And while it may be true that people get "routinely shot" (I don't know what you mean by that),
30 shooting fatalities per day, and 230 non fatal shootings. That seems pretty "routine."
this is not because guns are "cheap and easy to get".
So if guns were more expensive and harder to get, there'd be more shootings?
The US has more guns now than ever before, yet violent crime has been decreasing over the past decades.
Yes, leaded gasoline and Reagan's war on impoverished people (what all "wars on poverty" end up as, just Reagan didn't even hide it) lead to peak numbers in the '80s, and so a falling after will happen regardless of counfounds. The numbers would be even better, if not for the ease with which mass murderers get their guns. Most get them legally, and most shootings don't happen in gun free zones.
When the method is secret, one should assume security through obscurity until proven otherwise. You are assuming security until proven otherwise, which is the wrong assumption.
You are the one who is wrong, who asserted that the Queen wasn't the head of state for Australia, NZ and Canada. I proved otherwise, and you still argue the point. You are pitiul, and your complaints against me are obviously just you trying to save face. After all, must win all arguments on the Internet, right?
I never said or implied "deliberate". That you inferred it doesn't mean it was implied. She didn't intend to give herself 3rd degree burns, but it was her actions and her actions alone that forced the hot liquid onto her skin.
You couldn't see the thermal. It's too low resolution to pick out features to identify a person from. It'd be near-useless as a security camera, where you want to identify people. They are used for finding a person in a field, not identifying a person out of a lineup.
Near IR is better used, along with lights that emit it. If they wanted to get smart, they'd blanket entire areas with near-IR that is independent from the cameras, so the light sources didn't spotlight the recording location.
It is public exactly because it isn't private, I would have thought.
The term "back alley" is used to mean a place where privacy is assumed in a public place. One wouldn't make a back alley transaction in the lobby of a police station. So the language understands and accepts that there are public places where privacy can be assumed, even if only temporarily.
At 0% body water content, you are dead. but at 100% immersion in water, you are dead as well. All signs point to there being a very narrow range of "optimal". Comparing the low-end of the scale and extrapolating well beyond where that data is valid just makes you look like a moron. Or a liar. Which is it, do you not know basic statistics, despite quoting them, or do you understand, and are lying to further your political agenda? Bonus points for lying, then accusing the other side of lying.
Nope. Everything I've said is true. You are arguing theory vs practice without recognizing both are valid. You are the only one here that's wrong. Your absolutism in denying the Queen is irrational. The Queen is explicitly the head of the government in places you named like Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and has the power to do things like disband parliament and other things if she felt like it. She never would, because the laws would be changed after, but she, at least theoretically, is the sole head of government. That the power is used only figurehead-like doesn't mean it's not still there explicitly. Perhaps you need to learn what the Commonwealth is.
Literally poured it on herself? Could you get any further from the truth?
She deformed the container with force in a manner that forced the liquid out of the cup. That's a "pour". The first surface it struck after she "poured" it from the cup is her body. She poured it on herself.
That you don't like the implication of the words doesn't make them wrong.
That would be true only if teenagers with cancer would have been more likely to die as an infant, or if teenagers used to die of cancer, but the cause of death was misstated because autopsies were not done, or weren't done to modern standards. The second seems much more likely. "Since the late 1970s, cancer incidence rates in teenagers and young adults have increased by almost three-fifths (55%) in Great Britain.", so why are there 50% more cancer cases per 100 teens? Randomly killing 90 of them in infancy should give the same cancer rate, so just being dead doesn't change the rate.
McFact 1: MCDonald's knows that people like their coffee hotter than they can drink, as they rarely drink it immeidately, and often take it to another desintation, like work, to drink it, or like to hold the hot cup to warm cold hands. McFact 2: coffee should be brewed at near-boiling, so "proper" temperature coffee is, by definition, stale. McFact 3: serving cold coffee would lose them more money than the suits (at least according to bean counters, probably hired from Ford, after they were fired for counting the Pinto's beans). McFact 3: the person in question literally poured it on herself. She took off the lid, that prevents deformation of the circular opening of the cup, then crushed the cup with her legs, forcing the liquid out and onto her body. Had she left the lid on, or used a cup holder, the incident would never have happened.
