Crazy thing is, walking 20 miles a day isn't burning that many calories. By the end of the day, if it is flat ground and you're used to it, 20 miles isn't even enough to be sore or tired…
It's a social norm that doesn't really make sense. It is convenient to sell hair removal products but it isn't the only explanation. I don't have evidence of this (no sociological studies or anything) but in my mind the repulsion for body hair is also a repudiation of sexuality because it is a secondary sexual characteristic that you get during and after puberty.
It used to be way more a subject for mockery in the 1990s and 2000s if a woman had leg hair or something, but those times also had "gay" as an acceptable way to demean stuff you found effeminate or stupid. I think there's been some change since then.
They have DRM, even if easy to go around it, it doesn't make sense to pay loads for a shitty medium with obstacles to getting what's on it… it sends the wrong message to the criminal organisations peddling them.
France trusts that people will be nice but if landlords play dumb there's 10% interest per month after one month, and it can be expedited in small claims court if you prove bad faith and/or fraud.
On me it barely works to use alcohol, I don't know how they make the stuff for surgeries but it is the right viscosity and concentration of iodine and other stuff to really remove anything alive without using a lot.
I have yet to find something that works as well for cotton with gunky deodorant residue, old t-shirts need a hot wash with a lot of soap and vinegar from time to time, sometimes two washes in a row.
You don't need to shave, using the antiseptic they cover you in before surgery is enough in my experience, and won't cause itching and cuts like shaving does.
If someone has traces of THC in their system they're automatically a criminal if they handle a gun. If they downloaded a film and they're a convenient target politically they can also get in trouble (unenforced laws are enforceable).
A lot of semiautomatic mechanisms can be converted to select fire with very little tooling or investment, you don't need legally detained “machine guns” per the NFA definition to smuggle guns, anything cheap and untraceable enough will do.
Seems like that conspiracy would require more people not leaking it, ever, than just being incompetent in counter insurgency like every other military force in modern times.
They both check you don't have a criminal record and/or aren't prohibited from purchasing guns. They both allow you to buy a firearm once they have cleared. You have to pay either way. Purchasing permits you get from the police, background checks are done by licensed dealers but the authorisation comes from executive power as well.
What's the difference?
EDIT: My good faith is still on less shaky ground than the UN saying guns cause violence but having armed guards whenever and wherever they like.
Background checks in the US are practically equivalent to purchasing permits in CH, except the data retention is less specific because the date of purchase and what is purchased is harder to tell. Concealed carry was only restricted in the 1990s by gun-grabbers.
Also the US isn't a monolith with one set of laws.
The UN dogma of guns causing violence is ridiculous and insane. Switzerland isn't Hell.
Civilians can't easily own or carry guns in Haiti so only criminals are armed.
No one can uninvent guns. No one can stop smuggling. No one can stop illegal manufacturing. Gun control is a fantasy and/or totalitarian nightmare fuel.
Որբունի @ vorpuni @jlai.lu Posts 1Comments 138Joined 1 yr. ago
Crazy thing is, walking 20 miles a day isn't burning that many calories. By the end of the day, if it is flat ground and you're used to it, 20 miles isn't even enough to be sore or tired…