this a thread for random questions that come up in no order or context.
for ordinary questions and for weird and even stupid questions
what exactly isa "lounge?"
in america we have bars, we have bar&grilles, we have night clubs, and other things liketbat.
but what is a "lounge?"
do they recline on cushions, or slouch into chairs?
therez a "lounge" here on the ohio riverbank in west virginia, and i haveno idea whatis inside.
why did i post this in tbe "laidback lounge?"
what am i doing in here6 that makez me a lounger?
:oooh-me!:
Bar & Grille :beer: :drink:
Lounge & Café :cheersfortwo:
i thought you mostlydrank tea or coffee in cafes?
what is a cafe then, where you are?
A "bar" has an actually bar where you can belly-up and order drinks. A "lounge" serves drinks but usually has comfortable chairs and sometimes has musical or other acts, and may be a smoking establishment, as well, although that is less common, I think. But you can use them interchangeably and not violate any great universal law of nature. A "pub" is an English or Irish bar that serves stuff like Toad in the Hole, Bangers & Mash, fish & chips, etc. and they play darts.
I want to start a pub called "Cock & Balls", with a logo featuring a rooster kicking a couple of footballs (soccer balls). I will combine elements of bars, pubs, lounges, draft houses, and every other kind of drinking establishment. I need to hire someone from England or Ireland to run it, though.
Billy, you need to get out more often.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on May 20, 2021, 10:05:55 PM
I want to start a pub called "Cock & Balls", with a logo featuring a rooster kicking a couple of footballs (soccer balls).
:lol: That name would be such a tease. Your establishment would probably be at risk of getting confused for something else, though. :P
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on May 20, 2021, 10:05:55 PM
Billy, you need to get out more often.
i suppose
ive been in a bar maybe a dozen times in the last 50 years
ive always wondered what a lounge was
do you still call them a lounge if they have a bar?
Traditionally in Australia a pub (public house) has a public bar which back in the day was men only, women's lib put paid to that idea, thankfully. Also most pubs also had/heve a ladies lounge or lounge bar which also has a bar, but has (more or less) comfortable seats and tables. Many pubs here also have beer gardens which are very pleasant in fine weather. Pubs also used to be required to have acommodation as part of their licence requirement. Less common, but becoming more so are establishments simply called bars. These are generally in the bigger cities and basiically serve alcohol, but may have food.
On the food front, pubs generally server "counter meals" (AKA counterie) in the public bar and may either serve the same in the lounge or more elaborate meals. These days many pubs have bistros which serve a great variety of different meals, plus some pubs have proper restaurants.
why do salmon swim upstream to breed?
were they a saltwater fish that found swimming into creeks to lay eggs was advantageuos?
or were they a freshwater fish that found that being an adult in the ocean was a better way to go?
why swim all the way up the creeks? is the elevation al difference between sea level and the creeks the same as the difference between current sea level and the last high stand? maybe they originally bred in the little coastal creeks and tbe reason they go so far up today is that the ocean was higher when they started.
that would mean that salmin evolved their mating journeys before the pleistocene, in the last warm period of the cenozoic. so their pleistocene migrations would have been epic, with 200 metres more elevation between beach and breeding pool.
or not?
this has always bothered me.
^Billy, you are thinking too much. Don't stop doing that. Too many of outr red blooded Americans do not bother to think at all.
i cant help myself.
im stuckina staging yardwith seven otber trucks for the next 12 to 18 hours because tbeyre swapping wellheads up on the pad and all tbe things i dont know take the opportunity to pop up and bother me.
im re-reading dawkins selfish gene atm. he annoys me whenhe talks about religion, but as a speculative sociobiologis he is first-rate. he's the guy that took williams ideas about tbe units of natural selection and ran with it, back in1975. the result wS his startling proposal tbat natural selection doesnt care about individuals, its tbe actual genes in our cells that are descended from the replicating molecules in tbe old primaeval soup that are competing against each other. heady stuff when i first encountered it.
still pretty fundamental. we're just big bags of goo that our mindless genes use to make more copies of themselves. profound imications on consciounezs and what it means to be alive or not alive.
on thesalmon, i was wondering whether their migration had a geologic component, aswas proposed for green sea turtles at ascension island, way back when
https://www.nytimes.com/1974/05/30/archives/turtle-migration-is-linked-to-geophysics-scientists-attribute.html
^^^thatidea proposed that tbe turtles swim so far to lay eggs because originally he island was close by. thentheir beaches ended up on tbe other side of tbe new spreading mid ocean ridge, and they had to swim a half-inch farther every year for 80 million years. now tbeyre stuck, going what the hell happened?
Why do I keep getting W&W's in my M&M's?
Quote from: No one on June 14, 2021, 04:19:27 PM
Why do I keep getting W&W's in my M&M's?
Those belong to the person across from you, stingy. :P
Not sure I could even get my reflection to sit across from me.
Salmon swim upstream to feed the bears and provide footage for nature documentaries.
You're welcome.
Quote from: No one on June 14, 2021, 05:50:29 PM
Not sure I could even get my reflection to sit across from me.
Well then, steal them from your friend in the broken mirror while they still read correctly!
or try a simple board game as a distraction
(https://i.imgur.com/Yqm42dIh.jpg)
why do some birds hop when theyre on the ground, and other birds walk?
very small birds generally hop, and very large birds generally walk
but if i recall correctly, theres a murky middle ground where it seems birds are without rules
Salmon are not the only freshwater fish to perform a migration to/from the sea as part of their lifecycle. The most obvious examples are freshwater eels that live most of their life in freshwater and then migrate to the sea, often undertaking long migrations at sea, in order to breed. They return to freshwater in massive migrations as glass eels or elvers in events known as eel fairs.
In Australia, there are many species that also live most of their life in freshwater and have a stage as juveniles in marine environments. Some spawn in freshwater and the larvae wash down stream to the estuaries or even the sea, while in other species the adults migrate downstream to spawn in the estuary. Many of the former are various species of galaxias, generally smallish long tubular fish, the young are sometimes caught during their upstream migration to the fresh and consumed as whitebait. The common galaxias
Galaxias macculatus is probably the most widely naturally distributed freshwater fish in the world being found in coastal streams in south eastern Australia, New Zealand, Lord Howe Island, the Chatham Islands, Patagonian South America (Chile and Argentina) and the Falkland Islands. One species, the spotted galaxias
Galaxias truttaceus, can withstand direct transfer from sea water to fresh and vice versa. Hmm, time to stop before I get carried away. Oops, too late!
(https://www.nativefish.asn.au/userfiles/images/Galaxias-truttaxeus.jpg)
Spotted galaxias Galaxias truttaceous
it cerainly seems to be a useful life cycle. i just cantfigure out how it evolved.
but im probably looking for something that isnt there. many biological patterns are simply random stuff. no more reasonto expect meaning than there is to watching water flow across a randomly undulating surface.
that galaxias is beautiful. tbe stuff where i live is much duller
what is the difference between ethics and morals?
is there a difference?
