I hate to be THAT guy, but I would hate for my final Karma on this site to be such an ugly number like 149.
Search
Search results: 1,529 found, showing up to 50
Quite the opposite, show me a dell with what I want in terms of performance in my price range (Around 1000, probably not more than 1100) and I will buy it in a heartbeatSteve-0 wrote:
i recently bought a Dell.
i got it at costco, it does what i need a laptop to do, it has win7, and because you seem dead set against dell i don't have anything to say.
Alright, time to buy a new laptop and I have good success with Tech Advice from you guys so I was wondering if you guys had any input. I want a reasonably powerful system so I don't have to worry about it being way underpowered in 2-3 years. The ability to run Solidworks/CAD is also desirable and I would like to be able to play BF3/BF4/others but nothing too crazy on at least modest settings.
A couple of the laptops I am looking at are
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a … 6834313584
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a … 6834231115
A few concerns/questions:
1. What are the good brands nowadays? My dell from 5 years ago has lasted me till now and the only thing I had to replace on it was the keyboard, but I don't really like their design/value right now.
2. Windows 8, I have heard it's not so good, how much of a concern is it? Also how much does a touchscreen improve the Windows 8 experience?
3. notebookcheck told me that the Turbo Boost doesn't work very well on the Lenovo Y510p that I am looking at. How much of an impact on the day to day performance would that have?
As always, I shall be liberally karmaing all those who help.
A couple of the laptops I am looking at are
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a … 6834313584
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a … 6834231115
A few concerns/questions:
1. What are the good brands nowadays? My dell from 5 years ago has lasted me till now and the only thing I had to replace on it was the keyboard, but I don't really like their design/value right now.
2. Windows 8, I have heard it's not so good, how much of a concern is it? Also how much does a touchscreen improve the Windows 8 experience?
3. notebookcheck told me that the Turbo Boost doesn't work very well on the Lenovo Y510p that I am looking at. How much of an impact on the day to day performance would that have?
As always, I shall be liberally karmaing all those who help.
I am sorry, but...WHAT. My apologies if some sarcasm was lost in translation, but that is just insane. When people die in any, bombing, shooting, or the like, we mourn them, there is no "I am going to make a political statement and not honor these people." No one is saying that by mourning the dead in an attack like this you agree with the way society gives preference to some events over others. I mean no disrespect, but get off your high horse.Macbeth wrote:
and this is why I refuse to mourn dead Boston people. This mind frame is more popular than not among Americans. And if society isn't going to care about the poorest among it then I'm not gong to care about society. I eagerly anticipate the next bombing.
I will look into that, but I think I am more than satisfied with these. It might sound weird, but I think these headphones have changed my life a little bit.
I got my HD518's today
Brb, gonna go rock out.
Brb, gonna go rock out.
Sadly in this day and age a union can't survive purely on the camaraderie of the workers. As companies have gotten larger, their unions have had to increase in size too to keep up. Unions have things that they need to pay for too, so that's why they have to collect money from their members. Most people now a days might not want to pay their union money because they either don't realize what the union does for them, or they have yet to encounter a situation where they need the union. I think of it sort of like making people pay for car insurance in order to drive their car, many people wouldn't carry it because they wouldn't think they need it until they got in an accident.RAIMIUS wrote:
I think the debate is why people who don't want to join the union are forced to pay for it anyway. It's basically a racket. "You can work here, but you gotta give the Union $X." I don't have to pay outside companies to work somewhere else, why are unions different?
If the union provided valuable services, a large number of people would pay the dues. The fact that they have to FORCE people to pay for their existence indicates to me that a large percentage of workers don't place much value on their services.
