Sorry, I just really think if you're spending that much time visually inspecting the individuals driving the vehicles around you then you are a hazard on the road. I've ridden with people who like to people watch while they drive and sure, they spot people doing all sorts of stuff but at the same time they are most certainly bot paying enough attention on the road. One of my bosses from work drives like this and I hate being in the car with him because of how his people watching effects his driving.
" (and yeah I've sometimes recognized the site they're on!)"
I have a big problem with drivers spending too much looking at other drivers rather than paying attention to traffic conditions. When I pull out a bit from a driveway and I get some idiot staring at me individually I often wonder what would happen should the person in front of them stop suddenly. If you can honestly tell someone is using Facebook on their phone you are NOT AT ALL paying attention to road conditions and have no place talking about others driving habits. You're as much a hazard as they are.
The people you're describing sound a step off from the IS in terms of political views and are a big part of why people call for scaling back gun ownership. Everytime i hear some idiot make a statement like your "cold dead hands" one I think to myself "great, I like guns even less now". This small minority of gun owner's crazy fanaticism actually fuels anti gun sentiment.
Now, I not necesarrily argueing for outlawing the private ownership of all guns. I just disagree with your arguement.
Over time the amount of guns would decrease. Is every gun still in existance from 100 years ago? No, they break, get seized by police, inherited by a non gun user and disposed of, etc. It's entropy.
Now even that would actually be impressive if it didnt coincide with a drop in violent crime in all Western Nations. Really the comparison to make is us and the rest of Western Nations with stricter gun laws. You find in almost all of them homicide rates 3 times lower then ours https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... and gun violence rates that are even lower.
I can't wait until these idiotic comments go out of fashion with the Right. They're about as clever and insightful as the lame puns based on Obama's name like "Obummer".
Yes, we all know that a gun free zone doesnt magically erect an anti gun force field. What it does do is it allows cops to arrest people who are seen with guns in these areas. It is most certainly not a fool proof method but it does allow for police officers to detain some one who might be up to something.
"1. You assume a ban on guns means criminals will have fewer guns to commit violence with."
Sure, if there are less guns around then there are less gun to fall into the hands of criminals. This is why other Western nations with strict gun control laws have much lower gun violence and homicide rates but yet have similar violent crime rates. It's not terribly complicated. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... )
"2. You assume that criminals having fewer guns and law abiding citizens having no guns means there will be less gun violence"
See above.
"Since the first amendment guarantees their right to speak, I guess you have only one real option to solve this problem. I hear that Somalia has great deals on housing prices."
And it's their first amendment right to disagree or express disdain for an opinion so i guess you should go to Somalia?
"4. What you need is not the same as what other people need, and projecting your lack of desires into a lack of need for others is a fail.
5. Excessive hyperbole."
As stated above, less guns has resulted in less gun violence and homicides in almost very other Western Nation.
"6. Expecting the cops to be able to be everywhere at once so they can protect you from armed criminals. There are more criminals than cops, and criminals tend to gather where cops are not. Even the cops admit that they cannot be everywhere and protect everyone all the time."
So cops shouldn't have guns? All you're pointing out is what everyone knows.
Regardless of how Bond was in the books, Bond movies are just Hollywood cookie cutter action flicks without the sauve, charismatic bond we used to know from cinema in prior decades. And don't get me wrong, I sometimes like action flicks that fit the standard Hollywood mold and if I take myself out of the mindset that I'm watching a Bond movie I can even enjoy Casino Royale. All I'm getting at is that the Craig Bond doesnt bring anything to the table to make the movie any different then Mission Impossible or any other major action franchise. For that, I have no use for him as Bond.
Plus, Roger Moore wasnt all bad. Man with the Golden Gun was a great Bond movie.
Of course you have no evidence they were provocateurs in this but hey, who needs evidence when you can just make something up that supports what you want to see happening.
While Daniel Craig hasnt been as bad for James Bond as Lucas was for Star Wars I tell you as a good bit of a Bond fan since childhood that I cant wait to see him go as he's been one of the worst at playing Bond. Bond is supposed to be suave and charismatic while Craig's Bond has all the charisma of a rock. The new Bond movies are just Mission Impossible movies (or any other big Holiwood action brand) which is fine if you like that sort of thing (and i do sometimes) but they certainly dont watch like any of the movies before Craig.
