They told me if I voted for Romney the government would engage in unconstitutional wiretapping.
Nothing is more amusing to me that watching leftists trying to pretend this is all okay because it's Fox and not what they consider real news organizations. I hope you remember this moment when the next Republican president takes office.
Nothing more amusing than watching conservatives complaining about "leftists trying to pretend this is all okay" when virtually none are.
Sure those people exist, but in my experience that level of hypocrisy is a confined to a marginalized fringe on the left.
Hell, just out of curiosity I checked out what Daily Kos had to say. It's mostly schadenfreude and laughing at the hypocrisy but no where do I see them pretending it's ok.
It's just hundreds of innocent Mexicans murdered by guns the administration supplied to drug cartels. How is that a scandal?
Meanwhile, Mitt Romney made his dog ride on top of the family car once. Sorry widows and orphans of murdered Mexicans, you lose.
It wasn't the administration, it was the Phoenix branch of the ATF.
And they didn't supply the guys to the cartels, they allowed individual smugglers to cross the border with the hopes they could shut down the entire network.
Look at it for what it was, a very high risk Arizona ATF operation that failed badly, and left the Mexicans carrying the bag. Similar operations also occurred under Bush with the difference that they were smaller and the Mexicans were involved. But the Bush or Obama administrations didn't have anything to do with it.
Is it a scandal? Sure, a major law enforcement operation failed spectacularly and let a lot of guns into Mexico.
But the actions of a Phoenix ATF director over multiple administrations doesn't have a damn thing to do with Obama.
That's a huge exaggeration. I will say a lot of scientists believe we need to better regulate those activities, because it's very easy for humans to have a massive influence on the planet we need to be aware of what we're doing and what impacts it's causing. But 'for humans to stop everything they are doing', I can't think of a single scientist who suggests that, I'm sure they kinda exist, but only as a tiny uninfluential fringe who shouldn't impact this discussion.
If it was a critical safety issue I might agree. But not only had this safety issue had existed since the plant opened 50 years ago, but the regulator had actually known about it for over a year before even deciding that it was a serious safety issue. So it's hard to make the argument that it was such a critical safety issue that it had to be addressed immediately in November of '07 instead of waiting a month or two until a shutdown could be properly prepared for so the medical isotope supply would be unaffected.
I don't like overruling the regulator but this is a rare case where the regulator created a safety issue by following a strict interpretation of the rules and ignoring common sense.
How exactly does the mayor's silence say anything?
He's already denied it.
If he keeps denying it, his accusers will say "that proves he did it and is trying to bury the issue", but his supporters will simply take him at his word and say we need to move on.
If he keeps quiet, then again his accusers will say "that proves he's guilty" while his supporters will say "He's already denied it. What more is there to say? Are you trying to bully him into making a false confession or shaming him out of office for something he didn't do?",
Your explanation is applicable when there's scandals with non-specific allegations but no evidence, so denying it is all you can really do. Here we have specific evidence that's been shown to the public and the promise of more evidence to come. If he was innocent he'd say the evidence was fake (since he'd know a legit video could never surface to contradict him), or say why it didn't show what it claimed to show (since there'd be evidence of his innocence)
Instead he didn't deny the evidence, he just ignored it, which strongly suggests that he knows it's both legitimate and accurate.
When liberals quote science they use one word, "STAPH".
As in the bacteria? I'm sorry but huh??
Many environmentalist believe man went wrong when he discovered fire. They will not be satisfied until humans are back to living in trees and not burning anything. Mankind is unarguably bad for the natural environment because we are, wait for it, UN-natural. Unless some powerful outside force comes along and constrains us mans rule and destruction of the Earth will continue until some apocalypse destroys us all.
Have a nice day.
I'm not a huge fan of a lot of self-described environmentalists, but you're describing a complete caricature. And the environmental policies that were the actual topic of discussion not only made a big difference for the environment, but also long term economic impacts.
And, Solyndra ends up like Solyndra because we lost a subsidy battle with China.
And we lost that battle because we were subsidizing a company using the wrong technology. Governments are terrible at "picking winners" and even worse at cutting their losses rather than shoveling good money after bad. If Solyndra had a good chance of success, they would have been able to attract private funding, and wouldn't have been asking for taxpayer money in the first place. Subsidizing basic R&D often makes sense. Subsidizing manufacturing does not.
Government loans aren't about picking winners, they're about encouraging certain types of business (and unfortunately doling out pork). They should have lower rate of return than private loans since they should be about encouraging business that benefits the country but isn't lucrative enough to attract private investment.
No, the nuclear regular did the correct thing as AECL was not dealing with the safety issue in a timely manner. AECL could have forewarned of the maintenance shutdown in sufficient time such that other global sources could ramp up to meet demand. Some how the "economist" that thinks they are "prime minister" (perhaps I have that inverted?) also thinks himself an expert in nuclear energy and the risk management thereof! Both the AECL and the government did the wrong thing, period. Keep in mind that this reactor is already long past it's designed lifetime.
Where did the 'economist' come from? (Seriously, your phrase 'Some how the "economist" that thinks they are "prime minister" (perhaps I have that inverted?)' is really confusing, I assume you mean Harper??)
From the article and what I recall from the period. The backup safety features had been part of the original design, and approval, but had unintentionally not been enabled. The CNSC was told about this before the plant was re-licensed in 2006, in November 2007, during a maintenance shutdown, the CNSC said it was a license violation and they had to extend the shutdown and fix it. It was this unplanned extended shutdown that lead to the isotope shortage and the big controversy.
Technically CNSC did exactly what their mandate required when they decided it was a license violation, but at a cost of critical medical isotopes. And after restarting it took less than 3 months to get the backup safety system running. Also note that all the parties backed the restart, so this wasn't some crazy Conservative decision.
The reason the NRU was still running and hadn't been replaced is another unfortunately story. Basically when they designed it they said it would have safety features X, Y, and Z, but when they finished Z ever so slightly didn't quite work. Z wasn't a necessary safety feature, but because they said they would have it, and they didn't, the plant never got approval.
I'm not sure you're seeing a bias by the author as much as a list of actions by the Conservatives (which are generally anti-liberal, anti-environmentalist, and pro-business political moves).
Firing regulatory officials for "lack of leadership"?
This head of the Nuclear regulatory agency got fired over controversy that led to an important research reactor (that manufactured important medical isotopes) being shut down for a while over safety issues. The minister eventually fired the head of the agency and the government forced the reactor to restart. Overall most people felt the reactor should keep running (and I'd agree). Either way I'm not sure I'd really call it an attack on science as much as a struggle over agency independence. Looking through the article (from 2008) I found this fun little tidbit
A ministerial directive on Dec. 10 ordered the CNSC to reopen the site. The agency refused, insisting a backup safety system be installed to prevent the risk of a meltdown during an earthquake or other disaster.
