Rape actually works against survival because in the absence of abortion rape is likely to result in abandonment or even willful destruction. In ancient times babies were abandoned for even simple skin discolorations, can you even imagine how many babies were destroyed through willing trauma or simple abandonment?
Thats the biggest ugliness of this whole debate to me, I don't like abortion and I think using it as a form of birth control is abhorrent, but if you force unwilling parents to have children you won't be aborting fetuses, you'll be either abandoning or killing babies. There are several million abortions a year, there aren't even close to that many people looking for a child every year. So what happens? Either the baby ends up adopted, or ends up dead and we put one/two people in jail (at taxpayer expense), or the baby ends up abandoned and a ward of the state being bounced between foster homes or god forbid we have to bring back orphanages, or the child is raised by parents who don't want or care for the child and ends up a criminal as a result. All but one of these scenarios ends up with the tax payers shouldering the burden of caring for one or more people.
It's a great idea that there should be no abortions, but unless the people opposed to abortion are willing to open their homes AND pocketbooks (only those who want it banned) to support all those unwanted children then I just don't support the idea of intruding government into people's personal lives.
His comment about "legitimate rape" was in reference to a historical position of the religious conservatives that the trauma of a violent rape wouldn't allow pregnancy. The implication of course is that if the rape doesn't involve violence it's not legitimate rape. Therefore if the woman does't fight back and get the shit kicked out of her it's not legitimate rape.
That might be true with a psychopath but a sociopath (which is what the OP probably meant) would be quite capable of watching the videos and understanding how other people would react even if they don't react themselves. Sociopaths in general learn during their childhood to mimic empathy to fit in. The classic example is Ted Bundy, a perfectly (in public) outgoing and social individual who knew how to mimic empathy but in private was cutting people up to see what their insides looked like.
Everyone should know that. I believe it's clear at this point that Facebook sells wholesale access to everything they have (including all the "deleted" stuff). I bet they have a price list that includes wholesale direct access to everything in their datebase and they sell this access for a pretty penny to governments and market research companies.
Nothing on Facebook is private, it's even in their TOS that you grant them rights to use anything you give them anyway they want.
Homeless addicts are the exception not the rule and it's foolish to even suggest they are the stadnard (though it's a fun talking point the DEA uses).
There are estimates ranging from 8% to 10% of the population uses illicit drugs regularly. An even larger percentage in excess of 50% has tried an illicit drug in their lifetime. The vast majority of those people are perfectly stable users with employment and families.
Alcohol is a far worse drug than nearly every other illicit drug. Cigarettes are far more addictive than nearly every other illicit drug. Yet both are legal, the first because a ban was tried and it caused consumption to sky rocket and violence to explode, the second is legal due to economic dependence on not only the production but the sale.
Just like Alcohol prohibition legalization will remove the blackmarket, improve safety, reduce violence/crime and provide tax revenue to the government to support the negative side effects.
The war on drugs has created a police and prison apparatus that costs the tax payers close to 12 billion a year. What has the war on drugs done to personal liberty? Well for one the government now has incentive to go after individual users because they can then seize their assets. In fact, the system incentives going after users and leaving the dealers alone. We have more than a million people in jail that never committed a violent act and are in jail simply for possession of drugs. What the war on drugs has cost this country is simply not worth what it protects (virtually nothing, except for all the people making money off the police state it's created).
In my state if they broke into my home I'm legally allowed to kill them. Their intent is irrelevant as the law allows me to assume they are there to kill me and to act accordingly.
In particular I remember the story of an older gentleman. A 19 year old man broke into the house through the sliding glass door in the middle of the night. The older gentleman in question was woken by the break-in and armed himself with a firearm. He heard the intruder approaching on the stairs and shot a single shot through the wall (without any warning) and the 19 year old fled. After the police arrived and searched they found the 19 year olds body about 50' from the house dead from a gunshot wound to the chest. The older gentleman was never charged or even threatened with indictment.
In fact just last year the legislature made it impossible for intruders to sue (although they likely couldn't win they could have still sued previously) homeowners due to injury they sustain in the act of a crime, including being shot.
