-
1
S Korean paper says A-bombs on Japan were 'divine punishment'
-
2
Gov't considers setting clock ahead by two hours
-
3
Korean 'comfort women' cancel meeting with Hashimoto
-
4
Boy Scouts approve plan to accept openly gay boys, but not leaders
-
5
Germany most popular country in the world; Japan No. 4: BBC poll
-
- IT機器のテクニカルサポート
- ハイパーツールズ株式会社, 愛知県
- Salary: 年収 300万円 ~ 600万円 相談可
-
- バイヤー
- ハイパーツールズ株式会社, 愛知県
- Salary: 年収 300万円 ~ 600万円 相談可 試用期間あり
-
- バイヤー(中国語圏担当)
- ハイパーツールズ株式会社, 愛知県
- Salary: 年収 300万円 ~ 600万円 相談可 試用期間あり
-
- 店舗スタッフ（タイ・バンコク店＆中国・香港店オープニングスタッフ候補）
- 株式会社セドナエンタープライズ, その他
- Salary: 月給 11万8883円 ~ 33万9665円 相談可 研修期間3か月（30,000バーツ／月）
-
- メディカルコーディネーター/ Medical Coordinor (ハワイ、タイなどへの出張あり)
- 株式会社メディブリッジ, 東京都
- Salary: 月給 25万円 ~ 45万円 相談可 マネージメントポジションは給与が高くなります
2
TheQuestion
Yubaru,
When the US or UK are fighting over in the middle east they are fighting against armed men that hide among the civilian population. Soldiers in combat wear uniforms to differentiate themselves from the civilian population in times of war in order to minimize the impact on civilians. NATO forces have rules which they are compelled to abide to not target unarmed individuals which are displaying no hostile intent.
Instead of attacking an armed soldier in an actual theater of war they attacked an unarmed soldier going about his daily business having nothing to do with the war.
When a soldier is killed in war the loss of life is terrible but understandable. When in an active war-zone soldiers are assumed to understand the risk to their lives, this soldier was at home and posing no threat to anyone, combatant or not.
The no NATO nation is targeting, has targeted, or will ever target children or civilians during a military campaign. The levels of collateral damage that result in civilian death are a result of insurgents that hide in heavily populated civilian areas in order to make such collateral damage incredibly difficult to avoid, in response to that western nations have taken unprecedented steps in the field of military reconnaissance to minimize civilian casualties while conducting a war.
What NATO nations do is anything but indiscriminate. They have developed weapons and targeting systems to make civilian deaths as low as possible while the enemy they fight has done everything in their power to inflict as many civilian deaths as possible. If you don't see the difference than you are deliberately skewing facts about established improvements in military science to fit your own preconceived notion about the western involvement in middle eastern conflicts.
Importance is debated by philosophers and theologians. Significance, on the other-hand, is well within my grasp. This was a personal attack on British soil on a British soldier that was conducted by, more than likely, British citizens of Islamic faith. This could be a flash point for incredible anger towards the Islamic community and a deepening in tensions across Europe if other radicalized individuals begin doing the same thing.
Additionally, the significance is that these attacks were unprovoked, at least by any understandable measure and for purely ideological reasons. When the US invaded Afghanistan it was for a very tangible, easily identifiable reason, that that country was housing and protecting individuals that had killed US citizens and intended to kill more in the future.
I think you lack a fundamental understanding of what terrorism is. You are operating under the impression that it is a result, that any attack which results in widespread fear among the civilian population is an act of terrorism. This is not true as all attacks provoke fear regardless of the target or perpetrators. For example I would not call the bombing of the Cole a terrorist attack, it was against an identifiable military target with a set agenda. Terrorism is about intent, these men intended to cause widespread fear as the primary motivator of their attack. Suicide bombers detonate themselves in order to spread fear.