Sure, in an ideal world, the Unions and the companies would work together for the improvement of the product and the betterment of society. Sadly, this is not what happens because big business has earned a reputation for trying to cut costs any way possible. They want to pay as little as possible for all the factors of production to limit their production costs, and one of the easiest factors of production to reduce the cost of is labor. The purpose of the union is to concentrate the the power of the workers so that it is an better match for the power of the business employing them. A large employer has a large share of the demand for a certain type of labor and a single person has a very very small share of the supply. This discrepancy makes it easy for the employer to push the worker around and force them to accept things they wouldn't usually accept.RichardBlais wrote:
The relationship should not be adversarial. It doesn't have to be. It is in the unions' best interest to maximize profit and marketshare for the parent company because it strengthens their hand in negotiations. If they can sit there and say we've done X, Y and Z to improve the company's ability to compete and we want an increased share of the pie, it would be difficult to argue with them. Because of the adversarial relationship that most companies seem to have with their union labor reps, and the unions' insistence on protecting every last worker, you end up in a situation where management does everything they can to destroy the union. Wouldn't you? In the current work environment I would never attempt to start a company in a state that didn't have Right to Work laws on the books. The inefficiency of being forced to carry deadweight workers would grate on me tremendously.Narupug wrote:
Are we suggesting that the Unions should look out for more than just their own interests? Why isn't anyone complaining about how the corporations employing these workers will sacrifice just about anything for an extra buck?
You can't just tell the coal companies that you're gonna pay them 5 cents less a pound because you're cutting costs because they can just sell the coal to someone else (assuming that you aren't a large market share, but let's just keep things simple for the sake of argument) if you won't pay their price. They probably still want your business in the long run (because they're probably not a perfectly competitive market), so they might be willing to negotiate some sort of price decrease in exchange for your business, but you aren't going to be able to push them around because you need coal and they want your business.
Now compare that to cutting costs with non-unionized workers, you basically just start paying them less money and their choice is either accept the lower wages or stop working in protest and try and find a job somewhere else. This is all well and good if there are plenty of jobs in town that are willing to pay you higher wages, but if the company you were working for is either the only employer or a very large employer of people with your skill set in town, you're out of luck and it's basically a choice of accepting the lower wages or no wages. The employer doesn't care if you quit because they can either force the rest of the workers to work harder to make up for your slack, hire someone to replace you, or just deal with the most likely small loss in production from you quitting. If an employer has to bargain with unionized workers, that's where the power comes in. Then if they get too aggressive trying to cut wages, then they're at risk of losing all their labor force, which is just like bargaining for any other factor of production.
My apologies if that's a little convoluted. I got a little carried away.
Are we suggesting that the Unions should look out for more than just their own interests? Why isn't anyone complaining about how the corporations employing these workers will sacrifice just about anything for an extra buck?
We've been taking shit from Spain for a long time.Cybargs wrote:
US "territories" apart from Hawaii are usually spoils of war. Spanish-American war pretty much kicked off the whole "lol imah take shit from you spain"
And we did, you could argue that much of American expansionism as it swept across the continent was motivated by a lot of the same attitudes that were driving European colonization in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. It's just that Europeans had to go a little farther to find land where they could bully people into stealing their land and Americans only had to go to their backyards. America also wanted the land to settle and Europe was more interested in just forcing the inhabitants to work for them. America went through a nice little period of European style colonization in the late 1800s, when the USS Maine blew up, we gladly jumped into war with Spain and forced them to give us the Philippines, Puerto Rico and Guam. We also got a nice little base in Cuba that you've probably heard of before and prevented Cuba from making treaties with other nations or going into debt. We also bullied Latin America into allowing us to build the Panama Canal.Trotskygrad wrote:
yes, I see that, but why didn't america feel the need to do political colonialism? You could argue that the US had opportunities to do colonies of that sort as "Old Europe" was still doing them in the late 1800sNarupug wrote:
America colonizes places economically in most cases. Just look at Latin America.
France and most of Europe colonized in a much more political and visible way.
The reason the US didn't go quite as far as some European countries is to some extent the US learned it's lesson from Europe about colonization. As much as the idea that America is all about freedom and fighting tyranny is untrue, Americans over history have been somewhat less inclined to just waltz into another country and just take over. We prefer to coerce countries into doing what we want them to so that it at least appears they have free will. That and we've had enough internal problems without worrying about managing an overseas empire.
America colonizes places economically in most cases. Just look at Latin America.
France and most of Europe colonized in a much more political and visible way.
France and most of Europe colonized in a much more political and visible way.
Well this is just going swimmingly isn't it?
War powers give the president a lot of power, would actually say that Lincoln was within his Constitutional powers on that one.Cybargs wrote:
or the time lincoln suspended habeas corpus when he shouldnt.
