And the original discussion had consensus. Even race car drivers would agree that street racing is stupid and dangerous. But the speeds were stupid and dangerous because of the general flow of traffic, not because of speed limits. If the speed limits posted were in excess of 100mph, it still would have been stupid and dangerous. If it were done on a theoretical American Autbahn with no speed limit, it probably still would have been stupid and dangerous. Speed limits only factor into if he is fined or jailed. Which in my opinion, forget the speed limits, charge him with reckless driving. In a perfect world, we wouldn't need speed limits because the general population of drivers know how to drive safely and it's a few bad apples that cause accidents. Get rid of the speed limit and keep reckless driving as a law and punish the real dangerous people instead of the people traveling with the flow of traffic over the arbitrary speed limit value.
Why do we ticket speeders instead of reckless driving? It's easier for a cop to sit on the shoulder with a radar gun than it is for them to actually observe traffic and pick out the bad drivers.
Thanks for being the only person to refer to a study on speed limits and safety (Like in my actual comment) instead of the other 90% of commenters who went on rants about speed and safety (what they read out of my comment).
Why don't I have mod points? ACs can reply all they want, but no one ever cites those studies that show lower speed limits are safer... Because they don't exist.
Exactly, for all the liberal whining about Tea Party members refusing to compromise, they should ask themselves: What has Obama compromised on in his term as president? Think about that one for awhile. He is always on TV talking about him refusing to negotiate. Isn't that what a leader is supposed to do?
Funny AND relevant? From an AC? Where are the mods?!?!?!?
Seriously though, you can't call it an experiment if you are trying to fudge the variables that will prove your conclusion. Well I guess 6-12th graders do it all the time... It's called a science fair.
That about sums it up. I had to use it at a hotel once and tried to print a PDF. I gave up in frustration. Where are the icons? How do I do anything? Why doesn't Ctrl-P even work? Nothing appears to do anything! Right clicking is useless! Where do I click? What the #(%()*@^##%*?
Now my girlfriend has it on her laptop and I've made it as Windows 7 as possible so it's at least usable.
The originally colonized in order to make the extraction more efficient. The people that tried moving over there for other reasons didn't fare so well (see Jamestown).
There wasn't gold to steal or natives to kill/rape/enslave on the moon. Basically the only reason we kept coming across the Atlantic was for extraction of resources.
The problem with 2142 and all the modern games is the experience and upgrades system. If you don't buy the game at release and play it hardcore, you log into the multiplayer server armed with a staple gun, and everyone else has a 50 caliber gattling gun. Good luck ever getting good when you are at that much of a disadvantage. In 1942 whether you logged in for the first time or you'd been playing a thousand hours, you've still got the same health and the same loadout. I agree team elements could have been handy in 1942, but it was a pretty early game in the massive multiplayer FPS and even the command points structure was newish at the time.
Indeed. Forget the complexities. 5 classes, no upgrades, and WWII era weapons. You know so you actually have to be good at the game to dominate. Managing to hit something with a sherman gun sideways at full speed while bouncing over the terrain took talent. Hitting something with a laser guided orbital missile... Not so much.
It was effective in 1942 if you actually bothered. The trick was to have at least as many AA gunners as enemy planes. It never works well with 1 AA gunner and 4 enemy bombers...
How's the view down there with your head in the sand? Is it good?
Regarding the debates, you need to look at the reason GOP and the Dems won't show up to a third party debate. 1) Major networks won't show it and 2) They don't have to. It can only hurt them to participate in a real debate. If the media doesn't force them to address actual issues and have a third party (or even a neutral moderator) bring some sort of reason to the equation, mindless two sided, fallacy ridden, ad hominem filled debates will continue.
Third parties actually do a lot more work. They don't automatically get on the ballot and get campaigning funds like the majors do. They have to work during off times to gather signatures and fight legislation like the new SB 193 in Ohio which the Libertarian Party of Ohio is discussing this morning. Which ironically I'd link you to their description of the law changes, but their website has been hijacked this morning...
