Most these people don't know anything about guns. Haven't been around them, don't know anything about them they didn't learn from Hollywood, and don't care.
Makes it real easy for them to just blame the gun. Strange thing they aren't familiar with? Obviously it is the evil thing. People don't kill people with guns because people are fucking sick and horrible, the gun just makes it TOO EASY so otherwise good people wind up murderers!... what a fucking strange world to live in
You mean the guy whose family was murdered by Federal agents? Who was never convicted of a crime except for "FAILURE TO APPEAR"? That guy? The guy who didn't do anything wrong? That guy? The guy from Ruby Ridge?
Yeah, no, he didn't do anything wrong, bro. Just because the guy owned guns and killed federal agents doesn't mean he's a bad guy.
I mean, he is kinda a bad guy. I think he's racist. Yanno what, I know plenty of racists, of all colors and shapes and sizes. I'm not down with that, but no one's perfect.
But he did nothing that called for his family being murdered, and though he killed federal agents -- it was their fault. As it turns out, he was legally within his rights to do so. Imagine.
And maybe keep in mind that it was those trusted federal agents that shot his wife as she was holding their baby. Wanna know why they did that?
And do you have any idea of the reasons for that ban?
At the time -- Clinton-era, think -- there was a major push by the anti-gun lobby. There was a major issue with gov't-funded research painting ridiculously poor pictures, using bad data and analysis, drawing bad conclusions, all in an effort to ban firearms.
Shit like the CDC and other health organizations deciding that they were going to start calling firearms a "national public health crisis" and other fear-mongering scare tactic bullshit.
Yes, government-funded research involving firearms isn't allowed -- because the government was using it as nothing more than a propaganda tool pushing a prohibitionist agenda.
Don't you wish you could get the government to stop fucking lying about things YOU care about?
FUCKING PERIOD, BUCKO. You don't fucking do that because it cheapens the actual legitimate definition of the term, which is used to refer to something specific.
Here's a fun fact for you. When the term "assault rifle" really began gaining traction amongst the news folk, afair, early/mid 90s. Clinton era. Brady Bill.
They were, and were not, misusing the term. They were calling any military-styled firearm an "assault rifle", and then looking up the definition of "assault rifle", and coming to the conclusion that these military-styled firearms -- your AR-15s or demilitarized AKs -- were in fact fully automatic. Even fucking 20/20, though I forget the chucklehead's name, explained the term for laypeople -- that these are guns you pull the trigger and they keep shooting.
No. They're semi-automatic. This is why you don't misuse technical terms, and this is why I tend to discount arguments for gun control. Many people in favor of gun control simply do not know what they're talking about. They don't know anything about guns. It's an emotional decision for them, and it's weighted on one side by this big scary thing they don't know, they don't understand, and *they don't want to know or understand*. Purely emotional. The media fed into that with their misuse of a technical term, and their outright lies about the difference between fully and semi automatic firearms.
PS: The part of shooting 30 rounds as fast as you can pull your trigger that isn't assault is any time you're either shooting at a target or in defense of your life or another's life. See? There is your bias. You can't imagine any use that isn't a violent unjust attack
That's not the only intent. There's also defense. Of the community, of the nation, of the self. Revolution against an unjust government actually falls under this umbrella entirely.
The Second Amendment recognizes the innate human right to defend themselves against aggressors, be they a criminal personally threatening them, or king george threatening us all. If you can't defend yourself, you're simply a victim-in-waiting.
It's illegal to pass on the outside lane in many places. Well, this state has it phrased differently. You're not to cruise in the inside lane, it's for passing -- you pass, and move back out of the lane.
It's never enforced, though, obviously.. but the intention is there.
Except the use of violence against someone, at least in my opinion, follows from an estimation of the danger of that someone.
Women can certainly be dangerous. There's certainly women who could work me over. Of course, there's also that darn human knack of making things -- we've invented weapons! Knives make the table more even -- guns mean it doesn't matter if she's 3'6 and 10 years old.
However, it's more likely that if there's a threat that may warrant violence it will be a simple fists-and-feet threat. In my day to day experiences, there's not very many women I come across that would really constitute much of a physical threat to me.
When it comes to smacking things with clenched hands, men are more dangerous than women. A man and woman acting in the same manner would, therefor, make the man more deserving of violence than the woman -- as he would be more likely to be an actual threat if either of them decided to become violent.
