And how many people have you met, who were good, law abiding citizens, that have been killed by cops?
I see 3 possibilities.
(1) You don' t know anybody killed by a cop. You've just bought into the anti-cop hysteria.
(2) You know ONE person killed by a cop, and are extrapolating based on anti-cop rhetoric.
(3) You know more than one person killed by a cop, and you probably know they were firing back, but don't want to admit it publicly.
There are a few cops in each town who should be hounded out of the force. There are a few places where the majority of cops are bad. Most cops in most places are good people just trying to do their jobs.
Hmm. On reflection, that seems to be a silly statement.
Can freedom exist without safety? Freedom to do what, exactly? Freedom to beat your neighbor senseless? Freedom to avoid being beaten senseless?
Can safety exist without freedom? Safety from what, exactly? Those who would kidnap you, beat you, and take your stuff? What if they are from the government?
It seems, properly defined, that freedom and safety are indelibly linked.
But how many of them were attacked and sustained injuries? How many required some degree of medical attention? How many of them were attacked and managed to remain uninjured?
They are trained to avoid injury and death, especially in tense situations. That doesn't make their job safe.
Your driving analogy would be accurate... if some percentage of drivers on the road actively wished you bodily harm, and if you had taken tactical driving classes and modified your car to cope with it.
This has to depend entirely on where you're a cop, and what job you're doing.
Very true.
Sure, a big mouth kid on a skateboard is probably the worst threat most of them deal with over their career,...
Now that's just silly. Common sense says that every routine call - let's say domestic disturbance - is potentially dangerous. Emotions are high. Tensions are frayed. People no longer have a default philosophy of trusting the police...
How often does the average police officer deal with someone who's really, truly angry? I'm not sure (not a cop), but I'd be equally surprised if it was every day, or if it was every 6 months. It's probably somewhere between the two.
You're not accounting for the bias of your source. It claims to be quoting NYPD... but they can clam to be purple Jovians and I wouldn't do a double take. It's someone with an agenda on the Internet, and they're making no bones about it. The only reason they don't call it 97% is because they don't think people are quite that stupid.
Besides, it is an uncomfortable truth that black men in inner cities are more likely to be raised in low income, single parent households.
Even if the cops in a big city were to stop people using probable cause only, there'd still be an unbelievable racial disjunct.
Parents who can afford a BMW are rarely the problem (though it does happen). The parents who ARE the problem are the parents who hate their kids; totally ignore them; don't know what their grades are and don't care; smack them around a bit, but don't ever _really_ beat them; Don't know who their friends are, or where they go after school; set bad examples regarding alcohol or drug use; I could go on, and on.
The crux of the matter is, many parents don't parent their children. Some don't know how, and a great many just plain don't care. It's sad, and it's prevalent everywhere... but especially places with high crime.
There are more incidents of Cops shooting unarmed black men... but these shootings are also much, MUCH more likely to be reported on, and passed around by word of mouth.
For instance: This story didn't have anyone getting shot, much less a black person. Yet, the idea of black people getting shot still made it into the thread.
THAT makes a real statement about the over-sensitivity of race on the issue.
I think what you're getting at is the homosexual angle, and not the priest angle. In that case, I'd refer you to the passages in the New Testament that deride it as an abomination. You don't need the Old Testament to do that.
And why celibacy for priests? I think it's an odd interpretation of something Paul wrote off-the-cuff.
He might make statements that are held to be authoritative by some fraction of 1.2 billion people?
FTFY
(A considerable percentage of Catholics are very, very non-practicing. But they still call themselves Catholic, and appear on church records. It's like that with all organized Faiths, but seems to be more-so with the Roman Catholics.)
The president is a successful Chicago Politician and lawyer who was able to brand himself as a "community organizer". All kinds of lawyers have various funny ideas about what the constitution means, and what can be gotten away with.
So... I fail to see the inconsistency, personally.
(I think he's actually less-bad than I had feared when he was elected. This still doesn't excuse many of his policies. I'm more concerned with the unconscionable leaks from White House staff. I don't believe Obama is really that stupid, but someone working for him is/was.)
All that says is that Peter was going to run the church... Not that he'd wear a funny hat and live in Rome.
