Explain to me how being shot cowering in a corner is preferable to being shot while attempting to defend your life and the lives of your fellow classmates?
But to answer your question, the text book itself does not have to stop the shooter, merely break his rhythm or OODA loop long enough to allow for a counter attack.
Of course in this day and age, of people not learning or being taught to take defense into their own hands (tell a teacher, tell a parent, call the cops) it may be unlikely that such a counter attack will take place. But there is still a 99% chance of you dying whether you act or not. If I can tilt my odds in favor of that last 1% you better damn believe I will as should anyone.
I'm not unnerved by my decision to kill. I know and am comfortable with my perspective on it. I know I'm willing to kill the guy with the gun. I personally don't know who the teacher is willing to kill, only that he is willing to kill.
A valid point. Now, do you think that the teacher whom you entrust your child's life and education to is any less willing to kill because the law says that he must leave his gun that he carries in public at home when he walks through the door to the school? Do you think there is something in particular about the school that makes the teacher any more likely ot use his gun than the grocery store?
Also, should other people with children be unerved by the fact that you are willing to kill?
Personally, I trust me more than I trust some teacher.
Pick 20 people you know. How many would you trust to defend your life or the life of your child if need be? If most or all, which do you think your child's teacher is most like, the one's you trust or the one's you don't? If none or few, is that not a sad reflection on the state of society and the people you know that you wouldn't trust them with your life?
Likewise, I don't trust other people to do what's best for what's important to me.
Do you trust a cop?
I'm not trying to be inflamitory or irritating, I'm just trying to flesh out the borders of your view point. The more I understand your position, the more you will understand mine.
So it unnerves you that a teacher might be ready and willing to kill someone threatening your child's life, but you still think they should offer resistance? So then when you reach the point where non deadly resistance isn't helping (say your gunman has already shot one teacher who tried to block his path) will you simply give up, having reached the brink and willing to go no further? Or would you employ deadly force to protect your life and the lives of others? If so, are you unnerved by your decision to be willing to kill?
Oddly enough, the felony conviction rate of CCP holders is lower than the felony conviction rate of cops (at least here in NC). CCP holders in general have more practice time at the range than your average cop. CCP holders are also held to a much higher standard than cops when it comes to use of their weapons. It's also worth noting that the type of people who get a CCP tend to also be the type of people who are interested in guns and self defense anyway. They are much more likely to spend time on the range than just once when he was a teen.
It's worth noting that in almost all the instances from VT that I have heard where someone offered resistance, the end result was less dead people. Sure the professor who blocked the doorway died, but no one else in his classroom did. Do we really think that if the gunman had walked in no resistance that only the professor would be dead? Not everyone has to resist, nor is it always wise to resist, but there are situations where resistance is better than not resisting. We do a servere disservice to all of our children to not include self defense courses in our PE programs at school.
I can't speak for Australia, but in the UK burglaries and robberies involving firearms are in the minority.
As they are in the US, despite what the TV may tell you. But you missed my point. You said without homeowners with guns, burglars wouldn't cary them. By your own admission this is not true. And if given a choice between being armed should someone break into my home and not being armed, I will take being armed every time.
In this instance, the liquid cooling once it is spilt is irrelevant due to the location of the spill. She spilled it into her crotch, while wearing sweatpants. In order for the liquid to cool rapidly enough to not cause severe burns, the liquid must spill over a wide area and be allowed to dissipate heat quickly. This does not occur when the liquid is immediately absorbed into the seat and pants of the victim. Furthermore, you also need to account for steam burns, which are generally far more severe and faster acting. In the position this woman was in, the coffee could not reasonably had had enough time to dissipate both heat and steam over a wide enough area in the 1.8 seconds it would take to burn this woman. Also note that the 1.8 is for third degree burns. Even providing for cooling she would still easily have walked away with 2nd degree burns, but the fact that her clothing and her seat forced her to remain in close contact with the water guaranteed the 3rd degree burns.
