Sorry, but your examples of similarities are way off. I never said shoot babies twice, or shoot innocent people twice. I said shoot rapists twice. Not walk around shooting people in the street for 8 hours every day, or even shooting rapists for 8 hours a day. Shoot rapists as they are found guilty. Within a month the number of rape cases in any large city would certainly be no more than one a week.
That is the problem with capital punishment, and its naysayers. No matter what method of execution is used, people want to liken it to the most horrendous crimes commited in history. Saying it lowers us to the level of the people who commited the crimes. As if the rest of society is going to turn into a murderous mob if a serial murderer is executed, because they have lowered themselves to his level anyway.
And I never said to dehumanize the rapists, just shoot them. Just like I never dehumanized the chickens, rabbits, ducks, etc. that we butched and ate when I was a kid. We killed them because it had to be done. (I guess we could have just cut off a leg, and left the animal alive, but that seems too cruel.) Why would you have to dehumanize a person to execute him? Recognize the person is a human being, a human being who attacked, raped, or killed other people, and will do so unless stopped, and then stop him or her forever. That's all.
By the way if I was so convinced about my moral supiority as you imply, I wouldn't be reading Slashdot right now, there are plenty of people around town who deserve one or two bullets.
First, about that suit that the "rape victim" said she had to go home, during the middle of completely consenual sex, and that meant any further activity constituted rape, that case was completely ridiculous. She knows she wasn't raped, but people around her sure had a grudge about something. So, the "rapist" in that case should have been found innocent. Maybe shoot the prosecutor in that case instead for morbid stupidity.
Second, any forced sexual procedure should be recognized as rape. Where did they come up with the theory that forced anal-rape isn't rape? And I'm not talking about some guy that tries to get kinky with his wife or girlfriend, and she doesn't want to, and shuts him down. I mean the cases of legitimate rape in the anus rather than rape in the vagina. Any time a guy, (building on your assumption, assuming typical circumstances, the attacker is male) forces his penis into an unwilling or resisting person, it is rape no matter which bodily opening it is. (And unconciousness can be counted as unwilling if the victim would have not agreed to sex if she/he had been fully concious. Again getting slightly kinky with a significant other is different.) For legal clarification, the lawyers who say otherwise to get their clients off should ask Vietnam vets if they were in a war. Remember it officially wasn't a war, only a conflict or police action, but the people in it would say otherwise.
Third, statutory rape is a very nebulous term to begin with. If a 14-year-old puts on make-up to look 18, goes to a bar, gets picked up by a man and has sex with him, should he be found guilty of statutory rape for not verifying with her parents and 3 other people that she is legal age? On the other hand if some sleazy character sweet talks a 14-year-old into thinking he truly loves her, just so he can have sex with her, most agree he should be found guilty of statutory rape. But it isn't actually forcible rape, because he talks her into consenting. I think the term should be changed from statutory rape, but to what I don't know.
So to sum up the above three paragraphs, if anyone forces a person to have sex, oral, anal, or vaginal, it is rape. Rapists should be shot. Twice.
"Ask yourself this: should we rape the rapist? If not, why not? "
No, we shouldn't rape rapists. We should shoot them. Twice. Once in the crotch, let them suffer the pain and loss of manhood for a few minutes, then shoot them in the head. None of this rehabilitation crap.
You're assuming too much. The boardwalk and pier were both allowable for bicycle traffic, and I was not the only one riding bikes on them. There were not a large number of bikes, and usually I was the only one riding, but they were present. As I said, I rode at the speed of traffic. The boardwalk was wide enough for 5 or 6 people to walk abreast, so when traffic was heavy both ways, couples could pass each other easily. The pedestrian traffic flowed just like cars on the road, everyone staying to their right. I just was on a bike. No more annoying than the families pushing baby strollers, some of which were wider than me and my bike.
And I only got one complaint: It was a light traffic day, everyone was walking away from the peir, up the boardwalk towards the shops/diners. Since there was noone coming the other way, everyone was on the left side, along the railing, looking over the water. The right side was completely clear for a few hundred feet. I was riding at a reasonable/safe speed, passing the people walking, not annoying anyone. Of course I kept my eye on the people in front of me, and my hands on the brakes. I saw a kid, about 4 years old, walking next to his parents, but he kept going across the boardwalk and climbing over the rocks that lined the inner edge. Then he'd jump down and run back to his parents, and repeat it. I completely understood why he would want to climb over the rocks, as I did it quite often myself.