Too bad she couldn't have found a job in Fukushima.
Discontinuing a mandatory census?
Stopping the collection of good scientific data in favour of some fuzzy ideological principals? Since then we've had a few provincial elections where the polls turned out to be completely inaccurate, I wouldn't be surprised if that was related.
Rolling back environmental regulations? Withdraw from Kyoto Accord? Changes to fisheries regulations?
Environmental regs are largely suggested by science, as are carbon emission regs and regs to keep fisheries healthy.
Frankly the message I get from this is they care more about the short term economic impact than the environment, and combined with their other actions in gutting research and muzzling scientists there seems to be an active effort to cripple science so that science can't contradict their policies.
That is true. Even if Slashdot would be capable of providing enough writing space for a ten-volume manuscript, it is still necessary to have a better command of the subject. I am not a professional in this particular area and don't have access to specific, statistically significant cases. My opinion is based on personal observations and on what I read. My opinion may be right or wrong, but I have it and it's mine. And you have yours.
BTW, if your friend is depressed, I don't think you should give him a map to the nearest tall building. You are free to persuade him - and he is free to listen to you or not to listen. Usually people do listen, especially those who don't have physical, material reasons for their decision. (That's what I read!)
Depression is kinda nasty in that it's hell to endure and depending on the causes really hard to get out of. People help but at the end of the day there's often not a lot you can do. Note, this is partially conjecture since I hadn't known the guy for a few years and the girl was a relatively new acquaintance at the time. That being said I had one reasonably close friend who went through a divorce and used me a lot for emotional support, she later confessed she considered suicide at the time so who knows what could have happened but she (and the other girl who survived her attempt) are definitely a lot happier now.
... at least because they are not physically capable anymore of the exertion that is required to do it. Quite possible. Still, plenty of young ones around to ruin one's day. And not so young too - look at the FBI's list of most wanted criminals; most of them are well past their teens. (But, of course, those are unusually bad; statistically, they don't matter.)
Regardless of why they stop they do stop, I suspect a lot of it is just plain maturity. As for the FBI list it's actually a worse example than you realize, almost all of them were listed for activities from more then a decade ago:)
More guns = more suicides, whatever you think of the different methods the numbers seem to suggest guns make it easier/more tempting.
Romeo and Juliet, something like that? Those were successful all the way through. Does the society want them dead? Not really. But, darwinistically speaking, the society benefits from mentally stable people, not from head cases. Those *should* evolve out, in the grand scheme of things. Like taxes, if you support a certain behavior you get more of it. There are people who try to commit suicide repeatedly (and fail N-1 times out of that.) Then firemen are summoned, the police, and the doctors... what for? In the USA the Constitution guarantees your right for pursuit of happiness, but it does not define what form it may take. If you cannot live without your man|girl, don't. Will I be sad? Probably. But I cannot tell you to suffer for years, if not for the rest of your life, just because it is in my personal interests, either political or religious, to keep you alive. That would be awfully selfish of me. On that subject:
No, two people who didn't know eachother. They didn't have some illness, they weren't a drag on society, and I wouldn't call them particularly mentally unstable. They were just extremely depressed for a period. I'm sorry dude but you sound like a massive asshole. People who are so depressed they're willing to kill themselves and your solution is to give them a hand and act like you're some kind of altruist? Have you actually met someone who's attempted or committed suicide? You seem to be throwing out these cardboard stereotypes about suicidal people, criminals, old people, everyone. There's such insane variety around any kind of label you can imagine and you seem to be ignoring all of it.
I'm not sure where you live, but in most countries criminals cannot stop. There are the usual socioeconomic reasons for that. There is not enough jobs even for citizens who never jaywalked. What chance, in your opinion, a man with a burglary or a theft under his belt has? How many store managers will be happy to give him the keys to the money box? The only jobs that are left for them are menial jobs, like digging of ditches. Maybe one can become a licensed professional, like an electrician or a plumber, but that's not easy - there is a requirement for apprenticeship, and with that see above.
Can a criminal reform? Yes. Most of those success stories are from white collar crime, where for example an accountant made a "mistake" toward his own bank account. Just once in his whole life. He won't do that again. Kevin Mitnick is a good example. Some violent criminals embrace religion in prison and also become ex-criminals. The vast majority, however, is stuck in the vicious circle forever. They don't know how to live differently, and the society rejects them even if they try to end their wrong ways; they become career criminals.
That's a lovely four paragraph explanation explaining how criminals are criminals for life. Unfortunately it's simply not true, even for violent crime.
It doesn't matter how much you argue otherwise, crime is a symptom of youth and as they age people generally turn away from a life of crime. (I wouldn't be surprised if incarceration was negatively correlated with future offences but that's an unrelated debate).
Should the you who's having a really crappy day have the power to kill the you who will have a lifetime of other days?
Unconditionally YES. No man can be called free if he doesn't have this ultimate freedom - and the responsibility that comes with it.
People have moments of weakness, if possible I'd like to make it less tempting for those moments to end with their own death.
I believe in free will and self-determination. It is wise to keep dangerous temptations away from children - they don't know any better. But once a person becomes an adult, this restriction is lifted and he is free to do whatever he wants - as long as it doesn't clash with the same right of someone else. If he was wrong... too bad, he should have asked for an advice, or perhaps he should have thought about it a bit more. If someone, after all, suicides - respect his decision; he had his reasons; one day you may have yours. None of us live forever, as far as I know, and not everyone is excited about spending his last ten years of life in a bed, paralyzed, unable to even eat on his own, and over those ten years burning through the entire education fund that was being saved up for your grandchildren. When your time is up, it's up - deal with it. Many suicides are just an easy escape from a painful and terminal illness.
I'm not arguing that people shouldn't be allowed to commit suicide but you seem to be arguing that not only should we not try to prevent it, but it should even be easier.
I know a guy who committed suicide and a girl who attempted suicide and no one is happy that he succeeded or that she failed (least of all her!). I understand if you think that guns are worth the risk, but can't you at least acknowledge that more people killing themselves is a bad thing??
If every criminal is armed, and constantly committing home invasions, then sure, I might be in favour of a lot more guns, but I don't think that's the world.
Do you think criminals commit home invasions just on some special days, like Santa Claus? They go out and burglarize residences until they are caught or killed. There are very few criminals who were successful for a while but then, before they were arrested, suddenly saw the light and became honest workers. Most soldier on until stopped. Criminals are not very smart. Smart people don't need to rob houses; we get paid big bucks for sitting in our chairs and pressing keys on the keyboard.
