'Screwing up the presidency?' Chortle. "That's like, totally your opinion man."
Cutting taxes
On corportations; screw the average citizen.
slashing regulations
On corportations; screw the average citizen.
renegotiating deals
Because representing something other than yourself and keeping promises is for suckers -- the man never met an agreement that he wouldn't break the moment that it was to his personal advantage.
bringing peace to Korea which every other career politician tried failed
and never met a situation that he wouldn't claim credit for after carefully ensuring that he didn't invest anything until it was a certain win.
President Moon Jae-in is the one bringing peace to Korea.
But the unemployment rate is a fraud -- Trump said so himself. There's "massive unemployment" that's not reflected in the unemployment rate. Obviously he's only continued the fraud... The difference between 4.8% and 3.9% is almost nothing.
and actually prioritising average Americans over illegals or screaming SJWs.
No, just real Nerds here who are tired of being spammed by (as another poster put it) paid DNC political shills (with 'English or Sociology Degrees') spamming Slashdot.
"No true Scotsman" fallacy. There are plenty of engineers, scientists, and nerds that are unpaid democrat party voters expressing their opinions. Their posts are not spam merely beause you disagree with them.
They should [f'go] off to a different site.
No, they should stay here if they wish. Nobody's surrendering this site to you.
Upshot is, people will stop voting DNC as they're tired of this shit, and vote for their opposition. 1000 points for shooting oneself in the foot.
You really think that 2016-18 has stengthened republican prospects further? Wishful thinking.
But you haven't shown that it is. You simply bleated "But look at them banning knives in London." As if (1) they banned all knives in London (nobody eats with those things, anyway) and (2) that was a highly likely result of a bump stock ban.
Funny how a London ban on carrying >3 inch blades down a public street is crazy but an American ban on carrying 2.4 inch blades in commercial airplanes is totally rational. Almost as if balancing competing interests, benefits and harms, utility and philosophy in context matters.
Since you're not defining a limit and a guiding principle that would constraining your ambitions, your position is a slippery slope.
Defined a limit and a guiding principle, so it is not. However, since you cannot read, your posts continue to be a dumpster fire of fallacious reasoning.
You are explicitly avoiding setting a limit. If we limit the mag capacity etc you're just going to stop and oppose any further restrictions?
Wait - you claimed that I explicitly avoided setting a limit. How did mag capacity come into this? Oh, because I did set a limit, and you've now admitted it.
And yes, I am. How 'bout me now?
If not, then you're conceding the slippery slope right there.
But if so, and since I am not conceding the point, you've got a problem.
Still waiting for you to say anything of substance on the topic...
The human is in charge. They are responsible, they are the ones the law applies to. If a human driver works for a company and the company knowingly lets particularly unsafe drivers (i.e. inadequately trained or drivers with inhibited judgement) continue driving, the company is liable for their actions. In this case the driver was a computer, and the company knew the driver was the equivalent of inadequately trained -- it couldn't even manage 13 miles between interventions.
But this car had a human driver. You've conveniently ignored that point, yet declared that the human is in charge (as this one was), and is responsible, and is the one that the law applies to. Ergo, The driver human, not the CEO human, is more proximate to the cause.
A car manufacturer has nothing to do with how a regular car is driven, and therefore it is not their responsibility if someone mows pedestrians down.
Really? A car manufacturer has nothing to do with how its cruise control operates? A cruise control that, for example, fails to detect that the vehicle in front has slowed or that a pedestrian has entered the road? No relationship at all?
This defence is not working for VW regarding the emissions fraud. Let us hope it does not work for Uber either.
You have presented nothing comparable for the Uber CEO. "It couldn't even manage 13 miles between interventions," paired with a safety driver, was deemed within the duty of care of the California and Arizona governments prior to the accident. You have not even shown that anyone at Uber knew that the safety driver was inadequately trained or had inhibited judgement... you've simply thrown out the fact that they were present.
You ignore the fact that languages such as English and German evolve, in part, through the gradual creation of compound words. "Air port" was in the running up until ~1925, then *poof*, the space went away in the vast majority of use cases.
The problem isn't the bail bondsmen. The problem are American courts that set excessive bail and keep people in jail for relatively minor crimes (often victimless crimes like drug possession) in the hope that they agree to a plea bargain.
