>I contend that you are cause of just as much loss of life as I am through your actions.
That's patently false. More than 85 billion land animals alone are slaughtered annually for food. Trillions if you include sea life. Regardless, any incidental deaths like rats or frogs getting crushed while harvesting vegetables are just not on the same ethical plane as factory farmed animals whose entire purpose for existing is to be slaughtered for mere human flavor preference.
Watch Dominion and tell us these animals are not being mutilated, mangled, tormented, slaughtered and murdered.
Animals do not want to die. The will ALL naturally cry, scream, run, fight and generally do anything possible to avoid getting killed. Killing them is murder. Discrimination or unjustified treatment of animals based on an individual's species membership is called Speciesism. The belief that humans alone possess intrinsic value or are the central entity in the universe is called Anthropocentrism.
What exactly is the fear of dulled senses? What are you gaining by being a bit sharper on Friday night that drinkers are losing? Is anything actually lost?
I'm genuinely curious because most of the time the dulled senses bit is brought up it seems like there's almost always some kind of guilt on behalf of the speaker that causes them to feel uncomfortable with intoxication in a way that others simply don't experience.
I would guess the average casual drinker dismisses the person that is worried about "staying sharp" as being uptight or unnecessarily rigid, because as you said, life is short and who really gives a damn about being 100% cognitive all the time?
>Two indicator lights (red/green) serve as attention getters and ensure a far reaching call function when a respective message is displayed. The red light is used for system and emergency information, the green light for communication information. The lights are steady in normal situations and will flash in emergency situations.
>The ACPs give a long-range visual indication about the system status (e.g. PAX call active). They are installed at the ceiling in the middle of the aisle between the passenger/crew doors, close to
the attendant stations.
>The lighted segments are activated either continuously (steady) or flashing.
In case of "normal" calls they are not flashing (steady), in case of "abnormal" or "emergency" situations they will flash. Only the blue PAX call field will never flash, this will be always a "normal" indication
These indicator lights would be helpful in narrowing down if the emergency system was being engaged or not. Could potentially point to exploitation/hack of the PA system rather than rogue utilization of normal functions.
>Sound engineers need to stop needlessly flexing all that dynamic range that modern tools give them, and just produce a watchable movie.
Audio component manufacturers have actually responded to this tendency by adding in-line compressors to the audio channels that can be enabled/disabled. Sometimes this is labelled as the "Dynamic Range" feature in AV systems. Essentially it squashes the loudest sounds, which in turn brings up the average volume of the quietest sounds, thus evening the overall volume and allowing for a single volume setting to be used throughout the movie.
I've been seeing more and more talk of how global opinions of the US have really taken a hit in the last year. With that in mind, do y'all think as quickly as it went down it can recover?
" They're trained with guns to aim for parts of the body that make it less likely to kill a target instantly or quickly and instead incapacitates them (of course, with a gun you can never know but you can alter the odds) "
This is the third time I've read this in the comments but I can't seem to find any info on "shoot to incapacitate" online. I'm not doubting it, I'm just looking to collect information regarding the topic to share with others. Do you have anything to corroborate this training method?
"...but police here is trained to shoot to incapacitate, and it generally seems to work."
I've never heard of this practice, and the opposite is regularly taught to various armed forces around the world. I'm curious to read about it, do you have any info or sources to share?
"Second, why shoot to kill and not to incapacitate? Shoot to kill is a policy. Why is that a policy?"
Most armed folks are taught that when you draw a gun it's to neutralize a threat. To neutralize is to completely eliminate the threat.
Has anyone here heard similar sentiments while getting a concealed carry license?
Something like 'Don't pull your gun out and point it at someone unless you intend to shoot and kill them. Anything less than that needlessly escalates the severity of a situation by introducing a weapon.'
The idea being that if you pull out a gun and don't use it, all of the sudden you have increased the potential for violence, exposed yourself as armed and willing, lost the element of surprise, and given potential assailants the idea/opportunity to match your use of force. Thus, "shoot to kill."
One problem is that guns are tools for a task, and when you pull out a tool, you want to leverage it as efficiently as possible. Maybe the answer isn't to use the tool differently, but use a different tool entirely.
|Ethics isn't based on what causes suffering / well-being.
Ehh, where we've landed in contemporary, normative-esque based ethics, it kind of is. Where you think ethics gets its imperative force depends largely (as you mentioned) on your community and environment. Western philosophy has however been shaped enough by utilitarianism, consequentialism, deontology, virtue ethics, etc., to the point that they all to a degree recognize suffering and/or the need to reduce it.
Peter Singer's summary of WH Leckly's 'ever expanding circle of responsibility' is a good example of this.
'"...Lecky wrote of human concern as an expanding circle which begins with the individual, then embraces the family and ‘soon the circle... includes first a class, then a nation, then a coalition of nations, then all humanity, and finally, its influence is felt in the dealings of man [sic] with the animal world."' -- https://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/199704--.htm
Singer suggests that "Our century is the first in which it has been possible to speak of global responsibility and a global community." If an ever expanding circle of responsibility includes reducing suffering on a global level-- and sentience being the compelling criteria that it is-- including animal suffering vs. human culinary pleasure/preference will definitely continue to be relevant in any ethical/philosophic discussions moving forward.
It's interesting that one of the logical ends to reducing suffering as much as possible ultimately leads to expanding the circle of responsibility to future generation and those not yet alive to even suffer. This is where environmentalism and regard for those ahead of our decisions comes into play.
Maybe you're right that ethics isn't entirely based on suffering / well-being, but that's largely where it is headed.
Out of curiosity what do you mean by this? Are you referring to all Multicast solutions? Can I just be specific -- what do you think of Dante, Audio/Video-over-IP or other time sensitive an synced services that use Multicast?