Actually, I've always felt they should suspend drivers' licenses on the *first* DUI for any kind of substance abuse... for at least a couple weeks. Enough to possibly cost them their job, humiliate them to their peers and family by having to bum rides from everyone, and make them seriously reconsider repeat offenses. A THIRD time, in my book, should constitute grounds for lifelong revocation. You NEVER get it back, no matter how many counselling sessions you've been to. I've got a cousin who's gone the DUI route 3x, friends of friends who have - they may not be constant offenders, but they're repeat offenders who will continue drinking and driving until they're killed. In my book, that's worth revoking their driving privileges for life.
I'm fine with folks drinking - but the conscious choice to abdicate responsibility by getting behind the wheel is, to me, unforgiveable. I don't care if they're "happy go lucky folks" with their "whole lives ahead of them" - so are the folks they plow into.
Tell me about it. I can't believe they cut so many corners on the body armor. I did some research last year on what a 'dream suit' of body armor would run... $4k or so should've provided full body protection. That "bulletproof jacket" they specced out was laughable. I mean, at least going with the Russian surplus body armor using segmented titanium plates is only $500ish from milsurp vendors, and it's closer to the Batman armor than what they were talking about. The plates will also stop 7.62x39mm rounds, as one of the guys on www.sksboards.com verified.
Then of course, purchase some less protective but more flexible armor for the rest of the body. There's fancy places on the web for this, most of which won't list prices unless you're doing an actual departmental quote. But judging from what the ones that DID list prices wanted, a good superhero-esque bulletproof suit would be around $4k-$5k.
It's absolutely a living wage, outside of the damned big cities that all the IT companies want to be located in. That's one of my pet peeves - companies set up in southern CA, make people pay rents over $1k/mo to live there, and then complain that they have to pay us a lot.
It'd make far more sense to locate IT companies inland where land is much cheaper, people can freaking LIVE on $40k and buy a house, etc.
The entire reason they're shipping all the jobs to India is this all-or-nothing mentality where the companies want to be in either California or India, nowhere in between. And they've got these ideas that we're all spoiled rich techs just because we're living where THEY put the blasted jobs.
Eh, personally, when I was unemployed, I did plenty of reading and research. I would've worked as a security guard, except that unemployment barely paid my rent - and gas would've put me below break-even, assuming I could've gotten 40 hours a week of work. My pet peeve is that when you're on unemployment, you can't take a job for minimum wage without it being deducted dollar-for-dollar from your unemployment, even though you're having to spend more money on work-related expenses. IF unemployment, say, reduced benefits by 50 cents on the dollar when you're underemployed, I'd absolutely have been working as a security guard instead of sitting on dice.com and other job search engines for 6-8 hours a day (which is not an exaggeration - I was conscientious about my job search). Not sure if I'd have found my current job or not, but I'd have been drawing less from unemployment and feeling better about things overall.
Very simple. First, cover him in glue.
Next, cover him in steel BB's.
Next, lay him on a bed with a VERY powerful electromagnet underneath it.
Slowly increase the power until the BBs start travelling through his body, slowly, of their own accord.
Don't forget the substantial cache of infantry-grade weapons. Not everyone after the anarchistic crash is going to be friendly... in fact, based on current society there aren't going to be very many friendly people once they get hungry.
Actually, the circumstance I'm talking about is specifically an armed individual under the influence of controlled substances. Someone as addled as the one you're describing is unlikely to make an accurate shot at any real distance - and if he opens fire first, even in California you're unlikely to get convicted for killing him after he's fired his first shot. A knife, though, is a weapon even a drunk can connect with. Now, with a sober person, it's a tough call between knife and gun at close range. Outside of close range, a gun is certainly more dangerous. Of course, if you're handicapped or elderly, you have almost no prayer of running away, so you're going to get mauled or killed either way.
As for knives vs guns, knives will penetrate soft body armor easily, while only a few calibers of handgun can penetrate level 3A soft body armor (yes, I wear it to the range just in case some newbie ROYALLY screws up in safe handling - but it's also at home in the event of prowlers/whatnot). Since most criminals who carry guns choose concealable, small caliber guns such as 9mm's,.32's or.25's, the chances of penetrating level 3A armor are low. But, the chances of STABBING through it are excellent. There are some exotic soft body armors with s layer of medieval-style chainmail for stab protection, but those are quite expensive.
