The analogy I would make with this is, a corner kick that gets bicycle kicked into a post which bounces off the back of the goal tenders head and is nudged/headed in by the offense.

One part good fortune, one part mistake, and one part heads up playing.

As someone who loves science and believe research is absolutely important, I think both sides do a horrible job of trying to address the issue. To say that seemingly insignificant research is obviously unnecessary is wrong, as much of science is built upon research never intended for the purpose at hand.

However the opposite is not always true either. Not all science and research brings enough value to the table to justify the spending to do it.

If you're trying to use "the greater good" as a measure for what solutions to use or what problems are most important, then you have to accept that even some things like ecological research or environmental issues may not cut the mustard if their scope or impact are not large enough.

I also find it interesting when people clamor to cut military spending as if they didn't understand that a lot of current technology and research is piggy backing off research done for military purposes (and some of which may be funded by military spending).

Drug use has a far more pervasive impact on society than guns ever will because of how it affects lives.

Drug users health and the health of the people around them are impacted (the harder the drug the further that reaches). Drug use is a primary motivator to commit crime. Drug trafficking is yet another of the primary motivators and it grows as drug use grows.

This is not even addressing injuries and deaths related to drug use and people causing accidents while under the influence. The impact of drug related incarceration and its social impact are also numerous.

One could argue that some drug users may cause more aggregate damage over the course of their life than a murderer might, but that requires putting a value on human life which I'm not sure is possible.

This is a great example of how people do not weigh out the full impact of things in complex comparisons, particularly when there is a heavy bias clouding their comparison (not saying you are but it happens often with this topic and others).

I don't think there is a single authority that would advocate someone speeding above 90mph in an emergency situation. In those situations it is my opinion that most experts would suggest waiting for the ambulance/police, not racing down the road like in the movies.

your 2.2. "point" is no different than people saying that gun owners would not give up their rights. It's not an argument its just a statement of something, it provides no support of anything other than "the world cant change that much" and I agree, in the case of gun ownership as well.

As for the difficulty in speed metering, look to many motorcycles and race cars for how to limit speed, it is already done today.

I use the example of cars because I'm not advocating stopping the use of cars, just the inability to travel above speeds that are reasonable. It's a change in safety that only affects enthusiasts or criminals in much the same way that gun laws would which is why I use it. Also because most of us know that although the majority of us own cars and operate them, we dont tend to exceed 90mph or drive under the influence ourselves and so it seems like a bit of an over-reaction.

My intention is not to compare driving and gun ownership directly. My intent was to compare the differing logic that people will apply to situations that have very analogous themes based on their personal bias or beliefs.

As much as many people see no reason for your average person to own a gun, I see no reason for the average person to be able to travel at high speeds. Just like affecting legal gun ownership will only lower violence some...so will limiting speeds only lower vehicle deaths some.

Just like removing all guns and the slow change in society resulting from it might one day minimize gun violence, so would removing all private ownership of cars require a painful period of mass transit expansion but eventually a world where rapid mass transit and only professional vehicle use would minimize vehicle deaths.

I would argue that the last two situations (all guns and all vehicles being gone with proper transit support) would be ideal for society. But they are also not going to happen any time soon. However how we can be so focused on guns and their use (particularly the use of legally obtained guns) in saving and protecting lives, while ignoring other places in society that cause more death is odd to me. Especially if those changes are just as obvious or palatable as extreme gun control measures when gauged across all demographics.

Why do any cars go above 90mph? ever? when is it ever safe and necessary to drive in excess of this speed? Why is there no government control over the torque or horsepower in vehicles? Wouldn't it be easier to catch criminals and racers if only cops could drive over 90mph? Why aren't peoples licenses permanently revoked after 1 or 2 DUIs? Why are we obligated to keep giving DUI offenders 3rd and 4th and 5th chances just so their lives arent adversely affected?

The same response to these questions could be applied to gun ownership. Because one, those situations where people suffer because of this kind of behavior are the exception and not the rule, and two the government has decided that it is not justification enough to infringe on peoples rights to own a fast and powerful vehicle anymore than it is to prevent people from going hunting or shooting for hobby.

If peoples guns must be removed for the good of us all, despite there being reasons to want to own one ABOVE and beyond recreation, then why not stuff like fast cars and dangerous hobbies?

To be clear: my point is a nanny state can't and should not stop short of any one persons bias on what is good or bad. Either the state should do everything in its power to safeguard people against themselves OR we have to accept that the government will allow things that may be unsafe/harmful for people in certain situations. If you accept that 2nd part then give thought to the fact that just because guns are pointless to u, it does not mean they are pointless to everyone.

This is ridiculous and the cops DO need to be disciplined beyond a write up or paid time off.