You don't know what the fuck you're talking about. The arraignment doesn't even start until after your bond hearing, so you don't plea anything at that point, let alone make a plea bargain. The purpose of the bond is an assurance that you'll show up to court when it is time for your arraignment, which is when you'll make your plea. If you don't show up to court, the court keeps all of your money, then they issue a warrant for your arrest, only now you're guilty of another offense as well. If you don't post bond, then you wait in detention until it is time for your arraignment.
You don't either, at least to the extent that your second paragraph directly undercuts your first. Without Release on Recognizance ("RoR," but thanks for being obtuse), a bond is required at every stage from prior to the bond hearing to arraignment, trial, sentencing, and report to jail.
Don't pretend that sustained pre-trial detention is not a thing. The original poster was exactly right that courts tend to set excessive bail and keep people in jail for relatively minor crimes, so that they are faced with having to scrape together a bail bond deposit (if they can) or plea (if they cannot) if they want to avoid an average of 200+ days of pre-trail detention (Table 1).
Release on Recognizance is down to 14 percent (page 1). Yet you will have have a hard time showing that the remaining 86% are all "irresponsible dickwads."
"slippery slope arguments can be good ones if the slope is real -- that is, if there is good evidence that the consequences of the initial action are highly likely to occur." Yes, if we ban bump stocks, before you know it humanity will highly likely be reduced to eating finger foods because knife bans...
You committed the fallacy in your first post. You no longer get to hide behind "can be a valid argument."
In fact, you're very clearly aware that you either can't or that actually admitting what it is would be rhetorical suicide. I can't think of any other reason why you would refuse to cite your principle.
Since you appear incapable of assembling the pieces that are expressly handed to you. I'll put them together in one post in a vain attempt to get you to respond.
Argument: There is essentially no legitimate reason to use a bump-stock. Shooters using bump-stocks are less accurate and have less control over their weapons -- the exact opposite of the goals of a hunter, a target shooter, and frankly those engaged in self-defense. No need for a "spray and pray" device outside of a military context, and even then doctrine highly discourages that sort of use in most situations.
Principle:
Homicide is bad. Reducing mass homicides is good. "balancing competing interests, benefits and harms, utility and philosophy" is inherent in evaluating whether allowing the possession of tools enabling mass homicide is socially beneficial or not. Feel free to argue against that principle.
Limits:
Ban civilian possession of actual and de facto automatic firearms, all devices intentionally designed to covert firearms to actual or de facto automatic weapons, and magazines of >10 round capacity.
What's truly sad here is the amount of time that you've spent attacking the form of the message instead of offering any argument concerning the issue. And I fully expect you to carry on doing so, because you simply cannot offer anything beyond tangents, fallacies, and ad hominems.
There is no way that such information has been kept away from the CEO, unless the CEO is utterly incompetent. With 13 miles between interventions, it was only a matter of time before a safety driver failed to step in.
By your logic, it is criminally negligent homicide to allow any human being to drive a car that causes an incident resulting in death. It is only a matter of time before they fail to properly "step in" (i.e., manually perform) a driving action. Therefore the CEO of every car manufacturer everywhere is guilty of criminally negligent homicide, and anyone who allows another to drive their car would be guilty of such if their car causes an incident resulting in death.
You, my friend, are ignoring the requirement of "proximate causation." If you want to allege that the CEO has personal criminal responsibility, then the CEO's personal actions must be the proximate cause of the death. Not an engineer's decision concerning the threshold at which the algorithm or AI outputs an action to avoid a obstacle, and not a safety driver's decision to play with their phone while in motion.
In addition, criminally negligent homicide requires more than mere negligence. The action must be inherently dangerous or reckless (small problem -- governments routinely require autonomous vehicle testing platforms to use safety divers, so one so equipped is not inherently dangerous or recklessly deployed) and the CEO him or herself must have known that his or her conduct was "a threat to the lives of others."
Allowing a self driving car on public roads with 13 miles between interventions is reckless endangerment.
Not buying that. We haven't personally prosecuted auto CEOs for deploying cars with cruise control, and the intervention rate for that technology is no better.
There is little doubt that the Uber CEO, Dara Khosrowshahi, was criminally negligent and aware that this kind of accident was not only possible but likely.
I just love it when people throw out unsupported conclusions with the self-assurance that no reasonable person could possibly disagree with them.
By which I mean, I have every reason to doubt that, and you've offered nothing to prove otherwise.
