You might be disappointed, I'm pretty sure that this is the video where he gives the explanation, which is fault line geothermal heating. In the TED talk he says that it's a really unusual type of geothermal heating that's not found anywhere else. Most hot springs are volcanic, but not here.

Here is an article which shows the various fault lines in and around Peru, including one close to Pucallpa - http://temblor.net/earthquake-insights/ecuador-peru-and-colombia-faults-hint-where-large-earthquakes-could-strike-2128/

Pretty sure that's his penises and he pushes them out his butt where they had been residing, scrunched up like a pair of old socks, until he puffs them up and they spring forth for a dick pic.

Same ratio or worse in Syria with insanely more powerful weapons available to citizens and a far lower grade military...actually far more tilted against the military....the military that has won. (Against multiple enemies both foreign and domestic)
Yes, bombs damage assets, but not territory, which is what's really at stake. Buildings only have value if they're in your territory, so if they aren't, it's beneficial to destroy them.
No civil population has successfully denied an armed military what they need to function since the Nazis failed in Russia that I know of. It's really not as simple as it sounds, the only effective way to deny them your resources is to destroy them.

In the Arab spring, I think the government was overthrown because military leaders decided to stand with the people in short order. It could have been quite different, in places it was. This is a better, more recent example of your point, imo.

There are 100 million people with day to day access to arms in the U.S. (granted, of all ages, not all of fighting age).

There are 1.4 million military members.

Bombs destroy the very assets you wish to control. Nukes would be useless.

Tanks run out of fuel, as do jets, without a civil population to resupply them.





I already mentioned the Arab Spring. Governments with tanks and Jets fell to people with rifles.

Soldiers have families. When their families participate in revolt (and become targets of the government), soldiers change sides. Good example would be the Russian revolution against the Tsar, where the army stood down and abandoned the monarchy.

But yes, the military can do its own thing.
Afghan military in the 70's siding with Russia against its government.
Turkey's military ejecting their government whenever it goes bad (*minus this last attempt)

Or even the people can coup vs the people.
The 2014 Ukrainian coup, ethnic Ukrainians ejecting their government to make a new one that deprives ethnic Russians of representation.

-scheherazade

Freedom of religion is independent of civilian armament.
History shows that religious persecution is normal for humanity, and in most cases it's perpetrated by the government. Sometimes to consolidate power (with government tie-ins to the main religion), and sometimes to pander to the grimace of a majority.

Ironically, in this country, freedom of religion only exists due to armed conflict, albeit merely as a side effect of independence from a religiously homogeneous ruling power.



It's true that Catalonians would likely have been shot at if they were armed.
However, likewise, the Spanish government will never grant the Catalans democracy so long as the Catalans are not armed - simply because it doesn't have to.
(*Barring self suicidal/sacrificial behavior on part of the Catalans that eventually [after much suffering] embarrasses the government into compliance - often under risk that 3rd parties will intervene if things continue)

When the government manufactures consent, it will be first in line to claim that people have democratic freedom. When the government fails to manufacture consent, it will crack down with force.

At the end of the day, in government, might makes right. Laws are only words on paper, the government's arms are what make the laws matter.

Likewise, democracy is no more than an idea. The people's force of arms (or threat thereof) is what assert's the people's dominance over the government.



You can say the police/military are stronger and it would never matter, however, the size of an [armed] population is orders of magnitude larger than the size of an army. Factor in the fact that the people need to cooperate with the government in order to support and supply the government's military. No government can withstand armed resistance of the population at large. This is one of the main lessons from The Prince.

Civilian armament is a bulwark against potentially colossal ills (albeit ills that come once every few generations).

Look at NK. The people get TV, radio, cell, from SK. They can look across the river and see massive cities on the Chinese side. They know they have to play along with the charade that their government demands. At the end of the day, without guns, things won't change.

Look at what happened during the Arab Spring. All these unarmed nations turned to external armed groups to fight for them to change their governments. All it accomplished was them becoming serfs to the invited 3rd parties. This is another lesson from The Prince : always take power by your own means, never rely on auxiliaries, because your auxiliaries will become your new rulers.






Below is general pontification. No longer a reply.
------------------------------------------------------------------



Civilian armament does come with periodic tragedies. Those tragedies suck. But they're also much less significant than the risks of disarmament.
(Eg. School shootings, 7-11 robberies, etc -versus- Tamils vs Sri Lankan government, Rohingya vs Burmese government. etc.)