Ethics is more about doing what's right, or proper, toward others above personal preferences. Morals is a fact of nature that keeps one humane toward others. Immorals is when one is outside the natural bounds of "human" nature. Ethics and morals are twins, slightly different. One can be unethical and still remain within the bounds of morals.
so how do you think one can do what is right yowards others when one is not acting humanely?
what is an example of a morally correct behaviour that is unethical?
are we talking about the jew in the closet?
Quote from: billy rubin on September 05, 2021, 06:20:34 PM
so how do you think one can do what is right yowards others when one is not acting humanely?
what is an example of a morally correct behaviour that is unethical?
are we talking about the jew in the closet?
I could have given a better answer, but that answer would have to be taken from studies. For fear of preaching I had to do the best I could.
To put it simpler- Ethnics mostly originate from man made determinations but yet akin to morals, and can be a derivative of morals- sometimes, but mostly not.
Ethics is made by man as to what is right and wrong. A social system can determine something to be right when it isn't and the same thing wrong in a different circumstance. Man can determine a wrong to be acceptable even tho it is immoral/harmful.
Quote from: billy rubin on September 04, 2021, 02:31:21 PM
what is the difference between ethics and morals?
is there a difference?
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/32/6e/df/326edf138ba0b2a4003fce3462a1609a.jpg)
(https://lowres.cartooncollections.com/dilemmas-morality-moral_dilemma-ethic-ethical-social-issues-WJ500135_low.jpg)
Quote from: Old Seer on September 05, 2021, 11:37:55 PM
Quote from: billy rubin on September 05, 2021, 06:20:34 PM
so how do you think one can do what is right yowards others when one is not acting humanely?
what is an example of a morally correct behaviour that is unethical?
are we talking about the jew in the closet?
I could have given a better answer, but that answer would have to be taken from studies. For fear of preaching I had to do the best I could.
To put it simpler- Ethnics mostly originate from man made determinations but yet akin to morals, and can be a derivative of morals- sometimes, but mostly not.
Ethics is made by man as to what is right and wrong. A social system can determine something to be right when it isn't and the same thing wrong in a different circumstance. Man can determine a wrong to be acceptable even tho it is immoral/harmful.
huh?
Quote from: billy rubin on September 06, 2021, 06:24:17 AM
Quote from: Old Seer on September 05, 2021, 11:37:55 PM
Quote from: billy rubin on September 05, 2021, 06:20:34 PM
so how do you think one can do what is right yowards others when one is not acting humanely?
what is an example of a morally correct behaviour that is unethical?
are we talking about the jew in the closet?
I could have given a better answer, but that answer would have to be taken from studies. For fear of preaching I had to do the best I could.
To put it simpler- Ethnics mostly originate from man made determinations but yet akin to morals, and can be a derivative of morals- sometimes, but mostly not.
Ethics is made by man as to what is right and wrong. A social system can determine something to be right when it isn't and the same thing wrong in a different circumstance. Man can determine a wrong to be acceptable even tho it is immoral/harmful.
huh?
Magnalina in post 25 presented it better then I. The question there is -- immorality of sex in marriage. Marriage is man made, in past times there was no civil marriage. The invention of marriage doesn't make sex outside of marriage immoral. If sex in ancient times wasn't immoral then it can never be. That means that today if it's wrong to have sex outside of marriage it is deemed wrong because of a determination by individuals. IOW, man can create right and wrong at will depending upon preferences. But the institution of marriage is not a case of immorality as immorality cannot be invented, only discovered. Morals comes about by the recognition that one can harm another and chooses to harm or not harm. Right and wrong are created to manipulate and/or control others. Civil law creates right and wrong, but not morals. It's all a matter of "who" makes the rules according to their preferences. A moral person is self (inward) regulated. Right and wrong is an external regulation by others upon others.
Notice in post 25 it is considering sex outside marriage as immoral, but yet marriage is an invention by man/persons. :-)
im going to have to look at ^^^that one sentence at a time
Quote from: Old Seer on September 06, 2021, 08:18:10 PM
....
Notice in post 25 it is considering sex outside marriage as immoral, but yet marriage is an invention by man/persons. :-)
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/32/6e/df/326edf138ba0b2a4003fce3462a1609a.jpg)
Hmm...
This is how I interpret it...
Let's say a man has sex outside the marriage, maybe divorce follows.
Both signed a paper promising to be faithful to each other, if the man has sex outside the marriage, or breaks the contract, in court, that makes him unethical. In legal terms, according to the law-- Yes?
In society, when the details of the divorce come out, the unethical man is marked as the immoral one in the relationship as well.
Immoral, in religious terms--yes?
If the man doesn't have sex outside the marriage, in legal terms, according to the law, he is an ethical man--yes?
In society, the faithful man is ethical and moral, in religious terms--yes?
Some don't care if a man made a stupid mistake, and they won't judge him or label him by the law of men or the law of a god.
:shrug:
Quote from: Magdalena on September 07, 2021, 03:36:42 AM
Some don't care if a man made a stupid mistake, and they won't judge him or label him by the law of men or the law of a god.
:shrug:
I don't care about the other somes and I don't feel constrained by this modern "don't judge" twaddle. I'll apply a label if feel like it, maybe remove it later if the bastard behaves himself. I really hate those smarmy songs, the ones that go something like this:
I really love you baby, I'm so so sorry
Please take me back baby, baby please
I'll never sleep with your sisters again
Is Sue coming home for Thanksgiving?
Baby I'm sorry, look at my Belushi face!
do morals exist apart from any human activity?
seer, you say morals must be disvovered, andt that right and wrong must be created.
if that is true, then morals do not deal with right and wrong.
what does the moral/immoral scale actually measure?
I'll have to leave it here, otherwise this should be taken to the anteroom, as I see it. :-)
Quote from: Bad Penny II on September 07, 2021, 12:28:36 PM
Quote from: Magdalena on September 07, 2021, 03:36:42 AM
Some don't care if a man made a stupid mistake, and they won't judge him or label him by the law of men or the law of a god.
:shrug:
I don't care about the other somes and I don't feel constrained by this modern "don't judge" twaddle. I'll apply a label if feel like it, maybe remove it later if the bastard behaves himself....
