We'll begin with box, and the plural is boxes;
But the plural of ox should be oxen, not oxes.

Then one fowl is goose, but two are called geese,
Yet the plural of moose should never be meese.

You may find a lone mouse or a nest full of mice,
Yet the plural of house is houses, not hice.

If the plural of man is always called men,
Why shouldn't the plural of pan be called pen?

The cow in the plural may be cows or kine,
But the plural of vow is vows, not vine.

I speak of my foot and show you my feet,
If I give you a boot, would a pair be called beet?

If one is a tooth, and a whole set are teeth,
Why shouldn't the plural of booth be called beeth?

If the singular is this and the plural is these,
Why shouldn't the plural of kiss be named kese?

Then one may be that, and three may be those,
Yet the plural of hat would never be hose;

We speak of a brother, and also of brethren,
But though we say mother, we never say methren.

The masculine pronouns are he, his and him,
But imagine the feminine she, shis, and shim!

So our English, I think, you all will agree,
Is the craziest language you ever did see.

I take it you already know
Of tough and bough and cough and dough?

Others may stumble, but not you,
On hiccough, thorough, slough, and through?

Well done! And now you wish, perhaps
To learn of less familiar traps?

Beware of heard, a dreadful word,
That looks like beard and sounds like bird.

And dead; it's said like bed, not bead;
For goodness sake, don't call it deed!

Watch out for meat and great and threat;
They rhyme with suite and straight and debt.

A moth is not a moth in mother,
Nor both in bother, broth in brother.

And here is not a match for there,
Or dear and fear for bear and pear.

And then there's dose and rose and lose,
Just look them up, and goose and choose.

And cork and work and card and ward,
And font and front and word and sword.

And do and go, then thwart and cart.
Come, come, I've hardly made a start.

A dreadful language? Why, man alive,
I'd learned to talk it when I was five,
And yet to write it, the more I tried,
I hadn't learned it at fifty-five!

I don't travel TO work. I'm AT work 24 hrs. a day, 6 days week. I'm getting paid right now to reply to you. Someone would literally have to die to pull me away from replying to you right now. (not a compliment, just fact)

Then I will travel to the scene, pick up the deceased and take it just shy of its "final destination."

If I should happen to get pulled over for going 10 mph over the speed limit, the officer would gladly let me go or give me a police escort depending on the situation.

It is my job and a privilege to do my job which includes driving. As I stated earlier, it is also my right to travel as a licensed driver.

I also have verifiable proof of my pristine driving record.

Post my bail. I'm not falling that old trick again.

Good. Thin the herd.
People dumb enough to just strap lead to themselves and sink in the briny deep with no training or support, we can do without.
They certainly are not a good reason to hide or shy away from those who do it exceptionally well.

The original test I did way back was on a different site that looks shutdown now. On there though it mentioned that it's very similar set of questions was basically pre-screening they would normally do to see if they bother testing you further or not. AKA, if you test 'normal' on this, they stop there. If your result is other than that they would do further tests to confirm a diagnosis.

Technically no matter how high you test on something like this, it's not a diagnosis and I've never done anything further myself. The fact I tested way out on the high end on the test though left me pretty sure further testing would conclude I fall somewhere high functioning, and all the activities done in my youth to help me be more outgoing and less shy all strongly resemble most of the formal treatment methods you see now anyways:
How to cope with x, y, z.
In this social scenario, this is what's going on.
Etc.

The screening tests are readily available online:
https://psychology-tools.com/autism-spectrum-quotient/

It wasn't till I was married and raising kids that it even occurred to me to check. I was just the notoriously shy kid growing up who would as soon play beside his friends as with them. I took the pre-screening tests though and my score there landed my in not just the range to test further, but the almost certainly going to be on the spectrum.

I've looked more at Aspergers now since and in very, very many ways it looks much like just a more extreme form of the 'male' dominant mind. A greater interest in things than in people. In many ways it's just exactly as the video presenter alludes to. People are just different, and this is a classification of a particular kind of difference. Our differences make some things easier and others harder and such is life.

Lol, I read "imaginary Hiller" (and assumed you meant Hillary). My bad.



