zapatos

I'm having a hard time finding anything specific but I did find this comment: http://www.bulletproofme.com/Ballistic_Protection_Levels.shtml#No_Vest_Bullet-PROOF

I don't know the physics behind this so I am only guessing and basing this on personal experience, but wouldn't a .45 to the head be more than a distraction? I've had my head knocked many times by hitting the ground, hitting somone's fist with my nose, a baseball to my helmet, and others. I was knocked unconscious once and was disoriented several times. Would a bullet to the head have a similar impact as a baseball to a helmet?

While it appears unlikely that a bullet would have penetrated his armor, to Bill's point, even if wearing armor I imagine that a shot to the head by a .45 would probably do a great deal to slow the shooter down.

I'm not ignoring the fact, I just don't think it justifies inaction. Guns are going off, people are dying. Do I take a chance and shoot back, or stand meekly by as more and more people are gunned down? How many would have to die before you could justify shooting back? It sucks. I recognize that. But the choices are shoot or don't, and I like to think I wouldn't go down without at least trying to save myself and others. Horrible. I'd probably want to die myself. How would you feel if your kid was drowning and someone had some wooden crates they could throw down in the water for your kid to float on, but they didn't because they were afraid they might accidentally hit your kid and kill him? And as a result your kid drowns?

From my perspective, if someone is right now doing deadly harm, you take action right now to stop it. I have no doubt that shooting in a nursery school is a dangerous proposition (you may hit a kid), but not shooting is also a dangerous propostion (the perpetrator may shoot every kid in the place). If you are quick enough to make a good decsion regarding angle of attack, number of shooters, cross fire, etc., then more power to you. I doubt very many people would handle that situation well, so I would only expect them to do as well as they can. If someone is shooting at my kids, and someone returns fire, I am not going to criticize the defender for having the wrong gun or not shooting from the best position. He is putting himself at risk to help others. That is generally how I define a hero. When it is a matter of life and death, I will always choose doing something rather than doing nothing, even when you have incomplete or incorrect information. I hated it when police would not enter Columbine because they weren't sure it was the exact right thing to do yet, all the while hearing additional shots ringing out, refusing to enter the building to try to get out the wounded who were waving for help from the windows. As far as how mishaps are addressed legally I am unsure, but I believe that acting in good faith is generally a good defense, such as giving medical aid to an injured person even if you are not an EMT.

This comment is not intended to suggest arming the public is good or bad, but if I was in the theater when the shooting started I would have liked to have a gun. I would have emptied it at the shooter and hoped for the best. Doesn't matter if I was successful or not, or if it resulted in my being shot, I would have liked the chance to shoot back. I would also hold no ill will toward anyone who shot back at him and accidentally hit me. At least an effort to end the bloodshed was made. While in hindsight we may have found that shooting back was not the best idea, I think at the moment it was happening the only reasonable response, if possible, was to shoot back.

I do understand your point but I think you are presenting it a bit unfairly. I agree they wish to maximize shareholder value, but that is not accomplished by simply charging the highest rates possible and paying the fewest claims possible. If they ran their operation like that they would soon be out of business as the competition would charge a bit less and offer a bit more to run you out of business. There are many business models to follow to maximize shareholder value, all the way from barebones coverage to care that allows you to advertise that you have 'The healthiest group of customers in the world!' Again, I don't think I have to know how my health is going to play out. My insurer, by covering millions of people, know very accurately how many heart attacks, cancers, etc. they will have to pay for each year. I know how the average health of all those covered is going to play out. Agreed. Yes, and the reason is because if there is a cure that is cost effective to the consumer, they will buy it. If the business doesn't provide the cure and tries to keep me on insulin, I will walk away to another provider. That is a clear advantage to the private model. Ok, that sounds like a good idea. OK. He can always be cheap. Cheap inexperienced labor. Cheap construction materials that meet code but not current standard practices. There are builders I would buy from and builders I would not. When my son had Lasik we paid a lot of attention to quality.

