Another one of those oddities when discussing guns is the reasoning that "anything like the assault weapons ban is stupid because it doesn't actually do anything but regulate cosmetic things." OK, then why do you have a problem with it if it's inconsequential?
So let's regulate something that's not just cosmetic.... oh no, you can't do that either because it actually DOES something.
A: Regulated meant disciplined in 1780s America. B: Mexico and Brazil have virtually no legal civilian gun ownership and their murder rates (including those with firearms) are orders of magnitude higher than ours. C: States and Cities in the US with strict gun control regimes are some of the most dangerous places to be in this country. The stats you are swallowing whole include suicides in them to make the rural areas look dangerous. D: You know nothing about this topic and are simply seeking information to confirm your biases. Good day to you sir.
The ironing in this post is delicious. Cherry-pick a few data points to confirm your own biases before accusing the other guy of confirming his own biases.
And that reasoning doesn't work. The 2nd needs to be reworded or removed. Since we can't even agree to pay the bills we already rung up as a country I highly doubt we would ever be able to change the 2nd. So as it is, we're trying to blunt the idiocy of thinking Jethro and his piece are going to stop the government from.... from.... what, exactly? If a well armed populace are supposed to keep the government from overstepping its bounds, where were they when the OWS were getting pepper sprayed for peaceably assembling? Where were they when the Patriot Act got passed? Where were they when warrant-less wiretapping got approved? Where were they when free speech zones were created?
There have been plenty of opportunities for a well armed populace to check the government's ambition. But the truth is that particular rationale for the 2nd is utter bullshit and everyone knows it.
You store ammo in a magazine. Ships have magazines, semi-automatic pistols have magazines, and even your bolt-action hunting rifles have magazines.
Are you specifically talking about detachable magazines for semi-automatic rifles? Why didn't you say so? I hate it when people use generic terms when they mean something specific.
A magazine is a generic term that refers to the storage of ammunition. You can certainly keep 30 rounds of ammo in your rifle's detachable magazine. You can also store your ship's ammunition in the ship's magazine. You could even replenish your bolt action hunting rifle's magazine.
So you should be clear on your terminology before you take part in these discussions. Otherwise we can dismiss anything you say since you've already displayed your ignorance on the topic.
Precisely. The best place to store important emails is in an email server that gets backed up. That's not even taking into account a mobile workforce (are you going to send out business intelligence on laptops?) or the prevalence of multiple devices in the modern office.
Publishing peer reviewed science is almost the exact same thing as child molestation. How can anyone not see that?
On a different note, is anyone else having problems getting Slashdot to load in a usable way? It's like I'm being dared to take my nerd traffic elsewhere.
Yeah, I noticed Romney talking about Obama a bit too. I don't know if that's the greatest idea. I mean, I understand most people that would vote for him aren't thinking "Romney is great!", they're more likely thinking "Obama sucks!" and this just plays to that, but it just doesn't seem to be a winning strategy.
I've always felt a little guilty in a lot of those older FPSs where the only things moving were enemies (or other interesting things).
With some of the games now, it's a lot more realistic with a lot of detail and a lot of motion and the enemies blend into the background, as you point out. I just see it as an improvement rather than a problem.
Not even bringing mammary glands into an article on the topic of how men and women differ in terms of how body armor fits because talking about breasts apparently makes some people uncomfortable
or
Actually talking about how hooters are a pretty significant anatomical difference that would seem to be highly relevant to designing body armor specifically for women.
Interesting that they can write a whole article on redesigning body armor for women and there's not a single reference to tatas.
Are the main differences really torso length, should width, and waist size? Do chesticles not really factor into the redesign? Or are the authors just being polite and not highlighting jugs as a factor?
I remember arguing with people over "Obamacare" when it was working it's way through Congress. My friends on the right side of the spectrum had a hard time believing that the VA ranked number one in terms of patient satisfaction, Medicare was ranked second, and private insurance/health care was last. Cross reference that with the amounts of money spent for each one of those programs and it seems obvious that government does a pretty good job of providing health care.
Granted, the reputation the VA had earned a generation ago was turned around in the last decade or two with some new leadership.
Slashdot Mirror
The only options are to raise prices (which is a business killer in fast food) or to cut staff and hope the service doesn't degrade.
Which is why minimum wage is mandated by government - so that everyone is hit the same way. No one gets a competitive advantage.
Yes, "Americans really do take the idea of citizenship and the republic quite seriously"
I want what you're smoking.
It's almost like there's no end of stories coming out of Japan about the loonies that make their own guns and go on killing sprees.
Another one of those oddities when discussing guns is the reasoning that "anything like the assault weapons ban is stupid because it doesn't actually do anything but regulate cosmetic things." OK, then why do you have a problem with it if it's inconsequential?