Of course, some folks will bring up head shots, but outside of the movies and video games, they aren't that easy to make. Folks aiming for the head of a moving person aren't very likely to hit it (especially if drunk, and overconfident of their aim).
As for the prohibitions... while America's federal gun laws are comparatively sane and livable, California is nuts. Plenty of gun owners ignore CA law, without even being discrete about it. We've already got pretty harsh penalties for possessing assault weapons (felony, life forfeiture of firearms privileges and voting rights, prison time) yet plenty of otherwise law-abiding folks own (and buy illegally) target rifles and military collectibles that California labels 'assault weapons'. I guess what I'm getting at here is that with so many average guys ignoring assault weapon laws here, can we really expect them (or the criminals for that matter) to pay attention to stricter gun laws?
Of course, the police being close by is a good thing in all cases. On the other hand, they feel they need 5 units for a big drug problem elsewhere, you might not be high on the priority list next time. Main thing I'm getting at here is that while ideally the police can show up promptly just like they did in this case, the chances of that happening every time aren't something I'd bank my life on.
Main thing I'm saying is I'm glad they answered, and I'm glad it worked out well in this case, but overall I'd still advise keeping a gun of your own around for next time. Side note, you're much more reasonable and debate-oriented than most folks who discuss this topic; I'm actually enjoying this.
With respect to protecting myself, you make a good point. However, with respect to preventing the situation from escalating, it was the local police who deserve the credit.
Well, most of the point behind responsible gun ownership is non-escalation. Like I'd stated earlier, we would've had the same outcome in the same situation. But if he'd tried to make good on his threats, things would have taken a different route. In my case he'd have been dead, and in yours... well, I'd hope for your sake the guy isn't armed, AND that you're either good at hand to hand combat or don't mind being at the mercy of someone on controlled substances with an avowed interest in killing you.
That would depend on whether he also had a gun and who was the better shot.
Folks on controlled substances will almost never be able to shoot very well. The biggest threat in this circumstance is that the guy will close into hand-to-hand combat range with a knife or something. If he'd started trying to shoot you, people in nearby apartments would probably have been in more danger than you.
Before anyone starts generalizing that this is why no one should have guns, I'll point out that the probability of HIM having a gun is the same, in a gun-owning society, whether or not YOU have one. In a gun-prohibiting society, the probability of HIS having a gun is only slightly reduced, while the probability of YOU having a gun drops to nearly zero. So, if you're anti-gun, go buy one anyway and write to your congresscritters about how you want them to ban it so you can turn it in a few years from now. Until it's taken away from you, you'll be safer in the meantime.
Anyway, if he DOES go ahead and break in, 'better shot' isn't going to be a big consideration even if he's sober. You don't confront someone when they're standing in the middle of a room, with ready access to his weapon, etc. You shoot him while he's in the act of climbing through the window or squeezing through what's left of a door he just broke down. Preferably, you close and lock an interior door and then shoot THROUGH the door when he starts trying to break it down. Counterstrike players call it camping, but in real life that's just survival.
The methodologies are far from exclusionary. I would have first grabbed my 45, next racked the slide to chamber a round, then dug up my phone and called the police.
Should the guy feel the need to actually break into the place, he'd be dead. If all he did was stand outside making noises and threats, he'll still be alive when the cops show up even if it's four hours later.
Yeah, it would seem quite sensible to let you bring in the camera that took the photo, and they ought to be able to look in the EXIF tag and at least ensure you owned a camera of the same flavor as the one which took the photo. To me, that seems like it should qualify as some degree of proof.
On the other hand, most stores don't want you taking pictures. Blah.
Depends on the location. In the Seattle area, at the theater my dad frequents, yes. They also only cost $7 or so per ticket.
Here in San Diego, go ahead and ask for that and be laughed at. One other thing that's becoming hugely popular is discount tickets. The theater may charge $9.50-$11.00, but I only pay $6-$7 for discount tickets through work. You'll typically have two grades of tickets, one of which can get you into a movie after the first week and one of which can get you into any movie. Both of the last two places I've worked at have had discount tickets in the company store, and Costco sells them for a slightly higher price.
Off on a tangent - part of why my fellow Americans are so frequently tubs of lard, is this "we must SNACK everywhere" mentality. Personally, I don't eat anything or drink anything in the theater. But even when prices are as ungodly high as they are, you still see people lining up for snacks at the theater.
Theaters can be reasonable, as long as you don't spend the money on snacks and you take advantage of the discount tickets (if available).
