404

Pump Up the Jam is an anagram of 'Jump Up the Pump'.

This song was played five times in a row at the funeral of director Stanley Kubrick.

Techtronic's home planet, Earth, consists of 70% water.

If you isolate the individual drumbeats from this song and arrange them in a circle, it unlocks a cheat mode that allows you to pass through solid surfaces at will.

Makes me think of this video

Harder Drive: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JcJSW7Rprio

The Unipörs is kind of an odd one but at least it's invisible under a jacket

Or they upload to the resurrection ship

Sure, it's truism. I just felt like I had to make myself super clear since you kept using car and knife safety as examples.

Your original comment spoke about safety mechanisms in gun construction, not about how carrying, in itself, makes others more unsafe, which is my point here. Along the way you've written things I thoroughly don't agree with, like

A trained person carrying a gun is safer than not.

Take this video of unarmed policemen trained in de-escalation, for instance. Would this situation have been handled more safely if it was handled by gun-trained, armed policemen?

Yes but the reason I don't agree with you is that knives, and cars for that matter, serve different purposes:

• A knife that is safe for the chef will be safe for his guest if operated correctly
• A guillotine that is safe for the executioner will not be safe for his victim if operated correctly
• A car that is safe for the driver will be safe for the pedestrian if operated correctly
• A gun that is safe for the shooter will not be safe for the target if operated correctly

Do you not see the difference here?

Well. Since the tools are lethal, and countries implementing the death penalty always end up killing innocent people, and more guns = more gun violence and accidents, it's obvious to me that these tools are not safe. To me, gun safety is as applicable to the real world as the perfectly straight line in mathematics, or the perfectly rational thinker in logics...

I'm fascinated by the emphasis on protection in your (and Americans' in general) definition of safety. In Europe, "safe" simply means "not dangerous". From your "~~wildly~~ widely (edit: typo) understood" definition, I get the feeling that you view danger as unavoidable. Would you mind sharing your thoughts on what safety would mean to you and your community, if there was no danger to protect from? Would you still carry a gun for protection if all strangers were harmless? Have you ever visited a country where no one, not even law enforcement, carries lethal weapons? Etc.

I'm sorry; I was being sarcastic. Thank you for the reply though.

I would like to add that since everybody makes mistakes, no one can (statistically) handle a gun 100% safely 100% of the time. E.g. a carried gun is never completely safe from theft. So no carrier is "safe", therefore no gun is "safe". Personally I would not use that word when referring to objects designed to do harm. I don't think a modern car is a good analogy. A better one would be "modern guillotines are incredibly safe".

That makes it even weirder. Why would you carry a gun at this level of quick access, if the gun itself is not quick access?

I was just about to say the dust fits. It does add to the vibe.

Svenska :)

I dabbled in shorthand (particularly Melin's system) for a bit. Never got up a usable speed, but I'm convinced I would have been unbeatable in uni if I had.