Individual situations, of course, vary. This is just speaking broadly.
FPS games weren't bad on dialup. You just found a local server. Back when I lived in the South, I frequented a Day of Defeat server in Virginia -- on cheap dialup, I was getting ~100-150 ping, which is more or less what I get on cable for east/west coast connections.
So, FPS-wise at least, the world hasn't gotten any better -- it's just gotten wider. I guess. Weird.
Actually, that's very common. I mean, remember the League of Nations?
The US is very good at coming up with ideas and then abandoning them later. There's a number of treaties we helped write, agreements and whatnot, that were never ratified by the US gov't -- but it's good that way! Unlike some other nations, our diplomats can't agree to things on their own. They can try, but ultimately the power to enter a treaty is the people's (via their elected representatives).
Yeah, that... I've recently ranted about that. How awful a think to write -- that Anakin's ultimate fall to the Dark side was just the Emperor telling him the Dark side isn't actually all that bad, that it's not evil -- but hey, the JEDI are evil! So go KILL A BUNCH OF CHILDREN WHO TRUST YOU!
And Anakin's all "Oh, yeah, you're probably right. Hey, brb lemme get these kids! GO GO GOOD GUYS!"
It's not even a Sandpeople-type thing. They killed his mom, he got mad. Ok, that's bad -- but understandable. For him to suddenly go from being a good guy to killing children just because the Emperor tells him it's OK?
I can only suppose George Lucas doesn't see children-killing as something really all that awful, not the sort of thing that would shock anyone into realizing that the person suggesting the children-murder is a Bad Dude.
I know when I'm fixing a jury, I make sure to fix it so that I lose and must expose the tainted juror so I can then later go back and win. And do take care to make sure that your planted juror that lost the trial for you and is later exposed as awful to allow a mistrial isn't able to be traced back to you either!
Seriously, there's unlikely, and then there's fucking retarded suppositions. This is the latter.
So I guess "fairly prudent" sometimes means "better than the majority of people?"
76k/yr may only be a bit more than 50% more than most people earn, but it also comes with the time those other people would spend earning that money as well... and there's plenty of places that a 3-4BR is closer to 100k than 200k, let alone 1M
Good question. Seeing as how this stuff wouldn't ever come into contact with food, seems like an ideal use to me. If it at least would produce enough energy to keep itself running, functioning as a waste disposal plant would still be useful.
Or hell, use the Mississippi. There's tons of fertilizer that gets flushed into the Gulf and isn't doing its ecosystem any favors. Run it through some shit that'll eat up the excess first, why not.
gasoline is king. diesel's actually really good too -- higher energy density and all that, and it's less combustible.
nuclear's pretty plentiful. we throw down on some serious cutting-edge shit and we'll have a glut of cheap energy -- the nuclear waste sitting around all over? can be used to make more power! LOTS more, more than the process that created the waste generated. just take that excess energy and poof it into some wacky hydrocarbon chains, you've got gas. it's better than ethanol. less chance of kaboom, it won't pull water out of the atmosphere.. it's just an all-around better energy storage medium. and it still beats the snot out of batteries. and will continue to, for quite some time to come.
corn ethanol is one of the biggest scams of the century >:| it's really pretty fucking horrid. in any imaginable way you can look at it, it's just a bad idea.
I work there. They do know. If they don't, they understand as soon as I say "it's the number of lines of pixels from top to bottom".
People are dumb, but don't just flat-out assume they're all imbeciles. People aren't that dumb unless they WANT to be that dumb, and while maybe many people don't seek out understanding and knowledge -- it takes a special kind of idiot to willfully turn a blind eye to it when it's relevant to them, to choose to remain ignorant. MOST people aren't like that.
I'm not saying they'll remember and be able to relate it to others, but at least while they're there, and while I'm explaining things to them, they do understand.
But then, maybe that's just me. I tend to treat people like adults, not like idiots, and if it happens that they DON'T understand something -- well, it's not something to be looked down on, you simply explain it in another way so that they do understand.
Of course, then there was the guy who asked me which HDMI cable was best, and after explaining impedance, why it doesn't really matter for a digital signal, and that there's no reason to spend 40 bucks on 3 feet of HDMI -- grabbed the Monster cable anyway. Some people like being ignorant and can't be helped, but it's a minority.
