@Tasers aren't a replacement for firearms.
Beautiful. I couldn't have said it any better.
16 posts • joined 17 Apr 2007
Beautiful. I couldn't have said it any better.
Last time I checked, they are tasered ONCE. They are also healthy, and don't have any alcohol in their blood, which slows your metabolism. (Not good, if you're in a post-adrenaline metabolic crash.)
Have each of those officers participate in a fight first, to give them some extended adrenaline exposure. Then, have them get tasered 3 times in succession, and we can start comparing apples to apples.
PS - Have you ever noticed that, even by Taser and police department records, the ONLY reported cases of "excited delirium" occur in cases where someone has been tasered? If you were already angry, or confused, or frustrated, getting electrocuted is pretty likely to drive you into a rage rather than subduing you.
PPS - Think before you speak next time.
Run a google search for InteliOrg. You'll be amazed at how many times the phrase:
"in order to be an intelligent reader you must have a basic knowledge. Please do your own homework, a starting point http://www.InteliOrg.com/"
This posting is clearly spam to send readers to inteliorg.com, and should be removed.
The lesson that we should be taking from all of this is that we NEED to make sure that we get a law passed clearly stating that NO state secret is beyond judicial review.
The judges need to have full access to the secret info. If, after a request by a party in a lawsuit, the judge determines that the info is relevant to the case, the judge needs to have the power to introduce that info as evidence. Depending on the judge's decision, the secret info could remain classified and withheld, introduced as evidence under a confidentiality agreement, or declassified altogether.
The attorneys on both sides of the argument would get their chance to make their case. The judge will have access to the classified information and the legal arguments from both sides, and can then make an informed decision.
We have gotten by for so long under the current system only because no former President had the audacity to abuse the state secrets privilege to extent that the Bush administration has done. However, the potential for wide scale abuse of power has always been there.
It's time for a change.
While global CO2 and global temperature have both been higher than they are now, the rate-of-CHANGE for both CO2 and global temperature are entirely unprecedented. (For the conservatives out there, Unprecedented = It has never happened before.) Additionally, as you pointed out, the article only refers to US temperatures, not global temperatures. Remember, the problem we are dealing with is Global Warming, not US Warming. For global temperature, 19 of the 20 warmest years on record have occurred since 1980.
I thought that I would deal with the other big point the naysayers use; "The models aren't accurate." The Global Warming models are entirely irrelevant to proving the impact of CO2 on global temperature. We don't need models to determine what will happen when CO2 levels increase. There is more than enough data available in ice cores and fossilized plankton layers to determine what happens when CO2 goes up; The temperature goes up too.
It doesn't take a model to determine that the last time the CO2 level was as high as the current level, the temperature was warmer. The last time CO2 was as high as is being projected by 2050, the global temperature was much warmer, as much as 5C warmer.
How much of a difference can 5C make? The global temperature during the last ice age was about 5C colder than it is now. The last time temperatures were 5C warmer (130,000 years ago),
"global sea levels were 13 to 20 feet (4 to 6 meters) higher than they are today."
Obviously, it might take a while for enough ice to melt to cause that kind of rise in the sea level. Then again, maybe it won't:
PS - You talked about, "neo-con theories of personal liberty at all costs."
Apparently, you haven't noticed the way that the conservatives have been trashing our constitution lately. Preserving personal liberty is clearly not part of their agenda.
""Scientists have been obsessed with accuracy for as long as science has been a discipline."
and yet here we are with the story. It kind of ruins your well made point doesn't it?"
Actually, it proves his point. People who are obsessed with accuracy make corrections when they find mistakes, which is why we have this article.
The real reason to use a 2 stage reusable space plane system like the one Morely pointed out, or the Scaled Composites system, is because you can use the "mothership," a B-52, or even a freaking balloon to do the heavy lifting.
On a vertical takeoff system, so much of the fuel is wasted just getting the high-altitude booster off the ground. If you use a regular high-altitude airplane as the first stage, you eliminate the need for 80 or 90% of the rocket fuel.
Vertical takeoff rockets are a wasteful, brute-force approach to getting into orbit (even the X-33 design was wasteful. 90%+ of it's projected takeoff weight was fuel). There are much better ways to get to space. We were well on our way to developing one with the X-15 program, but the space race with the Soviets made us turn to a quick-and-dirty brute force method for the Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo programs. Too bad NASA can't remember it's own history.
PS - Although I disagree with their decision, I do have to acknowledge that there were extenuating circumstances that NASA had to deal with when they chose Ares/Orion. They needed a space shuttle replacement pronto, and they didn't feel that they could wait for brand new launch systems to be tested and developed. So they went with known, off-the-shelf, already working parts to make the new delivery system.
To simplify what Robin said above:
Yes. At 5, 10, or 15K mph, impacts from foam will cause damage to just about any surface, even if it's just a glancing blow like the impact that caused the hole in the picture.
The reason that we waste our time posting about Apple is, frankly, because Apple's fanboys and marketing campaigns are quite annoying.
Discussing hatred of Apple products is an effective way of venting all of our built-up annoyance.
Wow. Where do I start?
"The issue is, if you pass laws, you should enforce them."
What if the LAW is the problem? Should you still enforce a broken, ill-conceived, and unenforceable law just because it's there, or should you change the law instead?
"My sister is still waiting and my cousin got her's after 8 years. Yes, 8 years. Why bother? In Adam's world I OUGHT to have just snuck across the bridge in Niagara."
