Why do you want the meat without marbling? We've been breeding animals to increase marbling (and taste) for hundreds, if not thousands, of years. Fat tastes good!
The brain is made of fat. When you stop eating fat you lose some of your brain function and become an idiot that leads to more stupid thinking like fat being bad for you!
I was working under the assumption that once "unlocked", the gun would continue to fire until "locked" again.
Not sure if this is the case, but I would imagine while hunting you would unlock it when you first enter the woods, and lock again when you're leaving for home.
Then why not just use a trigger guard or one of those cables that go through the chamber? Much cheaper and more reliable.
I don't trust many electronics to handle that. I've seen plenty of vehicle electronics fail under those circumstances, despite being generally covered or theoretically sealed. Make police carry it for two decades, and I'll start to consider testing it. That's not unusual. M16 is near 50 years old. M1911 is over a century and very popular.
With the lead-free RoHS solder the electronics will start growing whiskers far before 50 years are up. Then you have a nice expensive paper weight. I guess it could still kill someone if you threw it at them and got a good hit in the head.
My interactions with the police have been pretty civil also. But, I am fortunate enough to be a white male.
I'm not even sure why I am bothering to respond to you. It seems obvious that you will think only the best of the cops no matter how much evidence to the contrary there might be. Perhaps you are one. The cases I gave you are extreme, but they are not out of the ordinary. If having 1000's of people arrested with no cause is no big deal to you, then how about individual cases.
Colored people in New York were being arrested for no reason and then held for a day or two while they try to come up with charges. This was the policy as handed down from the top. I'm not going to do any more research for you, you can use Google as easily as I can. And I'm not sure if it was the same news story, but there was that New York cop who was bringing a recorder with him daily for something like three years because of the illegal things the police chief would ask the officers to do, such as arrest people for no reason. And if you don't want to be arrested, well now you're resisting arrest and the can now arrest you for that. The officers ended up at that guys house and wanted to get him committed so nobody would believe his story. They were ready to shoot him at that point, such fine people. How about Waco, people won't come out of their building they just kill them all. Or that cop that went on the killing spree. In that case I believe his story that he had some dirt on the chief and they killed him. Just look at how thoroughly they burned down that cabin. Definitely didn't want him alive. And wasn't it during the manhunt for him that they shot the innocent woman driving a car that was nothing like the suspect. Or the innocent guy in the subway that was pinned down with the cops knees on the back of his neck and assassinated. In Chicago there are hundreds of people in prison that were put there by a criminal police chief that was torturing them for confessions. But I suppose he was doing a good thing for the community, right? These are just a few examples that made the news over the last 6 months or so. There has to be plenty that do not make the news and we don't even know about them. And I bet everyone has seen a cop going faster than all the other traffic. Not on their way anywhere, just speeding because they feel the law doesn't apply to them.
The big problem is there is not enough accountability for the police. They are always assumed to be truthful. The papers love to print a suspects name, unless it's a murderous cop, then their names are kept out of the paper. The officers cover for each other, and I'm sure they even lie for each other. I do understand why, you can't alienate the people you rely on for backup. So even someone who wants to be straight and good will be under a lot of pressure to lead to the dark side. But knowing why or how that might happen doesn't mean it's ok. When the police force has accountability for their crimes, then they will have their legitimacy back. They are the armed force for the government though. So as long as there are corrupt politicians, there will be people asking the police to overstep their bounds.
So, is this a routine occurrence, or is it likely that somebody swept up in a protest arrest, and then posted a picture of violent graffiti associated with that protest movement was also part of the protest?
If you would bother to pay any attention to what the police do on a daily basis you would not have to ask if that was a routine occurrence. Look at the Occupy Wall Street protests where the military guy had his head cracked in by police weapons and then the people trying to help him while he was laying on the ground bleeding from the skull were spayed with pepper spay. Or the girls that were sitting peacefully on the curb were attacked by police. The risk of running into a criminal and coming to harm is much less than having a police officer cause me harm. I don't fear the criminals, I fear the out of control police.
So, just because the police are a huge mob-like organization that routinely breaks the law and rounds up innocent people, that somehow means anything about the people they round up?
