First, I am violently against the idiotic regulations passed by our city council that pushed Uber and Lyft our. But that does not justify bullshit statistics. This 7.5% increase stat is repeated by everyone and its total
It compares number of absolute arrests to same period last year. It does not account for increased population in a rapidly growing area. It does not consider APD force size. It does not consider APD enforcement priorities. It does not consider APD coverage densities downtown vs elsewhere. I could go on.
Enough already. There are plenty of actual facts and actual logic to show how stupid the TNC licensure measures are. We don't need to make shit up and rely on the fact that 90% of Americans failed stats101.
I made no such claim. I said there is data that suggests that and there is logic that suggests that, but I explicitly said that is only enough (in my mind) to be used as evidence that you should do whatever you want with gun laws in your country and the anti-2A folks should stop acting like the case is settled and America needs to drop 2A.
Is this a joke? The problem is centralization giving extraordinary power to a subset of individuals, governments, and companies. Internet users have chosen to take the shit they could do on their own before and instead do it within facebook's ecosystem and twitter's ecosystem. Why? And almost every site out there is also in FB's, Google's, and various ad company's ecosystems, where they have voluntarily added snippets of JavaScript/whatever to every damn page on the Internet. It's amazing what we have done to destroy what started out as a decentralized blank canvas. It does need a reset and not just for privacy reasons.
I am not interested in finding data to support my claim that gun deaths include justifiable homicides and suicides for propaganda reasons. To me it is quite self-evident. The only other explanation is that anti-gun activists are too dumb to know they are using the wrong stat. You're free to disagree with me or ignore me or whatever. I'm not here to convince you or anyone else of anything. Sharing my viewpoint on something does not require you to knee jerk with "omg prove it" so you can tell yourself you're insightful.
I have always wondered how the argument gets turned around and somehow people who think 2A shouldn't be thrown away have to prove that guns reduce crime. I don't have to prove that. You have to prove that there is such a compelling reason why I should be denied my right to own and carry a firearm.
My claim was that the anti-gun side includes suicides and justifiable homicides to inflate their numbers and summon outrage. Your blabbering is not responsive to my point at all.
My point is simple and not controversial. If you are a criminal about to commit a crime, you want to know there is little or no risk you will be stopped. Criminals will case a house for days before robbing it to minimize the chance they are interfered with. Not saying having a gun helps that scenario; just using it as evidence of the criminal mindset. Therefore, knowing that everyone is completely unarmed is much more comforting than not knowing. Whether a criminal still goes through with the criminal act is a different question, but if you accept the premise then surely it's not a stretch to believe that on the margin the knowledge that your victim and bystanders are completely defenseless leads to more crime.
Yes they include suicides in gun death stats. They are also including justifiable homicides.
Recently, as knowledge of this statistical BS has become commonplace, the anti-gun folks have begun to justify why it's legitimate to include suicides, based on how often someone is successful in killing themselves when using a firearm vs other methods. It's quite silly to watch and I do recommend it.
Only a couple million people in the US have concealed carry licenses and carry regularly. It's actually quite taboo here in most places. So we do not get the benefit that you would get with criminals knowing a significant % of their potential victims are armed.
Plenty of US cities have laws like you suggest. They are the cities with the worst gun crime.
Strangely, you made the guy's point for him. Your country's laws are such that the only people with weapons are criminals, so much so that the sight of a weapon identifies someone as a criminal. This is common knowledge for the non-criminals in your country. It's probably also common knowledge for the criminals. You all do have a point though; if the criminals know that nobody has any means to defend themselves beyond their fists, then there is less need to carry a firearm. Criminals can overpower victims with far less.
I don't quite understand the suggestion that anyone was trying to tell your country how it should run. I think you should have whatever laws you'd like in your country. Uniform laws breed ignorance, much like the content of your comment. With diverse laws, we have actual data from different jurisdictions. It's never pure, because there are always confounding variables, but it's enough to make a pretty strong argument for leaving 2nd amendment rights in tact for the people that want to exercise them.
That is not how I read it. I read it as saying that the new reg builds on the state's 15% solar capable requirement by saying now you have to put panels on ALL of that 15% solar capable. So in your example of a roof with 25% solar capable, you would be required to put panels on 15% of the roof (not 15% of the 25%).
