For the same reason the article hides that democrats do this same thing as well at the bottom. Political agenda.
Slashdot is known to be hostile towards certain groups: Christians, republicans, anyone in government who passes laws or regulations about computers, and the NSA. They're easy to pick on, very few of us are members of those groups (I belong to the first two groups) and any post that mentions them in a negative light is good for your karma here.
Seriously though, medals aren't just for combat. Many are simply for doing your job well. I guess not missing your target and killing kids by accident could be considered doing it well. This does seem to be fairly pointless though.
Yeah, they cost 200k for the first few. But that is to cover development. The actual price of these things should fall dramatically over the next year or so as they get rolled out. If this is the same tiny drone I've seen pictures of in the news lately, they look like something you'd find being flown around the mall by some guy selling them at a kiosk, albeit with quite a bit more technology in the camera and remote control.
I am, in fact, none of those things. I don't approve of homosexuality, but I neither fear it or hate those who are gay. I don't dislike women at all. In fact, two of my favorite people on this earth are women. I am not irrational at all; I believe in science, history, and even the theory of evolution. (of species, not humans. There is absolutely no evidence that we came from some other species, just that we have changed. Find the missing link, and I'll change with the facts) Corrupt? I don't drink, I don't do drugs, have sex with strange women, or anything else most people would consider to be "corrupt." As far as stupid, I'm talking to athiests about God, so yeah... I'm probably a little bit stupid...
As an athiest, you know shit about Christianity... Just the words in a book. I know the bible, and I know God. Don't confuse that with what you know.
I don't want a theistic government. Not once did Jesus say we should make Christians our kings. Sure, I would rather have Christians in office than people who don't share my views and opinions, but I don't support most of what the "christian right" are doing. Gay marriage, not my thing, but I don't think it should be illegal. Abortions, shouldn't be used instead of condoms, but they do serve a use in some cases. Drugs, go for it. I won't join you, but I won't stop you either.
The few heavy equipment operators I have seen are themselves rather definite proof that smoking pot DOES NOT affect your ability to, well, do almost anything. And I know quite a few. I ran equipment myself for two years. Stayed high nearly the entire time too... (come on, YOU try driving 10mph for 8-10 hours a day and see if YOU don't scream for a joint.) Oddly, the two accidents I did have, I was stone cold sober during
Pot doesn't affect your ability nearly as well as it affects your will to do something. I quit when I realized that sitting at home watching south park reruns just wasn't how I wanted to spend my life.
I'm almost positive he was Feudalistic, not Socialist... He didn't say "what is mine, is yours" he said "what is mine, came from the Lord."
There is a difference between believing in charity, and believing in forcing others into giving.
Jesus also told a story about a farmer who planted a tree in his field. For three years he watered and fertilized this tree in hopes that it would produce fruit. At the end of the third year he told his tennant to cut down the tree. His tennant replied asking him to wait one more year, and if at the end of that year the tree had not produced, he would chop down the barren tree.
We believe in charity, we believe in giving to others, but we do not believe in a nanny state which allows "barren trees" to live forever off of handouts, taken from others.
As someone who went to public schools in Mississippi, I can tell you for a fact that teachers don't lead the class in prayer even though very few of the students would object if they did.
Personally, I'm tired of being the "silent majority" in this country.
Athiests: Sit down and shut up. You make up less than 1% of this country and you are still getting your way in having God pulled from every place you can find His name. This is a democracy..07% isn't enough to even be mentioned in the footnotes of our nation...
Yes, some people calling themselves Christians have done some horrible things in this world. Just because someone calls themselves a Christian does not mean they are one. I can call myself a pink tyranosaur all day, but that won't make me any less of a human or any more of a dinosaur. Those people will be right beside those who denied Jesus in the end.
And before you even start, just because I'm a Christian doesn't mean I have to be nice. Not once does the bible tell me to be nice. It tells me to be righteous and good. I am told to follow Jesus's example; a man who was sarcastic, loud, and often completely rude to those opposed to God's way. The thought of Jesus, or christians, as "nice" or "polite" shows just how little you know of the bible.
