@enoch

The problem with the gun control debate is that both options are authoritarian. Which do you prefer, the government having the power to limit your access to guns, or individuals having the power to easily end your life at will? It's a lose/lose proposition from that POV.

After a gun enthusiast massacred 35 people in Australia in 1996, the government got serious about gun reform. They enacted strict gun control measures and gun homicides dropped 59% over the course of 10 years. In the decade before gun reform, they suffered 11 gun rampages; they have not suffered another gun rampage since.

In your opinion, what is the downside of only police and military having weapons? (for the sake of argument, let's assume that hunting weapons remain legal, because their main function is not to end human life.)

Source:
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Asia-Pacific/2012/1224/Could-the-US-learn-from-Australia-s-gun-control-laws

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Sounds more like Tea Party than say, Occupy Wall Street. I'm a little surprised and can't believe this is a uniform or even majority Anonymous POV.

POV Santa action...

Every paragraph you write to me lately is simply stringing the same three ad homs together in a different order (you are a dogmatist, you dont understand science, you dont engage with critical thinking).

They're not ad homs. They're what I see. They're substantiated by fact. "Crackhead" would be an ad hom because I have no reason to believe that you are addicted to illegal narcotics. But it's empirically true that religious canon is dogma and you believe religious canon, that you repeatedly speak in non-scientific ways, and that you jump to convenient conclusions as part of your argument style rather than investigating the claims you're making.

You say you've inquired about my views. I don't remember that happening, except when you were baiting me into a certain admission that you had a prepared answer for. But then you didn't listen to my response to your answer, at least not in an open-minded and critical way. You regularly claim to have the answer. It's only when forced into a corner based on the fact that you're human and fallible that you ever admit you technically could be wrong. You just proved it again, BTW. "Your PoV is apparently blah blah blah." There's all sorts of possible PoVs that I could have, but dogmatically believing in everything a scientist says couldn't be one of them. As a scientific person, that's not a possible position for me to hold. You haven't accepted that you have lost credibility due to your lack of scientific understanding. You never ask how your understanding is wrong. If you wanted to learn, there's all sorts you could learn, but you retreat into playing the victim. If you've got nothing left, you claim you're being attacked. I'm arguing against you, and then honestly explaining why I'm not putting in any more effort; I'm not attacking. I'm not trying to hurt your feelings. I'm telling you mine, my opinions about you, what those opinions are based on and what they entail for the limit of where I'm willing to go in our conversations.

I may or may not understand the basics of your current argument about uniformitariansim, and so forth, but I sure understand the basics of scientific thought, and that comes first. I can read a book or watch a lecture and learn about uniformitariansim, but when I come back, you still won't understand how to talk scientifically. That's why I'm not going to bother talking to you about science except to hear your reasons for claiming something in modern science is pseudoscience (If I were dogmatic about science, I wouldn't even ask you), and if I think your argument is strong enough, I'll get interested and maybe learn something. I have learned some things, but none that overturn the science you claim it does. The fact that you think you have presented enough information to overturn anything in science shows how little you understand science.

So, you wanna be openly curious about my religious views, I'm here for you. I'll talk about that as long as you want. You want to have a real conversation about science? You have to accept that you don't understand what science is first. Are you humble enough to admit you might not understand it? As always, curious, open-minded and willing to be surprised.

I understand that you guys are jealous of my one eyed POV filming technique

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^Jinx:
>> ^Yogi:
>> ^Jinx:
I don't rly think Obama is as bad as Yogi thinks...

Cause you don't know anything.

Ur cute. :3
You might have an easier time making your argument if you didn't take/make everything quite so personal. Just a thought.

Yeah don't take the deaths of people you don't know so personally, it only matters when they're killing white people.


I respect your analysis and position Yogi but the fact is someone is going to be running the battle station. You have a binary choice here, do you think Romney will be BETTER at standing up to the Complex? Obamas probe droids are (from his POV at least) preferable to myopic & masochistic puritan invasions and total genocide.. imagine a standoff betwen nuclear fleets in the South China Sea.. who would you rather have calling the shots?

>> ^Fletch:

You say "bullshit", and then give an example that demonstrates exactly the opposite.

That's because they are two separate issues. One is about red light cameras and speed cameras in urban areas, and the other is road traffic policing on open roads.

>> ^Fletch:

No camera at the dangerous corner, but cameras where people are likely to exceed the speed limit (albeit safely)? Gee, I wonder why they would do that? Maybe because they raise more revenue putting cameras where there is little danger, but high return via fines. If speed cameras were truly a deterrent, and they chose not to put a camera at the known dangerous corner, then they either don't believe they are a deterrent and just place the cameras for maximum revenue, or they don't give a shit about public safety and, again, place the cameras for maximum revenue.

Possible. But in the grand scheme of things, I don't believe the revenue raised is a significant sum from a government pov. More likely, it's that the cops are under pressure to be seen to be enforcing speed limits and so do so in a place that will allow them to say "look how many people we caught".

>> ^Fletch:

I average about one speeding ticket every two years or so, and it hasn't deterred me in any way. I just think of the fine, spread out over 24 months, as the price I pay to drive however the hell I want.

Again, in any sane system, you would have your licence suspended for repeated infringement.