You don't get to disqualify a principle or say that it isn't mine when you cannot even propound your own principle. The rhetorical trap that you're attempting to lay is obvious, all the more so due to the fact that you keep running away from espousing any sort of countervailing principle or proposing any different "regulation" (or even a lack thereof).
you have a legit slippery slope here, chum
There is no such thing as a 'legit' slippery slope. There are only those who fallaciously assert that competing interests cannot be balanced so that a thing inevitably must become purely (and illogically) one thing or its opposite. Pure capitalism or pure communism. Every human being possessing a nuclear weapon or every human being having been defanged, declawed, and deprived of moveable objects. It's bullshit -- and it's the argument that you've been telegraphing since you've demanded that I hand you a "principle."
You have basically no argument. You're saying you want something because you want it. You're not saying why. You're not offering a guiding principle that directs your position. You're not limiting your scope.
I expressly made an argument in the initial post, and I expressly limited my scope. Oddly, you feel free to throw all that away because I will not willingly feed you a singular principle (as if there could be a singular principle) that you may fallaciously shove down your slippery slope as an unproductive tangent to the discussion.
Counter the argument, and counter the "regulation" that was the express product of that argument, or walk away. I need not care either. Bump stock bans aren't going to be reversed because of your fixation upon principle. Magazine limits aren't going to be reversed because of your fixation upon principle. The populace is pissed and D.C. v. Heller set a limit upon scope within which much can be done without fallaciously slipping down your metaphorical slope:
"It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service -- M-16 rifles and the like -- may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment's ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right."
If you want to actually fix your shit so we can have a discussion, cool...
My shit is on point. I can't force you to engage, but I continue to make you look the poorer for refusing to do so. "It just won't matter" is just so much bullshit. Devices that only serve to magnify the damage that one human being can wreak upon others are routinely banned from civilian possession, with the entirely reasonable expectation that such bans reduce the risk of like incidents in the future (where "reduce" != eliminate) and reduce the potential damage rate of other such incidents in the future (where again "reduce" != eliminate).
And so it shall continue to be... whether you like it or not.
"balancing competing interests, benefits and harms, utility and philosophy" is not a principle? Or merely not a principle subject to your plan of attack?
Let's try this, you propound a principle, since you cannot even come with with a coherent argument against the proposed policy, and we'll test that.
That's not a principle but is rather a specific regulation.
Says you. I know what you were asking for, and that's not the way that we govern society. We govern society based upon balancing competing interests, benefits and harms, utility and philosophy.
"...for while the Constitution protects against invasions of individual rights, it is not a suicide pact." Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, 372 U.S. 144 (1963).
You want a general principle that you can spin out into "regulations" so that you can assert that the principle is harmful. Well I've spun out the "regulations" for you. Argue against them, or do not... we do not legislate principles -- we legislate regulatory limits, such as these.
Ban civilian possession of actual and de facto automatic firearms, all devices intentionally designed to covert firearms to actual or de facto automatic weapons, and magazines of >10 round capacity.
Because a shotgun does exactly jack shit against a re-feralized 600 pound pig with massive fucking tusks charging your ass or harassing your animals or crops. You need PENETRATING POWER and you quite often need more than one bullet to stop it, AND you need to stop it rapidly, so sticking around fucking with a bolt-action is liable to get your ass gored by aforementioned tusks in a close-range shooting situation, thus the need for semi-automatic capability.
Yes, you need to COMPENSATE FOR YOUR HEAD-UP-YOUR-ASS-MISTAKES in picking an astonishingly underpowered round, failing to choose the proper ground and/or cover, and blowing your advantage so badly that you're at close-range with a charging animal.
The M-16/AR-15 standard cailber was expressly selected to favor wounding, not killing, a human-sized animal (shocker, since the principal target was a human being). And you want to use it for boar shooting. SMMFH.
Because a shotgun does exactly jack shit against a re-feralized 600 pound pig with massive fucking tusks charging your ass or harassing your animals or crops.
Use a large game round rather than leftover birdshot and you just might learn something.
I've talked to some former marines about that, and they say you can approximate a bump stock with "a belt"... as in the one that you hold your pants up with...
Ban it if you want... it just won't matter.
The "perfect being the enemy of the good" fallacy writ large. You admit that you can only approximate the effects of a bump stock with a belt, yet you imply that because we could not ban belts that it won't matter that we ban bump stocks.