Childish would be receiving a lawsuit threat and settlement request for $20,000 from a lawyer, drawing a comic about said lawyers mother being humped by bears, then creating a charity drive called bears good, cancer bad to collect money for two very worthwhile charities. Then collecting nearly $200,000 in contributions for the charity drive, collecting the money as cash, arranging said cash into the words Fuck You, taking a picture of said arrangement and sending the photo to the lawyer.
That might be considered childish. The author of the Oatmeal comic did that.
Just wait till two or three of these HFT machines goes wacko together and wipes out the entire market. These machines operate without human intervention. They buy and sell completely without human input. Now if 2-3 or more of these machines start operating in a repeating cycle with each other they could damage so many stocks simultaneously that in theory they could crash the entire market.
If the knight trades had been a little closer to sensible they could have triggered other HFT systems into buy and selling cycles. These things are dangerous IMO and they need some strict regulation such that they can't make trades worth more than the value of the assets in the company. Essentially margin rules that regular humans must abide. Even then I would still be concerned about the "perfect storm" problem where multiple HFT systems begin playing off each other and ride the market into a crash.
Only one thing? Maybe the fact that in most cases (there are select areas where it's illegal to post ads without the company verifying all the information is accurate) you don't have to pay a dime to post a classified ad. Maybe you would prefer the old world of newspaper classifieds where you paid $70 for a single weekend listing AND the newspaper did no copy control.
Craigslist doesn't charge money, they don't generally interfere in postings and there is little to no advertising (there is spam, as should be expected on any free site).
Those are all the positives, Craig has also promised that he'll never take advertising and that hes not ever going to charge for listing where he isn't forced to by local laws. Again a positive. Now you want the guy to spend more of his own money to make the site "flashy" so his bandwidth costs you aren't paying go up for no clear benefit for anyone. Good plan, why don't you send him the million bucks that will cost and maybe he'll consider it.
Depends on what you are claiming is pollution. The Koch brothers are heavily invested into carbon based energy. Their companies own and operate coal fired power planets, oil production and refinement and even natural gas.
In fact it's been estimated that as much as 80% of their fortune is tied directly to carbon based energy. They have a clear and vested interest in carbon based energy production and a dramatic decline in the use of carbon based energy would wreck havoc on their net worth.
If NZ unfreezes DotCom's NZ assets he will have the resources to fight this case all the way to the supreme court. This is exactly the type of case we need to undo the illegal forfeiture laws in this country with a clear cut case of government abuse. Don't get me wrong, Dotcom's hands aren't clean, but I've never liked how the government proceeds with asset forfeitures to take away the defendants ability to defend themselves.
Nokia is going to fail economically long before that happens. They have less than a year till they run out of money completely. Then MS steps in with an offer to buy the company (for the patents). The only possible savior is if the government blocks the sale.
Facebook has been selling your data to government since day one. You might not be aware of this but all those rules that prevent government from spying on you don't apply if a private business does the spying on their own then sells the government the data. In fact it's even better when you put the information in yourself for them and that they never ever delete anything. Anyone that using Facebook with real information better fully understand what they are doing.
The first electric car with 200+ mile range and a less than $25,000 price will be the biggest seller in the market overnight.
Just those two items alone would probably cause Musk to be right. And that's what he's betting, that the battery range and price will come down to the point that everyone can afford an electric car and that it will have a range similar to that of a gasoline engine. If the market delivers those specs I think he'll be right, you can drive an electric car for about $0.10 cents a mile, the gas savings alone would so massive everyone and their dog would want one.
What could you do if you didn't have to buy gas anymore?
In general correct, but that depends entirely on what you are protecting against.
A typical anti-armor projectile or shaped charge on impact will use a chemical reaction to create molten copper (from a copper ingot in the projectile) that is then explosively discharged into the armor at high speed on impact. This stream of liquid copper melts a hole though the armor and then sprays itself all over the crew compartment killing the occupants in a very gruesome manner while the projectile itself bounces harmlessly off the armor. The defensive armor against this type of munition fires a charge in the armor on impact that blasts the stream of liquid copper away from the remaining armor. This is typically referred to as active-armor and actually contains explosives that will explode when hit with molten metal.
