Rule number one is true only to a certain extent. There comes a point in time when the gun is empty and 100% safe. This has to be the case otherwise you can't clean it and you can't store it empty (as it has to legally be in NZ and Aus).

The way the rule works is, always assume the gun is loaded until everyone in the room is satisfied that it is not. Then it can be safely handled among the people in the room (i.e. inspected, dry fired, cleaned, or stored). Even though everyone knows it is empty you still don't point it at anyone - this is to reinforce the habit of the rule and for ultimate safety (say everyone got it wrong somehow that the gun was empty or not - very unlikely but possible).

I do agree that unilateral disarmament is a difficult thing to achieve, but there are other arguments as to why it should be pursued. I am sure we agree on a lot of things on this subject, but let me at least put the other side out there:

1. America as the over achieving nation in the world has a duty to lead by example. How can the country with the largest nuclear arsenal expect other countries to start the process that we all signed up to? Hey France, why didn't you get rid of your 87 nukes? Well America, why haven't you touched that pile of 500? (making up numbers here to illustrate the point)

2. The US isn't worried about Best Korea nuking them because they would need a staging platform and a functional ballistic missile. They can be launched from subs, but NK isn't really your worry there. The most developed nations are the concern, and if you could get an agreement it could happen, with peacekeepers and mutually open inspections, and pressure on smaller countries to abide or be trade embargoed to stop them (which the west does/has done already). Unlikely as things are right now, i agree.

3. We have ageing equipment housing extremely dangerous explosives. They require a huge amount of maintenance and whatnot, costing billions. The UK has to replace their system soon to the tune of hundreds of billions of pounds. Imagine what kind of alternative modern anti-nuclear defence system we could develop using all that money and all our technology? That way we could be safe from nukes without using nukes and it would cost less in the long run.

Also if you claim your weapons as part of a defence, it's a bit of a giveaway that you're bullshitting if you then go off around the world antagonising other countries, knowing that they can't really fight back. So i think in fairness we should crack open that self-defence argument and see what percentage of it is referring to "a good offence".

Having said all that, binning all the US nukes overnight wouldn't be a great idea. The UK would be less of a target and safer without nukes imo, but the US would probably make the world a lot safer just by having less.

Let's be honest here, the amount of nukes we have is preposterous. No one could possibly have any reason to use that many, the potential for absolute worldwide devastation is far too high to need that many - you could potentially finish the world off in a nuclear winter, according to the average figures given, in about 100 'small' nukes. Not 100 each per country, but 100 total worldwide.

And remember, that doesn't mean you can use 90 and be safe. The figure 100 was enough to likely cause a global famine by causing temperature drops leading to crop failures. That doesn't account for extinction of animals and the devastation of the natural balance (which would lead to our eventual extinction) which can be wildly unpredictable. You could shoot 40 at a country, win the conflict, and cause the starvation of millions+ in your own (and other) countries for the next 20 odd years..... or worse.

eh, kinda, sorta, maybe, could be true depending on your circumstances...

It's a pretty short treatment of a very complex topic.

Buying a home has a lot of positives.
Financially, while you might not be building equity in the first few years, eventually, you ARE building equity. Don't buy a home unless you can afford to pay the damn thing off.

There's also a big difference between rents and mortgages. Rents go up over time and mortgages (depending on the structure) generally go down (either on a reducing mortgage or as a function of your income).

Also, mortgages stop when you've paid them off. Rent doesn't. If you're renting when you retire, well, have fun paying the same rent (or more!) until you die.

Also, if you get that dream job in Hawaii... you can actually SELL your house. Or even better, rent it out.

That doesn't even cover the intangibles like the fact that you can do whatever you want to the house. Don't like that wall? Knock it down. No asking a landlord! *

Also, no property inspections and while the bank can kick you out if you don't pay... that's the ONLY reason they can kick you out, unlike renting where you can be evicted for "damaging the property", "being a disturbance" or "because the landlord doesn't like you".

All that said, there are plenty of reasons not to buy, and they are highly dependent on your income, ambitions and the local property market.

Just don't ever buy anything where your mortgage is more than 30% of your take home pay.


* you should really ask an engineer and your local government in case your house falls over and/or you need building consent.

OK you made me re-watch this. At first I thought the lady had just made a mistake and missed a bike that came up beside her. The camera angle (FOV) makes it difficult to judge distances and directions very well.