Funny, but I've never been "rounded up" or even seen such an operation. What it means, in this case, is that it wasn't just an interesting piece of art to her. Partisans who omit essential details or create straw men like you have done are only preaching to the choir. Anybody the least bit skeptical will easily dismiss you as propagandists.
So because you like to stay blind to the situation that makes everything OK?!? Since you are such an idiot that you are incapable of doing your own research I will give you one link. The 2004 Republican Convention in New York. Thousands of people rounded up and arrested. People kept in cages for days with rotten sandwiches to eat and denied their needed medicines. 90% of the people released with no charges. Many people who were simply walking down the street and had nothing to do with any type of protests were surrounded with plastic fencing and arrested with no reason. I'll tell you what, I rejoice inside when I hear news of someone killing a police officer. I would do the same for you as you seem to be as big a part of the problem to me.
Pawluck [the photographer] has been taken into custody before as part of mass arrests during demonstrations.
So, just because the police are a huge mob-like organization that routinely breaks the law and rounds up innocent people, that somehow means anything about the people they round up? That seems like quite a stretch of the imagination to me.
I don't think you're making a very interesting point here. Only one person has to rip the Blu-Ray. If you want to pirate the movie, you can. The reason you don't is because you don't mind buying the disc, not because the DRM stopped you from getting it for free. The outcome would have been the same whether the Blu-ray was DRM'd or not.
What if I would prefer the pirated version because it gives me a better product. I would buy the movie except for the DRM. In this case the DRM is driving reduced sales.
FFS lighten up. My dad was an asshole. I'm an asshole. My kid is an asshole. Unless the kid finds a saint with whom to have a child, I suspect my grandson will be yet another asshole, in a long, long, long line of assholes. What's your problem with assholes, anyway? You're another bigot?
I think the first past the post voting method used in the US is the first thing that needs to be fixed, probably go to concordant voting. When people can try out a vote on the guy they like, and not have to worry about "throwing their vote away" with the "other guy" getting in things will have to change. Right now the two parties fight each other because they are opposing teams. It doesn't even matter what it is. The current party is pushing a law that your party proposed 4 years ago, oh well, it's the enemy, we must vote against it. When there are 5 or 6 or more parties involved you can't end up with a straight up fight. You will get more discussion and partnering to make deals. And when the voters get used to the new system they will be more likely to vote for the guy they actually like, rather than vote for the guy most likely to win, because they can still give their vote to the likely to win guy if theirs is eliminated anyway.
I know what needs to be done. We must ban all gatherings greater than 3 people. No permits allowed as that will create the target of opportunity. This would need to include sporting events, graduations, movies, fairs, carnivals, swap meets, renaissance faires, street performers of any kind that are good enough to gather a crowd, etc. Once we no longer have the crowd that a bomb could injure, then we will no longer have to fear bombs being planted. It wouldn't be worth it to blow up a bomb to kill one person. Might as well use a knife of bullet at that point.
I just realized we would also need to limit the number of emergency personnel that respond to any emergency. You might injure a couple of people and then when the EMT's show up you blow up the bomb to get the larger target goal. Even firefighters, if too many were in one burning building at once it would make that building a target for terrorists, so we must limit it to only 3 firefighters at a time in the building.
There has never been one to experiment or observation that anything living can come from something non-living. Life always comes from life, that is what we observe today. Adding vast amounts of time does not solve the problem because no one was there to observe life come into existence.
And you can wait millions of years for a pocket calculator with no batteries to give you the answer to 1+1, but you will never observe that. Once you add batteries though, it happens very quickly.
Darn, I should have used a car analogy. You can wait millions of years for a car to drive up a hill without observing that. Add gasoline and then it can happen.
The general idea for 'hate crimes' is a person commits a major felony, from a select list of violent felonies, AND the evidence indicates there are additional consequences to many other people AND the perp meant to produce those consequences. That's how these laws are written in the overwhelming majority of cases, that the prosecution has to prove ALL those things. I.e Criminal X committed, for example, Murder One, and Criminal X also indicated there was intention to make many other people suffer, fear for their lives, stop exercising their rights, or otherwise be injured. Whether it's a klansman hanging a black man for having made efforts to get more black people to the polls on election day, or a rapist sending a letter to the local paper warning all women to get back to the home or be presumed whores who deserve what he's dishing out, the person charged has to commit a major felony, and has to make threats or otherwise indicate they are trying to do additional harm to others by it. So why is it a conservative position to be soft on particularly violent murderers and rapists who are trying to add more victims to their talley? How did the conservative movement ever become the appologists for the worst of the worst? How does this idea that liberals are the ones soft on crime persist when self appointed spokesmen for the right are reduced to trying to oppose punishing murderers and rapists for aggravating circumstances? Read the actual laws, not what some nut such as Coulter has said about them, and decide for yourself.