In this case the projectile itself is relatively harmless, it's the molten copper that becomes the penetrator meant to kill those behind the armor. So you are correct, the point is to penetrate and kill, but there is more than one way to penetrate armor, and sometimes it's not the projectile at all that's meant to do the killing.
No fault of their own? Maybe that's true in Iceland (I don't know), but that is NOT true in the US. All those foreclosures are the direct result of people borrowing more money than they can afford, all because the stupid banks were willing to loan them the money. But you know what the best part is? Idiots like you that claim the bank misled them and it was the banks fault they borrowed all that money and spent it on vacations and SUV's.
Giving all those people who borrowed more money than they could afford a pass and reducing their mortgages is a direct slap in the face to everyone else who was responsible. It rewards bad behavior and you're a damn fool for even suggesting it. The biggest mistake in this whole thing as delaying the foreclosures because all it did was extend the pain.
You do not understand what happened with AIG and the banks.
But let me leave this little nugget for you, had the government not bailed out AIG almost every single bank in the US and probably world would have went under. We are talking a total collapse of the banking system and a run on the banks. The economic catastrophe that would have resulted would have made the bailout look like pennies.
There might have been a couple banks here and there that weren't exposed to the real estate losses and wouldn't have needed the AIG guarantees but the vast majority of banks would have went under and the FDIC insurance alone would have been more than the bailout of AIG.
The only reason the bank protected peoples' money for many years in the first place, and why Switzerland draws so many international deposits, is because they have (IMO) a long history of completely ignoring illegal deposits and are complicit in money laundering. They are the first bank of criminal enterprises that want guaranteed security without fear of disclosure or seizure. Why else do you think they were the bankers of the Nazi's? Why else do you think most of the worlds wealthiest citizens and biggest despots store "hidden" money in swiss accounts?
The Swiss have always been the bankers for the evilest people in the world and they have been because they don't care who you are or where your money came from. According to the lawsuit the US government is undertaking against the Swiss banks they not only solicited but actively assisted US citizens in hiding assets. Investigations by other countries have revealed the same pattern of behavior. There is a bit of purity in not caring about where the money came from, but a lot of that money is covered in blood and the Swiss have never cared.
Government workers in general are conscientious and careful workers. There are bad apples of course but they are in general good hard workers with good ethics that simply trade pay for job security.
But, the problem with government isn't the workers, it's the bureaucracy (and political management) forced on them that's goal is to prevent fraud (by putting 5000 pieces of red tape on every action) that causes inefficient government and the requirement that every selection be low bid that handicaps government. For those two reasons alone you'd have to be a friggen idiot to put government in charge of a power plant, even something not dangerous like coal and completely brain dead for something dangerous like a nuclear reactor.
Unless you are willing to cut the handcuffs, allow non competitive bidding (like the private sector can) and remove the red tape that prevents fraud (and expect fraud as a result) you are going to have the worst built, deficient running reactor in the world if you let government build or run it. I'll temper that statement with one caveat, if you allow the millitary to run it you will probably be fine for construction and operation but they'll probably take the waste and dump it in an open pit on the side of the reactor.
At least with private companies you can structure regulation to enhance their desire for safety by making unsafe conditions very unprofitable. But you have to give the regulators teeth, and you have to put in place laws that will pierce the corporate veil for serious accidents and you better be prepared to pay a LOT more for power.
You don't honestly think that the other search engine you use isn't doing EXACTLY what google does do you? That information is worth a lot of money and if you aren't paying for the service I guarantee they are selling it.
Horseshit. They never said what you claim. You can warp what they said all you want to try to justify that blatant lie but only a complete fucking idiot would believe you.
Slashdot Mirror
Rape actually works against survival because in the absence of abortion rape is likely to result in abandonment or even willful destruction. In ancient times babies were abandoned for even simple skin discolorations, can you even imagine how many babies were destroyed through willing trauma or simple abandonment?
