The only instance in which an officer should ever be firing a weapon in the field is to stop a target that is posing an immediate and lethal threat. In that situation, shooting to kill would be perfectly justified.
Why can we not address and punish cops who think firing rounds into someone's back as they flee is acceptable instead of trying to mandate that they shoot an extremity (which they will undoubtably 'miss' in the 'heat of the moment' in favor of center mass)?
I honestly don't think anyone would disagree with those rules of engagement. The cops simply make errors of judgment. Bringing them to justice would be ideal, but it seems to be a case of some are more equal than others (esp. if you're in a powerful union).
Because, over the long term, a single lion is infinitely more important to the survival of our own species/planet than a single human or even several million of them.
We could kill off nearly every other species on the planet, including many of which we have domesticated and breed for product (bees, cows, etc.) and humans would be just fine.
The only sad thing about a species going extinct is it is one less species for us to study and learn from. It's a drastic loss for science and the only hypothetical loss for people at large is if there was something of value lost (e.g. discovery of a gene that cures a disease that only the now-extinct animal naturally produced)
You can especially kill off most apex predators without issue. Which is why the loss of a lion isn't a big deal.
Now if all producers were to go extinct and the bottom feeders of the food chain(s) such as plankton were to vanish from the Earth? Most, if not all, life as we know it would die from starvation. The animals with the most adaptive and most abundant food sources would live the longest, but eventually they would also run out of food!
A lion isn't a producer nor is it the bottom of the food chain. So a lion dying or lions going extinct really doesn't matter outside of scientific studies.
Please explain. Millions of species have gone extinct over the course of history, yet the world continues on. What is it about the loss of lions that will result in a catastrophe?
I'm not saying that avoiding the extinction of a species is not a noble endeavor, I'm just questioning the impact of not doing so.
That is total bullshit and you know it. This whole culture of self-loathing was cute at the beginning, but it's descended into absolute absurdity. You are patently out of your mind if you actually believe what you wrote. You don't, of course, but what's a little hyperbole when you're posturing for imaginary geek cred points on a website amirite?
The hunt was illegal, hence both "guides" being imprisoned in Zimbabwe. The chance that a single penny went to helping the country or its people is precisely zero.
I don't believe the majority of people take issue with hunting solely because the animal is "beautiful". Not many people seem to have a problem with hunting deer for meat or to regulate their populations. Those I've discussed it with seem to almost unanimously agree that the wasteful aspect of "trophy hunting" exotic animals is what makes it particularly despicable.
Take the recent case of Cecil the lion. He was shot initially with a bow and suffered for nearly two days before finally being finished off, at which point he was skinned and his carcass dumped to make some douchebag dentist a lame taxidermy piece. His meat wasn't donated. He wasn't terrorizing some defenseless local village. There isn't a surplus of lions causing some of them to starve.
How can anyone justify taking a life (especially with such a disgusting length of suffering involved) for such frivolous reasons as making a rug and taking some photos?
According to this article, there's evidence to suggest that keeping orcas in captivity is detrimental to their well being. Why does having that evidence suddenly mean having an opinion on what to do with it is off limits?
I recently reached out to Stripe to get their opinion on whether or not I should bother trying to integrate stripe.js with my browser based game. I obviously didn't want to invest the effort if they were just going to shut me down a few weeks later. It says in their TOU that virtual currency sales are allowed so long as it's self contained and can't be traded for real money or across other websites - that was the case with my game.
After over a week of waiting for a reply (PayPal's initial responses are rarely helpful, but at least they tend to respond..), they told me I shouldn't use Stripe because I would almost undoubtably be considered high risk. Why not just say it isn't allowed?
>Video game or virtual world credits: Sale of in-game currency unless the merchant is the operator of the virtual world
I am.
>Virtual currency or stored value: Virtual currency that can be monetized, resold, or converted to physical or digital products and services or otherwise exit the virtual world (e.g., Bitcoin); sale of stored value or credits maintained, accepted and issued by anyone other than the seller
It can't and isn't.
Their TOS actually makes no mention of virtual currency whatsoever.
Game currency purchases that aren't converted or sold are still disgustingly, ridiculously high risk, bordering internet pharmacy level stuff, especially if a lot of under-18 play your game.
Again - then why not just explicitly ban it altogether? Why say it's allowed under certain parameters and then ban users anyway when they meet those parameters exactly as required? They obviously have a list of products/transactions deemed too high-risk by their contract, they need to state what they are explicitly if they want to stop the PR bleeding.
I've been doing this for four years and we've never had a single dispute, but that's really neither here nor there.
I really couldn't follow his logic at all. Being able to come up with a working (perfectly correct) solution somehow implies a developer is probably "dumb" or "lazy"? As if a truly "smart" or gifted programmer would be unable to come up with a solution because they're just oh so intelligent and clever. You either know how loops work or you don't.
Most smart programmers I know would prefer to product a good, or even the best, solution instead of any of the prosaic solutions. Unable to come up with a solution? Probably not. All the given examples are pedestrian. A really clever solution would recurse or search the web for a matching solution page or hash the solution space into a minimal table or something like that.
But agreed a proper programmer would never fail to produce a correct solution.
That's sort of what I'm getting at. There are two kinds of smart programmers: Those who look for every opportunity to be clever, and those who are satisfied to build pedestrian solutions until clever code is called for.
If you're going to build a clever solution (which almost by definition increases cognitive load on anyone reading or maintaining the code), you'd better be able to defend your actions. Performance is never a problem until it's demonstrated to be a problem.
This wasn't a case of work-for-hire. This was an interview situation, where its exactly your cleverness that is being examined. What do you do then? Pretend to be dumb?
It's pretty well documented that people in your age group are generally early risers and that people in young adulthood tend to be night owls. Getting older and having your preference change is hardly an indication that you were "never really" a certain way when you were younger.
I'm 20, don't drink caffeine or go out more than once or twice a month. Left to my own devices, in a few weeks I'd be falling asleep around 10AM and waking up at 5PM.
People are different. It doesn't mean they're wrong.
>I'm 20, don't drink caffeine or go out more than once or twice a month. Left to my own devices, in a few weeks I'd be falling asleep around 10AM and waking up at 5PM.
I'd bet that might not be so without electronics :)
You're 20 years old, and you use computers after 9PM, I presume. Therefore the time shifting you experience is perfectly normal, and is not necessarily because you are a night owl.
You're presuming a bit too much there. I don't understand how you figure my age factors into some sort of false transition period or that my experience is any less real because it happens before an arbitrary age, though.
Why can we not address and punish cops who think firing rounds into someone's back as they flee is acceptable instead of trying to mandate that they shoot an extremity (which they will undoubtably 'miss' in the 'heat of the moment' in favor of center mass)?