(https://media3.giphy.com/media/ToMjGpKniGqRNLGBrhu/giphy.gif?cid=6c09b952b841c968a4c6c38d6b509b1f7397bfb1806aef5b&rid=giphy.gif&ct=g)
Philosophically, morals is a subset of ethics. As it is normally used, ethics usually applies more in the realm of public life or business, whereas morals deals with individual human behavior. Non-ethical behavior also often has legal ramifications, whereas immoral behavior usually results in social consequences. What is considered moral or ethical often differs from culture to culture, so it is basically impossible to come to a consensus among cultures (whether the culture be defined in social, religious or other terms). Just as there will be no universal consensus about morals and ethics, so there will be no universal consensus about right and wrong.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on September 07, 2021, 06:24:57 PM
Philosophically, morals is a subset of ethics. As it is normally used, ethics usually applies more in the realm of public life or business, whereas morals deals with individual human behavior. Non-ethical behavior also often has legal ramifications, whereas immoral behavior usually results in social consequences. What is considered moral or ethical often differs from culture to culture, so it is basically impossible to come to a consensus among cultures (whether the culture be defined in social, religious or other terms). Just as there will be no universal consensus about morals and ethics, so there will be no universal consensus about right and wrong.
:boaterhat:
why isnt the past tense of
be-lieve
be-left?
im not sure about ethics. i have generally thrown up my hands and defined ethics as the application of morality, where morals are general principles and ethics are rules for using them.
but im listening.
are houseflies sensitive to sound, or to percussive waves in their substrates?
its late summer, and in a house with no screens we have flypaper everywhere that i replace every few days.
i notice that if there are several houseflies around me and i smack at one with a flyswatter, that thr little buggers disappear for two or three minutes.
do they notice that i am after them? or is it an illusion on my part because i am paying more attention?
enquiring minds want to know
why do i wake up in the morning with cats asleep on my chest?
i mean , i knoe ultimately the cause of cats, but my questionis why the chest thing
why do cats do that?
Quote from: billy rubin on October 23, 2021, 01:08:21 AM
why do i wake up in the morning with cats asleep on my chest?
i mean , i knoe ultimately the cause of cats, but my questionis why the chest thing
why do cats do that?
If you are insufficiently weak, constitutionally, they are waiting for you to die so that they can be first in line to consume the vermin that will come to consume you. Cats are evil, incarnate. YMMV
ive known catsthat wouldnt waitforthe vermin to start eating
i had a really puzzling question i couldnt figure out the answer for.
then i forgot what it was.
but look at this.
https://i.imgur.com/I5eEYnV.mp4
what does it take to be intelligent? is intelligence problem solving? creativity? the ability to invent philosophy?
we have big brains and use them to mess up the world we live in. but the cephalopods supposedly diverged from the rest of the mlluscs in the cambrian, like 600 million years ago, and theyve been through multiple continental break ups, meteroite strikes, transgressions and regressions of i dont know how many shallow seas, and theyre doing just fine in a harmonious balance. or were.
it seems like th ebest measure of intelligence is that th emore you have, the worse you are for everything.
Once evolution started going down the intelligence path, destructive beings like humans was probably inevitable. But nature has even more destructive things to rid itself of intelligent beings. Fortunately, we are confined to a small planet in the corner of an ordinary galaxy, so our influence is limited. Woe to the universe if we ever hook up with other intelligent beings. What calamity would ensue!!!
this brings up th eelon musk dilemma. ive mentioned it before, but hes all gung ho on colonizing the rest of the galaxy, so that human beings can expand across an infinite frontier, because . . .
because ?
none of these intergalactic gene spreaders ever adresses the question of . . . because, why?
at least that i have noticed. its a giant cosmic manifest detsiny. for you people unfamiliar with weird american political history, "manifest destiny" was how 19th century united states people in the east looked at the north american continent. we had a frontier in the east, and mexico to the south, canada to the north, and afterwe threw the mexicans out of california, we had a fringe over there from mexico to oregon/washington that were entering official statehood. anyway it was considered the manifest destiny of white northern european americans to gradually seep over the whole north american continent, and all other political and ethnioc entities were to be swept aside. this is actually what happened, and oklahoma and arizona were the last of the contiguous territories to be admitted as states.
so th eelon crowd seems to have this same manifest destiny idea towards space, th eidea that its important for us to spread our DNA across light years of the universe. in spite of the fact that we obviously cant take care of what we already have here on earth, and that its our DNA-driven drive to splash more DNA everywhere thats driving the overpopulation thats fouling our household here and will do the same everywhere else too
do we really need a univers full of more elon musks? next time, we can launch billionaires into space from mars instead of texas? turn video game star wars into cool reality? make flash gordon and the emperor ming the future of everything we re involved in?
why?
i dont understand the idea that this is even a useful thing, much less at all likely.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on January 23, 2022, 02:34:11 PM
Once evolution started going down the intelligence path, destructive beings like humans was probably inevitable. But nature has even more destructive things to rid itself of intelligent beings. Fortunately, we are confined to a small planet in the corner of an ordinary galaxy, so our influence is limited. Woe to the universe if we ever hook up with other intelligent beings. What calamity would ensue!!!
but has evolution ever gone down the intelligence path except with the primates?
possums and cockroaches and sharks and so on dont seem to need it. even the cetaceans, which are arguably intelligent enough to rival us seem not to have taken th edestructive path, maybe because they couldn't, being acquatic. who knows what philosophy they discuss, though?
the destructive path seems to be a primate thing, and not all of us either. siamangs and gibbons arent really smart, and arent destructive. a chimpanzee will take a grove of trees and denude it, whereas a siamang will live there for years and never damage it at all. but an orang utan wont damage its personal habitat either, and i think theyre as smart as chimnps.
why did humans take the chimp route of fouling our nest, and not the orang utan route of sustain ibility?
why am i asking questions i cant answer?
Why? Because in their particular environment intelligence became a survival tool. But now it is more of a liability. Ultimately, whether a species opts for intelligence or instinct, they all seem to be doomed in the end. The survival game has an termination point.
intelligence appears to be a local peak in the human adaptive landscape. we climbed the peak for greater fitness, but now we're up there and the eternally moving environmental coordinates are moving away from us.
but naturl selection wont le us climb down, and th enext peak is too far away to jump to.
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fnycevolution.org%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2Fadaptive.landscape.jpg&hash=1925f5f81d480442e34aa51314c98d4dfea8c8bb)
im not sure that survival is doomed. george gaylord simpson estimated that the duration of a typical species over time was about five million years, but he used a palaeontological definition of species. but then some slightly higher taxa have very long lifespans, lik ehorshoe crabs from the ordovician and nautiluses all the way from the cambrian. so there are pretty complex creatures that can be very longlived, at least at taxa above the species.
but maybe the fact that there arent that many of them proves your point. certainly the rule is to die off. and we do seem to be among that group
Cute visual. What sort of units is it drawn to? Homo Sap is a vicious predator. I expect them to last.
its just a random unitless presentation of sewell wright's adaptive landscape model. suppose youre a giraffe in africa, and the axes corespond to leg length and neck length. in your area a certain combination of the two lets you run fastest without falling and reach the highest leaves without fainting when you lift your head. the peak is the best combination of the two for your area. so any population that immigrates into that region will have a selection pressure that causes the expression of necks and legs to drift up to the top of the peak, like bubbles underwater rising along the inner surface of a hollow dome. over time, the genotype of any population will rise to the peak and stop. if there is another even higher peak nearby but a valley of un-fitness lies in between, then the population will never reach it without a drastic mutation.
