Right, my point was not that a.45 didn't have penetration risk. My point was that all calibers will over penetrate and therefore you don't really need to factor that in to your choice of home defense firearm. Your AK/AR will over penetrate but so will your shotgun loaded with birdshot. So use whichever you are most competent with or have at hand.
Hopefully you do factor it in to how serious a situation has to be before utilizing a home defense firearm regardless of caliber. That should be a pretty high bar and you should always assume you are going to be shooting whatever is on the other side of the wall.
Is is this mod "overrated" I don't like the point you made day? Because I don't see any logical refutation. Unless "water is wet and law enforcement are good guys you idiot" counts as rational debate on Slashdot these days.
"but i really want to know about this magical place you live where law enforcement never makes a mistake, has no bad actors and has perfect laws and policies"
False dichotomy. The current extreme of near universal corruption and abuse at all levels of government including the foot soldiers aka police and a magical land of perfect laws and policies are not the only choices.
Who exactly is going to do that? 90-95% of cases require a public defender and public defenders have an average of 7 minutes to spend on your case, have no investigation arm, and almost all that 7 minutes is spent at the appearances during which you first plead not guilty, the 30 second conversation to find out what the prosecution has decided to go with on the plea "bargain", and the subsequent appearance to enter your guilty plea for the plea bargain.
Abuse is the only form the plea bargain takes. It will stay that way too. There isn't a person in this conversation who doesn't have hundreds of charges coming if they'd been caught. The legal system is out of control. Almost everyone in jail is there for something which shouldn't be illegal whether they did it or not and once they are imprisoned for nonsense people then consider it perfectly acceptable to foster an environment of maggot ridden food and rape. If they ever get out they have reduced rights and aren't eligible for employment at any decent job ever again.
How about if the prosecutor doesn't have time to take them to trial and the defender doesn't have time to defend them, we simply call that a lack of due process and turn them loose. And we keep on doing that until our laws are sane.
"i am also fairly certain the latter happens a lot more often than the former"
Citation needed. As far as I know the only thing that can conclusively give proof one way or another on this is the project to DNA test death row inmates as a last ditch appeal effort and the number who have been exonerated is staggeringly high.
"what we certainly should not do is imagine that all of law enforcement is only defined by the bad outliers, because that would be fucking moronic"
"defined by the bad outliers" is begging the question. You are assuming the bad are outliers. Breaking the law is something all police do on a routine basis and that is no secret, they do it so much that they've convinced the courts to grant the immunity for their crimes. They justify this in order to catch criminals, in almost all cases the only sense in which these criminals are "bad" is that they have broken laws and otherwise done nothing particularly harmful. By the officers own logic, as law breakers, they are therefore the bad guys except unlike most they arrest they are beating (lethal force if you or I do it), stunning (lethal force if you or I do it), shooting with rubber bullets (can kill, therefore lethal force if you or I do it), gassing, and/or kidnapping their victims.
"and there is a system in place that uses that report to find your stolen stuff, which is why you're filing a report, right?"
Hardly, the police will never find your stolen stuff. You file the report because the insurance companies require it. If anyone does happen to find your stuff it's going to be them, so they don't have to pay.
"i like that part where you never sleep, never leave the gun on the toilet when you take pee, and stay up all night wide awake with eyes in the back of your head tightly gripping your piece"
I like that part where you never sleep, never leave the phone on the toilet when you take pee, and stay up all night wide awake with eyes in the back of your head tightly gripping your phone.
You do realizing calling 9/11 is more difficult and takes longer than getting to your gun... and that's just the picking up the phone and dialing part. Then there is the waiting on hold part, then the waiting for someone to eventually get around to showing up. In a rural area that could be an hour of drive time for a state trooper or county sheriff. And when they do show up, they are looking for any excuse they can make up to charge everyone with something, including you.
"A shotgun with birdshot is the only weapon I'd use in my home. Even a.45 is too much risk of over-penetration."
You see this "wisdom" repeated everywhere. Interior walls are nothing but drywall, a pellet gun will slice right through them let alone birdshot at close range.
The only advantages of a shotgun for home defense are wider spread of the shot which makes it easier to hit in the nervous moment when all that practice runs down your leg in a puddle of fear and you are lucky to have managed to point in the direction of the attacker and fire a round. The other is that a tactical shotgun is shorter than an AR or AK and therefore more maneuverable.
