Protip: Avoid staring, when you see two 16 year olds getting a tan on their bare breasts. After a while you’re used to it.
It's true, I had the good fortune to arrive on Ko Phangan in Thailand, the same day as a group of Swedish backpacker girls. The next three days there were 3-4 hot topless women on the beach at any given time. Sadly, after about half an hour you stop noticing... I almost wanted them to put their tops back on so I could go back to fantasising!:P
And I totally called it when this product was announced: It was designed specifically to make it easier to find amateur prons.
If you don't have dogmatic sexual restrictions (sex before marriage is a crime and/or draws severe social stigma that totally fucks up your life), society's morals drift. Society will then eventually stabilize at a point where you can just walk up to anyone and suggest fucking, and get it right there; sex flows freely, about as easy as hugs and handshakes.
How so? How do you go from "sex before marriage is not a crime" to "people fucking strangers on street corners"? Hugs don't flow freely to strangers (notice how much attention that 'free hugs' guy got!) and people seldom engage in more intimate behaviour such as kissing. It's not an issue of morals, it's also determined by the individual's need for privacy, personal space, and pre-existing relationships as a precursor to intimacy.
[...] as there is no way to acknowledge casual sex as NOT horrendously evil without giving the logical conclusion that it's perfectly fine to be a lecher or a slut.
I'm afraid I must disagree. I don't feel that being a slut is horrendously evil, yet I still wouldn't want to take a different partner home every night, in the same way that I don't feel that cannabis is horrendously evil, even though I have no interest in smoking it myself.
This is a philosophical battle. [...] It is basically a battle between the Puritan ideal that all pleasures of the flesh are bad, wrong, and evil, and the not so crazy idea that harm is bad while pleasure is good.
You, sir, are once again absolutely correct. Sadly, those on the Puritan side seldom seem to muster the necessary honesty to admit it.
A lot of these 'sins' stem from what were once very useful rules to prevent harm. Limiting fornication, for instance, was vital in pre-birth-control cultures to prevent unwanted pregnancies and to limit the spread of venereal disease. Consumption of pork was hazardous due to risk of parasites if the meat is not sufficiently well cooked.
The problem came when organised religions conflated the avoidance of certain enjoyable actions for practical reasons with their ascetic restraint as a form of subverting natural drives into religious fervour. Now it's all mixed together under the heading "if you enjoy it, God probably disapproves", which is great for keeping peasants in line but is not the most practical and useful approach to recreational activities.
Wow. You seriously, SERIOUSLY need to take women off that pedestal you've been building since you typed that first DOS command. You probably see your mother (and all women) as being perfect angels with (in your words) "a more holy purpose in life". You're going to be confused, angry, lonely and upset until you realise that you, me, and everyone else on this rock (even women) are mammals, and we just LOVE to get down and dirty once in a while. People love sex, because the ones that didn't love sex didn't have babies. Humans are always at least 25% about sex, and that goes up to 100% once feeding, fighting, and fleeing are taken care of. "Sinful activities"? Please.
Think about this for a moment: Your mum probably likes it up the ass occasionally. Did that make you angry? That's because you think of her as some magical ideal, and not as a living breathing passionate person who gave birth to you after a lot of passionate sex.
Unless it's a CVT [...] Too bad they stopped making them because they didn't make the shifting lugs that people are use to.
That reminds me of a hideous quote in the Wired article on the GM Volt. The original model either ran the generator at the most efficient RPM, or switched it off, but they changed that because it "didn't sound like people expected" when the car was taking off. Eeeew.
You're the one arguing automatics can't be controlled properly. I want to know in what ways.
An automatic transmission removes the fine-grained control you have over the torque applied to the rear wheels while driving, and especially to the torque split between front and rear wheels while braking. Modern road cars are pre-set with the brake bias too far twoards the front for competitive driving, for safety reasons regarding unskilled drivers and general commuting. Engine braking (in a rear wheel drive car) or left foot braking (in a front wheel drive) allows you to dynamically shift the brake bias for superior turn-in and better control of weight shift.
I drive quite frequently for fun, though not as often as I'm on a motorbike, these days.
How the fuck do you drive a motorbike "not for fun"? I've never managed such a thing!:D
It blows my mind that anyone would want to drive for any non-trivial distance without cruise control.