its just like en engine map. there wil be a landscape of ignition timing and rpm that shows the highest bmep for all combinations. the shape of the surface shows th eoptimum combinations giving th ehighest bmep. th edifference is that biological landscape is self-improving through natural selection. but the axes and a multidimensional surface are the same.
in the real world, any combination of genes is included in the multi-axis model, hundreds or thousands of them, and they all interact to varying degrees. the various factors combine to form the optimum genotype for a given environmental niche. interspecific competition in bad times means that each niche will hold mostly one species,.
theres lots of interpretations
(https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Silvia-Caianiello/publication/284994323/figure/fig2/AS:576511048679424@1514462353237/A-hypothetical-adaptive-landscape-representing-adaptive-morphologies-portrayed-as-a.png)
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fevolutionarysystemsbiology.org%2Fintro%2Fmoca-lifts-are-massively-oversimplified-cartoons-of-abstracted-landscape-of-incomplete-fitness-traits.jpg&hash=68a949157951891f9ea4604bd1e04eca10eb8bf3)
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F1.bp.blogspot.com%2F-fnEttyGQQiQ%2FU0KqBLrVyMI%2FAAAAAAAADos%2FyoDwO5JOJr8%2Fs1600%2Fpupfish-adaptive-landscape.jpg&hash=56f8b349d0d07f08614a4efe3b25f242949a9def)
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F1.bp.blogspot.com%2F-nLU_nPdfCMo%2FUA23eKOs1MI%2FAAAAAAAABcg%2FHLsVGqeToVU%2Fs1600%2Frugged%2Blandscape.jpg&hash=de18d7237a5fdd74c8aa8b93ca49616f3ae7c863)
this shit fascinates me, so i get nerdy over it
Unitless = pointless, as I'm sure you know. It's therefore art.
is there a difference between science and art?
Quote from: billy rubin on January 24, 2022, 04:33:12 AM
is there a difference between science and art?
Green! is there a difference between science and art?
Of course, science appeals to science wankers and art appeals to art wankers.
i dont think that helps very much
Quote from: billy rubin on January 23, 2022, 03:35:18 PM
this brings up th eelon musk dilemma. ive mentioned it before, but hes all gung ho on colonizing the rest of the galaxy, so that human beings can expand across an infinite frontier, because . . .
because ?
none of these intergalactic gene spreaders ever adresses the question of . . . because, why?
at least that i have noticed. its a giant cosmic manifest detsiny. for you people unfamiliar with weird american political history, "manifest destiny" was how 19th century united states people in the east looked at the north american continent. we had a frontier in the east, and mexico to the south, canada to the north, and afterwe threw the mexicans out of california, we had a fringe over there from mexico to oregon/washington that were entering official statehood. anyway it was considered the manifest destiny of white northern european americans to gradually seep over the whole north american continent, and all other political and ethnioc entities were to be swept aside. this is actually what happened, and oklahoma and arizona were the last of the contiguous territories to be admitted as states.
so th eelon crowd seems to have this same manifest destiny idea towards space, th eidea that its important for us to spread our DNA across light years of the universe. in spite of the fact that we obviously cant take care of what we already have here on earth, and that its our DNA-driven drive to splash more DNA everywhere thats driving the overpopulation thats fouling our household here and will do the same everywhere else too
do we really need a univers full of more elon musks? next time, we can launch billionaires into space from mars instead of texas? turn video game star wars into cool reality? make flash gordon and the emperor ming the future of everything we re involved in?
why?
i dont understand the idea that this is even a useful thing, much less at all likely.
Because we like ourselves, I'm nice, most of the people I know are, the continuation of us is a good.
Fuck all the moaning bastards deploring the despoiling of dead planets and floating about things.
Quote from: billy rubin on January 24, 2022, 04:33:12 AM
is there a difference between science and art?
I am not clever enough to even attempt to answer this interesting question, so would be interested to hear what people like Bronowski, Kenneth Clark, or Roger Penrose had to say about it.
Quote from: Bad Penny II on January 25, 2022, 12:40:17 PM
Because we like ourselves, I'm nice, most of the people I know are, the continuation of us is a good.
Fuck all the moaning bastards deploring the despoiling of dead planets and floating about things.
i think im okay too, but i dont have a problem with the extinction of me. i do not see the continuation of me as a good, or a bad, or as an anything.
its all a nothing. there is no nothing that is more important than any other nothing, as i see it.
Quote from: hermes2015 on January 25, 2022, 12:59:38 PM
Quote from: billy rubin on January 24, 2022, 04:33:12 AM
is there a difference between science and art?
I am not clever enough to even attempt to answer this interesting question, so would be interested to hear what people like Bronowski, Kenneth Clark, or Roger Penrose had to say about it.
i suspect it has to do with the motivations of the creator, whether scientific, or artistic.
both are rooted in creativity, in the expression of something.
maybe, one has more rules than the other. but im not sure. there are lots of rules in art, but then, maybe its the science types that looke for them?
(https://img.bondlayer.com/ns1votvt5w/_assets/n4spfxv4ku0nib2y4u4hqu.jpg?auto=format&fit=fill&w=920)
(https://drawpaintacademy.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Georges-Seurat-Bridge-of-Courbevoie.jpg)
(https://www.ucsart.com/files/the-golden-ratio-brings-order-and-harmony-to-a-seemingly-chaotic-scene-original-painting-photo-british-museum.jpg)
(https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/81y+fColymL._AC_SX300_SY300_.jpg)
stuff like pollock^^^ bothers me immensely, because i cant figure out whether im missing something or not.
Quote from: billy rubin on January 25, 2022, 08:28:12 PM
(https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/81y+fColymL._AC_SX300_SY300_.jpg)
stuff like pollock^^^ bothers me immensely, because i cant figure out whether im missing something or not.
Pollock and other "creative" artists can be appreciated after having taken Mags advice about smoking good pot. Without a psychedelic influence, that is a bunch of paint splatters. Skillfully and artistically splattered no doubt
The interior walls of my small spray booth, having random deposits of various colors, might have been worthy of display in an art museum. The work I did at my spray booth was skillful, but not particularly artistic.
^My dad worked at an assembly plant for General Motors vehicles, in Van Nuys, CA. He chipped chunks of paint over-spray off parts of the assembly line and carved things from them. That was back in the day of lacquer-based paint.
Quote from: Dark Lightning on January 26, 2022, 04:17:58 AM
^My dad worked at an assembly plant for General Motors vehicles, in Van Nuys, CA. He chipped chunks of paint over-spray off parts of the assembly line and carved things from them. That was back in the day of lacquer-based paint.
That sounds fun.
