Next up in today's game of "Spot the Aspie!"...
Well, I'm playing "Spot the Asshole" today, and it looks like I win!
I'm a hypermiler.
Stopped reading right there. It's assholes like you that make driving worse for everyone else.
Uh, if I encounter a gang rape, I'm going in. I don't care if I'm outnumbered; there will be pain and fists and blood and at least *some* of them are going to be broken before me.
I cannot fire bullets into that, it's too easy to hit the innocent I'm trying to protect. I can take a sword into that. I can take a cudgel into that, too. If they pull out guns, well.. one gun against six is about as good as one sword against six guns. I sort of accept that risk going in.
I live in a place where this is common, but not mexican-border common. The threats are similar, but they are different: a cartel party is a well-armed, fairly well-trained, battle-hardened and murder-ready group, whereas your garden variety rapist or mugger is not. Garden variety mugger is going to think twice about being involved in a lethal situation where he may get executed (partially not applicable here: many of our high-crime folks are drug dealers and other such who are at risk of death by criminal activity more than by state execution, so state execution is the most minor risk and thus not a deterrent; but they are also not the ones likely to mug random people), mexican cartel drug mob folks have murdered and will murder again. Garden variety mugger you beat back with force; mexican drug cartel you go in with the full assumption that these people *will* murder you if they're not dead.
Where I am, I don't need extraneous weapons. Fists work just fine, and any level of pressure really carries weight. I've been threatened by gangs, had multiple people crowding around me shouting and demanding money, and just brushed them off and walked; they are not prepared to follow through, and any amount of force is going to quickly drive these people away. When we get into hardened criminals, serial rapists, and organized crime, that ceases to work; I can inflict crippling injury faster with a cudgel, and I can inflict death faster with a blade or superior, and when they come in groups i will need to do one or the other with rapidity.
So you can have your border state. I still think firearms are not a wholly appropriate self-defense weapon except in extreme cases (i.e. organized mob crime), and I think they carry a significant liability. I can see the comparative advantage when facing an intervention scenario with multiple adversaries, versus an ambush scenario where a firearm may quickly become a liability rather than an asset; depending on how you're going to handle an intervention scenario, either may be a valid choice to avoid bystander liability, but a cudgel quickly becomes less useful as you increase the need for quick lethality. Sword offers quick lethality in closed quarters, firearm offers quick lethality with range, cudgel is slow for cripple or kill.
I simply can't control a firearm like a blade. At the moment I carry none because nothing I can carry provides an advantage: I can handle any situation likely to arise here WITH MY FISTS. If I was out in gangland and dealing with organized murder gangs, I would go for no less than a sword; at that point I have to accept lethality in self defense, and I probably can't reasonably deal with those people with my fists--or even if I can, I'm going to have to kill them with my fists anyway, so screw it, you get to meet three feet of steel.
This has got to be one of the dumbest posts I've ever read here on slashdot.
I would think olive oil a poor choice for making french fries. In general, olive oil has too low of a smoke point; it just doesn't get hot enough to fry things well. Maybe the increased pressure made a lower oil temp better? I was always taught to use olive oil as a flavoring on pastas, salads, bread, etc. but never for actual hot-oil-cooking.
It is a poor choice. Best I've found that is readily available is peanut oil. Of course, if you can find it, you could use what McDonalds used to cook their fries in and use beef tallow.
I hate to make it sound like I'm pissing on the protesters, but how is it the fault of techies that house pricing is going up?
Two words - tech bubble. Before the tech bubble burst, people were making money hand over fist. Due to this, housing prices soared. After the bubble burst, housing prices, of course, didn't come down.
"While it's tempting to upgrade your flatscreen to the latest technology,
I don't have a TV, and don't watch TV/movies other than through my faux-HD monitor.
I understand not everyone is like me, and that's OK. But in my circle of friends, it's really common to not have a TV and not care. Is this the experience of others, too?
Also, this whole 4K thing reeks of "we tried to sell 3D, failed, now trying desperately with the next thing..." But please reply if you're really into 4K, too...
Oh, look. It's the obligatory "I don't even own a TV" asshole posts.
This trend toward requiring a mobile phone as the second factor for two-factor authentication is going to hurt people who use a land line instead of carrying a cell phone or for people like me who use a low-cost prepaid plan the way one used to use a payphone. Free web applications such as Facebook and Yahoo! aren't so free if you have to buy a cell phone and keep service active.
Get a Google Voice number. You can send and receive SMS messages from the GV website.
What, so now the cop has to see which app on your tiny screen you were using when he saw you? If it's colored a certain way, it's OK, but if it's colored differently it's not OK? And if I am pulled over texting-while-driving, do I just need a double-click-the-button app to pop up the maps quick so I can tell the cop I was just using a map? I don't disagree with the cop tagging someone for using the map app in that way, because it would be impossible to enforce it any other way.
However, I think a lot of driving laws are stupid "pre-crime" kinds of laws that should be revisited. Speeding, drunk driving, texting, etc., none of those actions actually causes harm. They only increase risks, such as the risk of increased injury in an accident due to higher speeds, or the risk of actually getting into an accident because you're distracted or intoxicated. But the only thing that actually causes harm is an actual accident. If you cause an accident that causes minor injury to another, you should get about five years in jail. If your accident seriously injures another person, you should get 10 years. If your accident takes another person's life, you go to jail for life. If those were the laws, and they were enforced, people might actually think before they try something stupid. That way each person would be responsible for their own actions at all times. If you're on an isolated country road, with no cars visible for miles in any direction, why not drive 120 MPH? If you're in a tight city street, with the potential for pedestrians to pop out in front of you from between parked vehicles, you're risking jail if you don't essentially crawl slowly through the neighborhood. You limit your own behavior because you're responsible for the consequences of your actions.
Of course, that would require people to think and to take responsibility for themselves, two things that most people suck at.
The next time you have a bright idea like this, just keep it to yourself, OK? I mean, really? Five years in jail for causing minor injury in what would likely be little more than a fender bender, is on a scale of 1-10, potato.
Your fault -- core dumped