Your right !!... If only guns weren't so readily available he would have resorted to using far less efficient make shift weapons that people had a chance to defend them selves against, and he might have only gotten through 3 people max before being disabled rather than 50, how insightful of you!
Uh no. Because guess what? Even when there are severe restrictions on firearms, people still use them to commit crimes, getting them through black markets, smuggled, etc. Look at the North Hollywood Shootout. Every single one of the weapons that the three used was illegal. Either from the now-defunct Assault Weapons Ban to even federal law that made them illegal for the past 20 years.
I know guns are uber popular to some Americans but the whole "my right to defend myself" excuse is such BS,
No, my right to live without having to fear for my safety, and the ability to defend myself from threats, is an inalienable part of my natural rights.
if that is truly the reason then why don't you ban guns and buy body armour instead.
Because body armor isn't a catchall. There's lots of places it doesn't cover that still leave you vulnerable. And body armor is not magical. Just because it stops penetration from the bullet doesn't mean you won't die from it. The impact can still break ribs, cause internal bleeding, and more.
Everyone without brain damage can understand how even "certified" gun ownership will lead to an increase in availability of guns on the back market,
[Citation needed]
Since it's never happened. Except in locations where guns are banned. Like Venezuela, which has one of the highest homicide rates in the world (nearly 1 in 100 will be a victim of homicide according to UNODC stats).
and "certified" people are humans and can decide to be immoral too... what part of learning how to use a gun safely stops you from deciding to go crazy and kill some people because life treated you like shit.
And what part of banning them will stop someone from doing the same shit? Like people in China going on mass stabbing attacks. Or the dude in LA who plowed his car into a crowd of people. Crazy people are going to do crazy things. Nothing we can realistically do to prevent it short of mass brain control, and do you really want to propose that uber-dystopian environment?
On Halo, there was also the Siege of Madrigal egg. On level 5 (I believe), you'd steal a Banshee and fly up to a remote ledge...to hear that music playing.
The exact same can be said of any real power generation. Probably less than 100 years worth of fossil fuels left -- that includes coal, gas, and oil. Unless we find other sources or get a lot better at recycling, rare-earth metals used in construction of electronics will start getting depleted as well. There's already a shortage on tellurium or molybdenum, both of which are key components in manufacturing electronics including solar cells.
Really, it's all a race until we get fusion going. At which point all of the clean energy nonsense stops becoming relevant except as a stopgap in remote areas where fields of solar panels or wind turbines are practical.
The only reason Chernobyl was as bad as it was was simply due to three main factors: bad engineering, bad leadership, and immense political pressure. Had any one of those not been there, the worst would've been the plant shutting down. Due to the immense push from the Kremlin that nuclear power must not fail, due to the threat from the west, made them move their schedules much faster than would've been allowed safely. Had they had time to properly test their backup coolant pumps, or had leadership been more diligent in pushing back or getting the tests done, or had the engineering not led them to the point where there was no coolant flow while the diesel generators were spun up, the whole thing would've been avoided, or at least mitigated to the point of being a sneeze.
Depends upon how close you are and how strong the source is. There were cameras used to take pictures of the interior of Reactor Number 4's control room after the meltdown. They were so strong they had to use a mirror to get the images, and the cameras were nearly fried from it.
The difference when looking at life-long income has been disproven. As I stated. When you compare two persons of a similar experience, qualifications, and more, over the same time period, the gap vanishes, practically becoming statistical noise.
Another one, before they started losing customers en mass: IBM. Before they consolidated their employees to the GDC model (which had them working from homes or perhaps if they had a local IBM office), customers would have dedicated IBMers with them for a particular role. Now that many of those dedicated people were told to either move to a remote location or lose your job, well...
And all of this was before the massive overseas transition, too. This was when IBM still had a sizeable portion of their workforce in the US. Not even 8 years ago.
The fact that the uncorrected wage gap is what it is has not been disproven.
Yes it has. The original study looked at life-long income. When a man works for 40 years, the average woman will work for 20-30 years instead. Why? Maternity leave! Having a child. And maybe not even re-entering the workforce. That's where the supposed gap comes from. When you look at equal time, equal experience, equal qualifications, the "gap" becomes closer to 2-4%. Which can be easier dismissed as statistical noise, or explained by non-gender reasoning (such as weaker negotiation skills).