We have reasonable laws already.
Most things people ask for either already exist (and anti-gunners just don't know because they don't have to follow those laws), or only screw collectors and sportsmen while not doing anything to reduce risk (which I already covered, I assume you read the earlier part, eg California compliant AR15, etc).



Nobody expects to need to form a militia.
Nobody expects the country to go to hell.

The seat belt analogy is about preparedness for unlikely events.
Like, you don't "need" flood insurance in Houston - unless you do.

Owning a gun also hurts nobody.
By definition, ownership is not a harm.

Almost all guns will never be used to do any harm.
The very statement that "guns are all about hurting other people" is a non-empirical assertion.

Just shy of every last gun owner doesn't imagine themselves as Bruce Willis. Asserting that they do is a straw man.


You remind me of Republicans that complain that Black people are welfare queens (so they can redirect money out of welfare). Or Republicans that complain that Trans people are pedophiles in hiding (so they can pander to religious zelot voters). Creating a straw man and then getting mad about the straw man (rather than the real people) is self serving.


* Only the rarest few people think they are Roy Rogers. That is a straw man that does not apply to just shy of every gun owner.
* You don't need a gun for home defense... unless you do.
* Differences in likelihood of death armed vs unarmed is happenstance.
(Doesn't matter either way. Googled some likelihoods : http://www.theblaze.com/news/2013/02/15/how-likely-are-you-to-die-from-gun-violence-this-interesting-chart-puts-it-in-perspective/
You'd have to suffer death 350'000 times before you're at a 50/50 chance of your next death being by firearms.)
[EDIT, math error. Should say 17'000 years lived to reach a 50/50 chance of death by firearms in the next year]
* Technically, even 1 vote gets someone elected. You don't control who is on the ballot.



NRA and NSSF are on life support. They have to fight the influence of ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, most major newspapers. They are way outclassed. Current events don't help either.
The "big bad NRA" rhetoric is just that, rhetoric. As is the rhetoric that the NRA only represents the industry.

-sceherazade

I think you've got the wrong end of the stick at some points, so let me just clear that up first:

"Woah, woah, woah! There's a pretty big difference between saying it's not ok to assault someone and expressing support for them."
-- I referred to the modern nazi who supports them, not you for thinking it is wrong to punch. You are not a nazi supporter because of your stance. A nazi of course supports hitler, etc.

So hopefully this clears up:
"The law has nothing to do with it. It is unethical to assault someone simply for stating their beliefs."
-- My point was that they are stating their support for genocide and harming other people. It's not just a belief, it's a desire to exterminate, alienate and persecute an ethnic group. They aren't shy about their template for society, they fly the swastika flag clearly and sieg heil and whatnot.

"Here we are, 70 years after the biggest armed conflict the world has ever seen.... and yet we still have Nazis."
-- This implies that you think being 'nicer to Hitler' (i.e. not solved it with violence) would have gotten rid of them yet you contradict this later on. Otherwise you must accept that violence was the most successful solution, and you are equivocating over semantics with this point. In as far as any ideology (which only really latches itself on generic human mindsets like xenophobia, and is therefore inalienable, a form of nazism will occur by some other name in any social group*) may be "defeated", it was defeated.

I accept that you think it is unethical to punch them. I'm not saying i want chaos in the streets where mobs go around tearing suspected nazis to bits; that's why i'm not asking for a law change and why i won't be opening with violence towards nazis. I'm just saying if a nazi happens to get punched, on balance, it's probably ok.

* - just expanding on this. It's a bit like trying to 'defeat' religion. If you stamped out any sign of all religions in the world, all the imagery and documents and let's say memories too. Before long, religions would form because the human brain is drawn to those ideologies; that's why so many diverse ones formed and still do. And as you originally said defeatable, if it isn't defeatable (because it's inalienable) then you're saying your own point is wrong.

TL;DR sorry for the wall of text, ignore me

The difference being, the Clinton investigation was completed, the Russian one was just starting. If he had exonerated Clinton at the outset, ok, fair point, but he didn't....then the non story of "New" emails that weren't new made him "correct" his previous statement, then correct the idea that anything new was found. Those mistakes together harmed his reputation badly. Thrice bitten, twice shy...I think that was Comey's position, and it makes sense to me.

