venomai

And I repeat... The legality may not deter people from acquiring these products, but the demand certainly does. Low demand of a product means less availability. Just like drugs.

My mistake. My argument is about the same for homicide: even if attempted homicide rates remain the same, overall homicide rates will generally decline due to the substituted weapons being "less lethal." Self-defense relies on defensive tactics, not offensive tactics. Deadly force should be the last resort in an act of self-defense, not the first. A combination of martial arts and flight is probably the best form of self-defense in most situations. And in most states, it's also the most legal method: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_s ... lf-defense Keep in mind, the world is not out to get you. "Crazies" are not around every corner, waiting to kill you and your family. The goal of effective self-defense from violent crime is to reduce the hoimicide rate, not increase it. Whether or not putting a bullet in another man's head is justified by self-defense, the benefits of so-called "effective self-defense" do not outweigh its risks.

Great work. It came out really well. :thumbup: Nice attention to detail. A few crits... hope you don't mind paint-overs. - You need some shadows on the edge to make it look like the chandelier wraps around full-circle. Right now it looks like it just "stops" at the edge. The candles can do with some slight shading, as well. Here's a quick example, using some basic dithering. For more info on creating smooth shadows: http://kitted.deviantart.com/art/Pixel- ... l-47269811 http://kitted.deviantart.com/art/DITHER ... s-69747353 - It's a little too uniform right now. Adding wood grain and some wear and tear will help. Here's a very rough example: Simply displacing a few pixels in the wood and metal is an easy way to make it look more "textured." - The perspective is a little off. The bottom/back part of the chandelier almost looks bigger than the top/front part. To create the sense of depth, the back part should be slightly smaller, and (depending on angle) maybe even occluded by the front part. Check out photos of rings to get a sense of the perspective: http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2368/251 ... 1b.jpg?v=0 http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2098/251 ... 57.jpg?v=0 http://www.judaicadepot.com/images/Ring9344lg.jpg http://s7ondemand4.scene7.com/is/image/ ... 3?$detail$

The legality may not deter people from acquiring these products, but the demand certainly does. Low demand of a product means less availability. Just like drugs.

The reason people use guns for that is because they are currently the most lethal thing they can get their hands on. What would happen if knives become the most lethal weapons instead? Guns aren't the only origin of the problem... people have been using different ways for killing each other for many many many years. In some cases, the mere access to firearms creates a higher risk of impulsive suicide.[1] The point I was making, though, is that replacing firearms with a less effective method (such as poison, slitting wrists, etc) would cause an overall decline in suicide rates, even if there is little decline in attempted suicide (which, as pointed out above, may not be the case).

Not sure where you get that idea. As of 2004 in the United States, "firearms are still the most common method for suicide (51.6%)." About 56.8% of male suicides and 32.4% of female suicides used firearms. Hangings account for far less -- 23.4% in males and 19.7% in females. http://www.suicide.org/suicide-statistics.html Men in particular seem to prefer more "violent" and aggressive methods of suicide (e.g. stabbing, hanging, firearms). Firearms are seen as a pretty quick and painless way out. Most won't consider the aesthetics of the scene of their death. Otherwise we wouldn't have people hanging themselves (which includes possible decapitation), jumping off buildings, slitting their wrists, etc. Of course they do. So do punches and kicks. The point is: it's a lot easier to shoot somebody than to fist fight them to death. At close to medium range, gun are effective at ensuring somebody's death. Knives and baseball bats are not. Right... But, obviously, we would rather see a criminal use a baseball bat than a gun, even if it means it will be slightly more difficult to trace that criminal.

... An increase in other weapons which are less lethal, thus resulting in an overall decline in homicide rates. Likewise, suicide rates can also be lessened by a reduction in firearm availability.

A lot of those who advocate for gun control aren't suggesting outright prohibition. Immediate prohibition can have severe consequences and does not seem to deter demand/production. Gun culture needs to change before the laws do.

Why don't you respond to these posts yourself? :idea:

The primary issue here -- at least from the perspective of the public -- is not that he is phishing, or that he is flooding the server, or even that he is advertising illegal commodities. This is, primarily, a response to spam. As I said, consequences should be expected, but not because of spamming.

