champu

If you read an article like this and all you see is... Then you might not want to scold people about reading comprehension.

Hipster on hipster violence is a pretty obscure problem, I'm not surprised you hadn't heard about it before.

You make good points, for what they're worth, but it's still bizarre to hear people lamenting the accuracy of shots fired at an unarmed guy next to his own car in his own driveway. I personally have no problem with a LEO firing several shots (especially with a 9mm) at someone who "lunges at them" in CQB when they can't descern that the person is unarmed. However, much as people worry about what I'll call the "worst-case hypothetical George Zimmerman scenario" where someone picks a fight, starts losing, and then shoots the person, I worry about the police in this situation not "giving the person room for it to be a complete non-event."

I was musing on the idea of a speedometer reading 1.5 million rather than an odometer reading 1.5 million.

Impressive. You'll pass Voyager 1 before next summer.

"Careful you idiot! I said across his nose, not up it!" "Sorry Sir... I'm doing my best."

In situations like this methinks police should favor distance over firepower to keep themselves safe until they've established that the person is actually committing a crime and/or they can see the person's hands. I don't think shooting someone has to be a snap decision so often if the overall situations were managed better.

the login would need to be read only to keep this hypothetical in line. No ability to delete, alter, or execute DoS by filling it with random shit. Aye, read only privledges for the public account. I should have been more clear.

Hypothetical situation... How would people feel if he had installed a network card connected to the internet and an FTP server on his machine with no password, pointed the root to the root of the network shares he had access to, and then posted the login information on reddit?

I feel a new sig coming on. Well, it depends on what you mean by "astronauts" and "have been drinking it for decades." The "capsule series" spacecraft, skylab, and the space shuttle either brought water with them, or used the byproduct water from the fuel cells. It wasn't until the ISS that water recycling has really been a part of the US space program, and it has not been so "for decades." There were one or two experiements flown on the shuttle in the 90s, if I rememeber correctly, but I think they were of limited success. Cosmonauts have been using recycled water condensed from the ambient atmosphere as far back as the Salyut missions of the 70s, but that's not really toilet water.

From the, "what can we do?" department I just thought about something along the lines of the gripe in my post earlier in the thread. I wonder what percentage of constituent correspondence representatives get from each of the following categories: 1) Letters from people in their party / who voted for them in support of something they are sponsoring or planning to vote for 2) Letters from people in their party / who voted for them expressing disapproval of something they are sponsoring or planning to vote for 3) Letters from people not in their party / who did not vote for them in support of something they are sponsoring or planning to vote for 4) Letters from people not in their party / who did not vote for them expressing disapproval of something they are sponsoring or planning to vote for Which can you most readily see yourself writing and which can you see being the most effective?

"and so forth..." is the part that bothers me. Take a minute to think about why you used the term "and so forth..." instead of continuing your list. It's a different issue in so many respects, but I see the exact same type of fight happening with abortion: "We want to stop the barbaric practice of late-term abortions, teenage girls getting pressured into abortions, and so forth..." and what ensues is a non-stop parade of idiocy with "pro-life" people exposing how they really feel with ignorant comments about rape and "responsible-gun-ownership" advocates saying "turn 'em all in" and not having the faintest idea what their latest law is even banning. It's a complete spectacle to watch people here get in arguments about these two topics because it shows what total garbage people are willing to put up with from politicians if it at least kinda-sorta aligns with their stance. Here's some "and so forth..." for you: AB 48, SB 53 and/or SB 396 Bans parts of magazines that came from a magazine that can hold more than 10 rounds, or magazines that were ever capable of holding more than 10 rounds unless you're using them in movies, and requires that the purchase of more than 3,000 rounds in five days be reported to authorities. (apparently enough crimes involve over 3,000 rounds being fired where it's worth creating an entire ammunition purchasing database and taking people's finger prints every time they buy ammo.) AB 169 Makes it illegal to buy or sell (you already can't bring them into the state if not on the list) handguns that aren't "safe" as defined by a state-maintained roster. This roster keeps people safe by, for example, allowing people to own bluish colored H&K P7M8s, but not chrome or dark gray ones. (see attached: top left? totally safe. Other two? verboten!) A measure also recently went into effect that prohibits guns from being added to the list unless they implement microstamping. (I leave the problems with that as a research exercise for the reader.) SB 47 and/or SB 374 "re-bans" assault weapons, and this time goes after people who have modified their firearms to be compliant with previous bans, because apparently so many crimes have been committed with these weapons. It's all just an attempt to ban as many firearms as possible just like any law with the word "abortion" within 20 ft of it is an attempt to ban as many abortions as possible. You can feel however you want about people owning guns in general or people having abortions in general, but don't try and "and so forth..." your way out of having to defend what politicians are actually trying to do on your (greater you, not you) behalf.