Those aren't insignificant but wall penetration isn't really a factor.
Leaping Panther is definitely an Apple thing. More likely it will be something like "Data Defender" which streams all your data directly over unencrypted broadcast radio, installs itself and accepts it's own EULA as a "feature."
I mean... if they are going to jump naming convention why not go with the congressional approach?
"So lets look at what it takes to be a top 1%, if you are living in the USA, at least 25 years old, have a degree higher than high school and making the median income(for those factors) or high you are in the 1%."
You mean about $50,000/yr? Actually it is you who is just making numbers up. That won't even put you in the top 1% by income which requires over $250,000/yr. The net per capita wealth in the United States is $301,140.
"It does not take much to make it in the top 10%, if you just under $100,000 USD in assets, house, car, retirement, you are in the top 8%. Or just an average citizen in a developed country."
That is hardly average. By your own accounting, less than 10% of the population have $100,000 worth of assets. Let alone the $300k anyone with a full time job should have (adjusted for age and the number of years spent getting educated). The lowest earners have no assets. Most median earners have negative assets (debt). High earners might have assets that exceed their debt but still probably not unless they are over the hill. The gap between 1% and 10% is massive. The gap between.1% and 1% is even more massive.
"My idea wasn't an intention of a true Basic Income covering all the costs. It was more like a Very Basic Income, a modest step up from the lack of financial security we have now. Losing one's job, or not being able to find one"
Then it doesn't make sense to adjust based on one arbitrary criteria which potentially reduces some costs. There are hundreds of obvious things that reduce the cost to live in addition to getting married, there is no reason for singling out this one and punishing people for it. Loss of job impacts the married just as much as the single. It impacts the working class equally whether at the bottom or the top because expenses tend to be aligned with income and the sudden loss of half your income is a serious financial blow.
Welfare is not needed. Wealth correction is needed. Currently the top 15% have 85% of the wealth and top 1% have over 60% of it. Since the other 99% generate all the wealth provide a basic income for the other 85% of the population that equates to 60% of all wealth generated each year in any year where at least 51% of all wealth in the nation is not in the hands of the bottom 85%. That isn't welfare, it's correcting a serious bug in the system which rewards others than those who actually generate the wealth.
At least when applied to the US where 99% of the population produces all domestic wealth while 1% of the population has over 60% of the wealth. What does the other 1% do? Since they have the majority of the wealth they effectively loan most of it back to some of the people who actually generate wealth and charge them interest. In other words, they contribute nothing.
The price tag to join this group is a mere $17-20 million which will yield you the salary of the president passively. You don't have to trade for it or risk, at this point you can invest in all the markets and reap the growth diversifying away the risks of making poor choices almost entirely. Although a few bad overall years can get you booted with reserves that small (things like the great depression). You really need about 4 times that to be completely secure. Since you own everything you don't have to spend much which works out, you can easily shift funds in ways count as tax deductible spending so you wouldn't be in the top 1% by income in fact you'll end up in the bottom tier paying 9%. By "you" I mean your accounting team of course, you don't even have to do work that only benefits yourself at this point.
If by normal you mean the sort of opinions that are allowed on the news you are right. If by normal you mean what most of the population thinks... not so much.
Anything that serves as a vehicle to enable the masses to bypass our wealthy elite controlled government and police state is a good thing.
"If drug laws are wrong, change the drug laws."
Right, let me just dial up my lobbying group and have a rider put in to the latest save the puppies bill that is primarily targeted at shortening the length of time pounds have to keep puppies before putting them to sleep... oh darn, forgot for a second that only the ultra wealthy can do that. Oh I know, I'll just have someone on my staff be appointed to regulate my industry and bribe them with lucrative effortless consulting gigs to be paid after they leave their position. Oh golly, forgot only the wealthy can do that too. I guess I'll just have to get all the permits and licensing to allow me to accumulate a force of arms sufficient to provide a credible threat and storm washington... oops that one only works for the wealthy.
Individual civil disobedience is all that is left. You aren't even allowed to protest in the US without a permit... for safety.
Most police break the law on a daily basis. Maybe not murder but they certainly aren't willing to hold themselves to the same technical the law is the law standard as they hold others.