Quote from: Tank on January 27, 2022, 11:28:11 AM
Quote from: Dark Lightning on January 26, 2022, 04:17:58 AM
^My dad worked at an assembly plant for General Motors vehicles, in Van Nuys, CA. He chipped chunks of paint over-spray off parts of the assembly line and carved things from them. That was back in the day of lacquer-based paint.
That sounds fun.
Myriad thin stripes of paint, too.
why does water on my skin make me slip on the bathroom floor but that same water on my skin makes it hard to pull on my long underwear?
Here are differences between science and art. Science is about a logical approach to explain things. Art is about aesthetics and perspectives regardless if they are illogical or not. The goal of science is to prove and disprove thing. The goal of art is to make a reflection of a person's experiences, skills, and knowledge who made art, and then an audience makes their own thoughts about that person's art.
What I find interesting is when people do not understand the difference between artists and artisans.
Why do people make conscious and conscience sound exactly the same? It doesn't seem right to me logically. The logical conclusion would be to make those 2 words sound different to prevent people being confused when they are being said.
Why do words peers, seers, queers, beers, and sheers have an S at the end of them that implies they are plural while the word deers is not considered formal English? Did a lazy person not make the word deers become a plural word to indicate more than one deer for formal English? I prefer saying deers instead of deer to mean more than one deer. Because it seems like a logical approach rather than an intellectually lazy and disorganized one by only saying deer.
Why haven't people improved the formal English language yet? It's flawed logically.
Did a female spider accidentally kill her male mate thinking he was non-spider food, and that is how black widows first existed? Or was a female spider so desperate for food when having sex, then started eating her male mate for sustenance, and that's how black widows were invented? The things species do for survival is interesting...
Why do they say African-American, but not German-American, Scottish-American, French-American, and so forth?
Quote from: billy rubin on February 06, 2022, 07:36:21 PM
why does water on my skin make me slip on the bathroom floor but that same water on my skin makes it hard to pull on my long underwear?
Because water creates a gap between your skin's grip on the floor and the floor itself. So, water makes your skin have a hard time gripping onto surfaces to prevent slippage. Water makes your clothes "stick" on you. Thereby, making it harder to make clothes move when your body is wet with water.
Quote from: billy rubin on January 23, 2022, 03:41:02 PM
why did humans take the chimp route of fouling our nest, and not the orang utan route of sustain ibility?
Quote from: billy rubin on January 23, 2022, 03:41:02 PM
why did humans take the chimp route of fouling our nest, and not the orang utan route of sustain ibility?
Humans are omnivorous creatures. They are semi-carnivorous. Carnivorous creatures have a tendency to be destructive predators for survival. Survival is why humans chose the destructive route. They chose to survive by destructively killing for self-defense rather than die by being killed. It is why humans have lived this long without being extinct. Being destructive is a way of showing power, too.
Quote from: billy rubin on September 08, 2021, 05:46:47 PM
why isnt the past tense of
be-lieve
be-left?
Because they BELIEVED the word believed would suffice. :grin:
Quote from: billy rubin on July 08, 2021, 11:02:41 PM
why do some birds hop when theyre on the ground, and other birds walk?
Because that bird booty is too heavily thicc to let them hop and fly like other birds. So, they just walk. The other ones hop on grounds because they don't have to walk since their flying lets them travel.
i am going to have to think about these.
especially the bird walking/hopping thing
Likely a function of leg length. Or maybe the little peeper birds really are walking, but their little legs are going deedle-deedle-deedle like small dog's legs, and one can't tell? Maybe the little peeper birds don't have knees on those stubby little legs.
Walking birds usually do not fly in the air because evolution caused them to be too heavy from bodies weighing them down, especially ones with legs and knees. Flying birds can fly more easily because they do not have knees, legs, and too much body weight pulling them down because of gravity.
no no not the ratites
crows walk, in preference to hopping.
ravens walk. not all icterids, because starlings hop, i believe
robins tend to hop, as do most passerines.
sometimes a question will cpme to you of nowhere
first, what is the largest piece ofear wax e ver remoeved fom a human ear?
the answer is 2.5cm
second, wh would someone make a vidioi about ir?
and why do my vowels disappear
i m home out of the truck
thank heavens
and i have three chidren in the house discussing whether soaking ones testincles in soy sauce is a tasteable experience.
i have explained that the answer is irrelevant, because i will not soak my testicles in soy sauce whether i can taste it or not, but that has not slowed the conversation.
has anybody here ever tatsed soy sauce by soaking their genitals in it?
gender is irrelevant in this i think
Quote from: billy rubin on February 19, 2022, 05:17:34 AM
i m home out of the truck
thank heavens
and i have three chidren in the house discussing whether soaking ones testincles in soy sauce is a tasteable experience.
i have explained that the answer is irrelevant, because i will not soak my testicles in soy sauce whether i can taste it or not, but that has not slowed the conversation.
has anybody here ever tatsed soy sauce by soaking their genitals in it?
gender is irrelevant in this i think
No. Neither my testicles nor somebody else's.
Hermes'?
Quote from: Tank on February 19, 2022, 08:37:29 AM
Quote from: billy rubin on February 19, 2022, 05:17:34 AM
i m home out of the truck
thank heavens
and i have three chidren in the house discussing whether soaking ones testincles in soy sauce is a tasteable experience.
i have explained that the answer is irrelevant, because i will not soak my testicles in soy sauce whether i can taste it or not, but that has not slowed the conversation.
has anybody here ever tatsed soy sauce by soaking their genitals in it?
gender is irrelevant in this i think
No. Neither my testicles nor somebody else's.
Hermes'?
Yes, literally hundreds of times, but without any condiments, apart from the occasional flavoured lube. I am partial to just plain old, run-of the-mill, unadorned oral sex.
Quote from: hermes2015 on February 19, 2022, 08:49:01 AM
Quote from: Tank on February 19, 2022, 08:37:29 AM
Quote from: billy rubin on February 19, 2022, 05:17:34 AM
i m home out of the truck
thank heavens
and i have three chidren in the house discussing whether soaking ones testincles in soy sauce is a tasteable experience.
i have explained that the answer is irrelevant, because i will not soak my testicles in soy sauce whether i can taste it or not, but that has not slowed the conversation.
has anybody here ever tatsed soy sauce by soaking their genitals in it?
gender is irrelevant in this i think
No. Neither my testicles nor somebody else's.
Hermes'?
Yes, literally hundreds of times, but without any condiments, apart from the occasional flavoured lube. I am partial to just plain old, run-of the-mill, unadorned oral sex.