>> ^Fletch:

Nothing the government does, such as approving red light cameras, comes without cost/benefit considerations, and there is no benefit ($) to "fewer people running red lights".

Apart from less crashes, which couldn't possibly lead to other benefits to governments like less use of emergency services? Plus a whole bunch of knock-on effects that stem from this. Not to mention all the intangibles such as voter popularity declining in the face of an increasing road toll.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Bunjee Jump, Tower, Rig, Ropes, Facial Expression, POV' to 'Bungee Jump, Tower, Rig, Ropes, Facial Expression, POV' - edited by calvados

I wouldnt be so presumptious as to suggest what you completely missing the point suggests about you - something to think about? I believe hes a self-centred scumbag whose profile fits the criminal charges laid against him. What isnt my personal opinion is the completely impartial legal process which found him liable for extradition to answer the charges against him.

I wonder if his love of human rights extends to tackling the Ecuadorian extra judicial killings, 'disappearances' of reporters and the law which locks you up for 2 years if you insult el presidente? Somehow, I dont think Assange willl lose a nights sleep over a troubled conscience when it comes to keeping Assange out of jail. Hes just that kind of guy...>> ^dag:

That you've already judged him a criminal explains your POV completely.>> ^thumpa28:
Why should the swedish government do anything more than stick to the extradition process? When has it become a part of the extradition process that the person being extradited sets out the terms of his extradition?
'but Assange is special!'
No, no he isnt, hes just another criminal in hiding. The fact he says he is and that you seriously think that it should affect whether or not he is brought to justice, makes me glad that we have in this country an independent judiciary who rely on more than the latest daily mail opinion for their decision making process.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

That you've already judged him a criminal explains your POV completely.>> ^thumpa28:

Why should the swedish government do anything more than stick to the extradition process? When has it become a part of the extradition process that the person being extradited sets out the terms of his extradition?
'but Assange is special!'
No, no he isnt, hes just another criminal in hiding. The fact he says he is and that you seriously think that it should affect whether or not he is brought to justice, makes me glad that we have in this country an independent judiciary who rely on more than the latest daily mail opinion for their decision making process.

>> ^doogle:

if the video was upside down we'd get a 1st person POV
LifeHack: Place the long edge of your smartphone against your eyebrows with the screen toward the floor. Voila! Instant video inversion! (Note: The phone should be off while watching the video on your desktop.)

if the video was upside down we'd get a 1st person POV

>> ^rottenseed:

WOW! POV Porn will be SO EASY! MONEY SHOT! MONEY SHOT! HEEEEEY MONEY SHOT!

But watch out for the blooper reels where the money shot lands on the camera lens...

Saw MIB3 this weekend on impulse. It was okay, wouldn't necessarily recommend it unless you want a seriously breezy and disposable movie. Definitely better than the 2nd one, which is not hard to do. If they make another one they need to open up the scale a bit. This movie's budget (admittedly with marketing) is reported at $250 million. That is insane. There are only two real money sequences: a chase to end act 2 that looks like the Obi-Wan and Darth Grievous chase in episode III, and the climax which takes place at the launch of the moon mission at Cape Canaveral in 1969 and looks a lot like Apollo 13.

This movie has some really dumb and small-scale choices. Smith's character is equipped with a device that requires him to plunge from a height in order to gain enough speed to "time-jump". The movie climaxes with Smith literally standing on top of the saturn rocket lifting off for the first manned moon landing. You'd think they'd have a money shot with Smith jumping off the rocket as it lifts off. Those things went pretty slow to start, you could survive the first 30 seconds it takes to get up to any kind of speed, and then jump off for an awesome looking stunt. Or, hell, if I were writing the movie, have him just stay on the rocket until it reaches the necessary ascent speed (something like 100 MPH or some shit.. I remember thinking it didn't sound far from 88MPH), which wouldn't take long after the rockets fire. Then Smith is transported into the future thousands of feet in the air and you have a post-climax gag where he's falling apparently to his death only to have Jones' character sweep in at the last second and save him in a flying car or flying alien bubble pod more likely. Smith's character would be like "How in DA HELL you know I was gonna falling through the air over Florida man!?!?" and Jones' character would put up the video feed that only MIB had access to of Smith riding the rocket and disappearing from 1969's POV. "We had a lot of eyes on that mission" or some shit. Do I have to write this crap for you Hollywood? It flies out of my butthole effortlessly. Instead Smith's character jumps into an evacuation basket and rides it down a zip-line... and this is not even filmed in an interesting way. A whole lot of this movie looked sort of non-commital, like 2nd unit did the whole thing.

They added a "poignant twist" to the time travel aspect which is the same problem with so many movie series these days... Star Wars, Star Trek, Spider-Man.. in a sequel, everything is revealed to have been previously connected.. connected from the start in fact! Oh yawn... more than 30 years later people are still trying to re-create the "I am your father" buzz from Empire Strikes Back. Always at the expense of cheapening the overall franchise and sapping meaning from the actions the characters took in preceeding films. What's worse, they layered on some spiritual/karmic hokum to support another cliche forced by executive interference.

It's crazy to think the first movie turns 15 years old this year. I thought it would be an eternal classic, but the last time I watched it, which might actually have been when MIB2 was coming out a whole ten years ago, it did not hold up.