And "Peter" (or Cephas) was the name Christ gave him. His given name seems to have been Simon. Thus, it's less of a joke, and more of an honorific nickname.
... It's difficult to deny that Peter was the first Bishop of Rome.
Oh? I have no reason to disbelieve it, but I also see no clear evidence that he was. I see a reference to Babylon that is taken to be a veiled reference to Rome, but nothing concrete.
Whether that makes him the first Pope can be a matter for debate, however. Part of it is how inerrant you believe the Bible really is: there's reason to believe that the "Upon this rock I shall build my church" verse in the Bible was inserted by those wishing to bolster the Papacy's claims.
Even giving this specific phrase legitimacy, does not actually support claims of later Popes. You have to really convolute Peter's probable role of leading the church with his possible role of leading the church in Rome. If you even consider for even a moment that those were two different offices held by the same man, then later Popes can no longer rely solely on Matt 16:18 to claim authority.
I don't see any clear references either (aside from the above mentioned Matt 16:18).
There are, however, numerous implicit clues. The Lord seemed to favor Peter, James and John. Peter conducted the meeting where Matthias was chosen. It was Peter that the resurrected Lord returned to and fervently instructed "feed my sheep". This is just off the top of my head.
(I'm not Catholic. I'd argue that Peter wasn't the first Pope, but it seems pretty sane that he was the chief Apostle, or what-have-you.)
If you put a space anywhere in the puzzle, at least one of the clues will fail. The only solution that works is made entirely of the capital letters found in the clues. Don't believe me? Try to find a complete solution with a space in it.
And yes, they really do mean.* There are several of those that match empty strings, so you need to be on your guard. There is a single + in the puzzle, right where it needs to be.
I've not dealt with Lisp, so I only think I know what you're saying. I made a Sudoku solver once. It worked immediately. All the time. Every puzzle. There are still people out there who derive enjoyment out of solving Sudoku puzzles.
This puzzle idea is far more interesting than Sudoku. The fact that a computer solver can be written without great effort doesn't really diminish it.
Except this isn't actually a crossword puzzle. It doesn't make any words, only odd series of letters. As the summary said, it's more like Sudoku, with a crossword bent.
Why the hey did they have to put 2/3 of the clues upside down? That was cruel.
(And yes, I realize it was an attempt at uniformity, to have every line take the form of clue-answer. Still, it is impossible to retain that form without having most of the clues upside down no matter how you turn the page. If it's merely to slow down students in the competition, I call unnecessary roughness. Judging students ability to read math upside down is worthless compared to the value of a good puzzle.)
Dell always has a link to 'Previous Versions' of the BIOS. I call BS that they 'removed older versions of the BIOS.'
That's possible. It is also possible that they reposted older versions as a response to complaint or this slashdot thread, or that there was a glitch on the server making archived versions temporarily unavailable. I'd take it for what it is, an anecdote on the Internet: neither proven nor disproven, either enlightening or slanderous.
Almost all of these call centers include a robo-notice (in a friendly voice) before a human ever picks up notifying you that your call "may" be recorded. That's why. They can then field calls from anywhere and record all of them, without ever admitting to having a record of any of them. It's sneaky, but smart.
There is a degree of truth in what you're saying. He does shoulder responsibility here.
On the other hand, what the vendors have done is childish, at best. They have suggested he do something to the hardware, they participated (wrote the update), and when the metaphorical window broke, they ran like miscreants. Their mothers should really give them a firm talking to and send them to apologize.
Not only does the FDIC not want to give up their bureaucratic power, but they did not want to drive inflation. Releasing those funds wouldn't have been printing money, but it would have had the same effect on the nations money supply. That's fine in small cases where banks fail, which is what the FDIC is really designed for. At least ostensibly, they didn't want to make the situation worse by devaluing the dollar.
Slashdot Mirror
And how many people have you met, who were good, law abiding citizens, that have been killed by cops?
I see 3 possibilities.
(1) You don' t know anybody killed by a cop. You've just bought into the anti-cop hysteria.
(2) You know ONE person killed by a cop, and are extrapolating based on anti-cop rhetoric.