Thats the biggest ugliness of this whole debate to me, I don't like abortion and I think using it as a form of birth control is abhorrent, but if you force unwilling parents to have children you won't be aborting fetuses, you'll be either abandoning or killing babies. There are several million abortions a year, there aren't even close to that many people looking for a child every year. So what happens? Either the baby ends up adopted, or ends up dead and we put one/two people in jail (at taxpayer expense), or the baby ends up abandoned and a ward of the state being bounced between foster homes or god forbid we have to bring back orphanages, or the child is raised by parents who don't want or care for the child and ends up a criminal as a result. All but one of these scenarios ends up with the tax payers shouldering the burden of caring for one or more people.
It's a great idea that there should be no abortions, but unless the people opposed to abortion are willing to open their homes AND pocketbooks (only those who want it banned) to support all those unwanted children then I just don't support the idea of intruding government into people's personal lives.
His comment about "legitimate rape" was in reference to a historical position of the religious conservatives that the trauma of a violent rape wouldn't allow pregnancy. The implication of course is that if the rape doesn't involve violence it's not legitimate rape. Therefore if the woman does't fight back and get the shit kicked out of her it's not legitimate rape.
That might be true with a psychopath but a sociopath (which is what the OP probably meant) would be quite capable of watching the videos and understanding how other people would react even if they don't react themselves. Sociopaths in general learn during their childhood to mimic empathy to fit in. The classic example is Ted Bundy, a perfectly (in public) outgoing and social individual who knew how to mimic empathy but in private was cutting people up to see what their insides looked like.
Everyone should know that. I believe it's clear at this point that Facebook sells wholesale access to everything they have (including all the "deleted" stuff). I bet they have a price list that includes wholesale direct access to everything in their datebase and they sell this access for a pretty penny to governments and market research companies.
Nothing on Facebook is private, it's even in their TOS that you grant them rights to use anything you give them anyway they want.
Homeless addicts are the exception not the rule and it's foolish to even suggest they are the stadnard (though it's a fun talking point the DEA uses).
There are estimates ranging from 8% to 10% of the population uses illicit drugs regularly. An even larger percentage in excess of 50% has tried an illicit drug in their lifetime. The vast majority of those people are perfectly stable users with employment and families.
Alcohol is a far worse drug than nearly every other illicit drug. Cigarettes are far more addictive than nearly every other illicit drug. Yet both are legal, the first because a ban was tried and it caused consumption to sky rocket and violence to explode, the second is legal due to economic dependence on not only the production but the sale.
Just like Alcohol prohibition legalization will remove the blackmarket, improve safety, reduce violence/crime and provide tax revenue to the government to support the negative side effects.
The war on drugs has created a police and prison apparatus that costs the tax payers close to 12 billion a year. What has the war on drugs done to personal liberty? Well for one the government now has incentive to go after individual users because they can then seize their assets. In fact, the system incentives going after users and leaving the dealers alone. We have more than a million people in jail that never committed a violent act and are in jail simply for possession of drugs. What the war on drugs has cost this country is simply not worth what it protects (virtually nothing, except for all the people making money off the police state it's created).
In my state if they broke into my home I'm legally allowed to kill them. Their intent is irrelevant as the law allows me to assume they are there to kill me and to act accordingly.
In particular I remember the story of an older gentleman. A 19 year old man broke into the house through the sliding glass door in the middle of the night. The older gentleman in question was woken by the break-in and armed himself with a firearm. He heard the intruder approaching on the stairs and shot a single shot through the wall (without any warning) and the 19 year old fled. After the police arrived and searched they found the 19 year olds body about 50' from the house dead from a gunshot wound to the chest. The older gentleman was never charged or even threatened with indictment.
In fact just last year the legislature made it impossible for intruders to sue (although they likely couldn't win they could have still sued previously) homeowners due to injury they sustain in the act of a crime, including being shot.
Tax fraud is higher value (or more important) of a crime than rape?
My you live in a very different world.
Childish?