Not in the court of public perception. Without the attempted murder bullshit the silk road story remains one of consenting adults empowering other adults to make choices with regard to their own persons that no person including government persons has the moral authority to deny them.
Not true. Just because you can hear it does not mean you can record it with a microphone... at least not outside the ear canal. We have skulls and there are resonant harmonics in the world.
"That is nonsensical. A test has a double blind requirement because it's the standard in removing bias from the equation."
Exactly, you don't need to remove bias from hard objective measurements. I don't need any double blind requirements when running a gel to see if a gene has been spliced or checking an ohm meter to measure an electrical variation. You only need a double blind requirement when you can't utilize hard objective measurements and are relying on subjective ones.
Anything with a double-blind requirement falls well short of settling an issue because it is subjective. It might be the best we can do for investigating certain complex issues but it most definitely is not conclusive or concrete data.
The hair on the back of my neck stands up near high powered fluxing fields. The RF noise during the power up of most devices and during operation of many causes a "whine" that I can both hear and feel that is distinct from any actual sound.
This doesn't actually normally bother me unless I already have a head/am nauseous, etc. But given that where I feel this "whine" is my ear I don't think it is a stretch that it could be causing dizziness and nausea in others in fact is seems likely.
I think you are missing his point. It's fundamentally different because it is fundamentally much more difficult and expensive. Offshoring results in a net gain on labor costs WHILE providing the quality needed in far fewer cases than bringing in H1-B workers.
There is likely nothing barring an H1-B worker from taking over your own position and reducing labor costs for instance. Since this is happening industry wide you will at first trade in terms of work/life balance and then salary and then have to switch fields to one that hasn't picked up on the trend yet. You'll have to hunt for outliers where a powerful executive doesn't want to deal with H1-B's he can't understand on a conference call and has the power to drive that decision or companies with a client that fits that bill.
Slashdot Mirror
Not if she is attractive.
That's debatable. There aren't really an abundance of people being shot at all. Unless you mean the ones being shot by people in uniforms.
Right, my point was not that a .45 didn't have penetration risk. My point was that all calibers will over penetrate and therefore you don't really need to factor that in to your choice of home defense firearm. Your AK/AR will over penetrate but so will your shotgun loaded with birdshot. So use whichever you are most competent with or have at hand.
Hopefully you do factor it in to how serious a situation has to be before utilizing a home defense firearm regardless of caliber. That should be a pretty high bar and you should always assume you are going to be shooting whatever is on the other side of the wall.
Is is this mod "overrated" I don't like the point you made day? Because I don't see any logical refutation. Unless "water is wet and law enforcement are good guys you idiot" counts as rational debate on Slashdot these days.
"but i really want to know about this magical place you live where law enforcement never makes a mistake, has no bad actors and has perfect laws and policies"
False dichotomy. The current extreme of near universal corruption and abuse at all levels of government including the foot soldiers aka police and a magical land of perfect laws and policies are not the only choices.
Who exactly is going to do that? 90-95% of cases require a public defender and public defenders have an average of 7 minutes to spend on your case, have no investigation arm, and almost all that 7 minutes is spent at the appearances during which you first plead not guilty, the 30 second conversation to find out what the prosecution has decided to go with on the plea "bargain", and the subsequent appearance to enter your guilty plea for the plea bargain.
Abuse is the only form the plea bargain takes. It will stay that way too. There isn't a person in this conversation who doesn't have hundreds of charges coming if they'd been caught. The legal system is out of control. Almost everyone in jail is there for something which shouldn't be illegal whether they did it or not and once they are imprisoned for nonsense people then consider it perfectly acceptable to foster an environment of maggot ridden food and rape. If they ever get out they have reduced rights and aren't eligible for employment at any decent job ever again.
How about if the prosecutor doesn't have time to take them to trial and the defender doesn't have time to defend them, we simply call that a lack of due process and turn them loose. And we keep on doing that until our laws are sane.
"i am also fairly certain the latter happens a lot more often than the former"
Citation needed. As far as I know the only thing that can conclusively give proof one way or another on this is the project to DNA test death row inmates as a last ditch appeal effort and the number who have been exonerated is staggeringly high.
