder, right?
all joking aside, we really should just copy finland
fuck japan, it's a closed society and a stifling culture that doesn't have anything to translate to our own
but finland, we can just copy their system wholesale
or look at norway and breivik. norway has good gun laws
but the point isn't to do away with the chance of bad things completely. the point is to reduce the number of incidents
if we have good compliance with seatbelt laws, injuries go down. we can't make injuries 0% though. so no one should wear a seatbelts? seatbelts are a horrible liberal government intrusion into our lives, into our laps, evil and freedom destroying? or just common fucking sense?
same with guns laws: do the bare minimum to ensure you're dealing with a responsible, trained person, then give them a gun
bad things will still happen
but far less bad things than the usa's current status quo of too loose gun laws
proof: the experience of all of our social and economic peers
what exactly is confusing to you about that term you purposefully ignorant fuck?
the entire world looks at us gun laws as a joke. we suffer unnecessary deaths due to guns every day. the clear intent of the founders is not our status quo. all of the lies about the benefits are guns are outweighed by the obvious facts of the hell of too many easy guns
we will have the founder's intent. is not what you want, irresponsibly
"hey! good news! we used to have 100 million termites. but today, we have 95 million... please ignore the houses next door with only 20, 30, and 15 million termites"
we will have adherence to the second amendment. as the founders intended: sensible control and training. not as the second amendment has been rewritten by constitutional activists in the last 50 years who think irresponsibility with guns is a virtue for magic reasons
do you own guns? then you believe responsible gun use is mandatory to own a gun. right?
Historians are often asked what the Founders would think about various aspects of contemporary life. Such questions can be tricky to answer. But as historians of the Revolutionary era we are confident at least of this: that the authors of the Second Amendment would be flabbergasted to learn that in endorsing the republican principle of a well-regulated militia, they were also precluding restrictions on such potentially dangerous property as firearms, which governments had always regulated when there was “real danger of public injury from individuals.” 2 DHRC at 624.
"Liberals Guide to Doublespeak" as you call it is an actual better understanding of the second amendment and the intent of the ofunders
this moronic conservative idea that irresponsibility with guns is somehow magically a better world is the real problem, and not all what the second amendment supports
and it will not last. you can't defy simple common sense forever
the guy who offs himself out of depression is understandable/ relatable
the guy who offs his children/ wife or a plane load of people, then himself, is not understandable/ relatable. he deserves condemnation
the most depressed person in the world will not take people with them
a depressed person who is also a narcissist, or a schizophrenic person who is not even depressed, those are type who kill others and themselves. in which case the fact they kill others means we stop sympathizing with them
maybe we should control guns better, like all of our peers? what is the big hang up?
all easy guns in the usa means is far more homicides
does it mean lower rape? lower robbery?
then how come our peers with far fewer guns have the same approximate rates of rape and robbery as us?
why aren't societies with strong gun controls drowning in rape and robbery like your hysteria says?
extra guns does not mean less crime
it means extra unnecessary homicide
the simple facts are clear on that
in fact in the uk, they have SLIGHTLY higher violence rates than us
which i would love to have if it meant far lower homicides!
because violence is a broken arm or a broken nose. homicide is a body bag
all people like you mean to me is: you think every single altercation has to escalate to someone being dead. why? why is this a better society in your opinion? it's not a better society. it's just extra death for no reason
something far more substantial then "hand any gun to any mouth breathing moron who wants one" like we have in the usa
you can't get behind the wheel of a car in the usa legally without training and testing. so it should be with gun ownership. i don't see how a *responsible* gun owner could not disagree with that
says me? no, says the founding fathers in the fucking second amendment: "well-regulated" = well-trained
why are you going out of your way, grasping at fantasy level explanations, and avoiding the far far most likely explanation for his behavior?
he carried on a conversation with the pilot beforehand. he wasn't slurring words. he didn't display any signs of distress
you really have to posit miraculous brain tumors, instead of just admitting some people are malicious assholes?
why does it threaten your worldview so much that there are people in this world that do not intend well?