People shopping for TVs in Walmart understand resolution and pixel size, especially if they get to stand 1 foot from a 70" 1080p TV and see that it doesn't really look very good up close compared to a 720p 32" TV at the same distance.
It's not that people are stupid, they're just often lazy and *don't care* to think or understand or learn. Apple fucking LOVES people who only want to hear and use buzzwords with no understanding of what they actually mean, people who don't evaluate products beyond their marketing -- that's been their core customer base since, fuck, the iMac? Likely even earlier than that, but that POS is the earliest device they made in my memory that really went whole-hog on "OMG IT LOOKS SO COOL!" and nothing else.
It removes cross-contamination (dirty side of a pair of gloves against a clean side of a pair of gloves)
and actually at the end I realized you didn't need to first don all 3 pair.
Put on 2 pair. Use the outer pair, remove. use the inner pair, DO NOT remove. Replace the first pair inside-out (so that the first pair's dirty side is mated against the second pair's dirty side). You've done 3. Remove both pair, put on pair you set aside for last sheep.
Cross-contamination is serious business. Nothing that is dirty should ever contact anything that will be used later as something clean. If you use the first pair, and then immediately turn them inside-out, you're putting the dirty outer side (now the dirty inner side) in contact with the clean outer side of the second pair, but then later you're using that supposedly clean outer side for work -- but it's not clean, it's been in contact with the potentially contaminated first pair of gloves. And you certainly don't want to turn a dirty outer side to a dirty inner side that's contacting your hands -- that defeats the purpose of gloves entirely!
Slashdot Mirror
Most these people don't know anything about guns. Haven't been around them, don't know anything about them they didn't learn from Hollywood, and don't care.
Makes it real easy for them to just blame the gun. Strange thing they aren't familiar with? Obviously it is the evil thing. People don't kill people with guns because people are fucking sick and horrible, the gun just makes it TOO EASY so otherwise good people wind up murderers! ... what a fucking strange world to live in
RANDY WEAVER?
You mean the guy whose family was murdered by Federal agents? Who was never convicted of a crime except for "FAILURE TO APPEAR"? That guy? The guy who didn't do anything wrong? That guy? The guy from Ruby Ridge?
Yeah, no, he didn't do anything wrong, bro. Just because the guy owned guns and killed federal agents doesn't mean he's a bad guy.
I mean, he is kinda a bad guy. I think he's racist. Yanno what, I know plenty of racists, of all colors and shapes and sizes. I'm not down with that, but no one's perfect.
But he did nothing that called for his family being murdered, and though he killed federal agents -- it was their fault. As it turns out, he was legally within his rights to do so. Imagine.
And maybe keep in mind that it was those trusted federal agents that shot his wife as she was holding their baby. Wanna know why they did that?
THEY THOUGHT THE FUCKING BABY WAS A WEAPON.
So, half your family was murdered by Nazis? Jews, I presume?
You are now aware that in 1938, Germany prohibited the possession of firearms by Jews. Specifically Jews.
Makes it easier to make them do as told, you see, when they have no way to defend their lives.
And do you have any idea of the reasons for that ban?
At the time -- Clinton-era, think -- there was a major push by the anti-gun lobby. There was a major issue with gov't-funded research painting ridiculously poor pictures, using bad data and analysis, drawing bad conclusions, all in an effort to ban firearms.
Shit like the CDC and other health organizations deciding that they were going to start calling firearms a "national public health crisis" and other fear-mongering scare tactic bullshit.
Yes, government-funded research involving firearms isn't allowed -- because the government was using it as nothing more than a propaganda tool pushing a prohibitionist agenda.
Don't you wish you could get the government to stop fucking lying about things YOU care about?
I hope he's endlessly mocked for not having actually seen that movie, in addition to every other horrible thing he's got coming.
"Assault rifle" is a technical term.
Do.
Not.
Fucking.
Misuse.
Technical.
Terms.
FUCKING PERIOD, BUCKO. You don't fucking do that because it cheapens the actual legitimate definition of the term, which is used to refer to something specific.
Here's a fun fact for you. When the term "assault rifle" really began gaining traction amongst the news folk, afair, early/mid 90s. Clinton era. Brady Bill.