Posted in: Anti-Islamist protests flare after British soldier butchered near London barracks
1
TheQuestion
Here's the problem with that. When I make a copy of a movie for a friend you assume that my friend would have purchased it otherwise when that is rarely the case. Most of the movies or music I download or get from friends are ones that I want out of curiosity or boredom, not something that I'd every actually pay money for. Case in point, I heard that "The Odd Life of Timothy Green" was arguably the worst movie in a generation, I would never have paid money to see is. Additionally, if I happen to download something I like it increases the likelihood of me actually buying the product later when I otherwise would not have.
Now if I were dissuaded from piracy not only would I not be watching these films of convenience but I also wouldn't discover new directors, artists, and writers that I buy in the future. I downloaded an old Tom Waits song back in the late 90's and liked it so much that I've bought every CD he's made since then because I like the idea of my money going towards something I like. Same goes for Del Toro movies, I got a burned copy once and since then I've gone to see almost every one of his movies in theaters.
The numbers they state assume that those pirating the music would have otherwise purchased the product which is absolutely untrue. Not only would a harsh crackdown on IP piracy not recover any lost revenues I believe it may actually cause long term negative economic impact on these companies.
Like I said, I'm probably one of the most ardent capitalists on this site but, as such, I believe personal property, fair use, and privacy are fundamental building blocks for any and all economic transactions.
Posted in: U.S. report urges action on intellectual property theft
0
TheQuestion
Once a song hits the airwaves, a book hits the press, or a movie gets to DVD any attempt to control its spread will toe the line between IP protection and privacy and I will always land firmly on the side of privacy. I can respect a company's desire to make money off of their products but not at the expense of the consumers private matters. If I want to burn a copy of The Hangover for my friend I'm not losing sleep over it. As a hard core capitalist as far as I'm concerned, once I buy it it belongs to me. If you want to protect your IP better I suggest investing in better security instead of going to capital hill.
Posted in: U.S. report urges action on intellectual property theft
6
TheQuestion
Do you actually think there is any comparison here? Two men stalked an unarmed plain-clothes British soldier (I assume anyway as he was wearing a T-shirt and to the best of my knowledge even soldiers aren't permitted to go about armed off base), approached him, brutally murdered him on the street, and then asked people to take pictures of them. And you're going to compare that to uniformed soldiers fighting an enemy that hides among the civilian population, uses their neighbors as human shields, and kills their own countrymen in suicide bombings?
Your attempt to make a bizarre statement on the equality of human life and death sounds very much like a justification of a senseless and brutal murder. Your statements play into exactly what extremists desire, vindication. That they are no more evil than the people that they fight against and statements like yours make their narrative that much more pervasive within public opinion.
Posted in: Anti-Islamist protests flare after British soldier butchered near London barracks
3
TheQuestion
If its anything like the culls in the UK the shooters will be professional, licensed state sharpshooters and not game hunters. If the cull is found to be unnecessary it will eliminate the need for future culls but as it stands I believe the Australian government has a legitimate concern over the overuse of natural watering holes impacting native species.
That's what the culling is meant to solve. The problem is that there are several tens of thousands of non-native horses (what some may consider an invasive species) that are using up the limited grazing and watering spots relied upon by the native fauna. Much like how hogs have become a serious problem in the US. Cullings are designed to reduce a population to one that is more sustainable in the habitat in which they are found similar to ones in the UK, US, and several other western nations looking to preserve their native habitats.
Aside from either capturing them all or sterilizing them there isn't any other real short or long term solution to the problem. Capture programs are dubious and then the problem arises of who they are going to find to take care of 10,000 horses, while I'm sure a "Pony for every Aussie" program would go over swimmingly with the little girls of the country I think most of them would just be re-released or slaughtered once the expenses of maintaining them become untenable.
Sterilization has been floated around for over-sized hog and deer populations in the US as an alternative but the process is exceedingly expensive, doesn't always work, and if done wrong could lead to a life of pain in misery. Culling is far from a perfect practice but in the absence of horse mind control it's the only option to remove a large volume of invasive creatures from a fairly delicate ecosystem.
Posted in: Australia to cull 10,000 wild horses
1
TheQuestion
As a Catholic I often bite my tongue on the topic of abortion because I while I find the practice morally repugnant I recognize the legal basis for the practice in the case of rape, incest, or imminent threat to the mothers life but instances like this make it incredibly difficult for me to remain civil.
