Your video, How to avoid to being mugged., has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Steam link is very interesting to me.

I'm a PC gamer. I don't own any consoles and 99% of the time I'm perfectly happy with that (using a controller for an FPS is sick and wrong!).

But there are some games I would like to play from my couch with a controller (Arkham for instance)

As for the controller itself, it looks ok, but I really don't see any reason to use it over my trusty old 360 pad. As I said, I'll never play an fps with anything other than kbm, so unless it's better for driving or 3rd person, I'm gonna go with meh.

Oh and just in case anyone thinks I'm just hating on Valve, I'm drinking coffee at work from my aperture science mug and I have a signed poster of the TF2 heavy in my house

Same here. Its just that mugging people for the cash to build one gets really tiresome....

Better question, how many cops would admit to being mugged?
It's funny how people treat guns almost as if they are some kind of talisman against evil. Simply having a gun does not guarantee that you are perfectly safe. If the hypothetical mugger also has a gun and gets the drop on you then most likely that mugger will soon have two guns.

Guns are not protection? Then why don't cops get mugged?

With all of the talent-less, pointless mugging for the camera you see on the internet this was actually worth watching. Well done.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by blackfox42.

It is a yeast extract that is not dissimilar in taste to demiglaze stock off the bottom of a pan (ie. stock boiled down to the consistency of, well, vegemite...)

Aka, incredibly concentrated.

With melted butter on toast, you apply would be lovingly described as a smear. You mix it with the melted butter to form a savoury topping rather than a "good old US PB&J thickness coating".

As an aside, a single teaspoon of vegemite makes a reasonably strong broth in a mug that is great for sore throats.

But please America, keep on spreading it on like cake frosting, we love the videos... =D

I agree, there's clearly a missing piece. She didn't pick the colors by the order they were presented to her (in which case silver would have been 2nd), and he made no mention of other cues which would have lead to her selecting them in that order. Maybe it was simply top to bottom, other than the horse being first due to cobalt being shoved in her face. He does have a big honkin' earpiece in though, which would have made it easy for someone to feed him her marker selections. Occams razor: is it more likely that he was being fed her selections and telling her which animals to color accordingly, or that some subtle unknown cue caused her to pick the marker order she did? The subtle imagery clues he referenced (Katy's amber owl mug for example) appear to me to be total red herrings, as he told her the animal after she selected the color.

"Imagine yourself taking a stroll through Manhattan, somewhere north of 68th street, deep inside Central Park, late at night. It would be nice to meet someone friendly, but you know that the park is dangerous at night. That's when the monsters come out. There's always a strong undercurrent of drug dealings, muggings, and occasional homicides.

It is not easy to distinguish the good guys from the bad guys. They dress alike, and the weapons are concealed. The only difference is intent, and you can't read minds.

Stay in the dark long enough and you may hear an occasional distant shriek or blunder across a body.

How do you survive the night? The last thing you want to do is shout, "I'm here!" The next to last thing you want to do is reply to someone who shouts, "I'm a friend!"

What you would like to do is find a policeman, or get out of the park. But you don't want to make noise or move towards a light where you might be spotted, and it is difficult to find either a policeman or your way out without making yourself known. Your safest option is to hunker down and wait for daylight, then safely walk out.

There are, of course, a few obvious differences between Central Park and the universe.

There is no policeman.

There is no way out.

And the night never ends."

I live in the middle of town and hear this some nights.

Makes you think twice about walking around alone at night.

I don't worry about rapes and muggings, I worry about being dinner!

I tried, I really did, but I only got a minute or two into before I just wanted to punch him in the face.

I'll try again.....

nope, can't do it. He's just so fucking self-satisfied.

That doesn't mean I agree with David Cameron either (terrible excuse for a human that he is), simply that I wish we had someone better than Brand.

I've said before that he can be eloquent and impassioned when he's talking about something he has experience with, but he's just mugging it up here and I have no interest in it.