"what we certainly should not do is imagine that all of law enforcement is only defined by the bad outliers, because that would be fucking moronic"
"defined by the bad outliers" is begging the question. You are assuming the bad are outliers. Breaking the law is something all police do on a routine basis and that is no secret, they do it so much that they've convinced the courts to grant the immunity for their crimes. They justify this in order to catch criminals, in almost all cases the only sense in which these criminals are "bad" is that they have broken laws and otherwise done nothing particularly harmful. By the officers own logic, as law breakers, they are therefore the bad guys except unlike most they arrest they are beating (lethal force if you or I do it), stunning (lethal force if you or I do it), shooting with rubber bullets (can kill, therefore lethal force if you or I do it), gassing, and/or kidnapping their victims.
"and there is a system in place that uses that report to find your stolen stuff, which is why you're filing a report, right?"
Hardly, the police will never find your stolen stuff. You file the report because the insurance companies require it. If anyone does happen to find your stuff it's going to be them, so they don't have to pay.
"i like that part where you never sleep, never leave the gun on the toilet when you take pee, and stay up all night wide awake with eyes in the back of your head tightly gripping your piece"
I like that part where you never sleep, never leave the phone on the toilet when you take pee, and stay up all night wide awake with eyes in the back of your head tightly gripping your phone.
You do realizing calling 9/11 is more difficult and takes longer than getting to your gun... and that's just the picking up the phone and dialing part. Then there is the waiting on hold part, then the waiting for someone to eventually get around to showing up. In a rural area that could be an hour of drive time for a state trooper or county sheriff. And when they do show up, they are looking for any excuse they can make up to charge everyone with something, including you.
"A shotgun with birdshot is the only weapon I'd use in my home. Even a .45 is too much risk of over-penetration."
You see this "wisdom" repeated everywhere. Interior walls are nothing but drywall, a pellet gun will slice right through them let alone birdshot at close range.
The only advantages of a shotgun for home defense are wider spread of the shot which makes it easier to hit in the nervous moment when all that practice runs down your leg in a puddle of fear and you are lucky to have managed to point in the direction of the attacker and fire a round. The other is that a tactical shotgun is shorter than an AR or AK and therefore more maneuverable.
Those aren't insignificant but wall penetration isn't really a factor.
"Windows OS A 10.3 Leaping Panther"
Leaping Panther is definitely an Apple thing. More likely it will be something like "Data Defender" which streams all your data directly over unencrypted broadcast radio, installs itself and accepts it's own EULA as a "feature."
I mean... if they are going to jump naming convention why not go with the congressional approach?
"So lets look at what it takes to be a top 1%, if you are living in the USA, at least 25 years old, have a degree higher than high school and making the median income(for those factors) or high you are in the 1%."
.1% and 1% is even more massive.
You mean about $50,000/yr? Actually it is you who is just making numbers up. That won't even put you in the top 1% by income which requires over $250,000/yr. The net per capita wealth in the United States is $301,140.
"It does not take much to make it in the top 10%, if you just under $100,000 USD in assets, house, car, retirement, you are in the top 8%. Or just an average citizen in a developed country."
That is hardly average. By your own accounting, less than 10% of the population have $100,000 worth of assets. Let alone the $300k anyone with a full time job should have (adjusted for age and the number of years spent getting educated). The lowest earners have no assets. Most median earners have negative assets (debt). High earners might have assets that exceed their debt but still probably not unless they are over the hill. The gap between 1% and 10% is massive. The gap between
"My idea wasn't an intention of a true Basic Income covering all the costs. It was more like a Very Basic Income, a modest step up from the lack of financial security we have now. Losing one's job, or not being able to find one"
Then it doesn't make sense to adjust based on one arbitrary criteria which potentially reduces some costs. There are hundreds of obvious things that reduce the cost to live in addition to getting married, there is no reason for singling out this one and punishing people for it. Loss of job impacts the married just as much as the single. It impacts the working class equally whether at the bottom or the top because expenses tend to be aligned with income and the sudden loss of half your income is a serious financial blow.
Welfare is not needed. Wealth correction is needed. Currently the top 15% have 85% of the wealth and top 1% have over 60% of it. Since the other 99% generate all the wealth provide a basic income for the other 85% of the population that equates to 60% of all wealth generated each year in any year where at least 51% of all wealth in the nation is not in the hands of the bottom 85%. That isn't welfare, it's correcting a serious bug in the system which rewards others than those who actually generate the wealth.