I went into the first Hobbit movie a bit worried about how it was going to be. The dwarf dish scene really got my hopes up as it was both great and straight out of the book. Of course then the rest of the movie was both terrible and not at all like the books. Everything in the book became an action scene and worse still, they were terrible action scenes. I've never experienced so many action scenes that were boring in one movie before.
I actually walked out of the second movie part way in. Not sure why I even bothered.
Interesting thought but I dont quite subscribe to it. Humans are very much the dominant race in Middle Earth and they had a very large presence on both sides of the war. That alone for me makes your point questionable but to really nerd out on you, the Similerian clearly lays out that the first orcs are corrupted Elves which muddles the waters on racial identity in that area as well.
Also, what a depressing conclusion to come to. Some nebulous evil being of immense power creates a bunch of evil everyone else fights and it's a race war?
Orlando Bloom was a reason you liked the Lord of the Rings movies? I honestly thought him and Glimli were the worst parts of an otherwise excellent movie series. I mean, shield surfing down a set of stairs? It's like a Middle Earth themed Mountain Dew commercial. "Too the extreme!"
Children entering the work force as adults is only a small part of why the unemployment rate hasnt changed much while we've seen a good amount of job growth (our country's population growth is at less then 1% after all and job growth has been big enough to accommodate more than that). The primary reason is because of how we measure unemployment in this country. Here's the deffinition that we use,
"Unemployment is defined by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) as people who do not have a job, have actively looked for work in the past four weeks, and are currently available for work."
All of the hundreds of thousands of people who got discouraged and stopped looking for work during the recession are entering back into the job market now. It's something quite a few pundits have been talking about for a while with them suggesting that the "real unemployment rate" was really much higher then figures suggested during the recession.
So then there MUST be a conspiracy (to bring us back from a tangent and to the point i questioned you on)!!! Since we have no evidence or motive I'm rejecting your father conspiracy and going with Mole Men. I know that just like the father conspiracy there's no evidence of Mole Men influence but pure and utter conjecture but I think it's much more fun then your story. I mean, a teenage student fiddling with something after a teacher tells them to put it away clearly has more to do with Mole Men influence then some sort of patriarchal conspiracy.
Going by your thinking on this we should assume everyone is molesting little boys and / or setting up bizarre conspiracies. Without evidence there's no reason to assume anything. Following your thinking we could just make up anything. "I believe he brought the clock to school because his alien leader told him to"
As for motive, the kid clearly stated his motive. He is a well known electronics tinkerer. He was in the school's robotics club. The kid wanting to show something off to his teachers is well within reason and there is no significant evidence of any other motive.
"But he tinkered with the clock for a few minutes after the teacher told him to put it away! Conspiracy!". The only conclusion i can come to on this is that you desperatly want a conspiracy here as you seem to be grasping at any shred of anything to support your conclusion
"It's impossible for anyone outside his family to know. "
Sure, you could say that about anything involving a human motive. That doesnt mean the simplist answer isnt correct versus some heavily convoluted conspiracy
"I just don't see any "Geek Cred" in taking an alarm clock out of its enclosure and putting it inside of a different box. Anyone with a screwdriver can do that. I'm pretty sure the average 6 year old could handle that."
So he's not a genius? That's great but irrelevant to what is being discussed here
"That's why what he did makes zero sense to me."
So a little kid wanting to show off something he did, however unimpressive, makes no sense to you but some grand conspiracy involving the father sening his son to school with a taken apart clock sounds sensible or even plausible?
"Especially after being warned to put it away by two separate teachers."
As far as i've ever read it was one teacher who warned him off showing it around and then a teacher in 6th period (end of the day) who asked to see it after it made a noise in his bag.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry, I just really think if you're spending that much time visually inspecting the individuals driving the vehicles around you then you are a hazard on the road. I've ridden with people who like to people watch while they drive and sure, they spot people doing all sorts of stuff but at the same time they are most certainly bot paying enough attention on the road. One of my bosses from work drives like this and I hate being in the car with him because of how his people watching effects his driving.