As for the serving temperature of the coffee take it up with the people who make the coffee machine. But feel free to search around online and find that it's not inaccurate. Another source: http://www.boyds.com/coffee/brewingguide.html
Furthermore, it's worth noting that coffee is meant to be sipped, not gulped as people are wont to do these days, so the higher serving temperature does not actually burn you when consumed properly.
Why do you always assume that all intruders are absolutely evil and only come into your house to kill you and your children?
Because if that is your intent, the only way I'm going to survive the encounter is to kill you first.
Because if you break into my house, you are evil Plain and simple. No justification in the world makes it ok for you to violate my home and my safety. By breaking into my home, you have already shown:
1) a propensity to use force 2) a disregard for the law 3) a disregard for my safety 4) a disregard for the value of your own life
With that much working against you, I'm not giving you the bennefit of the doubt that you're just here for a cup of coffee. If you don't want to get shot, don't break into my house. Plain and simple.
In practice, they're only looking for things they can sell so they get money to survive (and yes, guns bring quite some money): They just want to make a living, like you do (of course, their choice of job is rather questionable, but they don't have another perspective in life, which is different from, say, politicians).
Irellevant. THey have no right to be there, no right to my stuff, and no right to threaten my family. They are evil. If they want to make a living, they can go get any number of other jobs. Hell if illegal immigrants can make a living on less than minimum wage, any common burglar can too. If they want to choose a career of theft, then consider threat of death an occupational hazard.
If you have no gun, there would be no need for burglars to carry weapons
That's working out so well in the UK and Austrailia isn't it?
Most people do not expect to be severly burned by coffee, because it is usually not hot enough.
I would assume that most people would assume it will give them a damn nasty burn. Combined with the fact that hot liquids that are kept pressed to the skin (i.e. via clothing) and not allowed to ventalate steam (i.e. in the crotch) will cause extremely severe burns. 3rd degree would not suprise me at all. But then, I don't go sticking cups of boiling liquid in my crotch.
To that end:
"It is well documented that when human skin reaches 119F, a first-degree burn will result; 131F will produce a second-degree burn; and 150F will give a third-degree burn."...
"This corresponds to the fact that human skin must be exposed to 160F for 60 seconds or 180F for 30 seconds or 212F for 15 seconds to produce a second-degree burn.""
"Ideal serving temperature: 155F to 175F (70C to 80C) Many of the volatile aromatics in coffee have boiling points above 150F (65C). They simply are not perceived when coffee is served at lower temperatures."
"ideal holding temperature: 175F to 185F (80C to 85C) Most all the volatile aromatics in coffee have boiling points well below that of water and continue to evaporate from the surface until pressure in the serving container reaches equilibrium. A closed container can slow the process of evaporation."
I've taken far too many lectures, and far too many professors don't give a crap which is why their classes sucked for the students, and explains in part the general decline of the american higher education system. I could count on one hand the number of professors that were truly interesting when I was in college, and the ones that were most certainly were selling you on the ideas they were presenting. Your problem is you're viewing selling in the used car sense and not in the "here's something that I want you to take with you when you leave this room" sense.
As far as dishonesty, there is nothing inherently dishonest about selling. The only time a sales person NEEDS to be dishonest is when the person they're talking to isn't listening, and ususaly (but not always) that's the fault of the sales person for not knowing how to sell.
Presenting is all about selling, You're selling your credibility, you're selling your topic (why else are you presenting), you're selling your view on said topic. Not to invoke a cliche, but watch any of Hitler's speaches, he's selling you on his beliefs, and if you imagine him trying to sell you a used car (as amusing of an image as that might be), he would be rather succesful.
Everyone should be a salesman. When you are presenting, you are selling something, it doesn't matter if you're lecturing on the mating habits of naked pigmy mole rats or selling a quad processor tower, you're still selling something.
Circuit City sales is not "Tech" no matter how much Circuit City tells it's employees otherwise, no matter how much they believe otherwise. Circuit City just isn't a place where people go for solutions and specialist help, they go there for an electronic, and usualy just because circuit city has the best rebate. Circuit City may have started better, but over the years it has sadly (and in some ways inevitably) fallen from those lofty goals.
