I love the platform operationally. The licensing sucks in every way.
Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
I love the platform operationally. The licensing sucks in every way.
The logical argument would be that the coporation makes more sense because it is comprised of people. The logical response to that is "Then don't they already have personhood?"
Sorry for running the thread off the rails that way.
The police do a dangerous job and over time the losses and realized risks add up until they feel threatened. They respond to the threat in a perfectly human manner; they get aggressive. Control the situation. Drive the situation. So they're more likely now than ever to use the tazer/mace/gun, etc.
The effect of this over time is that we citizens feel threatened. So how do we respond? The same way! With aggression. If you yell at me and don't give me a chance to explain anything, ask what's going on, even process what you're telling me before you arm bar me into the ground and drive your knee into my neck, I'm going to respond in a manner that likely doesn't match what the police want me to do.
This is normal human behavior and escalates as the situation escalates. In the middle of the night, even if you knock and announce loudly that you're the police, if you don't give me time to realize that I just heard a voice saying they were the cops, to get up, put on a robe, tell my wife and daughter to relax it'll be okay, shut the dog in a room, look out the peephole to verify that you actually are the cops, etc., before you knock the door in, throw a flashbang, storm the house with M4s and bright lights, etc. I'm likely to respond angrily and without thought. I'm simply reacting at that point, and it's your (cops) fault, not mine for creating that situation. The only person who would act in a measured and thoughtful manner at that point is the criminal who expected such an encounter.
If there is a societal conflict between the populous and the police, one side must surrender to win, and our traditional view of society in this nation suggests that it should be the cops who back down.
This study shouldn't be any great shock to anybody; that life is more complicated than a single cause for something. Some people are fat because they live a fat lifestyle. Some are fat because of their genetic makeup. Some are fat for a combination of them. Some people will have to put more effort into staying thin than others. This study suggests that these microbes are one factor.
The OP is making a statement that you completely confirmed: people are easily willing to bash and shame others. The second sentence of your post is the perfect example of using the worst possible scenario to describe everybody who exhibits a particular "fault". So tell me, what is the line of demarcation? Where is the fat line? What weight is 1lb more than the normal reasonable person and defines the lazy slovenly glutton you describe?
What about smokers? Do they suck as people too? Drinkers? What about people who curse? Are religious fanatics ok (that could go either way with you, I'd guess)? Sex addicts? How about people who are thin but can't run very fast? Are they lazy, too? Tell us, how are all of these people failures, too? And what about people with more or less intelligence: are the more intellectual people simply harder workers and the less intelligent just lazy?
Hmm, how about beautiful people vs the rest of us?
Are you perfect? And if not, is it because you're lazy?
It would be cool to have something like this of my wife and I or my family every few years.
Dogfighting hasn't been important for a while because none of the top tier militaries have squared off against each other. U.S. vs Iraq was never going to produce a serious air war. Neither would U.S. vs Iran, or North Korea, etc.
But, if the U.S. and Russia ever squared off, you would see dogfighting. Our fighters would try to eliminate their close support and ground attack aircraft. They would send fighters to attack ours. Both would send fighters after each other to suppress them.
The asymmetrical nature of modern wars has kept it from happening, but we would be foolish to ignore that component of air superiority just because we haven't needed it in 40 years. After all, who were we fighting back then? Oh yeah, Russia by proxy.
I'm 45 yrs old, run 15-30 miles per week, eat as diabetics should, etc. I'm 6'0" and just over 175lbs now. I've been diabetic for 10 years. I'm not currently on any medication, but probably will be in the next year or so. My numbers keep creeping up.
There is a subset of people who just think that anything wrong with somebody is their own fault. Small people with limited understandings. And it's amazing the damage they can do to somebody who feels vulnerable. It's bad enough that the doctors are never happy; but now they have some random internet puke telling them it's all their fault for being a stupid fatty.
It burns me sometimes, these idiots.
In your 30s, you're aware and thankful that you're passion allows you to provide for your family. It takes long hours and lots of work, but gives your loved ones a lifestyle that you're proud of. The neighbor kid mows your lawn for $20 per week.
In your 40s you start to relive these things vicariously through the new crowd, eager and energetic. Long nights, desperate deadlines and high pressure projects are tiring. You've racked up a lot of these at the expense of your personal life. Your kids are old enough now to mow the lawn for you.
