I might agree to some extent if the "bribes" were going into the public budget rather than the pockets of individuals. Want government funded healthcre? Raise 500 billion dollars. Want to start a war? Raise another 500. I have no problem with establishing fees in order to discourage frivolous demands and establish some responsibility within the "voting" population. But as soon as the money starts going into the pockets of individuals, you start sliding into the third-world-nation mindset where you can't even get to work in the morning without having to bribe 5 different "public officials" on the way.
If you're against U.S. military efforts in Afghanistan, fine. It's a pretty awful war.
Um, no. WW1 - with chemical attacks, trench warfare, and massive deaths from disease and starvation - was a "pretty awful war". WW2 - with leveling of entire cities through aerial bombardment, organized genocide, and 60 million deaths - was a "pretty awful war". Afghanistan is a minor skirmish. It's a footnote in the history of warfare. It's a glorified training exercise. But it is most certainly not a "pretty awful war".
Speaking of which.... should we have been opposed to WW1 and WW2, because they were "pretty awful wars"?
Ah, yes, the Rakkasans have always had a good reputation. I never got to work with your unit, but I've heard good things. You're right, it does depend on the unit, but the general trend seemed to be that US infantrymen had a very... "narrow scope" in their training. Not that this is a bad thing necessarily - when you have an army that's 1 million strong, you don't really need to train every soldier to the same level (another reason I always hated those "army of one" commercials). As Stalin said, quantity has a quality all it's own. Our military is so much smaller that we can't really afford to specialize the same way.
Yeah, it's the same weapon essentially. I used a 240 when we did cross-training in the US and as far as I could tell the only differences were purely cosmetic. I started using this username back when the C6 was my primary weapon (late 90's) and just stuck with it. Haven't actually touched one in years.
Thanks for the compliments. Back when I was a private/corporal, we used to make fun of the US infantry a lot - you guys had some awesome toys but the caliber of the average soldier wasn't particularly impressive. We got along much better with the marines and the rangers. Now, after your experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan, that's definitely changed - your infantry kicks some serious ass these days.
I imagine the primary use of this is that, if bullets start flying and you take cover, you will be able to figure out where to return fire (or send backup, etc.) without needing to pop your head out first.
That's more or less right. If the bullets are flying in large quantities it's generally not hard to figure out where they're coming from, but if you've got one or two snipers taking potshots at your platoon, it can be quite difficult to find them. In those cases, the traditional method for locating the shooter involves the section/squad commander yelling "charlie team, take a bound!". This seems much safer.
You know, I did actually write up a full response to you, because I was addressing your comment point-by-point without having actually read the whole thing. Unfortunately, by the time I got near the end, I realized that you're a self-centered asshole, so I deleted my whole response. I figured a short "go fuck yourself" would be just as effective as any detailed response.
Are you really that clueless? It's only statutory rape if the other party is over the age of consent and more than 2-3 years older than the other party, and that only applies in the US.
In other words, you acknowledge that he's correct: more than half of us loose our virginity before we're legally allowed to consent to sex.
Being horny and actively looking for sex with random strangers online are two different things.
How so?
and as usual your own personal experience is hardly an unbiased and sufficient sample set on which to base a conclusion.
If you can quote some studies, I'd LOVE to see them. Unfortunately, the taboo around teen-sexuality means that nobody is going to even TRY to do an actual scientific study about it, let alone succeed in getting any solid data. As sad as it is, anecdotes are the best we have - from both sides of the argument.
You're missing the point. He didn't say "kids online" he said "horny kids online". The ones who seem to be out looking for something.
That's a much smaller percentage of the youth population...
Yeah, horny teenagers - they're a rarity alright.
I should post some of the chat logs from the warez groups I belonged to at the time - I think we spent about 10% of the time talking about warez, 10% of the time engaging in flame wars, and 80% of the time talking about sex. You could argue that horny female teenagers are more rare online, but even that would not accurately reflect my personal experiences.
You raise a good point. A girl traveled almost 1,200 miles to visit me. High five?
Definitely high five. I never had something like that. But about the time I was 17, I went on a road-trip to Florida and met up with a bunch of them along the way:) Apparently the phrase "we may never get this chance again" is a heck of an aphrodisiac. Best trip of my life!
It matters because it would be entrapment. Even if you agree to rape a buss-load of nuns, murder a whole orphanage, and buy alcohol on a sunday, you can get off scott-free if you can show that cops goaded you into doing it. When it comes to these pedophile investigations, that means that the perp always has to suggest the actual act - the cop has to act pretty much completely innocent.
Um, no. Back in the 90's when I was still a teen myself, I met about a dozen of my girlfriends through IRC or ICQ. All of them were in the 14-17 range. Not a single one of them ever turned out to be an adult posing as a teen. I dunno how these guys manage to keep getting busted - even if the number of cops posing online has gone up by a couple orders of magnitude, so has the number of kids with internet connections. It's probably the same as with most other laws - the dumb criminals get caught quickly, while the smart ones we never even find out about.