On closer inspection she actually appears to come from behind and overtake in the right lane which is ending, and then merges into the exact spot where the bike is, and then does not react to the horn and keeps coming. That makes it really awkward for the biker to try to avoid her (speed up? slow down?), because its hard to predict what she is going to do next. So I understand the indignation a bit better and am willing to cheer the cop in this case, he looked very alert and professional (fake? just kidding).

I do wish people would use their mirrors, merge more safely (and faster) and use signals, and line-up properly when turning left, and u-turn safer and look before they open doors - any of those can easily kill a biker unintentionally. However I would be very reluctant to call the cops in these cases if I thought it was a mistake someone made and was lucky to get away with without major incident. Most of the time people learn from these close calls. This lady seemed to be talking back and confident in her ways.

Note that the only reason to include the "motivation" at all is for it to be used to interpret the "rule".

"to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions (read evaluations), as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia"

So even those dissenting were fairly clear that to be "well regulated" in the popular parlance of the day requires training and at least twice yearly evaluations....and for that, regulations governing and delineating that training and evaluating.
Hamilton was dissenting, saying 1) that in his opinion EVERY citizen would be in the militia 2) that making that militia 'well regulated' was too much of a burden if it fell on every citizen and 3) that he thinks gun owners should have to assemble twice a year (at least) to prove that they are properly armed and equipped (and tested for basic proficiency), NOT be forced to be "well regulated" which would mean MORE training and testing than only twice a year. SO, if you used his more lax criteria (and we don't) there would be bi-yearly proficiency testing and firearm inspections for EVERY gun owner. I think people would LOVE that to be the case, but his idea didn't rule the day, so it's not law.

Bad idea, once they are finished and you go out to inspect the work and find nothing there and then they'll just tell you it's invisible.

They didn't put the skimmer on to skim their own credit cards.

I always find myself passively inspecting devices I put my card through for this kind of thing. I didn't realize they could be so undetectable, or so it would seem.

In the 2nd clip young guy is the car's owner and old geezer is like a super or manager. The guy asks what happened and why the pipe collapsed if this fall they had an inspection. The geezer answers that they didn't inspect sewer pipes...

If they stay and impose their own rule over the 'natives', they're invaders.
Nope, doesn't stretch my imagination at all, perhaps yours needs more exercise!
Perhaps if those Jews were still in Europe fighting against the Nazis, they wouldn't have made it out of Germany. The fact that they all immigrated to one place and stayed there makes it an invasion, not refugees fleeing to their neighbors for safety. If all Syrians rushed to, lets say only Denmark, displacing the inhabitants, replaced the government and army, and started deporting Danes and settling in Finland, I'll be right there calling them invaders. It's not the same thing by far. The Jews were not fleeing anything but fear in the 30s, the Syrians are fleeing certain death.
AND...the Jews were certainly allowed to immigrate just like anyone else. I don't know where you get this idea that they were persona non gratta, during the war German Jews were under stricter immigration rules, yes, but immigration being strictly illegal, not according to my education or research....unless you mean since EVERY Jew couldn't immigrate it was illegal for those that didn't pass inspection or came too late and missed the cutoff....but that applied to EVERYONE not just Jews, so no.

Upon closer inspection, this thing is much more impressive than just a paper box with folded valves that make sounds: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pf3jnP6AbM0