Yikes, too much text to respond to specifically so here's an overall rebuttal to modulus:

Guns already exist. There are millions of guns out there. Guns last a long time and can be used repeatedly by many different people. Guns can easily be smuggled and distributed illegally. There will always be a demand for guns (for legal and illegal purposes) because they are very effective at what they do. The person holding the gun will always have power over the person holding nothing. Even if the U.S. banned all guns and the production of guns, gun makers would just continue manufacturing guns in other countries and guns would be smuggled into the country, just like narcotics.

Just as the ban on drugs has proven woefully ineffective, a ban on guns wouldn't accomplish anything either. D.C. has very strict gun laws and the lowest gun ownership (legal ownership, at least) in the country and yet their gun-related crime rate is by far the highest. I'm talking more than double the rate of the next highest state. Conversely, Vermont has very lax gun laws and more than ten times the gun ownership of D.C. yet it has the lowest gun crime rate in the country. Wyoming has the highest gun ownership in the country and extremely lax gun laws yet it has among the lowest gun crime rates. In fact, if you look at the states with the lowest crime rates, you'll notice that the vast majority of them have minimal gun control laws.

Finally, you say you've been robbed, mugged and assaulted on numerous occasions. Do you think that would have happened if you were clearly armed? When given a choice between robbing someone who's armed and someone who isn't, do you honestly think criminals would ever choose the armed candidate? When you ban guns, you're just letting criminals know that they can do what they want with minimal risk. Your personal experiences only convince me that guns are a more effective deterrent than being unarmed.

" At present, a little more than half of all Americans own the sum total of about 320 million guns, 36% of which are handguns, but fewer than 100,000 of these guns are used in violent crimes."

Per year. You don't cite your source, but this is looks to me to be an underestimate. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics' National Crime Victimization Survey there are half about half a million people claiming to be victim of a gun related crime over the course of a year. I remember being a victim of a gun crime in America (the perp was an British-born and educated woman) where the police said that they weren't going to follow things up because they were too busy with more serious crimes and they weren't confident of successful prosecution, they didn't even bother to look at the bullets or interview the perpetrator. I'd be surprised if it was even officially reported for crime statistic purposes.

"So gun ownership tends increase where violence is the least."

You didn't discuss the confounding variables.

But nevertheless, nobody is saying that owning guns makes you intrinsically more criminal. The argument here seems to be that criminals or those with criminal intent will find it much easier to acquire firearms when there are hundreds of millions of them distributed in various degrees of security across the US.

And those that have firearms, who are basically normal and moral people, may find themselves in a situation where their firearm is used, even in error, and causes harm - a situation obviously avoided in the absence of firearms and something that isn't necessarily included in crime statistics.

"In the UK, where guns are virtually banned, 43% of home burglaries occur when people are in the home"

Yes, but here's a fun fact. I've been burgled a few times, all but one of those times I was at home when it happened. You know what the burglar was armed with? Nothing. Do you know what happened when I confronted him with a wooden weapon? He pretended he knew someone that lived there and when that fell through he ran away. When the police apprehended him, there wasn't any consideration that he might be armed with a gun and the police merely put handcuffs on him and he walked to the police car. He swore and made some idle and non-specific threats, according to the police, but that's it. In any event, this isn't extraordinary. There are still too many burglaries that do involve violence, of course.
Many burglaries in Britain are actually vehicle crimes, with opportunity thrown in. That is: The primary purpose of the burglary is to acquire car keys (this is often the easiest way to steal modern vehicles), but they may grab whatever else is valuable and easy too.

"The federal ban on assault weapons from '94-'04 did not impact amount and severity of school shootings."

What impact did it have on gun prevalence? Not really enough to stop the sentence 'guns are prevalent in the US' from being true....

" So, it's likely that gun-related crimes will increase if the general population is unarmed."

I missed the part where you provided the reasoning that connects your evidence to this conclusion.