It sounds like a horror story that a church group would invent to scare people away from the idea. A doctor that gets over a million dollars which he stuffs in his bedroom, murders live birth children, and forces women to undergo the procedure/recovery in a filthy facility where at least one woman has died. And then to employ a high-school student to help him in his work and cry racism when he is caught, its deplorable. I sincerely hope they impose the death penalty.
Posted in: Philadelphia abortion doctor guilty in 3 babies' deaths
1
TheQuestion
They've been having the same discussion about the adoption of Native Americans in the US. Many of the communities where the children come from are poorly maintained and rife with domestic violence and substance abuse. From what I've read the problem is similar for the aboriginal populations. While I understand their desire to maintain their culture the fact remains that the abandoned children are human beings first and aboriginals second and should be entitled to grow up in a safe, stable environment where they can learn about their ancestors culture.
If the Northern Territory Stolen Generations Aboriginal Corporation is worried about loosing its children than it should focus on making the homes in which they live a more hospitality place. If its anything like the US where many native americans live off of mineral lease payments and welfare and many look down on peers that go to work for non-native businesses or off reservation.
Posted in: Aboriginal adoption plans spark new 'stolen generation' fears
1
TheQuestion
Lets not mince words, I never feel safe. My experiences abroad have been less than satisfactory. I've gotten in more fistfights in the Japan and the UK than I ever did in the US (and in all those instances I ended up as the foreigner in jail rather than the locals that went after me).
Every one of my friends that has come to visit me in Detroit have been stunned at how much better it is than they imagined (now at least). None of them have been assaulted in bars, or mugged in broad daylight, or accosted by police at random. If they ever did get in trouble I tell them to do the same things that I do when the cops take me aside in other countries, cooperate fully, if they can't understand you through your accent use your call to get a translator, don't act angry even if you are, and tell the truth no matter what. Every country has their share of jerk officers but if you act well enough you might get the more decent officers in the station to come around to your side.
Can't speak for other posters but I know exactly why other people keep trying to hurt me abroad. I'm a 6'9 hispanic looking man that frequently travels alone. The most common greeting I get in the UK after 8 pm usually has something to do with me being "a big [expletive]" followed by either getting a free drink or a bunch of drunks taking shots at me, its hit or miss mostly siding towards the free drinks but the other option happens often enough for me to have personal space issues. In japan it follows the same rough pattern only without the possibility of a free drink.
Posted in: Do you feel safer walking along a dark or deserted street at night in a city in your country or in Japan?
-2
TheQuestion
While Japan is safer overall I've actually been mugged and assaulted more in Japan than I have been after a life living in Detroit. I think my appearance and size have something to do with it, over in the US I'm left well enough alone but over here I often feel like a spectacle or whatever ambling drunk or idiot kid that seems to think picking a fight with me will impress his flunkies. While I do concealed carry when I'm back at home the fact that I'm more in sync with the environment and that I understand the danger ques better plays more of a role than the fact I'm armed.
My feelings on the matter are based on anecdotal evidence and are entirely subjective.
Posted in: Do you feel safer walking along a dark or deserted street at night in a city in your country or in Japan?
-2
TheQuestion
That number fluctuates constantly and, from year to year. According to the Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics, "In 2010, 39% of respondents answered "yes." The figure has been fluctuating between 38% and 42% in polls taken since 2000, and has ranged between 36% and 51% since polling began in 1959."
The Sourcebook also recognizes the fact that up to a quarter of the guns in the US go unreported so the actual number could be anywhere from 45-55%.
I've said this a lot in these threads but here we go again. Assault weapon is a designation that deals almost exclusivity with aesthetics and weapon mounted attachments. If I own a semi-automatic rifle that fires 30-06 ammo it is considered a long arm rifle and is totally legal and is not an assault weapon, but if I take that same weapon and add a rail system for sights, add a recoil suppressor, bayonet lugs, or a compound stock it becomes an assault weapon. No difference in lethal or even functionality. I use attachments to reduce recoil because I have arthritis and they make the weapon easier to handle for me. The other popular attachments are laser sights which are used primarily on home defense weapons to cut down on reaction time in the event of a burglary or home invasion.