Which of course doesn't make it true.Macbeth wrote:
Being on our first one as well as being isolated from Europe, I think most Americans believe that the constitution is both a sacred document and something that only America has. Because we consider it unique and sacred there is absolutely nothing that can ever be changed in or removed from it.Ty wrote:
Either way the Constitution is open to interpretation and can be changed.
Not that shifty is an American or anything. He is a foreigner after all.
Throughout American history, whenever pretty much anything monumental is about to happen, the opposition always says "You're not allowed to do that." For example, if you take a strict view of the Constitution, you can argue that the Supreme Court's right to declare laws unconstitutional is itself unconstitutional.
Before I progress further down this tangent, I am going to stop myself.
It's a mass shooting thread, not a mass killing thread
Well isn't it just a happy day all around?
Doing some quick back of the envelope math with those numbers of yours.west-phoenix-az wrote:
Nobody commented on this.Justifiable Homicide
Private Citizen 2010
Total Firearms 232
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/cr … rtbl15.xls
I wonder if this include cases that went to trial and the accused were found not guilty. If it doesn't this number may rise slightly.
Justifiable Homicide
Law Enforcement 2010
Total Firearms 385
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/cr … rtbl14.xls
Based on this information there were 617 justifiable homicides by firearm in 2010.
62.39% by police and 37.60% by citizen
Citizens used their guns in justifiable homicides 60% as much as police.
I hear people claim cops need guns because their chance of needing them is much more frequent.
Some say the chance of a citizen needing a gun is so rare, but its not much different than police.
At least as far as justifiable homicides statistics go.
This information shows how much citizens use their guns when the problem comes to them.
The cops on the other hand seek out or respond to the problem.
When there is a mass-shooting some talk about all the lives that could have been saved if we had more firearm laws/restrictions. You don't hear about the 232 people who justifiably shot and killed someone who threatened the life or safety of others. These are just people who actually killed someone in defense. In my opinion the use of firearms for defense, without resulting in someone being shot or killed, if accurately recordable, would be pretty high.
232 justifiable homicides / 315000000 people total in the US = 7.365 X 10^-7 <- Ignoring various factors
How about something a little more exact
232 justifiable homicides / 70000000 gun owners = 3.314 X 10^-6 <- Chance a gun owner will use their gun(s) in a justifiable homicide. (Source: http://www.gallup.com/poll/20098/gun-ow … erica.aspx)
According to the Bureau of Labor and Statistics, there are a little under 800,000 police and detectives in the US. (http://www.bls.gov/ooh/protective-servi … ctives.htm)
385 justifiable homicides / 800000 police and detectives = 4.8125 X 10^-4 <- Chance a law enforcement officer will use their weapon in a justifiable homicide (without excluding those with desk jobs and such)
So I would say a cop is much more likely to need a gun than the average gun owner. I would say a citizen using a gun in a justifiable homicide is pretty rare (According to some other statistics I am looking at, it is less likely than fatally slipping in the bathtub or shower and dating a supermodel). Now I will admit that this is not the most statistically rigorous evaluation, but I think it put things in a little better perspective.
Man would probably go and screw it up. We'd get break out into global war as people started trying to save their own butts anyway they could think of. I would like to think mankind would get together and try and try to either figure something out to ensure the survival of our species or go out in a respectable manner, but I can't help thinking it will just end up being every man for himself.aynrandroolz wrote:
i kind of want a 'total extinction of all life' scenario to come up. does no one else sort of idealistically long for a large hunk of rock and a definite date with our doom? it'll be the first thing in the history of the human species that will bring us together and help us overcome all of this petty-ideological bullshit. and then, just as we're finally getting it together, the briefest glimpse of utopia, it'll all be over. would make a great tear-jerking CGI movie for aliens sat in a cinema, several galaxies away.
Seems that it was downgraded to a Torino level 0 back in 06. Now good old 2007 VK184 is a 1 for impact in 2048 with a .055% chance of an impact.Trotskygrad wrote:
there's going to be 3 close ones, this year (today), 2029 (that image), and 2036. It might impact on 2036 but that depends on how close it comes during the first 2 passes... however if it does impact it won't be that bad, no "long-term effects" or so the scientists say (it would also be on water)
I think he was making a point. Some people have been doing just about the same to defend gun rights on here. Bring up instances where particularly extreme people have said particularly extreme things and painting the entire other side of the argument as the same.Cybargs wrote:
best set up EVER. Bring in most batshit insane person to defend gun rights, makes all gun rights people look the same. trolling at its best.M.O.A.B wrote:
I'm no fan of Piers Morgan, but I've got to say he did better with that guy than I would've. I would have lamped him after maybe 20 seconds.
http://www.amazon.com/Audio-Technica-AT … =ath-A500.Little BaBy JESUS wrote:
You may be looking at the X version of the Audio Technicas which are usually more expensive.
