Heh, I like you.
Totally agree. For years my college friends and I have been getting bored of the halo series, but they're the only games that still support split-screen to any decent degree. It's amazing how few titles these days support the basics like 4 players per console, bringing guests online, etc. Call of Duty - no, Left 4 dead - (ironically) no, Gears of War - no.
Our current setup is two lcd's in the living-room, 2 360's, 2 copies of reach, and 8 controllers. No number of new features or game-play improvements can compensate for the ability to coordinate and trash talk with your friends across the couch. The feeling of getting together a full 4's team in one room and crushing superior opponents with sheer teamwork may just be the greatest thing of all time.
So your suggesting that If the people writing the laws tell you and action is wrong, that makes it intrinsically true? He said nothing about ignoring popular opinion, only that his ultimate choice of the correct course of action was not based on the personal consequences of said decision.
I hate to pull a godwin, but if you'd lived in Nazi Germany would you have sided [ethically] with the Nazis, simply because theirs was the prevailing ideology?
You mean like this?: http://www.xkcd.com/748/
You can now use a piece of technology susceptible to power failure, surges, blown fuses, and seized motors, instead of the centuries old, proven technology that you've been using for years.
You could've made the same argument about the first combustion engines, or electric lighting systems...
And to think, I've heard of people spending 100k on a nice kitchen or a sports car.
And even if you think this is nonsense: Prison should under no circumstances produce better criminals.
Absolutes like that just don't work in reality. Any improvement in a criminals general aptitude theoretically makes them a more cunning criminal, just as it makes them a more functional citizen. It's unrealistic to think that the two are so distinct.
The citizens that turn to crime are usually those too unintelligent or uneducated to see that even from a purely selfish perspective, serious crimes are almost always a stupid choice.
By your logic, our leaded-gasoline years should have been accompanied by a corresponding drop in crime. For a few years our population collectively dropped a few IQ points, and thus became less apt, criminally and otherwise, yet crime didn't diminish or even remain steady, it skyrocketed.
In the end, I feel like (of the the criminals that could actually be effected) we have to choose between producing a few cleaver and educated criminals, or ten times as many stupid ones.
You claim the intellectual high ground, and yet you have no problem extrapolating the opinions of all Americans from those of a random selection of commenters?
Actually a "truly free country" is an anarchy.
You need rules in human interaction and a combination of a few pretty important of said rules is "you do not hunt down and stigmatize someone for making a sexual joke".
There may be some truth to that, but it doesn't change the fact that forcing an employer to not fire someone is itself and abridgment of someones freedom.
The interesting thing is that when this particular type of brain damage is recognized and socially adjusted for, human systems will be a lot less likely to leap into the most stupid behavior sets imaginable.
That's an interesting possibility, but the tinfoil hat wearing part of me still worries where that will lead.
Were not infallible when it comes to deciding what's best for our brains. Remember lobotomies? For a time society agreed those were beneficial as well.
If were going to judge people by their brains and whatnot rather than just their actions, why stop at using it as evidence? Why not preemptively imprison or euthanize people with "defective" brain types, or force them to undergo "corrective" surgery? While were at it, why just sociopaths? Why not identify revolutionary or disobedient brain types and "fix" those as well?
The fact that you got modded up is a bit disconcerting. The vast majority of police armor is either class II or IIIA. The lowest class even rated for any rifles is III.
IIIA is rated up to 427m/s for 124gr 9mm FMJ rounds. Even assault rifles like the ak47 fire 200gr bullets at at least 700m/s. OP is dead on, light rifles (ak, m4 ect) firmly outclass police body armor. If the attacker's wielding a full power rifle like the m14 or an m700 in
I'd like some of the anti-nanny state conservatives here to answer something - why are you guys so much in favor of antidrug laws?
I don't know what gave you this impression.
The fundamental philosophy of "anti-nanny staters" is that it's not the governments job to protect people from themselves. Your mistaken if you believe that the majority of us take drug use to be an exception to this principle.
Lol, that's great. I wish I had mod points.
Am I the only one thinking wearing it down with solvent or electrolysis might be the way to go? It looks like they've got pretty good access, they could even pour a silicone sealant past it to keep the solvent out of places it shouldn't be, then peel it out afterward.
Only at NASA can a stuck knob result in 6 months of delays.