I waited until I was close enough that they could hear me, and called "Watch out" in a loud, clear voice. I didn't scream it, or yell, or anything to make them think I hated them or their boy. I did it exactly as I always did when needed, and others do as well. The mother looked around, saw me coming up behind them, looked around again and saw her son playing around, and pulled him to her side. As I passed, she said to me, "You are the one who should watch out." All I could think was, "What does she think I was doing?" I could have easily kept quiet and swerved around the boy, hoping he didn't move into my way at the last second. And I was keeping a much closer eye on him than she was. She didn't even know where he was when she looked and saw me. She had to look to find him, even though he was within 6 feet of her. And she is telling me to watch out???
So, riding my bike was perfectly safe, because I rode it safely and responsibly. I was more responsible than many of the people walking, who were lost in their own thoughts. I watched out for them, since I knew they weren't watching out for me. And that is the way bicycling around groups of people should be. Let the couples walk slowly, whispering to each other, oblivious to everything around them. Although if you have a kid, look over once in a while to know they aren't missing. This lady never looked around until I called out to her. Other than this one incident, no one ever gave me any grief about it. And at that I think her reaction was more embarassment and sudden fear for her child than thinking I was at fault. Even when I would stop at the snack store and have lunch, no one ever came up and said how terrible I was for riding where they were walking. And the times that the crowds were too thick to safely ride, I would get off the bike and push it. The wheels and sprockets were just as dangerous, especialy to any hanging garments, but no one ever said I shouldn't have my bike there.
Well, that's what I thought too when i bought the $350 Specialized bike in 1993. (By the way, these are road bikes, not mountain bikes.) I rode it all over San Francisco, Napa, Marin, the whole north and west side of the Bay area. It was definately a better bike than the Huffys I rode as a teenager, when I never thought I would spend more than the $125 that they cost.
Then in 1995 my Specialized was stolen, and when I went to the bike shop to replace it, I was open to suggestions. The $1000 Scott was lighter, and the tires were so narrow I thought they would pop when I sat down. But at 120psi they hold up quite well. What made the price so high was the shift levers being integrated into the brake levers, which was new technology at the time. But I had the cash to spend, so I got it.
The funny thing was a week later I found my original bike, so now I had two bikes, and then a month later it got stolen again. I always forgot to lock it up. But with being able to compare both bikes during that time, I was very happy with my decision to buy the $1000 Scott, and when the Specialized disappeared again, I just wrote it off. And I kept my new bike in my room, even though the rules prohibited it.
Now, as far as spending more than $1000, only if I was still really into riding everywhere I could. I'm too old for that though, and racing is out of the question, so I will keep this one, ride it as I can, and enjoy it.
As far as what affects speed, of course conditioning helps more than the hardware, but once you are well conditioned, the better hardware makes a huge difference. I've seen it from both vantages, getting in better condition, and lately getting out of condition. The hardware improvements still are much desired.
You should try it. Do you take your bike to a specific bike shop, or even just buy supplies at one? (I used to ride my bike 6 miles to get to a good one, because the one 3 miles away was not responsive enough.) If so, ask if they will let you test ride a new bike in the $1000-$1500 category. Go around town for an hour, see if it doesn't handle better then your current bike. As I said, I had the chance to test my two almost side-by-side for a month. Not that you will end up buying a new bike, but when your Schwinn is ready for retirement, you will have a better understanding when the salesman tries to sell you one.
I used to ride my bicycle where people walk all the time. I was able to ride at the speed of those people walking as well. and when the foot traffic opened up, I could speed up and go around the groups of people. I have also seen people proficient on rollerskates/rollerblades (same damn thing really) able to do the same thing. Don't think that just because some idiot on wheels ran into you, everyone on wheels is the same way. If I thought that I wouldn't trust my life anywhere near a road, with all the cars killing people and stuff.
No one 'taught' me how to ride one. I watched my older sibling riding theirs, while I was riding my tricycle. One day when I was 3 or 4, I picked up my sister's bike, straddled it, put one foot on the pedal, and started riding. I did this in the garden so if I fell, I would land on soft dirt. What's so difficult about riding a bike? Once you get over being afraid of falling, it's simple, and that was the first thing I took care of by being in the garden.
You better believe they do. My $1000 dollar bike made me go so much faster than my previous $350 bike it was unreal. (this was in the 1993-1995 timeframe, prices would be different now.) And neither bike had any suspension/shocks. The $1000 model had very narrow tires, light frame, and shift levers with the brakes (new option at the time), and my top speed was 48 mph. Try that with a Huffy, which was my preferred bike as a teenager in the 80s.
You mean like the Razor scooter, or a moped like scooter? If you mean the Razor, they cost fifty to a hundred bucks, and were ridden by kids. No comparison to the segway at all. If you were refering to a moped scooter phenomenon, I missed it.