It may be difficult to sell an individual a health policy, but that is not really what they are doing. They are selling a large group of people health policies, and they do that very well. Health insurance is no different than life, car, or home owners insurance in that respect. They have a very good idea how much to charge individuals so that they can pay all their expenses and make a profit. Need we also put car and life insurance under the same umbrella as you propose for healthcare? Yes it is in the nature of health for me to keep getting sick. Again, I don't see the home builder and the health insurer as different. A home builder can short change me just as much as a health provider can. Low grade materials, poor workmanship, etc. There can be good and bad home builders, just as there can be good and bad health providers. And if they build the home poorly, they can keep you coming back for repairs, etc. They do have a customer for life. No one drops health insurance because they get well. It is profitable for an insurance company to get me to stay healthy. I'm on my wife's policy. They pay us if we meet certain health requirements, such as weight and exercise. So in your scenario, the insurance provider and doctor are under the same roof? Split the profits rather than the insurance companies loss is the doctor's gain? I can certainly both under the same roof being better. But again, this is the same as a home builder. That builder also want to spend the least amount possible on your home. I like how the new healthcare bill, which kept private insurers, insists insurance companies do things like spend less on advertising and more on healthcare or pay a penalty. Of course they've been regulating minimum standards for home builders for ages.

I'm not sure I can agree with this. I understand why you say it is a conflict of interest but isn't there a conflict of interest in every business? The goal of homebuilders is not to make a house for you, it is to make a profit for their shareholders. The goal of fast food restaurants is not to feed you, it is to make a profit for their shareholders. Fill in all the rest... The other point is that making you healthy is not necessarily an impediment to making a profit. For example, paying a small amount for your blood pressure medicine is surely more cost effective than paying for the health care due to your heart attack. A health insurance company that does nothing to keep you healthy will surely not make a profit. So if done correctly... Home builders give you shelter and make a profit for the shareholders. Fast food restaruants feed you and make a profit for the shareholders. Health insurance keeps you healthy and makes a profit for their shareholders.

I'd say this is just about right. It also comforts me to know that if injustice is done to me it is due to flawed humans, not a 'superior' being from whom I might have been expecting more justice and compassion.

I'm having a hard time coming up with a response. I've never met anyone so condescending and pompous before. How do you have a discussion with someone who feels that only he is capable of being right?

Right. Not only OK, but the right thing to do. Those two can go together. I did not say if it is the right thing to do then it is automatically OK. You are saying that killing is never OK, even when it is the right thing to do. I disagree with your position and was saying so. I understood completely, I just disagreed. You make it sound as if the only reason to disagree with you is if one does not understand you.

When you said... ...I thought that your point was that it is never 'ok to kill', but as the lesser of two evils, society may choose to do so anyway. Since I entirely got that wrong, can you tell me what your point actually was?

Using words like "never" will "always" get you in trouble. I can easily come up with scenarios where killing someone is not only OK, but is the right thing to do. I don't know why people have enough compassion to end the suffering of a dog but won't offer the end of suffering to a person. edit - My last comment was not meant to apply to you or anyone specific.

The evidence points to Moontanman being correct. Do you have any evidence that suggests you are correct? And incidentally, who is it that you keep quoting?

That sounds a little strong to me. I wonder if there is any data to back up this assertion. I imagine emotions developed because they were what was best for us. While I don't doubt following our emotions can get us in trouble in some cases I would think they usually work pretty well. We avoid eating food that disgusts us (such as rotten food). We avoid walking over the rickety bridge or playing with snakes out of fear. Panic caused many people to leave the World Trade Center when they were told to stay where they were by authorities. Embarrasment keeps people from doing stupid things every day.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nocturnal_emission

What is the special case called? I'd like to look it up.

So based on your post after this one, why do you say it is as if the light were embedded in space-time? It sounds as if you are saying the light is just going along for the ride as space expands, as opposed to having more space to travel through.

Welcome back!

You are also not allowed to sell GM corn if you did not pay for GM corn. If someone growing non-GM corn has their crop pollinated by the GM corn growing next door, they could be subject to litigation if they sold their crop. Organic crops sell for a higher price than GM crops. If the organic crop is pollinated by GM crops the value of the (used to be) organic crop goes down.

There is no meaning or point of life, so feel free to choose any meaning or point that you'd like.

How did you come to this conclusion that you are asking about? Can you supply some more detail?