The question of obstruction was taken out of his hands by Trump, it's improper for him to give his, now, uninformed opinion which might contradict the continuing investigation.

Pretty shocked by the result. When the exit polls suggested the Tories were going to fall short of a majority I switched off the TV, put it down to shy Conversatives and went to bed.

Must suck to be a Tory tbh. Most of them didn't want Brexit, they promised a referendum to court the euroskeptic vote... and then they were handed the mandate to kindly fuck themselves raw. Teresa, the last time that happened the Prime Minister stepped aside. Just a thought.

Also can't decide if disappointed or sort of pleasantly surprised that it seems none of the papers went with "Mayday".

jmd's theory sounds plausible.

I've also heard the interpretation that since she is a full body prosthesis, it is meant to illustrate the detachment she has to her sexuality which sounds plausible although I hate to read too much into literature.

Might just be titillation, Japan is certain not shy about injecting sex into its anime. According to here, the manga series creator had a history of sexualised manga prior to GitS:

https://www.reddit.com/r/bestof/comments/1fl864/tactile_cacti_in_ranime_explains_why_nudity_in/?sort=confidence

Quoting Sniper007:

" A child is put at a tremendous disadvantage when they are taught that they can not learn anything except through formal schooling."

-- I completely and 100% agree with this, except . . .

" This is the inevitable life lesson all children are taught in schools (public or private)."

-- Reeeeealllly? Can I get some kind of cite on this? FWIW, I attended public schools -- good and bad -- and never came away with this lesson at all. Nor do I know anyone else who has. In fact, I'd say my view is the polar opposite of your own: as a self-made man, the most valuable lessons I've learned have come from experience (better known as The School of Hard Knocks).

"But for those who do wish to so delegate the sacred honor of teaching one's own child to a third party government agent(...)"

-- So you can't do both? You can't have trained educators teaching your child important fundamentals like math, science, languages and arts while you teach them social skills and whatever form of ethics and mores you want to instill them? To do the first is the cede the second?

Here's a little anecdote on my experience with home schooling:

My sister, now 30, was home-schooled by my parents. Her entire work history, up until now, has been a disaster. Lost jobs, conflicts with managers and co-workers, absenteeism -- everything shy of stealing from her employer. Why? Because she expected the world to revolve around her once she had her GED. She thought she was smarter than everyone else because she never had the social experience of encountering different levels of competence. Because home schooling catered to her needs and wants, she figured employers should do the same. Because she never had to learn classroom structure, she never learned to play nice with authority and know her place and work within it.

This is an anecdote and therefor does not equal data. But I think had my parents decided to send my sister to a public school, she'd be a lot farther ahead in her work-life than she is now and she would have had an easier road getting there.

Your mileage may vary, and hopefully will.

No "apology" necessary -- I can definitely see how it would look like bad AI in a one-off context like this, I just wasn't sure if you were making a sarcastic dig at them or not (and it would be fine if you were, also).

There's actually an amazing level of depth in subtle details that get put into the GTA games. Some of them are immersion-enhancing things that you tend to only notice on a subconscious level, like "tick tick tick" sounds of car engines cooling after you shut them down. And some are little in-joke tropes like this.

Honestly, it seems like it would take a LOT of work to coordinate all of those details and references and keep them fairly internally consistent. On top of that effort, the payoff is arguably somewhat dubious in cost-benefit terms -- a few people with notice these things and find them a little bit funny, a few will notice them and be offended to varying degrees, and a bunch either won't notice at all or will chalk them up to AI / simulation glitches.

But I still think it is cool that Rockstar doesn't shy away from including this kind of stuff, and/or stuff that more blatantly pushes the limits.

Hitchens attacks the left, as well. In case you conservatives feel like shying away from his bias. His bias is history, as difficult as that is to swallow. History is filled with inconvenient truths.

Interesting what he says about the war in Iraq... If only he had lived a little longer to see what it lead to. Will it turn out well in the end?

Too bad the self appointed cheer leaders of the cultural elite like Colbert did nothing but ridicule Sanders when it counted.
They were worried they would have to pay more in taxes under a Sanders administration and not shy about saying so.
Colbert used to be funny now he simply comes off as a snob.
You have no one to blame but yourselves for Trump being elected.