It could be argued that not being surrounded by under-supervised near-sociopaths until such an age as to not be a near-sociopath yourself isn't a bad thing.
This assumes that your parents aren't near-sociopaths themselves; an unfounded and unlikely assumption.
The rich won't invest in the Us because nearly everyone here is poor and we can't afford to buy anything
You're really living in your own little world, aren't you? I mean, the rest of the stuff you wrote is fairly silly, too, but this part here is just downright ridiculous.
Who cares about the homeless or poor, we got fucking meteors to track!
Hypocrite. Do you have any idea how much food your computer could purchase for a starving homeless person? You obviously don't give a shit about anyone except yourself.
I agree. I'm glad to hear that you're such a big fan of transparency, despite your decision to use a pseudonym in your comments. Please post your online banking login information so that I may review your account in order to ensure that there is no hanky-panky. Surely you don't want to keep me from knowing what's what.
Strangely enough I saw a Science Channel (yes there was actual Science-related stuff on there) about the Russian mission to put a rover/tank on the moon. They built it and succeeded only a short time after the US moon landing with people. It took the US until 1996 Mars mission to have a similar capability. Perhaps the Soviet space program was ahead of its time in other ways, too?
You're joking, right?
Sure, Edmund Hillary might have climbed Everest in the 50's, but my grandpa was climbing on top of his house at about the same time. Perhaps gramps was ahead of Sir. Hilary in other ways, too?
It's only temporary, sounds like NASA still have plans for their own platform in the future
Given the current state of the US economy, "temporary" seems like an overly-optimistic way to describe the situation. Good luck launching anything when the US dollar reaches parity with the Peso.
Slashdot Mirror
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/afghanistan/mortality-rate-adult-male-per-1-000-male-adults-wb-data.html
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/afghanistan/survival-to-age-65-male-percent-of-cohort-wb-data.html
'nuff said. I think this is the first war were the death rate is lower than the pre-war period. We westerners really suck at this genocide thing.
I might agree to some extent if the "bribes" were going into the public budget rather than the pockets of individuals. Want government funded healthcre? Raise 500 billion dollars. Want to start a war? Raise another 500. I have no problem with establishing fees in order to discourage frivolous demands and establish some responsibility within the "voting" population. But as soon as the money starts going into the pockets of individuals, you start sliding into the third-world-nation mindset where you can't even get to work in the morning without having to bribe 5 different "public officials" on the way.
The law, in it's majestic equality, forbids both the criminal and the law-abiding citizen to murder, rape, and steal. - Me.
So, now that the UN has authorized armed intervention in Libya, will that also be a "war without cause"?
If you're against U.S. military efforts in Afghanistan, fine. It's a pretty awful war.
Um, no. WW1 - with chemical attacks, trench warfare, and massive deaths from disease and starvation - was a "pretty awful war". WW2 - with leveling of entire cities through aerial bombardment, organized genocide, and 60 million deaths - was a "pretty awful war". Afghanistan is a minor skirmish. It's a footnote in the history of warfare. It's a glorified training exercise. But it is most certainly not a "pretty awful war".
Speaking of which .... should we have been opposed to WW1 and WW2, because they were "pretty awful wars"?
Ah, yes, the Rakkasans have always had a good reputation. I never got to work with your unit, but I've heard good things. You're right, it does depend on the unit, but the general trend seemed to be that US infantrymen had a very ... "narrow scope" in their training. Not that this is a bad thing necessarily - when you have an army that's 1 million strong, you don't really need to train every soldier to the same level (another reason I always hated those "army of one" commercials). As Stalin said, quantity has a quality all it's own. Our military is so much smaller that we can't really afford to specialize the same way.
Yeah, it's the same weapon essentially. I used a 240 when we did cross-training in the US and as far as I could tell the only differences were purely cosmetic. I started using this username back when the C6 was my primary weapon (late 90's) and just stuck with it. Haven't actually touched one in years.
Thanks for the compliments. Back when I was a private/corporal, we used to make fun of the US infantry a lot - you guys had some awesome toys but the caliber of the average soldier wasn't particularly impressive. We got along much better with the marines and the rangers. Now, after your experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan, that's definitely changed - your infantry kicks some serious ass these days.
I imagine the primary use of this is that, if bullets start flying and you take cover, you will be able to figure out where to return fire (or send backup, etc.) without needing to pop your head out first.
That's more or less right. If the bullets are flying in large quantities it's generally not hard to figure out where they're coming from, but if you've got one or two snipers taking potshots at your platoon, it can be quite difficult to find them. In those cases, the traditional method for locating the shooter involves the section/squad commander yelling "charlie team, take a bound!". This seems much safer.
