@newtboy,

"bankrupting the global economy isn't the only way to plan for asteroids, now is it? What we have done is put some money towards developing solutions that could be implemented in time, with minor exceptions for super fast unknown asteroids we likely couldn't do much about if we did have a planetary defense system."

That's precisely my point though, bankrupting the global economy to reach negative net emissions tomorrow isn't the only way to plan for climate change either.

"the probability of disastrous climate change is near 100% if you take historic human behavior into account. For many it's already hit. It's only the severity and speed that are in question, and those estimates rise alarmingly with every bit of data we use to replace guesses in the equations.

And the odds of a catastrophic asteroid hit sometime in the future is near 100% too, it's just a question of how many millions of years Earth's luck holds out. Nor has every prediction or projection underestimated future warming so far, your flat wrong on that.

More to the point, the timing and severity of the changes we face is ABSOLUTELY relevant to the actions we need to take. Similarly, knowing the benefit of reducing our emissions by X% by a particular date is also extremely relevant to the actions we need to take. Unfortunately, it must be acknowledged that we have a lot of gaps and uncertainty in our knowledge on those points.

At minimum base level, we know changing global temperature on the whole will impact us negatively, that our CO2 emissions will make things warmer than they otherwise would be, and thus can easily conclude with certainty that the science dictates policies to reduce emissions are a good idea.

Now, you seem to be hell bent on demanding those policies take the shape of staring down the face of disaster 2-3 times worse than the IPCC AR5 reports absolute worst case scenario. I've got to tell you, that the uncertainties involved with that kind of prediction are too great to warrant an honest dictate that the facts support a need for economically devastating action being taken today. It's just not the case.

Even if green tech never takes over, if the next century sees us final solve fusion power and adoption of electric cars, we already get our emission outputs off the worst track scenario the IPCC projected in AR5. I honestly do believe that we will see non-fossil fuel electricity generation and electric cars as the norm in my lifetime, so I'm hopeful for a future that tracks better than the IPCC worst case. That doesn't mean we should do nothing, but it's more like we should take a similarly rational/practical approach to it like you see us doing with asteroids.

The reason I'd use a biometric vs a keyed trigger lock is for speed and ease of use in the dark. If I have to give it a little squeeze to get it to release, zero concern. Does it secure the firearm? Yes. Is it 100%, no. Show me one that is.

p.s. in a random sampling, the twenty-three 15 year old boys in my algebra class, none of them own or plan to buy a flat piece of bent metal that precisely fits in a lock of this type, let along lock picking tools. The determination that this lock is no good is based on tests that have little to do with the intended function.

No [Redacted], Trump is the blatant RINO, flipping his positions on every issue to get your vote.
McCain was a true Republican military hero, Trump is an illegitimate cowardly fraud who cucked you...if your wife was attractive he would gladly be fucking her in your bed....and you would probably feel honored when you removed your blindfold.

No point in going into the hundred ways he's not a Republican or conservative or Christian or patriot, you are deaf and blind to reality living in your bubble of Trumpian love....enough so to believe you are a Russian troll bent on harming America to the point of destroying the union. If you really aren't, then Putin has placed a cuckold's horns upon your brow too.
*facepalm

If they weren't so hell-bent on punching the guy, they might well have been able to keep control of him and eventually cuff him. 2 vs 1 and he still gets away? Those cops need some more training.

To late he already bent over and got injected. Sloppy seconds anyone ?

That looks so much more awesome walking "backwards". I always thought it looked really awkward walking with the legs bent backward (like chicken legs).

@HenningKO --

Not that I want to defend them (the R's that publicly defend or at least refrain from going negative on Trump), but I think the end of the video pretty well explains their thought process.

They want to stay in office. If they oppose Trump *now*, they create a big problem for themselves in their primaries. Who likes Trump? Evangelicals. Who shows up and actually votes in primaries? Evangelicals. Many of these guys are in states so overwhelmingly red that as long as they are on the ballot in the general election, they are almost assured the victory. But go against Trump now, and it won't be their name next to that (R), it'll be some Evangelical appeaser that booted them out in the primary.

Is that a rather spineless and amoral line of reasoning? Yes. Is it notably lacking in the public service motivation that we would like our elected officials to have, and instead motivated entirely out of shamelessly corrupt self-promotion? Yes.

Is that sort of reasoning and motivation unique to Republicans? Hell no. You can't spell incumbent without getting "bent". I think we need term limits on all these fuckers.

