To be fair, 300 barely touched on the politics involved, but they did play fast and lose with history.
Spartan soldiers were free men, and the Persian army included many who were drafted. Maybe they technically weren't slaves, but for all intents and purposes they were, so the line makes sense, even if it may be misleading without background knowledge.
True enough, from what I was taught, the Spartans weren't so interested in democracy, they seemed to believe the strongest should rule, not the weaker masses.

All that said, the Persians were invaders, so NOT the good guys in any form no matter what advantages their culture may have had. If Canada invaded the U.S., would they be the good guys just because their political system and society aren't in the toilet?

Because we know you'll pay $300 for a coffee table book.

Funny story, out of my own stupidity I made my WIFI vulnerable and somebody used my connection without my knowledge to download some obscure swedish war movie. A few weeks later I get mail from a bunch of lawyers and ended up paying 300 bucks for that shit.
You want my WIFI password? No, but if it's a real emergency you could use my computer while I watch.
Not an emergency? You can always go home if you're bored by me.

There's a reason that shit is password protected. I'll lend you ten bucks but I won't tell you my credit card's PIN. I'll give you a lift but I won't give you my car.

I dunno man, this guy comes of as too conspiracy-theorish without enough hard facts. A China nuclear first-strike would be utterly suicidal. China has a nuclear arsenal of around 300 nuclear warheads compared to America's 7000. America alone could nuke the entirety of the country to dust and that's not even considering U.S. allies like the U.K. who would probably launch in retaliation as well.

For a much better fact-based analysis of China's nuclear policies see here.

Only if it spreads evenly to the entire Florida aquifer instantly.
Local users will see a far less diluted effect than those, say, 300 miles away.
Because there's absolutely no method available to test the water until it's pumped to the surface for use, prudence demands you assume maximum contamination level until proven otherwise.
There's also absolutely no measure of the aquifer itself, how it moves, mixes, flows, etc. The system is mostly unmapped. That means it could (not will) stay in the local area and not be diluted much at all, or could go directly into the main body and be diluted 1000 times per day. There's no way to know until they test the aquifer itself, something they have no way to do at this point, they can only test what they draw off at individual wells, with no knowledge of how they're connected underground.

Also, let's be clear, the 250000000 number comes from the polluter, not some independent measurement. If history is a guide, we can expect that number to rise to > 10 times that amount when independent investigators look into it. (Think BP).

Even in the best case scenario, it's exposing the already short supply of fresh water to more toxins. Just because it might be below the level that would condem your home if found there doesn't make it 'safe' by any means. Radiation exposure is cumulative, low levels over a long time can be as dangerous as high levels over a short time.
IMO, your contention is comparative to me saying 'no problem that I'm putting arsenic in your water, I put in only 1/10 the lethal dose...and arsenic is found in nature, so no harm no foul'. You would still get sick, might die, and would likely have problems and stress the rest of your life. I could still be convicted of attempted murder, and rightly so. I get that this wasn't intentional, but it was foreseeable, so more like manslaughter I suppose....of >an entire county.

EDIT: And you didn't address the orange problem. An orange uses 53 liters of water, and it takes 13-15 oranges to make a liter of juice, for a cumulative dose of 742 times the contaminants if you drink a liter of OJ (based on the assumption that an orange will trap the contaminants, a reasonable assumption). Now, at 742 times the diluted dose, are you going to continue to drink Florida OJ? I'm not....and that sucks, I like OJ. Now I'm going to have to try to grow oranges here on the N coast of Cali if I want them....an impossibility. (although I did grow a pineapple here, another impossibility, so we'll see).

There was a 300 player sequel with 30 countries (with 6 to 15 people controlling each country) and 6 separate alien factions, plus 5 megacorporations, 3 competing media organizations, and the pope.

Trump was talking about the Femicide over 500 women now raped murdered but the numbers then were 300+

Mexico government hasn't arrested any as they hop border

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_homicides_in_Ciudad_Juárez


I know his other crap but he's right on Juarez he pointed out the border town.

He was also right saying Mexican Government helicopter opened fire on US border patrol after the Mexican helicopter entered US airspace illegally. A complete act of war.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-dhs-records-detail-mexican-government-helicopter-crossing-border-and-firing-on-b
order-patrol/

DHS confirmed quietly that Trump spoke truth.

We used to call them lawn rollers in the 50's, and we still use them today. Ours held around 300 lbs of water (20" dia x around 42" wide - around 230 l of water plus the steel weight. ) Home Depot has 'em in a variety of sizes today. Different function, identical design.

Revolutionary? If the only other choice is a bucket or a very absorbent rock, then yes. Otherwise, nuh uh.

15,300 @ 38!

Fun!

15,300 through my shitty earbuds. Might try this later with my Beyerdynamic headphones to see if I get a different result.

The volume also fluctuated as it rose in pitch, I don't know if thats the headphones or my ears.

16,300 @ 41, more than happy with that.

First off, 1 in every 300 Americans are NOT on watch list used for this. That's complete horse crap. Less than 5,000 people living in the US would have been impacted by the bill had those people actually tried to get a gun. 1/300 Americans is 0.0033% of Americans. The actual percentage of Americans being impacted? 0.0015384615384615385% with the highest estimate, and that highest estimate would also assume every one of those people would seek to buy a gun where a background check would be conducted.

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/article85294962.html

If you go with the gun ownership rate of roughly 33% (generous), now you're talking 0.000512820512820513% of Americans impacted by the law who would actually go buy a gun, and that's assuming those people ALL went to buy a gun where a background check would be conducted. That's like one out of 2000 people.