1. of all the.22s I own, none of them are pistols... Checking wikipedia, it says that the.22 is the most common round in the world. Logic tells me that this is trus since I can buy a box of a thousand rounds for what it costs for 20.45 rounds.
2. you're right, typing faster than I could think.
3. SWAT teams wouldn't fall into the category of "most police forces." They are more likely to be shot than conventional police and therefore arm (and armor) themselves accordingly.
4. Yes, I do. I was wrong.
5. See above
6. I'd call it debris. Otherwise tornadoes would cause fragments.
2 years 3rd ID, served in Iraq and Afghanistan, member IAVA, DAV, and WWP.
Just googled them, they cost less than $400. SAPI plates run about 290, and the newer polyethelene ones cost between 400 and 600. You can get the full package (plates, with lv III-a vest) for around 700 online.
Also, small towns don't usually have swat teams, and those that do, have swat team members who wear ceramic plates. Would YOU spend $800 on plates for your vest if it meant the difference between coming home at night or dying in someone's front yard? Most cops aren't as stupid as you think, and the ones who have been around long enough to make their way on to a swat team are even less stupid. They know what bullets do to people, and they do their best to avoid first hand experience. You study computers, doctors study anatomy, swat studies violence...
When you say that it's used "almost exclusively" you're missing some key facts. There are hundreds of millions of soldiers on the planet who wear body armor. There are probably less than 200k SWAT team members world-wide. So yes, the military outnumbers police usage by far, but that's not saying that cops don't have access to them. Hell, assuming that you live in a country that has the word "liberty" in it's constitution, YOU have access to them. They aren't restricted, just expensive considering that they only last 5 years (or until shot).
The most common rifle round is NOT the 5.56. By FAR it is the.22. Seeing as how you were most likely referring to military rounds, you're still dead wrong; it's the 7.62 NATO. The last I read there were over 100 million ak47's in the world.
Body armor can stop the 5.56 as well as the 7.62 round with ceramic plates. I have been hit with a 7.62 round and while it left a huge black and blue spot on my back, knocked me down, and knocked the wind out of me, the vest did it's job and I am here today telling you that you're wrong.
Your sizes are just way off for rounds. the 9mm is 9mm across (duh, a$$hat) and the 5.56 isn't 24, it's 22.3mm (that's why we call it the.223)
Movies and games do not understate the range on grenades at all. the "lethal" radius of a grenade is 5m, but the effective stopping range is about 20-25m.
And lastly, most of the killing from artillery rounds is not done by fragmentation. There just isn't that much metal in an artillery shell. The majority of the destruction is done when the shell explodes and throws everything that's close to it 50 feet farther away. You're much more likely to be killed by a car door than a shell fragment in an artillery strike.
Nope. Grenades have about 20m worth of killing in them. Sure, it's possible you could get a random fragment through your neck 50 yards away, but from that distance I wouldn't even worry about covering my man sausage from the blast.
Unless you're in confined quarters (room, foxhole, vehicle) grenades aren't that much of a threat. Hell, we just awarded the MoH to a soldier who had one blow up less than two feet from his hand and all he lost was the hand. (that incident was clearly the exception, not the rule; but it shows us that grenades are a lot less lethal than most civilians assume.)
I highly doubt we will see an Iranian revolution any time soon. At least not until the next election, which will most likely end up the same way the last one did where the ruling party clearly cheated and the people protest. THEN we will see an Iranian revolution. But that is years away.
Bahrain, I couldn't tell you one way or the other. I don't know enough about their country to say.
Saudia Arabia on the other hand it is very likely; and that will not be a good thing for fuel prices throughout the world. The Saudis control enough of the world's oil that whichever side controls the oil will get the help. The Saudi king could behead babies and rape virgins on worldwide television, but as long as he holds the keys to the oil, no western country will dare stand up to him. It just won't happen...
As far as who will fill the power vacuum, you're probably right. It will most likely be someone who is just as bad as the last guy. In that part of the world; where education is minimal, tribal leaders are more powerful than the government in many cases, and tensions among tribes is high; it takes a very strong (IE: ruling with an iron fist) to keep a country from tearing itself apart.
