*quality and completely awful in that quality.
tech changed it; I mean, just think: Amazon and Microsoft. And Seattle just passed a payroll tax against Amazon's wishes to try and pay for some of the services the voters think the homeless folks need (there's an effect from gentrification in this case).
At the end, he wishes Seattle would "take him back". I think he means the Seattle of the 90s. It's a lot different now, thanks to Corporate America discovering there's money to be vacuumed up.
Seabirds drop shells on roads to either directly break them open and eat the shellfish inside--or wait until cars run them over and then eat the insides. Amazingly unlucky.
Fair enough. The striking thing, in most narratives, is: how extreme trigger discipline is in active military units.
A man is susceptible to the attitudes of the group he identifies himself with. I wouldn't consider him a soldier after long. There is an indoctrination in both groups. I just believe the military has a focus that's easier to avoid the mentality I ascribe to police. The us v. them mentality makes the bad cops worse, makes most cops protect the bad, and makes the exceedingly good somewhat rare.
You would end up dying your front steps lol. However. More interesting to have a triggered spray of Butyric Acid triggered at his boulders at the edge of the lawn by an electric eye AFTER the box trap is triggered.
I wonder if it would be legal to use dye packs like banks use. That way you could mark the offenders and everyone would know they were up to no good.
Just kill me *wtf
Serious question: If that's true--then what happens with those of the ex-military (note: not all ex-military) who become police and are perceived as "occupying" minority neighborhoods? Is that a sort of "they are all insurgents" kind of thing?
I would argue your military dictatorships are, in truth, just REALLY well equipped police forces, not actual militaries. Police have always had an us vs them attitude towards "civilians". The military has always felt it was a protector. That's why I'd trust a soldier before the "law".
Maybe blanks? Is that actually a range?
Reminds me of the current rally footage we get of pedestrians close to race cars and their predicted pathways if something goes even slightly wrong...
I'm sure the fans on Videosift (including me) have seen their very public exposition of how they basically only break even on touring? Truly, a project of passion.
May not have been a deliberate act; head down, looking into a cell phone, stepping off the bridge to use the head (toilet)--no watch, no radar alert---and then you have a lot of mass moving really pretty darn quick and a collision course.
This looks like a game of high-stakes chicken. There are a set of international collision regulations (COLREGS) that every cadet all over the world has to learn by heart to gain a certificate of competency. Sometimes these rules are inaccurately reduced to "right of way" rules. In fact, the rules oblige actions on all ships in a potential collision situation: one will be the "stand-on vessel", and the other will be the "give-way vessel": obliged to make an early and obvious maneuver to avoid the collision, in a prescribed direction (generally turn to starboard). The ships involved can instead get on the radio and negotiate a different plan, but absent that, these are the rules. One rule governs overtaking, where the vessel being overtaken is the "stand-on vessel" and the vessel overtaking is the "give-way vessel". Another governs crossing, where in a crossing path situation the vessel which has the other ship to port (on the left, looking forward) is the "stand-on vessel" and the other is the "give-way vessel". So in the situation we see in the video, the ship in which we are standing is clearly to port of the other vessel and so would be the "give-way" vessel. It should have made a slight starboard turn much much much earlier to pass behind the other vessel. Except what if the other vessel overtook this ship and passed in front? This happens sometimes, where a vessel in a hurry and in the "give-way" position decides to make an early change to put it in the "stand-on" position and force the other ship to move. This is what's known internationally as a "dick move" and probably criminal. Unless we have the full radar track for both ships we can't know who was at fault. Since they thankfully didn't collide, the MAIB won't have to figure this out and send anyone to jail.
Not yet a member? No problem!Sign-up just takes a second.
Forgot your password?Recover it now.
Check your email for a verification code and enter it below.Don't close this box or you must fill out this form again.
Already signed up?Log in now.
Remember your password?Log in now.