Bullshit. The purpose-built device performs better and is easier to use than the jerry-rigged, belt-based alternative. Making it more difficult to rig a bump-stock-like device is a net win - especially since there is essentially no legitimate reason to use a bump-stock. Shooters using bump-stocks are less accurate and have less control over their weapons -- the exact opposite of the goals of a hunter, a target shooter, and frankly those engaged in self-defense.
If you boil down the statistics on the mass shootings you'll find that the US actually has normal to LOW numbers of mass shooting deaths.
Could be lower. No need for a "spray and pray" device outside of a military context, and even then doctrine highly discourages that sort of use in most situations.
this line of logic fails and then people just come up with a new thing to ban that won't have any material consequence on outcomes.
Sorry, rhetoric does not substitute for evidence, especially when your video shows someone firing a five round burst from the hip in a random direction -- it's epitome of the one-handed 'gangsta style' pistol grip transposed to an AR-15. "Approximate" does not equal "buy off-the-shelf add-on that allows Joe Bloe to essentially create a "shoulder-fired machine gun." We all see it, a majority of us tired of it, and the final rule banning these devices is coming.
Lifelong gun owner, never an NRA member, and yes, "deaf" to this sort of bullshit.
I thought that absorption of CO2 was the chief mechanism behind the hardening of concrete. The Wikipedia article on Portland Cement says that it absorbs CO2 slowly, though it doesn't credit this as the main reason for its hardening. Still, Ca(OH)2 exposed to the atmosphere isn't going to sit around without absorbing CO2.
No, it's the formation of insoluble hydroxide minerals that interlock the aggregate. The rest of your post is correct -- the hydroxide minerals are not chemically stable in the presence of CO2 so that over the long term (more than the days-to-weeks cure time in which we deem the concrete "finished") there is a carbonation front that migrates from the surface into the concrete, converting Ca(OH)2 back to CaCO3. That also strengthens the concrete -- but too slowly for design strength purposes.
The lime emits CO2 as CaCO3 converts to CaO. It does not absorb back into the material in the use-case of Portland Cement.
Citation needed.
"[B]etween 33% and 57% of the CO2 emitted from calcination will be reabsorbed through carbonation of concrete surfaces over a 100-year life cycle." NRMCA Publication Number 2PCO2, p. 8, citing Pade, Claus et al. The CO2 Uptake of Concrete in the Perspective of Life Cycle Inventory, International Symposium on Sustainability in the Cement and Concrete Industry, Lillehammer, Norway, September 2007.
Maybe the problem in communicating here is that people don't understand that LLVM is an Open Source project. These folks are volunteers who have a non-profit organization that gives away software. There is no employment. The organization which provides the trainee will pay the trainee.
Too bad that's not how it works.
"Intern selection Participating communities go through the applications in the Outreachy application system, and select the applicants they want to accept as interns. If they have strong applicants that they don't have funding to select, they can ask the Outreachy organizers to provide additional internship funding from the Outreachy general fund. Outreachy organizers will also work with existing sponsors to try to find additional funds.
Internships Mentors officially begin guiding their interns on the project work.
Mid-term Review Mentors provide mid-internship feedback to Outreachy organizers and indicate whether interns should be paid the mid-tem payment.
Final Review Mentors provide final internship feedback to Outreachy organizers and indicate whether interns should be paid the final payment."
The intern is not an independent contractor and therefore is an employee. Outreachy, not the organization, pays the trainee. At most the organization is the indirect contributor (tax deductible, no less) of a donation to fund Outreachy's employment of the intern.
We're so excited to have you apply! The application process for Outreachy is longer than most internship applications, so we highly encourage applicants to start their application at least 2-3 weeks before the Outreachy application deadline. The application process consists of five steps:
1. Make sure you're eligible to apply for Outreachy. We have strict eligibility rules for people who are students, so it's important that you confirm you're eligible.
Internships Start Mentors officially begin guiding their interns on the project work. Mid-term Review Mentors provide mid-internship feedback to Outreachy organizers and indicate whether interns should be paid the mid-term payment. Final Review Mentors provide final internship feedback to Outreachy organizers and indicate whether interns should be paid the final payment.
It's perfectly fine for them to take on a funded intern chosen from a disadvantaged community.
Yes it is - but that was never the issue. It is not perfectly fine for them to absolutely bar those not from a disadvantaged community from applying for paid interships.
Slashdot Mirror
On corportations; screw the average citizen.
On corportations; screw the average citizen.
