No. "Hear, hear." You're exhorting all around you to listen to what the speaker is saying. "Here, here" is a way to comfort someone; "here, here, dear, it's not so bad", with the implication that the person should be focusing on the here and now instead of whatever misery had befallen them.
I'm not a grammar Nazi, I'm just trying to help you improve your diction;)
You'd be surprised how many people don't understand interrogation. Pain only gets you so far. A great interrogator never needs to use pain. Good ones, only rarely.
That said, pain is very effective against people who don't really have a sense of commitment to the information.
And, of course, this is exactly how it is done when the answer need not be admissible in court.
I'm a doctor. I know about pain. What causes it. What stops it. All the different types of it, and the ways to cause each one (and for how long). One of my professors during residency had been recruited back in the 80s by a Central American country to assist it with some interrogations.
I don't enjoy watching people suffer. That's a good thing, because I would be very good at making it happen.
That is indeed the spirit animating the Pentagon Papers decision, for example, but as Citizens United pointed out, political speech is the most highly protected form of speech that exists in the US, regardless of how accurate it is or is not. The DOJ didn't try to stop publication because they can't - prior restraint is essentially impossible under US law.
Not to distract from your point, but if people need a strong stomach to bear seeing a few dozen dead pets, they need to toughen up. The world is a nasty place and bad things happen. People should learn to look it in the eye instead of shying away.
He's on the left in the US. American politics are not like other countries' politics. The US does not really have a history of nobles and peasants, so it's hardly surprising that Communism has never really had much appeal here. We have no Left because there is no real Right for it to form as a reaction to.
(Possible exception: the plantation aristocracy of the South is really the only population that could be a conservative in the European fashion, but they were mostly smashed 150 years ago.)
There were lots of newspapers that were called the XYZ Republican or the ABC Democrat. The entire concept of "unbiased journalism" was started by the agencies like AP because... they wanted to get both sides to subscribe to their wire feeds. We're just returning to an older pattern as people are once again able to select information sources that match their ideology.
partisan propaganda purveyors shouldn't qualify for 1st Amendment rights
Pushing partisan propaganda is the entire reason we have a First Amendment. Is your political belief system so weak that the only way it can succeed is if you silence everyone who disagrees with you? And doesn't that bother you, even a little?
I can assure you that children who can reach a high shelf are old enough to learn what guns are, how they work, and what happens when you fire a.357 Magnum at a watermelon, because that's exactly what my father did with me. I've been shooting since I was six, got my own BB gun at seven and a.22 at ten. Always had maximum respect for weapons, because it was drilled into me. And I intend to do exactly the same thing with my kids. Shooting and hunting are great hobbies (though I don't care for hunting myself), and self-defense is a fundamental human right. I'd rather have a daughter who knows how to shoot than one whose only hope is that the rapist won't kill her afterward.
He was an experienced detective, IIRC 20+ years on the force. One of those guys who gets to break the rules (in any organization) because, well, who the hell are you to tell him how to be a cop, rookie?
But your reaction is the same one the rest of us had - what an idiot! Wasn't just any suspect, either - the guy was arrested for murder. Dumb.
Side effects are generally predictable, and generally have a slow onset that leads to discontinuation of the drug before things become a serious problem. Failure of a self-defense gun to fire is like a new analgesic that causes instant fatal arrhythmias seconds after the first dose.
Not if you ask them. Go see if you can get away with no-knock raids in the middle of the night and killing all your neighbors' dogs before you assert that.
If they're standing close enough to you to be able to pull the gun out of your hands before you have shot them, you need to back up. Reaction time matters and in a real life-or-death situation you need to account for it.
Add a requirement to keep the batteries in the gun to the law and it will have the desired result
I cannot comprehend how it is that people come up with ideas this bad. You do realize that batteries can fail for a variety of reasons, right? And that the lawful gun owner is not the problem, right? I mean, the criminal who is going to commit armed robbery does not care if you also convict him of failure to keep his batteries charged when you pick him up.
You can't guarantee that the gun will always fire if an authorized user has it without restricting your safety mechanisms to simple mechanical ones.
Slashdot Mirror
Political speech is more highly protected than newspapers. People involved in propaganda have greater protection than those merely reporting the news.
No. "Hear, hear." You're exhorting all around you to listen to what the speaker is saying. "Here, here" is a way to comfort someone; "here, here, dear, it's not so bad", with the implication that the person should be focusing on the here and now instead of whatever misery had befallen them.
;)
I'm not a grammar Nazi, I'm just trying to help you improve your diction
Alas, young pervert, I'm a dominus, not a domina.