One of Jordan Peterson's claims, that the left has settled into higher ed and wants to shutdown debate in favor of indoctrination, is openly on display in the video. All 3 staff from Wilfrid Laurier state it as contrary to the university environment to present a debate on use of pronouns, or to allow the subject to be debated, save that student's are FIRST taught and thoroughly prepared to know which side of the debate is right before hand.

One of them even dismisses Peterson's claim that you can be convicted for failing to use the pronouns requested by others as baseless and contrary to all evidence. Mean while the Ontario human rights tribunal clearly states that is exactly the case. link below.

If you are find with higher education abandoning reasoned debate in favor of indoctrination then you don't need to care. Of course, here in Canada we aren't facing the same risk you American's are of finding the tables turning and the indoctrination landing in the hands of tea party or trump types.

Still, keeping free speech and reasoned debate a cornerstone of education is extremely important to maintaining a free society in my opinion and the video is a window into dark corners hell bent on shutting that down.

http://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/questions-and-answers-about-gender-identity-and-pronouns

They're designed to stop people from climbing over, not to entice idiots to flip over them. That said, I bet they either remove or replace them after this....if they don't remove the skate park altogether.
The kind with bent spikes would work well I think, but those cost way more.

"if someone had been able to take Hitler aside BEFORE all the horrors of WW2 and been able to convince him to lay off the genocide"

This is the pacifists dilemma though. There were numerous attempts to sway hitler from his course. Neville Chamberlain famously celebrating the Munich Agreement. At the end of the day, you can't peacefully stop someone if they are intent on causing violence.

I don't think you can really go down this road, either. It's a fun thought experiment, but it requires knowledge you only have once it's too late. You can't talk to the one kid who will grow up to be adolf hitler. There's very likely one out there now that we can't stop because we don't know them.

"At that point, violence is your only recourse to stop the atrocities."

The pacifist's dilemma and this combined, to me, put this in a morally ambiguous place. If you accept that you can't stop someone bent on violence, and nazis arrive announcing that they are, then is it better for a little violence, visited upon those who pursue violent ends? Or is it better that we wait and see the violence occur before we react to it?

On further introspection, i think both of our positions exist in a similar ambiguity - you need to know who to speak to before you know who to speak to, and i need to know who to correctively punch before i know who to correctively punch. Yours might be better for short term, worse for long term. Mine might be worse for short term, better for long term.

In truth, i probably lean more towards agreeing with you, but i'm trying to point out that even though we think "be civil" is the best option, it doesn't have any divine right to be the best option. The best option (we would probably agree) is the one that causes the least overall harm, and we don't *know* what that is, and never can. I think it's important we reconsider accepted wisdom like that. (which is really why i decided to argue it..in honesty, i probably feel the same as you; disapprove but not loudly. My main problem with the position i'm taking is - how do you *stop* the nazi punchers once the nazis are suitably punched? And when do i become the nazi?)

@transmorpher
"leaving yourself and your loved ones open to the same treatment next time someone disagrees with one of your views."

I made it very clear in earlier comments that i'm only ok with someone being punched if they are openly calling for genocide and death to people. I'm ok with you ripping that argument apart (because i think it can be.. i'm leaving myself open on purpose), but that isn't what you've done. I don't accept there's an equivalence between my harmless beliefs and a genocidal maniac's.

From the yt description. The car has a bent axle from hitting a curb earlier in the day.

How unlucky do you have to be to be hit by a falling light pole? I guess they are just lucky they didn't get hurt.

I told you about strawberry fields
You know the place where nothing is real
Well here's another place you can go
Where everything flows
Looking through the bent backed tulips
To see how the other half lives
Looking through a glass onion
I told you about the walrus and me, man
You know that we're as close as can be, man
Well here's another clue for you all
The walrus was Paul
Standing on the cast iron shore, yeah
Lady Madonna trying to make ends meet, yeah

Damn, I wish I owned that 2250s collection. All I got is a 1950s collection. :=(

Looking at this, and the accolades given to Curiosity, I wonder why people get so bent out of shape when I go off road on park land.

Thanks for the link, Eric. That's comforting.

And I'm very glad his monster of a mother was prosecuted.

I'm always reminded of my oldest boy when he was about 2 and we were in the 1.5-foot-deep tiny kiddie pool standing right next to him. He seemingly bent down to touch the drain by his feet, but as his face went into the water he just left it there and didn't move. There was no jumping or waving or losing control; in fact, he was still standing up on his feet, just in a bending-over position with his face in the water and his arms not moving.

I guess his body immediately went into some kind of paralysis when he was probably still breathing in as he stuck his face in the water.

I'll never forget that horror.

LMAO! "Her"

You really are bent about it...