we're not looking for evil people under every rock and bush like a paranoid schizophrenic here
we're looking for the most likely explanation for the facts before us in a rare and extreme situation. and "malicious pile of shit" stands out as a signal from the noise far far stronger than any other cause
if it's just "my girlfriend broke up with me, so i'm going to kill myself and 149 people..." fuck
apparently he lived alone with his parents though
perhaps it's time to throw out the PC attitude towards people with asperger's: don't put people with social disorders behind controls of airplanes. or anywhere they have power over many lives (like that asshole in newtown who shot up an elementary school because he had easy access to powerful guns)
there are asocial loners who pursue nonsocial pursuits harmlessly
but then there is a class of people who are asocial for psychological reasons not at all innocent and harmless
it may be PC to give asocial loners the benefit of the doubt
but putting them in positions with power over the lives of others, maybe being PC shouldn't be the first instinct
sometimes an asocial loner really is someone who has malicious intent in their hearts
there is no explanation, none possible, that would excuse or even just explain the ignoring of 150 other lives
i would be an asshole, yes, if i was talking about just killing himself
but even depressed and suicidal people do not intend to harm others
it takes a pre-existing level of douchebaggery to not consider the value of the lives of others, nevermind how little you consider the value of your own life
because life is dangerous and always will be, doesn't mean we stop trying to make it safer. modern civilization has taken away many mundane risks from disease, war, poverty, poor sanitation, simple medical emergencies, etc. was that effort not worth it?
there's speculation, there's also logical inference. considering the entire universe of possibilities doesn't mean we turn off our brains
you are correct we should consider all possible situations, no matter how remote, because we're already in far remote territory here with this sequence of events
but the door being locked (intentionally or otherwise), combined with the pilot banging on the door outside and no answer, leads one to a logical conclusion about copilot intent: he meant to do this
the door could have malfunctioned AND the copilot didn't care about banging on the door?
i guess the door could have malfunctioned AND the copilot had a stroke
but everything in life is a calculated consideration of possibilities, and now we're going from "chance of winning the lottery" to "chance of winning the lottery 100 times in a row"
Slashdot Mirror
you're saying the democrats gave universities more money and this *caused* tuition rates to go up?
do you even try to think about the ignorant propaganda that is fed to you?
university costs have risen at all universities. why have they risen at private ones genius?
you don't understand the topic, nevermind basic cause and effect
and now that republicans are cutting funding, where do you think they will make up income? where do you think bright poor kids with good grades will go to school now? oh right, fuck them, they're daddy doesn't contribute to a PAC
do you see the fucking slashdot topic we're commenting under right now? do you see the problem? do you think countries that have good STEM programs are cutting funding to education? how much do children in those countries pay for higher education? evil "socialist" countries?
braindead republicans, ruining the country
terrorists took down the world trade center with boxcutters
you don't seem to understand what determination means
seriously
this is the terrorist attack of 2215 or 2315
i'm no luddite, technological advance gives us just as much good as bad
but as we advance further and further, the power to do greater and greater good, and greater and greater evil, will be in the hands of smaller and smaller groups of people
such that some deranged cult will be able to kill us all in a few centuries. and then one of them will choose to do that
man, we really have to get off this planet
we need an insurance policy badly
unfortunately, republican state houses across the country are cutting down on funding state universities
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
etc., etc.
so tuition will increase and quality will decrease, and those who are bright but come from limited backgrounds will wind up working in retail or fast food instead of becoming good STEM candidates
of course, this makes sense, as poor and stupid is the republican base
copy finland
whatever they do, we do the same
#1 thing we should copy from finland's universities:
https://www.jyu.fi/en/academic...
Doctoral sword
The sword used at the Degree Ceremony is independent Finland's official civilian sword. The sword comes with a scabbard and a black or golden holder. The University's golden symbol will also be on the sword. Other traditional swords can also be used if available.
The sword is traditionally carried on the left side. Men carry the sword in its holder. A loop for the holder can be sewn into pants and the sword will stay firmly in place because there is a catch on the scabbard. Female doctors should also have a sword. In most cases the sword cannot be directly attached to dresses, because the material is not strong enough. A belt with a loop can be used, or the sword can be attached to a skirt at the waist by taking out some of the seam, or the fastening can be hidden under the top of a two-piece outfit. There is also the option of carrying the sword in hand.
