Coreece

You have a realistic, evidenced-based solution right in front of your face that you continue to ignore, and you're still asking Why? That's like ignoring a 4-course meal and wondering why you're still hungry. What would really be awesome is if YOU, for once, could kindly explain WHY, and then present a realistic solution to that problem that would in turn cut the gun homicide rate by 50% within 6 years as demonstrated earlier in this thread.

This guy was not a gangbanger. If you want to talk about this guy and mass shootings, fine, but Kallend started talking about our ridiculously high gun homicide rate compared to other developed countries. In order to address that, you have to acknowledge what's driving that high rate - and as we've already determined, it's not mass shootings but "everyday shootings in segregated, economically struggling neighborhoods." Even if you can eliminate all assault rifles and stop all mass shootings, our firearm homicides will still be holding steady at a rate of around 4, just as it is now. Every person in this forum that has argued for strict gun laws aimed at reducing the number of firearms said that it would take generations before we'd see any significant results. OTOH, if every major metropolitan area funded programs with similar results like those in Oakland, we could quite possibly cut the rate by 50% within just 6 years. Also, If Oakland is representative of other major cities, then only 0.16% of the population is actually at risk of using a gun to kill someone, which IMO is a rather manageable number. You would think that if people actually cared as much as they pretend to in this forum, they'd express at least a bit outrage at why such successful, evidenced based programs are either non-existent or underfunded, especially in places like Chicago where such programs are actually seeing cutbacks. Unbelievable. I should also say that the solution isn't necessarily to "remove gangbangers." Oakland realized that they can't arrest their way out of this problem because it just exacerbates the ongoing viscous cycle of violent crime that has plagued similar cities across 3-4 generations.

I'm not blaming anything, just showing a solution that you're totally ignoring, as always. Because people like you ignore proven solutions even when they smack you right across the face. "Giffords has also created its own document laying out seven states it believes could benefit from fully implementing Ceasefire’s violence reduction strategies, including California, Colorado, Illinois, Maryland, Missouri, North Carolina and Wisconsin." "The state has responded to the crisis in its cities by funding Cure Violence Illinois and, as of 2018, the Community Based Violence Intervention and Prevention (CBVIP) program. The state has been the principal source of funding for Cure Violence Illinois since 2004, but due to a series of budgetary disputes, the program has suffered from a number of funding lapses, site closures, and service disruptions." So stop whinging and write a check.

At the end of the day we can't expect Nevada to fix California's significant gun problem in places like the S.F Bay area. Rather than repeat myself ad nauseam, the following quotes from recent reports on "A Case Study in Hope," pretty much support the gist of what I've been saying on this subject for the last several years or so: "The majority of America’s gun homicide victims are black, killed in everyday shootings in segregated, economically struggling neighborhoods in cities such as Oakland and Richmond. It’s this everyday toll of violence, not mass shooting casualties, that drives America’s gun homicide rate 25 times higher than those of other wealthy countries." “We have to extend the idea of what public safety is beyond policing and incarceration, to include these things like intervention, outreach and neighborhood empowerment. . .That’s the game changer. That’s the difference-maker.” "In 2012, city leaders launched Oakland Ceasefire, a violence reduction initiative that formed an ongoing partnership between community members, social service providers and law enforcement officials. In August 2018, lead criminologist Anthony Braga and his team of researchers released results of their Ceasefire analysis and found that the initiative is associated with an estimated 31.5% reduction in the city’s gun homicides. The city recorded 68 killings last year, Oakland’s lowest number of homicides in nearly two decades and a nearly 50% reduction from 2012" “Few of the laws enacted in the last 10 years would have been expected to entirely explain the significant reductions in the Bay Area. . .It was investment in local prevention strategies in Oakland, Richmond and San Francisco that was likely the “key change” that most significantly drove the recent 30% drop in gun homicides" “The common context among each of these cities – Richmond, Oakland, and San Francisco – is that they have adopted community-driven, non-law enforcement approaches, and they’ve been robustly funded” “In Oakland, we’ve embraced the notion that we can’t arrest our way out of the gun violence epidemic,” Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf said in a statement. “Instead, we looked at who was actually most at risk of engaging in violence, and worked together as a community to open a new door for them.” "better analysis of who’s behind the violence has helped law enforcement, social services and community groups intervene more effectively. In Oakland, for example, a 2017 study of every homicide that occurred over 18 months showed that only 0.16% of Oakland’s population, about 700 high-risk men, were responsible for the majority of the homicides." "Oakland Unite, a division of the city’s Human Services Department, is a network of community-based organizations that provides resources to people at high risk of becoming victims or perpetrators of violence. Those resources include intensive mentoring, economic and educational training, and assistance for victims of a variety of violence, not just gun violence." https://www.huffpost.com/entry/oakland-california-decrease-gun-violence_n_5cf6d690e4b02b1bef0900f4?guccounter=1 https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2019/jun/03/gun-violence-bay-area-drop-30-percent-why-investigation

That's fine, I can make do with shallots.

Just fucking jump

Maybe they're afraid of you. Yep, pretty much. But some people just aren't used to getting their way, I guess.

Ah, the ambiguity of sentences with "or" in them. lol, I just saw that too! Maybe I should've added a comma.