Sometimes to stop monkey business you have to create Monkey Business.

Do you have a sort of hypothetical situation in mind where this is a choice you have to make? Is there a steel cage matchup where where you have to kill your opponent by accident (perhaps with the strategic use of banana peels) before they kill you? And do they have to kill you by accident too or can they just be trying to kill you intentionally? These are all important clarifications.

Sad, isn't it. Utterly. Beyond shameful. I get a small dose of the same feeling every time I see a movie in theaters and they have multiple trailer/PSAs to remind audience members not to take phone calls or text/tweet/post on Facebook with their phones during the movie. "We don't... We don't really need to say that... do we?" The really bizarre thing about this statement is, why is torture even a likely scenario in anybody's mind? The guy walked off with information the government already has.

Sounds like the Sheriff's Department is trying to send a message to gun control advocates that laws can have absurd consequences. If it were a good law you wouldn't find yourself inconvenienced by it while trying to do something no one would argue is "wrong" to the point that you're trying to amend it.

I think "representatives" being held accountable to the people who did not vote for them is something most lacking. This is clear when a party retakes a majority in a particular house and you hear statements to the effect of, "This is a sign that the people want us to implement our entire wish list of crap we advertised while campaigning. This is our chance." I think I've made clear my thoughts on the political parties' wish lists of crap... http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3480031#3480031 http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4174865#4174865 http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4350537#4350537 http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4449982#4449982 There's an old (though less old, apparently, than I originally thought) saying that perfection is attained not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing more to remove. I wish all candidates would choose to do less when not doing something wouldn't lose them votes rather than always trying to do more in the hopes of adding more single issue voters than they scare away.

£dward

The term "racist statistics" is completely absurd. Statistics can be collected in an unsound manner by someone with alterior motives (i.e. they can be wrong.) Statistics can be interpreted in an invalid fashion to promote bigoted or otherwise nefarious agendas (i.e. they can be irrelevant.) But statistics can not be racist. Thanks. Whichever one of those this is.... If the difference between agreement and jumping someone's shit is "conclusion: blacks tend to live in shittier neighborhoods" vs. "conclusion: neighborhoods blacks live in tend to be shittier" then you might consider taking a minute to pay attention to what you write. Calling statistics "racist", or a result of a law "racist", or an ongoing situation "racist" is as bad as blaming the statistic, result, or situation on the race of the people it involves. Either way you're pointing at an ethnicity as the ongoing cause of a problem, and that's step one in not improving anything.

The term "racist statistics" is completely absurd. Statistics can be collected in an unsound manner by someone with alterior motives (i.e. they can be wrong.) Statistics can be interpreted in an invalid fashion to promote bigoted or otherwise nefarious agendas (i.e. they can be irrelevant.) But statistics can not be racist.

To borrow a construct from Sir Arthur C. Clarke... Either people, press, corporate, or otherwise, can be compelled to testify in a criminal proceeding absent a showing of bad faith by the government or they can not. Both are equally terrifying. I understand the importance of privilege (doctor-patient, attorney-client, reporter-source, etc.) and I understand the unease surrounding potential misuse of E.O. 13526 to hide things it wasn't meant to protect. I also refuse to accept press organizations or individual members thereof as being comprehensively altruistic, which to me is the assertion made by ignoring the "absent a showing of bad faith" clause above.

Eloquently stated.

I have my nits about every rig, but I have the fewest about Mirage. That said, what trumps the rig you choose is putting properly sized canopies in the container, and having a rigger who is experienced packing that make/model of rig. If your canopies aren't sized properly, the reserve bulk isn't managed properly, or too long of a closing loop is used, each type of rig develops its own set of problems. These can range from odd shapes and other cosmetic issues to flaps coming open in freefall and reserve container locks after a cypres fire. Also important to note is that while most manufacturers have no trouble making smaller containers, not all of them scale up equally. So if you're ogling something, make sure you take the time to ogle a rig that's about the same size you'll be buying.

You mean Big Otry?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1EY7lYRneHc