"The well-known U.S. wage gender gap is 76 cents for every dollar men earn."
No, it's been disproven. Over and over again. Stop posting this incorrect crap.
There are actually VRUs that already do this. They forward you to a operator if they detect you're getting frustrated. I think some of them also listen for expletives being uttered and use that for a cue. They started doing this where if the VRU stopped understanding what you're saying it would forward to an operator rather than keep trying over and over.
How is that funny? The only reason Seralini and Wakefield accumulated any sort of steam was the fact that their "research" was hidden behind a paywall, and to access it you both had to pay for it and agree not to republish it.
Still wrong. Normal means you match the sex you're born with. No matter how you want to church it up, there's no term for someone who matches the sex they're born with other than 'normal'. Because that is the norm.
If all papers were required to be freely accessible, we'd cut down on crap psuedoscience. People like Seralini or Wakefield wouldn't be able to pollute the scientific sphere with bad science. At least, not for long, since their papers would be openly accessible, and anyone who did allow them to be published, would likely quickly retract them or face having their reputation completely demolished.
Sorry, but normal is the perfect word. Abnormal is different from the normal.
You're of a normal gender. I didn't say you were completely normal. If you have other conditions then those are addressed elsewhere. What special pronouns do you want for your special snowflake status?
No, it was coined as a way for those people who are trans to hide the lack of normalcy of their condition.
Despite all of the wailing and protesting, being transgender is abnormal. It's a mental defect (gender dysphoria). That's why therapy is part of the treatment, which may also include SRS. That's why it's listed in the DSM as a mental disorder.
No matter how much you may rail against it, identifying as the sex you're born with does not give you a special title other than "normal".
Hell. With his lovely little South American adventure, any sort of reputation he had before is gone. Not so much burned gone, but covered in napalm and salted-the-Earth-for-good-measure gone. Anything he does now is just an attention grab.
Slashdot Mirror
Your right !!... If only guns weren't so readily available he would have resorted to using far less efficient make shift weapons that people had a chance to defend them selves against, and he might have only gotten through 3 people max before being disabled rather than 50, how insightful of you!
Uh no. Because guess what? Even when there are severe restrictions on firearms, people still use them to commit crimes, getting them through black markets, smuggled, etc. Look at the North Hollywood Shootout. Every single one of the weapons that the three used was illegal. Either from the now-defunct Assault Weapons Ban to even federal law that made them illegal for the past 20 years.
I know guns are uber popular to some Americans but the whole "my right to defend myself" excuse is such BS,
No, my right to live without having to fear for my safety, and the ability to defend myself from threats, is an inalienable part of my natural rights.
if that is truly the reason then why don't you ban guns and buy body armour instead.
Because body armor isn't a catchall. There's lots of places it doesn't cover that still leave you vulnerable. And body armor is not magical. Just because it stops penetration from the bullet doesn't mean you won't die from it. The impact can still break ribs, cause internal bleeding, and more.
Everyone without brain damage can understand how even "certified" gun ownership will lead to an increase in availability of guns on the back market,
[Citation needed]
Since it's never happened. Except in locations where guns are banned. Like Venezuela, which has one of the highest homicide rates in the world (nearly 1 in 100 will be a victim of homicide according to UNODC stats).
and "certified" people are humans and can decide to be immoral too... what part of learning how to use a gun safely stops you from deciding to go crazy and kill some people because life treated you like shit.
And what part of banning them will stop someone from doing the same shit? Like people in China going on mass stabbing attacks. Or the dude in LA who plowed his car into a crowd of people. Crazy people are going to do crazy things. Nothing we can realistically do to prevent it short of mass brain control, and do you really want to propose that uber-dystopian environment?
The funny thing about that is that City 17 is not that far from Chernobyl. So that explains how he ended up there after the G-Man dropped him off.
On Halo, there was also the Siege of Madrigal egg. On level 5 (I believe), you'd steal a Banshee and fly up to a remote ledge...to hear that music playing.
"Fuel-free energy"? Did you fail at physics or something? There's no such thing as fuel-free energy. Do you even science, bro?
The exact same can be said of any real power generation. Probably less than 100 years worth of fossil fuels left -- that includes coal, gas, and oil. Unless we find other sources or get a lot better at recycling, rare-earth metals used in construction of electronics will start getting depleted as well. There's already a shortage on tellurium or molybdenum, both of which are key components in manufacturing electronics including solar cells.