Anyway, if you're using a laptop there is a reasonable chance that the sound card wouldn't be that great. Ideally you would run the headphones through a DAC as long you aren't wanting to cart them around too much. Something like the Audinst HUD-mx1 or Audioengine D1 are decent little DACs. However, then you're looking at another $150+ ontop of the headphones so you may be going too much over budget.
Otherwise you can just use the headphones with your laptop normally (they all come with 3.5mm adapters) and then decide later on down the track if you want/need a DAC.
^That's what I was looking at when I was pricing the A500s.
I'm not sure I will know if I need/want a DAC since I won't really know what the difference is without buying one. Right?
Using them mostly for listening to music off my laptop.Little BaBy JESUS wrote:
Depends what you're using them for I suppose, but I really like my Sennheiser HD555s and the new version the HD558s seem to be good quality and very popular. If you don't want to spend that sort of money (not sure how much they cost over there) then the Audio Technica ATH-A500 are good (but usually not much less than the HD558s) or the HD518 are a very good option for the price.
My $0.02 (inb4 resident audiophiles)
Quick Amazon search has the Audio Technicas as 100+ dollars more than the HD558s. (558s are $179 on Amazon). Do I need some sort of extra tech to make a headphone like the HD558s reach their true potential?
Full-Size/Ear-CupLittle BaBy JESUS wrote:
What size/style do you like?
I already have a pair of Klipsch Image S4's I have been using since my Koss Porta-Pros broke and I would like to relegate them to only using when I need portability.
I ended up getting the GSIII. I like it so far.
Now does anyone have an suggestions for headphones. I would prefer them to be under 100 dollars, but I am willing to go all the way up to around 200 dollars if there is a set of headphones that is really worth it.
Now does anyone have an suggestions for headphones. I would prefer them to be under 100 dollars, but I am willing to go all the way up to around 200 dollars if there is a set of headphones that is really worth it.
That is more than a few years ago, that is 17 years ago. You can do that same thing for the other side of the gun control debate and pretty much any debate, there will always be people suggesting the extreme, but that does not mean that the extreme is likely to happen. As many people on here have pointed out, guns are way too thoroughly ingrained in American society for any law to even come close to a "crusade of confiscation." You can't even propose preventing the sale of a few guns, not taking them away from those who already have them, and all of a sudden people are suggesting you be tried for treason.RAIMIUS wrote:
Here is what one of our US Senator's said a few years ago.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
You sound paranoid. Crusade of confiscation? Exploiting a tragedy through mass media disinformation? Are you taking atg pills?13rin wrote:
Which still doesn't invalidate my point of this entire idiotic crusade of confiscation reinvigorated by exploiting a tragedy through means of mass media disinformation. Oh, that stat equates to roughly 3 three days worth of knife attacks in England. Don't let your dumbassery get in the way of your fail logic.
No one's coming to take your guns dude. Calm down.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blXkl9YVoHo
The only reason she didn't enact a gun confiscation program was lack of agreement from other lawmakers.
She is also going to release a new "Assault Weapons Ban" proposal that will certainly be called "reasonable restrictions."
The "slippery slope" argument is actually valid with regards to certain subjects. While most people aren't that extreme, some of the ones trying to shape the agenda actually are!
California is overrated
Massachusetts and Delaware have something to say about that...Macbeth wrote:
In America we don't let the natives name places. Except in Hawaii.
Saw this and decided to share it
There is a difference between using fear to take away people's rights and love of one's country.Jay wrote:
Well aware of who Samuel Johnson was, and yes, his were the antithesis of my own personal values. Would you have rather I quoted Einstein instead? Patriotism is used by those in power to blind the eyes of their populace. It's how anti-democratic stuff like the aptly named PATRIOT Act was passed.aynrandroolz wrote:
lol what is it with jay and his steady repertoire of goodquotes.com sam johnson sayings? does jay even know who samuel johnson was? isn't he like the antithesis of jay's personal values? it's not exactly displaying fucking erudition to cluelessly quote some 'famous' dude. it doesn't help your debate, particularly when you clearly know so little about the thinker/personality you cite.