By the way, all criminals are always armed, as far as the victim is concerned. Not everyone carries a gun, but a crowbar will be plenty sufficient for an old man (that happened too, and more than once. Burglars don't like witnesses; dead men tell no tales.) I read that knife crime in UK is off the charts, and I can understand why - knives are cheap, silent, deadly, easy to make, and easy to dispose of. Gun crime is also rising as a side effect of that - criminals need guns to defend themselves against criminals with knives. It's not a mutual appreciation society, you know.
Actually I'm guessing the ones who don't get caught or killed stop on their own once they pass their mid-twenties. Either way I don't think criminals are all the hardened killers you imagine them to be, there are those who will constantly seek out the deadliest weapon they can find and be willing to use it, but I think most of society is on a bell curve, with criminals at the end of one tail, and the tail gets narrower and narrower with increasing levels of depravity until you actually start to get to the group you're talking about.
If someone wants to kill himself, he will do it eventually. And if someone doesn't want to kill himself, a gun will not hypnotize him into that. I, personally, don't care either way. A free man has power of life and death over his own body.
Should the you who's having a really crappy day have the power to kill the you who will have a lifetime of other days? People have moments of weakness, if possible I'd like to make it less tempting for those moments to end with their own death.
Either way you're bringing up scenarios that, while they may justify a gun, aren't that common. If every criminal is armed, and constantly committing home invasions, then sure, I might be in favour of a lot more guns, but I don't think that's the world. With strong gun control, even if a few tragic scenarios happen where someone could have really used a gun, I think a lot more tragic scenarios will have been avoided.
No, actually, they don't give a shit. I could make myself a firearm, RIGHT NOW, and they're OK with that (so long as it doesn't infringe on certain things, like bore diameter, barrel length if it's a shotgun or pistol.. stuff you can own, but need some licenses (tax stamps) from the ATF to own).
For the price of a single 3D printer you could slam out dozens of zip guns. Don't even need any serious machining tools for that.
The whole 3D printed gun scare is just that. A scare. It's headlines. That is all.
I doubt most people have the technical expertise and equipment to make a zip gun, and for those who do it's probably not going to be a very effective gun.
With a 3D printer you don't need technical expertise, you just download the design and print, and before long they're probably going to be a lot more effective than the vast majority of zip guns.
That being said for the US I think it is just a scare for now since US gun control is already non-existent. The problem is if the US ever tries to get gun control then shutting off the supply is suddenly that much harder.
at some point 97% of geologists believed plate tectonics was false at some point 97% of scientists didn't believe that dino's became birds or believed that they were just the slow and lumbering lizards like in 60's movies
almost every major scientific advance has been made by a few "rogue" scientists advocating rogue theories which at one time have been dismissed by most scientists in the field
So how do you know you're with the 3% of geologists who believed in plate tectonics and not the 3% who thought the moon was made of cheese?
Given all the 3% vs 97% incidents though history how often do you think the 3% of scientists were closer to the truth than the 97% as opposed to the other way around?
What do you know that the 97% don't know or don't understand?
It's also useless, unless you are The Incredible Hulk. A man with a bat loses 100% against a man with a small pen knife. Intertia is not your friend. I know that it's possible to do fencing with heavy weapons, but it requires a very uncommon physique. This article could be useful, even though it talks about an edged weapon. A blunt weapon, like a bat, is far less useful in a battle.
It's not fencing, the intruder doesn't have a shield. I swing a bat the inertia is going somewhere, that somewhere is the intruder.
Oh, you said "kids?" Well then, imagine that the criminal is holding your daughter. With a handgun, from several yards away, you can hit him in the eye of your choice, and the hostage will be only slightly scared. Can you swing a heavy bat at the same criminal when he can always push your kid under the strike? When I said "overwhelming force," there is a reason for that. This is not a duel between two French aristocrats; it's not a game.
You're expecting the average person to shoot the criminal in the eye of their choice while the criminal has a close family member at gun point (and somehow do this before the criminal realizes it's easier to shoot the dude with the gun).
You've been watching too many movies.
And you think the bat as a weapon is impractical?!?!?
A strike in the head is often fatal - instantly, or a short time later. There are several medical reasons for that, and none of them are particularly pleasant to discuss.
Yeah, I know once someone tried inventing this sport called 'boxing' but in the first fight they tried the two dudes hit eachother in the head and just fell over dead and they gave it up.
True story.
Russia isn't exactly a model of good governance.
It's worse pretty much everywhere else, except a handful of countries. But even in the UK the percentage of gun crimes is rising with every year. The situation in the USA is much worse still.
UK, way fewer guns way fewer murders.
Most of the criminal firearm problem in North America is due to guns coming in from the US.
Then please ask Obama to stop sending weapons to Mexican mafia. But regardless, Mexican narcocartels are rich enough to buy their full-auto weapons anywhere in the world. You simply cannot get most of these weapons in gun stores in the USA.
Wow... you just can't help yourself from taking a completely random shot at Obama.
As I said, guns are always easy to get for a criminal. He is already in that "sophisticated underworld," where drugs, weapons and everything else is available for a reasonable price. Do I know where to get a gun with removed s/n? No, I do not - and I have no need to know, and it's illegal to own one anyway. But criminals don't care about laws.
They are not always easy to get for criminals, in other countries criminals rarely have guns, they have guns in the US because it's really easy to get guns.
Every extra gun makes everyone else a little less safe.
There must be rivers of blood flowing down the streets of Swiss cities... and those poor American colonists, how did they survive, being 100% armed?
Dude, I come at you swinging a bat with a bit of surprise and unless you have some serious martial arts training I win.
There won't be any surprise in most cases of self-defense. If anyone is surprised, it would be the victim. The criminal is fully aware of everything because he initiated the situation.
Now about the bat. Make one for yourself out of packing foam, grab a friend and play that out. You will be defeated after the first swing, most likely.
Why is that? Because you cannot, probably, hold the bat in one hand, like medieval warriors held their swords. (There were two-handed swords too, but that's a different story.) A bat just doesn't have the right balance for one-handed operation. The medieval fighter held a shield in another hand. That part is essential. What happens when you grab the bat with both hands, take a swing - and miss, of course? YOU ARE EXPOSED to an instant knockout blow to your head, and you have nothing to defend against that blow because your both hands are holding the bat - and the bat is on trajectory away from the target. You don't even have a fellow soldier to the right of you, watching your now exposed front and right side. You are dead meat.
The nearest match to a bat among medieval weapons would be either a club, or a mace, or a Morgenstern. You do not know how to correctly wield those. Hardly anyone has that skill today. Huge inertia of these weapons requires special handling. Without this knowledge and skills you will lose, instantly.