Uh, yeah. AOL's probably the most aggressive anti-spam place out there. They were even rejecting mail from my laptop - not because of the IP it's using, but because the headers indicated that the mail wasn't coming directly from the laptop's IP, but being smart-relay'ed to my linux box (which was locked to only relay from the laptop's static IP).
More recently, they blanketly ceased to accept email from any host which doesn't have a reverse DNS entry.
AOL seems interested in blocking off access to itself as much as possible, so that 'AOL families' will push non-conforming family members to go AOL.
These folks are largely neglecting that the simple route for the ISP, is simply to give the user a copy of net nanny or something. They don't HAVE to do anything to their network, and furthermore they can just take one of the numerous shareware tools and make it an optional part of their install CD.
Really, the network changes are just an optional feature in the event that the ISP doesn't wish to give out porn blocking software with their member kits.
When a girl asked me what I did in a night club in Vegas once, she clearly mis-heard what I said. I nearly had to pick her up from collapsing on the floor.
"Unix sysadmin" sounds too close to "Eunuch sysadmin", and it makes girls run very, very quickly.:)
Uh, actually I beleive it's more that the folks without attractiveness, athletic prowess, etc tend to wind up taking up alternative channels for their creativity. That could be art, computers, whatever. That's what creates the stereotype - it's not that no one would have an interest in art, computers, or whatnot UNLESS they're unattractive, but there are born geeks and then there are made geeks. Given a jock's body, many folks who turned out to be geeks, would probably have been something else.
Actually, that's because they want to bear the children of the bad boys with the great bodies, etc. And then let their nerd husbands take care of them and the jock's 'genetically superior' spawn down the road.
Many nerds will turn down a girl who's outright hot, yet still has a kid that they're going to have to help raise and provide for.
Women are programmed, at least by society and expedience, to engage in a certain amount of cuckoo-like behaviour.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, I've always felt they should suspend drivers' licenses on the *first* DUI for any kind of substance abuse... for at least a couple weeks. Enough to possibly cost them their job, humiliate them to their peers and family by having to bum rides from everyone, and make them seriously reconsider repeat offenses. A THIRD time, in my book, should constitute grounds for lifelong revocation. You NEVER get it back, no matter how many counselling sessions you've been to. I've got a cousin who's gone the DUI route 3x, friends of friends who have - they may not be constant offenders, but they're repeat offenders who will continue drinking and driving until they're killed. In my book, that's worth revoking their driving privileges for life.
I'm fine with folks drinking - but the conscious choice to abdicate responsibility by getting behind the wheel is, to me, unforgiveable. I don't care if they're "happy go lucky folks" with their "whole lives ahead of them" - so are the folks they plow into.
Tell me about it. I can't believe they cut so many corners on the body armor. I did some research last year on what a 'dream suit' of body armor would run... $4k or so should've provided full body protection. That "bulletproof jacket" they specced out was laughable. I mean, at least going with the Russian surplus body armor using segmented titanium plates is only $500ish from milsurp vendors, and it's closer to the Batman armor than what they were talking about. The plates will also stop 7.62x39mm rounds, as one of the guys on www.sksboards.com verified.
Then of course, purchase some less protective but more flexible armor for the rest of the body. There's fancy places on the web for this, most of which won't list prices unless you're doing an actual departmental quote. But judging from what the ones that DID list prices wanted, a good superhero-esque bulletproof suit would be around $4k-$5k.
It's absolutely a living wage, outside of the damned big cities that all the IT companies want to be located in. That's one of my pet peeves - companies set up in southern CA, make people pay rents over $1k/mo to live there, and then complain that they have to pay us a lot.
It'd make far more sense to locate IT companies inland where land is much cheaper, people can freaking LIVE on $40k and buy a house, etc.
The entire reason they're shipping all the jobs to India is this all-or-nothing mentality where the companies want to be in either California or India, nowhere in between. And they've got these ideas that we're all spoiled rich techs just because we're living where THEY put the blasted jobs.
Eh, personally, when I was unemployed, I did plenty of reading and research. I would've worked as a security guard, except that unemployment barely paid my rent - and gas would've put me below break-even, assuming I could've gotten 40 hours a week of work. My pet peeve is that when you're on unemployment, you can't take a job for minimum wage without it being deducted dollar-for-dollar from your unemployment, even though you're having to spend more money on work-related expenses. IF unemployment, say, reduced benefits by 50 cents on the dollar when you're underemployed, I'd absolutely have been working as a security guard instead of sitting on dice.com and other job search engines for 6-8 hours a day (which is not an exaggeration - I was conscientious about my job search). Not sure if I'd have found my current job or not, but I'd have been drawing less from unemployment and feeling better about things overall.
