I have an idea. Handle it the way some of the smarter states in the USA do it. About 1 in 100 people in the crowd has a concealed weapon. Try attacking that.
You do what they do in places like Iraq: use suicide bombers in cars packed with explosives.
Return fire assurance is infinitely more effective as a defense and a deterrent than some ridiculous laws and metal detectors and bomb sniffing dogs and all that predictable, bypassable nonsense.
The thought of being shot at and killed is not really a deterrent if you're on a suicide mission anyway.
For governments that don't want protesters drawing negative attention to their skulduggery, you'd think they'd welcome such an act. They could then say "see, look how dangerous unauthorized public gatherings are!" and people would be afraid to protest in groups after that.
Yeah, it's almost like the government are more concerned for their citizens' safety than proceeding with their evil totalitarian conspiracy.
the government had secretly mandated the set-up of a 500-man "Rapid Intervention Squad" armed with heavy weapons that can intervene whenever ordered so - in other words, a government-backed Death Squad.
AKA "the Army"?
Unless you are some sort of absolute pacifist it seems a bizarre way to characterise an anti-terrorist unit.
We have elections because they are meaningless. Show me one country where there is a party that actually has a chance to become part of a government that would change the status quo.
If it hadn't been for the first past the post system, then Britain would have had a swathe of UKIP MPs in this parliament who may well have become part of a right wing coalition.
In most European countries with proportional representation, if enough people vote for extreme right wing parties, they will also potentially become coalition members of a government. Greece voted for an initially extreme left wing government.
The simple fact is that if half the population turned out to vote for a new left or right wing party, we could easily have different governments.
The issue in the US is that only a small number of people are opposed to the status quo.
Find a suitable reason to declare a state of emergency. Use the state of emergency to suppress legitimate protests.
An event that outrages people used to remove civil liberties and the opportunity for dissent. Where have we seen this before? In every country that became a dictatorship.
Right, so the French government that recognizes climate change and agrees it is a major issue to be dealt with is afraid of protesters who recognize climate change and believe it is a major issue to be dealt with?
Isn't it as simple as the fact that you can't declare a state of emergency and say that further terrorist attacks are imminent, then allow everything to go on as normal with large crowds distracting the police and presenting easy targets?
Obviously, if they try to extend the ban on demonstrations for very long then there are going to be, um, mass demonstrations against the government.
If you think me not giving a shit about environmental protesters in a country that is as the forefront of environmentalism somehow equates to the idea that we should model democracy on North Korea you need your head checked, like... now.... did you just have a stroke or something?
You can't genuinely be that stupid, but just in case you are: the protesters won't be directing their anger at the French government, they'll be having a go at the US. And we all know that makes them terrorists.
They are pissed that the US refuses to ratify a legally bounding agreement on the issue. So in short, not likely. What would be interesting is the number of arrests reported, after the emergency powers have been lifted, where the arrested is a member or an affiliate of some right-wing extremist group and the charge is ambiguous, non-existing, public safety or terrorism related.
I don't think it's right wing extremists who are going to have to worry about the backlash from the recent terrorist attacks. It will be people who are non-Islamophobes, non-Xenophobes and believers in freedom of speech and freedom of assembly.
The point about Common Core is to lay down a minimum standard. If you can't read and write properly, it won't make any difference what figures in history you learn about.
If you don't know how to multiply two two digit numbers together, you're not going to be aware of the philosophy of maths involved.
For all his "geek" status, Bill Gates (with his foundation) failed elementary statistics. He succumbed to the law of small numbers and idiotically pushed for smaller schools for a long period spending a lot of time, money and energy convincing policy makers that the small schools will make students better.
They thought so only because frequently among the best performing schools were small schools. Idiots didn't notice that among the worst performers were ALSO small schools - small samples just lend themselves to a higher variability.
And you are assuming that all "small schools" are the same, and that you can't identify what makes a good small school different from a poor small school.
