The show Dr. Who pulled a tongue-in-cheek gag about mankind's general fear of global change (from Luddites to species to climate) by showing Earth, 5 billion years from now, as current. The Doctor's comment on the natural shifting of continents was that "they moved them back".
Do you ever feel similar? As if the loss of a species is normal, but sad; and so you seek to move time back and halt the progress of the environment?
Why should we nationalize ISPs? It seems like you are suggesting the same as emancipating a child because he misbehaves: the parents are not parenting properly, so release them of that responsibility.
In our case, the ISPs are not behaving properly because the regulations give too much and take only what the ISP does not care about. Try appropriate regulation.
Oculus VR denied claims that John Carmack stole Zenimax technology. From the article: 'Last week, ZeniMax accused John Carmack, Oculus VR Chief Technology Officer and former id Software Doom mastermind, of taking "proprietary technology and know-how". Oculus VR countered ZeniMax's claims in a seven-point statement. John Carmack departed Zenimax, the Rockville, Maryland-based publisher of Elder Scrolls and Dishonored, for a job with Oculus, the Irvine, California-based producer of the Oculus Rift VR Headset.'"
As opposed to assuring the people that death is peaceful, that we inflict no pain, that the process is perfectly clean and happy and utiopian?
These outcries come when we see someone die of shock. The last one was a concoction of drugs that most likely put the prisoner out of his senses immediately, but caused writhing of the body and foaming at the mouth; it upset the observers greatly. They deserve that. We deserve that. We deserve to see it; when we kill a man, we should not be absolved of the fact of death.
Ah. Sliding slope is not a fallacy in all cases, but it is here. You're using an undistributed middle: all murder is taking life, all state execution is taking life, therefor all state execution is murder. Yours: state execution is execution for justice, mob justice is execution for justice, therefor state execution sanctions mob justice.
The problem is state execution operates under due process--a legal system which carries consequences--while mob justice operates under no such thing. Mob justice may create a cycle of violence, but it is hard to argue that the actions are themselves individually or wholly unjust. Legal justice adds due process and obstructions to the cycle, creating a more stable system.
You'd be surprised how hard that is to do. Kicking someone in the head while they're diving at you from the ground means kicking a moving target; and 13 pounds on the knee will dislocate it.
That's because Trayvon was an idiot. People keep talking about how Trayvon got shot because he was grappling for Zimmerman's gun, or arguing that Zimmerman just shot him in the face after beating him, or whatever. It appears in any case that this fight came down to who gained control of the firearm; and if Zimmerman and Trayvon were grappling for it, the implication is whoever's better at taking a small object from another man first lives.
Maybe if the giant negro man wasn't in such a blind rage, he'd have taken the gun away. Zimmerman wasn't exactly in the best shape, and Trayvon was a pretty well-trained fighter. He lost by a tactical error.
By "Certain" do you mean he has reason to estimate this with perceived certainty, or that he saw it happen or otherwise has concrete, irrefutable evidence to the fact?
In the latter case, it is difficult to argue against.
There's scant evidence that this is in fact true. Murder in these settings are almost all crimes of passion. There's no "subconcious" threat to evaluate.
So, because people will not execute premeditated murder where the dominant threat is state execution, you conclude that murder in such a situation is a crime of passion?
The situation you described seems to set a threshold: people fear state execution and so do not commit murder; they must experience a state of passion strong enough to override this deeply-ingrained threat before they will commit murder.
We have crimes of passion in ghettos with a murder rate of 10 per day, too (we had that in Baltimore City for a few weeks--double-digit daily murders). "Fuck you man you cock sucking nigger" "WHAT? *BULLET* WHAT NOW MOTHERFUCKER?!" Instant murder. And yet in other places, it takes much more to tip the scales.
We tend to stay on the straight and narrow because that's the right thing to do, not because we consciously or otherwise perform a running cost-benefit analysis.
Everything you do is run through established facts in the basal ganglia. Your "Moral compass" and your well-accepted fact that the police will come and get you and put you in the chair are the same thing. Immediately reject the idea that people make "Conscious decisions", because we hardly do.