Because representing something other than yourself and keeping promises is for suckers -- the man never met an agreement that he wouldn't break the moment that it was to his personal advantage.
and never met a situation that he wouldn't claim credit for after carefully ensuring that he didn't invest anything until it was a certain win.
President Moon Jae-in is the one bringing peace to Korea.
Fake news, literally.
But the unemployment rate is a fraud -- Trump said so himself. There's "massive unemployment" that's not reflected in the unemployment rate. Obviously he's only continued the fraud... The difference between 4.8% and 3.9% is almost nothing.
Lip service. See the tax cut.
"No true Scotsman" fallacy. There are plenty of engineers, scientists, and nerds that are unpaid democrat party voters expressing their opinions. Their posts are not spam merely beause you disagree with them.
No, they should stay here if they wish. Nobody's surrendering this site to you.
You really think that 2016-18 has stengthened republican prospects further? Wishful thinking.
Winter is coming... November 6, 2018.
Hi Vlad!
But you haven't shown that it is. You simply bleated "But look at them banning knives in London." As if (1) they banned all knives in London (nobody eats with those things, anyway) and (2) that was a highly likely result of a bump stock ban.
Funny how a London ban on carrying >3 inch blades down a public street is crazy but an American ban on carrying 2.4 inch blades in commercial airplanes is totally rational. Almost as if balancing competing interests, benefits and harms, utility and philosophy in context matters.
Defined a limit and a guiding principle, so it is not. However, since you cannot read, your posts continue to be a dumpster fire of fallacious reasoning.
Wait - you claimed that I explicitly avoided setting a limit. How did mag capacity come into this? Oh, because I did set a limit, and you've now admitted it.
And yes, I am. How 'bout me now?
But if so, and since I am not conceding the point, you've got a problem.
Still waiting for you to say anything of substance on the topic...
But this car had a human driver. You've conveniently ignored that point, yet declared that the human is in charge (as this one was), and is responsible, and is the one that the law applies to. Ergo, The driver human, not the CEO human, is more proximate to the cause.
Really? A car manufacturer has nothing to do with how its cruise control operates? A cruise control that, for example, fails to detect that the vehicle in front has slowed or that a pedestrian has entered the road? No relationship at all?
The situation there is the U.S. government has documents showing the the CEO personally and specifically approved of deceiving federal regulators as to the existence of the device. He is charged with "conspiracy to defraud the US government and customers, wire fraud, and conspiracy to violate the Clean Air Act," not violating the Clean Air Act himself.
You have presented nothing comparable for the Uber CEO. "It couldn't even manage 13 miles between interventions," paired with a safety driver, was deemed within the duty of care of the California and Arizona governments prior to the accident. You have not even shown that anyone at Uber knew that the safety driver was inadequately trained or had inhibited judgement... you've simply thrown out the fact that they were present.
So again, try harder.
Certain? Hardly.
You ignore the fact that languages such as English and German evolve, in part, through the gradual creation of compound words. "Air port" was in the running up until ~1925, then *poof*, the space went away in the vast majority of use cases.
You don't either, at least to the extent that your second paragraph directly undercuts your first. Without Release on Recognizance ("RoR," but thanks for being obtuse), a bond is required at every stage from prior to the bond hearing to arraignment, trial, sentencing, and report to jail.
Don't pretend that sustained pre-trial detention is not a thing. The original poster was exactly right that courts tend to set excessive bail and keep people in jail for relatively minor crimes, so that they are faced with having to scrape together a bail bond deposit (if they can) or plea (if they cannot) if they want to avoid an average of 200+ days of pre-trail detention (Table 1).
Release on Recognizance is down to 14 percent (page 1). Yet you will have have a hard time showing that the remaining 86% are all "irresponsible dickwads."
"slippery slope arguments can be good ones if the slope is real -- that is, if there is good evidence that the consequences of the initial action are highly likely to occur." Yes, if we ban bump stocks, before you know it humanity will highly likely be reduced to eating finger foods because knife bans...
You committed the fallacy in your first post. You no longer get to hide behind "can be a valid argument."
Since you appear incapable of assembling the pieces that are expressly handed to you. I'll put them together in one post in a vain attempt to get you to respond.
Argument:
There is essentially no legitimate reason to use a bump-stock. Shooters using bump-stocks are less accurate and have less control over their weapons -- the exact opposite of the goals of a hunter, a target shooter, and frankly those engaged in self-defense. No need for a "spray and pray" device outside of a military context, and even then doctrine highly discourages that sort of use in most situations.