You'd be surprised how many people don't understand interrogation. Pain only gets you so far. A great interrogator never needs to use pain. Good ones, only rarely.
That said, pain is very effective against people who don't really have a sense of commitment to the information.
The Hippocratic Oath is not, as is popularly believed, actually a legal requirement anywhere. It's a a symbolic thing, a connection to the past.
Further, you'll note that I didn't say that he was successfully recruited. He turned them down.
And, of course, this is exactly how it is done when the answer need not be admissible in court.
I'm a doctor. I know about pain. What causes it. What stops it. All the different types of it, and the ways to cause each one (and for how long). One of my professors during residency had been recruited back in the 80s by a Central American country to assist it with some interrogations.
I don't enjoy watching people suffer. That's a good thing, because I would be very good at making it happen.
That is indeed the spirit animating the Pentagon Papers decision, for example, but as Citizens United pointed out, political speech is the most highly protected form of speech that exists in the US, regardless of how accurate it is or is not. The DOJ didn't try to stop publication because they can't - prior restraint is essentially impossible under US law.
Not to distract from your point, but if people need a strong stomach to bear seeing a few dozen dead pets, they need to toughen up. The world is a nasty place and bad things happen. People should learn to look it in the eye instead of shying away.
Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy in action.
The Beeb has its biases too. They're not exactly the same as corporate news' biases, of course, but they are still there.
He's on the left in the US. American politics are not like other countries' politics. The US does not really have a history of nobles and peasants, so it's hardly surprising that Communism has never really had much appeal here. We have no Left because there is no real Right for it to form as a reaction to.
(Possible exception: the plantation aristocracy of the South is really the only population that could be a conservative in the European fashion, but they were mostly smashed 150 years ago.)
There were lots of newspapers that were called the XYZ Republican or the ABC Democrat. The entire concept of "unbiased journalism" was started by the agencies like AP because... they wanted to get both sides to subscribe to their wire feeds. We're just returning to an older pattern as people are once again able to select information sources that match their ideology.
The current POTUS has a lot in common with Nixon, both positive and negative (Nixon, too, got Americans out of an unpopular foreign war).
partisan propaganda purveyors shouldn't qualify for 1st Amendment rights
Pushing partisan propaganda is the entire reason we have a First Amendment. Is your political belief system so weak that the only way it can succeed is if you silence everyone who disagrees with you? And doesn't that bother you, even a little?
Agreed. I'd rather be at least 15-20 feet back. That's also why I'd rather have a shotgun for home defense.
No, because it isn't science.
And here lies the genesis of anti-gun attitudes: I can't be trusted with one, so the rest of you can't be, either.
I can assure you that children who can reach a high shelf are old enough to learn what guns are, how they work, and what happens when you fire a .357 Magnum at a watermelon, because that's exactly what my father did with me. I've been shooting since I was six, got my own BB gun at seven and a .22 at ten. Always had maximum respect for weapons, because it was drilled into me. And I intend to do exactly the same thing with my kids. Shooting and hunting are great hobbies (though I don't care for hunting myself), and self-defense is a fundamental human right. I'd rather have a daughter who knows how to shoot than one whose only hope is that the rapist won't kill her afterward.
He was an experienced detective, IIRC 20+ years on the force. One of those guys who gets to break the rules (in any organization) because, well, who the hell are you to tell him how to be a cop, rookie?
But your reaction is the same one the rest of us had - what an idiot! Wasn't just any suspect, either - the guy was arrested for murder. Dumb.
Side effects are generally predictable, and generally have a slow onset that leads to discontinuation of the drug before things become a serious problem. Failure of a self-defense gun to fire is like a new analgesic that causes instant fatal arrhythmias seconds after the first dose.
*the police are also civilians.
Not if you ask them. Go see if you can get away with no-knock raids in the middle of the night and killing all your neighbors' dogs before you assert that.
If they're standing close enough to you to be able to pull the gun out of your hands before you have shot them, you need to back up. Reaction time matters and in a real life-or-death situation you need to account for it.
Add a requirement to keep the batteries in the gun to the law and it will have the desired result
I cannot comprehend how it is that people come up with ideas this bad. You do realize that batteries can fail for a variety of reasons, right? And that the lawful gun owner is not the problem, right? I mean, the criminal who is going to commit armed robbery does not care if you also convict him of failure to keep his batteries charged when you pick him up.
You can't guarantee that the gun will always fire if an authorized user has it without restricting your safety mechanisms to simple mechanical ones.
And now, in an article about science, you quote someone's own sources to prove them wrong, you get downmodded. But it's not a religion...
So you're either religious about it or a deliberate liar. (The FDA says it's safe enough to eat, but you choose to ignore that.) Which one?