It seems self evident to me that if you take one small school, give it lots of money to build facilities and purchase equipment, hire the best teachers, engage the parents strongly and so on, it will be totally different from the same sized school that is poorly funded, run by incompetents and taught by morons.
His post was saying "don't trust a drug user, get some real data." Seems reasonable. Recreational drug users always espouse the benefits of their drugs. If they didn't believe, they wouldn't use them.
This whole thing reminds me of the "I actually drive better after a few large whiskies to steady my nerves" bullshit that people used to come up with before everyone realised that drunk driving is not a terribly good idea.
Can't help but suspect that the reason LSD is classified as Schedule I, way out of proportion to its dangerousness and potential for abuse, is that it emancipates the mind. And we can't have that, can we?
You don't use chemicals to emancipate your mind. Try reading a few books.
if it is really pure LSD then it will be one of the most important and beneficial events in your life (unless you have schizophrenia, or some similar per-disposed mental imbalance)
Unfortunately, a lot of people have undiagnosed mental illnesses.
Slashdot Mirror
Completely outlaw guns, then knifing people becomes the norm.
First, you can outlaw carrying knives too. Second, I'd rather be attacked by someone with a knife than a gun.
I have an idea. Handle it the way some of the smarter states in the USA do it. About 1 in 100 people in the crowd has a concealed weapon. Try attacking that.
You do what they do in places like Iraq: use suicide bombers in cars packed with explosives.
Return fire assurance is infinitely more effective as a defense and a deterrent than some ridiculous laws and metal detectors and bomb sniffing dogs and all that predictable, bypassable nonsense.
The thought of being shot at and killed is not really a deterrent if you're on a suicide mission anyway.
Why don't they allow the protesters but set up security measures?
There are two ways of stopping a marksman hitting his target. One is to interrupt the marksman, the other is to remove the target.
For governments that don't want protesters drawing negative attention to their skulduggery, you'd think they'd welcome such an act. They could then say "see, look how dangerous unauthorized public gatherings are!" and people would be afraid to protest in groups after that.
Yeah, it's almost like the government are more concerned for their citizens' safety than proceeding with their evil totalitarian conspiracy.
the government had secretly mandated the set-up of a 500-man "Rapid Intervention Squad" armed with heavy weapons that can intervene whenever ordered so - in other words, a government-backed Death Squad.
AKA "the Army"?
Unless you are some sort of absolute pacifist it seems a bizarre way to characterise an anti-terrorist unit.
We have elections because they are meaningless. Show me one country where there is a party that actually has a chance to become part of a government that would change the status quo.
If it hadn't been for the first past the post system, then Britain would have had a swathe of UKIP MPs in this parliament who may well have become part of a right wing coalition.
In most European countries with proportional representation, if enough people vote for extreme right wing parties, they will also potentially become coalition members of a government. Greece voted for an initially extreme left wing government.
The simple fact is that if half the population turned out to vote for a new left or right wing party, we could easily have different governments.
The issue in the US is that only a small number of people are opposed to the status quo.
Find a suitable reason to declare a state of emergency. Use the state of emergency to suppress legitimate protests. An event that outrages people used to remove civil liberties and the opportunity for dissent. Where have we seen this before? In every country that became a dictatorship.
Right, so the French government that recognizes climate change and agrees it is a major issue to be dealt with is afraid of protesters who recognize climate change and believe it is a major issue to be dealt with?
Isn't it as simple as the fact that you can't declare a state of emergency and say that further terrorist attacks are imminent, then allow everything to go on as normal with large crowds distracting the police and presenting easy targets?
Obviously, if they try to extend the ban on demonstrations for very long then there are going to be, um, mass demonstrations against the government.
Le Pen's call to rearm France's citizens is a good step towards creating a society in which more freedom can be possible
I imagine that would be "white citizens" only. i can't see anything possibly going wrong there.
Dude don't drink and extrapolate.
If you think me not giving a shit about environmental protesters in a country that is as the forefront of environmentalism somehow equates to the idea that we should model democracy on North Korea you need your head checked, like ... now. ... did you just have a stroke or something?