You know, I did actually write up a full response to you, because I was addressing your comment point-by-point without having actually read the whole thing. Unfortunately, by the time I got near the end, I realized that you're a self-centered asshole, so I deleted my whole response. I figured a short "go fuck yourself" would be just as effective as any detailed response.
Are you really that clueless? It's only statutory rape if the other party is over the age of consent and more than 2-3 years older than the other party, and that only applies in the US.
In other words, you acknowledge that he's correct: more than half of us loose our virginity before we're legally allowed to consent to sex.
Being horny and actively looking for sex with random strangers online are two different things.
How so?
and as usual your own personal experience is hardly an unbiased and sufficient sample set on which to base a conclusion.
If you can quote some studies, I'd LOVE to see them. Unfortunately, the taboo around teen-sexuality means that nobody is going to even TRY to do an actual scientific study about it, let alone succeed in getting any solid data. As sad as it is, anecdotes are the best we have - from both sides of the argument.
You're missing the point. He didn't say "kids online" he said "horny kids online". The ones who seem to be out looking for something.
That's a much smaller percentage of the youth population...
Yeah, horny teenagers - they're a rarity alright.
I should post some of the chat logs from the warez groups I belonged to at the time - I think we spent about 10% of the time talking about warez, 10% of the time engaging in flame wars, and 80% of the time talking about sex. You could argue that horny female teenagers are more rare online, but even that would not accurately reflect my personal experiences.
You raise a good point. A girl traveled almost 1,200 miles to visit me. High five?
Definitely high five. I never had something like that. But about the time I was 17, I went on a road-trip to Florida and met up with a bunch of them along the way :) Apparently the phrase "we may never get this chance again" is a heck of an aphrodisiac. Best trip of my life!
This is why when police pose as a prostitute they always wait for the "John" to bring up money.
Wait ... so ... if I want to fuck a cop, all I have to do is not offer to pay?
SWEET!
It matters because it would be entrapment. Even if you agree to rape a buss-load of nuns, murder a whole orphanage, and buy alcohol on a sunday, you can get off scott-free if you can show that cops goaded you into doing it. When it comes to these pedophile investigations, that means that the perp always has to suggest the actual act - the cop has to act pretty much completely innocent.
Um, no. Back in the 90's when I was still a teen myself, I met about a dozen of my girlfriends through IRC or ICQ. All of them were in the 14-17 range. Not a single one of them ever turned out to be an adult posing as a teen. I dunno how these guys manage to keep getting busted - even if the number of cops posing online has gone up by a couple orders of magnitude, so has the number of kids with internet connections. It's probably the same as with most other laws - the dumb criminals get caught quickly, while the smart ones we never even find out about.
tl;dr
Although fairly ok for 10 year olds, it really is a bit rubbish. Especially, oddly enough, the militant atheism.
Really? The movie has Atheists chopping peoples heads off??? AWESOME!!!!
My thought exactly - any movie which depends on the existence of psychics has no place on a list of great sci-fi films.
Also, the end of "Contact" should easily disqualify it from that list. Poor Carl must have been spinning in his grave when that came out.
It could be argued that not being surrounded by under-supervised near-sociopaths until such an age as to not be a near-sociopath yourself isn't a bad thing.
This assumes that your parents aren't near-sociopaths themselves; an unfounded and unlikely assumption.
Nudism isn't child-porn.
The rich won't invest in the Us because nearly everyone here is poor and we can't afford to buy anything
You're really living in your own little world, aren't you? I mean, the rest of the stuff you wrote is fairly silly, too, but this part here is just downright ridiculous.
Who cares about the homeless or poor, we got fucking meteors to track!
Hypocrite. Do you have any idea how much food your computer could purchase for a starving homeless person? You obviously don't give a shit about anyone except yourself.
I agree. I'm glad to hear that you're such a big fan of transparency, despite your decision to use a pseudonym in your comments. Please post your online banking login information so that I may review your account in order to ensure that there is no hanky-panky. Surely you don't want to keep me from knowing what's what.
Strangely enough I saw a Science Channel (yes there was actual Science-related stuff on there) about the Russian mission to put a rover/tank on the moon. They built it and succeeded only a short time after the US moon landing with people. It took the US until 1996 Mars mission to have a similar capability. Perhaps the Soviet space program was ahead of its time in other ways, too?
You're joking, right?
Sure, Edmund Hillary might have climbed Everest in the 50's, but my grandpa was climbing on top of his house at about the same time. Perhaps gramps was ahead of Sir. Hilary in other ways, too?
It's only temporary, sounds like NASA still have plans for their own platform in the future
Given the current state of the US economy, "temporary" seems like an overly-optimistic way to describe the situation. Good luck launching anything when the US dollar reaches parity with the Peso.