It would be awfully arrogant to assume that one can just grab a piece of wood and become an invincible warrior - despite humanity's thousands of years of experience with exactly these weapons. Criminals know more about fighting with and without such weapons than any green-skinned programmer, fresh from a cubicle. You will not win. If you want to win, use overwhelming force, just once. Use the weapon that you are familiar with. (You are always welcome to train with a bat - but not on a baseball field. You'd have to train for combat.)
It's big, heavy, and probably metal.
Swing with two hands and an adrenaline rush and you don't risk missing and killing one of the kids (or going through the wall and killing a neighbour).
Besides it's a contrived situation. Given me and the criminal both having guns and me and the criminal both having a bat I'll opt for the bats every time.
Trayvon nearly killed a man??? At most he started to lay on a beating, assuming it would have escalated to murder is ludicrous
That was alleged, however little we know so far. The trial will expose everything that transpired, and then we will know for sure. Meanwhile, it does look like Trayvon was beating a man who was down. How much of head trauma are you willing to take before you depart into the better world?
We might find out in the trial. Besides, even if Trayvon was beating a man who was down that's a long way from murder, sure it might have eventually resulted in death, but most likely the worst case was some broken bones and a concussion.
I'd like to live in a world where two people can get in a fight without one of them ending up shot.
Criminals have guns because they're friggin everywhere because you don't have gun control. Get serious gun control and there's no guns for the criminals to get.
I was born and raised in a country with very strict gun controls. Even today a common man cannot have a handgun there. Still, criminals always had handguns. Where did they come from, one may ask?
Russia isn't exactly a model of good governance. Most of the criminal firearm problem in North America is due to guns coming in from the US.
Even if you take legal firearms away from everyone on the planet, manufactured firearms will be still with us. Do you want to go with bare hands and best intent
[Channeling Bush...] "Who cares what you want?" - the criminal is not interested in the fight to end; he now wants you dead, even if a moment earlier he'd be content with just maiming you.
If he isn't overcome with debilitating pain.
Most likely he'll just do nothing (which is why old people tend to be victims).
Old people are more likely to be targeted than Arnold lookalikes. Among those who are targeted, some are fighting back, and others do not. There was an old man who was killed by a gang of feral teenagers - they were playing their "knock-out kings" murder game. The man was Asian; he was not raised in the USA, and probably he believed that the government will protect him. He took that belief to the grave.
"The man was Asian; he was not raised in the USA, and probably he believed that the government will protect him. He took that belief to the grave."
Really?
Besides, it's unfortunate, but the best way to protect old people is to create a less violent society.
Depending on his size I might first grab a bat or other object and start pummelling him.
It would be patently insane. What if you lose? Just stop and think about it for a moment. There are very few people on this planet who can take a bat and be sure that they defeat an intruder. In most cases the intruder takes the bat away from you and then uses it on you - this is an unfortunate quality of a contact weapon.
Besides, you throw away your gun, grab a bat... and then the intruder pulls out his gun. What happens now?
Remember, your duty is not to the intruder, it is to yourself and to those who you protect. You are allowed by law to use deadly force only if you fear for your life. If you do, the threat is large enough to use that deadly force.
If you do not think the threat is that grave and you can get away with using a bat, this *legally* converts the situation from self-defense into a banal quarrel. The intruder then can sue you for millions if you hit him with a bat and break his arm. This has happened before. You always need to know on which side of the fence you are - are you afraid for your life or not? You cannot claim one but act according to the other. It's the legal divide between going to prison and staying free. An armed confrontation is not the right time and place to think. You have to have the thinking done ahead of time. The only thinking you can afford is to match the situation to one of templates that you prepared ahead of time. If you start thinking deeper, you will lose - your actions will be examined under the microscope in court.
Dude, I come at you swinging a bat with a bit of surprise and unless you have some serious martial arts training I win.
Pepper spray simply inflicts pain, very intense pain, to the eyes no less. You can't just ignore that,
As I said, many street drugs reduce sensitivity to pain.
Besides, if there's enough guns around that the victim has a gun then wouldn't the perpetrator have one too?
Those are statistically unrelated variables. You should expect the perpetrator to have a weapon on him. It does not matter if it is a gun or a knife or a pipe or just his fists. See Trayvon's example - he nearly killed a man with his bare hands. Trayvon was a tall and strong football player, and his victim was a short and skinny Hispanic.
Regardless, criminals already have guns, and they will always have guns, as long as it benefits them. If you disarm yourself, this only makes their job easier. A and B are not related. Get a gun, know how to use it, and establish for yourself very rigid scenarios where use of a gun is required. Then you will be prepared.
Oh, by the way, often home intruders come as a team.
Dealing with false gods, pacifism vs fighting (the "The City on the Edge of Forever" time travel to pre WWII ep), environmentalism (The Devil in the Dark, ie 'Dammit Jim, I'm a doctor not a bricklayer!'), oh, and the friggin prime directive (colonialism anyone?).
Yeah it had crappy production values but to say it wasn't about 'ideas' really misses a lot.
Uhura was shown to be a strong, independent woman in the original series. She doesn't get a lot of screen time, but she holds her own. (Especially considering the time period.) She's almost always shown in a positive, independent light and I think she's one of the few sci-fi women who never (or rarely) needs to be protected or rescued. Look at Charlie X, Mirror Mirror, Search for Spock... compared to most franchises, sci-fi or not, Uhura does surprisingly well.
And holy crap, she was on the command deck of a military vessel.
Can you tell me what's wrong with pretty colors and snappy writing? Those are the kinds of claims that infuriate me. Would I want to have more science-fiction in Abrams Trek? Yes, of course. Why would it need to come at the expense of good visuals and snappy writing, though? All it does is reinforce the idea that modern "cool" movies or TV shows can't possibly have depth, or that deep movies and TV shows need to look shitty and have wooden, sluggish dialogue.
I think it has to do with risk. Inception had some intellectual depth as did the first matrix movie and they were great. But the 2nd and 3rd matrix movies tried the same thing and failed horribly. Star Trek: Nemesis seemed to try for a big idea and Khan style epic villain, and it failed. It's easy to throw in a lot of money into CG and a fast paced script and get a decent movie that will make decent money. But if you then throw a concept into that movie then it all depends on the concept and the special effects no longer matter. If it works you might get Khan, but you fail you get Nemesis and for $200 million that's a pretty big bet.
Slashdot Mirror
They told me if I voted for Romney the government would engage in unconstitutional wiretapping.
Nothing is more amusing to me that watching leftists trying to pretend this is all okay because it's Fox and not what they consider real news organizations. I hope you remember this moment when the next Republican president takes office.
Nothing more amusing than watching conservatives complaining about "leftists trying to pretend this is all okay" when virtually none are.
