>> ^jbaber:

Why you should learn to love the metric system.


After reading that link, I think he raised a few good points such as nautical miles, and chopping wood but I still don't see that much advantage of imperial over metric. By example:

Fahrenheit degrees are a 0-100 scale of normal temperature: 0° is quite cold, 100° is quite hot.

Celcius 0° is water freezing and 100° is water boiling at 1 atmosphere, isn't that more intuitive than quite cold and quite hot? You can even use water to measure temperature.

Traditional units naturally express an estimation's margin of error.
Because there are units for every scale, my choice of units expresses my confidence in an estimate. Telling you my couch is about 10 ft. 6 in. wide expresses more confidence than saying it is about 10 ft. wide. Because metric units differ by such great amounts, there is often no way to do this. I must say my couch is about 3 meters or 300cm wide. The former implies my margin of error is 1 meter, and the latter that it's 1cm. In reality, I must depend on the roundness of 300 to imply that my margin of error is 10cm.

Err, what about saying it's about 3.3 meters? You can be as vague or precise as you want with metric. How is it intuitive if you can't express the measurement with fraction?

The steps between units are often small and intuitive.... ...A few feet is a yard. A few yards is a rod. A few rods is a chain. 10 chains is a furlong. 8 furlongs is a mile.

What? How is that intuitive? How do you trust measures when you can say a few something is a another thing? How many is a few?

To me, most arguments are about "Imperial is good because I'm familiar with the notions.", which can apply to any deprecated local standard and shouldn't be used as proof of being intuitive.

FYI, I grew up in China that uses another local system which nobody else use. I never liked it even though it mostly uses the power of 10 like the metric system. It's just too arbitrary of a scale to be any use other than understanding what old people is trying to say.

Yeah.

And thanks.

In reply to this comment by legacy0100:
*promote.

Rest In Peace dude.

*promote LOL LOL LOL Old people are so funny sometimes LOL LOL

Old people ruin everything. I wait patiently for them to die.

Ultimately, that's why I'm so upset about this whole mess. Republicans and ALEC have essentially decided that not having any meaningful control on gun ownership wasn't good enough, they needed to give gun owners a license to kill too.

This is a very high-stakes version of the burden of proof fallacy. Why is it that Zimmerman got to shoot and kill someone based solely on his suspicions, but we can't arrest him for it unless we can prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he knew Treyvon wasn't a threat?

Why does the unarmed boy not get the "innocent until proven guilty" treatment? Because Zimmerman has already executed him? How could that be right?

Why isn't everyone unanimous in saying that we have to get to the bottom of not only what happened, but how we can fix our laws and institutions to treat a situation like this in a just way?

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

You can, under Stand Your Ground, follow someone, initiate a fight, and kill them if you "fear for your life," which the prosecution must prove that you didn't, indeed, fear for your life (And that's some proving to do... especially when there is a gun involved, even the assialents gun, that could be 'taken away.')
In fact, a judge ruled that even if the person killed was retreating, it didn't matter. The defendant could murder him in cold blood and be fine...
Face it, there is no cover up, only a flawed law created by a bunch of scared white old people.

A stereo thief hit a guy with a bag of like 6 pounds. He got stabbed to death. The stabber got off. The stabber had been the one to chase him down... SYoG...

>> ^Porksandwich:

>> ^Lawdeedaw:
No, this video is not damning evidence... Stand Your Ground is obviously not understood by most members on the Sift.
Many individuals have gotten off scott-free because of this law. It has nothing to do with the police or their actions, or even competence of the prosecutors. Judges strike down Zimmerman-like cases all the time in Florida. What people want here is an exception.
You can, under Stand Your Ground, follow someone, initiate a fight, and kill them if you "fear for your life," which the prosecution must prove that you didn't, indeed, fear for your life (And that's some proving to do... especially when there is a gun involved, even the assialents gun, that could be 'taken away.')
In fact, a judge ruled that even if the person killed was retreating, it didn't matter. The defendant could murder him in cold blood and be fine...
Face it, there is no cover up, only a flawed law created by a bunch of scared white old people.
Got a whole bunch of people who are defending Zimmerman not because they feel he's innocent, but because he used a gun. If it had been a knife or anything else, I don't think there would be so many supporters for Zimmerman under the SYG law.
But there is this constant fear that someone's coming to take their guns, that any law that makes it easier to keep and use their guns is sacrosanct. There is no actual "question" about it being reasonable or in the realm of sanity that someone could provoke a fight then kill the person. But it's become huge, because people see that the primary thing being used in these encounters are guns. And in fact they are being used against unarmed people most often.
In fact, there's news that gun enthusiasts are donating to Zimmerman's defense...simply because he used a gun. Not that they think he's actually not guilty gun or not....if it had been a baseball bat or kitchen knife...people wouldn't care nearly as much.

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

No, this video is not damning evidence... Stand Your Ground is obviously not understood by most members on the Sift.
Many individuals have gotten off scott-free because of this law. It has nothing to do with the police or their actions, or even competence of the prosecutors. Judges strike down Zimmerman-like cases all the time in Florida. What people want here is an exception.
You can, under Stand Your Ground, follow someone, initiate a fight, and kill them if you "fear for your life," which the prosecution must prove that you didn't, indeed, fear for your life (And that's some proving to do... especially when there is a gun involved, even the assialents gun, that could be 'taken away.')
In fact, a judge ruled that even if the person killed was retreating, it didn't matter. The defendant could murder him in cold blood and be fine...
Face it, there is no cover up, only a flawed law created by a bunch of scared white old people.