Wow, your description of hate crime law makes it sound reasonable. But in the real world that isn't how it works. In your story, a woman killer, killing other women and sending that letter to the local paper would fit and get extra penalties for it being a hate crime. But it can't be a hate crime because she is the same gender as her victims. A black person can't get perpetrate a hate crime on another black person. It is against the definition. And the way laws are used is not always the same as how they sound. In the real world the prosecutors will try to find every possible law that might apply, and if you are a non-minority who injured a minority they will try to fit in the hate crime laws also. Somehow a minority injuring a non-minority doesn't get the hate crime attention though.
In a certain sort of twisted way this seems appropriate. I mean that there is no accountability for their actions in the harassment of Aaron Swartz. If these prosecutors went well above and beyond the normal course of action to give this guy a hard time they should have some accountability for their actions. If the legal system / government isn't going to hold their own representatives accountable for their actions then maybe it needs to come down to the people holding them accountable directly. Sort of like the old time lynch mobs that form up and grab up the criminals and take care of things. People stop respecting the law when it seems undeserving of respect. When it is used arbitrarily and over-handedly to bludgeon people they don't like for personal reasons or makes everyday actions a crime it becomes hard to find a reason to respect the law anymore. I have lost so much respect for the criminal organization known as the police force that I give a little cheer for the news stories about one of them being gunned down. I root for the cop-killer as I find they are doing me good. How crazy is that!
And the copycat suicides that happen in a school or town when young people get in the news for killing them selves. Those don't make the news so much anymore, so the kids have to resort to more extreme measures to get their suicide into the news.
Add a bittering agent to make the thing taste bad. It's not that otherwise it won't work, just that if it tastes foul enough (but not too foul) it'll work better.
And the more expensive placebos work better than the cheaper ones. I read a study where they had different colored placebos prices at different levels and they found this to be the case. Pretty interesting what the mind can do.
Couldn't a high powered laser be used as a defensive device? If someone tries to rob you, you could blind them, perhaps irreparably. Though a bit macabre, in many cases that might be a better option than simply killing them with a gun (let it be known, though, that if someone broke into my house and I had a laser and a gun... I'd grab the gun).
This is a very bad idea. If they live, they can sue you. It's much better to shoot to kill. Then there is only one side of the story and he is no longer around to sue you later. I'm sure you have heard the tales of people losing their house or farm because a burglar got injured on their property while breaking in to rob them.
Consumption of large amounts of caffeine – usually more than 250 mg per day – can lead to a condition known as caffeinism. Caffeinism usually combines caffeine dependency with a wide range of unpleasant physical and mental conditions including nervousness, irritability, restlessness, insomnia, headaches, and heart palpitations after caffeine use.[18]
It takes five to ten THOUSAND times as much sodium flouride to do what coffee will. That 5-10 grams? Swallow ONE gram of benzine and see what happens to you.
Sorry, dork, your tinfoil hat tea party sites may swallow your bullshit, but there are a few here at slashdot who are a little better educated.
Yeah, caffeine might have some unpleasant effects when taken in high doses, and it stains your teeth, but children today have a high incidence of dental fluorosis. It damages the enamel of the tooth when you are getting too much fluoride. The other problem with trusting the science on fluoride safety, is they test with medical grade fluoride, but the stuff put into the water is the industrial waste grade of fluoride. It comes from weapons manufacture as a toxic waste. So who knows what problems the impurities will cause.
Fluoride might be useful, although reading up on the guy who first promoted its use for teeth it seems he just made some pretty big assumptions. But still, it should not be overdosed. Smaller children, or people who are getting their daily allowance from other sources don't need it in their drinking water. And what about showering in it, washing your clothes in it, watering the lawn? Why should something like that be added to all water when you can't control the dose and usage anymore. I will get my fluoride from my toothpaste and drink only clean water, thank you.