Very simple. First, cover him in glue. Next, cover him in steel BB's. Next, lay him on a bed with a VERY powerful electromagnet underneath it. Slowly increase the power until the BBs start travelling through his body, slowly, of their own accord.
See, that's the whole crux of the problem.
If we'd just execute the more heinous violent offenders, the gene pool would be cleaner and we'd have more free prison space.
"I'm not joining the military because you'll make me use a Beretta 9mm instead of a real gun." :)
Of course, that worked back in the 90's. Nowadays, if you choose to bring your own 45 in-theater, they don't get upset at you.
Don't forget the substantial cache of infantry-grade weapons. Not everyone after the anarchistic crash is going to be friendly... in fact, based on current society there aren't going to be very many friendly people once they get hungry.
As for knives vs guns, knives will penetrate soft body armor easily, while only a few calibers of handgun can penetrate level 3A soft body armor (yes, I wear it to the range just in case some newbie ROYALLY screws up in safe handling - but it's also at home in the event of prowlers/whatnot). Since most criminals who carry guns choose concealable, small caliber guns such as 9mm's, .32's or .25's, the chances of penetrating level 3A armor are low. But, the chances of STABBING through it are excellent. There are some exotic soft body armors with s layer of medieval-style chainmail for stab protection, but those are quite expensive.
Of course, some folks will bring up head shots, but outside of the movies and video games, they aren't that easy to make. Folks aiming for the head of a moving person aren't very likely to hit it (especially if drunk, and overconfident of their aim).
As for the prohibitions... while America's federal gun laws are comparatively sane and livable, California is nuts. Plenty of gun owners ignore CA law, without even being discrete about it. We've already got pretty harsh penalties for possessing assault weapons (felony, life forfeiture of firearms privileges and voting rights, prison time) yet plenty of otherwise law-abiding folks own (and buy illegally) target rifles and military collectibles that California labels 'assault weapons'. I guess what I'm getting at here is that with so many average guys ignoring assault weapon laws here, can we really expect them (or the criminals for that matter) to pay attention to stricter gun laws?
Of course, the police being close by is a good thing in all cases. On the other hand, they feel they need 5 units for a big drug problem elsewhere, you might not be high on the priority list next time. Main thing I'm getting at here is that while ideally the police can show up promptly just like they did in this case, the chances of that happening every time aren't something I'd bank my life on.
Main thing I'm saying is I'm glad they answered, and I'm glad it worked out well in this case, but overall I'd still advise keeping a gun of your own around for next time. Side note, you're much more reasonable and debate-oriented than most folks who discuss this topic; I'm actually enjoying this.
Well, most of the point behind responsible gun ownership is non-escalation. Like I'd stated earlier, we would've had the same outcome in the same situation. But if he'd tried to make good on his threats, things would have taken a different route. In my case he'd have been dead, and in yours... well, I'd hope for your sake the guy isn't armed, AND that you're either good at hand to hand combat or don't mind being at the mercy of someone on controlled substances with an avowed interest in killing you.
That would depend on whether he also had a gun and who was the better shot.
Folks on controlled substances will almost never be able to shoot very well. The biggest threat in this circumstance is that the guy will close into hand-to-hand combat range with a knife or something. If he'd started trying to shoot you, people in nearby apartments would probably have been in more danger than you.
Before anyone starts generalizing that this is why no one should have guns, I'll point out that the probability of HIM having a gun is the same, in a gun-owning society, whether or not YOU have one. In a gun-prohibiting society, the probability of HIS having a gun is only slightly reduced, while the probability of YOU having a gun drops to nearly zero. So, if you're anti-gun, go buy one anyway and write to your congresscritters about how you want them to ban it so you can turn it in a few years from now. Until it's taken away from you, you'll be safer in the meantime.
Anyway, if he DOES go ahead and break in, 'better shot' isn't going to be a big consideration even if he's sober. You don't confront someone when they're standing in the middle of a room, with ready access to his weapon, etc. You shoot him while he's in the act of climbing through the window or squeezing through what's left of a door he just broke down. Preferably, you close and lock an interior door and then shoot THROUGH the door when he starts trying to break it down. Counterstrike players call it camping, but in real life that's just survival.