Look at what happened in Iraq after Hussein. As soon as he was gone the country ripped itself into three and each side declared war on the others for control of the nation. Sunis and Shiites do not get along. Not ever. They have fought for a thousand years. Theey will most likely fightt for the next thousand years also. The only thing that kept them from killing each other while Hussein was in power was that they were too afraid to attack and face his gas attacks. It takes a strong leader, and a heavy fist, to control two sides who dislike each other as much as these groups do.
Actually, it's done a lot of good. It gave us a battlefield to fight terrorists that wasn't American soil. Many of those we have fought over there WERE going to attack americans either way, we just gave them a place where American civilians wouldn't be endangered in the process.
The other thing it did was radicalize those in the muslim population who were ripe for radicalization. It brought them out of hiding and put them on a battlefield where they could be fought. America is safer because of this. They aren't attacking american targets here or our holdings in other countries; they're attacking our well armed soldiers in the field. Again, these people choose to attack us, all we did was choose who they had the best opportunity to attack.
Would you rather these people have been left alone to plan more attacks like 9/11 or the Madrid bombing and kill innocent civilians, or would you rather they keep their focus on attacking an army of soldiers who have chosen to fight?
Fighter jets aren't public. They are owned by the military. Roads are public.
cell phones, makeup, and GPS do not cause nearly as many deaths as drunk driving even if you add them all up. I do think that the fines should be stiff for all of those things, but drunk driving is one of those things which everyone knows kills lots of people. You can't say that you were driving drunk and didn't think you could have killed someone.
First off, if I were you, I wouldn't keep dead hookers in my basement. Come summer that thing will really start to stink.
And secondly, I don't agree. (I am not stating law, I am stating opinion of what I believe the law ought to be) I feel that my hair and my blood are just as much a part of "me" as my words and taking them to use to prosecute me should be considered forcing me to testify against myself.
Now if I left that blood under the nails of the dead hooker in your basement, it wouldn't be a part of me any more than a tape of me admitting guilt would be considered self-incriminating.
If it's in me, on me, or comes out of me; it is me.
If it's on tape, on the floor, or inside a dead hooker, it's no longer part of me.
How can I not have the right to drive a vehicle though? (Yes, I know it's not a right. But thinking about it, it doesn't make sense.)
Our tax dollars pay for roads. Our tax dollars even pay to make the cars we drive (There is a Nissan plant in my town that was paid for by tax money from the state, NOT by Nissan.) How then can I be forced to have a license to use a public road? I do not need a license to use the swings at a public park or to watch a concert on public tv. I don't need a license to visit a public museum or ride public transportation.
Licensing something means that the state has the right to restrict something. If my license gets revoked, my tax money doesn't stop paying for that road upkeep. I don't have less of a tax burden if I chose not to drive.
If I pay for it, I feel that I have a right to use it. (I also believe that I have a right to drink alcohol as long as I'm over 21 and have the cash; but think driving drunk should be prosecuted as attempted murder.)
That brings up a better question. Why are states able to require licenses to drive on public roads? If my taxes pay for them, shouldn't I be able to use them freely? I do not need a license to use public parks or public transportation. I don't have to get a license to listen to public radio (but I need a labotomy for it). How can the state require me to be licensed for anything that taxpayers fund, as licensing it implies permission, and permission implies the right to revoke permission.
Yes, I'm playing devils advocate here; I do think people should need to prove ability to drive before allowing them to drive in public, but I don't see how it can be revoked (suspended) or charged for if my tax money pays for it.
Courts most certainly DO extend the right (not privilege) against self-incrimination to the collection of hair and blood samples. Unless the suspect volunteers these things, a court order must be produced for investigators to take either of them.
Slashdot Mirror
For the same reason the article hides that democrats do this same thing as well at the bottom. Political agenda.
Slashdot is known to be hostile towards certain groups: Christians, republicans, anyone in government who passes laws or regulations about computers, and the NSA. They're easy to pick on, very few of us are members of those groups (I belong to the first two groups) and any post that mentions them in a negative light is good for your karma here.