You open an interesting philosophical point: where the state fails to execute a murderer, a man may forfeit his life to state execution by carrying justice by his own hand. On principle in the ideal case, I don't have a problem with this; we all know Samuel L. Jackson doesn't.
To be fair, I apply economics to everything, even if the currency is not money. Human life is a currency, and we want to maximize the protection of that currency.
Home invasions are rare because of the 2nd Amendment. Look up the "hot burglary" (burglaries when people are in the structure) numbers for the United Kingdom sometime. People are disinclined to rob an occupied structure in the United States because they know the laws of all 50 States permit the occupiers to shoot them dead as soon as they come inside.
There are major cultural differences in the US versus the UK which largely drive the differences in the form and method of crime. Burglars in the US seem to not want to be seen; that's a gross simplification.
The firearm is for disparity of force scenarios, meaning you're attacked by someone stronger, or by multiple aggressors, or you're injured and can no longer effectively defend yourself.
If I can't fight them, they'll take my gun away.
If you're grappling on the ground you've probably already lost.
If you want to take someone in a ground fight, bring them to it: you can tangle them while falling to the ground, quickly gaining absolute advantage.
Standing fights look more awesome than ground fights. Standing, it is possible to immediately react to an opening, and so landing a strike typically provides a new opening which you are fully capable of landing another strike in. Putting aside practically useless 30-step kata, the real world gives you plenty of opportunity to chain attacks; these opportunities do not come when grounded.
Once the fight is on the ground, you're both facing a situation of vying for balance and control. Usually gaining balance loses control: The opponent who forces me to my back gets his face punched clear off his head. Gaining control often loses balance: the opponent who manages to guard my limbs cannot prevent me from shifting and coming at him on angle to unseat him. The fight ends in the same way as a standing fight: by damage beyond ability to fight at your opponent's level or by complete and total forced submission. Submission is hard in a ground fight, therefor you're looking to deal as much damage as possible or to escape and get back to standing; my preference is to have my opponent standing, as I don't find advantage in standing over an opponent lunging from the ground (I mean, I can kick... and be on one leg, impressing myself with my elite ability to balance while imagining groin strikes don't exist).
Standing or on the ground, you have two weapons: awareness and reflex. All else is incidental.
It's been shown that a criminal with a knife can cross 25 feet and kill a cop in 1.3 seconds. That's a sprint of 12mph; a normal human can break 25mph for a second or two, and Usain Bolt can do it for about 8 seconds.
If a gun's pointed at me, there is a problem. If I see you reaching for a gun, that's a wholly different scenario. These two things require differentiation.
To be fair, a firearm probably is the best home defense weapon on hand; it's just that a home invasion is rare.
What gets me is people who think the gun makes them a god. I will never carry a weapon when I'm out. What if I get jumped? What if a mugger pulls a gun on me? People tell me, "Oh, I'll shoot them." "When a mugger threatens me with his gun, I'll shoot him with my gun." You're grappling on the ground, you reach to pull out a gun... and you don't think you're now grappling for a firearm? The mugger will see you reach for a firearm and shoot you dead with the one already trained on your face.
I'm not bringing a liability to a fight. For a firearm to do me any good, I need to be able to take you with my bare hands first so I can get to the damn thing without having it taken from me. If I can do that, I'll just beat the shit out of you in the first place, and if you bring out your own firearm I'll take that and shoot you with it. If it's not a war, a stealth infiltration, a closed-quarter invasion, or a defense against animals (bear), carrying a firearm is the absolute stupidest thing I can do.
As opposed to ruining the trust of people for the law to protect them? Have you noticed that the police and the courts are the enemies of innocent men? Does it not offend you that the sight of police makes you feel paranoid rather than protected?
Slashdot Mirror
The show Dr. Who pulled a tongue-in-cheek gag about mankind's general fear of global change (from Luddites to species to climate) by showing Earth, 5 billion years from now, as current. The Doctor's comment on the natural shifting of continents was that "they moved them back".
Do you ever feel similar? As if the loss of a species is normal, but sad; and so you seek to move time back and halt the progress of the environment?
the only part that matters is the DNA, including mitochondrial DNA.