Regarding rifles specifically (all varieties combined), there is no point in arguing magnitudes (Around 400 lives per year - albeit taken in newsworthy large chunks). 'Falling out of bed' kills more people, same is true for 'Slip and fall'. No one fears their bed or a wet floor.

Pistols could go away and not matter much.
They have minimal militia utility, and they represent almost the entirety of firearms used in violent crime. (Albeit used to take lives in a non newsworthy 1 at a time manner)

(In the U.S.) If tragedy was the only way to die (otherwise infinite lifespan), you would live on average 9000 years. Guns, car crashes, drownings, etc. ~All tragedies included. (http://service.prerender.io/http://polstats.com/?_escaped_fragment_=/life#!/life)






A computer learning example I was taught:

Boy walking with his mom&dad down a path.
Lion #1 jumps out, eats his dad.
(Data : Specifically lion #1 eats his father.)
The boy and mom keep walking
Lion #2 jumps out, eats his mother.
(Data : Specifically lion #2 eats his mother)
The boy keeps walking
He comes across Lion #3.

Question : Should he be worried?

If you are going to generalize [the first two] lions and people, then yes, he should be worried.

In reality, lions may be very unlikely to eat people (versus say, a gazelle). But if you generalized from the prior two events, you will think they are dangerous.

(The relevance to computer learning is that : Computers learn racism, too. If you include racial data along with other data in a learning algorithm, that algorithm can and will be able to make decisions based on race. Not because the software cares - but because it can analyze and correlate.)

(Note : This is also why arguing religion is likely futile. If a child is raised being told that everything is as it is because God did it, then that becomes their basis for reality. Telling them that their belief in god is wrong, is like telling the boy in the example that lions are statistically quite safe to people. It challenges what they've learned.)



I mentioned this example, because it illustrates learning and perception. And it segways into my following analogy.



Here's a weird analogy, but it goes like this :

(I'm sure SJW minded people will shit themselves over it, but whatever)

"Gun ownership in today's urban society" is like "Black people in 80's white bred society".

2/3 of the population today has no contact with firearms (mostly urban folk)
They only see them on movies used to shoot people, and on the news used to shoot people.
If you are part of that 2/3, you see guns as murder tools.
If you are part of the remaining 1/3, you see guns like shoes or telephones - absolutely mundane daily items that harm nobody.

In the 80's, if you were in a white bred community, your only understanding of black people would be from movies where they are gangsters and shoot people, and from the nightly news where you heard about some black person who shot people.
If you were part of an 80's white bred community, you saw black people as dangerous likely killers.
If you were part of an 80's black/mixed community, you saw black people as regular people living the same mundane lives as anyone else.

In either case, you can analytically know better. But your gut feelings come from your experience.



Basically, I know guns look bad to 2/3 of the population. That won't change. People's beliefs are what they are.
I also know that the likelihood of being in a shooting is essentially zero.
I also know that history repeats itself, and -just in case- I'd rather live in an armed society than an unarmed society. Even if I don't carry a gun.

-scheherazade

Unlike you I approve of no such behavior.

The Alt Left and Alt Right are way the fuck out of line.

We can thank Obama for the rise of the Alt Left which forces the Alt Right to spring into the spotlight to counter.

I approve of no such behavior.

The Alt Left and Alt Right are way the fuck out of line.

We can thank Obama for the rise of the Alt Left which forces the Alt Right to spring into the spotlight to counter.

I guess the words of Reverend Jeremiah Wright come to mind.

The chickens have come home to roost.

That looks tasty. Boiling Kale and adding it into soup is also really good. It's amazing how shite kale tastes unless you cook it somehow and then it springs it's flavor.

You don't have well thought out opinions. Your examples are very poor.

Failing to avoid getting hit by a car as a pedestrian may or may not be the pedestrian's fault. I could give you literally thousands of examples where it is not the pedestrian's fault (and I bet the statistics show this to be true the majority of the time) but I'll let you Google them yourself.

I sure as hell hope you're a spring chicken because if someone veers off the road at a high enough speed directed at you, you're going to have a hard time getting out of the way.