That being said when they say that the cops should behave up there with the best of us, that they should be held to a higher standard etc. I agree with him. Now assuming that you believe this, it's only natural that the people who have:
- one of the most dangerous domestic jobs around
-that have large amounts of work and personal stress derived from their job
-that are constantly under criticism (sometimes founded but mostly not) by the people that they serve
- are expected to behave above and beyond normal societal standards while on duty

...should be some of the best paid, highly qualified, and highly respected people in our community. Lucky for us we treat them that way....right?

We can't expect the best of people all the while treating them worse than we treat store clerks or waitresses that bring us our lunch.

How is changing teams for defense (which has as much to do with specialized players as it does resting) or the breaks in play which are procedural rules in football compare to the use and acceptance of "flopping" to elicit an unjustified benefit in what is supposed to be a fair and competitive sport?

American Football players are under fire for lying about their health to keep playing and to maintain respect which sets a certain expectation for fans and basketball players are heavily criticized for flopping as well so it's not just hating on soccer....its just more accepted in soccer it appears to the uninitiated.

Also google why it's called football so you sound less ignorant. It makes complete sense why American Football is called football just like it makes sense for Rugby Rules, Australian Rules, and Association Rules (Soccer) to be called "football".

You know what's dangerous? puppies! look at what puppies are like *shows video of full grown fighting pit bulls* its insanity! Ban puppies!

An over the top analogy, but the assault rifles that people are clamoring to get banned are nothing like the rambo video he keeps showing. He then goes on to say people should be able to own rifles for hunting....those rifles are essentially the same as the "assault rifles" ur trying to ban minus the fancy looks and MAYBE the size of the clip.

Gun control supporters would gain a lot more traction if they just learned more and stopped sensationalizing things. Ultimately it just makes people who are in the middle or gun supporters dismiss the message.

Umm something along the lines of this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4r34w7zchng

>> ^Stu:

>> ^Sepacore:
There is no reason a female couldn't achieve the same at teen or pro level. Speed and balance (and timing) is all it takes to be highly competitive.

There's a huge reason. If a female were to play in college or some how make it to the professional level. She may have tons of skill and balance like you say, she might even be the next Barry Sanders, but even he got hit. you put a 140 pound-150 pound girl in at running back, she will get injuries that would end the career as soon as it starts. Quickness is a lot, but men's natural ability to have that extra muscle and padding is why they keep men and women in different leagues.


This pretty much. Just take gender out of it and look at any professional football player that is under 170lbs of mostly muscle (which as has been referenced would be much harder for a woman to accomplish). Then tell me how many of those guys exist and actually play.

It's not just women that would struggle in professional football, it's ANYONE who doesn't have the frame and dedication to produce a highly athletic, robust, and strong physique. There's a reason why 300lb lineman can outrun some of the most fit guys at your local gym. Professional players are pushing the limits of our bodies for any gender!

I imagine it's a result of various forces and circumstances (I don't think it's a coincidence that the droplets were soapy water which would increase it's surface tension/bubble strength).

Also keep in mind that a droplets surface would be a mesh of the outermost water molecules held together by their polar attraction. As the sphere bounces and moves its surface would have mini waves and ripples along it that would push against and then move away from the molecules on the water surface below it as the kinetic and polar forces acted.

If you imagine that every sphere of water had portions of its surface moving away from the water surface below and then oscillating back towards the surface while the molecules on the spheres surface that had been touching the water surface below would begin to oscillate back into the sphere.

This would create many points of contact oscillating against and away from the water surface below and thus there might not be enough contact/pressure between the 2 surfaces for it to coalesce at any given time. Imagine bugs whose feet are tiny enough for them to "stand" on water due to surface tension and the principle would be the same. It'd be like an infinite number of these bugs legs jumping up and down on the water at a microscopic level.

Also I'm not familiar enough with how water molecules align themselves while at the surface of something so perhaps the alignment of their atoms helps as well?

Thats all a guess though I'm sure you could google the real answer.

>> ^spoco2:

Does no one else find it a little sad that people find smoking weed so central to their lives that they feel compelled to cheer on people doing it in movies?
Surely once it gets to the point where one of the things you identify yourself as is a smoker of weed, you are letting it take up too much of your life?
Do people who drink really watching someone else on screen drink and go 'Fuck yeah man, he's drinking! I drink too! Fuck yeah, I LOVE him!'


I agree with the guy below you in that it has to do with the legality and the social perception of it. Look at any group that partakes in something that straddles the line of socially acceptable or legal and you'll find a group that feels a kinship toward each other. Particularly so if the person identifies themself as such outwardly.

I'd imagine people that say "yeah man smoke it up famous people" are people who willingly identify themselves as regular smokers or "pot heads" or "stoners." For such people this is popular culture and iconic scenes saying "yo man smoking is fine or fun or at least not some horribly illegal activity" to which they say "hell yeah I agree!"

Also for me I like the fact that it brings into question the perception that many people who are more radically against it hold. For many weed is just a lighter drug thats a step or two further than alcohol but for many it's a social cancer and the beginnings of harder crimes and drugs.