Childish would be receiving a lawsuit threat and settlement request for $20,000 from a lawyer, drawing a comic about said lawyers mother being humped by bears, then creating a charity drive called bears good, cancer bad to collect money for two very worthwhile charities. Then collecting nearly $200,000 in contributions for the charity drive, collecting the money as cash, arranging said cash into the words Fuck You, taking a picture of said arrangement and sending the photo to the lawyer.
That might be considered childish. The author of the Oatmeal comic did that.
Just wait till two or three of these HFT machines goes wacko together and wipes out the entire market. These machines operate without human intervention. They buy and sell completely without human input. Now if 2-3 or more of these machines start operating in a repeating cycle with each other they could damage so many stocks simultaneously that in theory they could crash the entire market.
If the knight trades had been a little closer to sensible they could have triggered other HFT systems into buy and selling cycles. These things are dangerous IMO and they need some strict regulation such that they can't make trades worth more than the value of the assets in the company. Essentially margin rules that regular humans must abide. Even then I would still be concerned about the "perfect storm" problem where multiple HFT systems begin playing off each other and ride the market into a crash.
Only one thing? Maybe the fact that in most cases (there are select areas where it's illegal to post ads without the company verifying all the information is accurate) you don't have to pay a dime to post a classified ad. Maybe you would prefer the old world of newspaper classifieds where you paid $70 for a single weekend listing AND the newspaper did no copy control.
Craigslist doesn't charge money, they don't generally interfere in postings and there is little to no advertising (there is spam, as should be expected on any free site).
Those are all the positives, Craig has also promised that he'll never take advertising and that hes not ever going to charge for listing where he isn't forced to by local laws. Again a positive. Now you want the guy to spend more of his own money to make the site "flashy" so his bandwidth costs you aren't paying go up for no clear benefit for anyone. Good plan, why don't you send him the million bucks that will cost and maybe he'll consider it.
Depends on what you are claiming is pollution. The Koch brothers are heavily invested into carbon based energy. Their companies own and operate coal fired power planets, oil production and refinement and even natural gas.
In fact it's been estimated that as much as 80% of their fortune is tied directly to carbon based energy. They have a clear and vested interest in carbon based energy production and a dramatic decline in the use of carbon based energy would wreck havoc on their net worth.
Take from that what you will.
Glad someone pointed it out. Xbox has been a disaster of unmitigated proportions.
We have hope yet.
If NZ unfreezes DotCom's NZ assets he will have the resources to fight this case all the way to the supreme court. This is exactly the type of case we need to undo the illegal forfeiture laws in this country with a clear cut case of government abuse. Don't get me wrong, Dotcom's hands aren't clean, but I've never liked how the government proceeds with asset forfeitures to take away the defendants ability to defend themselves.
Nokia is going to fail economically long before that happens. They have less than a year till they run out of money completely. Then MS steps in with an offer to buy the company (for the patents). The only possible savior is if the government blocks the sale.
That would be a very bad assumption.
Facebook has been selling your data to government since day one. You might not be aware of this but all those rules that prevent government from spying on you don't apply if a private business does the spying on their own then sells the government the data. In fact it's even better when you put the information in yourself for them and that they never ever delete anything. Anyone that using Facebook with real information better fully understand what they are doing.
Savings. When you have 47 billion in the bank you don't need to really worry about profitability for a while.
The first electric car with 200+ mile range and a less than $25,000 price will be the biggest seller in the market overnight.
Just those two items alone would probably cause Musk to be right. And that's what he's betting, that the battery range and price will come down to the point that everyone can afford an electric car and that it will have a range similar to that of a gasoline engine. If the market delivers those specs I think he'll be right, you can drive an electric car for about $0.10 cents a mile, the gas savings alone would so massive everyone and their dog would want one.
What could you do if you didn't have to buy gas anymore?
In general correct, but that depends entirely on what you are protecting against.
