shirgall

Armor was tried, but only bullies could afford them so we invented guns. Still, I think we all like the image of Ripley fighting bad-ass alien mommas in a loader.

Koko owned a pet kitten.

Sorry, I misunderstood the thread, then. The situation originally stated was fear when being engaged by a police and a desire to be able to fight back. I was pointing out that there are ways to get through the situation, even while armed, without too much physical unpleasantness. In was in this light that I read your post, so I may have read more into it than I should. I'm sorry.

There's a time to fight, but you should never chose to fight someone that's prepared, capable of anything and likely to get away with it, and expecting obedience to their authority on their own chosen ground. You don't fight a bully when you backed into the corner in the locker room with only his buddies looking on, you fight him in public scrutiny of his actions with options on your side. If you get their mindset away from considering you prey, you may not even have to fight at all.

As a firearms instructor (including a law enforcement firearms instructor) and decades-long carrier of firearms, let me point out that doing this makes you even *more* nervous, as I have observed many police that have an irrational fear of armed "civilians". Not only that, when you point out to them that people are categorized as either "soldiers" and "civilians" and police aren't soldiers, some can get really irate. The key to working with police is mindset. In their position they are trying to decide if you are a victim or a perpetrator. The quicker you are submissive and polite, the less likely you will be treated as a perp. This is why we give advice like the following to concealed carry students: When you are getting pulled over: * turn on the light inside your car, * take off your sunglasses, * put your hands on the wheel so they can be seen, * turn off the radio and the car engine, * pull off in an area that is safe for the officer to walk up alongside your car and see inside. When you are being talked to on the street * keep your hands out of your pockets and in plain sight, * avoid reflexively checking to see if your gun, knife, or wallet are still there (a common bad habit), * absolutely do not assume the "ready" stance (feet shoulder width apart, non-dominant foot forward, hands at chest level -- police and shooters see this stance hundreds of times when they practice with a holster), * answer questions with facts when asked and positively identify victims and perpetrators in your narrative, * absolutely point out useful items of evidence if necessary, but don't add useless information Avoid voluntary contact with unknown police as they will always revert to "interview" mode. This hardly ever is beneficial. If they approach you, try to identify if they are being friendly or if you are interview mode. Etc. etc.

He posts a lot of his material for free on Youtube and his website, but the radio show in its entirety without commercials is what you get for the premium membership (plus separate cuts of just the interviews, and the Tom Woods show). Since the premium membership is only $7/mo, it was pretty much worth it to cut out the commercials.

I think he simply wants to make the show worth his time and effort, just like everyone else. If it is losing money or even breaking even, he has to consider the other things he could do instead. I consider his "volunteer" opportunity was when he ran for office.

Yeah, I get his feed from the Schiff Premium membership as well.

Around here you can get jury duty from getting a driver's license too.

I'd show up for jury duty just to practice logic, reason, evidence, and... jury nullification.

The basic reason is not being able to break into the major markets.

Today Peter announced that August is the last month for the Peter Schiff Radio show that Stefan has guest-hosted many times in the past. End of an era.

The mindset you want to have is understand your interviewer so they can imagine you performing the role you are interviewing for, and to make sure you are someone they want in the company for the long term. The people that make the best interview preparation series are the folks of at Manager Tools. http://www.manager-tools.com/interviewing-series Remember, on the other side, the interviewers are looking for reasons to say "no". Empathy on your part will be key for recognizing the purpose behind the questions and for asking the right questions on your part.

Things that are far away lose detail in an atmosphere, but less so in a vacuum. There's no dust or other particulates in the way in the example.

I was hoping for one, too, because the byline is a woman's name... but I'm sure we didn't get that perspective in her work.