I loath flavoured lube. Some self-hating bastard must have invented it. :puke:
Quote from: Tank on February 19, 2022, 09:19:03 AM
Quote from: hermes2015 on February 19, 2022, 08:49:01 AM
Quote from: Tank on February 19, 2022, 08:37:29 AM
Quote from: billy rubin on February 19, 2022, 05:17:34 AM
i m home out of the truck
thank heavens
and i have three chidren in the house discussing whether soaking ones testincles in soy sauce is a tasteable experience.
i have explained that the answer is irrelevant, because i will not soak my testicles in soy sauce whether i can taste it or not, but that has not slowed the conversation.
has anybody here ever tatsed soy sauce by soaking their genitals in it?
gender is irrelevant in this i think
No. Neither my testicles nor somebody else's.
Hermes'?
Yes, literally hundreds of times, but without any condiments, apart from the occasional flavoured lube. I am partial to just plain old, run-of the-mill, unadorned oral sex.
I loath flavoured lube. Some self-hating bastard must have invented it. :puke:
Me too! I am not too fond of the smell of poppers either, but they are useful.
why does the dog come and wake me up on my first day off to demand to be let outside
goes outside for ten minutes, then demands to be let back in
so he can run into the living room, puke on the floor,
then lie down on his blanket and look at me?
I have a question.
Why doesn't the po-po shoot a suspect in the arm or the leg to immobilize him/her, rather than kill them?
Easy answer. They shoot for the center of mass, because the chances of immobilizing someone by shooting them in an extremity are markedly reduced (especially if they are on drugs), not to mention possibly missing the moving limbs and at least potentially injuring an innocent bystander. You've likely never been in a situation where a person high on drugs or dead-set against being taken into custody charged towards you, and I hope you never will be. The 21 foot limit at which a police officer will likely use deadly force comes from studies of reaction time and speed of the assailant. If someone proceeds to charge towards an officer, they have reaction time to deal with, and the momentum of the attacker. Believe it or not, several shots to the torso aren't guaranteed fatal, either, so it's not really "shoot to kill".
Quote from: Dark Lightning on March 20, 2022, 02:15:39 AM
Easy answer. They shoot for the center of mass, because the chances of immobilizing someone by shooting them in an extremity are markedly reduced (especially if they are on drugs), not to mention possibly missing the moving limbs and at least potentially injuring an innocent bystander. You've likely never been in a situation where a person high on drugs or dead-set against being taken into custody charged towards you, and I hope you never will be. The 21-foot limit at which a police officer will likely use deadly force comes from studies of reaction time and speed of the assailant. If someone proceeds to charge towards an officer, they have the reaction time to deal with, and the momentum of the attacker. Believe it or not, several shots to the torso aren't guaranteed fatal, either, so it's not really "shoot to kill".
OK.
Thank you for answering.
"...shots to the torso aren't guaranteed fatal..."
So, they go for the shoulder?
The hip?
Right?
:deadpan:
Because it doesn't look like they do either.
"especially if they are on drugs"
What if they aren't?
"reaction time"
Is it the same if the suspect is just holding a knife?
"injuring an innocent bystander."
Would that be a nosy person standing where they shouldn't when guns are locked and loaded and pointed everywhere?
I just find it hard to believe that the police department finds it difficult to not kill an innocent person until proven guilty in a court of law. And even then, it's not their job to execute them.
I'm not in a position to tell you where anyone should shoot someone to make it so that that person fails to attack and possibly kill them. Shoulder, hip? Nope, those don't include center of mass, they are at the edges. Though I expect that bullets hit those areas when the shit hits the fan. As far as, "especially if they are on drugs", I'd expect that if a person was acting in an irrational way, (and I will say that I am not qualified to say what that entails), it would be a judgement call on-scene by trained police. As for "nosy people who are where they shouldn't be", please understand that some people could just be walking by when the shit hits the fan. Nothing "nosy" about them. That happens all the time. My FiL had a scanner that monitored fire and police frequencies and he used to take his daughter (now my wife) to those scenes to see the aftermath of the fires or shootings. That's stupid, imho.
It isn't the police department's job to execute people, if that's what you are alluding to. Whatever situation there is that leads up to a shooting certainly isn't some sort of sanctioned execution.
sometimes it is.
in america, being a cop gives you a license to kill.
look at that chicago pig who stepped out of car and shot that kid 16 times in the next 8 seconds, i think?
he emptied the magazine the instant he arrived.
look at the other one who killed the 12 year old in the playground who had a toy gun.
for a lot of thugs, joining the local police is a fun way to hurt people and get paid to do it.
My small city has about 250 cops. There may be two or three of them who are trigger happy. My department chief has no hesitation in firing them if he determines that they actually want to prove their manhood....or ladyhood, by unnecessarily shooting a suspect.
On the other hand, my cops are well trained in the use of firearms and they have occasionally been forced into a situation where firing their weapons was a matter of life or death.
It is not easy to hire good candidates for police work. The personal risk is high and the pay is not all that great. Recently two cops from New York city applied to my police department for a job. They were both accepted and became rookie police officers even though they both had several years experience at NYC PD. Apparently they both had New York mentality that made them overbearing and possibly dangerous. They have both been fired and have perhaps headed back to Gotham.
None of my cops are inclined to shoot unless absolutely necessary. One of the reasons is that the bad guys can often shoot back. Another reason is that there is hell to pay in the courts, a huge amount of provable evidence has to be presented, the cop is put on administrative leave until the case is decided, his or her firearms are taken from them. The shooting goes on their record whether they killed the other person or not. Bad rap.
here's part of the problem:
QuoteCourt OKs Barring High IQs for Cops
N E W L O N D O N, Conn., Sept. 8, 2000 -- A man whose bid to become a police officer was rejected after he scored too high on an intelligence test has lost an appeal in his federal lawsuit against the city.
. . .
Jordan, a 49-year-old college graduate, took the exam in 1996 and scored 33 points, the equivalent of an IQ of 125. But New London police interviewed only candidates who scored 20 to 27, on the theory that those who scored too high could get bored with police work and leave soon after undergoing costly training.
Most Cops Just Above Normal The average score nationally for police officers is 21 to 22, the equivalent of an IQ of 104, or just a little above average.
Jordan alleged his rejection from the police force was discrimination. He sued the city, saying his civil rights were violated because he was denied equal protection under the law.
But the U.S. District Court found that New London had "shown a rational basis for the policy." In a ruling dated Aug. 23, the 2nd Circuit agreed. The court said the policy might be unwise but was a rational way to reduce job turnover.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/court-oks-barring-high-iqs-cops/story?id=95836
police work requires certain skills, but high cognitive ability is a drawback. in my opinion, this is one reason why too many police officers shoot innocent people, threaten bystanders, make bad decisions in crisis situations, and in general behave as if they were too stupid to do their job correctly. its because they are.
I think we've talked about good cops, bad cops, smart ones, dumb ones, kind ones, abusive ones, thugs, violent, and gang members joining the force just to abuse their power to murder "in the name of the law."
...But, I just want to know if it's possible to immobilize a suspect without killing them. DL made it sound as if it's something impossible and even dangerous to a lot of people. I don't know much about guns, but there are lasers, right? Can't they aim at a leg with a laser with accuracy? Or is it that they just don't want to?