Sure those people exist, but in my experience that level of hypocrisy is a confined to a marginalized fringe on the left.
Hell, just out of curiosity I checked out what Daily Kos had to say. It's mostly schadenfreude and laughing at the hypocrisy but no where do I see them pretending it's ok.
It wasn't Holder, it was the Phoenix ATF.
If the guy who's been delivering your mail for 20 years drops one of your letters in the mud is it Obama's fault via the Postmaster General?
It's just hundreds of innocent Mexicans murdered by guns the administration supplied to drug cartels. How is that a scandal?
Meanwhile, Mitt Romney made his dog ride on top of the family car once. Sorry widows and orphans of murdered Mexicans, you lose.
It wasn't the administration, it was the Phoenix branch of the ATF.
And they didn't supply the guys to the cartels, they allowed individual smugglers to cross the border with the hopes they could shut down the entire network.
Look at it for what it was, a very high risk Arizona ATF operation that failed badly, and left the Mexicans carrying the bag. Similar operations also occurred under Bush with the difference that they were smaller and the Mexicans were involved. But the Bush or Obama administrations didn't have anything to do with it.
Is it a scandal? Sure, a major law enforcement operation failed spectacularly and let a lot of guns into Mexico.
But the actions of a Phoenix ATF director over multiple administrations doesn't have a damn thing to do with Obama.
blind people were stupid.
That's a huge exaggeration. I will say a lot of scientists believe we need to better regulate those activities, because it's very easy for humans to have a massive influence on the planet we need to be aware of what we're doing and what impacts it's causing. But 'for humans to stop everything they are doing', I can't think of a single scientist who suggests that, I'm sure they kinda exist, but only as a tiny uninfluential fringe who shouldn't impact this discussion.
If it was a critical safety issue I might agree. But not only had this safety issue had existed since the plant opened 50 years ago, but the regulator had actually known about it for over a year before even deciding that it was a serious safety issue. So it's hard to make the argument that it was such a critical safety issue that it had to be addressed immediately in November of '07 instead of waiting a month or two until a shutdown could be properly prepared for so the medical isotope supply would be unaffected.
I don't like overruling the regulator but this is a rare case where the regulator created a safety issue by following a strict interpretation of the rules and ignoring common sense.
How exactly does the mayor's silence say anything?
He's already denied it.
If he keeps denying it, his accusers will say "that proves he did it and is trying to bury the issue", but his supporters will simply take him at his word and say we need to move on.
If he keeps quiet, then again his accusers will say "that proves he's guilty" while his supporters will say "He's already denied it. What more is there to say? Are you trying to bully him into making a false confession or shaming him out of office for something he didn't do?",
Your explanation is applicable when there's scandals with non-specific allegations but no evidence, so denying it is all you can really do. Here we have specific evidence that's been shown to the public and the promise of more evidence to come. If he was innocent he'd say the evidence was fake (since he'd know a legit video could never surface to contradict him), or say why it didn't show what it claimed to show (since there'd be evidence of his innocence)
Instead he didn't deny the evidence, he just ignored it, which strongly suggests that he knows it's both legitimate and accurate.
When liberals quote science they use one word, "STAPH".
As in the bacteria? I'm sorry but huh??
Many environmentalist believe man went wrong when he discovered fire. They will not be satisfied until humans are back to living in trees and not burning anything. Mankind is unarguably bad for the natural environment because we are, wait for it, UN-natural. Unless some powerful outside force comes along and constrains us mans rule and destruction of the Earth will continue until some apocalypse destroys us all.
Have a nice day.
I'm not a huge fan of a lot of self-described environmentalists, but you're describing a complete caricature. And the environmental policies that were the actual topic of discussion not only made a big difference for the environment, but also long term economic impacts.
And, Solyndra ends up like Solyndra because we lost a subsidy battle with China.
And we lost that battle because we were subsidizing a company using the wrong technology. Governments are terrible at "picking winners" and even worse at cutting their losses rather than shoveling good money after bad. If Solyndra had a good chance of success, they would have been able to attract private funding, and wouldn't have been asking for taxpayer money in the first place. Subsidizing basic R&D often makes sense. Subsidizing manufacturing does not.
Government loans aren't about picking winners, they're about encouraging certain types of business (and unfortunately doling out pork). They should have lower rate of return than private loans since they should be about encouraging business that benefits the country but isn't lucrative enough to attract private investment.
Hey - we don't know if he is a guy. Her could be a girl. Or a dog. Or a AI. Who knows?
tnk1 is a guy's name.
No, the nuclear regular did the correct thing as AECL was not dealing with the safety issue in a timely manner. AECL could have forewarned of the maintenance shutdown in sufficient time such that other global sources could ramp up to meet demand. Some how the "economist" that thinks they are "prime minister" (perhaps I have that inverted?) also thinks himself an expert in nuclear energy and the risk management thereof! Both the AECL and the government did the wrong thing, period. Keep in mind that this reactor is already long past it's designed lifetime.
Where did the 'economist' come from? (Seriously, your phrase 'Some how the "economist" that thinks they are "prime minister" (perhaps I have that inverted?)' is really confusing, I assume you mean Harper??)
From the article and what I recall from the period. The backup safety features had been part of the original design, and approval, but had unintentionally not been enabled. The CNSC was told about this before the plant was re-licensed in 2006, in November 2007, during a maintenance shutdown, the CNSC said it was a license violation and they had to extend the shutdown and fix it. It was this unplanned extended shutdown that lead to the isotope shortage and the big controversy.
Technically CNSC did exactly what their mandate required when they decided it was a license violation, but at a cost of critical medical isotopes. And after restarting it took less than 3 months to get the backup safety system running. Also note that all the parties backed the restart, so this wasn't some crazy Conservative decision.
The reason the NRU was still running and hadn't been replaced is another unfortunately story. Basically when they designed it they said it would have safety features X, Y, and Z, but when they finished Z ever so slightly didn't quite work. Z wasn't a necessary safety feature, but because they said they would have it, and they didn't, the plant never got approval.
I'm not sure you're seeing a bias by the author as much as a list of actions by the Conservatives (which are generally anti-liberal, anti-environmentalist, and pro-business political moves).
This head of the Nuclear regulatory agency got fired over controversy that led to an important research reactor (that manufactured important medical isotopes) being shut down for a while over safety issues. The minister eventually fired the head of the agency and the government forced the reactor to restart. Overall most people felt the reactor should keep running (and I'd agree). Either way I'm not sure I'd really call it an attack on science as much as a struggle over agency independence. Looking through the article (from 2008) I found this fun little tidbit
A ministerial directive on Dec. 10 ordered the CNSC to reopen the site. The agency refused, insisting a backup safety system be installed to prevent the risk of a meltdown during an earthquake or other disaster.