Perhaps it is you who needs to get a little better educated.
Arguing that DRM doesn't work is, it turns out, missing the point. DRM is working really well in the video and book space.
I refuse to buy an ebook with DRM. I don't even take the time to figure out how to get the free ones from the library. It would probably not work very well with my Android phone or, who knows what. In the end it doesn't even matter if it works great. I haven't tried it because of the DRM. It is much easier to download thousands of ebooks from bit torrent than it is to deal with the DRM. I don't know what reader I might have in 10 years, so purchase is right out.
Movies are a little better because there is a single standard, well two actually, DVD and Blueray. But they both play on a Blueray player, so it is pretty easy to use them. I still prefer the copied disks though as you can remove the annoying forced to watch ads at the beginning. At this point I don't buy or download movies, I just watch Netflix. No commercials and no DRM that gets in the way. Plus, its just rental rather than owning, so worrying about a player for 10 years later is not an issue either.
Yeah! And they are far superior to the LCD crap out there. I would not waste my money on the washed out grey tone and poor color that LCD tv's produce. But then my viewing room does not have sunshine spilling directly onto the TV. (The only case for LCD over plasma.)
I think this is exactly why I have trouble getting the new iPad we got for Christmas to do anything I want it to do. I want to do it my way, and it does not do that. It's Apple's way or the highway. (No SD-card, no saving email attachments, no access to network shares, how do I stick an ebook onto the thing?) Oh well, it works great for Facetime. A really expensive video phone. But the grandparents get to chat with their grand-daughter at least.
What the copywrite holders don't have the right to do is cheat on the agreement made with the public. When they decided to steal from us, then I feel no qualms about "stealing" from them. In fact, I find it a moral duty to find copies for free rather than give money to the institutions that abuse the public. Vote with the wallet!
Slashdot Mirror
Why do you want the meat without marbling? We've been breeding animals to increase marbling (and taste) for hundreds, if not thousands, of years. Fat tastes good!
The brain is made of fat. When you stop eating fat you lose some of your brain function and become an idiot that leads to more stupid thinking like fat being bad for you!
I was working under the assumption that once "unlocked", the gun would continue to fire until "locked" again. Not sure if this is the case, but I would imagine while hunting you would unlock it when you first enter the woods, and lock again when you're leaving for home.
Then why not just use a trigger guard or one of those cables that go through the chamber? Much cheaper and more reliable.
I don't trust many electronics to handle that. I've seen plenty of vehicle electronics fail under those circumstances, despite being generally covered or theoretically sealed. Make police carry it for two decades, and I'll start to consider testing it. That's not unusual. M16 is near 50 years old. M1911 is over a century and very popular.
With the lead-free RoHS solder the electronics will start growing whiskers far before 50 years are up. Then you have a nice expensive paper weight. I guess it could still kill someone if you threw it at them and got a good hit in the head.
My interactions with the police have been pretty civil also. But, I am fortunate enough to be a white male.
I'm not even sure why I am bothering to respond to you. It seems obvious that you will think only the best of the cops no matter how much evidence to the contrary there might be. Perhaps you are one. The cases I gave you are extreme, but they are not out of the ordinary. If having 1000's of people arrested with no cause is no big deal to you, then how about individual cases.
Colored people in New York were being arrested for no reason and then held for a day or two while they try to come up with charges. This was the policy as handed down from the top. I'm not going to do any more research for you, you can use Google as easily as I can. And I'm not sure if it was the same news story, but there was that New York cop who was bringing a recorder with him daily for something like three years because of the illegal things the police chief would ask the officers to do, such as arrest people for no reason. And if you don't want to be arrested, well now you're resisting arrest and the can now arrest you for that. The officers ended up at that guys house and wanted to get him committed so nobody would believe his story. They were ready to shoot him at that point, such fine people. How about Waco, people won't come out of their building they just kill them all. Or that cop that went on the killing spree. In that case I believe his story that he had some dirt on the chief and they killed him. Just look at how thoroughly they burned down that cabin. Definitely didn't want him alive. And wasn't it during the manhunt for him that they shot the innocent woman driving a car that was nothing like the suspect. Or the innocent guy in the subway that was pinned down with the cops knees on the back of his neck and assassinated. In Chicago there are hundreds of people in prison that were put there by a criminal police chief that was torturing them for confessions. But I suppose he was doing a good thing for the community, right? These are just a few examples that made the news over the last 6 months or so. There has to be plenty that do not make the news and we don't even know about them. And I bet everyone has seen a cop going faster than all the other traffic. Not on their way anywhere, just speeding because they feel the law doesn't apply to them.