Secondly, it was a terrible compromise.

We all need to understand just how ineffectual just the concept of putting anyone on the watchlist would be anyway in stopping a shooting.

We're talking about stopping only the people on the watchlist who are actually trying to buy a gun where they'd do a background check, not a private sale.

And on top of that, if the government can't make a case against them within three days, they get the gun. There's no way the federal government would be able to make a case with all the evidence within three days.

It was ridiculously weak and ineffective as is. The Democrats' bill was a joke, and the GOP's turned into a Carrot Top-esque joke.

1 in every 300 Americans is on the terror watch list.

Dems cried about how bad the watch list is, how it's unfair that innocent people are flagged and have practically zero ability to get their name off the list (unless they're some big wig).

...

But now it's not a retarded broken list that unjustly punishes innocent people without due process. Now it's good to go.

-scheherazade

Lawrence Wilkerson's dismissive comments about self defense are very disrespectful to people who have had to resort to self defense. He wouldn't say things like that had he been unfortunate enough to have had such a personal experience. (As one parent of a Fla victim said - his child would have given anything for a firearm at the time of the event.)

Re. 2nd amendment, yes, it's not for pure self defense. The reasoning is provided within the text. The government is denied legal powers over gun ownership ('shall not be infringed') in order to preserve the ability of the people to form a civilian paramilitary intended to face [presumably invading] foreign militaries in combat ('militia').

It's important to remember that the U.S. is a republic - so the citizens are literally the state (not in abstract, but actually so). As such, there is very little distinction between self defense and state defense - given that self and state are one.

Personally, I believe any preventative law is a moral non-starter. Conceptually they rely on doling out punishment via rights-denial to all people, because some subset might do harm. Punishment should be reserved for those that trespass on others - violating their domain (body/posessions/etc). Punishment should not be preemptive, simply to satiate the fears/imaginations of persons not affected by those punished. Simply, there should be no laws against private activities among consenting individuals. Folks don't have to like what other folks do, and they don't have to be liked either. It's enough to just leave one another alone in peace.

Re. Fla, the guilty party is dead. People should not abuse government to commit 3rd party trespass onto innocent disliked demographics (gun owners) just to lash out. Going after groups of people out of fear or dislike is unjustified.







---------------------------------------------------




As an aside, the focus on "assault rifles" makes gun control advocates appear not sincere, and rather knee-jerk/emotional. Practically all gun killings utilize pistols.

There are only around 400 or so total rifle deaths per year (for all kinds of rifles combined) - which is almost as many as the people who die each year by falling out of bed (ever considered a bed to be deadly? With 300 million people, even low likelihood events must still happen reasonably often. It's important to keep in mind the likelihood, and not simply the totals.).

Around 10'000 people die each day out of all causes. Realistically, rifles of all sorts, especially assault rifles, are not consequential enough to merit special attention - given the vast ocean of far more deadly things to worry about.

If they were calling for a ban+confiscation of all pistols, with a search of every home and facility in the U.S., then I'd consider the advocates to be at least making sense regarding the objective of reducing gun related death.

Also, since sidearms have less utility in a military application, a pistol ban is less anti-2nd-amendment than an assault rifle ban.







As a technical point, ar15s are not actually assault rifles - they just look like one (m4/m16).
Assault rifles are named after the German Sturm Gewehr (storm rifle). It's a rifle that splits the difference between a sub-machinegun (automatic+pistol ammo) and a battle rifle (uses normal rifle/hunting ammo).

- SMG is easy to control in automatic, but has limited damage. (historical example : ppsh-41)

- Battle rifles do lots of damage, but are hard to control (lots of recoil, using full power hunting ammo). (historical example : AVT-40)

- An 'assault rifle' uses something called an 'intermediate cartridge'. It's a shrunken down, weaker version of hunting ammo. A non-high-power rifle round, that keeps recoil in check when shooting automatic. It's stronger than a pistol, but weaker than a normal rifle. But that weakness makes it controllable in automatic fire. (historical example : StG-44)

- The ar15 has no automatic fire. This defeats the purpose of using weak ammo (automatic controlability). So in effect, it's just a weak normal rifle. (The M4/M16 have automatic, so they can make use of the weak ammo to manage recoil - and they happen to look the same).

Practically speaking, a semi-auto hunting rifle is more lethal. A Remington 7400 with box mag is a world deadlier than an ar15. An M1A looks like a hunting rifle, and is likewise deadlier than an ar15. Neither are viewed as evil or dangerous.

You can also get hunting rifles that shoot intermediate cartridges (eg. Ruger Mini14). The lethality is identical to an ar15, but because it doesn't look black and scary, no one complains.

In practice, what makes the ar15 scary is its appearance. The pistol grip, the adjustable stock, the muzzle device, the black color, all are visual identifiers, and those visuals have become politically more important than what it actually does.

You can see the lack of firearms awareness in the proposed laws - proposed bans focus on those visual features. No pistol grips, no adjustable stocks, etc. Basically a listing of ancillary features that evoke scary appearance, and nothing to do with the core capabilities of a firearm.

What has made the ar15 the most popular rifle in the country, is that it has very good ergonomics, and is very friendly to new shooters. The low recoil doesn't scare new shooters away, and the great customizability makes it like a gun version of a tuner-car.

I think its massive success, popularity, and widespread adoption, have made it the most likely candidate to be used in a shooting. It's cursed to be on-hand whenever events like Fla happen.

-scheherazade

Congratulations! Your comment on 300 South African Firefighters Arrive in Edmonton has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.