Too bad she couldn't have found a job in Fukushima.
Discontinuing a mandatory census?
Stopping the collection of good scientific data in favour of some fuzzy ideological principals? Since then we've had a few provincial elections where the polls turned out to be completely inaccurate, I wouldn't be surprised if that was related.
Rolling back environmental regulations? Withdraw from Kyoto Accord? Changes to fisheries regulations?
Environmental regs are largely suggested by science, as are carbon emission regs and regs to keep fisheries healthy.
Frankly the message I get from this is they care more about the short term economic impact than the environment, and combined with their other actions in gutting research and muzzling scientists there seems to be an active effort to cripple science so that science can't contradict their policies.
That is true. Even if Slashdot would be capable of providing enough writing space for a ten-volume manuscript, it is still necessary to have a better command of the subject. I am not a professional in this particular area and don't have access to specific, statistically significant cases. My opinion is based on personal observations and on what I read. My opinion may be right or wrong, but I have it and it's mine. And you have yours.
BTW, if your friend is depressed, I don't think you should give him a map to the nearest tall building. You are free to persuade him - and he is free to listen to you or not to listen. Usually people do listen, especially those who don't have physical, material reasons for their decision. (That's what I read!)
Depression is kinda nasty in that it's hell to endure and depending on the causes really hard to get out of. People help but at the end of the day there's often not a lot you can do. Note, this is partially conjecture since I hadn't known the guy for a few years and the girl was a relatively new acquaintance at the time. That being said I had one reasonably close friend who went through a divorce and used me a lot for emotional support, she later confessed she considered suicide at the time so who knows what could have happened but she (and the other girl who survived her attempt) are definitely a lot happier now.
Regardless of why they stop they do stop, I suspect a lot of it is just plain maturity. As for the FBI list it's actually a worse example than you realize, almost all of them were listed for activities from more then a decade ago :)
More guns = more suicides, whatever you think of the different methods the numbers seem to suggest guns make it easier/more tempting.
Romeo and Juliet, something like that? Those were successful all the way through. Does the society want them dead? Not really. But, darwinistically speaking, the society benefits from mentally stable people, not from head cases. Those *should* evolve out, in the grand scheme of things. Like taxes, if you support a certain behavior you get more of it. There are people who try to commit suicide repeatedly (and fail N-1 times out of that.) Then firemen are summoned, the police, and the doctors... what for? In the USA the Constitution guarantees your right for pursuit of happiness, but it does not define what form it may take. If you cannot live without your man|girl, don't. Will I be sad? Probably. But I cannot tell you to suffer for years, if not for the rest of your life, just because it is in my personal interests, either political or religious, to keep you alive. That would be awfully selfish of me. On that subject:
No, two people who didn't know eachother. They didn't have some illness, they weren't a drag on society, and I wouldn't call them particularly mentally unstable. They were just extremely depressed for a period. I'm sorry dude but you sound like a massive asshole. People who are so depressed they're willing to kill themselves and your solution is to give them a hand and act like you're some kind of altruist? Have you actually met someone who's attempted or committed suicide? You seem to be throwing out these cardboard stereotypes about suicidal people, criminals, old people, everyone. There's such insane variety around any kind of label you can imagine and you seem to be ignoring all of it.
I'm not sure where you live, but in most countries criminals cannot stop. There are the usual socioeconomic reasons for that. There is not enough jobs even for citizens who never jaywalked. What chance, in your opinion, a man with a burglary or a theft under his belt has? How many store managers will be happy to give him the keys to the money box? The only jobs that are left for them are menial jobs, like digging of ditches. Maybe one can become a licensed professional, like an electrician or a plumber, but that's not easy - there is a requirement for apprenticeship, and with that see above.
Can a criminal reform? Yes. Most of those success stories are from white collar crime, where for example an accountant made a "mistake" toward his own bank account. Just once in his whole life. He won't do that again. Kevin Mitnick is a good example. Some violent criminals embrace religion in prison and also become ex-criminals. The vast majority, however, is stuck in the vicious circle forever. They don't know how to live differently, and the society rejects them even if they try to end their wrong ways; they become career criminals.
That's a lovely four paragraph explanation explaining how criminals are criminals for life. Unfortunately it's simply not true, even for violent crime.
It doesn't matter how much you argue otherwise, crime is a symptom of youth and as they age people generally turn away from a life of crime. (I wouldn't be surprised if incarceration was negatively correlated with future offences but that's an unrelated debate).
Should the you who's having a really crappy day have the power to kill the you who will have a lifetime of other days?
Unconditionally YES. No man can be called free if he doesn't have this ultimate freedom - and the responsibility that comes with it.
People have moments of weakness, if possible I'd like to make it less tempting for those moments to end with their own death.
I believe in free will and self-determination. It is wise to keep dangerous temptations away from children - they don't know any better. But once a person becomes an adult, this restriction is lifted and he is free to do whatever he wants - as long as it doesn't clash with the same right of someone else. If he was wrong... too bad, he should have asked for an advice, or perhaps he should have thought about it a bit more. If someone, after all, suicides - respect his decision; he had his reasons; one day you may have yours. None of us live forever, as far as I know, and not everyone is excited about spending his last ten years of life in a bed, paralyzed, unable to even eat on his own, and over those ten years burning through the entire education fund that was being saved up for your grandchildren. When your time is up, it's up - deal with it. Many suicides are just an easy escape from a painful and terminal illness.
I'm not arguing that people shouldn't be allowed to commit suicide but you seem to be arguing that not only should we not try to prevent it, but it should even be easier.
I know a guy who committed suicide and a girl who attempted suicide and no one is happy that he succeeded or that she failed (least of all her!). I understand if you think that guns are worth the risk, but can't you at least acknowledge that more people killing themselves is a bad thing??
If every criminal is armed, and constantly committing home invasions, then sure, I might be in favour of a lot more guns, but I don't think that's the world.
Do you think criminals commit home invasions just on some special days, like Santa Claus? They go out and burglarize residences until they are caught or killed. There are very few criminals who were successful for a while but then, before they were arrested, suddenly saw the light and became honest workers. Most soldier on until stopped. Criminals are not very smart. Smart people don't need to rob houses; we get paid big bucks for sitting in our chairs and pressing keys on the keyboard.
By the way, all criminals are always armed, as far as the victim is concerned. Not everyone carries a gun, but a crowbar will be plenty sufficient for an old man (that happened too, and more than once. Burglars don't like witnesses; dead men tell no tales.) I read that knife crime in UK is off the charts, and I can understand why - knives are cheap, silent, deadly, easy to make, and easy to dispose of. Gun crime is also rising as a side effect of that - criminals need guns to defend themselves against criminals with knives. It's not a mutual appreciation society, you know.