What scientific information doesn't the EPA disclose?
http://junkscience.com/2013/08...
There you go. Answered.
Truith BURN!
Seriously though, medals aren't just for combat. Many are simply for doing your job well. I guess not missing your target and killing kids by accident could be considered doing it well. This does seem to be fairly pointless though.
>>So please, to any libertarians -- can you give me a purely libertarian explanation of why cybersquatting is wrong?
Because it's rude.
The house? They're the only ones with blame here? Then how come congress refuses to pass (or even discuss) any of the budgets passed by the house?
It's BOTH side's fault, and it's not new. They've been doing it for years.
Yeah, they cost 200k for the first few. But that is to cover development. The actual price of these things should fall dramatically over the next year or so as they get rolled out. If this is the same tiny drone I've seen pictures of in the news lately, they look like something you'd find being flown around the mall by some guy selling them at a kiosk, albeit with quite a bit more technology in the camera and remote control.
I am, in fact, none of those things. I don't approve of homosexuality, but I neither fear it or hate those who are gay. I don't dislike women at all. In fact, two of my favorite people on this earth are women. I am not irrational at all; I believe in science, history, and even the theory of evolution. (of species, not humans. There is absolutely no evidence that we came from some other species, just that we have changed. Find the missing link, and I'll change with the facts) Corrupt? I don't drink, I don't do drugs, have sex with strange women, or anything else most people would consider to be "corrupt." As far as stupid, I'm talking to athiests about God, so yeah... I'm probably a little bit stupid...
As an athiest, you know shit about Christianity... Just the words in a book. I know the bible, and I know God. Don't confuse that with what you know.
I don't want a theistic government. Not once did Jesus say we should make Christians our kings. Sure, I would rather have Christians in office than people who don't share my views and opinions, but I don't support most of what the "christian right" are doing. Gay marriage, not my thing, but I don't think it should be illegal. Abortions, shouldn't be used instead of condoms, but they do serve a use in some cases. Drugs, go for it. I won't join you, but I won't stop you either.
The few heavy equipment operators I have seen are themselves rather definite proof that smoking pot DOES NOT affect your ability to, well, do almost anything. And I know quite a few. I ran equipment myself for two years. Stayed high nearly the entire time too... (come on, YOU try driving 10mph for 8-10 hours a day and see if YOU don't scream for a joint.) Oddly, the two accidents I did have, I was stone cold sober during
Pot doesn't affect your ability nearly as well as it affects your will to do something. I quit when I realized that sitting at home watching south park reruns just wasn't how I wanted to spend my life.
I'm almost positive he was Feudalistic, not Socialist... He didn't say "what is mine, is yours" he said "what is mine, came from the Lord."
There is a difference between believing in charity, and believing in forcing others into giving.
Jesus also told a story about a farmer who planted a tree in his field. For three years he watered and fertilized this tree in hopes that it would produce fruit. At the end of the third year he told his tennant to cut down the tree. His tennant replied asking him to wait one more year, and if at the end of that year the tree had not produced, he would chop down the barren tree.
We believe in charity, we believe in giving to others, but we do not believe in a nanny state which allows "barren trees" to live forever off of handouts, taken from others.
As someone who went to public schools in Mississippi, I can tell you for a fact that teachers don't lead the class in prayer even though very few of the students would object if they did.
Personally, I'm tired of being the "silent majority" in this country.
Athiests: Sit down and shut up. You make up less than 1% of this country and you are still getting your way in having God pulled from every place you can find His name. This is a democracy. .07% isn't enough to even be mentioned in the footnotes of our nation...
Yes, some people calling themselves Christians have done some horrible things in this world. Just because someone calls themselves a Christian does not mean they are one. I can call myself a pink tyranosaur all day, but that won't make me any less of a human or any more of a dinosaur. Those people will be right beside those who denied Jesus in the end.
And before you even start, just because I'm a Christian doesn't mean I have to be nice. Not once does the bible tell me to be nice. It tells me to be righteous and good. I am told to follow Jesus's example; a man who was sarcastic, loud, and often completely rude to those opposed to God's way. The thought of Jesus, or christians, as "nice" or "polite" shows just how little you know of the bible.