And why shouldn't 3rd parties demand TV time in debates? It's a chicken and egg problem. They can't get public support because they can't get in the debates and they can't get in the debates because they don't have public support. Except in this case, the chicken is run by the two majors who can change the rules at any time to prevent the egg from popping out.
My policy to help us all is to not vote for a major party. If votes are registered for anyone but an R or a D and that number of votes is enough to swing an election then the majors will have to adjust their platform to bring the votes back in. Until neither party can take a clear majority nothing will change. Unless people are willing to vote for someone other than the lesser of two evils, nothing will change.
You mean you think that a libertarian leaning candidate should try running in the Republican primary? Or that libertarians should get an experienced candidate who has shown they can win against the odds and has more relevant experience than the other candidates? Either way Gary Johnson meets those qualifications... The problem is the first past the post/winner take all system which prevents any 3rd parties from getting any actual electoral votes.
I'd say for normal users, brake fluid can easily last 2 years or more. As an enthusiast driver I replace my DD once a year and my toy car at least 6 times a year (sometimes twice a weekend if I am really having fun).
No, his analogy is spot on. You didn't look at the unseen just as the fallacy story teaches. The question is not whether the panels generate power, but if the money used to subsidize the panels might have been more efficiently used in another part of the economy.
It would be more accurate to say over a kilometer rather than miles and thousands of PSI instead of millions. But the net result of it being extremely unlikely to be released is still true.
Slashdot Mirror
Right, you have to fire people in the public sector to allow the private sector to grow.
And the original discussion had consensus. Even race car drivers would agree that street racing is stupid and dangerous. But the speeds were stupid and dangerous because of the general flow of traffic, not because of speed limits. If the speed limits posted were in excess of 100mph, it still would have been stupid and dangerous. If it were done on a theoretical American Autbahn with no speed limit, it probably still would have been stupid and dangerous. Speed limits only factor into if he is fined or jailed. Which in my opinion, forget the speed limits, charge him with reckless driving. In a perfect world, we wouldn't need speed limits because the general population of drivers know how to drive safely and it's a few bad apples that cause accidents. Get rid of the speed limit and keep reckless driving as a law and punish the real dangerous people instead of the people traveling with the flow of traffic over the arbitrary speed limit value.
Why do we ticket speeders instead of reckless driving? It's easier for a cop to sit on the shoulder with a radar gun than it is for them to actually observe traffic and pick out the bad drivers.
Thanks for being the only person to refer to a study on speed limits and safety (Like in my actual comment) instead of the other 90% of commenters who went on rants about speed and safety (what they read out of my comment).
Why don't I have mod points? ACs can reply all they want, but no one ever cites those studies that show lower speed limits are safer... Because they don't exist.
Concentrations of money and power? http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052970203752604576641683529031952
It's both sides. Sadly it takes a "global economic meltdown" (see link) to attempt to negotiate with the president, but even that failed. https://www.google.com/finance?q=INDEXDJX%3A.DJI%2CINDEXSP%3A.INX%2CINDEXNASDAQ%3A.IXIC&ei=3fFiUpCDGdGu0AHIKQ
Yet again, Republicans fail because they can't get their shit together and provide one coherent message and the Democrats keep getting what they want.
Exactly, for all the liberal whining about Tea Party members refusing to compromise, they should ask themselves: What has Obama compromised on in his term as president? Think about that one for awhile. He is always on TV talking about him refusing to negotiate. Isn't that what a leader is supposed to do?
The fact that it isn't true still doesn't offer any evidence in support of CO2 being the cause.
Funny AND relevant? From an AC? Where are the mods?!?!?!?
Seriously though, you can't call it an experiment if you are trying to fudge the variables that will prove your conclusion. Well I guess 6-12th graders do it all the time... It's called a science fair.
There are several involved in this discussion, but this one is yours:
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/tu-quoque
That about sums it up. I had to use it at a hotel once and tried to print a PDF. I gave up in frustration. Where are the icons? How do I do anything? Why doesn't Ctrl-P even work? Nothing appears to do anything! Right clicking is useless! Where do I click? What the #(%()*@^##%*?