Actually I'm guessing the ones who don't get caught or killed stop on their own once they pass their mid-twenties. Either way I don't think criminals are all the hardened killers you imagine them to be, there are those who will constantly seek out the deadliest weapon they can find and be willing to use it, but I think most of society is on a bell curve, with criminals at the end of one tail, and the tail gets narrower and narrower with increasing levels of depravity until you actually start to get to the group you're talking about.
If someone wants to kill himself, he will do it eventually. And if someone doesn't want to kill himself, a gun will not hypnotize him into that. I, personally, don't care either way. A free man has power of life and death over his own body.
Should the you who's having a really crappy day have the power to kill the you who will have a lifetime of other days? People have moments of weakness, if possible I'd like to make it less tempting for those moments to end with their own death.
Either way you're bringing up scenarios that, while they may justify a gun, aren't that common. If every criminal is armed, and constantly committing home invasions, then sure, I might be in favour of a lot more guns, but I don't think that's the world. With strong gun control, even if a few tragic scenarios happen where someone could have really used a gun, I think a lot more tragic scenarios will have been avoided.
You don't have the fundamental right to own (or make) firearms.
You don't have the fundamental right to defend yourself.
What you have is the fundamental right to personal security.
From that you get a the derived right to defend yourself and the derived right to own firearms.
The place where gun we disagree is that I believe your derived right to own firearms infringes on my fundamental right to personal security.
No, actually, they don't give a shit. I could make myself a firearm, RIGHT NOW, and they're OK with that (so long as it doesn't infringe on certain things, like bore diameter, barrel length if it's a shotgun or pistol.. stuff you can own, but need some licenses (tax stamps) from the ATF to own).
For the price of a single 3D printer you could slam out dozens of zip guns. Don't even need any serious machining tools for that.
The whole 3D printed gun scare is just that. A scare. It's headlines. That is all.
I doubt most people have the technical expertise and equipment to make a zip gun, and for those who do it's probably not going to be a very effective gun.
With a 3D printer you don't need technical expertise, you just download the design and print, and before long they're probably going to be a lot more effective than the vast majority of zip guns.
That being said for the US I think it is just a scare for now since US gun control is already non-existent. The problem is if the US ever tries to get gun control then shutting off the supply is suddenly that much harder.
at some point 97% of geologists believed plate tectonics was false
at some point 97% of scientists didn't believe that dino's became birds or believed that they were just the slow and lumbering lizards like in 60's movies
almost every major scientific advance has been made by a few "rogue" scientists advocating rogue theories which at one time have been dismissed by most scientists in the field
So how do you know you're with the 3% of geologists who believed in plate tectonics and not the 3% who thought the moon was made of cheese?
Given all the 3% vs 97% incidents though history how often do you think the 3% of scientists were closer to the truth than the 97% as opposed to the other way around?
What do you know that the 97% don't know or don't understand?
It's big, heavy, and probably metal.
It's also useless, unless you are The Incredible Hulk. A man with a bat loses 100% against a man with a small pen knife. Intertia is not your friend. I know that it's possible to do fencing with heavy weapons, but it requires a very uncommon physique. This article could be useful, even though it talks about an edged weapon. A blunt weapon, like a bat, is far less useful in a battle.
It's not fencing, the intruder doesn't have a shield. I swing a bat the inertia is going somewhere, that somewhere is the intruder.
Oh, you said "kids?" Well then, imagine that the criminal is holding your daughter. With a handgun, from several yards away, you can hit him in the eye of your choice, and the hostage will be only slightly scared. Can you swing a heavy bat at the same criminal when he can always push your kid under the strike? When I said "overwhelming force," there is a reason for that. This is not a duel between two French aristocrats; it's not a game.
You're expecting the average person to shoot the criminal in the eye of their choice while the criminal has a close family member at gun point (and somehow do this before the criminal realizes it's easier to shoot the dude with the gun).
You've been watching too many movies.
And you think the bat as a weapon is impractical?!?!?
A strike in the head is often fatal - instantly, or a short time later. There are several medical reasons for that, and none of them are particularly pleasant to discuss.
Yeah, I know once someone tried inventing this sport called 'boxing' but in the first fight they tried the two dudes hit eachother in the head and just fell over dead and they gave it up.
True story.
Russia isn't exactly a model of good governance.
It's worse pretty much everywhere else, except a handful of countries. But even in the UK the percentage of gun crimes is rising with every year. The situation in the USA is much worse still.
UK, way fewer guns way fewer murders.
Most of the criminal firearm problem in North America is due to guns coming in from the US.
Then please ask Obama to stop sending weapons to Mexican mafia. But regardless, Mexican narcocartels are rich enough to buy their full-auto weapons anywhere in the world. You simply cannot get most of these weapons in gun stores in the USA.
Wow... you just can't help yourself from taking a completely random shot at Obama.
As I said, guns are always easy to get for a criminal. He is already in that "sophisticated underworld," where drugs, weapons and everything else is available for a reasonable price. Do I know where to get a gun with removed s/n? No, I do not - and I have no need to know, and it's illegal to own one anyway. But criminals don't care about laws.
They are not always easy to get for criminals, in other countries criminals rarely have guns, they have guns in the US because it's really easy to get guns.
Every extra gun makes everyone else a little less safe.
There must be rivers of blood flowing down the streets of Swiss cities... and those poor American colonists, how did they survive, being 100% armed?
In 2005 over 10% of households contained handguns, compared to 18% of U.S. households that contained handguns. In 2005 almost 29% of households in Switzerland contained firearms of some kind, compared to almost 43% in the USA.
Besides, Switzerland is a very small and fairly homogeneous coun
Dude, I come at you swinging a bat with a bit of surprise and unless you have some serious martial arts training I win.
There won't be any surprise in most cases of self-defense. If anyone is surprised, it would be the victim. The criminal is fully aware of everything because he initiated the situation.
Now about the bat. Make one for yourself out of packing foam, grab a friend and play that out. You will be defeated after the first swing, most likely.
Why is that? Because you cannot, probably, hold the bat in one hand, like medieval warriors held their swords. (There were two-handed swords too, but that's a different story.) A bat just doesn't have the right balance for one-handed operation. The medieval fighter held a shield in another hand. That part is essential. What happens when you grab the bat with both hands, take a swing - and miss, of course? YOU ARE EXPOSED to an instant knockout blow to your head, and you have nothing to defend against that blow because your both hands are holding the bat - and the bat is on trajectory away from the target. You don't even have a fellow soldier to the right of you, watching your now exposed front and right side. You are dead meat.