No, he does explain. There are hills, and he doesn't want to get sweatty on the way to work. Has to meet customers and stuff. I can understand that. But personally, I would worry more about rain that sweat, and would prefer a moped to the segway.
Hey, I thought I was the only one who thought of that. Everyone is always saying how hard it is to charge the electric vehicles, having to find an outlet, or time-consuming because batteries don't charge quickly. This option seemed the most sensible to me too. The driver pulls the car into the service station, the attendent uses an overhead hoist to pull out the very heavy 'battery pack' and put in a charged one, the driver pays and leaves. The battery is charged in the station, not in the car.
Actually, I had a similar thought for a few years, just out of pessimism about life. As well funded as these terrorists are, they could just charter a plane, load it with explosives, and fly it into a building. Especially if they got a cargo plane, which are a lot cheaper than corporate jets, and hold five times more. Instant unstoppable bomb. As long as it followed normal flight lanes up until the last minute, no one would know. Then drop down to treetop level to avoid radar, and plow into whatever target they have in mind. Even if the military could shoot it down, the terror aspect of the act would be tremendous, as everyone would realize how easy it would be to do this.
I was thinking about this long before September 11, 2001. I was surprised it took so long for someone elso to think about it. And I'm surprised no one has used this variation in the last year.
Great line of tapes, if you can stomach them. They also show why you shouldn't feed the bears. And especially shouldn't film your wife feeding the bears. "Honey, we're out of bread."
"Maybe so, but if I want my electronic mortgage payment to go through on that business day, I have to get it done by 3. "
So do it at home the night before. It will go through at the same time as doing it at noon on that day, since it will be after 3pm. While I agree that employers should be less dictatorial on this issue, your argument doesn't stand.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry, but your examples of similarities are way off. I never said shoot babies twice, or shoot innocent people twice. I said shoot rapists twice. Not walk around shooting people in the street for 8 hours every day, or even shooting rapists for 8 hours a day. Shoot rapists as they are found guilty. Within a month the number of rape cases in any large city would certainly be no more than one a week.
That is the problem with capital punishment, and its naysayers. No matter what method of execution is used, people want to liken it to the most horrendous crimes commited in history. Saying it lowers us to the level of the people who commited the crimes. As if the rest of society is going to turn into a murderous mob if a serial murderer is executed, because they have lowered themselves to his level anyway.
And I never said to dehumanize the rapists, just shoot them. Just like I never dehumanized the chickens, rabbits, ducks, etc. that we butched and ate when I was a kid. We killed them because it had to be done. (I guess we could have just cut off a leg, and left the animal alive, but that seems too cruel.) Why would you have to dehumanize a person to execute him? Recognize the person is a human being, a human being who attacked, raped, or killed other people, and will do so unless stopped, and then stop him or her forever. That's all.
By the way if I was so convinced about my moral supiority as you imply, I wouldn't be reading Slashdot right now, there are plenty of people around town who deserve one or two bullets.
You're right, those are valid points.
First, about that suit that the "rape victim" said she had to go home, during the middle of completely consenual sex, and that meant any further activity constituted rape, that case was completely ridiculous. She knows she wasn't raped, but people around her sure had a grudge about something. So, the "rapist" in that case should have been found innocent. Maybe shoot the prosecutor in that case instead for morbid stupidity.
Second, any forced sexual procedure should be recognized as rape. Where did they come up with the theory that forced anal-rape isn't rape? And I'm not talking about some guy that tries to get kinky with his wife or girlfriend, and she doesn't want to, and shuts him down. I mean the cases of legitimate rape in the anus rather than rape in the vagina. Any time a guy, (building on your assumption, assuming typical circumstances, the attacker is male) forces his penis into an unwilling or resisting person, it is rape no matter which bodily opening it is. (And unconciousness can be counted as unwilling if the victim would have not agreed to sex if she/he had been fully concious. Again getting slightly kinky with a significant other is different.) For legal clarification, the lawyers who say otherwise to get their clients off should ask Vietnam vets if they were in a war. Remember it officially wasn't a war, only a conflict or police action, but the people in it would say otherwise.
Third, statutory rape is a very nebulous term to begin with. If a 14-year-old puts on make-up to look 18, goes to a bar, gets picked up by a man and has sex with him, should he be found guilty of statutory rape for not verifying with her parents and 3 other people that she is legal age? On the other hand if some sleazy character sweet talks a 14-year-old into thinking he truly loves her, just so he can have sex with her, most agree he should be found guilty of statutory rape. But it isn't actually forcible rape, because he talks her into consenting. I think the term should be changed from statutory rape, but to what I don't know.