Well said. Cruise control is awesome. A manual transmission does give you an added protection against misjudging speed after a couple of hours sitting at 115km/h. You see a corner, you know it's a second-gear corner, you work your way down into second gear - if you're doing 5k RPM then you know your judgement is screwed and you need to slow down more. In an automatic it's easy to just slow down to 80 for that 40km/h corner and end up in a hedge. Only a trap for new players, but still worth mentioning.
Have you ever been a passenger in a car being driven by a teenage girl? Stereotypes exist because despite there being exceptions, IN GENERAL, that's what it's like. Thank god my wife grew up on a farm and understands machinery, she's one of the few women whose driving doesn't scare me. (It scares everyone else, but that's probably because she drives like me.:D I had to train her out of left foot braking for her driving test though.:P )
If you can't drive an auto, you're in no position to be criticising anyone else's driving. After all, your *worst case* scenario is having to change gears like you would in a manual, just without pushing in a clutch.
Steady on, he didn't say he can't drive an auto. He said he feels like he's going to die every time he's in busy traffic in an auto. I know what he means - for a yawning commute to work in the morning, you can't beat an auto, but the moment anything remotely interesting happens, automatic transmissions are terrifying. Best case, you know your transmission perfectly and you can predict what it'll do, so you can drive around its quirks. Worst case, you're unfamiliar with the car and it kicks down in the middle of a corner, sending you ass backwards through a hedge (or concrete barrier, or oncoming traffic).
Unlike the GP, though, I've usually had over-revvy automatics than ones that lug the engine. Nothing like going up a slight incline and the car deciding it needs to be at 5000rpm when it could easily do the hill at 2000rpm if it'd just say in goddamn 4th.
My '89 Supra has a polite note in the owners' manual after the usual "1st -> 2nd: 15km/h, 2nd -> 3rd: 40km/h" stuff stating "We recommend the listed speeds for gear changes, but we understand that some driving circumstances require maximum acceleration. In such a case, please do not exceed the following speeds:" It only lists top speeds for the first three gears, and they're at 62km/h, 102km/h and 145km/h respectively.:D
And this is why you can take my manual transmission when you pry it from my cold, dead hands. There's only one driver in my car, and until my car is able to completely drive itself without my help, it had better do what it's goddamn told.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, so my mother who was in end stage cancer and unable to walk more than a dozen yards doesn't qualify? She had two arms and two legs.
I'd guess she doesn't qualify because the AC has never seen her. I could be wrong though.
Protip: Avoid staring, when you see two 16 year olds getting a tan on their bare breasts. After a while you’re used to it.
It's true, I had the good fortune to arrive on Ko Phangan in Thailand, the same day as a group of Swedish backpacker girls. The next three days there were 3-4 hot topless women on the beach at any given time. Sadly, after about half an hour you stop noticing... I almost wanted them to put their tops back on so I could go back to fantasising! :P
And I totally called it when this product was announced: It was designed specifically to make it easier to find amateur prons.
High King Maulgar. :) We didn't down him though because the warlock didn't enslave the big felhound things fast enough and they ate my healers. :(
If you don't have dogmatic sexual restrictions (sex before marriage is a crime and/or draws severe social stigma that totally fucks up your life), society's morals drift. Society will then eventually stabilize at a point where you can just walk up to anyone and suggest fucking, and get it right there; sex flows freely, about as easy as hugs and handshakes.
How so? How do you go from "sex before marriage is not a crime" to "people fucking strangers on street corners"? Hugs don't flow freely to strangers (notice how much attention that 'free hugs' guy got!) and people seldom engage in more intimate behaviour such as kissing. It's not an issue of morals, it's also determined by the individual's need for privacy, personal space, and pre-existing relationships as a precursor to intimacy.
[...] as there is no way to acknowledge casual sex as NOT horrendously evil without giving the logical conclusion that it's perfectly fine to be a lecher or a slut.
I'm afraid I must disagree. I don't feel that being a slut is horrendously evil, yet I still wouldn't want to take a different partner home every night, in the same way that I don't feel that cannabis is horrendously evil, even though I have no interest in smoking it myself.