The person's name, the date of their dissertation and the date of the Degree Ceremony is etched on the sword. One does not need to attend a Degree Ceremony to purchase a sword.
To buy the doctoral sword the Promovendi can join the collective order. Additional information on the collective order will be sent later for all registered Doctors.
i mean, that's just awesome. if we gave our graduates swords, i think they would try harder, right?
all joking aside, we really should just copy finland
fuck japan, it's a closed society and a stifling culture that doesn't have anything to translate to our own
but finland, we can just copy their system wholesale
yup, well said
the door should stay
as you say, an unlocked door does not prevent suicidal-homicidal pilots, but does prevent murderous hijacking
or look at norway and breivik. norway has good gun laws
but the point isn't to do away with the chance of bad things completely. the point is to reduce the number of incidents
if we have good compliance with seatbelt laws, injuries go down. we can't make injuries 0% though. so no one should wear a seatbelts? seatbelts are a horrible liberal government intrusion into our lives, into our laps, evil and freedom destroying? or just common fucking sense?
same with guns laws: do the bare minimum to ensure you're dealing with a responsible, trained person, then give them a gun
bad things will still happen
but far less bad things than the usa's current status quo of too loose gun laws
proof: the experience of all of our social and economic peers
"well-regulated militia"
what exactly is confusing to you about that term you purposefully ignorant fuck?
the entire world looks at us gun laws as a joke. we suffer unnecessary deaths due to guns every day. the clear intent of the founders is not our status quo. all of the lies about the benefits are guns are outweighed by the obvious facts of the hell of too many easy guns
we will have the founder's intent. is not what you want, irresponsibly
"hey! good news! we used to have 100 million termites. but today, we have 95 million... please ignore the houses next door with only 20, 30, and 15 million termites"
http://www.conferenceboard.ca/...
explain that chart. go ahead. good luck
we will have adherence to the second amendment. as the founders intended: sensible control and training. not as the second amendment has been rewritten by constitutional activists in the last 50 years who think irresponsibility with guns is a virtue for magic reasons
do you own guns? then you believe responsible gun use is mandatory to own a gun. right?
(snicker)
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-c...
Historians are often asked what the Founders would
think about various aspects of contemporary life. Such
questions can be tricky to answer. But as historians of
the Revolutionary era we are confident at least of this:
that the authors of the Second Amendment would be
flabbergasted to learn that in endorsing the republican
principle of a well-regulated militia, they were also
precluding restrictions on such potentially dangerous
property as firearms, which governments had always
regulated when there was “real danger of public injury
from individuals.” 2 DHRC at 624.
"Liberals Guide to Doublespeak" as you call it is an actual better understanding of the second amendment and the intent of the ofunders
this moronic conservative idea that irresponsibility with guns is somehow magically a better world is the real problem, and not all what the second amendment supports
and it will not last. you can't defy simple common sense forever
the guy who offs himself out of depression is understandable/ relatable
the guy who offs his children/ wife or a plane load of people, then himself, is not understandable/ relatable. he deserves condemnation
the most depressed person in the world will not take people with them
a depressed person who is also a narcissist, or a schizophrenic person who is not even depressed, those are type who kill others and themselves. in which case the fact they kill others means we stop sympathizing with them
http://www.conferenceboard.ca/...
look at this chart
do you see a problem?
maybe we should control guns better, like all of our peers? what is the big hang up?
all easy guns in the usa means is far more homicides
does it mean lower rape? lower robbery?
then how come our peers with far fewer guns have the same approximate rates of rape and robbery as us?
why aren't societies with strong gun controls drowning in rape and robbery like your hysteria says?
extra guns does not mean less crime
it means extra unnecessary homicide
the simple facts are clear on that
in fact in the uk, they have SLIGHTLY higher violence rates than us
which i would love to have if it meant far lower homicides!