The methodologies are far from exclusionary. I would have first grabbed my 45, next racked the slide to chamber a round, then dug up my phone and called the police.
Should the guy feel the need to actually break into the place, he'd be dead. If all he did was stand outside making noises and threats, he'll still be alive when the cops show up even if it's four hours later.
What's so special? I dunno, maybe the fact we've evolved as a society and species, beyond the point where we need a 38 special for justice?
:)
For heaven's sake, back then they didn't have crackheads and meth addicts! Our species has evolved into needing 45ACP at least!
To those who thought I was going leftist with the first sentence: Gotcha.
Yeah, it would seem quite sensible to let you bring in the camera that took the photo, and they ought to be able to look in the EXIF tag and at least ensure you owned a camera of the same flavor as the one which took the photo. To me, that seems like it should qualify as some degree of proof.
On the other hand, most stores don't want you taking pictures. Blah.
Perhaps the kid is less interesting than the wood?
Maybe it's a Pinnochio-themed picture?
Depends on the location. In the Seattle area, at the theater my dad frequents, yes. They also only cost $7 or so per ticket.
Here in San Diego, go ahead and ask for that and be laughed at. One other thing that's becoming hugely popular is discount tickets. The theater may charge $9.50-$11.00, but I only pay $6-$7 for discount tickets through work. You'll typically have two grades of tickets, one of which can get you into a movie after the first week and one of which can get you into any movie. Both of the last two places I've worked at have had discount tickets in the company store, and Costco sells them for a slightly higher price.
Off on a tangent - part of why my fellow Americans are so frequently tubs of lard, is this "we must SNACK everywhere" mentality. Personally, I don't eat anything or drink anything in the theater. But even when prices are as ungodly high as they are, you still see people lining up for snacks at the theater.
Theaters can be reasonable, as long as you don't spend the money on snacks and you take advantage of the discount tickets (if available).
Bah! Watch, as the workaround gets distributed on P2P networks! ...wait. That download was serialized?
Uh, yeah. AOL's probably the most aggressive anti-spam place out there. They were even rejecting mail from my laptop - not because of the IP it's using, but because the headers indicated that the mail wasn't coming directly from the laptop's IP, but being smart-relay'ed to my linux box (which was locked to only relay from the laptop's static IP).
More recently, they blanketly ceased to accept email from any host which doesn't have a reverse DNS entry.
AOL seems interested in blocking off access to itself as much as possible, so that 'AOL families' will push non-conforming family members to go AOL.
These folks are largely neglecting that the simple route for the ISP, is simply to give the user a copy of net nanny or something. They don't HAVE to do anything to their network, and furthermore they can just take one of the numerous shareware tools and make it an optional part of their install CD.
Really, the network changes are just an optional feature in the event that the ISP doesn't wish to give out porn blocking software with their member kits.
Nope, still working on mine. Taking her from former cheerleader to video-gaming anime fiend. Thank you, Serious Sam and Slayers!
Hey, it's the best way to make sure you'll have time to work on servers and such - get her some all-consumptive geek hobbies.
And there isn't much that beats a cuddly co-op game with shotguns and chainsaws.
Are you a unix sysadmin?
:)
When a girl asked me what I did in a night club in Vegas once, she clearly mis-heard what I said. I nearly had to pick her up from collapsing on the floor.
"Unix sysadmin" sounds too close to "Eunuch sysadmin", and it makes girls run very, very quickly.
Uh, actually I beleive it's more that the folks without attractiveness, athletic prowess, etc tend to wind up taking up alternative channels for their creativity. That could be art, computers, whatever. That's what creates the stereotype - it's not that no one would have an interest in art, computers, or whatnot UNLESS they're unattractive, but there are born geeks and then there are made geeks. Given a jock's body, many folks who turned out to be geeks, would probably have been something else.
Heh, don't forget the discovery that "oh crap, the dandruff and skin flakes ARE from showering every day!"
I learned the hard way to take fewer showers, but be religious about them.
Clearly, you haven't been in Japan. :)
Uh, I believe the point being made was not 'to serve man', but 'to serve themselves'.
Actually, that's because they want to bear the children of the bad boys with the great bodies, etc. And then let their nerd husbands take care of them and the jock's 'genetically superior' spawn down the road.
Many nerds will turn down a girl who's outright hot, yet still has a kid that they're going to have to help raise and provide for.
Women are programmed, at least by society and expedience, to engage in a certain amount of cuckoo-like behaviour.