They were, and were not, misusing the term. They were calling any military-styled firearm an "assault rifle", and then looking up the definition of "assault rifle", and coming to the conclusion that these military-styled firearms -- your AR-15s or demilitarized AKs -- were in fact fully automatic. Even fucking 20/20, though I forget the chucklehead's name, explained the term for laypeople -- that these are guns you pull the trigger and they keep shooting.
No. They're semi-automatic. This is why you don't misuse technical terms, and this is why I tend to discount arguments for gun control. Many people in favor of gun control simply do not know what they're talking about. They don't know anything about guns. It's an emotional decision for them, and it's weighted on one side by this big scary thing they don't know, they don't understand, and *they don't want to know or understand*. Purely emotional. The media fed into that with their misuse of a technical term, and their outright lies about the difference between fully and semi automatic firearms.
PS: The part of shooting 30 rounds as fast as you can pull your trigger that isn't assault is any time you're either shooting at a target or in defense of your life or another's life. See? There is your bias. You can't imagine any use that isn't a violent unjust attack
I'm shocked to this day that anyone ever linked their phone number to their facebook account.
I still won't do that shit with *Google*, I'm sure as hell not gonna open the door to endless 4am booty calls from Zuckerberg.
That's not the only intent.
There's also defense. Of the community, of the nation, of the self. Revolution against an unjust government actually falls under this umbrella entirely.
The Second Amendment recognizes the innate human right to defend themselves against aggressors, be they a criminal personally threatening them, or king george threatening us all. If you can't defend yourself, you're simply a victim-in-waiting.
It's illegal to pass on the outside lane in many places. Well, this state has it phrased differently. You're not to cruise in the inside lane, it's for passing -- you pass, and move back out of the lane.
It's never enforced, though, obviously.. but the intention is there.
Except the use of violence against someone, at least in my opinion, follows from an estimation of the danger of that someone.
Women can certainly be dangerous. There's certainly women who could work me over. Of course, there's also that darn human knack of making things -- we've invented weapons! Knives make the table more even -- guns mean it doesn't matter if she's 3'6 and 10 years old.
However, it's more likely that if there's a threat that may warrant violence it will be a simple fists-and-feet threat. In my day to day experiences, there's not very many women I come across that would really constitute much of a physical threat to me.
When it comes to smacking things with clenched hands, men are more dangerous than women. A man and woman acting in the same manner would, therefor, make the man more deserving of violence than the woman -- as he would be more likely to be an actual threat if either of them decided to become violent.
Individual situations, of course, vary. This is just speaking broadly.
FPS games weren't bad on dialup. You just found a local server. Back when I lived in the South, I frequented a Day of Defeat server in Virginia -- on cheap dialup, I was getting ~100-150 ping, which is more or less what I get on cable for east/west coast connections.
So, FPS-wise at least, the world hasn't gotten any better -- it's just gotten wider. I guess. Weird.
Actually, that's very common. I mean, remember the League of Nations?
The US is very good at coming up with ideas and then abandoning them later. There's a number of treaties we helped write, agreements and whatnot, that were never ratified by the US gov't -- but it's good that way! Unlike some other nations, our diplomats can't agree to things on their own. They can try, but ultimately the power to enter a treaty is the people's (via their elected representatives).
Yeah, that... I've recently ranted about that. How awful a think to write -- that Anakin's ultimate fall to the Dark side was just the Emperor telling him the Dark side isn't actually all that bad, that it's not evil -- but hey, the JEDI are evil! So go KILL A BUNCH OF CHILDREN WHO TRUST YOU!
And Anakin's all "Oh, yeah, you're probably right. Hey, brb lemme get these kids! GO GO GOOD GUYS!"
It's not even a Sandpeople-type thing. They killed his mom, he got mad. Ok, that's bad -- but understandable. For him to suddenly go from being a good guy to killing children just because the Emperor tells him it's OK?
I can only suppose George Lucas doesn't see children-killing as something really all that awful, not the sort of thing that would shock anyone into realizing that the person suggesting the children-murder is a Bad Dude.
Well of course you don't sleep with your mother. There's only room in my bed for 2.
OH ZING! some things, must be said.
I know when I'm fixing a jury, I make sure to fix it so that I lose and must expose the tainted juror so I can then later go back and win. And do take care to make sure that your planted juror that lost the trial for you and is later exposed as awful to allow a mistrial isn't able to be traced back to you either!