I'm not in a place with much FedEx presence now. They were just an example. Not a particularly bad experience, just the most recent large company with a pre-printed application form. I usually get jobs through resume/networking, not pre-printed application forms. I think I didn't get the job because they thought I was an idiot. I answered truthfully. They asked "do you have any criminal convictions", to which the answer is "yes", as speeding tickets in Texas used to be misdemeanor crimes, and I have a conviction from then. So I truthfully ticked yes, and stated "speeding ticket", so they either thought that I was an idiot, or that 73 in a 65 disqualifies one from working there. Which would be odd, given that they ask about driving history elsewhere.
Corporate HR does more to drive off competent people than hire them. But I have a different story on the worst examples of that.
I recall them specifically from a FedEx application from about 2005. I had moved, and wanted a job I could walk away from when I found something better. They apparently have "high standards" as I was rejected from an open hiring call where they advertised multiple roles. I toned my resume down to appear "normal" so not to appear to be over-qualified, and as I recently moved state, they couldn't find anything that would indicate otherwise, even if they looked. They asked lots of medical questions and criminal background questions on a standard first-line form. Either FedEx is breaking the law, or the law allows sweeping "illegal" questions to be asked in that manner. It was a high-security application process. You weren't allowed to leave with your form, so you couldn't have someone help you fill it in, so I couldn't keep it to have proof (maybe so they can denied they asked, if sued).
Do you have any medical conditions to declare?
Alternative and related questions:
Do you have a disability of any sort?
How do you cope with your disability?
The employment guides indicate it's an allowed question, but you certainly aren't allowed to hold it against them unless it prevents them from doing the job.
If someone needs an accommodation for a disability and doesn't disclose it, then they could be fired for not disclosing it. This (legally) limits the liability for the employer in gauging the accommodations necessary to hire someone with that disability. And Depression is a disability.
It's often used in the context of "there's no gun problem, there's a gay problem". *you* are safe. It's just that those homos have pissed off God and get what they are due.
Yes, it has to do with "gays" in that it happened in a gay nightclub done by someone with a problem with gays, but that's not the story. It was a human that killed humans. That's the story. The adjectives are there to diffuse and deflect.
The Queen is the sole head of the nation. It's not in "ceremony" but in law. Sure, if she ever used that power, the laws would be changed, but all of the commonwealth countries formally have the Queen as their head of government. Also, if you wish to prove me wrong, name a single country in the Commoneealth that doesn't have the Queen mentioned or depicted on their passport. Note, she's not in the US passport, or Russia's, so it's not an issue of "everyone does it", but that the Commonwealth does it, and nobody else.
You do realize that "The Commonwealth" is short for (or derived from) "The British Commonwealth", right? And you are arguing that members of The British Commonwealth have no link to the British.
The commonwealth is a collection of linked "independent" states, same as the states in the EU, or the states in the US. The only discussion is the level of "collection" vs "independence". The "independent sovereign nations" of Australia, Canada, and New Zealand all formally recognize Queen Elizabeth II as the formal head of their government.
The look is unrelated to the operation, but there's no good operational delimiters. So, given the options, banning by looks is about as good as any. It's not like the smaller magazine sizes made a difference to this (or any other) shooting. A practiced shooter takes almost no time to swap clips. They would just need to carry more magazines, but not too much more weight, as the weight is in the ammunition, not the magazines.
Slashdot Mirror
And while it may be true that people get "routinely shot" (I don't know what you mean by that),
30 shooting fatalities per day, and 230 non fatal shootings. That seems pretty "routine."
this is not because guns are "cheap and easy to get".
So if guns were more expensive and harder to get, there'd be more shootings?
The US has more guns now than ever before, yet violent crime has been decreasing over the past decades.
