Most automatics have a shifter with markings like P-2-1 and you can put it in first at any speed and it'll downshift automatically. I've currently got an automatic and when downshifting sometimes the tires will chirp when going from 2nd to 1st.
When I had a diesel and usually used engine compression for braking, I put on a couple of hundred thousand kms and never needed to do the brakes (actually I did bleed them once), and they weren't the really hard pads that wear down the rotor instead of the pads either, at least according to my measurements (used vehicle so I'm not totally sure of the quality of parts. I junked the truck at 500,000 kms due to rust)
When I had a diesel (and the summery mentions diesels), I usually just downshifted and used the engine compression to brake. Did learn to tap the brake pedal to stop the cops from pulling me over to check that my brake lights worked. With a 23.1 compression ratio, that little Nissan truck slowed down quick with engine compression. Large diesels often have exhaust limiters (jake brakes) that help using engine braking.
Does the retailer or the oil company set the price? Where I am, all gas stations go up and down in price in lock step and talking to the cashiers, they get a phone call that sets the price. It would be nice to have some actual competition instead of the most expensive gas in N. America, but at least locally, the independent gas station is dead and the 5 or 6 oil companies don't seem to have any interest in competing, at least in gasoline sales. Diesel does vary and all gas stations sell junk food which is where they make their money.
As Rob Ford showed, scandal doesn't even hurt some of these arseholes. Get caught smoking crack, deny, admit, ask for forgiveness, repeat, and the tough on crime right is suddenly forgiving.
It's amazing how many yards have opium poppies growing in them, or maybe not when you look at the flower seeds at the store and realize how common this plant is and also how easily it self seeds. Huge chunks of the population are guilty of (unknowingly) growing narcotics and could be sentenced to quite a few years in prison.
It can. Heard an interview a while back with a native woman who'd spent 8 years in prison after stabbing someone to death when she was 15. As she put it, it wasn't that she made bad choices, but rather that she didn't even know there were choices. She'd spent 20 years after getting out of prison helping young fucked up people to understand that there were actually choices and she felt that she'd made a difference in quite a few lives. If she is correct that she helped at least one person stay away from a live of violence, then yes by being out she made you safer. This is Canada where at the time the prisons weren't so fucked and the native people have really been fucked by generations getting dragged away from their families and raised and tortured in residential schools run by the nice Christians.
A marijuana seed seller and politician (founder of the marijuana party) was extradited and thrown in prison for 5 years even though the extradition treaty said he shouldn't be extradited (unequal punishment), thanks to a very pro-American right wing government. (Marc Emery)
A different take away is that reform movements take a generation or more to be implemented. People grow up considering movements such as the Chartists, women's suffrage, civil rights etc to be reasonable, the old guard dies off and eventually reform does happen. This is what is scary about life extension if it ever happens, the old guard could remain in power for close to forever or until they were killed off.
Actually it is pretty clear that it just limits Congress from limiting speech through statute. Lesser governments are/were (the 14th expanded the 1st) allowed to limit speech, such as States passing laws limiting what slaves could say and even municipal governments regulating speech through eg noise bylaws or sign bylaws (though whether the writers considered that?). It also didn't limit the judiciary from limiting speech and at the time common law was still in effect so common law limits would have been allowed, things like libel and perhaps uttering threats. The other question is how much power the writers expected the President to wield, can the President order silence in matters of national security?
I don't disagree and originally responded to a poster who seemed to think that Bernie would snap his fingers and raise taxes. As a Canadian, I'd much rather see Bernie then Hillary elected and I'd like to see your Congress reflecting the will of the people. Unluckily it seems the deck is very stacked and things won't change in 2018 no matter the will of the people. http://www.salon.com/2016/04/0...
Yes, the elite used taxes to get the common man riled up enough to go along with the elite. Another leading cause was the Royal Proclamation of 1763 where the tyrant proclaimed that the natives were equals and had a right to keep their land, something that really pissed off the big land speculators such as Washington. The tyrant also extended more rights to the evil Papists, even allowing them to take part in government without swearing allegiance to the Anglican Church as well as not stopping them from bearing arms, contrary to the Bill of Rights of 1689. There was also the first rumblings about ending slavery which upset the south
Would a Republican Congress actually compromise with an actual left winger? Shit look how they've worked with Obama, someone that was barely left of Romney. With Hillary, they'll agree to increase spying on the people, agree to trade agreements that help the rich at the expense of the common man and all those other things that always get bi-partisan support. Of course either way, they'll argue about the things that the rich don't really care about, abortion, equal rights and the other talking points that the right hates and the left likes.