A typical anti-armor projectile or shaped charge on impact will use a chemical reaction to create molten copper (from a copper ingot in the projectile) that is then explosively discharged into the armor at high speed on impact. This stream of liquid copper melts a hole though the armor and then sprays itself all over the crew compartment killing the occupants in a very gruesome manner while the projectile itself bounces harmlessly off the armor. The defensive armor against this type of munition fires a charge in the armor on impact that blasts the stream of liquid copper away from the remaining armor. This is typically referred to as active-armor and actually contains explosives that will explode when hit with molten metal.
In this case the projectile itself is relatively harmless, it's the molten copper that becomes the penetrator meant to kill those behind the armor. So you are correct, the point is to penetrate and kill, but there is more than one way to penetrate armor, and sometimes it's not the projectile at all that's meant to do the killing.
No fault of their own? Maybe that's true in Iceland (I don't know), but that is NOT true in the US. All those foreclosures are the direct result of people borrowing more money than they can afford, all because the stupid banks were willing to loan them the money. But you know what the best part is? Idiots like you that claim the bank misled them and it was the banks fault they borrowed all that money and spent it on vacations and SUV's.
Giving all those people who borrowed more money than they could afford a pass and reducing their mortgages is a direct slap in the face to everyone else who was responsible. It rewards bad behavior and you're a damn fool for even suggesting it. The biggest mistake in this whole thing as delaying the foreclosures because all it did was extend the pain.
You do not understand what happened with AIG and the banks.
But let me leave this little nugget for you, had the government not bailed out AIG almost every single bank in the US and probably world would have went under. We are talking a total collapse of the banking system and a run on the banks. The economic catastrophe that would have resulted would have made the bailout look like pennies.
There might have been a couple banks here and there that weren't exposed to the real estate losses and wouldn't have needed the AIG guarantees but the vast majority of banks would have went under and the FDIC insurance alone would have been more than the bailout of AIG.
You mean when he confessed and revealed where he hid the body for a reduced sentence?
The only reason the bank protected peoples' money for many years in the first place, and why Switzerland draws so many international deposits, is because they have (IMO) a long history of completely ignoring illegal deposits and are complicit in money laundering. They are the first bank of criminal enterprises that want guaranteed security without fear of disclosure or seizure. Why else do you think they were the bankers of the Nazi's? Why else do you think most of the worlds wealthiest citizens and biggest despots store "hidden" money in swiss accounts?
The Swiss have always been the bankers for the evilest people in the world and they have been because they don't care who you are or where your money came from. According to the lawsuit the US government is undertaking against the Swiss banks they not only solicited but actively assisted US citizens in hiding assets. Investigations by other countries have revealed the same pattern of behavior. There is a bit of purity in not caring about where the money came from, but a lot of that money is covered in blood and the Swiss have never cared.
Government workers in general are conscientious and careful workers. There are bad apples of course but they are in general good hard workers with good ethics that simply trade pay for job security.
But, the problem with government isn't the workers, it's the bureaucracy (and political management) forced on them that's goal is to prevent fraud (by putting 5000 pieces of red tape on every action) that causes inefficient government and the requirement that every selection be low bid that handicaps government. For those two reasons alone you'd have to be a friggen idiot to put government in charge of a power plant, even something not dangerous like coal and completely brain dead for something dangerous like a nuclear reactor.
Unless you are willing to cut the handcuffs, allow non competitive bidding (like the private sector can) and remove the red tape that prevents fraud (and expect fraud as a result) you are going to have the worst built, deficient running reactor in the world if you let government build or run it. I'll temper that statement with one caveat, if you allow the millitary to run it you will probably be fine for construction and operation but they'll probably take the waste and dump it in an open pit on the side of the reactor.
At least with private companies you can structure regulation to enhance their desire for safety by making unsafe conditions very unprofitable. But you have to give the regulators teeth, and you have to put in place laws that will pierce the corporate veil for serious accidents and you better be prepared to pay a LOT more for power.
You don't honestly think that the other search engine you use isn't doing EXACTLY what google does do you? That information is worth a lot of money and if you aren't paying for the service I guarantee they are selling it.
Horseshit. They never said what you claim. You can warp what they said all you want to try to justify that blatant lie but only a complete fucking idiot would believe you.