http://www.newsweek.com/study-finds-men-nice-women-not-other-way-around-261269?piano_d=1 Study Finds That Men Like Nice Women, But Not the Other Way Around By Paula Mejia Filed: 7/25/14 at 9:20 AM | Updated: 7/25/14 at 9:26 AM Scientifically, nice (heterosexual) guys might actually finish last. A study published in Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin recently found that while men were attracted to nice-seeming women upon meeting them, women did not feel the same way about men. Researchers from the University of Rochester, the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and the Interdisciplinary Center (IDC) Herzliya in Israel investigated a possible mechanism explaining why women and men differ in their sexual reactions with receptive opposite-sex strangers. One hundred and twelve undergraduate students volunteered for the study at a university in central Israel. The volunteer pool was split evenly between men and women, and participants were paired randomly with an opposite-sex individual they hadn’t met before. The study examined burgeoning sexual interest and the participants’ feelings on the possibility of long-term dating with their new “partners,” and how those connected to their perceptions of a personality trait the study calls “responsiveness.” In the study, responsiveness is defined as a characteristic “that may signal to potential partners that one understands, values and supports important aspects of their self-concept and is willing to invest resources in the relationship.” A limitation of this definition, the authors state, is that the concept of “responsiveness” is ultimately elusive—it can mean different things to different people. Nevertheless, the researchers felt they could use their definition to help get at some of the different ways men and women perceive potential partners. "Sexual desire thrives on rising intimacy and being responsive is one of the best ways to instill this elusive sensation over time," lead researcher Gurit Birnbaum explained in a press release. It makes sense: responsiveness is key to any relationship, whether it’s a friendship or a romantic union. But it’s not as important of a factor when you first meet someone, according to the study. "Our findings show that this does not necessarily hold true in an initial encounter, because a responsive potential partner may convey opposite meanings to different people,” stated Birnbaum. In the first of three studies, researchers explored whether women or men perceived a receptive opposite-sex stranger as sexually desirable and, if so, whether that “responsive” quality registered as overtly feminine or masculine. The researchers found that men who perceived possible female partners as responsive found them to be “more feminine and more attractive.” Past research suggests that physical cues of femininity stimulate sexual attraction because they suggest higher estrogen levels, better overall mate quality and solid reproductive health. On the other hand, women didn’t necessarily perceive a responsive man as less masculine, but they also did not find a responsive man more attractive. What’s more, when women perceived their male partner to be responsive, they were less attracted to the man. In other words, it appeared that in an initial encounter men liked nice ladies; women thought nice guys were kind of lame. The second study required participants to engage with either a responsive or unresponsive person of the opposite sex, then interact with them online while detailing a current problem in their life. The goal here was to remove the potentially confounding elements of live social interaction (smiling, physical attractiveness) to see if they could isolate how much responsiveness—or niceness—played into attraction. Again, the men in the study thought responsive and attentive women were more attractive as potential partners, while women found men with those same traits to be less desirable. The third and final study presented in the paper sought to test specifically whether the mechanism by which “responsiveness” motivated individuals to pursue relationships was, in fact, sexual arousal. To do so, they replicated the second study, but added a specific measure of sexual attraction. They then found that when men found women to be responsive, it led to a heightened sexual arousal among men. That, in turn led to greater desire for a relationship. While the studies shed some light on why men find responsive women more sexually desirable, Birnbaum explains that researchers are still are unsure why women are less sexually attracted to responsive strangers than men. “Women may perceive a responsive stranger as less desirable for different reasons," said Birnbaum in a press release. "Women may perceive this person as inappropriately nice and manipulative (i.e., trying to obtain sexual favors) or eager to please, perhaps even as desperate, and therefore less sexually appealing. Alternatively, women may perceive a responsive man as vulnerable and less dominant.” So for now, the question “what do women want?” will remain unanswered.

You pretty much have to operate under the assumption that if it is on your computer, government employees around the world are passing it around, marking it with red sharpie, and giggling.

Yeah, I hear it too.

I better throw this in here.

The whole thing is rich for parody, but it was actually considered one of her better speeches.

The consequences are real. Cop-killers usually don't make it to jail alive. If they survive long enough to get arrested, there's still a huge burden coming. The justification for using lethal force is to prevent the imminent death or grave bodily harm of the innocent. If you make the positive claim that you were right to break the law the burden of proof shifts to you. If a reasonable and prudent person, knowing what you knew at the time, would do the same thing you did (as determined by the jury), you could conceivably win. Perhaps you will not spend more than $50K on your criminal defense (triple that for the civil one). Radically more if you engage good lawyers and expert witnesses. The social cost, which will be cruelly exacted by the press at every opportunity, is incalculable. Thus, if the cop was imminently going to kill you for no good reason you might have a chance in court. If the cop was just wandering down the street, arresting someone else, or even arresting you for any of the innumerable but articulable crimes they have on tap, you have zero chance. Just look at the Zimmerman/Martin case and you can see how badly it can go.

"We believe that Wall Street needs stronger rules and tougher enforcement, and we're willing to fight for it." "We believe in science, and that means that we have a responsibility to protect this Earth." "We believe that the Internet shouldn't be rigged to benefit big corporations, and that means real net neutrality." "We believe that no one should work full-time and still live in poverty, and that means raising the minimum wage." "We believe that fast-food workers deserve a livable wage, and that means that when they take to the picket line, we are proud to fight alongside them." "We believe that students are entitled to get an education without being crushed by debt." "We believe that after a lifetime of work, people are entitled to retire with dignity, and that means protecting Social Security, Medicare, and pensions." "We believe—I can't believe I have to say this in 2014—we believe in equal pay for equal work." "We believe that equal means equal, and that's true in marriage, it's true in the workplace, it's true in all of America." “We believe that immigration has made this country strong and vibrant, and that means reform.” “And we believe that corporations are not people, that women have a right to their bodies. We will overturn Hobby Lobby and we will fight for it. We will fight for it!”

Russian side seems to be more detailed: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-07-18/final-moments-flight-mh-17-russian-side-story

As they say on RedLetterMedia, you may not have noticed, but your brain did.

Just remember that "tax avoidance" is a legal and noble endeavor. "Tax evasion," however, is the illegal form. The US IRS is already looking at making cryptocurrencies an asset class similar to gold, making you own taxes whenever you exchange them for goods and services.