I'm not American but my understanding is that it is actually the Republican Congress that would have to pass any tax increases and the President can't do much more then make suggestions and veto if it is not an overwhelming majority. What would Bernie actually be able to accomplish?
Not worth mentioning, most was scraped off during the last ice age. The Boreal forests consist of little spruce trees partially due to the lack of soil and the tundra likewise has very little, it takes a long time to build up soil in the temperate regions and much longer in the north. Where I live, quite a bit more south, there is only an inch or two of decent soil over hardpan and bedrock and it takes a lot of work to grow a garden. Our government in its wisdom has also decided to flood a good chunk of the northern farmland that does exist to supply power for the natural gas industry (site C dam)
You have to weigh that against the fact that a greedy corporation can ultimately do nothing to you, while the government has the power to fine you or send you to jail, and they can send a group of heavily armed men to break down your door to force you to comply with their decisions.
Just yesterday I saw the private railway police, so yes there are still corporate forces that have the power to arrest you. It wasn't that long ago that corporations had much more power, see eg the Pinkerton Detective Agency who at one point was larger then the military of the USA and routinely beat and killed people the corporations were unfriendly with. There's a reason that we've transferred most all law enforcement to the government, mainly that they're more (or at least were) responsible then big business to the people. Businesses ultimate goal is to make sure you have no choice but to deal with them and at times have been very successful at this.
So every generation we renegotiate the international borders? Renegotiate the price we agreed to pay? Perhaps Russia is not happy now at only getting a few million dollars for Alaska. Or the French want to renegotiate the Louisiana purchase.
That's not really true as some treaties deserve to last more then a generation. Should we scrap the treaty that keeps the Great Lakes a non-militarized zone? What about the peace treaty with England that recognized the newly independent country of the USA. Trade deals, which often aren't even treaties, should always have a reasonable out, eg for NAFTA I believe a participant can leave with 6 months notice and most trade deals and sometimes other treaties are like that, 6 months to a years notice and you can legally leave the treaty while following the treaty.
Slashdot Mirror
Most automatics have a shifter with markings like P-2-1 and you can put it in first at any speed and it'll downshift automatically. I've currently got an automatic and when downshifting sometimes the tires will chirp when going from 2nd to 1st.
When I had a diesel and usually used engine compression for braking, I put on a couple of hundred thousand kms and never needed to do the brakes (actually I did bleed them once), and they weren't the really hard pads that wear down the rotor instead of the pads either, at least according to my measurements (used vehicle so I'm not totally sure of the quality of parts. I junked the truck at 500,000 kms due to rust)
When I had a diesel (and the summery mentions diesels), I usually just downshifted and used the engine compression to brake. Did learn to tap the brake pedal to stop the cops from pulling me over to check that my brake lights worked. With a 23.1 compression ratio, that little Nissan truck slowed down quick with engine compression.
Large diesels often have exhaust limiters (jake brakes) that help using engine braking.
Does the retailer or the oil company set the price? Where I am, all gas stations go up and down in price in lock step and talking to the cashiers, they get a phone call that sets the price.
It would be nice to have some actual competition instead of the most expensive gas in N. America, but at least locally, the independent gas station is dead and the 5 or 6 oil companies don't seem to have any interest in competing, at least in gasoline sales. Diesel does vary and all gas stations sell junk food which is where they make their money.
As Rob Ford showed, scandal doesn't even hurt some of these arseholes. Get caught smoking crack, deny, admit, ask for forgiveness, repeat, and the tough on crime right is suddenly forgiving.
It's amazing how many yards have opium poppies growing in them, or maybe not when you look at the flower seeds at the store and realize how common this plant is and also how easily it self seeds.
Huge chunks of the population are guilty of (unknowingly) growing narcotics and could be sentenced to quite a few years in prison.
It can. Heard an interview a while back with a native woman who'd spent 8 years in prison after stabbing someone to death when she was 15.
As she put it, it wasn't that she made bad choices, but rather that she didn't even know there were choices. She'd spent 20 years after getting out of prison helping young fucked up people to understand that there were actually choices and she felt that she'd made a difference in quite a few lives. If she is correct that she helped at least one person stay away from a live of violence, then yes by being out she made you safer.
This is Canada where at the time the prisons weren't so fucked and the native people have really been fucked by generations getting dragged away from their families and raised and tortured in residential schools run by the nice Christians.
A marijuana seed seller and politician (founder of the marijuana party) was extradited and thrown in prison for 5 years even though the extradition treaty said he shouldn't be extradited (unequal punishment), thanks to a very pro-American right wing government.
(Marc Emery)
A different take away is that reform movements take a generation or more to be implemented. People grow up considering movements such as the Chartists, women's suffrage, civil rights etc to be reasonable, the old guard dies off and eventually reform does happen.
This is what is scary about life extension if it ever happens, the old guard could remain in power for close to forever or until they were killed off.
Actually it is pretty clear that it just limits Congress from limiting speech through statute. Lesser governments are/were (the 14th expanded the 1st) allowed to limit speech, such as States passing laws limiting what slaves could say and even municipal governments regulating speech through eg noise bylaws or sign bylaws (though whether the writers considered that?).
It also didn't limit the judiciary from limiting speech and at the time common law was still in effect so common law limits would have been allowed, things like libel and perhaps uttering threats.
The other question is how much power the writers expected the President to wield, can the President order silence in matters of national security?
Be a bit more recent then stone age as our paleolithic ancestors wouldn't have been using animal milk.
I don't disagree and originally responded to a poster who seemed to think that Bernie would snap his fingers and raise taxes.
As a Canadian, I'd much rather see Bernie then Hillary elected and I'd like to see your Congress reflecting the will of the people. Unluckily it seems the deck is very stacked and things won't change in 2018 no matter the will of the people. http://www.salon.com/2016/04/0...
Yes, the elite used taxes to get the common man riled up enough to go along with the elite. Another leading cause was the Royal Proclamation of 1763 where the tyrant proclaimed that the natives were equals and had a right to keep their land, something that really pissed off the big land speculators such as Washington. The tyrant also extended more rights to the evil Papists, even allowing them to take part in government without swearing allegiance to the Anglican Church as well as not stopping them from bearing arms, contrary to the Bill of Rights of 1689.
There was also the first rumblings about ending slavery which upset the south
Would a Republican Congress actually compromise with an actual left winger? Shit look how they've worked with Obama, someone that was barely left of Romney. With Hillary, they'll agree to increase spying on the people, agree to trade agreements that help the rich at the expense of the common man and all those other things that always get bi-partisan support.
Of course either way, they'll argue about the things that the rich don't really care about, abortion, equal rights and the other talking points that the right hates and the left likes.
I'm not American but my understanding is that it is actually the Republican Congress that would have to pass any tax increases and the President can't do much more then make suggestions and veto if it is not an overwhelming majority.
What would Bernie actually be able to accomplish?
The growing season gets much shorter
That's not really true, lots of Canadian climate scientists lost their paychecks when they were told to stop talking and didn't.
That'll change once the glaciers have finished melting and the fires really start burning.
Well the warming isn't going to change the length of the days, something that most agriculture crops have been bred for.
Not worth mentioning, most was scraped off during the last ice age. The Boreal forests consist of little spruce trees partially due to the lack of soil and the tundra likewise has very little, it takes a long time to build up soil in the temperate regions and much longer in the north.
Where I live, quite a bit more south, there is only an inch or two of decent soil over hardpan and bedrock and it takes a lot of work to grow a garden. Our government in its wisdom has also decided to flood a good chunk of the northern farmland that does exist to supply power for the natural gas industry (site C dam)
There won't be much in the way of soil in those newly populated areas.
You have to weigh that against the fact that a greedy corporation can ultimately do nothing to you, while the government has the power to fine you or send you to jail, and they can send a group of heavily armed men to break down your door to force you to comply with their decisions.
Just yesterday I saw the private railway police, so yes there are still corporate forces that have the power to arrest you.
It wasn't that long ago that corporations had much more power, see eg the Pinkerton Detective Agency who at one point was larger then the military of the USA and routinely beat and killed people the corporations were unfriendly with.
There's a reason that we've transferred most all law enforcement to the government, mainly that they're more (or at least were) responsible then big business to the people. Businesses ultimate goal is to make sure you have no choice but to deal with them and at times have been very successful at this.
So every generation we renegotiate the international borders? Renegotiate the price we agreed to pay? Perhaps Russia is not happy now at only getting a few million dollars for Alaska. Or the French want to renegotiate the Louisiana purchase.
That's not really true as some treaties deserve to last more then a generation. Should we scrap the treaty that keeps the Great Lakes a non-militarized zone? What about the peace treaty with England that recognized the newly independent country of the USA.
Trade deals, which often aren't even treaties, should always have a reasonable out, eg for NAFTA I believe a participant can leave with 6 months notice and most trade deals and sometimes other treaties are like that, 6 months to a years notice and you can legally leave the treaty while following the treaty.
It's about the cultural impact of the science and technology of genocide to allow large scale theft.