In your 50s you wonder how much of you this company and these people deserve. The 20 somethings look at you like you've checked out. In reality, you're just trying to do better at balancing your effort against what really matters to you. This puts you in the slow lane on the running track. The endless possibilities are staggering, and no longer fun. You'd rather spend your time in the yard or doing something else relaxing.
Different things will be important to you 10 years from now. That doesn't mean you're wrong today, or then. It's just the way it works... for most.
Everything is a competition. Financial, political, physical, workplace, school, etc. We've turned everything into a ranking model where somebody is always above or below somebody else. It pervades every single thing we do. It's this sort of thing that leads to deaths at WalMart on Black Friday, road rage beatings and shootings, backstabbing in the office, and anxiety in the classroom. If you're not winning, you're losing, and don't think for a second that it's happening without notice.
We're constantly anxious about our standing in some fashion. Will I be let go? Am I better looking than that person? Am I better off than that person? Am I smarter? Am I more aggressive?
We're overtly competitive in many ways, but the subtle pervasiveness of the competitive mindset is really troubling.
Yeah, man. And why do all those scientists keep working on pointless things that aren't a cure for cancer?
Because any place that is designated as a "gun-free zone" thereby becomes a place of danger. Nowdays they are refered to as "Rob Me zones".
Generally speaking, bars are rather filled with people, so robbing people inside is impractical and a bit silly of an idea even when everyone is supposed to be disarmed.
Robbing them in the parking lot is a possibility -- bars seem to attract crime of all sorts -- but the typical target you want to mug is someone who can't defend themselves. For a bar, that most likely means drunk people, who would be in no condition to defend themselves if they did have a gun; you'd just end up with an escalation of the situation that would most likely work against the armed patron by encouraging the mugger to attack while the patron attempts to draw.
On the other hand, the threat of impulsive, alcohol-fueled murders in a flash of anger is massively increased when you let someone carry a weapon into a bar. 50% of all murders are committed under the influence of alcohol. Allowing guns into bars is a recipe for raising the local homicide rate.
Just look at what happened to the schools !
Over 99% of schools will never have a school shooting throughout their lifespan. There were 38 school shootings in 2000-2010 resulting in the deaths of 33 victims (not including the shooter). This number does not include colleges but does include a handful of non-public schools. There are just under 99,000 schools in America, meaning that around 4% of 1% of schools had a shooting, and of those most were single-target attacks or very short opportunistic attacks rather than the slow, deliberate Columbine or Virginia Tech style massacre that people hold up as an example of where a gun might help.
On the other hand, 606 people died of firearms accidents and 19,392 people died of suicide just in 2010 alone. So with that in mind, what exactly do you think would have been solved by bringing guns to a building filled with curious children and emotionally wrought teens other than a lot of opportunities for tragedy.
You have to do a fair threat evaluation. Guns in schools are a far bigger threat than they are a threat neutralizer.
On the other hand, I would exercise self-restraint and not go to bars full of guns.
Kind of like avoiding smoking in bars, you may find that the choice simply becomes "don't go to bars." On the other hand, you can tell a smoky bar upon stepping in the door, so those are easy enough to avoid. However, with concealed carry laws, you have no idea if anyone is carrying while drunk until it has become a situation unless the bar has a very clear sign on the door.
If you wish to live in community that heavily regulates firearms, then band together and do so - nothing restricts a locality/city/region from banning the things of their own initiative (see also Chicago, D.C, New York City, etc.) However, please do not try to impose such things across the whole nation. There is no "reasonable" restriction in the eyes of those who wish to promulgate these laws, save for complete abolition.
Due to a number of court challenges, there is no local governments that are allowed to practice such restrictions anymore, because "there is no 'reasonable' restriction in the eyes of those who wish to [oppose] these laws, save for complete [legalization]." See Heller vs. DC, et al.
Okay, maybe that's a bit too far. Most gun-enthusiasts support restrictions on felons and the mentally ill owning guns, but there are a good number of true gun-nuts that don't, and politics over the last decade has pushed further and further to the fringe on the right. Witness the latest law in right-leaning Georgia to allow concealed carry in bars where people will be intoxicated while armed.
I mean, why did anyone think that was a good idea?