Actually it's neither, it's wealth redistribution.
At least when applied to the US where 99% of the population produces all domestic wealth while 1% of the population has over 60% of the wealth. What does the other 1% do? Since they have the majority of the wealth they effectively loan most of it back to some of the people who actually generate wealth and charge them interest. In other words, they contribute nothing.
The price tag to join this group is a mere $17-20 million which will yield you the salary of the president passively. You don't have to trade for it or risk, at this point you can invest in all the markets and reap the growth diversifying away the risks of making poor choices almost entirely. Although a few bad overall years can get you booted with reserves that small (things like the great depression). You really need about 4 times that to be completely secure. Since you own everything you don't have to spend much which works out, you can easily shift funds in ways count as tax deductible spending so you wouldn't be in the top 1% by income in fact you'll end up in the bottom tier paying 9%. By "you" I mean your accounting team of course, you don't even have to do work that only benefits yourself at this point.
"22-66: $500/month/person
22-66: $750/month/couple"
So you'd punish couples?
If by normal you mean the sort of opinions that are allowed on the news you are right. If by normal you mean what most of the population thinks... not so much.
Anything that serves as a vehicle to enable the masses to bypass our wealthy elite controlled government and police state is a good thing.
"If drug laws are wrong, change the drug laws."
Right, let me just dial up my lobbying group and have a rider put in to the latest save the puppies bill that is primarily targeted at shortening the length of time pounds have to keep puppies before putting them to sleep... oh darn, forgot for a second that only the ultra wealthy can do that. Oh I know, I'll just have someone on my staff be appointed to regulate my industry and bribe them with lucrative effortless consulting gigs to be paid after they leave their position. Oh golly, forgot only the wealthy can do that too. I guess I'll just have to get all the permits and licensing to allow me to accumulate a force of arms sufficient to provide a credible threat and storm washington... oops that one only works for the wealthy.
Individual civil disobedience is all that is left. You aren't even allowed to protest in the US without a permit... for safety.
Most police break the law on a daily basis. Maybe not murder but they certainly aren't willing to hold themselves to the same technical the law is the law standard as they hold others.
Not in the court of public perception. Without the attempted murder bullshit the silk road story remains one of consenting adults empowering other adults to make choices with regard to their own persons that no person including government persons has the moral authority to deny them.
Not true. Just because you can hear it does not mean you can record it with a microphone... at least not outside the ear canal. We have skulls and there are resonant harmonics in the world.
"That is nonsensical. A test has a double blind requirement because it's the standard in removing bias from the equation."
Exactly, you don't need to remove bias from hard objective measurements. I don't need any double blind requirements when running a gel to see if a gene has been spliced or checking an ohm meter to measure an electrical variation. You only need a double blind requirement when you can't utilize hard objective measurements and are relying on subjective ones.
Anything with a double-blind requirement falls well short of settling an issue because it is subjective. It might be the best we can do for investigating certain complex issues but it most definitely is not conclusive or concrete data.
The hair on the back of my neck stands up near high powered fluxing fields. The RF noise during the power up of most devices and during operation of many causes a "whine" that I can both hear and feel that is distinct from any actual sound.
This doesn't actually normally bother me unless I already have a head/am nauseous, etc. But given that where I feel this "whine" is my ear I don't think it is a stretch that it could be causing dizziness and nausea in others in fact is seems likely.
My computer is not a phone. We need to lock down phones not open up desktops. Otherwise there is no point to encryption at all.
Until the results are skewed in favor of the interests of the state.
Chinese and American aren't races.
Policies would just be in place to ensure the executive was never advised the system is insecure or at least that such advisement is never documented.
I think you are missing his point. It's fundamentally different because it is fundamentally much more difficult and expensive. Offshoring results in a net gain on labor costs WHILE providing the quality needed in far fewer cases than bringing in H1-B workers.
There is likely nothing barring an H1-B worker from taking over your own position and reducing labor costs for instance. Since this is happening industry wide you will at first trade in terms of work/life balance and then salary and then have to switch fields to one that hasn't picked up on the trend yet. You'll have to hunt for outliers where a powerful executive doesn't want to deal with H1-B's he can't understand on a conference call and has the power to drive that decision or companies with a client that fits that bill.