1. of all the .22s I own, none of them are pistols... Checking wikipedia, it says that the .22 is the most common round in the world. Logic tells me that this is trus since I can buy a box of a thousand rounds for what it costs for 20 .45 rounds.
2. you're right, typing faster than I could think.
3. SWAT teams wouldn't fall into the category of "most police forces." They are more likely to be shot than conventional police and therefore arm (and armor) themselves accordingly.
4. Yes, I do. I was wrong.
5. See above
6. I'd call it debris. Otherwise tornadoes would cause fragments.
2 years 3rd ID, served in Iraq and Afghanistan, member IAVA, DAV, and WWP.
Just googled them, they cost less than $400. SAPI plates run about 290, and the newer polyethelene ones cost between 400 and 600. You can get the full package (plates, with lv III-a vest) for around 700 online.
Also, small towns don't usually have swat teams, and those that do, have swat team members who wear ceramic plates. Would YOU spend $800 on plates for your vest if it meant the difference between coming home at night or dying in someone's front yard? Most cops aren't as stupid as you think, and the ones who have been around long enough to make their way on to a swat team are even less stupid. They know what bullets do to people, and they do their best to avoid first hand experience. You study computers, doctors study anatomy, swat studies violence...
When you say that it's used "almost exclusively" you're missing some key facts. There are hundreds of millions of soldiers on the planet who wear body armor. There are probably less than 200k SWAT team members world-wide. So yes, the military outnumbers police usage by far, but that's not saying that cops don't have access to them. Hell, assuming that you live in a country that has the word "liberty" in it's constitution, YOU have access to them. They aren't restricted, just expensive considering that they only last 5 years (or until shot).
The most common rifle round is NOT the 5.56. By FAR it is the .22. Seeing as how you were most likely referring to military rounds, you're still dead wrong; it's the 7.62 NATO. The last I read there were over 100 million ak47's in the world.
Body armor can stop the 5.56 as well as the 7.62 round with ceramic plates. I have been hit with a 7.62 round and while it left a huge black and blue spot on my back, knocked me down, and knocked the wind out of me, the vest did it's job and I am here today telling you that you're wrong.
Your sizes are just way off for rounds. the 9mm is 9mm across (duh, a$$hat) and the 5.56 isn't 24, it's 22.3mm (that's why we call it the .223)
Movies and games do not understate the range on grenades at all. the "lethal" radius of a grenade is 5m, but the effective stopping range is about 20-25m.
And lastly, most of the killing from artillery rounds is not done by fragmentation. There just isn't that much metal in an artillery shell. The majority of the destruction is done when the shell explodes and throws everything that's close to it 50 feet farther away. You're much more likely to be killed by a car door than a shell fragment in an artillery strike.
Nope. Grenades have about 20m worth of killing in them. Sure, it's possible you could get a random fragment through your neck 50 yards away, but from that distance I wouldn't even worry about covering my man sausage from the blast.
Unless you're in confined quarters (room, foxhole, vehicle) grenades aren't that much of a threat. Hell, we just awarded the MoH to a soldier who had one blow up less than two feet from his hand and all he lost was the hand. (that incident was clearly the exception, not the rule; but it shows us that grenades are a lot less lethal than most civilians assume.)
No, I didn't get a reach around. I got my legs shattered and my knees destroyed when my helicopter was shot down.
Most of the civilians I saw dead over there had AK-47's in their hands when they died...
I highly doubt we will see an Iranian revolution any time soon. At least not until the next election, which will most likely end up the same way the last one did where the ruling party clearly cheated and the people protest. THEN we will see an Iranian revolution. But that is years away.
Bahrain, I couldn't tell you one way or the other. I don't know enough about their country to say.
Saudia Arabia on the other hand it is very likely; and that will not be a good thing for fuel prices throughout the world. The Saudis control enough of the world's oil that whichever side controls the oil will get the help. The Saudi king could behead babies and rape virgins on worldwide television, but as long as he holds the keys to the oil, no western country will dare stand up to him. It just won't happen...
