champu

If the source didn't matter it wouldn't be the only information written in the subject line of the thread... And the list isn't funny / presented in a funny way. It doesn't read like that was the intention. It reads like the author wishes to express his or her outrage at the outrage over things he doesn't think are outrageous and at the lack of outrage over things he thinks are outrageous. Outrage is overrated.

What do you mean low ass quality? Shakey and half the time unlevel? Sure. Five minutes of continuous rolling? Naturally. But we're talking about GoPros, that shit is 1080P! That's right... One thousand eighty pees. And wind noise? Nah, I just heard this sweet song by Drowning Pool that I'm totally gonna use for my next solo video.

Hey, at least you have a bike to be able to run over that nail. My shoe has a hole in the sole and the nail went into my foot. Luxury.

We all have a right to complain but most of us are not right to complain. Whether it's friends, family, coworkers, or twitter, I try to make it a point not to bring up problems until I've already figured out the angle from which the problem is funny. And in my life, there's always that angle if I'm willing to look for it. It's asking a lot less of people to share a laugh with you at your own expense than it is to always be fishing for pity. Example: "My car battery was dead this morning, so I used my bicycle to run over a nail on the way to work instead."

Based on the comparisons you're making, I think you're missing the point of the complaints about the "libtards" and "RWC" (right-wing conservative) language. Being polarized on individual issues of religion, gun control, etc. is one thing. Opinions and assholes, as they say. But being polarized on "liberal vs. conservative" doesn't even make sense because that's not an issue. It's a random collection of stances on assorted issues that people make up in their head about what the person they're arguing with thinks. It's not "black and white" it's "color A and color B" and the two people yelling at each other aren't even talking about the same two colors.

The problem is made worse because the terms actually don't reduce the argument to anything black and white as they are ill-defined. There's not much you can do except try and enjoy the silly misadventures.

...the way I see it, ladies, is you owe me for one jelly doughnut!

Do you think it's a coincidence that of all the things that billvon listed you picked the three that are least likely (statistically speaking) to cause you or someone else serious injury or death?

I was thinking more along the lines of things like MHPAEA 2008 or one of Obama's "23 executive actions" early this year about training 5,000 more mental health professionals and improved mental health awareness education for teachers... things where mental health is the focus.

I'm having trouble parsing this... People on both sides of the gun-control debate are making this too much about gun control and not enough about mental health? Serious consideration of mental healthcare and counciling is an issue in and of itself and improving access to it is something that politicians would not have as much trouble building support for if it were not bundled with other "off the shelf" gun control measures. My random thought is to take articles about incidents like this and step through the order in which facts about the incident are revealed to the reader... Article from post #17 Title: "Atlanta area shooting revives issue of gun access and mental health" okay, so approximate location and we're gonna hear something about mental health... 1) Age and gender of the shooter 2) what type of firearm he had 3) it was at an elementary school 4) he has a history of mental illness 5) he has made threats on facebook 6) a clerk talked him into turning himself in 7) how many rounds of ammunition he had on him 8) nobody was injured ... 9) police aren't sure how he got a gun Article from post #1 Title: "Police: Gunman wielded AK-47 inside Georgia school; no one injured" Okay I immediately know what type of weapon it is and that it was in a school. It's nice to see the fact that no one was injured in the headline. 1) gender of the shooter 2) it was in an elementary school 3) what type of firearm he had 4) he turned himself in 5) no one was injured 6) name and age of shooter 7) charges he faces (revealing his having the firearm was illegal) 8) how many rounds he fired 9) police don't know what relation he had to the school and they think he snuck in 10) there was an ensuing bomb scare resulting in a sweep that revealed nothing

Maybe I'm not getting a clear picture of the timeline, but if she got pregnant after the divorce and after she moved out of your friend's place, and at no point while they were still together did your friend even mistakenly resemble the child's father, and paternity tests confirm that he is not the father, then this sounds like one hell of a precedent being set. If all that's true you should be glad the judge didn't order you to support the kid.

Except in healthcare. Because if auto was treated like health insurance, it would cover oil changes, gas, tires, brakes and car washes. And those who drive gas guzzlers would pay the same as those who drive high efficiency vehicles. Nonsense. Unless you're suggesting current health insurance covers minor maintenance consumables such as toothpaste, soap, pimple cream... Well, in many cases it does cover medications and doctors visits for chronic conditions, which is a substantial long-term (and predictable) recurring expense, and one that doesn't always "payback" in terms of reduced risk. So while insurance providers may come out ahead by covering annual physicals or brake, power steering system, and tail light inspections, they probably won't win by providing cholesterol medication or paying for your oil changes. If you die of a hardheart attack or your engine fails to turn over you and your car suddenly stand to cost the insurance companies much less money. I think another way of explaining lawrocket's point is that the insurance paradigm only works if everybody buys it more or less not intending to use it. It's why optional vision add-ons to medical insurance are really not a very good deal... because people only buy it if they already know they need glasses/contacts and so everybody buying it is making use of it. How many people out there with 20/20 vision even go to optometrists?

Touch the ground as well in advance of your canopy as possible... ...but it's not as straight-forward of an optimization problem as might first be imagined.

and telling someone that "your child is sick and has to take mind altering capsules or they will be taken out of your custody" is not stigmatizing? I mean if the child is sick you have to be able to prove they are sick, which you cannot because there is no test to do so, that is what stigmatization is: diagnosing a child out of faith that it is true rather than any scientific evidence that proves it is true. I thought for a minute I knew what your point was, and that I agreed with it, but now I have no idea what you're going on about. Taking a step back, I tend to agree with post #29. Andy is correct that over-diagnosis will have a long-term chilling effect on the disorder and may prevent some people from seeking/obtaining treatment, and it may bring some negative attention to those who are correctly diagnosed and otherwise treated to their benefit. But those are still only the secondary effects. Meanwhile, people are being over-diagnosed and put on medication (which, as with all medication, has side-effects.) That should be at least as big a concern as long-term secondary effects. Post #31 comes across as very dismissive that this is even an issue.