"strawberry poptarts are the best flavour" - adolf hitler.
*shrug*
This is pitiful, I remember the glory days when we used to turn out 1000 pages a month (ok, so that's a small exaggeration).
That is true, but no one here is suggesting it.UnkleRukus wrote:
Have you ever talked to someone from Amherst, or Northampton, or Province town?Narupug wrote:
For example?UnkleRukus wrote:
Adams_BJ wrote:
you seem awfully intent on defending this hunk of inanimate metal with every cell of your body. But, its my RIGHT to have this chunk of metal! PRY IT FROM MY COLD DEAD HANDSSSSSUnkleRukus wrote:
A gun is the easiest tool to use to kill. Which is why so many people put the blame on a lifeless hunk of metal. It is not the gun that kills, it is the person that pulls the trigger. Without a person to do so, a gun is a lifeless hunk of metal with lifeless hunks of brass inside of it.I live in MA, they propose it constantly.I'm going into a trade involving firearms, so having them banned kind of hurts business. So defending them is necessary for me.
If you have, you'll know where I'm coming from.
Also, I'm not against safety regulations or certain restrictions. Restricting automatics, I can understand, but banning ARs because of some specific features is absolutely retarded.
For example?UnkleRukus wrote:
Adams_BJ wrote:
you seem awfully intent on defending this hunk of inanimate metal with every cell of your body. But, its my RIGHT to have this chunk of metal! PRY IT FROM MY COLD DEAD HANDSSSSSUnkleRukus wrote:
A gun is the easiest tool to use to kill. Which is why so many people put the blame on a lifeless hunk of metal. It is not the gun that kills, it is the person that pulls the trigger. Without a person to do so, a gun is a lifeless hunk of metal with lifeless hunks of brass inside of it.I'm going into a trade involving firearms, so having them banned kind of hurts business. So defending them is necessary for me.I live in MA, they propose it constantly.Narupug wrote:
I don't think anyone is proposing banning them completely.UnkleRukus wrote:
It's more relevant than uzique going batshit nuts over some stupid quip about his meaningless life.
The whole argument of firearms needed to be banned because firearms are evil is just horrendous and unnecessary. People are just afraid of them because when in the wrong hands, they will kill. So they outright attempt to ban them for everybody. Including those who use them for sport, which ruins a lot of people's enjoyment. (My own included.)
I don't think anyone is proposing banning them completely.UnkleRukus wrote:
It's more relevant than uzique going batshit nuts over some stupid quip about his meaningless life.
The whole argument of firearms needed to be banned because firearms are evil is just horrendous and unnecessary. People are just afraid of them because when in the wrong hands, they will kill. So they outright attempt to ban them for everybody. Including those who use them for sport, which ruins a lot of people's enjoyment. (My own included.)
I'm going into a trade involving firearms, so having them banned kind of hurts business. So defending them is necessary for me.
True, but I don't understand how that is relevant to the discussion.UnkleRukus wrote:
A gun is the easiest tool to use to kill. Which is why so many people put the blame on a lifeless hunk of metal. It is not the gun that kills, it is the person that pulls the trigger. Without a person to do so, a gun is a lifeless hunk of metal with lifeless hunks of brass inside of it.Narupug wrote:
A man walks into a school and kills 30 kids with his bare hands?UnkleRukus wrote:
So a gun walks into a school and shoots people, by itself. Your logic is infallible.
A man walks into a school and kills 30 kids with his bare hands?UnkleRukus wrote:
So a gun walks into a school and shoots people, by itself. Your logic is infallible.aynrandroolz wrote:
karma abuse? i get ONE POST EVERY 30 MINUTES. it's not 'abuse', it''s 'using a system to communicate'.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
If you want more serious conversations, you should drop the karma abuse and stop falling back on "you people are just dumb I'm gonna go home and cry." It's hard enough taking you seriously, you pricklepuss.