because violence is a broken arm or a broken nose. homicide is a body bag
all people like you mean to me is: you think every single altercation has to escalate to someone being dead. why? why is this a better society in your opinion? it's not a better society. it's just extra death for no reason
ah
here in the usa, that's becoming more common, but traditionally it is due to social issues
but i stand corrected for a biased judgment, so thank you
something far more substantial then "hand any gun to any mouth breathing moron who wants one" like we have in the usa
you can't get behind the wheel of a car in the usa legally without training and testing. so it should be with gun ownership. i don't see how a *responsible* gun owner could not disagree with that
says me? no, says the founding fathers in the fucking second amendment: "well-regulated" = well-trained
yes, i agree, idiots with ignorant biases are annoying. like you
there is no lock a man can invent that another man cannot undo. and if it's worth doing, for glory or money, someone will do it
why are you going out of your way, grasping at fantasy level explanations, and avoiding the far far most likely explanation for his behavior?
he carried on a conversation with the pilot beforehand. he wasn't slurring words. he didn't display any signs of distress
you really have to posit miraculous brain tumors, instead of just admitting some people are malicious assholes?
why does it threaten your worldview so much that there are people in this world that do not intend well?
we're not looking for evil people under every rock and bush like a paranoid schizophrenic here
we're looking for the most likely explanation for the facts before us in a rare and extreme situation. and "malicious pile of shit" stands out as a signal from the noise far far stronger than any other cause
if it's just "my girlfriend broke up with me, so i'm going to kill myself and 149 people..." fuck
apparently he lived alone with his parents though
perhaps it's time to throw out the PC attitude towards people with asperger's: don't put people with social disorders behind controls of airplanes. or anywhere they have power over many lives (like that asshole in newtown who shot up an elementary school because he had easy access to powerful guns)
there are asocial loners who pursue nonsocial pursuits harmlessly
but then there is a class of people who are asocial for psychological reasons not at all innocent and harmless
it may be PC to give asocial loners the benefit of the doubt
but putting them in positions with power over the lives of others, maybe being PC shouldn't be the first instinct
sometimes an asocial loner really is someone who has malicious intent in their hearts
good point, thank you
agreed
i suppose my wording was such because people were already talking about suicide and depression
but self-harm is not the same as the desire to harm others
so, indeed, what happened here was
1. not depression at all, as you suggest
2. or it was depression, plus some other psychological problem or malicious intent
what it wasn't, is depression alone
killing yourself is not anything like the desire to kill others
exactly
there's people in this thread who seem to want to throw his actions into the realm of "caused by depression"
nope
depression explains self-harm
but harming others requires an additional psychological realm, not explained by depression
nope
depressed people who take their own lives do not intend harm on others
to kill yourself is completely different than killing yourself and killing others
to discount the value of your own life is not at all the same as discounting the value of other lives
you have to be a narcissistic, selfish asshole *before* the depression to think killing others makes sense
there is no excuse, not even an explanation that renders him less guilty
there is no explanation, none possible, that would excuse or even just explain the ignoring of 150 other lives
i would be an asshole, yes, if i was talking about just killing himself
but even depressed and suicidal people do not intend to harm others
it takes a pre-existing level of douchebaggery to not consider the value of the lives of others, nevermind how little you consider the value of your own life
because life is dangerous and always will be, doesn't mean we stop trying to make it safer. modern civilization has taken away many mundane risks from disease, war, poverty, poor sanitation, simple medical emergencies, etc. was that effort not worth it?
there's speculation, there's also logical inference. considering the entire universe of possibilities doesn't mean we turn off our brains
you are correct we should consider all possible situations, no matter how remote, because we're already in far remote territory here with this sequence of events
but the door being locked (intentionally or otherwise), combined with the pilot banging on the door outside and no answer, leads one to a logical conclusion about copilot intent: he meant to do this
the door could have malfunctioned AND the copilot didn't care about banging on the door?
i guess the door could have malfunctioned AND the copilot had a stroke
but everything in life is a calculated consideration of possibilities, and now we're going from "chance of winning the lottery" to "chance of winning the lottery 100 times in a row"