At the risk of being called a bigot, cops are killed at a much higher rate by minorities with guns than whites with guns. They profile out of a sense of self-preservation, most of the time. Don't get me wrong, it is tragic whenever an innocent person gets killed, but this is not a simple case of "the cops hate minorities". And again, it is simply unacceptable that any people at all are discriminated in a way that gets them killed, but the vast, vast majority of confrontations of officers with minorities, even when armed, do not lead to shots fired by the officer. It is, of course, still a problem whenever it happens, but it really doesn't happen as often as fear-mongers would like you to believe.

They know who he is, they can always cut him a check. No one is entitled to crowdfunding.

So you are presuming this guy is guilty? Isn't that anathema to what you are arguing for? Everyone has a right to a fair trial. No one has a right to have it paid for by a crowdfunding site.

Electron velocity is a standard component of the Bohr Model.

Is that why they bothered posting corruption allegation on a blog with the aim of informing the public? Why risk being arrested if everyone can work it out for themselves?

So does this mean you potentially get offended when people bash "stupid Americans", or does the label apply only when convenient?

Said the electron to the nucleus.

I used to make badly written programs as a kid, so does this mean I have to quit my job?

My boss said he would give me a glowing referral for any one of our competitors. He's a pretty cool guy.

-Gen Y v86 signing off

Everything becomes rare over time, you just have to wait long enough. Of course, if cryo-freezing yourself doesn't work out, maybe that ET cart will net your grand-kids at least $5. Or whatever the steel bottle-cap equivalent is.

Cancer is a part of nature, but that doesn't mean we need to accept it as incurable.

If PETA suddenly started getting more share of the pet adoption market, the net survival rate of non-PETA shelters would drop accordingly. Pet adoption demand has been easily met every year, so your point is pretty much moot. PETA itself claims it does not see euthanasia as a means of population control, but as a last resort for animals suffering painful, terminal conditions (supposedly).

I would be more comfortable with the shelters spaying / neutering wild pets in a catch and release type of program, but this method is more expensive than putting them to sleep, and the net suffering (due to the typically brutal lives that wild pets usually endure fighting disease and competing for territory and food) would actually decrease slower per dollar invested, in theory. I'd love to see some data on this, but I've been unable to find any studies that try to approach this from a purely pragmatic angle.

On the topic of euthanasia as a means of population control, is there a point at which killing one animal so another animal will suffer less worth it if the net suffering relieved is great enough, or is allowing both animals to suffer always the better choice? Is a live of misery still worth living? I still have no idea

Don't joke about that, that's how lp0 died.

From what I've heard in the industry, it is. This BBC article is a little dated but is a good outline of some of the key points. Popular Mechanics did a good piece on the issue a few years back, if you're up for a longer read.

And yet, one of the USA's biggest problems is China spying on US corporations. Though, unlike China's propaganda division, I admit that the Tu Quoque fallacy is not a defense for USA's (or China's) actions.

I entered this story under the pretense that I too could become a spy.

Posted from China, Texas.