RIght, but we're not talking a comptroller department or even department heads, we're talking top paid sales people at circuit city. Baring a very very small number of highly effective sales folks that haven't moved up or out, eliminating your top paid sales folks isn't going to affect the performance of your store all that much relative to the expenses it will save.
Only if said bonus is paid in actual cash AND said bonus is significant enough to equal a reasonable ammount per store. One employee per store is $25000 per store. $300000 of an executive bonus is only a couple thousand per store.
Let's find out shall we? Lets say that circuit city has 6 VPs. We cut all their salaries in half, thus saving $900,000. Over the same 250 stores, thats $3600 per store, or roughly the savings of cutting one high paid sales person per store and rehiring them at a lower salary. And in the end, if you're looking at things from the company's point of view, who is easier to replace? The sales guy or the VP? Who's more likely to walk if you cut their salary?
My point is, your assertation doesn't always hold true, and I certainly think it doesn't hold true for Circuit City. Where once circuit city might have been a place to get real answers and real support it's now just another electronic retailer. The people who want answers and support won't listen to the people who can provide it, so it doesn't matter if the circuit city employee can provide it and the folks that would listen, don't need the answers or support because they already have them. Honestly circuit city is just another retail store, the ammount of "service" most employees there will ever be required to provide is correctly ringing up products. It's sad and sucks for the employees but true.
Furthermore, you are completely ignoring that sometimes retail stores just need more people, not smarter people. You're also assuming that higher paid means better employee. I've worked with plenty of people that were better paid and worse employees than the people under them. While it can, pay does not always correspond to skill or value. Lastly, you are ignoring the possibility that most of the people circuit city employs are the ones they need, and by firing the highest paid, they can fire less people for the same cost savings, therefore allowing them to retain more good employees.
Sales folks are easy to replace. Competent management, not so much. Furthermore, lets say we cut one VP from the company, and let's say that circuit city has 250 retail stores (numbers entirely from my ass).
VP salary of $100,000 / year
over 250 retail stores is an extra $400 / year / store.
Now instead lets fire your top earning sales person from each store. If your top earner makes $25,000 / year all of that money (and then some, remember stores pay taxes on you) for each store.
I don't know why they didn't pay more to keep the good people. It would have saved them money and made the customers lives happier. Many low-wage jobs have several hundred percent turnover. Why not up your wages a bit and get it down to a nice 50% or less?
Multiple reasons:
Better paid long term employees don't bring in a significant amount of extra money in a high competition, low margin business like fast food or circuit city. Long gone are the days when "would you like fries with that" was a sales pitch, people would actualy listen to the sales person describe the service plans and people bought the extra accessories. The only people that still fall for those are the people who don't know any better and you'll get those people wether you have expert sales people or shitty ones. I would bet that if you looked at overall traffic and revenue on the nights when you had the veterans and the nights you had the new people, it didn't vary much.
As far as turnover and wages, most turnover in support, retail and sales has to do with low wages in relation to the abuse you take from the public, but few to no retail businesses can afford to pay anyone enough money to make dealing with the public enticing. For that matter, the public won't pay the prices it would cost to pay employees enough money to deal with the public happily. People want the lowest cost and have little to no brand loyalty, and neither to the employees. It's a race to the bottom and everyone along the way is getting screwed.
In any case, I think CC would be better off staffing a store with 10 good people making $20/hour than 20 losers making $10. You'll get faster, more pleasant, and professional service.
You've clearly never worked a retail job for any length of time. If you need 20 people, you need 20 people, not 10 good people making twice as much. And what a humanitarian you are, to let 10 people go without jobs so that 10 others can have more money. Isn't that the same problem you're having with the CEOs and the VPs? They get more while others are sent away?
Let's assume that they validly need to cut costs. Doesn't it make sense to cut the highest paid people? Isn't this what we demand that companies do (i.e. stop paying the CEOs and managers so much more than the peons? Furthermore, remember that in order to equal the amount of money saved by cutting our highest paid, you would have to cut many more of your lowest paid. Is it better to fire 100 of your highest paid or 200 of your lowest paid? Circuit city seems to think the former, and I'm not sure they're wrong (i'm not sure they're right either).