Viagra is not porn. Freedom of speech entitles us the freedom to advertise our beliefs, businesses, etc. I can spam my list of contacts with chain-mails encouraging everyone to boycott a certain company, to accept Jesus, to visit my website, or even *gasp* to smoke marijuana. Last time I checked, I have the right to do this without legal consequences. This, although it is a nuisance, does not significantly infringe on the freedom of others. Phishing and flooding, on the other hand, may infringe on other people's freedoms, and these actions should be responded with appropriate legal action. But to suggest that spam alone should warrant legal punishment is, in my view, a serious restriction of freedom of speech.

They sure are making an example of him. And their message roughly translates to: "We don't care for your freedom of speech."

Flame goes both ways. Theists are no more or less entitled than atheists to respond with an ad hominem attack (not that anyone should). Atheists are often attacked as being less ethical, less moral, less trusted, etc. It saddens me to see atheists or theists remove themselves from debates because of this sort of criticism. How is this offensive? And if such statements truly are factual, why should they be suppressed on the grounds of "tolerance"? The problem is when morons, faced with such a statement, jump to the conclusion that all those who listen to Elton John must be gay, or that all gays listen to Elton John. But what do you expect moderators to do? Edit these posts? "Moronic content removed. ~mod" Regardless of what "side" you are on in a debate, you shouldn't hesitate to refute such an illogical claim.

Great post. :thumbup: I agree with your points. How The Politically Correct Stole Christmas

Fantastic first tablet drawing. :thumbup: I found it really tricky to start off with. I would use a smaller brush size.

Preferably, panties. As for myself? Boxers. Briefs are pretty comfortable, though...

Curious. What sort of things had you been seeing? It seems more likely that your confidence in the rituals is what now allows you to 'sleep peacefully' (and no longer notice the anomaly) rather than the rituals themselves (i.e. the placebo effect).

So much for free speech... Spam might be a nuisance, but we aren't about to lock up the guy on the corner for "spamming" the public with messages of Christ. Had he only used his own account to spam people I wouldn't have much of a problem with it. But he was using other peoples' account and baiting others in as well. He crossed the line, he deserves to be punished. Perhaps a punishment is in order for phishing, but certainly not for spamming. With such a severely crippling and life-long sentence, we liken his crimes to murder and theft. The punishment doesn't fit the crime.

The composition is pretty bad on all of them. Remember that a good composition is not dependent only on the rule of thirds.

Using "scores" or "masses" is a more dramatic way of saying "lots of." It's when the headlines start to read "LOTS OF PEOPLE KILLED TODAY" that I worry about desensitization.

Only a matter of days before I'm getting 'spammed' with invites to Facebook groups protesting against this decision. :lol: So much for free speech... Spam might be a nuisance, but we aren't about to lock up the guy on the corner for "spamming" the public with messages of Christ. Drug/alcohol and sex references are prevalent throughout Facebook. Removing the spambots won't change that. :lol:

It looks like you just applied a filter to a flower... How is this a vector?

It's ending in 2010. http://www.boingboing.net/2008/01/08/en ... james.html

The one million is held in "negotiable bonds." The actual money the winner would receive may be much less than the expected amount. Hypothetically, the bonds could be completely worthless. And not "any person" can join -- as of April 2007, the challenge only accepts those with an existing media profile. The James Randi challenge should not be seen as some scientific refutation of the paranormal. The challenge aside, there is a huge body of peer-reviewed, scientific research that supports the existence of certain so-called "paranormal" events (ranging from cases suggestive of reincarnation to psychokinesis). Here's a short list of some of this research: An Assessment of the Evidence for Psychic Functioning (1995) Does Psi Exist? Replicable Evidence for an Anomalous Process of Information Transfer (1994) The Conscious Universe by Dean Radin - Chapter 1 The PEAR Proposition (2005) Engineering Anomalies Research (1987) More PEAR publications... Anomalous Mental Phenomena Research in Russia and the Former Soviet Union - A Follow Up (1992) More Cognitive Sciences Lab Publications... Observation of a Psychokinetic Effect Under highly Controlled Conditions (1993) More from The RetroPsychoKinesis Project... University of Virginia Division of Perceptual Studies: Books and Articles about Reincarnation, Near-Death Experiences and other Phenomena In my opinion? The paranormal, by definition, is something that will always be out of our understanding. As soon as a paranormal phenomenon becomes naturally understood (e.g. via science), it is no longer seen as paranormal. I suspect that, with further research into the field, a similar shift in understanding will eventually occur in respect to the aforementioned research.

Who/what is PR?