As far as who will fill the power vacuum, you're probably right. It will most likely be someone who is just as bad as the last guy. In that part of the world; where education is minimal, tribal leaders are more powerful than the government in many cases, and tensions among tribes is high; it takes a very strong (IE: ruling with an iron fist) to keep a country from tearing itself apart.
Look at what happened in Iraq after Hussein. As soon as he was gone the country ripped itself into three and each side declared war on the others for control of the nation. Sunis and Shiites do not get along. Not ever. They have fought for a thousand years. Theey will most likely fightt for the next thousand years also. The only thing that kept them from killing each other while Hussein was in power was that they were too afraid to attack and face his gas attacks. It takes a strong leader, and a heavy fist, to control two sides who dislike each other as much as these groups do.
Actually, it's done a lot of good. It gave us a battlefield to fight terrorists that wasn't American soil. Many of those we have fought over there WERE going to attack americans either way, we just gave them a place where American civilians wouldn't be endangered in the process.
The other thing it did was radicalize those in the muslim population who were ripe for radicalization. It brought them out of hiding and put them on a battlefield where they could be fought. America is safer because of this. They aren't attacking american targets here or our holdings in other countries; they're attacking our well armed soldiers in the field. Again, these people choose to attack us, all we did was choose who they had the best opportunity to attack.
Would you rather these people have been left alone to plan more attacks like 9/11 or the Madrid bombing and kill innocent civilians, or would you rather they keep their focus on attacking an army of soldiers who have chosen to fight?
Tell that to the dead guy...
It makes it hard to aim their weapons? They're on skiffs in the ocean! It's already hard to aim! Way to go inventing something that does nothing!
Fighter jets aren't public. They are owned by the military. Roads are public.
cell phones, makeup, and GPS do not cause nearly as many deaths as drunk driving even if you add them all up. I do think that the fines should be stiff for all of those things, but drunk driving is one of those things which everyone knows kills lots of people. You can't say that you were driving drunk and didn't think you could have killed someone.
First off, if I were you, I wouldn't keep dead hookers in my basement. Come summer that thing will really start to stink.
And secondly, I don't agree. (I am not stating law, I am stating opinion of what I believe the law ought to be) I feel that my hair and my blood are just as much a part of "me" as my words and taking them to use to prosecute me should be considered forcing me to testify against myself.
Now if I left that blood under the nails of the dead hooker in your basement, it wouldn't be a part of me any more than a tape of me admitting guilt would be considered self-incriminating.
If it's in me, on me, or comes out of me; it is me.
If it's on tape, on the floor, or inside a dead hooker, it's no longer part of me.
How can I not have the right to drive a vehicle though? (Yes, I know it's not a right. But thinking about it, it doesn't make sense.)
Our tax dollars pay for roads. Our tax dollars even pay to make the cars we drive (There is a Nissan plant in my town that was paid for by tax money from the state, NOT by Nissan.) How then can I be forced to have a license to use a public road? I do not need a license to use the swings at a public park or to watch a concert on public tv. I don't need a license to visit a public museum or ride public transportation.
Licensing something means that the state has the right to restrict something. If my license gets revoked, my tax money doesn't stop paying for that road upkeep. I don't have less of a tax burden if I chose not to drive.
If I pay for it, I feel that I have a right to use it. (I also believe that I have a right to drink alcohol as long as I'm over 21 and have the cash; but think driving drunk should be prosecuted as attempted murder.)
That brings up a better question. Why are states able to require licenses to drive on public roads? If my taxes pay for them, shouldn't I be able to use them freely? I do not need a license to use public parks or public transportation. I don't have to get a license to listen to public radio (but I need a labotomy for it). How can the state require me to be licensed for anything that taxpayers fund, as licensing it implies permission, and permission implies the right to revoke permission.
Yes, I'm playing devils advocate here; I do think people should need to prove ability to drive before allowing them to drive in public, but I don't see how it can be revoked (suspended) or charged for if my tax money pays for it.
Courts most certainly DO extend the right (not privilege) against self-incrimination to the collection of hair and blood samples. Unless the suspect volunteers these things, a court order must be produced for investigators to take either of them.