So there's a couple legitimate uses for 'assault' style weapons.
As for semi-automatic pistols. They are used primarily for personal defense either in the home or for concealed carry. I have a one such firearm for myself that is kept discreetly out of sight unless I require it. The other option would be having people carry around long arm rifles and shotguns and I can assure you that such a practice would not be beneficial to any parties involved. Long arm safety's can be notoriously unreliable. Also, nobody bats an eyelash when I go to the mall to pick up new shoes with my concealed carry, but if I were to carry a rifle with less ammunition that is less powerful than my handgun people would be stumbling over each other for the exits.
The better question would be whether it includes suicides and accidents which, after reading the PDF source document, it likely does. Also worth pointing out, the way the US collects data on deaths is a little skewed.
Posted in: NRA chief: We will never surrender our guns
1
TheQuestion
They've gone way beyond the point of caring. The only nations in the region it gives any consideration too are the ones that actually recognize its right to exist (those being Egypt, Turkey, and Jordan and even those relationships are strained as Jordan allows Hamas members to operate within its boarders). Everyone else in the area either hosts or actively supplies militant groups actively attempting to kill Israelis.
Posted in: Israel launches airstrike in Syrian capital
0
TheQuestion
A tragedy for the family. I actually got my first 22 at around the age of 7 or 8 and my first shotgun when I was 12 but I was taught gun safety. In rural areas the children are still often an integral part of supplying food, I have friends in Michigan that hunt year round rather than go to the grocery store for meat and their children help with the cleaning and prep.
Posted in: Kentucky boy, 5, fatally shoots 2-year-old sister with rifle given to him as gift
3
TheQuestion
Oh please, profiling of individuals of Middle Eastern descent is alive and well within the TSA and the FBI has been encouraging communities to report suspicious activity within Muslim communities since 2001. Muslims aren't a danger to our society just like Catholics aren't a danger to the UK, it's crazy people you've got to watch out for and they come in all creeds, colors, and persuasions.
Addition: A link to Huff's report on Boston Bombers guns.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/22/boston-bombing-gunn3131363.html
Posted in: Boston bomb suspect charged; religious motive seen
3
TheQuestion
Boston police have confirmed that neither brother had the permits required to purchase or maintain the firearms. Massachusetts requires permits for ownership of handguns and shotguns holding ten rounds or less, both of which were possessed by the brothers. The surviving brother could not possess firearms anyway as he was not 21 or over. Boston PD doesn't know where the guns came from but in any case they were transported into the state without authorization and are, in accordance with Mass law, illegal. The younger brother will likely be brought up on illegal possession of firearms charges in addition to murder, WMD, and other assorted felonies.
Posted in: Boston bomb suspect charged; religious motive seen
0
TheQuestion
One addition, it does cost and additional $500 per year to manufacture machine guns, short barrel shot guns, and some other destructive devices if you're not a major arms manufacturer and gross less than 500k per year from firearms sales. Just the man trying to keep me down.
The licensing for these is slow but fairly easy and once you get licensed once renewals can be done in 5-10 minutes. It honestly has taken me longer to renew my drivers license before than to renew my ammunition manufacturers and licensed historical licenses.
Posted in: U.S. senators reach deal on gun-sale background checks
1
TheQuestion
At the present time it's much cheaper to buy than to manufacture. There is currently some debate over the future applications of 3D printers and the potential legal ramifications of them. While in their current form such devices can only use plastic, plaster, and low melting point metals technology tends towards the fanciful as time progresses.
Otherwise it's $150 every three years to become a licensed firearms (non destructive device) manufacturer, $3000 per year to manufacture destructive devices (explosives, incendiaries, poison gas, grenades, and land mines), and $30 every three years to manufacture ammunition. It's actually not that hard to make quality firearms considering the schematics are easy to find, but the tools are expensive so most people just buy the weapons.