(3) You know more than one person killed by a cop, and you probably know they were firing back, but don't want to admit it publicly.
There are a few cops in each town who should be hounded out of the force. There are a few places where the majority of cops are bad. Most cops in most places are good people just trying to do their jobs.
Freedom > safety
Hmm. On reflection, that seems to be a silly statement.
Can freedom exist without safety? Freedom to do what, exactly? Freedom to beat your neighbor senseless? Freedom to avoid being beaten senseless?
Can safety exist without freedom? Safety from what, exactly? Those who would kidnap you, beat you, and take your stuff? What if they are from the government?
It seems, properly defined, that freedom and safety are indelibly linked.
But how many of them were attacked and sustained injuries? How many required some degree of medical attention? How many of them were attacked and managed to remain uninjured?
They are trained to avoid injury and death, especially in tense situations. That doesn't make their job safe.
Your driving analogy would be accurate... if some percentage of drivers on the road actively wished you bodily harm, and if you had taken tactical driving classes and modified your car to cope with it.
... Sadly I'm not kidding much.
Sadly, you're not. I think you're greatly mistaken, but I am sure you're not kidding.
This has to depend entirely on where you're a cop, and what job you're doing.
Very true.
Sure, a big mouth kid on a skateboard is probably the worst threat most of them deal with over their career,...
Now that's just silly. Common sense says that every routine call - let's say domestic disturbance - is potentially dangerous. Emotions are high. Tensions are frayed. People no longer have a default philosophy of trusting the police...
How often does the average police officer deal with someone who's really, truly angry? I'm not sure (not a cop), but I'd be equally surprised if it was every day, or if it was every 6 months. It's probably somewhere between the two.
You're not accounting for the bias of your source. It claims to be quoting NYPD... but they can clam to be purple Jovians and I wouldn't do a double take. It's someone with an agenda on the Internet, and they're making no bones about it. The only reason they don't call it 97% is because they don't think people are quite that stupid.
Besides, it is an uncomfortable truth that black men in inner cities are more likely to be raised in low income, single parent households.
Even if the cops in a big city were to stop people using probable cause only, there'd still be an unbelievable racial disjunct.
I'd feel safer with the criminals.
I wouldn't. Even if some cops are overeager, and some are overly aggressive... That still seems like a very dumb thing to say
Oh, wait... AC.. right. So , par for the course.
Parents who can afford a BMW are rarely the problem (though it does happen). The parents who ARE the problem are the parents who hate their kids; totally ignore them; don't know what their grades are and don't care; smack them around a bit, but don't ever _really_ beat them; Don't know who their friends are, or where they go after school; set bad examples regarding alcohol or drug use; I could go on, and on.
The crux of the matter is, many parents don't parent their children. Some don't know how, and a great many just plain don't care. It's sad, and it's prevalent everywhere... but especially places with high crime.
You've overlooked something important.
There are more incidents of Cops shooting unarmed black men... but these shootings are also much, MUCH more likely to be reported on, and passed around by word of mouth.
For instance: This story didn't have anyone getting shot, much less a black person. Yet, the idea of black people getting shot still made it into the thread.
THAT makes a real statement about the over-sensitivity of race on the issue.
I think what you're getting at is the homosexual angle, and not the priest angle. In that case, I'd refer you to the passages in the New Testament that deride it as an abomination. You don't need the Old Testament to do that.
And why celibacy for priests? I think it's an odd interpretation of something Paul wrote off-the-cuff.
He might make statements that are held to be authoritative by some fraction of 1.2 billion people?
FTFY
(A considerable percentage of Catholics are very, very non-practicing. But they still call themselves Catholic, and appear on church records. It's like that with all organized Faiths, but seems to be more-so with the Roman Catholics.)
The president is a successful Chicago Politician and lawyer who was able to brand himself as a "community organizer". All kinds of lawyers have various funny ideas about what the constitution means, and what can be gotten away with.
So... I fail to see the inconsistency, personally.
(I think he's actually less-bad than I had feared when he was elected. This still doesn't excuse many of his policies. I'm more concerned with the unconscionable leaks from White House staff. I don't believe Obama is really that stupid, but someone working for him is/was.)
