gharial

The only instance in which an officer should ever be firing a weapon in the field is to stop a target that is posing an immediate and lethal threat. In that situation, shooting to kill would be perfectly justified.

Why can we not address and punish cops who think firing rounds into someone's back as they flee is acceptable instead of trying to mandate that they shoot an extremity (which they will undoubtably 'miss' in the 'heat of the moment' in favor of center mass)?

Because, over the long term, a single lion is infinitely more important to the survival of our own species/planet than a single human or even several million of them.

The hunt was illegal, hence both "guides" being imprisoned in Zimbabwe. The chance that a single penny went to helping the country or its people is precisely zero.

There is no "their" and "our" problems - extinction affects humanity on a global level.

I don't believe the majority of people take issue with hunting solely because the animal is "beautiful". Not many people seem to have a problem with hunting deer for meat or to regulate their populations. Those I've discussed it with seem to almost unanimously agree that the wasteful aspect of "trophy hunting" exotic animals is what makes it particularly despicable.

Take the recent case of Cecil the lion. He was shot initially with a bow and suffered for nearly two days before finally being finished off, at which point he was skinned and his carcass dumped to make some douchebag dentist a lame taxidermy piece. His meat wasn't donated. He wasn't terrorizing some defenseless local village. There isn't a surplus of lions causing some of them to starve.

How can anyone justify taking a life (especially with such a disgusting length of suffering involved) for such frivolous reasons as making a rug and taking some photos?

According to this article, there's evidence to suggest that keeping orcas in captivity is detrimental to their well being. Why does having that evidence suddenly mean having an opinion on what to do with it is off limits?

Again - then why not just explicitly ban it altogether? Why say it's allowed under certain parameters and then ban users anyway when they meet those parameters exactly as required? They obviously have a list of products/transactions deemed too high-risk by their contract, they need to state what they are explicitly if they want to stop the PR bleeding.

I've been doing this for four years and we've never had a single dispute, but that's really neither here nor there.

They're trying to prevent the "evil feminists" from ruining the fun by doing it themselves.

I recently reached out to Stripe to get their opinion on whether or not I should bother trying to integrate stripe.js with my browser based game. I obviously didn't want to invest the effort if they were just going to shut me down a few weeks later. It says in their TOU that virtual currency sales are allowed so long as it's self contained and can't be traded for real money or across other websites - that was the case with my game.

After over a week of waiting for a reply (PayPal's initial responses are rarely helpful, but at least they tend to respond..), they told me I shouldn't use Stripe because I would almost undoubtably be considered high risk. Why not just say it isn't allowed?

I really couldn't follow his logic at all. Being able to come up with a working (perfectly correct) solution somehow implies a developer is probably "dumb" or "lazy"? As if a truly "smart" or gifted programmer would be unable to come up with a solution because they're just oh so intelligent and clever. You either know how loops work or you don't.

You're presuming a bit too much there. I don't understand how you figure my age factors into some sort of false transition period or that my experience is any less real because it happens before an arbitrary age, though.

>What changed? I hit my forties

It's pretty well documented that people in your age group are generally early risers and that people in young adulthood tend to be night owls. Getting older and having your preference change is hardly an indication that you were "never really" a certain way when you were younger.

I'm 20, don't drink caffeine or go out more than once or twice a month. Left to my own devices, in a few weeks I'd be falling asleep around 10AM and waking up at 5PM.

People are different. It doesn't mean they're wrong.

The mentality of people who support this kind of environmental destruction is baffling. "I have the right to a profitable business even if it means slaughtering an entire species to the point of extinction and ruining ecosystems nation-wide." Human arrogance at its finest.

This is definitely true. I've been labeled on occasion as "not passionate" for not being willing to work myself into the ground at 60+ hours a week with a four hour round trip commute.

That's not to say that I won't work long hours at crunch time or I have a problem with going the extra mile. But if your "crunch time" is 52 weeks a year, it's no longer a matter of passion, it's just exploitative.