also how am i "falling back" on anything? HAVE YOU READ YOUR ARGUMENTS? im saying guns should be blamed for mass killings, because - quelle surprise! - guns are designed TO KILL A LOT OF PEOPLE. your best 'comeback' is that many other everyday objects and devices can be used to kill someone. well, yes. you can kill someone with a piece of paper on the jugular. okay, great. have a point. i am not proposing that you ban or legislate every single object that could potentially cause a fatal wound to another person. i am not denying that a deranged or psychopathic or perhaps just simply criminal and vindictive person could kill another person with a whole plethora of everyday, legal, accessible objects.
what i am saying is that very few objects - even weapons - kill as many, as efficiently, as guns. particularly military-grade automatic weapons, or any of the other ridiculously high-power firearms that you can acquire in the USA. all these pointless hypotheticals where you talk about knifes or automobiles or sewing machines killing multiple people are pretty much bunkum. the simple fact exists that mass shootings occur because guns are pretty damn good at facilitating them. yes, deranged people would still go on the rampage if guns were banned. however they wouldn't be able to kill 30 schoolchildren in a 10 minute period. not even achilles could fucking cut down 30 people in 10 minutes using a sword, let alone some socially stunted late-teen with a slipknot tshirt and aspergers. they are just incomparable.
to use phrases such as me "falling back" or 'backing out' basically is absurd. are you reading what you are posting? i don't really see any decent counter-arguments made to my original point. something about your grandpapa being killed by a truck. yes, okay. was he killed in the great ford f-150 massacre of '78? oh, no? it was an isolated incident? oh okay then. guess it doesn't have much bearing on a discussion to ban guns following multiple DOUBLE-DIGIT massacres.love that reasoning. so funny it deserves a comedian to respond to it.Guns aren't evil, the people behind them are.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KsN0FCXw914
You really think the average criminal is playing the long game Jay?Jay wrote:
Or think twice about a life of crime.Narupug wrote:
Which makes them more likely to kill someone out of panic when they find out they're armed.RAIMIUS wrote:
Actually, it makes it MUCH riskier for the criminal. Most people don't like to take life-or-death risks without something big to gain. In the US, surveys of convicted criminals show they fear an armed citizen more than the police.
Which makes them more likely to kill someone out of panic when they find out they're armed.RAIMIUS wrote:
Actually, it makes it MUCH riskier for the criminal. Most people don't like to take life-or-death risks without something big to gain. In the US, surveys of convicted criminals show they fear an armed citizen more than the police.Dilbert_X wrote:
Thats not the point, if a criminal has a gun and so do I then me having a gun doesn't help me in the least, criminals pre-plan their crimes whereas victims have to react to them - if they're lucky.
Better than shooting them.Jay wrote:
But I might emotionally damage my loved ones if I die early!Narupug wrote:
Those are risks you're taking for yourself, not things that endanger others.Jay wrote:
Why do you need anything in life? Should I ask the government permission before I eat a cheeseburger because it might give me a heart attack? Should I request permission to smoke?
Those are risks you're taking for yourself, not things that endanger others.Jay wrote:
Why do you need anything in life? Should I ask the government permission before I eat a cheeseburger because it might give me a heart attack? Should I request permission to smoke?Jaekus wrote:
Asking why you need a semi-automatic rifle is a dumb rhetorical question?Jay wrote:
You're asking dumb rhetorical questions, why shouldn't I?
I can see why you get trolled often.
So I did some searching, but I haven't found anyone really weighing in on this subject lately, but,
One of the top Android phones (GSIII, Optimus G, etc.) or iPhone 5?
One of the top Android phones (GSIII, Optimus G, etc.) or iPhone 5?
No, because as the Supreme Court has established, there are limits on the First Amendment. No yelling "Fire" in a crowded theatre to cite one famous example.Dilbert_X wrote:
Can they demand and publish people's medical records too?
I was attempting to make a point about how just because something is a constitutional right, does not mean it can be carried to point where it causes harm to the nation.
Freedom of the press is a constitutional right too.Jay wrote:
http://www.nysenate.gov/press-release/b … introducesBrewster, N.Y. – 12/26/2012 – Today Senator Greg Ball (Patterson – R, C, I) called for the Journal News Newspaper, a Gannett Company, to immediately remove a map they have posted on their website that unethically reveals homeowners with pistol permits in Westchester, Rockland and Putnam Counties. The Journal News says that the information contained in the map was obtained by submitting Freedom of Information requests for the names and addresses of pistol permit holders by county. Senator Ball has now announced that he will introduce legislation in the New York State Senate, to prevent this from happening again.