Principle:
Homicide is bad. Reducing mass homicides is good. "balancing competing interests, benefits and harms, utility and philosophy" is inherent in evaluating whether allowing the possession of tools enabling mass homicide is socially beneficial or not. Feel free to argue against that principle.
Limits:
Ban civilian possession of actual and de facto automatic firearms, all devices intentionally designed to covert firearms to actual or de facto automatic weapons, and magazines of >10 round capacity.
What's truly sad here is the amount of time that you've spent attacking the form of the message instead of offering any argument concerning the issue. And I fully expect you to carry on doing so, because you simply cannot offer anything beyond tangents, fallacies, and ad hominems.
By your logic, it is criminally negligent homicide to allow any human being to drive a car that causes an incident resulting in death. It is only a matter of time before they fail to properly "step in" (i.e., manually perform) a driving action. Therefore the CEO of every car manufacturer everywhere is guilty of criminally negligent homicide, and anyone who allows another to drive their car would be guilty of such if their car causes an incident resulting in death.
You, my friend, are ignoring the requirement of "proximate causation." If you want to allege that the CEO has personal criminal responsibility, then the CEO's personal actions must be the proximate cause of the death. Not an engineer's decision concerning the threshold at which the algorithm or AI outputs an action to avoid a obstacle, and not a safety driver's decision to play with their phone while in motion.
In addition, criminally negligent homicide requires more than mere negligence. The action must be inherently dangerous or reckless (small problem -- governments routinely require autonomous vehicle testing platforms to use safety divers, so one so equipped is not inherently dangerous or recklessly deployed) and the CEO him or herself must have known that his or her conduct was "a threat to the lives of others."
Not buying that. We haven't personally prosecuted auto CEOs for deploying cars with cruise control, and the intervention rate for that technology is no better.
Try harder.
I just love it when people throw out unsupported conclusions with the self-assurance that no reasonable person could possibly disagree with them.
By which I mean, I have every reason to doubt that, and you've offered nothing to prove otherwise.
Why limit your complaint to Slashdot? 36.5 million results for flash memory.
They're all wrong. Because it couldn't possibly be you...
You don't get to disqualify a principle or say that it isn't mine when you cannot even propound your own principle. The rhetorical trap that you're attempting to lay is obvious, all the more so due to the fact that you keep running away from espousing any sort of countervailing principle or proposing any different "regulation" (or even a lack thereof).
There is no such thing as a 'legit' slippery slope. There are only those who fallaciously assert that competing interests cannot be balanced so that a thing inevitably must become purely (and illogically) one thing or its opposite. Pure capitalism or pure communism. Every human being possessing a nuclear weapon or every human being having been defanged, declawed, and deprived of moveable objects. It's bullshit -- and it's the argument that you've been telegraphing since you've demanded that I hand you a "principle."
I expressly made an argument in the initial post, and I expressly limited my scope. Oddly, you feel free to throw all that away because I will not willingly feed you a singular principle (as if there could be a singular principle) that you may fallaciously shove down your slippery slope as an unproductive tangent to the discussion.
Counter the argument, and counter the "regulation" that was the express product of that argument, or walk away. I need not care either. Bump stock bans aren't going to be reversed because of your fixation upon principle. Magazine limits aren't going to be reversed because of your fixation upon principle. The populace is pissed and D.C. v. Heller set a limit upon scope within which much can be done without fallaciously slipping down your metaphorical slope:
"It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful
in military service -- M-16 rifles and the like -- may be
banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely
detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said,
the conception of the militia at the time of the Second
Amendment's ratification was the body of all citizens
capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of
lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia
duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as
effective as militias in the 18th century, would require
sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at
large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small
arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and
tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited
the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the
protected right cannot change our interpretation of the
right."
My shit is on point. I can't force you to engage, but I continue to make you look the poorer for refusing to do so. "It just won't matter" is just so much bullshit. Devices that only serve to magnify the damage that one human being can wreak upon others are routinely banned from civilian possession, with the entirely reasonable expectation that such bans reduce the risk of like incidents in the future (where "reduce" != eliminate) and reduce the potential damage rate of other such incidents in the future (where again "reduce" != eliminate).
And so it shall continue to be... whether you like it or not.
