Don't tell anyone, but it's one of those monochrome 2048 million color video cards that are banned for possession by civilians. A friend of mine in the US Ministry of Information stole one from a government computer for me...
Then in your opinion what SHOULD we use to inflict measured pain/shock on physically resisting people to make them compliant (with a lawful and reasonable arrest, the other sort is another issue entirely)?
Acutally, tasers aren't designed to subdue suspects by inflicting pain. They're designed to cause muscle spasms so that the suspect can't move and hurt people. The pain is a side effect that happens to be useful in convincing the suspect to voluntarily chill out.
If there's a gun involved, a taser won't be used, the cops will handle the situation with firearms.
Usually it's police policy for a taser to be backed up with firearm:
Cop 1 uses the taser. Cop 2 has a firearm ready to go if the taser fails. Additional cops jump on the tasee and cuff him/her.
The whole point is to decrease the risk of injury/death to the suspect.
The point of using a taser in less dangerous situations is to keep the cop from having to come into physical contact with a violent suspect...which greatly increases the risk of injury to the cop. Sure it's great to try and decrease the risk of injury to a violent criminal, but it's more important for a cop to keep himself/herself safe. At least, if I were in a situation where I had to subdue a violent criminal, that's how I'd look at it.
Let's say you have a knife, and you're threatening someone with it. Cops come along to make sure you don't hurt anybody.
If the cops don't have tasers, guess what they're going to draw out? Yep. Guns. Guns that shoot bullets.
So getting tased hurts like heck. Funny thing about people like you denouncing tasers is that you don't consider the alternatives. Getting hit with 180 grains of lead at 1200 fps does a ton more damage than getting tased, and the risk of fatality is much higher.
So why are criminals subjected to a jolt of electricity? Because lead poisoning of the high velocity variety is worse than the usually temporary effects of a taser.
I just reset the computer and hope they have DeepFreeze or something similar installed, and that the terminal owner isn't him/herself running a keylogger.
1) Not a valid analogy, as the ostensible direct intent of the air bombing was to cripple the military. And I would object to the use of weapons that aren't even sort of discriminating.
2) I expect the government not to finance abortion. That's a pretty cute comment about road maintenance.
There wouldn't be any financial benefit to me or anyone else if government didn't fund it in the first place. But what you're suggesting is essentially a "religion penalty." People being forced to pay proportionally more because of their beliefs IS what you're suggesting.
I reached that conclusion because (a) it was a rhetorical question (i.e., it was used to make a point/statement), and (b) you indicated your support for forcing people to pay for abortions (via taxes) in spite of my immediately preceding objections.
"Do you think I should be paying for other people to go and kill men, women and children in a country halfway across the world that never attacked us?"
Honestly, I don't care if you don't. If you genuinely object, then I'd say we shouldn't force you to do so.
I know, I know, that was a rhetorical question, and you really don't give a damn about forcing people to violate their beliefs. I get it.
If anything, this is a rare example of the government NOT getting involved in the lives of citizens.
You think I should be paying for other people to have abortions, or pay for organizations to promote abortion? Well, Reagan didn't, and Bush doesn't, and that's fine with me. It should be fine with you, but I'm guessing you'd rather have me pay for things that violate some of my most dearly held beliefs. (Please accept my apologies if you don't.)
Just because some people think promoting abortion is ok doesn't mean taxes aren't forcing me under threat of imprisonment to pay for it. Compulsory worship of the State is not freedom of religion.
No...spoken like someone who's recovered from depression. A big problem with being depressed is that you can't see a way out, you lose hope, and get even more depressed. If someone who's depressed sees a way out, they can have hope, which further improves their ability to recover. There are a lot of self-perpetuating cycles involved in depression.
My impression of bartering is that people exchange things of essentially equal value...why would I trade you something that I valued more than what you're trading me? I would expect you to give me something of equal value, but different. Income minus expense equals 0, so no taxes.
If you're throwing me in a cell on Gitmo, it had BETTER be unheated. Air-conditioning would be nice, though, or at least open walls and a fan for the still days...
Slashdot Mirror
"Victim" of a murder-suicide??? How about PERPETRATOR. Slashdot editors, you live in a strange universe.
"By "hope" I mean keep fooling yourself, and by "change" I mean I'm just another politician pushing more of the same."
-Barack Obama
buying them from people who smuggled them from states without background checks
Federal law requires background checks in all states.
Hi, I'm a straw man. I don't appreciate being attacked. Maybe you could try again and this time go after the post to which you're responding?
Don't tell anyone, but it's one of those monochrome 2048 million color video cards that are banned for possession by civilians. A friend of mine in the US Ministry of Information stole one from a government computer for me...
No, that's your straw man you're talking about.
The knife was just a "for example."
If there's a gun involved, a taser won't be used, the cops will handle the situation with firearms.
Usually it's police policy for a taser to be backed up with firearm:
Cop 1 uses the taser. Cop 2 has a firearm ready to go if the taser fails. Additional cops jump on the tasee and cuff him/her.