Slashdot Mirror
Explain to me how being shot cowering in a corner is preferable to being shot while attempting to defend your life and the lives of your fellow classmates?
But to answer your question, the text book itself does not have to stop the shooter, merely break his rhythm or OODA loop long enough to allow for a counter attack.
Of course in this day and age, of people not learning or being taught to take defense into their own hands (tell a teacher, tell a parent, call the cops) it may be unlikely that such a counter attack will take place. But there is still a 99% chance of you dying whether you act or not. If I can tilt my odds in favor of that last 1% you better damn believe I will as should anyone.
I'm not unnerved by my decision to kill. I know and am comfortable with my perspective on it. I know I'm willing to kill the guy with the gun. I personally don't know who the teacher is willing to kill, only that he is willing to kill.
A valid point. Now, do you think that the teacher whom you entrust your child's life and education to is any less willing to kill because the law says that he must leave his gun that he carries in public at home when he walks through the door to the school? Do you think there is something in particular about the school that makes the teacher any more likely ot use his gun than the grocery store?
Also, should other people with children be unerved by the fact that you are willing to kill?
Personally, I trust me more than I trust some teacher.
Pick 20 people you know. How many would you trust to defend your life or the life of your child if need be? If most or all, which do you think your child's teacher is most like, the one's you trust or the one's you don't? If none or few, is that not a sad reflection on the state of society and the people you know that you wouldn't trust them with your life?
Likewise, I don't trust other people to do what's best for what's important to me.
Do you trust a cop?
I'm not trying to be inflamitory or irritating, I'm just trying to flesh out the borders of your view point. The more I understand your position, the more you will understand mine.
So it unnerves you that a teacher might be ready and willing to kill someone threatening your child's life, but you still think they should offer resistance? So then when you reach the point where non deadly resistance isn't helping (say your gunman has already shot one teacher who tried to block his path) will you simply give up, having reached the brink and willing to go no further? Or would you employ deadly force to protect your life and the lives of others? If so, are you unnerved by your decision to be willing to kill?
Oddly enough, the felony conviction rate of CCP holders is lower than the felony conviction rate of cops (at least here in NC). CCP holders in general have more practice time at the range than your average cop. CCP holders are also held to a much higher standard than cops when it comes to use of their weapons. It's also worth noting that the type of people who get a CCP tend to also be the type of people who are interested in guns and self defense anyway. They are much more likely to spend time on the range than just once when he was a teen.
1) He had two semi automatic weapons.
2) Next in line or 10th in line, it doesn't matter, you're still dead, but if you're next, and you die taking him out, you're also last.
It's worth noting that in almost all the instances from VT that I have heard where someone offered resistance, the end result was less dead people. Sure the professor who blocked the doorway died, but no one else in his classroom did. Do we really think that if the gunman had walked in no resistance that only the professor would be dead? Not everyone has to resist, nor is it always wise to resist, but there are situations where resistance is better than not resisting. We do a servere disservice to all of our children to not include self defense courses in our PE programs at school.
I can't speak for Australia, but in the UK burglaries and robberies involving firearms are in the minority.
As they are in the US, despite what the TV may tell you. But you missed my point. You said without homeowners with guns, burglars wouldn't cary them. By your own admission this is not true. And if given a choice between being armed should someone break into my home and not being armed, I will take being armed every time.
In this instance, the liquid cooling once it is spilt is irrelevant due to the location of the spill. She spilled it into her crotch, while wearing sweatpants. In order for the liquid to cool rapidly enough to not cause severe burns, the liquid must spill over a wide area and be allowed to dissipate heat quickly. This does not occur when the liquid is immediately absorbed into the seat and pants of the victim. Furthermore, you also need to account for steam burns, which are generally far more severe and faster acting. In the position this woman was in, the coffee could not reasonably had had enough time to dissipate both heat and steam over a wide enough area in the 1.8 seconds it would take to burn this woman. Also note that the 1.8 is for third degree burns. Even providing for cooling she would still easily have walked away with 2nd degree burns, but the fact that her clothing and her seat forced her to remain in close contact with the water guaranteed the 3rd degree burns.