Well, I was addressing the sorts of people who are presenting obvious danger to the police or the community. There are many ways to subdue a suspect, but it depends on what they are doing. I'd say that too many police go for their guns too soon. But then, I'm not a trained police officer.
"But then, I'm not a trained police officer."
I think that's the keyword, right there. "a trained". What is the training procedure?
I bet you that if the government gave them a monetary incentive to immobilize instead of killing, they would come up with all sorts of gadgets and shit. Sure, the courts would be filled with people with arm and leg casts, but alive.
Their motto would have to change from:
"To Protect and to Serve."
To:
"To Preserve Life and to Serve."
:notsure:
Tazer, it is, not laser. thats the electric zapper that causes the muscles to seize up for aa few seconds. when it works, it works. but it doesnt always work. the ones the cops use have little spearheads o wires that shoot across about 6 feet and stick in the person to deliver the shock. if you miss or if they dont stick in well, the taser doesnt work well. and if the guy has eaten a whole handful of uppers it takes more to slow him down.
and there are genuinely people who you need to shoot, right now, without a doubt. somebody who is chasing after someone with an axe, or a guy in a schoolroom with a gun, threatening to shoot all the kids. looking for gentler ways to remove those immediate and deadly threats can cause other people to die.
but here is an example of doing it badly:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/oct/05/chicago-laquan-mcdonald-jason-van-dyke
QuoteThe video showed Van Dyke's car pull up as McDonald, 17, was striding down the middle of a two-way street, carrying a knife. Police had answered a 911 call after McDonald was reportedly seen attempting to break into a truck.
The jury heard that the first police officers on the scene kept a distance from McDonald as he walked. An autopsy would later show that McDonald, who was carrying a three-inch bladed knife, had the drug PCP in his system.
By the time Van Dyke arrived, police cars had McDonald effectively surrounded in a quiet area in the early hours. But Van Dyke opened fire within seconds and most of the shots were fired after McDonald fell to the ground.
the cop arrived late, stepped out of his car, and shot the kid until his gun was empty, many as he was lying on the ground.
the kid was armed, and he was high. maybe he could have been stopped with a tazer, maybe not. i would not have condemned a cop for shooting him dead if he attacked anybody. but he didn't. he was walking down the street, surrounded by cops, and was murdered by a cop who showed up and emptied his gun, because he wanted to. 16 shots.
^^^this is th ekind of killing that is inexcuseable. and theres lots more.
but shooting somebody in the arm o the leg isnt something thats easy to do. often in the dark, with people running, with events escalating quickly and little time to think. sometimes there is time to do it. but in general, not. i know of an example in my town where a cop cornered a guy in a mall parking lot as he was tearing around at high speed in a car, trying to get away. he stopped the car to turn around, and the cop shot out his front tire, bang bang. excellenet control and presence of mind. but not always possibl.e
this one also was inexcesable. 2 seconds.
https://www.cbsnews.com/video/video-shows-cleveland-officers-shooting-boy-holding-toy-gun/
What would
green post?
Quote from: Magdalena on March 20, 2022, 11:17:16 PM
...
I bet you that if the government gave them a monetary incentive to immobilize instead of killing, they would come up with all sorts of gadgets and shit. Sure, the courts would be filled with people with arm and leg casts, but alive.
Their motto would have to change from:
"To Protect and to Serve."
To:
"To Preserve Life and to Serve."
:notsure:
(https://media2.giphy.com/media/o5IxfV1v8oU1vZUeZA/giphy.webp?cid=6c09b952ec55819d2c2e2b71d8453c00bb88a98aa830cae0&rid=giphy.webp&ct=g)
(https://c.tenor.com/GiaMbnaK00YAAAAC/guy-throwing-trash-can-at-someone.gif)
(https://i.gifer.com/871W.gif)
Green, where are you?
Mags, I/we have some sympathy for your position. True enough, there are rogue cops who are inclined to shoot without just cause. I can remember the Rodney King incident that did not include shooting, but it did include brutal treatment of Rodney. Since that episode I hope that the LA cops have been persuaded to take a different perspective.
So -- short answer to my question is: "It's not easy"?
(https://www.reactiongifs.com/r/o-rly.gif)
OK.
you have to be a better shot than me even to consider it
I continue to believe that if there is a desire and determination to immobilize instead of killing, they can find a method.
the gun is inherently poor at that, which is why they carry tasers these days.
i would rather have the police simply not involved in encounters with citizens that arent already deadly force confrontations, where that is possible.
give a cop a gun and a license to kill and he will shoot people to death. thats where we are now. theres no motivation to change.
Quote from: billy rubin on March 26, 2022, 08:01:55 PM
...
give a cop a gun and a license to kill and he will shoot people to death. thats where we are now. theres no motivation to change.
Good to hear an honest answer, that way we know where to start.
Local item; Yesterday a cop was called to a disturbance in a Starbucks parking lot. The antagonist shot and killed the cop. The cop had not unholstered his gun.
The gun deal works in both directions, except that the shooter had no gun license or legitimate reason to carry a gun, perhaps to kill cops or others with whom he disagreed.
^That is sad as well. The USA has a massive obsession with guns. This is something that we (foreigners) don't understand. At any encounter that the police makes they have to take in consideration that the people they encounter wear any weapons. Dealing with gun owning drug addicts, criminals or crazy people can easily escalate in very bad situations. Frankly, I'm amazed that not more people and cops are killed every year, because the number of police encounters runs in the millions. The idea that cops are out there to kill black people can therefore easily be dismissed. Most cops don't want to end up in a George Floyd type of situation.
not all cops are killers. but all cops tolerate the ones who are.
the one who murdered george floyd had a long history of violent behaviour, over many years. he wasnt advised to cool off or booted out. instead, they made him a trainer.
look at the behaviour of the cops who were involved with the BLM demonstrations. these are the same ones in minneapolis that worked alongside derek chauvin:
Quote from: Tom62 on March 28, 2022, 07:54:02 AM
^That is sad as well. The USA has a massive obsession with guns. This is something that we (foreigners) don't understand. At any encounter that the police makes they have to take in consideration that the people they encounter wear any weapons. Dealing with gun owning drug addicts, criminals or crazy people can easily escalate in very bad situations. Frankly, I'm amazed that not more people and cops are killed every year because the number of police encounters runs in the millions. The idea that cops are out there to kill black people can therefore easily be dismissed. Most cops don't want to end up in a George Floyd type of situation.
(https://media1.giphy.com/media/Ow59c0pwTPruU/giphy.webp?cid=6c09b9521729de9514fde30b81e84310a5b6c56c1086816a&rid=giphy.webp&ct=g)
There is so much I want to say, but I know you don't live in the US, so I'll just let the numbers speak for themselves:
1,037 people have been shot and killed by police in the past yearUpdated March 25, 2022
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/investigations/police-shootings-database/ (https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/investigations/police-shootings-database/)
^ that is an unsettling statistic to be sure. The overwhelming statistic is the number of people who have been shot by gun nuts who are not police. In Chicago alone, there were more private party murders by gunshot than all the police shootings in the nation.