Really, it's all a race until we get fusion going. At which point all of the clean energy nonsense stops becoming relevant except as a stopgap in remote areas where fields of solar panels or wind turbines are practical.
The only reason Chernobyl was as bad as it was was simply due to three main factors: bad engineering, bad leadership, and immense political pressure. Had any one of those not been there, the worst would've been the plant shutting down. Due to the immense push from the Kremlin that nuclear power must not fail, due to the threat from the west, made them move their schedules much faster than would've been allowed safely. Had they had time to properly test their backup coolant pumps, or had leadership been more diligent in pushing back or getting the tests done, or had the engineering not led them to the point where there was no coolant flow while the diesel generators were spun up, the whole thing would've been avoided, or at least mitigated to the point of being a sneeze.
Depends upon how close you are and how strong the source is. There were cameras used to take pictures of the interior of Reactor Number 4's control room after the meltdown. They were so strong they had to use a mirror to get the images, and the cameras were nearly fried from it.
The difference when looking at life-long income has been disproven. As I stated. When you compare two persons of a similar experience, qualifications, and more, over the same time period, the gap vanishes, practically becoming statistical noise.
In other words: "I can't pull out specific examples so I will work off of generalities". Good job there, champ.
Another one, before they started losing customers en mass: IBM. Before they consolidated their employees to the GDC model (which had them working from homes or perhaps if they had a local IBM office), customers would have dedicated IBMers with them for a particular role. Now that many of those dedicated people were told to either move to a remote location or lose your job, well... And all of this was before the massive overseas transition, too. This was when IBM still had a sizeable portion of their workforce in the US. Not even 8 years ago.
Yes it has. The original study looked at life-long income. When a man works for 40 years, the average woman will work for 20-30 years instead. Why? Maternity leave! Having a child. And maybe not even re-entering the workforce. That's where the supposed gap comes from. When you look at equal time, equal experience, equal qualifications, the "gap" becomes closer to 2-4%. Which can be easier dismissed as statistical noise, or explained by non-gender reasoning (such as weaker negotiation skills).
"The well-known U.S. wage gender gap is 76 cents for every dollar men earn." No, it's been disproven. Over and over again. Stop posting this incorrect crap.
There are actually VRUs that already do this. They forward you to a operator if they detect you're getting frustrated. I think some of them also listen for expletives being uttered and use that for a cue. They started doing this where if the VRU stopped understanding what you're saying it would forward to an operator rather than keep trying over and over.
How is that funny? The only reason Seralini and Wakefield accumulated any sort of steam was the fact that their "research" was hidden behind a paywall, and to access it you both had to pay for it and agree not to republish it.
Still wrong. Normal means you match the sex you're born with. No matter how you want to church it up, there's no term for someone who matches the sex they're born with other than 'normal'. Because that is the norm.
If all papers were required to be freely accessible, we'd cut down on crap psuedoscience. People like Seralini or Wakefield wouldn't be able to pollute the scientific sphere with bad science. At least, not for long, since their papers would be openly accessible, and anyone who did allow them to be published, would likely quickly retract them or face having their reputation completely demolished.
Did I trigger you, tumblrina? Do you need to rail about muh soggy knee and teh patriarchy somewhere?
Sorry, but normal is the perfect word. Abnormal is different from the normal. You're of a normal gender. I didn't say you were completely normal. If you have other conditions then those are addressed elsewhere. What special pronouns do you want for your special snowflake status?
No, it was coined as a way for those people who are trans to hide the lack of normalcy of their condition. Despite all of the wailing and protesting, being transgender is abnormal. It's a mental defect (gender dysphoria). That's why therapy is part of the treatment, which may also include SRS. That's why it's listed in the DSM as a mental disorder. No matter how much you may rail against it, identifying as the sex you're born with does not give you a special title other than "normal".
Not quite. Those are digital /payment methods/. Not currencies. They are still backed up by actual fiat money.
Hell. With his lovely little South American adventure, any sort of reputation he had before is gone. Not so much burned gone, but covered in napalm and salted-the-Earth-for-good-measure gone. Anything he does now is just an attention grab.
Guess the SOX ain't happening.