For me the common use of it in popular culture and on shows that tend to be on FX, Showtime, HBO, etc. just goes to show it for what it is...a fairly benign form of intoxication that is as close to large scale acceptability as anything besides alcohol has been. It shows it's not that different from people whom get intoxicated from alcohol on a semi-common basis. I would argue that many of my professional friends and colleagues have just as damaging results from their social drinking as I do from smoking and I'd be the first to say that my personal use is greater than theirs.

As a stoner, I'd be surprised to see these same attitudes and emotions surrounding it's use persist if it was legalized or decriminalized as that would take away the social aspect of "we chose to dismiss the law/society and partake in this activity we both enjoy" but it would take many years if not a generation or two for the old ideas to fall off.

>> ^EvilDeathBee:

If this were America, he would've been tased as soon as he started talking back


Hah or he would be ticketed anyway like most drivers who try and talk their way out of their ticket whom aren't attractive women (assuming a gullible cop of course). There's no "physics" argument involved in whether he stopped or not, just whether it could be observed based on the incline of the hill and the relative safety of stopping on a hill abruptly.

The cop was intimidated/conned by intellectual speak where most cops and definitely most I've come across in the US would just say "tell it to the judge" because that is the process for explaining extenuating circumstance properly. The cop could/would say "I saw it the way I said, u can explain the rest though _____ process and if the camera refutes it they'll likely drop it. For now here's the ticket and what to expect"

Kudos to the driver as there's no harm being done here to anyone, but I've found the best way to avoid a ticket is to be polite and apologetic about the things I actually did wrong (like a california stop or going 10 over) and hope they feel bad for screwing over a nice guy. Arguing just gives them more reason to find pleasure in ticketing you.

Just because you have a clever excuse for the one time you get pulled over every year doesn't mean your not the 5th person that DAY to try and con the cop out of of a ticket.

>> ^Sotto_Voce:

Praising his action as "honest" suggests that there was a "dishonest" path available to him which he rejected. But there wasn't! If he had kept those bonds he wouldn't have been able to cash them. So the options available to him were: (a) return the bonds and get a bunch of free publicity, or (b) hold on to the bonds and get a bunch of free useless bits of paper. Option (a) doesn't sound all that altruistic when you put it in perspective.
A nice surprise for the people who got those bonds, but the junk guy isn't some selfless hero here.
>> ^Barseps:
Ok, whether genuine or not, it don't change the fact that he did an honest thing.
Promote
Quality



You mean like drop some cash on fake documents to cash bonds at what would probably be an over worked financial office?

Then again he could be more heavy handed and just approach those people saying he had them, and if they wanted to split it he would not destroy them. As you said he had nothing to lose by shredding them if the kids did not comply.

Where was it ever said that the only actions worthy of note or credit were those that were 100% selfless, that guy just handed those people enough cash to improve their life noticeably and they were more than grateful to him for it, what more reason is needed to pat the guy on the back?

>> ^dag:

Pretty cool technology, but like it or not - paper books are on their way out. Sometimes, you think that an industry is in its twilight - and it's really not. A good example would be movie theatres.
Something about sitting in a big dark room with lots of strangers while munching over-priced popcorn - it's an experience we don't want to lose. Prognosticators have been trumpeting the doom of cinemas since the VCR - but it turns out, it's not going to happen.
Similarly, those same sages are now telling us that the end is nigh for bookstores. In this case, I'd agree. Bookstores and paper books don't offer enough of a distinction or an improvement over buying a Kindle copy. You're buying something to read at home anyway - not to consume in a bookstore, so so much better to just download it with a single click. Verily, I say - bookstore, the bell tones for thee.


Well put but I disagree. Most avid readers I've spoken to still prefer the tactile feel of a paper book to the electronic versions and until there is digital format standardization across marketing platforms, adoption will be slower. Also there is the question of longevity that people quickly ignore with digital formats.

If I buy a book its possible for generations of my family to read it or own it. Like all other digital based technologies, there is no certainty of being able to keep a kindle book or ibook forever. If the format changes, the technology evolves, or formats are just not supported it will be more noticeable with books than it has been with movies and music.

With movies and music new media and formats have meant improved quality and functionality, so people are willing to repurchase for improved experiences. It is unlikely that books will have this added benefit as things progress and so convincing people to repurchase would be hard. This is where format standardization becomes key because you cant have an open standard or solution to longevity in a fractured market.

E-books are where music was when almost all digital music was in Real player format (or smaller competitors), it didn't fully explode until the open ended formats (mp3) became the standard. Once one of the more open e-book formats takes hold and e-readers become accessible to the vast majority of demographics...then maybe you can start to gauge if books will survive.

PS I'm curious if this machine or things like it would be embraced by higher education, for the purpose of printed materials they use now and perhaps to replace the scam that is college text book purchasing.