The nearest match to a bat among medieval weapons would be either a club, or a mace, or a Morgenstern. You do not know how to correctly wield those. Hardly anyone has that skill today. Huge inertia of these weapons requires special handling. Without this knowledge and skills you will lose, instantly.
It would be awfully arrogant to assume that one can just grab a piece of wood and become an invincible warrior - despite humanity's thousands of years of experience with exactly these weapons. Criminals know more about fighting with and without such weapons than any green-skinned programmer, fresh from a cubicle. You will not win. If you want to win, use overwhelming force, just once. Use the weapon that you are familiar with. (You are always welcome to train with a bat - but not on a baseball field. You'd have to train for combat.)
It's big, heavy, and probably metal.
Swing with two hands and an adrenaline rush and you don't risk missing and killing one of the kids (or going through the wall and killing a neighbour).
Besides it's a contrived situation. Given me and the criminal both having guns and me and the criminal both having a bat I'll opt for the bats every time.
Trayvon nearly killed a man??? At most he started to lay on a beating, assuming it would have escalated to murder is ludicrous
That was alleged, however little we know so far. The trial will expose everything that transpired, and then we will know for sure. Meanwhile, it does look like Trayvon was beating a man who was down. How much of head trauma are you willing to take before you depart into the better world?
We might find out in the trial. Besides, even if Trayvon was beating a man who was down that's a long way from murder, sure it might have eventually resulted in death, but most likely the worst case was some broken bones and a concussion.
I'd like to live in a world where two people can get in a fight without one of them ending up shot.
Criminals have guns because they're friggin everywhere because you don't have gun control. Get serious gun control and there's no guns for the criminals to get.
I was born and raised in a country with very strict gun controls. Even today a common man cannot have a handgun there. Still, criminals always had handguns. Where did they come from, one may ask?
Russia isn't exactly a model of good governance. Most of the criminal firearm problem in North America is due to guns coming in from the US.
Even if you take legal firearms away from everyone on the planet, manufactured firearms will be still with us. Do you want to go with bare hands and best intent
Pepper spray just says I want the fight to end.
[Channeling Bush...] "Who cares what you want?" - the criminal is not interested in the fight to end; he now wants you dead, even if a moment earlier he'd be content with just maiming you.
If he isn't overcome with debilitating pain.
Most likely he'll just do nothing (which is why old people tend to be victims).
Old people are more likely to be targeted than Arnold lookalikes. Among those who are targeted, some are fighting back, and others do not. There was an old man who was killed by a gang of feral teenagers - they were playing their "knock-out kings" murder game. The man was Asian; he was not raised in the USA, and probably he believed that the government will protect him. He took that belief to the grave.
"The man was Asian; he was not raised in the USA, and probably he believed that the government will protect him. He took that belief to the grave."
Really?
Besides, it's unfortunate, but the best way to protect old people is to create a less violent society.
Depending on his size I might first grab a bat or other object and start pummelling him.
It would be patently insane. What if you lose? Just stop and think about it for a moment. There are very few people on this planet who can take a bat and be sure that they defeat an intruder. In most cases the intruder takes the bat away from you and then uses it on you - this is an unfortunate quality of a contact weapon.
Besides, you throw away your gun, grab a bat... and then the intruder pulls out his gun. What happens now?
Remember, your duty is not to the intruder, it is to yourself and to those who you protect. You are allowed by law to use deadly force only if you fear for your life. If you do, the threat is large enough to use that deadly force.
If you do not think the threat is that grave and you can get away with using a bat, this *legally* converts the situation from self-defense into a banal quarrel. The intruder then can sue you for millions if you hit him with a bat and break his arm. This has happened before. You always need to know on which side of the fence you are - are you afraid for your life or not? You cannot claim one but act according to the other. It's the legal divide between going to prison and staying free. An armed confrontation is not the right time and place to think. You have to have the thinking done ahead of time. The only thinking you can afford is to match the situation to one of templates that you prepared ahead of time. If you start thinking deeper, you will lose - your actions will be examined under the microscope in court.
Dude, I come at you swinging a bat with a bit of surprise and unless you have some serious martial arts training I win.
Pepper spray simply inflicts pain, very intense pain, to the eyes no less. You can't just ignore that,
As I said, many street drugs reduce sensitivity to pain.
Maybe
Besides, if there's enough guns around that the victim has a gun then wouldn't the perpetrator have one too?
Those are statistically unrelated variables. You should expect the perpetrator to have a weapon on him. It does not matter if it is a gun or a knife or a pipe or just his fists. See Trayvon's example - he nearly killed a man with his bare hands. Trayvon was a tall and strong football player, and his victim was a short and skinny Hispanic.
Regardless, criminals already have guns, and they will always have guns, as long as it benefits them. If you disarm yourself, this only makes their job easier. A and B are not related. Get a gun, know how to use it, and establish for yourself very rigid scenarios where use of a gun is required. Then you will be prepared.
Oh, by the way, often home intruders come as a team.
Dealing with false gods, pacifism vs fighting (the "The City on the Edge of Forever" time travel to pre WWII ep), environmentalism (The Devil in the Dark, ie 'Dammit Jim, I'm a doctor not a bricklayer!'), oh, and the friggin prime directive (colonialism anyone?).
Yeah it had crappy production values but to say it wasn't about 'ideas' really misses a lot.
Uhura was shown to be a strong, independent woman in the original series. She doesn't get a lot of screen time, but she holds her own. (Especially considering the time period.) She's almost always shown in a positive, independent light and I think she's one of the few sci-fi women who never (or rarely) needs to be protected or rescued. Look at Charlie X, Mirror Mirror, Search for Spock... compared to most franchises, sci-fi or not, Uhura does surprisingly well.
And holy crap, she was on the command deck of a military vessel.
Can you tell me what's wrong with pretty colors and snappy writing? Those are the kinds of claims that infuriate me. Would I want to have more science-fiction in Abrams Trek? Yes, of course. Why would it need to come at the expense of good visuals and snappy writing, though? All it does is reinforce the idea that modern "cool" movies or TV shows can't possibly have depth, or that deep movies and TV shows need to look shitty and have wooden, sluggish dialogue.
I think it has to do with risk. Inception had some intellectual depth as did the first matrix movie and they were great. But the 2nd and 3rd matrix movies tried the same thing and failed horribly. Star Trek: Nemesis seemed to try for a big idea and Khan style epic villain, and it failed. It's easy to throw in a lot of money into CG and a fast paced script and get a decent movie that will make decent money. But if you then throw a concept into that movie then it all depends on the concept and the special effects no longer matter. If it works you might get Khan, but you fail you get Nemesis and for $200 million that's a pretty big bet.