I could be mistaken, but I think all he or she said was that ADHD being over-diagnosed and over-medicated was more of a detriment to those who were put on drugs and shouldn't have been than it is to those who do have ADHD, get the drugs to help them, but then have to face a bit more of a stigma because their disease has been delegitimized.

I'd say incidents of young black men beating octogenarians and nonagenarians to death are as sweeping as incidents of people going on shooting sprees with black rifles. Nationwide measures intently focused on preventing just such incidents are equally misguided.

That said, unfortunately in the effort to get the camera/housing out of the fray you've introduced two additional thumbscrews to mix. Not sure if it's a net win or loss. I would replace at least two of the thumb screws with machine screws. You certainly don't need all of those to be adjustable. Also, if you collide with someone in freefall or faceplant on landing you could turn a bruise/headache into a gash as polycarbonate is pretty hard and the Gath doesn't offer much to stop it.

You are incorrect. Diagnoses' that go into the DSM are voted into existence without peer review. You misunderstood the comment. It's the phenomenon of having a bias that selects against contradictory information that has ironically been studied, peer reviewed, etc. /edited to add: unless you're focusing on the "as well."

Well allow me to be the fifth to say you totally should! The gear is cheaper and there's no magazine you have to subscribe to so you can buy more gopros. And once you have a BASE rig you can start another thread complaining that DZOs won't let you jump it at their dropzones.

A couple salient points from the article... I think changes in diet and lifestyle (brought on by a myriad of reasons) amongst parents and kids alike combined with a sort of bizarre marketed hypochondria fuel this as well. It would be nice if instead of seeing commercials for a weight loss medical procedure that listed "poor diet" and "lack of exercise" at the end of the list of possible reasons that you're fat (after "stress at work" which is especially curious as I lose weight if anything when stressed out.) we saw commercials that asked, "Do your kids seem hyperactive relative to how active you can remember ever being? That's because they're kids, you fed them sugar, and all you do is drive between your couch and your desk."

I have seen nothing to suggest the kids purchased the firearm themselves, so talk about background checks in relation to this incident doesn't make any sense. From an article linked within your article... So it sounds like a drive-by. In California there's a crime called "criminal storage of a firearm" which, in an incident like this where someone was seriously injured or killed, would expose the owner of the firearm to felony charges if the gun had not been stored in a way that would have reasonably prevented them from gaining access to it without permission. AB 231 is a pending bill that would make a third degree version of the crime, whereby a person could be charged with a misdemeanor even if no one gets hurt as a result of a minor getting access to the firearm without permission. SB 363 is another pending bill that would extend these laws to all prohibited persons in addition to minors. It is possible that these changes will encourage people to better secure their firearms against access by minors and prohibited persons, and it doesn't contain any of the invasive manditory inspections that have been provided for in proposed legislation in other states. Accordingly, these two bills were amongst those not included in my brief tirade about stupid gun control legislation that is currently pending in California.

Stupid. I have to agree, that was a hugely incoherent article. It was very coherent. The article was about a man in England arrested for protesting a company that was drilling an oil well and that had applied to conduct fracking but was not allowed to (yet, anyway.) Interspersed is a story about how fracking caused 109 earthquakes in Ohio, one of which was a 3.9 (I'd be much more interested in the mean and variance. Max doesn't tell me much.) After that it clarifies that it's not actually the fracking that causes the earthquake it's the disposal of the waste water. And also, there's an argument about ground water contamination, and the people supporting fracking admit there's not a lot of research that's been done. And the company is acknowledging the protestor's concerns. The article was not coherently written, it wandered aimlessly around the concerns of fracking. Don't interpret this as a statement of my stance on fracking, but it's hard to even discuss the subject of fracking-induced earthquakes based on this article. It is very muddled and the article it links to that promises to actually talk about the topic is available only via subscription.

Stupid. I have to agree, that was a hugely incoherent article.

Well and, despite being designed to kill, they don't necessarily have to kill people or even be fired to get the job done. Police all carry guns and few ever actually have to shoot anyone with them. In some cases people they are "used on" will fair better than other weapons. Compare an AR-15/Remington 870/whatever your preference and a baseball bat when used for home defense by a fit but not particularly large or intimidating person. If all I have is a baseball bat I pretty much have to try and sneak up on the person and hit them with it to defend myself. I'm not going to confront someone who broke into my house holding a baseball bat, and I'm certainly not going to hide with the baseball bat and hope they just go away. Meanwhile you can point an AR-15/Remington 870 at someone and say "get out of my house or I'll shoot you." Or you can cycle the bolt/slide without even getting them in view and if they recognize the sound, that might be enough of a deterrent and they'll get out of your house. With guns, no one has to get hit over the head with a baseball bat. Good example of the kind of thing I'm talking about: http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/stranger-looking-to-steal-car-keys-stabs-homeowner-in-jefferson/article_74b1eab6-838d-5819-8ad0-da171d5b1459.html A firearm (which we can agree was designed to kill things as the son was taking it hunting the next morning) was used to stop a drunk women who was in the process of murdering someone so that she could steal a car and drive it drunk to another location and continue murdering. (not exaggerating, read the story.) While it would have exposed him and his father to more risk, he could have alternatively gotten a baseball bat and hit her over the head with it to get her to stop. So, since this is speakers corner, I have to ask, "Why do gun grabbers love drunk driving and beating women so much?"