Hmm. It takes about 280 pounds to pull a fully loaded railcar at low speeds, and there is no doubt that these were specially prepared (brand new bearings, rails leveled etc) - so call it 200 pounds per car. That's 2000 pounds total force needed - which doesn't sound like that much. Most automatics and pretty much all EV's are going to be able to do that, due to the torque available at low speeds. I chuckled a bit to myself when I first saw the video a couple days ago, not because I understand the mechanics/physics but because I work with bullshit advertisers and have seen those videos with "strong men" pulling trucks and planes with their mouths or tow ropes wrapped around their genitals. I think there was even a Malaysian man that pulled a train with his teeth. It's not like they're going to list a towing capacity of a million pounds, but alas, these are the somewhat manipulative techniques that are apparently necessary to sell various products and political ideologies like climate change and green tech among other things. And I'm not trying to say that everything about AGW is bullshit, but at some point they're going have to start talking about the "cooler side" of green tech if they want to appeal to the masses.

Are you jealous, or just hungry?

Watch Ford's Electric Prototype Truck Pull a Million Pounds

Correct, if you click "see my activity" or "see their activity" it will show multiple pages of posts spanning multiple years, but in most profiles that I've checked only 5-10% of their total posts are actually shown. Even your profile shows less than 30 of your 488 total posts - the other 29 pages just consist of pics you've uploaded. The posts shown in one's profile seem to be the only posts that can be found through the search function, while the other 90% or so don't seem to be indexed and are more difficult to find.

That would mean: better performance, better prize money. Pretty similar isn’t it? No it means women would most likely get paid more for a similar (or even worse) performance. Danica Patrick is a perfect example of this: I Get Paid Better Than Most Men in my Field

Yup. Equal pay for equal performance. No, if a woman can consistently throw a 95mph fastball and strikeout Mike Trout, or steal a base on Buster Posey, or block Ndamukong Suh, or sack Tom Brady, then I'd pay top dollar to see that, as will millions of others, so she should get paid more.

It's an effect automatically achieved with a 360° Camera when it's positioned correctly inline with a selfie stick, no post processing necessary.

I agree with this. Also in the right setting. I have been know to use profanities but I am not about to do that in a business meeting or when my son was young in a parent teacher conference. I've never thought about swearing in those situations before, but now I'm kind of tempted. Also, just FYI - kids were never present at the parent-teacher conferences I've attended. I was at park with my 9 year-old step daughter several years ago where a small group of rather liberated redneck teenagers (13-14) were saying shit that even I wouldn't say. Anyway, I was livid and could feel myself turning red as the pressure built up in my head. Then, it doesn't matter what one of the kids said next, but I completely lost it for a second, got up and shouted, "watch your FUCKING mouths!" One adult nodded, another offered a golf-clap and my wife was shaking her head, but also trying to hold back a laugh because she knows how I can get, but I really felt embarrassed - like an idiot. I said I can't believe I just said that - I wasn't even trying to be funny. But apparently it worked. I've always been a bit intrigued how, for the most part, I would almost subconsciously control my tongue depending on who I was with, but for whatever reason, I slipped up twice this month and swore in front of the kid - probably the first time since the park incident above. I didn't know what to say - I didn't want to just explain it away or give her the impression that it was ok just because I slipped up and made a mistake, so I just let it go and taking it as a sign that it's becoming to habitual and needs to be toned down a bit elsewhere in my life.

No, they just create programs to do that. Even more exciting!

I'm pretty sure that's the job description of a code monkey.

Those are the best! Actually, this is the best:

Those are the best!

Ugh, I can smell it all the way over here.

The problem is that a livable wage varies dramatically depending on marital status, the size of your family and where you live. If we're going to have a national flat rate minimum, then it only makes sense to base it on the minimum livable wage for a single adult, which for most places seems to be around $11/hr according to the living wage calculator that Keith posted earlier. Obviously it's going to be higher in a few other places, but that's why states can adjust it as needed, or you can just get a roommate or sleep on the couch like a normal person trying to make it big in LA or NY. I would have thought the low unemployment rate would make it more of a workers market. When you have to compete with other businesses for employees benefits and salaries should go up.  Overall I think that's what we are starting to see even in rural areas where wages are increasing on their own beyond mandated minimums. It's only a matter of time when Airdvr's FB friends will be forced to raise wages by other competing companies rather than the government.

Around here: Wal-Mart - $11/hr Roger's - $9.45/hr Louie's - $9.45/hr Glenn's - $9.45/hr Nobody knows what happened to Lenny. . .

Right, impeachment justifications for impeachment proceedings that they're apparently reserving for his second term. And it won't fucking matter anyway if they can't prove intent.

No. Shop at ANY store that pays better wages. If that's Wal-Mart great; if it's the local store (which is often is) then that's what you choose. Up here that would mean shopping exclusively at Walmart, but that's due to their corporate-wide wage increase just this past year. Prior to that they were pretty much on par with everybody else paying at or near state minimums. It may be a bit different elsewhere, but that wage increase certainly puts them closer to the top - and with Amazon's wage increase to $15/hr, Walmart is likely to follow suit and has already expressed as much - so I think all the outrage for these two outlets is a bit outdated. And one good reason that such an efficient, reasonable and fair system exists for EVERYONE including those in remote rural areas is because of the disciplined spending habits of frugal "cheap-ass" customers. If it was up to thriftless behavior of the rich and wasteful we'd all have to pay 2-5X more than what it's really worth to the vast majority. It kind of reminds me a little bit of our fucked-up healthcare system, but that's a different beast altogether.