Hate speech is protected under the first amendment (R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul) so long as it doesn't fall under 'immediate enticement of violence' or 'fighting words'. Laws against hate speech are an infringement regardless of how repugnant the message is.
Posted in: U.S. senators reach deal on gun-sale background checks
0
TheQuestion
Until they fix the current background check system I'm fine watching the lot of it get filibustered into the ground. Especially given the likelihood that Feinstein will try her darnedest to get an assault weapons and/or magazine cap tacked on to whatever cobbled together bill manages to shamble into the light. All this nonsense is causing ammo shortages all over the country I've called all over the state and there isn't any 22 long rifle or 22 magnum rounds in the entirety of Michigan and it's starting to get annoying.
Since we all know that nothing substantial is going to happen anyway I suggest that congress go do something productive like immigration reform, or perhaps sit on their hands and hum softly.
Posted in: Obama slams Republicans for gun reform 'stunts'
0
TheQuestion
Lets not mince words, the Federal government doesn't give a flying duck feather about funds despite what they may say on the subject. The background check system is funded and it's funded as part of necessary expenditures and is not subject to discretionary cuts.
There is a difference between being ineffective because something is underfunded and being ineffective because it's poorly constructed and the federal background check system is most certainly the latter.
The US government could not come up with anything even remotely similar to the DMV, which also has its fair share of lapses and inefficiencies, just by sheer weight of numbers and oversight. Vehicles are used constantly in public where police can see it and check it, guns might go unused for years, even decades and even when they are used it's normally at a private range or out in the woods where there are no police to check. It just provides incentive for people to never register their firearms, not that they need any more. I have several guns I've only fired once
So unless you think that the US government is going to hire thousands of armed officers for the sole purpose of going door to door, forcing their way into peoples homes, to manually check for unregistered firearms I assure you that a national registry for firearms is never going to happen.
Posted in: U.S. Congress prepares for gun control debate
0
TheQuestion
It will ultimately lead to nothing. The Dems missed their perilously small window of opportunity in the week or two after Newtown and now that the propaganda machines are working full swing on both sides gridlock has returned. The NRA and it's affiliates have more money, more organization, and more people at their disposal than those attempting to counter them. Other Democrats have already dropped the mention of a federal assault weapons ban and now they're scratching just to get something out of the whole ordeal which will likely come in the form of cosmetic changes to how the background check system works and possibly an expansion of the current database to share information with other federal databases.
The NRA, and the slightly more radical group Gun Owners of America, operate on the notion of slippery slope in regard to gun control, that if they tolerate ANY increase in gun control the advocates of such measures will keep hammering away until inevitable confiscation.
The line of thought goes something like:
1 Universal background checks 2 National registry 3 Selective confiscation 4 Mass confiscation
They support it by pointing to European countries that followed the rough pattern or registration to confiscation and to the UK's 1997 Firearms Act as well as smaller scale efforts such as in DC and the confiscation and destruction of privately owned firearms in the aftermath of hurricane Katrina. If they are seen supporting even the smallest of increases in gun control they feel they are opening the flood gates.
And how would that impact estate and restored firearms? I have 3 revolvers from my grandfather that he bought in the 1940's for $50 a piece and several that I have had restored that I purchased for less than $40 with market values in their current condition will into the $500 dollar range. Antique guns are also problematic, my brother and I own a restored Vickers that could be worth several thousand dollars that I've only fired once in 10 years.
The current background check system can't even get my name right but they're supposed to track market rate appraisals?
I own well over 15 and I don't find it to be that audacious a number.
Posted in: U.S. Congress prepares for gun control debate
-2
TheQuestion
What it doesn't show is a massive uptick in other forms of tobacco usage. More people are using snus, chewing tobacco, and smoking cigars in order to avoid the taxes levied against cigarettes. On the upside a new cigar bar opened up in my area, downside is that two of my old favorites closed because the patrons moved to where they could smoke freely.
Posted in: U.S. launches new anti-smoking offensive