I like this question. It both addresses an important topic and frames it as risk management.
Why should we nationalize ISPs? It seems like you are suggesting the same as emancipating a child because he misbehaves: the parents are not parenting properly, so release them of that responsibility.
In our case, the ISPs are not behaving properly because the regulations give too much and take only what the ISP does not care about. Try appropriate regulation.
There's DRM attached: each stream is encrypted differently.
Oculus VR denied claims that John Carmack stole Zenimax technology. From the article: 'Last week, ZeniMax accused John Carmack, Oculus VR Chief Technology Officer and former id Software Doom mastermind, of taking "proprietary technology and know-how". Oculus VR countered ZeniMax's claims in a seven-point statement. John Carmack departed Zenimax, the Rockville, Maryland-based publisher of Elder Scrolls and Dishonored, for a job with Oculus, the Irvine, California-based producer of the Oculus Rift VR Headset.'"
Fixed the summary and the article it quoted from.
We need to review the process and prevent such leaks from ever happening again.
Yeah. The climate change issue is blown out of proportion and incredibly politicized; the garbage I inhale out of the air is not.
Yeah, my first thought on the summary: these are terrible passwords.
As opposed to assuring the people that death is peaceful, that we inflict no pain, that the process is perfectly clean and happy and utiopian?
These outcries come when we see someone die of shock. The last one was a concoction of drugs that most likely put the prisoner out of his senses immediately, but caused writhing of the body and foaming at the mouth; it upset the observers greatly. They deserve that. We deserve that. We deserve to see it; when we kill a man, we should not be absolved of the fact of death.
The summary has a link titled "planned for a long time now". Scroll to the top of the page...
I just bought a Fission and am waiting to get my hands on the new Neutrino.
Ah. Sliding slope is not a fallacy in all cases, but it is here. You're using an undistributed middle: all murder is taking life, all state execution is taking life, therefor all state execution is murder. Yours: state execution is execution for justice, mob justice is execution for justice, therefor state execution sanctions mob justice.
The problem is state execution operates under due process--a legal system which carries consequences--while mob justice operates under no such thing. Mob justice may create a cycle of violence, but it is hard to argue that the actions are themselves individually or wholly unjust. Legal justice adds due process and obstructions to the cycle, creating a more stable system.
I didn't say it was readily easy to argue for, just that it was difficult to argue against.
The power of Google compels you!
The power of Google compels you!
The power of Google compels you!
You'd be surprised how hard that is to do. Kicking someone in the head while they're diving at you from the ground means kicking a moving target; and 13 pounds on the knee will dislocate it.
That's because Trayvon was an idiot. People keep talking about how Trayvon got shot because he was grappling for Zimmerman's gun, or arguing that Zimmerman just shot him in the face after beating him, or whatever. It appears in any case that this fight came down to who gained control of the firearm; and if Zimmerman and Trayvon were grappling for it, the implication is whoever's better at taking a small object from another man first lives.
Maybe if the giant negro man wasn't in such a blind rage, he'd have taken the gun away. Zimmerman wasn't exactly in the best shape, and Trayvon was a pretty well-trained fighter. He lost by a tactical error.
By "Certain" do you mean he has reason to estimate this with perceived certainty, or that he saw it happen or otherwise has concrete, irrefutable evidence to the fact?
In the latter case, it is difficult to argue against.
There's scant evidence that this is in fact true. Murder in these settings are almost all crimes of passion. There's no "subconcious" threat to evaluate.
So, because people will not execute premeditated murder where the dominant threat is state execution, you conclude that murder in such a situation is a crime of passion?
The situation you described seems to set a threshold: people fear state execution and so do not commit murder; they must experience a state of passion strong enough to override this deeply-ingrained threat before they will commit murder.
We have crimes of passion in ghettos with a murder rate of 10 per day, too (we had that in Baltimore City for a few weeks--double-digit daily murders). "Fuck you man you cock sucking nigger" "WHAT? *BULLET* WHAT NOW MOTHERFUCKER?!" Instant murder. And yet in other places, it takes much more to tip the scales.