The whole point is to decrease the risk of injury/death to the suspect.
The point of using a taser in less dangerous situations is to keep the cop from having to come into physical contact with a violent suspect...which greatly increases the risk of injury to the cop. Sure it's great to try and decrease the risk of injury to a violent criminal, but it's more important for a cop to keep himself/herself safe. At least, if I were in a situation where I had to subdue a violent criminal, that's how I'd look at it.
Let's say you have a knife, and you're threatening someone with it. Cops come along to make sure you don't hurt anybody.
If the cops don't have tasers, guess what they're going to draw out? Yep. Guns. Guns that shoot bullets.
So getting tased hurts like heck. Funny thing about people like you denouncing tasers is that you don't consider the alternatives. Getting hit with 180 grains of lead at 1200 fps does a ton more damage than getting tased, and the risk of fatality is much higher.
So why are criminals subjected to a jolt of electricity? Because lead poisoning of the high velocity variety is worse than the usually temporary effects of a taser.
I have never seen another application do what pidgin now does.
I have. Google Talk.
And I hate it. It drives me nuts, actually. I hate it so much I stopped using the "official" Google Talk client and switched to Pidgin.
Joke's on me.
Well, plenty of people think the Iraq war is necessary.
I guess I assumed others might be open-minded enough to realize that well adjusted people can actually think this, but perhaps I assume too much.
I just reset the computer and hope they have DeepFreeze or something similar installed, and that the terminal owner isn't him/herself running a keylogger.
Oh well, it might balance out the anti-war bias in the media. Who gives credence to the mainstream media anymore, anyhow?
1) Not a valid analogy, as the ostensible direct intent of the air bombing was to cripple the military. And I would object to the use of weapons that aren't even sort of discriminating.
2) I expect the government not to finance abortion. That's a pretty cute comment about road maintenance.
There wouldn't be any financial benefit to me or anyone else if government didn't fund it in the first place. But what you're suggesting is essentially a "religion penalty." People being forced to pay proportionally more because of their beliefs IS what you're suggesting.
"A woman who must for health reasons keep taking medication which will severely harm the fetus and for which no safer alternative is available."
If she's taking them for acne, then no. If she's taking them for something serious and isn't given the drug to cause the death of the baby, then fine.
That takes care of your last scenario.
The rest of your scenarios are just euthanasia.
Anything that's designed or directly intended to end an innocent person's life, no matter the reason, should not be paid for with my money.
"as long as they still pay the same or more tax overall"
They should pay less tax (since their money is funding fewer government activities), otherwise it's a penalty on the practice of religion.
"widespread cheating and enormous accounting problems."
Which is (a small) part of the reason why taxes simply shouldn't be used to fund abortion, etc.
"If you don't want to cover abortion for a woman with a dead fetus"
If the baby's already dead, then it's not abortion...
"the political party that you probably support"
You assume too much.
I reached that conclusion because (a) it was a rhetorical question (i.e., it was used to make a point/statement), and (b) you indicated your support for forcing people to pay for abortions (via taxes) in spite of my immediately preceding objections.
Regarding your last comment, I mostly agree.
"Do you think I should be paying for other people to go and kill men, women and children in a country halfway across the world that never attacked us?"
Honestly, I don't care if you don't. If you genuinely object, then I'd say we shouldn't force you to do so.
I know, I know, that was a rhetorical question, and you really don't give a damn about forcing people to violate their beliefs. I get it.
If anything, this is a rare example of the government NOT getting involved in the lives of citizens.
You think I should be paying for other people to have abortions, or pay for organizations to promote abortion? Well, Reagan didn't, and Bush doesn't, and that's fine with me. It should be fine with you, but I'm guessing you'd rather have me pay for things that violate some of my most dearly held beliefs. (Please accept my apologies if you don't.)
Just because some people think promoting abortion is ok doesn't mean taxes aren't forcing me under threat of imprisonment to pay for it. Compulsory worship of the State is not freedom of religion.
I'll bet they were discussing a take-home test or assignment, or distributing materials that constituted academic dishonesty (copy of the test, etc.)
If that's not the case, then I'll let everyone else state the obvious.
At this point, he's more likely an Obama supporter.
No...spoken like someone who's recovered from depression. A big problem with being depressed is that you can't see a way out, you lose hope, and get even more depressed. If someone who's depressed sees a way out, they can have hope, which further improves their ability to recover. There are a lot of self-perpetuating cycles involved in depression.
Just make sure your tinfoil hat is extra shiny and reflective.
My impression of bartering is that people exchange things of essentially equal value...why would I trade you something that I valued more than what you're trading me? I would expect you to give me something of equal value, but different. Income minus expense equals 0, so no taxes.
If you're throwing me in a cell on Gitmo, it had BETTER be unheated. Air-conditioning would be nice, though, or at least open walls and a fan for the still days...