The big problem is there is not enough accountability for the police. They are always assumed to be truthful. The papers love to print a suspects name, unless it's a murderous cop, then their names are kept out of the paper. The officers cover for each other, and I'm sure they even lie for each other. I do understand why, you can't alienate the people you rely on for backup. So even someone who wants to be straight and good will be under a lot of pressure to lead to the dark side. But knowing why or how that might happen doesn't mean it's ok. When the police force has accountability for their crimes, then they will have their legitimacy back. They are the armed force for the government though. So as long as there are corrupt politicians, there will be people asking the police to overstep their bounds.
Blasphemy! There were NO sequels to The Matrix!
So, is this a routine occurrence, or is it likely that somebody swept up in a protest arrest, and then posted a picture of violent graffiti associated with that protest movement was also part of the protest?
If you would bother to pay any attention to what the police do on a daily basis you would not have to ask if that was a routine occurrence. Look at the Occupy Wall Street protests where the military guy had his head cracked in by police weapons and then the people trying to help him while he was laying on the ground bleeding from the skull were spayed with pepper spay. Or the girls that were sitting peacefully on the curb were attacked by police. The risk of running into a criminal and coming to harm is much less than having a police officer cause me harm. I don't fear the criminals, I fear the out of control police.
So, just because the police are a huge mob-like organization that routinely breaks the law and rounds up innocent people, that somehow means anything about the people they round up?
Funny, but I've never been "rounded up" or even seen such an operation. What it means, in this case, is that it wasn't just an interesting piece of art to her. Partisans who omit essential details or create straw men like you have done are only preaching to the choir. Anybody the least bit skeptical will easily dismiss you as propagandists.
So because you like to stay blind to the situation that makes everything OK?!? Since you are such an idiot that you are incapable of doing your own research I will give you one link. The 2004 Republican Convention in New York. Thousands of people rounded up and arrested. People kept in cages for days with rotten sandwiches to eat and denied their needed medicines. 90% of the people released with no charges. Many people who were simply walking down the street and had nothing to do with any type of protests were surrounded with plastic fencing and arrested with no reason. I'll tell you what, I rejoice inside when I hear news of someone killing a police officer. I would do the same for you as you seem to be as big a part of the problem to me.
Pawluck [the photographer] has been taken into custody before as part of mass arrests during demonstrations.
So, just because the police are a huge mob-like organization that routinely breaks the law and rounds up innocent people, that somehow means anything about the people they round up? That seems like quite a stretch of the imagination to me.
I don't think you're making a very interesting point here. Only one person has to rip the Blu-Ray. If you want to pirate the movie, you can. The reason you don't is because you don't mind buying the disc, not because the DRM stopped you from getting it for free. The outcome would have been the same whether the Blu-ray was DRM'd or not.
What if I would prefer the pirated version because it gives me a better product. I would buy the movie except for the DRM. In this case the DRM is driving reduced sales.
FFS lighten up. My dad was an asshole. I'm an asshole. My kid is an asshole. Unless the kid finds a saint with whom to have a child, I suspect my grandson will be yet another asshole, in a long, long, long line of assholes. What's your problem with assholes, anyway? You're another bigot?
I'm surrounded by Assholes
Or you have a boil on your butt named Susan that likes to sing along with you.
I think the first past the post voting method used in the US is the first thing that needs to be fixed, probably go to concordant voting. When people can try out a vote on the guy they like, and not have to worry about "throwing their vote away" with the "other guy" getting in things will have to change. Right now the two parties fight each other because they are opposing teams. It doesn't even matter what it is. The current party is pushing a law that your party proposed 4 years ago, oh well, it's the enemy, we must vote against it. When there are 5 or 6 or more parties involved you can't end up with a straight up fight. You will get more discussion and partnering to make deals. And when the voters get used to the new system they will be more likely to vote for the guy they actually like, rather than vote for the guy most likely to win, because they can still give their vote to the likely to win guy if theirs is eliminated anyway.