So to sum up the above three paragraphs, if anyone forces a person to have sex, oral, anal, or vaginal, it is rape. Rapists should be shot. Twice.
First off, in Micigan, we relate distances in miles, not minutes. 30 minutes for us could be 50 miles.
;^}
Second, I didn't say I am in Michigan. I am in a warm part of the country too, so don't worry about making me jealous.
"Ask yourself this: should we rape the rapist? If not, why not? "
No, we shouldn't rape rapists. We should shoot them. Twice. Once in the crotch, let them suffer the pain and loss of manhood for a few minutes, then shoot them in the head. None of this rehabilitation crap.
How often does it snow in LA?
:^P
Any more silly questions?
No, that's the 'Happy Monkey Dance'. By the way, don't pet his happy monkey, it may spit at you.
You're assuming too much. The boardwalk and pier were both allowable for bicycle traffic, and I was not the only one riding bikes on them. There were not a large number of bikes, and usually I was the only one riding, but they were present. As I said, I rode at the speed of traffic. The boardwalk was wide enough for 5 or 6 people to walk abreast, so when traffic was heavy both ways, couples could pass each other easily. The pedestrian traffic flowed just like cars on the road, everyone staying to their right. I just was on a bike. No more annoying than the families pushing baby strollers, some of which were wider than me and my bike.
And I only got one complaint: It was a light traffic day, everyone was walking away from the peir, up the boardwalk towards the shops/diners. Since there was noone coming the other way, everyone was on the left side, along the railing, looking over the water. The right side was completely clear for a few hundred feet. I was riding at a reasonable/safe speed, passing the people walking, not annoying anyone. Of course I kept my eye on the people in front of me, and my hands on the brakes. I saw a kid, about 4 years old, walking next to his parents, but he kept going across the boardwalk and climbing over the rocks that lined the inner edge. Then he'd jump down and run back to his parents, and repeat it. I completely understood why he would want to climb over the rocks, as I did it quite often myself.
I waited until I was close enough that they could hear me, and called "Watch out" in a loud, clear voice. I didn't scream it, or yell, or anything to make them think I hated them or their boy. I did it exactly as I always did when needed, and others do as well. The mother looked around, saw me coming up behind them, looked around again and saw her son playing around, and pulled him to her side. As I passed, she said to me, "You are the one who should watch out." All I could think was, "What does she think I was doing?" I could have easily kept quiet and swerved around the boy, hoping he didn't move into my way at the last second. And I was keeping a much closer eye on him than she was. She didn't even know where he was when she looked and saw me. She had to look to find him, even though he was within 6 feet of her. And she is telling me to watch out???
So, riding my bike was perfectly safe, because I rode it safely and responsibly. I was more responsible than many of the people walking, who were lost in their own thoughts. I watched out for them, since I knew they weren't watching out for me. And that is the way bicycling around groups of people should be. Let the couples walk slowly, whispering to each other, oblivious to everything around them. Although if you have a kid, look over once in a while to know they aren't missing. This lady never looked around until I called out to her. Other than this one incident, no one ever gave me any grief about it. And at that I think her reaction was more embarassment and sudden fear for her child than thinking I was at fault. Even when I would stop at the snack store and have lunch, no one ever came up and said how terrible I was for riding where they were walking. And the times that the crowds were too thick to safely ride, I would get off the bike and push it. The wheels and sprockets were just as dangerous, especialy to any hanging garments, but no one ever said I shouldn't have my bike there.
Well, that's what I thought too when i bought the $350 Specialized bike in 1993. (By the way, these are road bikes, not mountain bikes.) I rode it all over San Francisco, Napa, Marin, the whole north and west side of the Bay area. It was definately a better bike than the Huffys I rode as a teenager, when I never thought I would spend more than the $125 that they cost.
Then in 1995 my Specialized was stolen, and when I went to the bike shop to replace it, I was open to suggestions. The $1000 Scott was lighter, and the tires were so narrow I thought they would pop when I sat down. But at 120psi they hold up quite well. What made the price so high was the shift levers being integrated into the brake levers, which was new technology at the time. But I had the cash to spend, so I got it.
The funny thing was a week later I found my original bike, so now I had two bikes, and then a month later it got stolen again. I always forgot to lock it up. But with being able to compare both bikes during that time, I was very happy with my decision to buy the $1000 Scott, and when the Specialized disappeared again, I just wrote it off. And I kept my new bike in my room, even though the rules prohibited it.
Now, as far as spending more than $1000, only if I was still really into riding everywhere I could. I'm too old for that though, and racing is out of the question, so I will keep this one, ride it as I can, and enjoy it.