Now my girlfriend has it on her laptop and I've made it as Windows 7 as possible so it's at least usable.
The originally colonized in order to make the extraction more efficient. The people that tried moving over there for other reasons didn't fare so well (see Jamestown).
There wasn't gold to steal or natives to kill/rape/enslave on the moon. Basically the only reason we kept coming across the Atlantic was for extraction of resources.
Well fair elections ARE outlawed... but yes, your premise is correct. The political class has no desire to actually do what is best for us serfs.
The problem with 2142 and all the modern games is the experience and upgrades system. If you don't buy the game at release and play it hardcore, you log into the multiplayer server armed with a staple gun, and everyone else has a 50 caliber gattling gun. Good luck ever getting good when you are at that much of a disadvantage. In 1942 whether you logged in for the first time or you'd been playing a thousand hours, you've still got the same health and the same loadout. I agree team elements could have been handy in 1942, but it was a pretty early game in the massive multiplayer FPS and even the command points structure was newish at the time.
Indeed. Forget the complexities. 5 classes, no upgrades, and WWII era weapons. You know so you actually have to be good at the game to dominate. Managing to hit something with a sherman gun sideways at full speed while bouncing over the terrain took talent. Hitting something with a laser guided orbital missile... Not so much.
It was effective in 1942 if you actually bothered. The trick was to have at least as many AA gunners as enemy planes. It never works well with 1 AA gunner and 4 enemy bombers...
How's the view down there with your head in the sand? Is it good?
Regarding the debates, you need to look at the reason GOP and the Dems won't show up to a third party debate. 1) Major networks won't show it and 2) They don't have to. It can only hurt them to participate in a real debate. If the media doesn't force them to address actual issues and have a third party (or even a neutral moderator) bring some sort of reason to the equation, mindless two sided, fallacy ridden, ad hominem filled debates will continue.
Third parties actually do a lot more work. They don't automatically get on the ballot and get campaigning funds like the majors do. They have to work during off times to gather signatures and fight legislation like the new SB 193 in Ohio which the Libertarian Party of Ohio is discussing this morning. Which ironically I'd link you to their description of the law changes, but their website has been hijacked this morning...
And why shouldn't 3rd parties demand TV time in debates? It's a chicken and egg problem. They can't get public support because they can't get in the debates and they can't get in the debates because they don't have public support. Except in this case, the chicken is run by the two majors who can change the rules at any time to prevent the egg from popping out.
My policy to help us all is to not vote for a major party. If votes are registered for anyone but an R or a D and that number of votes is enough to swing an election then the majors will have to adjust their platform to bring the votes back in. Until neither party can take a clear majority nothing will change. Unless people are willing to vote for someone other than the lesser of two evils, nothing will change.
Yes, small government supporters want the parks closed down. Not the military industrial complex, the TSA, and the NSA...
You mean you think that a libertarian leaning candidate should try running in the Republican primary? Or that libertarians should get an experienced candidate who has shown they can win against the odds and has more relevant experience than the other candidates? Either way Gary Johnson meets those qualifications... The problem is the first past the post/winner take all system which prevents any 3rd parties from getting any actual electoral votes.
http://www.dailypaul.com/248500/presidential-write-in-laws-by-state
Depends on the state, but in most cases you'd be just as good protesting by throwing your ballot in the trash and walking out.
DOT 4... No one uses DOT5 in their street car unless they really love pain.
I'd say for normal users, brake fluid can easily last 2 years or more. As an enthusiast driver I replace my DD once a year and my toy car at least 6 times a year (sometimes twice a weekend if I am really having fun).
No, his analogy is spot on. You didn't look at the unseen just as the fallacy story teaches. The question is not whether the panels generate power, but if the money used to subsidize the panels might have been more efficiently used in another part of the economy.
It would be more accurate to say over a kilometer rather than miles and thousands of PSI instead of millions. But the net result of it being extremely unlikely to be released is still true.