You can't genuinely be that stupid, but just in case you are: the protesters won't be directing their anger at the French government, they'll be having a go at the US. And we all know that makes them terrorists.
And is this going to work? No. Nobody gives a fuck about protesters, but protesters themselves.
Yeah, fuck it, just ban all demonstrations. They are by definition using up valuable productive time.
And while we're on the subject, fuck elections too. Voting never changed anything, right?
They are pissed that the US refuses to ratify a legally bounding agreement on the issue. So in short, not likely. What would be interesting is the number of arrests reported, after the emergency powers have been lifted, where the arrested is a member or an affiliate of some right-wing extremist group and the charge is ambiguous, non-existing, public safety or terrorism related.
I don't think it's right wing extremists who are going to have to worry about the backlash from the recent terrorist attacks. It will be people who are non-Islamophobes, non-Xenophobes and believers in freedom of speech and freedom of assembly.
There are a lot of big mouthed primates with small brains that wouldn't recognize academic fraud if it bit them on the face and both heads.
Says the guy who just earlier wrote "simple denigration of oppositional views and their holders is not going to be effective."
I have a much harder science background than you do
But, let me guess, not actually in climatology? In fact, probably in Computer Science?
Just a guess.
If you don't know how to multiply two two digit numbers together, you're not going to be aware of the philosophy of maths involved.
For all his "geek" status, Bill Gates (with his foundation) failed elementary statistics. He succumbed to the law of small numbers and idiotically pushed for smaller schools for a long period spending a lot of time, money and energy convincing policy makers that the small schools will make students better.
They thought so only because frequently among the best performing schools were small schools. Idiots didn't notice that among the worst performers were ALSO small schools - small samples just lend themselves to a higher variability.
And you are assuming that all "small schools" are the same, and that you can't identify what makes a good small school different from a poor small school.
It seems self evident to me that if you take one small school, give it lots of money to build facilities and purchase equipment, hire the best teachers, engage the parents strongly and so on, it will be totally different from the same sized school that is poorly funded, run by incompetents and taught by morons.
How much money do you spend on shit you don't actually need? Maybe you should give that to somebody who earns less than you.
I do, through taxes. Part of the problem is that a lot of very highly paid CEOs do not pay a proportionate amount of tax.
I posit that the individual smoked a whole load of weed and in a moment of either poor judgement or stoned humor purchased a Sting CD.
I reckon he intended it to be sent to an enemy and that it was the precursor of Rickrolling.
Nope.... Iron is less dense than gold. It wouldn't weigh enough. In fact, that was how Archimedes detected the forgery.
Color mark-t Informative.
Iron has a density of 7.87 g/cm^3, whereas gold has a density of 19.32 g/cm^2.
Well, duh, you'd just use two and a half times as much iron then.
90 euros per kilo
Are barnacles some sort of delicacy, or is the price just due to the space rocket association?
I thought they were just things that clogged up the bottom of boats.
The therapeutic uses I heard of have always coupled it with therapy in a group guided by an experienced professional.
Fascist!
His post was saying "don't trust a drug user, get some real data." Seems reasonable. Recreational drug users always espouse the benefits of their drugs. If they didn't believe, they wouldn't use them.
This whole thing reminds me of the "I actually drive better after a few large whiskies to steady my nerves" bullshit that people used to come up with before everyone realised that drunk driving is not a terribly good idea.
At least with drunks you get some comedy out of their stories.
Can't help but suspect that the reason LSD is classified as Schedule I, way out of proportion to its dangerousness and potential for abuse, is that it emancipates the mind. And we can't have that, can we?
You don't use chemicals to emancipate your mind. Try reading a few books.
if it is really pure LSD then it will be one of the most important and beneficial events in your life (unless you have schizophrenia, or some similar per-disposed mental imbalance)
Unfortunately, a lot of people have undiagnosed mental illnesses.
Sorry, that's not a principle people generally accept.
Yes it is, otherwise you would have no laws at all, and everybody would be free to steal and kill with perfect freedom.