Seriously, there's unlikely, and then there's fucking retarded suppositions. This is the latter.
Even more confusing, why would they rig the jury.. for them to lose?
So I guess "fairly prudent" sometimes means "better than the majority of people?"
76k/yr may only be a bit more than 50% more than most people earn, but it also comes with the time those other people would spend earning that money as well. .. and there's plenty of places that a 3-4BR is closer to 100k than 200k, let alone 1M
Even the weather forgets abut Maine.
Typo accidental, left intentionally
Good question. Seeing as how this stuff wouldn't ever come into contact with food, seems like an ideal use to me.
If it at least would produce enough energy to keep itself running, functioning as a waste disposal plant would still be useful.
Or hell, use the Mississippi. There's tons of fertilizer that gets flushed into the Gulf and isn't doing its ecosystem any favors. Run it through some shit that'll eat up the excess first, why not.
gasoline is king. diesel's actually really good too -- higher energy density and all that, and it's less combustible.
nuclear's pretty plentiful. we throw down on some serious cutting-edge shit and we'll have a glut of cheap energy -- the nuclear waste sitting around all over? can be used to make more power! LOTS more, more than the process that created the waste generated.
just take that excess energy and poof it into some wacky hydrocarbon chains, you've got gas. it's better than ethanol. less chance of kaboom, it won't pull water out of the atmosphere.. it's just an all-around better energy storage medium. and it still beats the snot out of batteries. and will continue to, for quite some time to come.
corn ethanol is one of the biggest scams of the century >:| it's really pretty fucking horrid. in any imaginable way you can look at it, it's just a bad idea.
A PHABLET? Uh, no, it's a fucking tablet. I will slap anyone I ever hear use the word "phablet". That's just fucking stupid.
I work there. They do know. If they don't, they understand as soon as I say "it's the number of lines of pixels from top to bottom".
People are dumb, but don't just flat-out assume they're all imbeciles. People aren't that dumb unless they WANT to be that dumb, and while maybe many people don't seek out understanding and knowledge -- it takes a special kind of idiot to willfully turn a blind eye to it when it's relevant to them, to choose to remain ignorant. MOST people aren't like that.
I'm not saying they'll remember and be able to relate it to others, but at least while they're there, and while I'm explaining things to them, they do understand.
But then, maybe that's just me. I tend to treat people like adults, not like idiots, and if it happens that they DON'T understand something -- well, it's not something to be looked down on, you simply explain it in another way so that they do understand.
Of course, then there was the guy who asked me which HDMI cable was best, and after explaining impedance, why it doesn't really matter for a digital signal, and that there's no reason to spend 40 bucks on 3 feet of HDMI -- grabbed the Monster cable anyway. Some people like being ignorant and can't be helped, but it's a minority.
People shopping for TVs in Walmart understand resolution and pixel size, especially if they get to stand 1 foot from a 70" 1080p TV and see that it doesn't really look very good up close compared to a 720p 32" TV at the same distance.
It's not that people are stupid, they're just often lazy and *don't care* to think or understand or learn. Apple fucking LOVES people who only want to hear and use buzzwords with no understanding of what they actually mean, people who don't evaluate products beyond their marketing -- that's been their core customer base since, fuck, the iMac? Likely even earlier than that, but that POS is the earliest device they made in my memory that really went whole-hog on "OMG IT LOOKS SO COOL!" and nothing else.
It removes cross-contamination (dirty side of a pair of gloves against a clean side of a pair of gloves)
and actually at the end I realized you didn't need to first don all 3 pair.
Put on 2 pair. Use the outer pair, remove. use the inner pair, DO NOT remove. Replace the first pair inside-out (so that the first pair's dirty side is mated against the second pair's dirty side). You've done 3. Remove both pair, put on pair you set aside for last sheep.
Cross-contamination is serious business. Nothing that is dirty should ever contact anything that will be used later as something clean. If you use the first pair, and then immediately turn them inside-out, you're putting the dirty outer side (now the dirty inner side) in contact with the clean outer side of the second pair, but then later you're using that supposedly clean outer side for work -- but it's not clean, it's been in contact with the potentially contaminated first pair of gloves. And you certainly don't want to turn a dirty outer side to a dirty inner side that's contacting your hands -- that defeats the purpose of gloves entirely!
I uhh.
Mod this guy up... that is all. :(