I was refering to being able to tell what web page they're on. If you can tell that you are spending way too much time people watching
Yeah, I won't even use hands free in the car. It's great you're making thing up about me though
" (and yeah I've sometimes recognized the site they're on!)"
I have a big problem with drivers spending too much looking at other drivers rather than paying attention to traffic conditions. When I pull out a bit from a driveway and I get some idiot staring at me individually I often wonder what would happen should the person in front of them stop suddenly. If you can honestly tell someone is using Facebook on their phone you are NOT AT ALL paying attention to road conditions and have no place talking about others driving habits. You're as much a hazard as they are.
The people you're describing sound a step off from the IS in terms of political views and are a big part of why people call for scaling back gun ownership. Everytime i hear some idiot make a statement like your "cold dead hands" one I think to myself "great, I like guns even less now". This small minority of gun owner's crazy fanaticism actually fuels anti gun sentiment.
Now, I not necesarrily argueing for outlawing the private ownership of all guns. I just disagree with your arguement.
Over time the amount of guns would decrease. Is every gun still in existance from 100 years ago? No, they break, get seized by police, inherited by a non gun user and disposed of, etc. It's entropy.
No, I vote for canidates who hold my views. We live in a republic not a democracy.
Nice name calling though. I bet you felt really righteous doing it.
Well for starters, you made up that 75% percent. It's 50%. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Now even that would actually be impressive if it didnt coincide with a drop in violent crime in all Western Nations. Really the comparison to make is us and the rest of Western Nations with stricter gun laws. You find in almost all of them homicide rates 3 times lower then ours https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... and gun violence rates that are even lower.
I can't wait until these idiotic comments go out of fashion with the Right. They're about as clever and insightful as the lame puns based on Obama's name like "Obummer".
Yes, we all know that a gun free zone doesnt magically erect an anti gun force field. What it does do is it allows cops to arrest people who are seen with guns in these areas. It is most certainly not a fool proof method but it does allow for police officers to detain some one who might be up to something.
So because the solution is hard and would take a long time we shouldnt do it?
Welcome to modern America folks!
"1. You assume a ban on guns means criminals will have fewer guns to commit violence with."
Sure, if there are less guns around then there are less gun to fall into the hands of criminals. This is why other Western nations with strict gun control laws have much lower gun violence and homicide rates but yet have similar violent crime rates. It's not terribly complicated. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... )
"2. You assume that criminals having fewer guns and law abiding citizens having no guns means there will be less gun violence"
See above.
"Since the first amendment guarantees their right to speak, I guess you have only one real option to solve this problem. I hear that Somalia has great deals on housing prices."
And it's their first amendment right to disagree or express disdain for an opinion so i guess you should go to Somalia?
"4. What you need is not the same as what other people need, and projecting your lack of desires into a lack of need for others is a fail.
5. Excessive hyperbole."
As stated above, less guns has resulted in less gun violence and homicides in almost very other Western Nation.
"6. Expecting the cops to be able to be everywhere at once so they can protect you from armed criminals. There are more criminals than cops, and criminals tend to gather where cops are not. Even the cops admit that they cannot be everywhere and protect everyone all the time."
So cops shouldn't have guns? All you're pointing out is what everyone knows.
I dont think we're using the same deffinition for camp
Regardless of how Bond was in the books, Bond movies are just Hollywood cookie cutter action flicks without the sauve, charismatic bond we used to know from cinema in prior decades. And don't get me wrong, I sometimes like action flicks that fit the standard Hollywood mold and if I take myself out of the mindset that I'm watching a Bond movie I can even enjoy Casino Royale. All I'm getting at is that the Craig Bond doesnt bring anything to the table to make the movie any different then Mission Impossible or any other major action franchise. For that, I have no use for him as Bond.
Plus, Roger Moore wasnt all bad. Man with the Golden Gun was a great Bond movie.
Of course you have no evidence they were provocateurs in this but hey, who needs evidence when you can just make something up that supports what you want to see happening.
While Daniel Craig hasnt been as bad for James Bond as Lucas was for Star Wars I tell you as a good bit of a Bond fan since childhood that I cant wait to see him go as he's been one of the worst at playing Bond. Bond is supposed to be suave and charismatic while Craig's Bond has all the charisma of a rock. The new Bond movies are just Mission Impossible movies (or any other big Holiwood action brand) which is fine if you like that sort of thing (and i do sometimes) but they certainly dont watch like any of the movies before Craig.