"Note retail gun sales is the only area that gun control legislation can affect, since existing laws have failed to control for illegal activity. "

This is silly. Guns don't get manufactured and then 32% of them get stolen from the manufacturers warehouse. They get bought and some get subsequently stolen. If there were less guns made and sold there would be less guns available for felons to acquire them privately, less places to steal them or buy stolen ones on the black market, less opportunity for renting or purchasing from a retailer. Thus - less felons with guns.

If times got tough, and I thought robbing a convenience store was a way out of a situation I was in - I would not be able to acquire a firearm without putting myself in considerable danger that outweighs the benefits to the degree that pretending to have a gun is a better strategy. I have 'black market contacts' so I might be able to work my way to someone with a gun, but I really don't want to get into business with someone that deals guns because they are near universally bad news.

" states with right-to-carry laws have a 30% lower homicide rate and a 46% lower robbery rate."

Almost all States have such laws, making the comparison pretty meaningless.

"In fact, it's {number of mass shootings} declined from 42 incidents in 1990 to 26 from 2000-2012. Until recently, the worst school shootings took place in the UK or Germany. "

I think 'most dead in one incident' is a poor measure. I think total dead over a reasonable time period is probably better.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rampage_killers:_School_massacres
The UK appears once. It is approx. 1/5 the population of the US. The US manages to have five incidents in the top 10.

Statistics can be fun, though, huh?

" In any case, do we have any evidence to believe that the regulators (presumably the police in this instance) will be competent, honest, righteous, just, and moral enough to take away the guns from private citizens"

You've done a lot of hard work to show that most gun owners are law-abiding and non-violent. As such, the police won't go door to door, citizens will go to the police.

"How will you enforce the regulation and/or remove the guns from those who resist turning over their guns?"

The same way they remove contraband from other recalcitrants. I expect most of them will ask, demand, threaten and then use force - but as usual there will be examples where it won't be pretty.

"Do the police not need guns to get those with the guns to turn over their guns?"

That's how it typically goes down here in the UK, yes.

"Does this then not presume that "gun control" is essentially an aim for only the government (i.e., the centralized political elite and their minions) to have guns at the exclusion of everyone else?"

The military has had access to weapons the citizenry is not permitted to for some considerable time. Banning most handguns etc., would just be adding to the list.

"Is the government so reliable, honest, moral, virtuous, and forward thinking as to ensure that the intentions of gun control legislation go exactly as planned?"

No, but on the other hand, can the same unreliable, dishonest, immoral and unvirtuous government ensure that allowing general access to firearms will go exactly as planned?

You see, you talk the talk of sociological examination, but you seem to have neglected any form of critical reflection.

"From a sociological perspective, it's interesting to note that those in favor of gun control tend to live in relatively safe and wealthy neighborhoods where the danger posed by violent crime is far less than in those neighborhoods where gun ownership is believed to be more acceptable if not necessary

"From a sociological perspective, it's interesting to note that those in favor of gun control tend to live in relatively safe and wealthy neighborhoods where the danger posed by violent crime is far less than in those neighborhoods where gun ownership is believed to be more acceptable if not necessary"

On the other hand, I've been mugged erm, 6 times? I've been violently assaulted without attempts to rob another half dozen or so. I don't tend to hang around in the sorts of places middle class WASPs would loiter, shall we say. I'm glad most of the people that cross my path are not armed, and have little to no idea how to get a gun.

You don't source this assertion as far as I saw - but you'll have to do better than 'it's interesting' in your analysis, I'm afraid.

No formatting, because too much typing already.

That was awful, games like this just don't fit in the "coca cola" marketing world.. Firefly universe is dirty and gritty with a good sense of humor, not far from post-apocalyptic genre. It certainly is not Farmville or Sims, where this ad would fit perfectly.. If it wasn't Firefly, this ad would cause zero interest from my part and it makes me think that the game is utter crap.

Total fail. Hope the game is good (their website is down atm and it seems the publisher is not even remotely prepared for release yet, apart from some beer mugs etc merc)