I know what needs to be done. We must ban all gatherings greater than 3 people. No permits allowed as that will create the target of opportunity. This would need to include sporting events, graduations, movies, fairs, carnivals, swap meets, renaissance faires, street performers of any kind that are good enough to gather a crowd, etc. Once we no longer have the crowd that a bomb could injure, then we will no longer have to fear bombs being planted. It wouldn't be worth it to blow up a bomb to kill one person. Might as well use a knife of bullet at that point.
I just realized we would also need to limit the number of emergency personnel that respond to any emergency. You might injure a couple of people and then when the EMT's show up you blow up the bomb to get the larger target goal. Even firefighters, if too many were in one burning building at once it would make that building a target for terrorists, so we must limit it to only 3 firefighters at a time in the building.
There has never been one to experiment or observation that anything living can come from something non-living. Life always comes from life, that is what we observe today. Adding vast amounts of time does not solve the problem because no one was there to observe life come into existence.
And you can wait millions of years for a pocket calculator with no batteries to give you the answer to 1+1, but you will never observe that. Once you add batteries though, it happens very quickly.
Darn, I should have used a car analogy. You can wait millions of years for a car to drive up a hill without observing that. Add gasoline and then it can happen.
What about a fuse. . . on the web? Or with a cell phone? Aren't those the key words used to patent any old thing as new again?
The general idea for 'hate crimes' is a person commits a major felony, from a select list of violent felonies, AND the evidence indicates there are additional consequences to many other people AND the perp meant to produce those consequences. That's how these laws are written in the overwhelming majority of cases, that the prosecution has to prove ALL those things. I.e Criminal X committed, for example, Murder One, and Criminal X also indicated there was intention to make many other people suffer, fear for their lives, stop exercising their rights, or otherwise be injured. Whether it's a klansman hanging a black man for having made efforts to get more black people to the polls on election day, or a rapist sending a letter to the local paper warning all women to get back to the home or be presumed whores who deserve what he's dishing out, the person charged has to commit a major felony, and has to make threats or otherwise indicate they are trying to do additional harm to others by it. So why is it a conservative position to be soft on particularly violent murderers and rapists who are trying to add more victims to their talley? How did the conservative movement ever become the appologists for the worst of the worst? How does this idea that liberals are the ones soft on crime persist when self appointed spokesmen for the right are reduced to trying to oppose punishing murderers and rapists for aggravating circumstances? Read the actual laws, not what some nut such as Coulter has said about them, and decide for yourself.
Wow, your description of hate crime law makes it sound reasonable. But in the real world that isn't how it works. In your story, a woman killer, killing other women and sending that letter to the local paper would fit and get extra penalties for it being a hate crime. But it can't be a hate crime because she is the same gender as her victims. A black person can't get perpetrate a hate crime on another black person. It is against the definition. And the way laws are used is not always the same as how they sound. In the real world the prosecutors will try to find every possible law that might apply, and if you are a non-minority who injured a minority they will try to fit in the hate crime laws also. Somehow a minority injuring a non-minority doesn't get the hate crime attention though.
In a certain sort of twisted way this seems appropriate. I mean that there is no accountability for their actions in the harassment of Aaron Swartz. If these prosecutors went well above and beyond the normal course of action to give this guy a hard time they should have some accountability for their actions. If the legal system / government isn't going to hold their own representatives accountable for their actions then maybe it needs to come down to the people holding them accountable directly. Sort of like the old time lynch mobs that form up and grab up the criminals and take care of things. People stop respecting the law when it seems undeserving of respect. When it is used arbitrarily and over-handedly to bludgeon people they don't like for personal reasons or makes everyday actions a crime it becomes hard to find a reason to respect the law anymore. I have lost so much respect for the criminal organization known as the police force that I give a little cheer for the news stories about one of them being gunned down. I root for the cop-killer as I find they are doing me good. How crazy is that!