I went into the first Hobbit movie a bit worried about how it was going to be. The dwarf dish scene really got my hopes up as it was both great and straight out of the book. Of course then the rest of the movie was both terrible and not at all like the books. Everything in the book became an action scene and worse still, they were terrible action scenes. I've never experienced so many action scenes that were boring in one movie before.
I actually walked out of the second movie part way in. Not sure why I even bothered.
Interesting thought but I dont quite subscribe to it. Humans are very much the dominant race in Middle Earth and they had a very large presence on both sides of the war. That alone for me makes your point questionable but to really nerd out on you, the Similerian clearly lays out that the first orcs are corrupted Elves which muddles the waters on racial identity in that area as well.
Also, what a depressing conclusion to come to. Some nebulous evil being of immense power creates a bunch of evil everyone else fights and it's a race war?
Orlando Bloom was a reason you liked the Lord of the Rings movies? I honestly thought him and Glimli were the worst parts of an otherwise excellent movie series. I mean, shield surfing down a set of stairs? It's like a Middle Earth themed Mountain Dew commercial. "Too the extreme!"
Slashdot has always had articles about games. Get over it
Children entering the work force as adults is only a small part of why the unemployment rate hasnt changed much while we've seen a good amount of job growth (our country's population growth is at less then 1% after all and job growth has been big enough to accommodate more than that). The primary reason is because of how we measure unemployment in this country. Here's the deffinition that we use,
"Unemployment is defined by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) as people who do not have a job, have actively looked for work in the past four weeks, and are currently available for work."
All of the hundreds of thousands of people who got discouraged and stopped looking for work during the recession are entering back into the job market now. It's something quite a few pundits have been talking about for a while with them suggesting that the "real unemployment rate" was really much higher then figures suggested during the recession.
So then there MUST be a conspiracy (to bring us back from a tangent and to the point i questioned you on)!!! Since we have no evidence or motive I'm rejecting your father conspiracy and going with Mole Men. I know that just like the father conspiracy there's no evidence of Mole Men influence but pure and utter conjecture but I think it's much more fun then your story. I mean, a teenage student fiddling with something after a teacher tells them to put it away clearly has more to do with Mole Men influence then some sort of patriarchal conspiracy.
Going by your thinking on this we should assume everyone is molesting little boys and / or setting up bizarre conspiracies. Without evidence there's no reason to assume anything. Following your thinking we could just make up anything. "I believe he brought the clock to school because his alien leader told him to"
As for motive, the kid clearly stated his motive. He is a well known electronics tinkerer. He was in the school's robotics club. The kid wanting to show something off to his teachers is well within reason and there is no significant evidence of any other motive.
"But he tinkered with the clock for a few minutes after the teacher told him to put it away! Conspiracy!". The only conclusion i can come to on this is that you desperatly want a conspiracy here as you seem to be grasping at any shred of anything to support your conclusion
I think it's unlikely because
A) There's no evidence of one
B) There's no strong motive for one.
Just because you want to believe there's a conspiracy here doesnt mean there is one
"I'm so stupid i dont even understand what rational, evidence based debate is!"
LOL BEING A TROLL IS FUN!!!
"It's impossible for anyone outside his family to know. "
Sure, you could say that about anything involving a human motive. That doesnt mean the simplist answer isnt correct versus some heavily convoluted conspiracy
"I just don't see any "Geek Cred" in taking an alarm clock out of its enclosure and putting it inside of a different box. Anyone with a screwdriver can do that. I'm pretty sure the average 6 year old could handle that."
So he's not a genius? That's great but irrelevant to what is being discussed here
"That's why what he did makes zero sense to me."
So a little kid wanting to show off something he did, however unimpressive, makes no sense to you but some grand conspiracy involving the father sening his son to school with a taken apart clock sounds sensible or even plausible?
"Especially after being warned to put it away by two separate teachers."
As far as i've ever read it was one teacher who warned him off showing it around and then a teacher in 6th period (end of the day) who asked to see it after it made a noise in his bag.
Http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/16/us/texas-student-ahmed-muslim-clock-bomb/