“The asinine editors at the Journal News, have once again gone out of their way to place a virtual scarlet letter on law abiding firearm owners throughout the region. The immediate elimination of the information posted on the Journal News Website is the only way we can ensure the safety and liberty of these New Yorkers. This is clearly a violation of privacy, and needs to be corrected immediately. The same elitist egg heads who use their editorial page to coddle terrorists and criminals are now treating law abiding citizens like level three sexual predators. Am I surprised? No. Should every person with commonsense be offended? Yes. Furthermore, the Journal News has placed the lives of these folks at risk by creating a virtual shopping list for criminals and nut jobs,” said Ball. “Publishing this information on a website provides criminals with a map of where they can steal firearms from lawful owners for later use in the commission of crimes. Preventing the theft of guns and their criminal misuse is an important public-policy goal. This map is bad for the good guys and good for the bad guys.”
In the Assembly Ball multi-sponsored Assembly bill 820, legislation which would prohibit the public disclosure of information in an application for a pistol license with exceptions for prosecutors and police conducting an active investigation. Senator Ball will be introducing similar legislation, immediately. The bill would protect lawful gun owners from being targeted by thieves for firearm burglaries and eliminate a database criminals could use to extort their identity-theft victims.
That was quick! Hope it passes.
Give the firefighters guns, then they can engage in a firefight while fighting a fire.
No foundation in reality despite the fact that I am using well accepted economic principles in this thread. I won't talk about the other thread since I prefer to keep my arguments compartmentalized.Jay wrote:
Blah blah blah whatever. No, the price is not higher. You want multiple systems, right? So you need multiple storage facilities as well. You need to build more equipment and use more land. Wind turbines and solar panels don't get created from pixie farts, the materials are pulled from the earth. Same for the battery banks. And you'd still need a gas fired plant or a nuke plant as a backup for when the sun isn't shining and the wind isn't blowing, you know, like any normal cloudy winter New England day. Or you can cut out all the bullshit and just build the gas turbine plant.
Between this and the gun control thread you're coming off as a typical liberal dreamer with big ideas and no foundation in reality.
Then what the heck happened during Schenck v. United States or even Brandenburg v. Ohio? So we can put qualifiers on 1st amendment rights, but not 2nd amendment ones?13rin wrote:
Sorry Mac, but one cannot put qualifiers on a Constitutional right.Macbeth wrote:
watwithout an amendment to the Constitution's 2nd amendment, requiring someone to own a safe to own a gun is akin to a poll tax to vote.
Erm no.
Arguing a gun safe is like a poll tax is like arguing that paying taxes on a gun or paying for a permit is unconstitutional.
Do you really want someone who is too poor to take some easy steps towards being a more responsible gun owner owning a bunch of guns? If you can't afford a safe then you can't afford a gun.
If you are too poor to own a gun safe, then you can't have a gun.
That is the same as..
If you are too poor to pay the poll tax, then you can't vote.
Once again, that's private cost. The actual cost of that gas fired plant is much more because of its greater effect on the environment. If you included the cost to reduce the damage from that gas plant to the levels of renewables producing the same output, I bet you the price would actually be higher.Jay wrote:
What? Why would you build a 'diverse portfolio'? It would mean you have to build multiple systems. Instead, you can build a single gas fired plant for a fraction of the cost.
http://people.hofstra.edu/geotrans/eng/ … ities.html
^this should make what I am saying a little clearer.
I realize reliability is an issue with a lot of renewables because you are relying on something that you shockingly have very little to no control over. Research is working very hard to make better batteries and developing a "smart grid", but that's why it is important to diversify your energy portfolio with other renewables. If you will allow me to use an economic parallel again, it's just like if you have uncertainty in the economic market, you diversify your portfolio. If one isn't producing, maybe another will be able to pick up the slack. The same applies for trying to limit the environmental impact of each type of energy gathering.Cheeky_Ninja06 wrote:
Geo thermal is not so good.Bertster7 wrote:
Geothermal. Micro hydro. Both will save you money - but as with all these things, require a big outlay.Jay wrote:
Like what? LED lightbulbs?