All that says is that Peter was going to run the church... Not that he'd wear a funny hat and live in Rome.
And "Peter" (or Cephas) was the name Christ gave him. His given name seems to have been Simon. Thus, it's less of a joke, and more of an honorific nickname.
... It's difficult to deny that Peter was the first Bishop of Rome.
Oh? I have no reason to disbelieve it, but I also see no clear evidence that he was. I see a reference to Babylon that is taken to be a veiled reference to Rome, but nothing concrete.
Whether that makes him the first Pope can be a matter for debate, however. Part of it is how inerrant you believe the Bible really is: there's reason to believe that the "Upon this rock I shall build my church" verse in the Bible was inserted by those wishing to bolster the Papacy's claims.
Even giving this specific phrase legitimacy, does not actually support claims of later Popes. You have to really convolute Peter's probable role of leading the church with his possible role of leading the church in Rome. If you even consider for even a moment that those were two different offices held by the same man, then later Popes can no longer rely solely on Matt 16:18 to claim authority.
I don't see any clear references either (aside from the above mentioned Matt 16:18).
There are, however, numerous implicit clues. The Lord seemed to favor Peter, James and John. Peter conducted the meeting where Matthias was chosen. It was Peter that the resurrected Lord returned to and fervently instructed "feed my sheep". This is just off the top of my head.
(I'm not Catholic. I'd argue that Peter wasn't the first Pope, but it seems pretty sane that he was the chief Apostle, or what-have-you.)
If you put a space anywhere in the puzzle, at least one of the clues will fail. The only solution that works is made entirely of the capital letters found in the clues. Don't believe me? Try to find a complete solution with a space in it.
And yes, they really do mean .* There are several of those that match empty strings, so you need to be on your guard. There is a single + in the puzzle, right where it needs to be.
I've not dealt with Lisp, so I only think I know what you're saying. I made a Sudoku solver once. It worked immediately. All the time. Every puzzle. There are still people out there who derive enjoyment out of solving Sudoku puzzles.
This puzzle idea is far more interesting than Sudoku. The fact that a computer solver can be written without great effort doesn't really diminish it.
Nope. In fact, there can be no spaces. (It's not a rule, there just aren't any, deductively. Consider it a free hint.)
Except this isn't actually a crossword puzzle. It doesn't make any words, only odd series of letters. As the summary said, it's more like Sudoku, with a crossword bent.
Tell me about it
Why the hey did they have to put 2/3 of the clues upside down? That was cruel.
(And yes, I realize it was an attempt at uniformity, to have every line take the form of clue-answer. Still, it is impossible to retain that form without having most of the clues upside down no matter how you turn the page. If it's merely to slow down students in the competition, I call unnecessary roughness. Judging students ability to read math upside down is worthless compared to the value of a good puzzle.)
Dell always has a link to 'Previous Versions' of the BIOS. I call BS that they 'removed older versions of the BIOS.'
That's possible. It is also possible that they reposted older versions as a response to complaint or this slashdot thread, or that there was a glitch on the server making archived versions temporarily unavailable. I'd take it for what it is, an anecdote on the Internet: neither proven nor disproven, either enlightening or slanderous.
No. "[Dell] listed the update as 'critical,' and has removed older versions of the BIOS". That's not the work of some mere phone support peon.
Almost all of these call centers include a robo-notice (in a friendly voice) before a human ever picks up notifying you that your call "may" be recorded. That's why. They can then field calls from anywhere and record all of them, without ever admitting to having a record of any of them. It's sneaky, but smart.
There is a degree of truth in what you're saying. He does shoulder responsibility here.
On the other hand, what the vendors have done is childish, at best. They have suggested he do something to the hardware, they participated (wrote the update), and when the metaphorical window broke, they ran like miscreants. Their mothers should really give them a firm talking to and send them to apologize.
This is a very important piece of the equation.
(IANAE)
Not only does the FDIC not want to give up their bureaucratic power, but they did not want to drive inflation. Releasing those funds wouldn't have been printing money, but it would have had the same effect on the nations money supply. That's fine in small cases where banks fail, which is what the FDIC is really designed for. At least ostensibly, they didn't want to make the situation worse by devaluing the dollar.