As for the serving temperature of the coffee take it up with the people who make the coffee machine. But feel free to search around online and find that it's not inaccurate. Another source: http://www.boyds.com/coffee/brewingguide.html
Furthermore, it's worth noting that coffee is meant to be sipped, not gulped as people are wont to do these days, so the higher serving temperature does not actually burn you when consumed properly.
Why do you always assume that all intruders are absolutely evil and only come into your house to kill you and your children?
Because if that is your intent, the only way I'm going to survive the encounter is to kill you first.
Because if you break into my house, you are evil Plain and simple. No justification in the world makes it ok for you to violate my home and my safety. By breaking into my home, you have already shown:
1) a propensity to use force
2) a disregard for the law
3) a disregard for my safety
4) a disregard for the value of your own life
With that much working against you, I'm not giving you the bennefit of the doubt that you're just here for a cup of coffee. If you don't want to get shot, don't break into my house. Plain and simple.
In practice, they're only looking for things they can sell so they get money to survive (and yes, guns bring quite some money): They just want to make a living, like you do (of course, their choice of job is rather questionable, but they don't have another perspective in life, which is different from, say, politicians).
Irellevant. THey have no right to be there, no right to my stuff, and no right to threaten my family. They are evil. If they want to make a living, they can go get any number of other jobs. Hell if illegal immigrants can make a living on less than minimum wage, any common burglar can too. If they want to choose a career of theft, then consider threat of death an occupational hazard.
If you have no gun, there would be no need for burglars to carry weapons
That's working out so well in the UK and Austrailia isn't it?
I would assume that most people would assume it will give them a damn nasty burn. Combined with the fact that hot liquids that are kept pressed to the skin (i.e. via clothing) and not allowed to ventalate steam (i.e. in the crotch) will cause extremely severe burns. 3rd degree would not suprise me at all. But then, I don't go sticking cups of boiling liquid in my crotch.
To that end:
http://www.firehouse.com/magazine/archives/1998/S
http://www.thermomegatech.com/brochure/ThermoMix_
http://www.bunnomatic.com/pages/coffeebasics/cb6h
Wanna bet when she spilled the coffee it was in contact with her crotch for longer than the 1.8 seconds it would take to develop third degree burns?
at least with snow you don't have to work in it when it happens (unless that is your job, e.g Mr. Plow).
You've never lived in any state where a snow storm of 1/4 of an inch doesn't shut down the whole state have you?
I've taken far too many lectures, and far too many professors don't give a crap which is why their classes sucked for the students, and explains in part the general decline of the american higher education system. I could count on one hand the number of professors that were truly interesting when I was in college, and the ones that were most certainly were selling you on the ideas they were presenting. Your problem is you're viewing selling in the used car sense and not in the "here's something that I want you to take with you when you leave this room" sense.
As far as dishonesty, there is nothing inherently dishonest about selling. The only time a sales person NEEDS to be dishonest is when the person they're talking to isn't listening, and ususaly (but not always) that's the fault of the sales person for not knowing how to sell.
Presenting is all about selling, You're selling your credibility, you're selling your topic (why else are you presenting), you're selling your view on said topic. Not to invoke a cliche, but watch any of Hitler's speaches, he's selling you on his beliefs, and if you imagine him trying to sell you a used car (as amusing of an image as that might be), he would be rather succesful.
Everyone should be a salesman. When you are presenting, you are selling something, it doesn't matter if you're lecturing on the mating habits of naked pigmy mole rats or selling a quad processor tower, you're still selling something.
Circuit City sales is not "Tech" no matter how much Circuit City tells it's employees otherwise, no matter how much they believe otherwise. Circuit City just isn't a place where people go for solutions and specialist help, they go there for an electronic, and usualy just because circuit city has the best rebate. Circuit City may have started better, but over the years it has sadly (and in some ways inevitably) fallen from those lofty goals.
RIght, but we're not talking a comptroller department or even department heads, we're talking top paid sales people at circuit city. Baring a very very small number of highly effective sales folks that haven't moved up or out, eliminating your top paid sales folks isn't going to affect the performance of your store all that much relative to the expenses it will save.