"balancing competing interests, benefits and harms, utility and philosophy" is not a principle? Or merely not a principle subject to your plan of attack?
Let's try this, you propound a principle, since you cannot even come with with a coherent argument against the proposed policy, and we'll test that.
Says you. I know what you were asking for, and that's not the way that we govern society. We govern society based upon balancing competing interests, benefits and harms, utility and philosophy.
"...for while the Constitution protects against invasions of individual rights, it is not a suicide pact." Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, 372 U.S. 144 (1963).
You want a general principle that you can spin out into "regulations" so that you can assert that the principle is harmful. Well I've spun out the "regulations" for you. Argue against them, or do not... we do not legislate principles -- we legislate regulatory limits, such as these.
Ban civilian possession of actual and de facto automatic firearms, all devices intentionally designed to covert firearms to actual or de facto automatic weapons, and magazines of >10 round capacity.
There's your principle. And I'm fine with it.
Oh no, some random called me child. Well, that trumps years of hunting experience but myself and other hunters throughout the US.
Yes, you need to COMPENSATE FOR YOUR HEAD-UP-YOUR-ASS-MISTAKES in picking an astonishingly underpowered round, failing to choose the proper ground and/or cover, and blowing your advantage so badly that you're at close-range with a charging animal.
The M-16/AR-15 standard cailber was expressly selected to favor wounding, not killing, a human-sized animal (shocker, since the principal target was a human being). And you want to use it for boar shooting. SMMFH.
Use a large game round rather than leftover birdshot and you just might learn something.
The "perfect being the enemy of the good" fallacy writ large. You admit that you can only approximate the effects of a bump stock with a belt, yet you imply that because we could not ban belts that it won't matter that we ban bump stocks.
Bullshit. The purpose-built device performs better and is easier to use than the jerry-rigged, belt-based alternative. Making it more difficult to rig a bump-stock-like device is a net win - especially since there is essentially no legitimate reason to use a bump-stock. Shooters using bump-stocks are less accurate and have less control over their weapons -- the exact opposite of the goals of a hunter, a target shooter, and frankly those engaged in self-defense.
Could be lower. No need for a "spray and pray" device outside of a military context, and even then doctrine highly discourages that sort of use in most situations.
Sorry, rhetoric does not substitute for evidence, especially when your video shows someone firing a five round burst from the hip in a random direction -- it's epitome of the one-handed 'gangsta style' pistol grip transposed to an AR-15. "Approximate" does not equal "buy off-the-shelf add-on that allows Joe Bloe to essentially create a "shoulder-fired machine gun." We all see it, a majority of us tired of it, and the final rule banning these devices is coming.
Lifelong gun owner, never an NRA member, and yes, "deaf" to this sort of bullshit.
No, it's the formation of insoluble hydroxide minerals that interlock the aggregate. The rest of your post is correct -- the hydroxide minerals are not chemically stable in the presence of CO2 so that over the long term (more than the days-to-weeks cure time in which we deem the concrete "finished") there is a carbonation front that migrates from the surface into the concrete, converting Ca(OH)2 back to CaCO3. That also strengthens the concrete -- but too slowly for design strength purposes.
Citation needed.
"[B]etween 33% and 57% of the CO2 emitted from calcination will be reabsorbed through carbonation of concrete surfaces over a 100-year life cycle." NRMCA Publication Number 2PCO2, p. 8, citing Pade, Claus et al. The CO2 Uptake of Concrete in the Perspective of Life Cycle Inventory, International Symposium on Sustainability in the Cement and Concrete Industry, Lillehammer, Norway, September 2007.
Too bad that's not how it works.
The intern is not an independent contractor and therefore is an employee. Outreachy, not the organization, pays the trainee. At most the organization is the indirect contributor (tax deductible, no less) of a donation to fund Outreachy's employment of the intern.
Stop lying, Bruce.
Hell of a non-sequitur... why do they have to be in Silicon Valley, exactly?
I already showed that it was, in the initial post that you are now chosing to ignore.
So we'll just pretend that the other $5500 is not compensation because there's a $500 travel stipend.
Are you even trying at this point? Or simply channeling Sarah Sanders?
There isn't an applicant pool?
Which exempts it from EEOC regulations how? Because they're not paid by the Outreachy organization based on performance in specifically assigned tasks?
Yes it is - but that was never the issue. It is not perfectly fine for them to absolutely bar those not from a disadvantaged community from applying for paid interships.