Recent Posts

Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 ... 10
41
Meh, you science folk with your liquids. I'm more interested in the tank than what's in it. Must be a decent tonnage in that plant all told. Be sure to call when it's on fire for the last time.

As a maintenance geek, I am also concerned with the tank.  And the secondary containment.  And the tertiary containment.

But tank fires aren't a thing, here.  Kiln burn-throughs, yeah, but not tank fires.
42
Oh gods, you're in for a treat.

Keep the above jpg handy. You'll need it.
43
It's an assertion that was needed (and maybe still is) to shut up dicknuts who will say dumb shit about "finding the right man" or goddess save us "corrective rape". But it doesn't mesh with reality. Most people are more flexible than that.

I've of course heard the "right man" bullshit...But corrective rape?   :eek:
44
I'm usually the first to kick of when people with psychosis are labelled dangerous in a broad brush sort of way.


but that guy sounds SCARY. And should probably e on some kind of treatment order if he's spouting off about hitler and rape.

having had psychosis in the past and a sister with similar issues. you never "humour" the delusion.
45
Think for Yourself, Schmuck! / Re: Laws
« Last post by Junkenstein on Yesterday at 11:16:48 pm »
Oh there's other potentially more profitable ways than just making X illegal.

For example, you can restrict, license and tax the everloving shit out of it. You could treat X in the same manner you treat say, meth precurors and prosecute and feed the prison system accordingly there.

Anything you can legally purchase today, can be illegal to purchase tomorrow, By law. Take the UK talking today about banning "All legal highs". Seriously. This is the level we're working with over here with drug legislation. What the hell is this supposed to cover exactly? Well, nearly anything and everything to a canny copper. In the meanwhile you've created swathes of criminals to be caught and punished as law dictates. 
46
Think for Yourself, Schmuck! / Re: Laws
« Last post by von on Yesterday at 11:05:23 pm »
Quote
So it comes down to how to even make faraday cage bags or body armour illegal...I mean, when does an ESD bag used to ship PC components become a "terrorist anti-EMP device", or when does a piece of sheet metal with a zamak coating become "body armour"?

When it is expedient, or convenient, or hells even just amusing to those in control of the system. For reference here, look at the shitstorm related to 3d printed guns.

Any freedom or privilege you enjoy by law today can disappear by law tomorrow.

And it doesn't even take that much really to provoke that change.


There's more to add here, particularly in relation to "open carry" bullshit. I've been thinking about those guys recently and I'm increasingly suspecting that what these assholes want is just to provoke a gunfight by their presence (Scaring someone enough, pissing of the wrong cop,whatever.) as an excuse to unload in a public place. Or they may be a westboro baptist situation and are actually proving the point for gun control advocates just by wandering around.

God, don't even get me started on those fucking morons who open carry long arms...especially the double-retarded ones who do it for "protest". I mean jesus fucking christ, I can see carrying a long arm when one is out deep in the woods, or cased on the way to the range, but bringing a rifle or shotgun to bear on an assailant in public is too fucking slow for effective self defense.

Anyway, I think my prior point was mainly, how do you legislate banning basic materials? I mean, I can see illegalising using a piece of sheet metal as armour, or using an ESD bag as an anti-emp device. But simply illegalising the materials themselves? I can't think of how you'd do it...it'd be like illegalising plumbing parts in order to curb home made submachine guns.
47
Think for Yourself, Schmuck! / Re: Laws
« Last post by Junkenstein on Yesterday at 10:51:09 pm »
Quote
So it comes down to how to even make faraday cage bags or body armour illegal...I mean, when does an ESD bag used to ship PC components become a "terrorist anti-EMP device", or when does a piece of sheet metal with a zamak coating become "body armour"?

When it is expedient, or convenient, or hells even just amusing to those in control of the system. For reference here, look at the shitstorm related to 3d printed guns.