And the copycat suicides that happen in a school or town when young people get in the news for killing them selves. Those don't make the news so much anymore, so the kids have to resort to more extreme measures to get their suicide into the news.
Add a bittering agent to make the thing taste bad. It's not that otherwise it won't work, just that if it tastes foul enough (but not too foul) it'll work better.
And the more expensive placebos work better than the cheaper ones. I read a study where they had different colored placebos prices at different levels and they found this to be the case. Pretty interesting what the mind can do.
Couldn't a high powered laser be used as a defensive device? If someone tries to rob you, you could blind them, perhaps irreparably. Though a bit macabre, in many cases that might be a better option than simply killing them with a gun (let it be known, though, that if someone broke into my house and I had a laser and a gun... I'd grab the gun).
This is a very bad idea. If they live, they can sue you. It's much better to shoot to kill. Then there is only one side of the story and he is no longer around to sue you later. I'm sure you have heard the tales of people losing their house or farm because a burglar got injured on their property while breaking in to rob them.
Consumption of large amounts of caffeine – usually more than 250 mg per day – can lead to a condition known as caffeinism. Caffeinism usually combines caffeine dependency with a wide range of unpleasant physical and mental conditions including nervousness, irritability, restlessness, insomnia, headaches, and heart palpitations after caffeine use.[18]
It takes five to ten THOUSAND times as much sodium flouride to do what coffee will. That 5-10 grams? Swallow ONE gram of benzine and see what happens to you.
Sorry, dork, your tinfoil hat tea party sites may swallow your bullshit, but there are a few here at slashdot who are a little better educated.
Yeah, caffeine might have some unpleasant effects when taken in high doses, and it stains your teeth, but children today have a high incidence of dental fluorosis. It damages the enamel of the tooth when you are getting too much fluoride. The other problem with trusting the science on fluoride safety, is they test with medical grade fluoride, but the stuff put into the water is the industrial waste grade of fluoride. It comes from weapons manufacture as a toxic waste. So who knows what problems the impurities will cause.
Fluoride might be useful, although reading up on the guy who first promoted its use for teeth it seems he just made some pretty big assumptions. But still, it should not be overdosed. Smaller children, or people who are getting their daily allowance from other sources don't need it in their drinking water. And what about showering in it, washing your clothes in it, watering the lawn? Why should something like that be added to all water when you can't control the dose and usage anymore. I will get my fluoride from my toothpaste and drink only clean water, thank you.
Perhaps it is you who needs to get a little better educated.
From the article.
Arguing that DRM doesn't work is, it turns out, missing the point. DRM is working really well in the video and book space.
I refuse to buy an ebook with DRM. I don't even take the time to figure out how to get the free ones from the library. It would probably not work very well with my Android phone or, who knows what. In the end it doesn't even matter if it works great. I haven't tried it because of the DRM. It is much easier to download thousands of ebooks from bit torrent than it is to deal with the DRM. I don't know what reader I might have in 10 years, so purchase is right out.
Movies are a little better because there is a single standard, well two actually, DVD and Blueray. But they both play on a Blueray player, so it is pretty easy to use them. I still prefer the copied disks though as you can remove the annoying forced to watch ads at the beginning. At this point I don't buy or download movies, I just watch Netflix. No commercials and no DRM that gets in the way. Plus, its just rental rather than owning, so worrying about a player for 10 years later is not an issue either.
Yeah! And they are far superior to the LCD crap out there. I would not waste my money on the washed out grey tone and poor color that LCD tv's produce. But then my viewing room does not have sunshine spilling directly onto the TV. (The only case for LCD over plasma.)
I think this is exactly why I have trouble getting the new iPad we got for Christmas to do anything I want it to do. I want to do it my way, and it does not do that. It's Apple's way or the highway. (No SD-card, no saving email attachments, no access to network shares, how do I stick an ebook onto the thing?) Oh well, it works great for Facetime. A really expensive video phone. But the grandparents get to chat with their grand-daughter at least.
What the copywrite holders don't have the right to do is cheat on the agreement made with the public. When they decided to steal from us, then I feel no qualms about "stealing" from them. In fact, I find it a moral duty to find copies for free rather than give money to the institutions that abuse the public. Vote with the wallet!