Capitalism is a guideline or system of how to organise aspects of society (trade, labour and services for example), nothing more. How you use it defines its effect on us. I could sell you my child explicitly for the purpose of you raping it and it would show how evil capitalism is. Or I sell you my children's book explicitly for the purpose of you entertaining your own children and that would be quite nice.
The problem starts if you think everything needs to be a for profit business as capitalism should be unlimited. Then you live in a country that makes prisons privately owned businesses and thinks it's ok to bankrupt sick people and their families with medical bills.
Capitalism is as evil as the people controling it. Who allows these people to be evil? Who cares? Apparently not the majority.
However, all that is not the problem of this ad. The capitalism works to nobodies disadvantege here. Edeka tries to brand itself as family-friendly and established part of homelife. That is quite normal and acceptable for a grocery store. It is not like as if VW would be putting out ads on how honest they are.
The version of the ad I described as being better is as manipulative as this one with the exception that it doesn't make everyone look like assholes upon closer inspection.
Nobody nailed grandpa's door shut, he's allowed to step into the world and make new friends and other aquaintances. His isolation is understandable but mostly his own fault. I witnessed stuff like that myself, I have grandparents too.
On the other hand you bemoan the smombies of today. Do you see the irony of complaining about the screen-fixed stare of todays youth (and society in general) on an internet forum?
We created a distraction-addicted, short-term attention-spanned and self-affirming society on our own by willingly swallowing all the crap the distraction industry throws at us.
I don't have a twitter account because nothing I can say in 140 characters without established context is worth saying. That gotta mean something coming from me of all people.
I'm not on Facebook because I know what the 'StaSi' was and see no reason to do their work on my own person for Mr. Zuckerberg and his shareholders.
I have no internet connection on my cellphone because I prefer to know stuff instead of just looking it up. I don't write text messages all the time because I prefer spoken words with their complexity that simplifies communication instead of emojis that emulate things my face did since before cellphones stopped being science-fiction.
I choose not to stare at the palm of my hand and what's lying in it every 5 minutes because I can. Most of our modern society chooses differently. They chose poorly, as the real oldtimers would say.
And here we are, yet again, ranting about the evils of enticing screens in our lives, live on the internet. You know, we would not be this absurd joke if we'd sat at a dinnertable right now. With food and drink from Edeka.

"What if I told you that tickling them was like torture?"

Then I'd say: "please explain why this is and how you worked it out so I can contribute meaningfully to the issue."

Genuinely had to check after watching that this wasn't a hoax/satire. I'm not sure it could have come across as much more patronising and manipulative if they had tried.

Really reminded me of G.E.F.A.F.W.I.S.P. thing from brasseye in it's style and presentation. (Poe's law etc.)

Not that I disagree with the underlying point being made (most exotic pets have massive hidden costs to the animals well being), but I think they made it very poorly indeed.

If tickling is indeed torturous to them, then maybe make the flagship advert for your campaign do more than glibly announce "they don't like it!" whilst showing a video of what, to uneducated human sensibilities, appears to be joy/pleasure.

I'm not suggesting they are wrong, but even their website provides no materials or evidence to back up what they are saying. With a term as emotive and loaded as "torture", that comes across as rather disingenuous and makes me naturally somewhat suspicious as to their motives.

i.e. that they are likely ideologically opposed to most/all animal trafficking already and will happily muddy the facts & manipulate emotions if it furthers their higher purposes.

^ I don't want the above to come across as support for the Slow Loris pet trade, their unsuitability to domestic life and the need for pretty specialised knowledge to keep them healthy is reason enough (same as the vast majority of exotics). Chris Packham is one of the supporters and I have a great deal of respect for the guy's knowlage on such subjects.

But this, if anything, makes that advert seem all the more distasteful. YOU HAD EXPERTS! Persuade me better!

I also don't want to come across as suggesting that tickling definitely isn't deeply unpleasant for them for whatever reasons, but a cursory google and inspection of their own campaign site yielded nothing of any substance on the subject either way. (maybe my search-fu was lacking today?)

Again, I'm willing to accept the premise. If it will stand on it's own merits then I would like to understand. I will even advocate for the movement myself! But I'm not going to endorse anything I either can't or don't yet properly understand myself.

For every level headed campaigner with a basic sense of discernment and empathy for other creatures, there seems to be a mob of authoritarian ideologues eager to beat us around the head until we see things exactly their way and deny and semblance of nuance (i.e. PETA).

Last I heard, they intend to create their first experimental plasma towards the end of this year, once they pass the final inspections and receive their operating permit.

By the way, the project is 100% publicly financed and run by a non-profit association of German research institutes.

The report I just saw said it was fully inspected by a state engineer less than 18 months earlier with no issues found.

There's been the suggestion that their back packs made them too heavy, but those packs didn't look to be over 200lbs each to me, which they would have to be to make 4 people overweight for a 10 person bridge.

OK, that explanation and video are clearly the answer.

One element that I want to confirm is this: you've got evens face up one direction, and odds face up the other direction -- so that precludes the ability to allow the viewer to examine the cards before or after the trick, right?

I guess that the confusion / surprise from "guessing the correct card" acts as sleight of hand and keeps the mark off balance for long enough to get the cards back in the pack, so it doesn't matter much. But I'd imagine that you'd get people asking to see the cards *all the time*, so it would be a bit more fun if you could allow them to inspect them.

Still, thanks for the explanation!