75W incandescent bulb = (75W)(3hrs/day)(365days/yr)($.12/1000Wh)=$9.86/yr to run
14W LED bulb = (14W)(3hrs/day)(365days/yr)($.12/1000Wh)=$1.84/yr to run
Savings = $8.02/yr
Ok, but the incandescent is rated for 3750 hrs, and it costs $0.75 to replace. (3hrs/day)(365days/yr)=1,095 hrs/yr, so every 3 years or so you'd have to replace the incandescent for $0.75.
The initial cost of the LED bulb is $29.97. ($29.97)/($8.02+.77)=3.43 years to break even. Not bad.
Try getting that return on anything else labeled green and you'll be shit out of luck. Solar Panels? Maybe if the price keeps coming down. Hybrid vehicles? Nope, not without tens of thousands of dollars in government subsidies (which is no savings at all since that comes out of taxes, theoretically). Will organic food keep you out of the hospital less? Nope. In very few instances does the ROI actually favor green products.
Over the life of a geothermal system you save loads. Will take a decade or so to break even, but with some systems guaranteed for 50 years, the remaining 40 years would be profit. Seem to see it in a fair few new build houses and it would be a good selling point when buying a house, but I can see why installation costs put most people off - including me.
Micro hydro is great. Very cost effective. Unfortunately, not everyone lives by a river.
The rest, well, depends on location. Wind can be good - if you live somewhere really windy, coastal maybe. Solar can be good, if you live somewhere really sunny.
We have two problems with it at the moment.
1. The need for a full backup installation capable of running the house if the geo doesnt work. Therefore you have to pay for two full installations.
2. Permafrost. We now have fairly large areas, especially around london, where permafrost is a real issue as large developments are taking lots of heat of the ground and havent allowed for their neighbours to do the same thing. This causes permafrost and then no heating.
Organic food:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-19465692Only 30% less likely to contain pesticides? You would have expected 100% were it not for the bullshit marketing.Eating organic food will not make you healthier, according to researchers at Stanford University, although it could cut your exposure to pesticides.
They looked at more than 200 studies of the content and associated health gains of organic and non-organic foods.
Overall, there was no discernible difference between the nutritional content, although the organic food was 30% less likely to contain pesticides.
I hope people realise that the only reason europe doesnt depend on coal for power so much as the UK is because they have more nuclear plants.
Renewables are great and all but they do not supply enough power when we need it and we cannot store it properly.
As an example in the UK renewables peaked at 20% of the total power supply on something like the 20th June at 3pm. In the middle of december at 8pm when our power demand was more than double, renewables supplied 0.2%. So really it goes back to my first point, you dont realise the savings because you cannot rely on green / renewable technology, you still have to run something else as well.
I also direct you to read my post that you quoted for more about how the private cost of non-green products do not include all of their social costs and how green products do.
Nope. I can apply the same principle to other things too. If the statistics said I am the most likely to kill someone else if I drive a car, I wouldn't drive.Jay wrote:
And the statistics say that you are the most likely person to go on a murderous rampage. Do you trust yourself?Narupug wrote:
I don't want guns in the hands of people who are at a high risk of going on a murderous rampage, let alone guns that proficient at killing a lot of people at once. I realize that you can't completely prevent this from happening, but I find it very hard to believe that there is nothing we can do to limit it.Jay wrote:
So you want what? A psych evaluation on everyone before they purchase a weapon legally? Ok, now what about the 200,000,000 guns already in the system? Personally, I wouldn't want to give any power to psychiatrists, but maybe that's just me. We're only a generation removed from when they were recommending and signing off on forced sterilization for 'undesirables'. Most of their craft is a crock of shit imo.
In my opinion psychiatry has moved on from that. Regardless, I am merely suggesting that if you don't pass a psychiatric evaluation (no I don't want everyone in the US to be forced to get a psych evaluation), you can't buy a gun. At the very least the system would be set up so that only the most at risk would be prevented from buying guns.
You present an interesting problem of implementation. In order to buy any gun you would have to be certified. I would hope that the NRA would support whatever law was passed and would encourage it's members to go get certified. I can think of numerous ways to account for guns already owned, but I will forgo talking about any of them to just say that I don't think that that will be too much of a problem as long as law abiding gun owners go along with the plan to reduce the number of these incidents.
Sterilization = not having a gun, that's a new one