Got a whole bunch of people who are defending Zimmerman not because they feel he's innocent, but because he used a gun. If it had been a knife or anything else, I don't think there would be so many supporters for Zimmerman under the SYG law.

But there is this constant fear that someone's coming to take their guns, that any law that makes it easier to keep and use their guns is sacrosanct. There is no actual "question" about it being reasonable or in the realm of sanity that someone could provoke a fight then kill the person. But it's become huge, because people see that the primary thing being used in these encounters are guns. And in fact they are being used against unarmed people most often.

In fact, there's news that gun enthusiasts are donating to Zimmerman's defense...simply because he used a gun. Not that they think he's actually not guilty gun or not....if it had been a baseball bat or kitchen knife...people wouldn't care nearly as much.

No, this video is not damning evidence... Stand Your Ground is obviously not understood by most members on the Sift.

Many individuals have gotten off scott-free because of this law. It has nothing to do with the police or their actions, or even competence of the prosecutors. Judges strike down Zimmerman-like cases all the time in Florida. What people want here is an exception.

You can, under Stand Your Ground, follow someone, initiate a fight, and kill them if you "fear for your life," which the prosecution must prove that you didn't, indeed, fear for your life (And that's some proving to do... especially when there is a gun involved, even the assialents gun, that could be 'taken away.')

In fact, a judge ruled that even if the person killed was retreating, it didn't matter. The defendant could murder him in cold blood and be fine...

Face it, there is no cover up, only a flawed law created by a bunch of scared white old people.

>> ^Darkhand:

>> ^Yogi:
>> ^longde:
Reading about this case a little more, I now see that Zimmerman's pop is a (retired) judge. Things are starting to make a little more sense. It appears the race factors is overshadowed by a cronyism factor in this case, and his slap on the wrist for assaulting cops in the past.

Was his dad a former judge in Florida? Cause I really don't understand if he isn't...it just seems completely stupid not to arrest him, even if you're GREAT BUDDIES with his dad. Surely you'd have to know that this is a really stupid career risk (not mentioning how fucking wrong it is).

These are my thoughts exactly and what leads me to be skeptical about what's going on. I could understand (but don't condone obviously) why they would try to cover this up. But the SECOND it hit national media if I was in there shoes I would instantly said "after further review of the evidence we are now placing Zimmerman under arrest and will hold him until trial". Then prayed nobody tried to sue me or something.
Then again I guess the pressure on them is so intense to not mess it up they don't want to hold zimmerman for too long and then have his (zimmerman's) attorney sue or try to get the case dropped because of "due process"
This video is very damning evidence against Zimmerman. The family is now saying "wait for the hospital records" but my understanding is if you have a broken nose the area around your face would be bruised right? His brother is saying "His (George's) nose is swollen". I'm not a doctor so maybe someone else wants to chime in here?

gymnastics is fucking boring. ( mostly due to the stuffy nature of the competition ) , most of my anger is from having to watch hours and hours of it.

But as a way to keep fit and healthy in old age really good and its really nice that presumably this is something she enjoys and for old people to have something social and healthy to do is always good.

Just think as well by maintaing allot of the basic gymnastic skills of tumbling how less likely an older person would be to brake a hip or fall over in the first place. If they do fall over then they will know how to fall in a way that does less damage.

I really hope I don't have a fucked up body when i get older , or if i do IT and VR have got to the piont that its not an issue.

>> ^Norsuelefantti:

Too bad I can't see who is driving, because it really would have helped to reinforce my prejudices against women/old people/etc.


Doesn't seem to matter... without seeing it 'she' got referenced a couple of times.

>> ^Norsuelefantti:

Too bad I can't see who is driving, because it really would have helped to reinforce my prejudices against women/old people/etc.


Wouldn't it just be beautiful then if a troop of monkeys came pouring out of the drivers side door after the car finally stopped?

Too bad I can't see who is driving, because it really would have helped to reinforce my prejudices against women/old people/etc.

Old people lose their minds, especially those with illness or drug addictions. Ever seen an interview with the older Marlon Brando? John McCain? Liz Taylor? Laurence Olivier? All were smart people at one time and in late life were near drooling idiots. The list is long.
Rush was a pretty sharp mind back in the day too, now he's senile and needs to get off the air and put in a home.

>> ^bmacs27:

Worse, they haven't shown any evidence that it reduces violence in any circumstance. Like you said, counter-intuitive, but intuition is quite often wrong. >> ^GeeSussFreeK:
Indeed, it might be counter intuitive, but non-lethal weapons might increase the chances of violence in certain contexts
http://videosift.com/video/TED-Stephen-Coleman-The-moral
-dangers-of-non-lethal-weapons
Very good TED.
>> ^bmacs27:
Okay, something has to be done. It's time to take away their tasers.




Before Tasers have you heard of too many children and old people being assaulted by police officers? I say we take away their tasers...make them us WORDS and maybe they'll actually be a part of the community rather than just it's jailers.