Putting them on the sides of buildings would be inefficient. Panels need to be pointed at the right azimuth (doubt the building will just happen to have a face at the right angle) and tilted upward. That's why nobody puts them on surfaces that are perpendicular to the ground. They do roof or ground mount. It's not by accident.
Hi. You made a bit of a fly-by assertion that piqued my interest. Can you explain further how adding panels at the time of construction adds very little to the cost?
Weird to have you beat someone up for not reading the bill when you didn't even read TFA. California already had a stupid law saying x% of new buildings statewide must be "solar capable", meaning not shaded. That is the stupid law. This is an incremental stupid law that only makes some sense (in a halfwit sort of way) because of the original stupid law.
Poor person. Noun. Plural: poor people. (1) A person whose entire access to a near infinite amount of information and productivity tools is via a $75/mo mobile device with computing power equal to entire personal computers in relatively recent history, transmitting data at speeds faster than were commonly available in residential wired broadband in relatively recent history.
Yes, if a robot serves your food, you have way too few incorrect orders, jackass attitudes, substandard sanitization. And not to mention you lose all chance that your server will spit in your food.
In the 90s I earned good money "coding HTML" (yes people really called it that) to build crappy brochureware websites. This basically doesn't exist anymore. It's automated by well designed WYSIWYG editors generating the HTML "code" for you, or programming frameworks generating the html for you.
I don't know if we ever get to drag and drop utopia of software development, but there is no doubt that things are advancing rapidly.
The software development shortage will not be solved by a greater number of costly developers. Large development teams are very inefficient. In fact, all of the middle and lower tier development jobs will go away. The shortage will be solved by increasing leverage/productivity of a limited number of very smart engineers.
Slashdot Mirror
First, I am violently against the idiotic regulations passed by our city council that pushed Uber and Lyft our. But that does not justify bullshit statistics. This 7.5% increase stat is repeated by everyone and its total
It compares number of absolute arrests to same period last year. It does not account for increased population in a rapidly growing area. It does not consider APD force size. It does not consider APD enforcement priorities. It does not consider APD coverage densities downtown vs elsewhere. I could go on.
Enough already. There are plenty of actual facts and actual logic to show how stupid the TNC licensure measures are. We don't need to make shit up and rely on the fact that 90% of Americans failed stats101.
Thanks. I guess I didn't look around long enough, as I didn't see the delete option. I guess I need to reactivate my account to see if I can delete it
I made no such claim. I said there is data that suggests that and there is logic that suggests that, but I explicitly said that is only enough (in my mind) to be used as evidence that you should do whatever you want with gun laws in your country and the anti-2A folks should stop acting like the case is settled and America needs to drop 2A.
Perhaps with enough threats like this my "deactivated" account will one day actually be deleted like I would prefer
Is this a joke? The problem is centralization giving extraordinary power to a subset of individuals, governments, and companies. Internet users have chosen to take the shit they could do on their own before and instead do it within facebook's ecosystem and twitter's ecosystem. Why? And almost every site out there is also in FB's, Google's, and various ad company's ecosystems, where they have voluntarily added snippets of JavaScript/whatever to every damn page on the Internet. It's amazing what we have done to destroy what started out as a decentralized blank canvas. It does need a reset and not just for privacy reasons.
I am not interested in finding data to support my claim that gun deaths include justifiable homicides and suicides for propaganda reasons. To me it is quite self-evident. The only other explanation is that anti-gun activists are too dumb to know they are using the wrong stat. You're free to disagree with me or ignore me or whatever. I'm not here to convince you or anyone else of anything. Sharing my viewpoint on something does not require you to knee jerk with "omg prove it" so you can tell yourself you're insightful.
I have always wondered how the argument gets turned around and somehow people who think 2A shouldn't be thrown away have to prove that guns reduce crime. I don't have to prove that. You have to prove that there is such a compelling reason why I should be denied my right to own and carry a firearm.
My claim was that the anti-gun side includes suicides and justifiable homicides to inflate their numbers and summon outrage. Your blabbering is not responsive to my point at all.
My point is simple and not controversial. If you are a criminal about to commit a crime, you want to know there is little or no risk you will be stopped. Criminals will case a house for days before robbing it to minimize the chance they are interfered with. Not saying having a gun helps that scenario; just using it as evidence of the criminal mindset. Therefore, knowing that everyone is completely unarmed is much more comforting than not knowing. Whether a criminal still goes through with the criminal act is a different question, but if you accept the premise then surely it's not a stretch to believe that on the margin the knowledge that your victim and bystanders are completely defenseless leads to more crime.