Any freedom or privilege you enjoy by law today can disappear by law tomorrow.

And it doesn't even take that much really to provoke that change.


There's more to add here, particularly in relation to "open carry" bullshit. I've been thinking about those guys recently and I'm increasingly suspecting that what these assholes want is just to provoke a gunfight by their presence (Scaring someone enough, pissing of the wrong cop,whatever.) as an excuse to unload in a public place. Or they may be a westboro baptist situation and are actually proving the point for gun control advocates just by wandering around. 
48
Bare minimum line is the danger to self or others (which saying he wants to rape people is definitely over). Other than that, I wouldn't touch it with a hundred foot pole, but I have a tenuous grip on my own sanity and I'd like to hang onto it.
49
Think for Yourself, Schmuck! / Re: Laws
« Last post by von on Yesterday at 10:44:10 pm »
I'm looking at the end result - total 100% transparency. The problems come in the interim. Anything less than 100%, even by half of a half of 1%, creates a nightmare oligarchy of centralised power. The road to that last % may be long and arduous. Billions may die or become fucked over to the point most of them will wish they were dead. What I think is worth exploring at this point in history, is ways to force engineer that last %, as and when it becomes necessary.

I'm not arguing for or against total transparency. There's no point. It's coming whether you think this is a good thing or a bad thing. Until we hit 100% it has the potential to become progressively worse. Near term I'm not optimistic, based on the current state of humanity in general. It's a big change. Humanity needs to change dramatically to accommodate. Humanity, y'know - 7-odd billion retarded primates who fear nothing more than change. :kingmeh:

Total, two-way transparency will, in my opinion, require sousveillance...which means that those retarded primates will not acheive full two-way transparency for centuries. It's a voluntary, logical process...just like quitting smoking, or running a home aquaponics system for self sustaining food supplies, or using email run through a home email server to communicate rather than social media. In other words, shit that's too complex for the general population of retarded primates.

I would hazard that it will remain one-way surveillance for a long time on the grand scale...at least past our own lifetimes. That's grim...
50
So, some random yelling.

Lady here is buying pretty heavily into the definition of bisexual (or pansexual) being "OMG GENDER DUNT MATTER NUN I LUVS EVRY1 EKWAL" which drives me right up the fucking wall. Most bi(or pan)sexual people are not square in the middle of the spectrum, they tend to lean towards one side or another. That doesn't make them "really straight" or "really gay" on the inside, or make their less-common gender attractions somehow illegitimate. As upset as this lady is about people calling her bi because HOLY CRAP SHE'S BEEN IN LOVING, HEALTHY RELATIONSHIPS AND EXPERIENCED SEXUAL ATTRACTION TOWARDS MEMBERS OF MORE THAN ONE GENDER, she really needs to take a look at the politics of her continued self-identification as lesbian in light of the bullshit other folks have to go through because everyone's upset they didn't pick one of the approved uniforms. And ftr, this is not the first self-identified lesbian I've heard of getting married to a dude, or publicly defending her stance on the internet, it just sets my teeth on edge.

I suspect that some of this is that the ladies in question cannot "pass" as straight, in addition to having no desire to do so. And that the freak flag they put up has LESBIANS all over it and they don't want to say they are different, and they don't feel different, they just happen to like this one dude despite the genitalia thing. And whatever, I can get behind not wanting to say I'M BI NOW when you don't feel any different and you totally didn't think of yourself as bi before, but that seems like it's more of a problem of the labels we have than people attempting to use them properly. If lesbian meant "lady who mostly makes out with other ladies" that would be different, but a hard line was drawn that says LESBIANS ARE INCAPABLE OF BEING INTO DUDES, SO FUCKING DEAL WITH IT. It's an assertion that was needed (and maybe still is) to shut up dicknuts who will say dumb shit about "finding the right man" or goddess save us "corrective rape". But it doesn't mesh with reality. Most people are more flexible than that.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 ... 10