We tend to stay on the straight and narrow because that's the right thing to do, not because we consciously or otherwise perform a running cost-benefit analysis.
Everything you do is run through established facts in the basal ganglia. Your "Moral compass" and your well-accepted fact that the police will come and get you and put you in the chair are the same thing. Immediately reject the idea that people make "Conscious decisions", because we hardly do.
You open an interesting philosophical point: where the state fails to execute a murderer, a man may forfeit his life to state execution by carrying justice by his own hand. On principle in the ideal case, I don't have a problem with this; we all know Samuel L. Jackson doesn't.
To be fair, I apply economics to everything, even if the currency is not money. Human life is a currency, and we want to maximize the protection of that currency.
Home invasions are rare because of the 2nd Amendment. Look up the "hot burglary" (burglaries when people are in the structure) numbers for the United Kingdom sometime. People are disinclined to rob an occupied structure in the United States because they know the laws of all 50 States permit the occupiers to shoot them dead as soon as they come inside.
There are major cultural differences in the US versus the UK which largely drive the differences in the form and method of crime. Burglars in the US seem to not want to be seen; that's a gross simplification.
The firearm is for disparity of force scenarios, meaning you're attacked by someone stronger, or by multiple aggressors, or you're injured and can no longer effectively defend yourself.
If I can't fight them, they'll take my gun away.
If you're grappling on the ground you've probably already lost.
If you want to take someone in a ground fight, bring them to it: you can tangle them while falling to the ground, quickly gaining absolute advantage.
Standing fights look more awesome than ground fights. Standing, it is possible to immediately react to an opening, and so landing a strike typically provides a new opening which you are fully capable of landing another strike in. Putting aside practically useless 30-step kata, the real world gives you plenty of opportunity to chain attacks; these opportunities do not come when grounded.
Once the fight is on the ground, you're both facing a situation of vying for balance and control. Usually gaining balance loses control: The opponent who forces me to my back gets his face punched clear off his head. Gaining control often loses balance: the opponent who manages to guard my limbs cannot prevent me from shifting and coming at him on angle to unseat him. The fight ends in the same way as a standing fight: by damage beyond ability to fight at your opponent's level or by complete and total forced submission. Submission is hard in a ground fight, therefor you're looking to deal as much damage as possible or to escape and get back to standing; my preference is to have my opponent standing, as I don't find advantage in standing over an opponent lunging from the ground (I mean, I can kick... and be on one leg, impressing myself with my elite ability to balance while imagining groin strikes don't exist).
Standing or on the ground, you have two weapons: awareness and reflex. All else is incidental.
It's been shown that a criminal with a knife can cross 25 feet and kill a cop in 1.3 seconds. That's a sprint of 12mph; a normal human can break 25mph for a second or two, and Usain Bolt can do it for about 8 seconds.
If a gun's pointed at me, there is a problem. If I see you reaching for a gun, that's a wholly different scenario. These two things require differentiation.
To be fair, a firearm probably is the best home defense weapon on hand; it's just that a home invasion is rare.
What gets me is people who think the gun makes them a god. I will never carry a weapon when I'm out. What if I get jumped? What if a mugger pulls a gun on me? People tell me, "Oh, I'll shoot them." "When a mugger threatens me with his gun, I'll shoot him with my gun." You're grappling on the ground, you reach to pull out a gun... and you don't think you're now grappling for a firearm? The mugger will see you reach for a firearm and shoot you dead with the one already trained on your face.
I'm not bringing a liability to a fight. For a firearm to do me any good, I need to be able to take you with my bare hands first so I can get to the damn thing without having it taken from me. If I can do that, I'll just beat the shit out of you in the first place, and if you bring out your own firearm I'll take that and shoot you with it. If it's not a war, a stealth infiltration, a closed-quarter invasion, or a defense against animals (bear), carrying a firearm is the absolute stupidest thing I can do.
As opposed to ruining the trust of people for the law to protect them? Have you noticed that the police and the courts are the enemies of innocent men? Does it not offend you that the sight of police makes you feel paranoid rather than protected?