You are assuming that higher pay is directly corelated with better performance.
Only if said bonus is paid in actual cash AND said bonus is significant enough to equal a reasonable ammount per store. One employee per store is $25000 per store. $300000 of an executive bonus is only a couple thousand per store.
You're assuming higher pay = better employee. In your experience, with what frequency does this ring true?
Let's find out shall we? Lets say that circuit city has 6 VPs. We cut all their salaries in half, thus saving $900,000. Over the same 250 stores, thats $3600 per store, or roughly the savings of cutting one high paid sales person per store and rehiring them at a lower salary. And in the end, if you're looking at things from the company's point of view, who is easier to replace? The sales guy or the VP? Who's more likely to walk if you cut their salary?
My point is, your assertation doesn't always hold true, and I certainly think it doesn't hold true for Circuit City. Where once circuit city might have been a place to get real answers and real support it's now just another electronic retailer. The people who want answers and support won't listen to the people who can provide it, so it doesn't matter if the circuit city employee can provide it and the folks that would listen, don't need the answers or support because they already have them. Honestly circuit city is just another retail store, the ammount of "service" most employees there will ever be required to provide is correctly ringing up products. It's sad and sucks for the employees but true.
Furthermore, you are completely ignoring that sometimes retail stores just need more people, not smarter people. You're also assuming that higher paid means better employee. I've worked with plenty of people that were better paid and worse employees than the people under them. While it can, pay does not always correspond to skill or value. Lastly, you are ignoring the possibility that most of the people circuit city employs are the ones they need, and by firing the highest paid, they can fire less people for the same cost savings, therefore allowing them to retain more good employees.
Sales folks are easy to replace. Competent management, not so much. Furthermore, lets say we cut one VP from the company, and let's say that circuit city has 250 retail stores (numbers entirely from my ass).
VP salary of $100,000 / year
over 250 retail stores is an extra $400 / year / store.
Now instead lets fire your top earning sales person from each store. If your top earner makes $25,000 / year all of that money (and then some, remember stores pay taxes on you) for each store.
I don't know why they didn't pay more to keep the good people. It would have saved them money and made the customers lives happier. Many low-wage jobs have several hundred percent turnover. Why not up your wages a bit and get it down to a nice 50% or less?
Multiple reasons:
Better paid long term employees don't bring in a significant amount of extra money in a high competition, low margin business like fast food or circuit city. Long gone are the days when "would you like fries with that" was a sales pitch, people would actualy listen to the sales person describe the service plans and people bought the extra accessories. The only people that still fall for those are the people who don't know any better and you'll get those people wether you have expert sales people or shitty ones. I would bet that if you looked at overall traffic and revenue on the nights when you had the veterans and the nights you had the new people, it didn't vary much.
As far as turnover and wages, most turnover in support, retail and sales has to do with low wages in relation to the abuse you take from the public, but few to no retail businesses can afford to pay anyone enough money to make dealing with the public enticing. For that matter, the public won't pay the prices it would cost to pay employees enough money to deal with the public happily. People want the lowest cost and have little to no brand loyalty, and neither to the employees. It's a race to the bottom and everyone along the way is getting screwed.
In any case, I think CC would be better off staffing a store with 10 good people making $20/hour than 20 losers making $10. You'll get faster, more pleasant, and professional service.
You've clearly never worked a retail job for any length of time. If you need 20 people, you need 20 people, not 10 good people making twice as much. And what a humanitarian you are, to let 10 people go without jobs so that 10 others can have more money. Isn't that the same problem you're having with the CEOs and the VPs? They get more while others are sent away?
Let's assume that they validly need to cut costs. Doesn't it make sense to cut the highest paid people? Isn't this what we demand that companies do (i.e. stop paying the CEOs and managers so much more than the peons? Furthermore, remember that in order to equal the amount of money saved by cutting our highest paid, you would have to cut many more of your lowest paid. Is it better to fire 100 of your highest paid or 200 of your lowest paid? Circuit city seems to think the former, and I'm not sure they're wrong (i'm not sure they're right either).