So let's regulate something that's not just cosmetic.... oh no, you can't do that either because it actually DOES something.
A: Regulated meant disciplined in 1780s America.
B: Mexico and Brazil have virtually no legal civilian gun ownership and their murder rates (including those with firearms) are orders of magnitude higher than ours.
C: States and Cities in the US with strict gun control regimes are some of the most dangerous places to be in this country. The stats you are swallowing whole include suicides in them to make the rural areas look dangerous.
D: You know nothing about this topic and are simply seeking information to confirm your biases.
Good day to you sir.
The ironing in this post is delicious. Cherry-pick a few data points to confirm your own biases before accusing the other guy of confirming his own biases.
And that reasoning doesn't work. The 2nd needs to be reworded or removed. Since we can't even agree to pay the bills we already rung up as a country I highly doubt we would ever be able to change the 2nd. So as it is, we're trying to blunt the idiocy of thinking Jethro and his piece are going to stop the government from.... from.... what, exactly? If a well armed populace are supposed to keep the government from overstepping its bounds, where were they when the OWS were getting pepper sprayed for peaceably assembling? Where were they when the Patriot Act got passed? Where were they when warrant-less wiretapping got approved? Where were they when free speech zones were created?
There have been plenty of opportunities for a well armed populace to check the government's ambition. But the truth is that particular rationale for the 2nd is utter bullshit and everyone knows it.
Yes, I know what a clip is.
Do you know what a magazine is?
You store ammo in a magazine. Ships have magazines, semi-automatic pistols have magazines, and even your bolt-action hunting rifles have magazines.
Are you specifically talking about detachable magazines for semi-automatic rifles? Why didn't you say so? I hate it when people use generic terms when they mean something specific.
A magazine is a generic term that refers to the storage of ammunition. You can certainly keep 30 rounds of ammo in your rifle's detachable magazine. You can also store your ship's ammunition in the ship's magazine. You could even replenish your bolt action hunting rifle's magazine.
So you should be clear on your terminology before you take part in these discussions. Otherwise we can dismiss anything you say since you've already displayed your ignorance on the topic.
-can I out-pedant a pedant?
Wonder if he had to go cold turkey on some addiction
You can settle criminal charges with a load of cash? That doesn't seem right to me.
Precisely. The best place to store important emails is in an email server that gets backed up. That's not even taking into account a mobile workforce (are you going to send out business intelligence on laptops?) or the prevalence of multiple devices in the modern office.
Publishing peer reviewed science is almost the exact same thing as child molestation. How can anyone not see that?
On a different note, is anyone else having problems getting Slashdot to load in a usable way? It's like I'm being dared to take my nerd traffic elsewhere.
If anything, Google should be the one to blame. Why didn't it have an app ready to replace Maps like it did for YouTube?
Because Google is too busy watching Apple flounder with this PR nightmare. Why should Google be in any hurry?
Take the new money and be sure to burn your bridges on your way out the door.
I can't wait to read 5 new and exciting 3D printing stories each and every day!
Partisanship might not be good for the space program but it sure is good for page views!
Yeah, I noticed Romney talking about Obama a bit too. I don't know if that's the greatest idea. I mean, I understand most people that would vote for him aren't thinking "Romney is great!", they're more likely thinking "Obama sucks!" and this just plays to that, but it just doesn't seem to be a winning strategy.
Goddammit, where are my mod points?
Yeah, the wording of the summary needs help and TFA doesn't bring it up until the last paragraph.
It's "scientifically" useless but still a pretty neat idea
I've always felt a little guilty in a lot of those older FPSs where the only things moving were enemies (or other interesting things).
With some of the games now, it's a lot more realistic with a lot of detail and a lot of motion and the enemies blend into the background, as you point out. I just see it as an improvement rather than a problem.
You forgot "jugs"
Which is more juvenile:
Not even bringing mammary glands into an article on the topic of how men and women differ in terms of how body armor fits because talking about breasts apparently makes some people uncomfortable
or
Actually talking about how hooters are a pretty significant anatomical difference that would seem to be highly relevant to designing body armor specifically for women.
Interesting that they can write a whole article on redesigning body armor for women and there's not a single reference to tatas.
Are the main differences really torso length, should width, and waist size? Do chesticles not really factor into the redesign? Or are the authors just being polite and not highlighting jugs as a factor?
I remember arguing with people over "Obamacare" when it was working it's way through Congress. My friends on the right side of the spectrum had a hard time believing that the VA ranked number one in terms of patient satisfaction, Medicare was ranked second, and private insurance/health care was last. Cross reference that with the amounts of money spent for each one of those programs and it seems obvious that government does a pretty good job of providing health care.
Granted, the reputation the VA had earned a generation ago was turned around in the last decade or two with some new leadership.