Yes they include suicides in gun death stats. They are also including justifiable homicides.
Recently, as knowledge of this statistical BS has become commonplace, the anti-gun folks have begun to justify why it's legitimate to include suicides, based on how often someone is successful in killing themselves when using a firearm vs other methods. It's quite silly to watch and I do recommend it.
Only a couple million people in the US have concealed carry licenses and carry regularly. It's actually quite taboo here in most places. So we do not get the benefit that you would get with criminals knowing a significant % of their potential victims are armed.
You don't have a right to feelings
Plenty of US cities have laws like you suggest. They are the cities with the worst gun crime.
Strangely, you made the guy's point for him. Your country's laws are such that the only people with weapons are criminals, so much so that the sight of a weapon identifies someone as a criminal. This is common knowledge for the non-criminals in your country. It's probably also common knowledge for the criminals. You all do have a point though; if the criminals know that nobody has any means to defend themselves beyond their fists, then there is less need to carry a firearm. Criminals can overpower victims with far less.
I don't quite understand the suggestion that anyone was trying to tell your country how it should run. I think you should have whatever laws you'd like in your country. Uniform laws breed ignorance, much like the content of your comment. With diverse laws, we have actual data from different jurisdictions. It's never pure, because there are always confounding variables, but it's enough to make a pretty strong argument for leaving 2nd amendment rights in tact for the people that want to exercise them.
Talking about the majority opinion as if it matters hurts individual liberty. The majority is irrelevant when we are talking about individual rights.
You're welcome
Worker exploitation has ended for 60,000 workers at this greedy corporation!
I am required to put panels on my roof. Do they need to be plugged in or can they just be roof ornaments?
If they have to be plugged in, then I need an inverter. Does it need to work?
If so, can I undersize the inverter or does it need to be the right size to handle the full generation of my panels?
If the latter, suppose I need two inverters and eventually one burns out. Do I need to replace it?
If so, what kind of monitoring do I need to detect when the inverter goes bad?
How long do I have to replace a broken inverter? What if I know nothing about inverters?
Do I have to grid tie it?
Etc
That is not how I read it. I read it as saying that the new reg builds on the state's 15% solar capable requirement by saying now you have to put panels on ALL of that 15% solar capable. So in your example of a roof with 25% solar capable, you would be required to put panels on 15% of the roof (not 15% of the 25%).
Putting them on the sides of buildings would be inefficient. Panels need to be pointed at the right azimuth (doubt the building will just happen to have a face at the right angle) and tilted upward. That's why nobody puts them on surfaces that are perpendicular to the ground. They do roof or ground mount. It's not by accident.
Hi. You made a bit of a fly-by assertion that piqued my interest. Can you explain further how adding panels at the time of construction adds very little to the cost?
Weird to have you beat someone up for not reading the bill when you didn't even read TFA. California already had a stupid law saying x% of new buildings statewide must be "solar capable", meaning not shaded. That is the stupid law. This is an incremental stupid law that only makes some sense (in a halfwit sort of way) because of the original stupid law.
Poor person. Noun. Plural: poor people. (1) A person whose entire access to a near infinite amount of information and productivity tools is via a $75/mo mobile device with computing power equal to entire personal computers in relatively recent history, transmitting data at speeds faster than were commonly available in residential wired broadband in relatively recent history.
Somebody save them!!!
Yes, if a robot serves your food, you have way too few incorrect orders, jackass attitudes, substandard sanitization. And not to mention you lose all chance that your server will spit in your food.
In the 90s I earned good money "coding HTML" (yes people really called it that) to build crappy brochureware websites. This basically doesn't exist anymore. It's automated by well designed WYSIWYG editors generating the HTML "code" for you, or programming frameworks generating the html for you.
I don't know if we ever get to drag and drop utopia of software development, but there is no doubt that things are advancing rapidly.
The software development shortage will not be solved by a greater number of costly developers. Large development teams are very inefficient. In fact, all of the middle and lower tier development jobs will go away. The shortage will be solved by increasing leverage/productivity of a limited number of very smart engineers.
Take it or leave it
"Guns in America: You know the case for background checks is weak if..."
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion...