I was quite surprised how many of my sons classmates were planning on going to university in the States. Some had scholarships of some type. Anyways it is not that uncommon.
" Mother rapers. Father stabbers. Father rapers! Father rapers sitting right there on the bench next to me! And they was mean and nasty and ugly and horrible crime-type guys sitting on the bench next to me. And the meanest, ugliest, nastiest one, the meanest father raper of them all, was coming over to me and he was mean and ugly and nasty and horrible and all kind of things and he sat down next to me and said, "Kid, what did you do"? I answered "a goto command in basic" and they all moved away from me "
Unlike today people back then knew how war is suppose to be waged. Using the very simple strategy of killing all your enemies using any weapons available and dropping bombs until the rubble bounced.
Actually civilians usually weren't purposely targeted before WWII. I believe there were even international agreements about it. Assuming you're American, laws against attacking civilians go back at least to the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, signed with Mexico in 1848. Remember, treaties are the second highest laws in the land. Modern laws of war can be said to start with the Hague conventions, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.... It was also as much the Allies who first started targeting civilians in WWII, carpet bombing, incendiary bombing were western inventions.
Well, we didn't declare war on them until they invaded Poland and America waited until Germany declared war on them. As for the Jews, first they tried to get rid of them. When no one would take them, they tried to create a homeland in Madagascar for them. When that failed, they came up with the final solution. If the rest of the world cared, they could have let those refugee ships full of Jews land. After the war, the Jews did get a big PR campaign going to lay down the guilt. Notice how little the Nazi's genocide of the Roma is talked about. Most of the genocides that have happened since WWII also haven't resulted in military intervention.
Cost cutting along with doing something new and being really careful. Another change was spy satellites removing the military's needs for a reusable spacecraft to go to their observation stations. Unlike SpaceX, NASA didn't have any shoulders to stand on and had to do this stuff for the first time, generally with minimal computer power as well, something that is very important for SpaceX.
The question is if they're gating off the only entrance or just the easy entrance. Lots of gates around here on public streets to stop through traffic usually while still allowing the fire department etc entrance. Residents have to take a roundabout route to get to their residence. I take it there is a law about breaking the cities locks, not that I've ever heard of it happening. I can also think of decommissioned roads that are gated, though the residents have access from one side of their property instead of 2 sides. Lots of forestry roads gated off that the city maintains as well.
Well the Shuttle was intended to be reusable and probably would have been if the Air Force hadn't been involved. It can also be argued the tech wasn't quite there. SpaceX has some pretty tall shoulders to stand on and reach so high. IIRC, Gemini capsules were considered for reuse before budget considerations changed that and Gemini 2's capsule did fly twice.
In contrast the 60s capsules were allowed to sink to the bottom of the ocean if not needed for inspection.
Huh? Now that I'd like to see a citation for unless you consider every capsule needed for inspection. There was one or two that accidentally sank or allowed to burn up IIRC but most are still around including the Gemini (2) that was reused (unmanned). Can't find a citation right now but I believe Gemini was intended to be reusable. It was actually the most advanced of the spacecraft due to being designed latest and originally was meant to land on land using a para-glider. Lists of locations of the spacecraft, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/pl...
Speed of transactions. A good credit card system is faster than an employee counting change and making change.
Going for a funny mod? Anyways, you forgot the main reason, customers spending money they don't have or weren't planning on spending. Show up at a store with $20, you're not going to spend over $20, and you will feel some disgust seeing the twenty go along with the pleasure of acquiring something. With the card, the disgust doesn't happen until you get the bill or look at your bank balance.
Good cashiers leave the cash you gave on top of the cash register, usually just above the draw, until they've given change. Mistakes are quickly corrected and I've seen mistakes from both the cashier and myself. You're right about cards almost always being slower then cash. The advantage to the store is people spend money they don't have with a smile when using cards.
yeah, that's a hard one. think long and hard about it, millennial.
Right, because nobody has ever gotten stuck behind some innumerate old fucker in the store trying to buy $100 worth of groceries with $80 cash.
I'm always getting stuck behind people doing the card shuffle, try half a dozen in the hope that one won't be declined. And each card is slower then using cash. I always look at the cashier lines looking for customers with cash as that line will move. Other week, one out of four cashiers had a sign, "cash only, card reader down", watched for a while, the speed that people went through that line was amazing. I think stores would stop accepting cards if it wasn't that they encouraged people to spend money they don't have with a smile.
And how are the banks supposed to make record profits every quarter with laws like that? Luckily in America, banks have the freedom to finance politicians who pass business friendly laws. Being a free country, the poor also have the right to pay off politicians so it's fair.
One thing about cash is the way it affects the brain compared to using any type of card. Use cash and the disgust as well as the pleasure parts of the brain light up, that disgust works to help you manage your money compared to using a card and only having the pleasure part of your brain light up. You can say that people shouldn't be affected by their brains, but they are. Personally, I find it a lot easier to manage my small income by taking X amount out of the bank and only spending that. This way I actually have some savings as well.
Can't you dispute a speeding ticket on the basis that the camera, radar gun etc is likely not calibrated that accurately? Here, when they had cameras, they were set to ticket at 10 kph over the limit.
Now and again, I'll have someone in front of me brake on a green light even without cameras. Always a bit unexpected and forces me to brake harder then usual and be thankful I'm not a tailgater. There's some bad drivers out there. I live in a rural area and I'd swear some people just stop in the middle of the road to look at a tree.
You mean only the rich will be able to afford to drive. Tickets should also be based on income like in Finland, X hours or days of wages for speeding etc. That would make the punishment more equal. Here a speeding ticket can be over $300, 3 days wages for a minimum wage worker who is probably living on the edge and a couple of hours or less for some who can afford it anyways.
Generally ticket revenues (except parking tickets and such covered by city by-laws) go into the Provinces general funds rather straight to the cops. This may vary in different Provinces.
Slashdot Mirror
She's Canadian, Canadians aren't used to suing, especially in another country when broke.
I was quite surprised how many of my sons classmates were planning on going to university in the States. Some had scholarships of some type. Anyways it is not that uncommon.
" Mother rapers. Father stabbers. Father rapers! Father rapers sitting right there on the bench next to me! And they was mean and nasty and ugly and horrible crime-type guys sitting on the bench next to me. And the meanest, ugliest, nastiest one, the meanest father raper of them all, was coming over to me and he was mean and ugly and nasty and horrible and all kind of things and he sat down next to me and said, "Kid, what did you do"? I answered "a goto command in basic" and they all moved away from me "
Probably more the implementation then the actual law, not that I've read it or anything.
Unlike today people back then knew how war is suppose to be waged. Using the very simple strategy of killing all your enemies using any weapons available and dropping bombs until the rubble bounced.
Actually civilians usually weren't purposely targeted before WWII. I believe there were even international agreements about it.
Assuming you're American, laws against attacking civilians go back at least to the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, signed with Mexico in 1848. Remember, treaties are the second highest laws in the land.
Modern laws of war can be said to start with the Hague conventions, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/....
It was also as much the Allies who first started targeting civilians in WWII, carpet bombing, incendiary bombing were western inventions.
Well, we didn't declare war on them until they invaded Poland and America waited until Germany declared war on them.
As for the Jews, first they tried to get rid of them. When no one would take them, they tried to create a homeland in Madagascar for them. When that failed, they came up with the final solution.
If the rest of the world cared, they could have let those refugee ships full of Jews land.
After the war, the Jews did get a big PR campaign going to lay down the guilt. Notice how little the Nazi's genocide of the Roma is talked about.
Most of the genocides that have happened since WWII also haven't resulted in military intervention.
Cost cutting along with doing something new and being really careful.
Another change was spy satellites removing the military's needs for a reusable spacecraft to go to their observation stations.
Unlike SpaceX, NASA didn't have any shoulders to stand on and had to do this stuff for the first time, generally with minimal computer power as well, something that is very important for SpaceX.
Usually only available in VHS, and working VHS players are getting hard to find and VHS looks crappy on modern TV's.
The question is if they're gating off the only entrance or just the easy entrance.
Lots of gates around here on public streets to stop through traffic usually while still allowing the fire department etc entrance. Residents have to take a roundabout route to get to their residence. I take it there is a law about breaking the cities locks, not that I've ever heard of it happening.
I can also think of decommissioned roads that are gated, though the residents have access from one side of their property instead of 2 sides.
Lots of forestry roads gated off that the city maintains as well.
Well the Shuttle was intended to be reusable and probably would have been if the Air Force hadn't been involved. It can also be argued the tech wasn't quite there. SpaceX has some pretty tall shoulders to stand on and reach so high.
IIRC, Gemini capsules were considered for reuse before budget considerations changed that and Gemini 2's capsule did fly twice.
In contrast the 60s capsules were allowed to sink to the bottom of the ocean if not needed for inspection.
Huh? Now that I'd like to see a citation for unless you consider every capsule needed for inspection.
There was one or two that accidentally sank or allowed to burn up IIRC but most are still around including the Gemini (2) that was reused (unmanned).
Can't find a citation right now but I believe Gemini was intended to be reusable. It was actually the most advanced of the spacecraft due to being designed latest and originally was meant to land on land using a para-glider.
Lists of locations of the spacecraft,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/pl...
In America, Socialist has a totally different meaning then what the dictionary says.
Speed of transactions. A good credit card system is faster than an employee counting change and making change.
Going for a funny mod?
Anyways, you forgot the main reason, customers spending money they don't have or weren't planning on spending. Show up at a store with $20, you're not going to spend over $20, and you will feel some disgust seeing the twenty go along with the pleasure of acquiring something. With the card, the disgust doesn't happen until you get the bill or look at your bank balance.
Good cashiers leave the cash you gave on top of the cash register, usually just above the draw, until they've given change.
Mistakes are quickly corrected and I've seen mistakes from both the cashier and myself.
You're right about cards almost always being slower then cash. The advantage to the store is people spend money they don't have with a smile when using cards.
yeah, that's a hard one. think long and hard about it, millennial.
Right, because nobody has ever gotten stuck behind some innumerate old fucker in the store trying to buy $100 worth of groceries with $80 cash.
I'm always getting stuck behind people doing the card shuffle, try half a dozen in the hope that one won't be declined. And each card is slower then using cash.
I always look at the cashier lines looking for customers with cash as that line will move.
Other week, one out of four cashiers had a sign, "cash only, card reader down", watched for a while, the speed that people went through that line was amazing.
I think stores would stop accepting cards if it wasn't that they encouraged people to spend money they don't have with a smile.
And how are the banks supposed to make record profits every quarter with laws like that? Luckily in America, banks have the freedom to finance politicians who pass business friendly laws. Being a free country, the poor also have the right to pay off politicians so it's fair.
Around here, the automated checkout machines no longer accept cash.
One thing about cash is the way it affects the brain compared to using any type of card. Use cash and the disgust as well as the pleasure parts of the brain light up, that disgust works to help you manage your money compared to using a card and only having the pleasure part of your brain light up.
You can say that people shouldn't be affected by their brains, but they are. Personally, I find it a lot easier to manage my small income by taking X amount out of the bank and only spending that. This way I actually have some savings as well.
They weren't asking for a law, rather a gate.
Unless they demand payment upfront.
Can't you dispute a speeding ticket on the basis that the camera, radar gun etc is likely not calibrated that accurately? Here, when they had cameras, they were set to ticket at 10 kph over the limit.
Now and again, I'll have someone in front of me brake on a green light even without cameras. Always a bit unexpected and forces me to brake harder then usual and be thankful I'm not a tailgater.
There's some bad drivers out there. I live in a rural area and I'd swear some people just stop in the middle of the road to look at a tree.
You mean only the rich will be able to afford to drive.
Tickets should also be based on income like in Finland, X hours or days of wages for speeding etc. That would make the punishment more equal. Here a speeding ticket can be over $300, 3 days wages for a minimum wage worker who is probably living on the edge and a couple of hours or less for some who can afford it anyways.
Generally ticket revenues (except parking tickets and such covered by city by-laws) go into the Provinces general funds rather straight to the cops. This may vary in different Provinces.
Do you think the average person considers tyre speed rating?