BTW, I'll let my mates who are still paramedics know to tell any pedestrians injured by cars (or family thereof for the deceased ones) that it was their fault, even when it wasn't.

This one is just for you:

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/live-pedestrians-hit-gunshots-heard-in-melbourne-cbd-20170120-gtvf3x.html

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/melbourne-cbd-horror-four-dead-bourke-street-mall-closed-as-city-reels-after-car-mows-down-pedestrians-20170120-gtvx
3c.html

My advice to would-be robbers of fast food restaurants: use a replica gun. The cashiers don't give a fuck, and you'll get in less trouble when you're caught.

Also, if you think you might get in a gunfight. You want to load your gun before you get there.

I dunno that he's stupid for jamming his gun. That happens. It would have taken him a second or two to unjam it, so if he were pointing it at me, I wouldn't be trying to think of using that advantage against him unless I was pretty damn sure he intended to shoot me or someone else.

On second watching: The robber is doing a lot of things wrong when he cocks his gun, so he doesn't have much experience with them (I have next to no experience, and I can even see what he's doing wrong--holding it wrong to cock it, not releasing the slide to let it return on its own spring force, which is probably the reason for the jam). Of course, all that probably makes him more dangerous rather than less.

Lawsuit for false advertising?

Overall, this seems rather analogous to bottled water. Penn and Teller did a brilliant "Bullshit" episode about bottled water back in the day. It got sifted, but is now dead. The entire episode (first half is about feng shui, second half about water) is available on vimeo, though:
https://vimeo.com/193125042

Long story short, most bottled water presents itself as coming from a mountain spring, or glacier, or whatever. But in reality, the vast majority is simply municipal water from whatever city the packaging plant is in, usually not going through any additional filtration or purification at all.

At least with water, it is possible to test for contaminants. Diamonds can be graded / assayed to certify some basic characteristics, but of course there is no straightforward way to track their history and know where they came from, etc. At least, not short of having a paper trail tracing it back to the place and time that it was mined, which could easily be faked.

Bottled water gets away with promoting an "image" of being sourced from mountain springs or whatever by never actually claiming that it is in a legal sense. Usually there is fine print available noting the location that the water came from / was packaged. This diamond company seems to go beyond that and to make claims about their diamonds that are impossible to actually prove. Hopefully they get nailed/shut down.

I'm right there with you...I've never been on FB, twitter, myspace, or any other social site unless you count the sift.

I do get your point about it being integral to the success of movements like the Arab Spring, and I can support using social media for that kind of organization, I just think that's the exception rather than the norm.

I took this as a jab at people who think retweeting IS action, not the precursor TO action. They seem to be a majority today, a statement I base on little more than third hand experience and biased reports.

I just didn't get the joke, or rather, it rubbed me the wrong way, but we're basically in agreement with varying levels of importance applied to the subject, no?

I personally hate social media, but I can't disregard how easy it is to reach people and spread ideas. There's a reason one of the first steps toward suppressing citizen actions in some countries today is shutting down those networks. The Arab Spring had to organize first and it would not have happened if that communication medium was not in place. That was my first thought when I saw this video. I still think it encourages apathy more than anything, but I get that it's a joke and I just didn't appreciate it. Did not mean to poop on the party! I'm sorry! @3@

No sir. The Arab Spring happened because people actually got off their toilets and couches and marched in the street and occupied public spaces, standing up to harassment and violent attacks and paralyzing commerce, not because they just tweeted about it with a thumbs up tag. That's the part you seem to have missed.
True, they used social media to organize it, then acted, but that's not what the song is about, it's about people who are smug because they retweeted something and sat back waiting for their accolades.

If the end all message of your stated opinion is "resist" or "clap, clap, clap, clap" paired with your sole action of "recline", then yes, no one wants to see it, it doesn't really matter, and why bother muddying the waters for those who actually DO something more than nod knowingly? No? Expressing your opinion in a retweet is NOT action, it's barely a thought.

Yeah, I do. It's the whole reason the Arab Spring happened. Literally from peoples tweets and posts on social media. It's how ideas spread today, as lame as it sounds.
I realize it gets tiresome to see people spread their opinions online that way. I have to wade through just as much of it as anyone else, but I felt like this video was encouraging apathy by making fun of people who did that. Basically saying "your opinion doesn't really matter, no one wants to see it, so why bother trying?"