As far as what affects speed, of course conditioning helps more than the hardware, but once you are well conditioned, the better hardware makes a huge difference. I've seen it from both vantages, getting in better condition, and lately getting out of condition. The hardware improvements still are much desired.
You should try it. Do you take your bike to a specific bike shop, or even just buy supplies at one? (I used to ride my bike 6 miles to get to a good one, because the one 3 miles away was not responsive enough.) If so, ask if they will let you test ride a new bike in the $1000-$1500 category. Go around town for an hour, see if it doesn't handle better then your current bike. As I said, I had the chance to test my two almost side-by-side for a month. Not that you will end up buying a new bike, but when your Schwinn is ready for retirement, you will have a better understanding when the salesman tries to sell you one.
I used to ride my bicycle where people walk all the time. I was able to ride at the speed of those people walking as well. and when the foot traffic opened up, I could speed up and go around the groups of people. I have also seen people proficient on rollerskates/rollerblades (same damn thing really) able to do the same thing. Don't think that just because some idiot on wheels ran into you, everyone on wheels is the same way. If I thought that I wouldn't trust my life anywhere near a road, with all the cars killing people and stuff.
No one 'taught' me how to ride one. I watched my older sibling riding theirs, while I was riding my tricycle. One day when I was 3 or 4, I picked up my sister's bike, straddled it, put one foot on the pedal, and started riding. I did this in the garden so if I fell, I would land on soft dirt. What's so difficult about riding a bike? Once you get over being afraid of falling, it's simple, and that was the first thing I took care of by being in the garden.
You better believe they do. My $1000 dollar bike made me go so much faster than my previous $350 bike it was unreal. (this was in the 1993-1995 timeframe, prices would be different now.) And neither bike had any suspension/shocks. The $1000 model had very narrow tires, light frame, and shift levers with the brakes (new option at the time), and my top speed was 48 mph. Try that with a Huffy, which was my preferred bike as a teenager in the 80s.
You mean like the Razor scooter, or a moped like scooter? If you mean the Razor, they cost fifty to a hundred bucks, and were ridden by kids. No comparison to the segway at all. If you were refering to a moped scooter phenomenon, I missed it.
No, he does explain. There are hills, and he doesn't want to get sweatty on the way to work. Has to meet customers and stuff. I can understand that. But personally, I would worry more about rain that sweat, and would prefer a moped to the segway.
Of course. Everyone knows nuclear power hurts the environment much more than damming rivers and flooding miles of pristine valley wilderness.
Hey, I thought I was the only one who thought of that. Everyone is always saying how hard it is to charge the electric vehicles, having to find an outlet, or time-consuming because batteries don't charge quickly. This option seemed the most sensible to me too. The driver pulls the car into the service station, the attendent uses an overhead hoist to pull out the very heavy 'battery pack' and put in a charged one, the driver pays and leaves. The battery is charged in the station, not in the car.
Actually, I had a similar thought for a few years, just out of pessimism about life. As well funded as these terrorists are, they could just charter a plane, load it with explosives, and fly it into a building. Especially if they got a cargo plane, which are a lot cheaper than corporate jets, and hold five times more. Instant unstoppable bomb. As long as it followed normal flight lanes up until the last minute, no one would know. Then drop down to treetop level to avoid radar, and plow into whatever target they have in mind. Even if the military could shoot it down, the terror aspect of the act would be tremendous, as everyone would realize how easy it would be to do this.
I was thinking about this long before September 11, 2001. I was surprised it took so long for someone elso to think about it. And I'm surprised no one has used this variation in the last year.
Yeah, I was wondering what number he got whan trying to find one quarter of 9.
I prefer the Caroline Rhea Browser. Bigger tits, smaller belly.
Well, does the French chick shave her armpits and legs?
Actually, the second line could be:
when the british bomb, the french duck
The two groups never did like each other.
Do you mean 14 postings that refer to Scientology, or 14 articles _with_ postings that refer to Scientology?
Because I know I have seen postings get 30 replies many times, and some I would estimate at almost 100 replies.
About 10 feet. "Faces of Death"
"He bounced. Once."
Great line of tapes, if you can stomach them.
They also show why you shouldn't feed the bears.
And especially shouldn't film your wife feeding the bears.
"Honey, we're out of bread."
No the Klingons will do that for us. :^)
...with whipped cream, and a little cinnamon sprinkled on top.
"Maybe so, but if I want my electronic mortgage payment to go through on that business day, I have to get it done by 3. "
So do it at home the night before. It will go through at the same time as doing it at noon on that day, since it will be after 3pm. While I agree that employers should be less dictatorial on this issue, your argument doesn't stand.