Yes, leaded gasoline and Reagan's war on impoverished people (what all "wars on poverty" end up as, just Reagan didn't even hide it) lead to peak numbers in the '80s, and so a falling after will happen regardless of counfounds. The numbers would be even better, if not for the ease with which mass murderers get their guns. Most get them legally, and most shootings don't happen in gun free zones.
Obscurity is a perfectly acceptable security tool.
No, it is not. Your key being blank #23 and key pattern 8442332 isn't "obscurity". But the spare key being kept under a rock by the back door is.
When the method is secret, one should assume security through obscurity until proven otherwise. You are assuming security until proven otherwise, which is the wrong assumption.
You are the one who is wrong, who asserted that the Queen wasn't the head of state for Australia, NZ and Canada. I proved otherwise, and you still argue the point. You are pitiul, and your complaints against me are obviously just you trying to save face. After all, must win all arguments on the Internet, right?
Wow, my very own AC stalker. And you didn't manage to disprove anything, just insults deflections, and hyperbole.
I never said or implied "deliberate". That you inferred it doesn't mean it was implied. She didn't intend to give herself 3rd degree burns, but it was her actions and her actions alone that forced the hot liquid onto her skin.
You couldn't see the thermal. It's too low resolution to pick out features to identify a person from. It'd be near-useless as a security camera, where you want to identify people. They are used for finding a person in a field, not identifying a person out of a lineup.
Near IR is better used, along with lights that emit it. If they wanted to get smart, they'd blanket entire areas with near-IR that is independent from the cameras, so the light sources didn't spotlight the recording location.
It is public exactly because it isn't private, I would have thought.
The term "back alley" is used to mean a place where privacy is assumed in a public place. One wouldn't make a back alley transaction in the lobby of a police station. So the language understands and accepts that there are public places where privacy can be assumed, even if only temporarily.
At 0% body water content, you are dead. but at 100% immersion in water, you are dead as well. All signs point to there being a very narrow range of "optimal". Comparing the low-end of the scale and extrapolating well beyond where that data is valid just makes you look like a moron. Or a liar. Which is it, do you not know basic statistics, despite quoting them, or do you understand, and are lying to further your political agenda? Bonus points for lying, then accusing the other side of lying.
Nope. Everything I've said is true. You are arguing theory vs practice without recognizing both are valid. You are the only one here that's wrong. Your absolutism in denying the Queen is irrational. The Queen is explicitly the head of the government in places you named like Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and has the power to do things like disband parliament and other things if she felt like it. She never would, because the laws would be changed after, but she, at least theoretically, is the sole head of government. That the power is used only figurehead-like doesn't mean it's not still there explicitly. Perhaps you need to learn what the Commonwealth is.
Literally poured it on herself? Could you get any further from the truth?
She deformed the container with force in a manner that forced the liquid out of the cup. That's a "pour". The first surface it struck after she "poured" it from the cup is her body. She poured it on herself.
That you don't like the implication of the words doesn't make them wrong.
That would be true only if teenagers with cancer would have been more likely to die as an infant, or if teenagers used to die of cancer, but the cause of death was misstated because autopsies were not done, or weren't done to modern standards. The second seems much more likely. "Since the late 1970s, cancer incidence rates in teenagers and young adults have increased by almost three-fifths (55%) in Great Britain.", so why are there 50% more cancer cases per 100 teens? Randomly killing 90 of them in infancy should give the same cancer rate, so just being dead doesn't change the rate.
McFact 1: MCDonald's knows that people like their coffee hotter than they can drink, as they rarely drink it immeidately, and often take it to another desintation, like work, to drink it, or like to hold the hot cup to warm cold hands.
McFact 2: coffee should be brewed at near-boiling, so "proper" temperature coffee is, by definition, stale.
McFact 3: serving cold coffee would lose them more money than the suits (at least according to bean counters, probably hired from Ford, after they were fired for counting the Pinto's beans).
