As comic Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal explains, this is what happens when a powerful weapon falls into the wrong hands. Or when someone in power is just plain dumb.
[SMBC via @eagereyes]
shouldn’t it be if we (if by we, we mean the U.S) make war on a sufficiently small enemy then it is a victimless crime, but if a sufficiently small enemy makes war on us it isn’t?
Ah, you see bryan the US is “we the people”. So no matter how small the enemy is, if they attack us they attack the single corpus that is “we the people”. So that means it’s always a crime if “we” are the victim.
Can more than one person kill a single person? Sure, there’s shared culpability. But at some point, someone is the last person in the chain who deals the fatal blow, that last kick in the ribs, even if you’re simply driving the drone with a joystick. There seems to be a distinction, at least in language, between facilitating murder and dealing it. Even facing a firing squad, I’m guessing there’s a fatal bullet, even if you don’t know whose.
i think you’ll enjoy this: http://www.painting.iepe.net/
Become a member.
Learn to visualize your data.
From beginner to advanced.
What you get
We’ve seen that we can learn from what people search for, through the eyes of Google suggestions: state stereotypes, national …
The individual data points of life are much less predictable than the average. Here’s a simulation that shows you how much time is left on the clock.
The data goes back to 1960 and up to the most current estimates for 2009. Each line represents a country.
I call myself a statistician, because, well, I’m a statistics graduate student. However, the most important things I’ve learned are less formal, but have proven extremely useful when working/playing with data.