I think you're missing the point. What OUGHT to be happening is we should fix our immigration laws that force people to hire a lawyer to plead their case and wait 8 years to get in. Heck, the department that processes applications from the Philippines is now processing applications from 1985!?! We OUGHT to relax our ridiculously tight immigration quotas and allow immigrants to come here legally, rather than forcing them to choose between sneaking across illegally or waiting in line for 10+ years to get in.
"An almost daily occurrence here is an accident involving a truck, car, or van load of illegals that wrecks on the roads and injures or kills some of them (and sometimes others). Remember, the statistics for number of illegals caught every year is several hundred thousand. In Arizona ALONE."
EXACTLY. If we had a way for them to come across LEGALLY in the first place, they wouldn't be sneaking across the border. We could actually let our border patrols go back to doing what they are supposed to do; stop smugglers and criminals.
"Illegal immigration is the symptom, not the disease."
You are right. People will always move from places of poverty to places of opportunity. America is supposed to be the place of opportunity, and for many years it has been. The problem is that we've closed off our borders to the people who come here for that opportunity. We have stopped letting them in legally, so they have to find another way in.
"They don't want to learn English, and like the previous poster said, many who become citizens still consider themselves Mexican"
If you think this is different than the way immigrants have behaved for the last 150 years, you obviously haven't been to any of the ethnic neighborhoods around our big cities. Go to any of them and you will find neighborhoods where immigrants from an individual country clustered together and brought their home country with them. They spoke their native language, and created a haven for their native cultures and traditions.
All of my great-grandparents came through Ellis island. All of them spoke their native language in their household. Many of them never learned English. They were proud of their heritage. They sent their children and their grandchildren to special schools to learn their native culture and be schooled in their native language. They viewed themselves as Polish or Hungarian first, American second. Yet, every one of them was proud to be an American and extremely grateful to be here. They were willing to fight, and die for America. They raised their families in America. They let their children fight, and die for America.
Don't make the mistake of assuming that because someone is proud of their heritage, they can't be proud to be an American. The two are not mutually exclusive.
Yes our wonderful government has missed the obvious conclusion, yet again.
You would think that because 20 million people are breaking the law somebody would realize that the law is broken!!! You can crack down on the border all you want. If you don't have a way for these people to come here legally, they'll just find another illegal way to get in.
The only way to stop illegal immigration in this country is to stop making immigration illegal. This is a country of immigrants and it disgusts me to see us treating immigrants this way. If we treated immigrants like this during the Ellis Island days, a third of this country's population wouldn't be here today. (Including me)
I've said it before, and I'll say it again, the only reason we try so hard to keep immigrants out is bigotry. Americans dehumanize the immigrants because they're poor, not white, and they don't speak English.
If the immigrants were Canadian, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
He didn't get to this site by clicking on a link in an email. He went to the REAL SITE and this page appeared instead. He was typing the url himself!!
Malware on his machine had injected this site into the html stream. The phishing filters couldn't detect it because, as far as they could tell, he was accessing the real site!!!
The way to make Microsoft disclose their "235" patents is for one of the Linux distros or popular Linux app developers to sue them.
A company with revenue that is dependent on Linux could easily sue Microsoft for slander/libel/defamation. Microsoft is making public claims (supported by a bunch of marketing cash) that are impacting the ability of these companies to do business. If Microsoft can't back up its claims with evidence, that's slander/libel/defamation (depending on how the false information is distributed).
Therefore, Microsoft would be forced to show their cards or shut up.
You would think that if he was going to trumpet the whole superman/kryptonite connection he could have come up with a better name. Even if he couldn't use kryptonite, he could have come up with something that would have been a superman reference.
Something like Jorelite, Kalelite, or Luthorite wouldn't have been that hard to think up.
I am one of the participants of this study. My question is: Where is the rest of the survey?
Your analysis only covers the answers to 2 or 3 of the questions. What were the results of the other questions? Who were the good/bad companies? What were the readers' suggestions?
There was a lot more interesting information covered in that survey than what you have discussed so far. Tell us about the rest of it.
"what PRECISELY keeping in check of the tyrant known as Bush have your guns acheived??"
Damnit! You stole my line! :-P
As an American, I can testify to the fact that the 2nd amendment rights crowd are the most fervent supporters of Tyrant Bush. Generally (and semi-stereotypically) speaking, 2nd amendment supporters are some of the most hypocritical people on the planet. In addition to being the most fervent supporters of Tyrant Bush, they are also fervent supporters of the most invasive, rights-abusing policies that are discussed in the US. For example:
1) Restriction of gay rights.
2) Restriction of minority rights
3) Capital punishment
4) Torturing suspected terrorists and criminals is acceptable, if not encouraged. (Our government would never wrongly accuse an innocent person of participating in crimes or terrorism, so lock 'em up in Guantanamo, without charges or access to courts, and torture them for 5+ years. They deserve it.)
5) Government spying on American people without oversight or court approval. (Once again, the people who are spied upon are guilty so they deserve it.)
6) Draconian immigration laws. (Keep those dirty foreigners out of my country.)
7) Erosion of the separation of church and state. (If people aren't christian, they don't count.)
8) Elimination of abortion rights. (Because they believe in the sanctity of life.....)
9) Stop stem cell research. (Because they believe in the sanctity of life?)
10) And of course, the war in Iraq. (Because we need to convert the world into America, at gun point.)
All of these things they don't have a problem with. But, heaven forbid you should take their guns away. Then, they get mad.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2017