So please explain to me how the cops are more murderous than the gang members and independent crazies like the school shooters. Has it occurred to the police critics that the cops cannot know whether the gun crazy dumbfucks are carrying? We live in a wild west nation of gun freaks, some of whom are inclined, even anxious, to use their weapons. To protect their freedom or to prove their manhood?
Our president, this very day, addressed the problem in his speech. One of his points was to provide some counseling psych personnel to police departments. The idea is to have expert people attempt to de- escalate situations rather than resort to main force. We have a long way to go, but we need to begin somewhere.
It would not hurt to have fewer licensed carry permits issued. My state, Florida, will issue a carry license to damned near anyone who will pony up the $49 to get a concealed carry permit. I am a senile old fool who can easily get his carry permit for 49 dollars and less than two hours of questionably adequate instruction. Never mind the criminal element who have no need or desire to get a permit. Better for them to avoid any such public record.
good points, all of them, without a doubt.
ohio is the final stages of abolishing all restrictions on concealed carry--training, licensing all of it.
we ll see how that changes anything.
still, i think theresifference between being killed by a criminal whose act is a crime for which he will be held accountable, and being killed by a public emplyee who has no restrictions on his use of lethal force and is reckless in his use of it.
george floyd wasnt murdered with a gun, after all. its their lack of accountability thats the problem, not the gun. if theit were consequences for their egregious misuse of lethal force there 2ould be fewer abuses
Quote from: Magdalena link=topic=16922.msg419096#msg419096 dThere is so much I want to say, but I know you don't live in the US, so I'll just let the numbers speak for themselves:
b]1,037 people have been shot and killed by police in the past year[/b]
Updated March 25, 2022
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/investigations/police-shootings-database/ (https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/investigations/police-shootings-database/)
That looks like it is a lot, but you have to put it in perspective. If you compare it with other countries and by population then the US ranks 33rd with a police killing rate of 28.5 per 10 million residents (source: https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/police-killings-by-country). For a developed county that is still very high and the causes of this are matters of considerable debate. Worst country on the list is Venezuela with 1829.9 police killings per 10 million residents.
Yes, we can talk about how many people the gang members and independent crazies like the school shooters kill each year as well.
We can compare the Venezuelan Po-po and the LAPD, but that still doesn't answer my question. Can a cop immobilize instead of kill? So far, I got the best and most honest answer from
billy rubin:
Quote...
give a cop a gun and a license to kill and he will shoot people to death. thats where we are now. theres no motivation to change.
DL said it was not easy.
If the po-po doesn't want to or find it too difficult, then like
billy said, let's talk about, "their lack of accountability."
But to tell you the truth, I would rather continue to find a solution to immobilize instead of kill. For now.
Mags I agree with you wholeheartedly. Can we find a way to immobilize an armed bad guy or even a disturbed, armed, good guy, without killing him? Almost every one of us would rather that be the case
So far there have been some good attempts to rig up a non lethal deterrent. The taser is good for some but not anywhere near all cases. That is a start but it is only useful at close range and it does not work well enough on some of the aggressors. It is especially insufficient in winter, when thick clothing is worn by the suspect.
The sidearms that the cops use are good for short range only. At 30 feet or more it will be most difficult for a cop or any other pistol shooter to direct his/her shots into non critical parts of the human anatomy. A little bit of basic trigonometry will help explain the difficulty in aiming and reliably hitting non lethal parts of a human body. If the barrel of the pistol varies as little as one half inch from perfect aim, the bullet will miss the entire body by 12 inches or more. Trying to hit a body part that is maybe nine inches wide, such as a leg, is the stuff of Dirty Harry movies not reality.
To be sure there are some cops who are expert marksman with their handguns. They can hit a 10 inch diameter target from 30 feet away. But that is at the pistol range not at the scene of a life or death situation with a deranged shooter. Damned big difference when the cop or other good guy has to react with careful aim within a fraction of a second, or risk dying.
I do hasten to agree that there are some rogue cops out there that need to be forcibly sent to the funny farm ....without their godamned pistol or any other lethal weapon. I also claim that the vast majority of cops have no desire to use their firearm. In fact that is one of the things that keep them awake at night. They do not want to shoot anyone and have to deal with the hellish aftermath both in their conscience and in the course of official investigation of their actions.
Can't they set their ray guns to "stun" like Star Trek?
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on March 30, 2022, 12:53:38 PM
Can't they set their ray guns to "stun" like Star Trek?
There you go!
We could arrest people Klingon style...
(https://i.makeagif.com/media/7-13-2015/6upqf3.gif)
(https://hips.hearstapps.com/pop.h-cdn.co/assets/16/38/1280x640/landscape-1474558318-pain-sticks.jpg?resize=640:*)
that aurora borealis thing. i have seen it here in ohio on two occasions but we dont get the shimmery curtains like they do up north. either just glowing red blobs in tbe sky or long white prismatic shafts of light, both motionless but chamging shape sliwly.
my question is, are tbe wavy moving curtains of light i see in motion pictures actually movong that fast, or are tbey speeded up? theyre quite dramatic in video but ive never been able to tell whether they eere enhanced
why can i tear a piece of paper more easily when its wet than when its dry? why do sawyers soak logs in water prior to debarking them?
i used to think that it was because the water dissolved some of the plant carbohydrates and such that were glueing the fibres together, and so when it got wet those adhesives were lost.
then i realized that a piece of paper gets stronger again after it dries out, so whatever made it get weak when it was wet wasn't because it was losing something, else the dried paper would be as weak as the wet paper. but its not.
are there natural things that get stronger when they get wet?
Quote from: billy rubin on August 23, 2022, 10:04:20 PMwhy can i tear a piece of paper more easily when its wet than when its dry? why do sawyers soak logs in water prior to debarking them?
i used to think that it was because the water dissolved some of the plant carbohydrates and such that were glueing the fibres together, and so when it got wet those adhesives were lost.
then i realized that a piece of paper gets stronger again after it dries out, so whatever made it get weak when it was wet wasn't because it was losing something, else the dried paper would be as weak as the wet paper. but its not.
My
guess is that the dry paper is stiff owing to intermolecular hydrogen bonds between the cellulose molecules. When the paper is wet, the very polar water molecules form strong hydrogen bonds with the cellulose, thereby breaking the cellulose-cellulose bonds. This allows more relative movement between the cellulose strands. So there isn't any real "glue" that is lost. When the paper dries, the inter-cellulose bonds reform to cause hardening of the paper.
Quote from: billy rubin on August 23, 2022, 10:04:20 PMare there natural things that get stronger when they get wet?
I don't know.