McFact 3: the person in question literally poured it on herself. She took off the lid, that prevents deformation of the circular opening of the cup, then crushed the cup with her legs, forcing the liquid out and onto her body. Had she left the lid on, or used a cup holder, the incident would never have happened.
I'm not in a place with much FedEx presence now. They were just an example. Not a particularly bad experience, just the most recent large company with a pre-printed application form. I usually get jobs through resume/networking, not pre-printed application forms. I think I didn't get the job because they thought I was an idiot. I answered truthfully. They asked "do you have any criminal convictions", to which the answer is "yes", as speeding tickets in Texas used to be misdemeanor crimes, and I have a conviction from then. So I truthfully ticked yes, and stated "speeding ticket", so they either thought that I was an idiot, or that 73 in a 65 disqualifies one from working there. Which would be odd, given that they ask about driving history elsewhere.
Corporate HR does more to drive off competent people than hire them. But I have a different story on the worst examples of that.
You still have not the slightest clue what the commonwealth is or how it works.
I'm a citizen of a member of the commonwealth. Are you?
News Flash: Rich people already have more rights than you.
I recall them specifically from a FedEx application from about 2005. I had moved, and wanted a job I could walk away from when I found something better. They apparently have "high standards" as I was rejected from an open hiring call where they advertised multiple roles. I toned my resume down to appear "normal" so not to appear to be over-qualified, and as I recently moved state, they couldn't find anything that would indicate otherwise, even if they looked. They asked lots of medical questions and criminal background questions on a standard first-line form. Either FedEx is breaking the law, or the law allows sweeping "illegal" questions to be asked in that manner. It was a high-security application process. You weren't allowed to leave with your form, so you couldn't have someone help you fill it in, so I couldn't keep it to have proof (maybe so they can denied they asked, if sued).
https://www.theresumecenter.co...
Do you have any medical conditions to declare?
Alternative and related questions:
Do you have a disability of any sort?
How do you cope with your disability?
The employment guides indicate it's an allowed question, but you certainly aren't allowed to hold it against them unless it prevents them from doing the job.
If someone needs an accommodation for a disability and doesn't disclose it, then they could be fired for not disclosing it. This (legally) limits the liability for the employer in gauging the accommodations necessary to hire someone with that disability. And Depression is a disability.
The current definition of hack matches the old definition of "crack".
Except you and the troll that asserts 0g is necessarily fatal.
It's often used in the context of "there's no gun problem, there's a gay problem". *you* are safe. It's just that those homos have pissed off God and get what they are due.
Yes, it has to do with "gays" in that it happened in a gay nightclub done by someone with a problem with gays, but that's not the story. It was a human that killed humans. That's the story. The adjectives are there to diffuse and deflect.
The Queen is the sole head of the nation. It's not in "ceremony" but in law. Sure, if she ever used that power, the laws would be changed, but all of the commonwealth countries formally have the Queen as their head of government. Also, if you wish to prove me wrong, name a single country in the Commoneealth that doesn't have the Queen mentioned or depicted on their passport. Note, she's not in the US passport, or Russia's, so it's not an issue of "everyone does it", but that the Commonwealth does it, and nobody else.
You do realize that "The Commonwealth" is short for (or derived from) "The British Commonwealth", right? And you are arguing that members of The British Commonwealth have no link to the British.
The commonwealth is a collection of linked "independent" states, same as the states in the EU, or the states in the US. The only discussion is the level of "collection" vs "independence". The "independent sovereign nations" of Australia, Canada, and New Zealand all formally recognize Queen Elizabeth II as the formal head of their government.
The look is unrelated to the operation, but there's no good operational delimiters. So, given the options, banning by looks is about as good as any. It's not like the smaller magazine sizes made a difference to this (or any other) shooting. A practiced shooter takes almost no time to swap clips. They would just need to carry more magazines, but not too much more weight, as the weight is in the ammunition, not the magazines.
The gasoline didn't hit the person, the bumper did. The bumper (or windshield) killed the person. Not the gasoline (primer).
Radical anything is a problem.