MichaelGroves

Another point: bragging about how bitey your dachshund is, as though that vindicates your poorly behaved pitbull, really makes me think you shouldn't own dogs. Why didn't you train your dachshund well? I have met well behaved dachshunds, so what is your excuse? Do violent and poorly trained police justify your violent and poorly trained dogs? Is that what you're trying to say?

A rational person is more concerned around a trained tiger than a house-cat, despite both having the same capricious-but-usually-peaceful temperament. A rational person considers not only the temperament of the animal, but also the damage it could do. Numerous grown adults have been killed by pitbulls. Dachshunds? Not so much.

I think you understand this, but are pretending not to. Let me tell you, feigned ignorance is not persuasive.

Tranquilizer darts only work fast enough for self defense in video games.

> A vicious dog won't immediately attack.

It's trivial to find videos of dog attacks that contradict your absolutist assertion.

Some of the shootings of dogs are justified, others are not. It depends on the dog and the circumstance, but of course every dog owner will claim their dog was a loveable puppy after the fact.

I am expected to uncritically believe the owners, to believe that all these dogs are harmless and well trained and that they're all being shot for no reason. Well I believe that some of them are being shot for no good reason, but I've seen very little to suggest that most are. And from my interactions with the general public, I am inclined to believe most dogs are, if not dangerous, then at least poorly trained.

Better to run and look like a coward than to get bit. Looking like a coward in front of a stranger costs you nothing. Misjudging a dog and getting bit can cost you disfigurement or death. You know your dogs; the appliance installer doesn't.

Also, I think it says something about the temperament and worldview of the owners of these dogs that they so often seem very concerned with appearing brave or cowardly.

The premise of bloodsports appeals to dirtbags, who buy these sort of dogs and neglect to train them at best (or very often, train them to be vicious.)

Probably 664 is what they had available, or what their calculated geometry called for. It seems silly to speculate that they could have or should have gone for 666 but deliberately chose not to. If that were the case, why not 665 or 667? Is there any reason to think 666 would have been a more appropriate number?

When I was in elementary school I made paper out of cut up blue jeans and learned that it was invented in China. I also learned that the Egyptians invented papyrus, which was similar to paper but shittier. Recalling it now, I also remember that I grew up in a paper mill town.. so maybe my school placed an unusually strong emphasis on paper. Still, I don't think China inventing paper is esoteric knowledge in America.

I can't remember when I first heard that China invented wooden movable type, but I do recall reading about it a whole lot online in discussions quite like this one.

No one talks about it? China inventing paper, printing and gunpowder is something every school child knows. I think I've heard about it about a million times. These facts are common knowledge; certainly paper and gunpowder.

Printing is an odd example; the reason Gutenberg was influential is not the reason most people think. He did not invent movable type. He invented systems for mass producing movable type, particularly technology for casting type blocks out of metal, instead of carving them out of wood. So yes, movable type was invented in China. But no, Gutenberg's contribution was not "stealing from the Chinese" (as has become popular to claim on the internet these days...) The root of this particular misconception is the general public's general ignorance of printing technology.

Forgive me if I'm missing your joke, but most of the American public did think that way. Most of the American public was against war until Japan attacked America. And responding to an attack is not what I would call being "world police". Nor is going to war with Germany after Germany declared war on America.

This is why America entered the war so late. If America were thinking of itself as world police at the time, why did it take America so long to actually go to war?

Wind will never not be a problem for airships. At best, modern weather radars and forecasting might allow airships to avoid storms better than their early 20th century counterparts did.

Incidentally, a lot of casual airship fans pin hopes on helium instead of hydrogen to keep airships safe. But the deadliest airship disaster in history was a helium airship, the USS Akron, which was destroyed by bad weather killing 73 of the 76 aboard.