This is a philosophical battle. [...] It is basically a battle between the Puritan ideal that all pleasures of the flesh are bad, wrong, and evil, and the not so crazy idea that harm is bad while pleasure is good.
You, sir, are once again absolutely correct. Sadly, those on the Puritan side seldom seem to muster the necessary honesty to admit it.
A lot of these 'sins' stem from what were once very useful rules to prevent harm. Limiting fornication, for instance, was vital in pre-birth-control cultures to prevent unwanted pregnancies and to limit the spread of venereal disease. Consumption of pork was hazardous due to risk of parasites if the meat is not sufficiently well cooked.
The problem came when organised religions conflated the avoidance of certain enjoyable actions for practical reasons with their ascetic restraint as a form of subverting natural drives into religious fervour. Now it's all mixed together under the heading "if you enjoy it, God probably disapproves", which is great for keeping peasants in line but is not the most practical and useful approach to recreational activities.
And the Wii Fit didn't cause the injury, a fall did.
"Gravity causes incurable horniness"? That explains MY teenage years.
"Hopefully one day I’ll find a superstud who can satisfy me." Uh-huh. Why is this news on Slashdot, again?
Because it's the only place to meet single, lonely 'superstuds'?
Better than Amanda Huggenkiss.
Wow. You seriously, SERIOUSLY need to take women off that pedestal you've been building since you typed that first DOS command. You probably see your mother (and all women) as being perfect angels with (in your words) "a more holy purpose in life". You're going to be confused, angry, lonely and upset until you realise that you, me, and everyone else on this rock (even women) are mammals, and we just LOVE to get down and dirty once in a while. People love sex, because the ones that didn't love sex didn't have babies. Humans are always at least 25% about sex, and that goes up to 100% once feeding, fighting, and fleeing are taken care of. "Sinful activities"? Please.
Think about this for a moment: Your mum probably likes it up the ass occasionally. Did that make you angry? That's because you think of her as some magical ideal, and not as a living breathing passionate person who gave birth to you after a lot of passionate sex.
Yeah, well "Woman Falls Down" doesn't make headlines, now, does it?
Oh fuck, write.
You should have just let it be. I thought you were makeing a funny. ;)
*Puh-lease*. This is Slashdot.
If you haven't gotten head while tanking a raid boss at least once you're not doing it right.
Fixed. True story.
So you've never caused PSAS in females of the same sex?
Ah, such is the tragedy of the ambiguity of text.
Tweens and Teens sounds like a pretty big market to me.
Yeah, I was looking at that...
This phone is specifically designed to increase the supply of questionable-legal-age teen pron.
No, but everyone who reads Slashdot has an internet device capable of instant messaging, even if they ARE in Zimbabwe.
AnviliciousEcoPukium.
Unless it's a CVT [...] Too bad they stopped making them because they didn't make the shifting lugs that people are use to.
That reminds me of a hideous quote in the Wired article on the GM Volt. The original model either ran the generator at the most efficient RPM, or switched it off, but they changed that because it "didn't sound like people expected" when the car was taking off. Eeeew.
What do you think the hand/parking brake is for..?
Locking the back wheels up? As you do in a handbrake turn? And parking, I guess.
You're the one arguing automatics can't be controlled properly. I want to know in what ways.
An automatic transmission removes the fine-grained control you have over the torque applied to the rear wheels while driving, and especially to the torque split between front and rear wheels while braking. Modern road cars are pre-set with the brake bias too far twoards the front for competitive driving, for safety reasons regarding unskilled drivers and general commuting. Engine braking (in a rear wheel drive car) or left foot braking (in a front wheel drive) allows you to dynamically shift the brake bias for superior turn-in and better control of weight shift.
I drive quite frequently for fun, though not as often as I'm on a motorbike, these days.
How the fuck do you drive a motorbike "not for fun"? I've never managed such a thing! :D
It blows my mind that anyone would want to drive for any non-trivial distance without cruise control.
Well said. Cruise control is awesome. A manual transmission does give you an added protection against misjudging speed after a couple of hours sitting at 115km/h. You see a corner, you know it's a second-gear corner, you work your way down into second gear - if you're doing 5k RPM then you know your judgement is screwed and you need to slow down more. In an automatic it's easy to just slow down to 80 for that 40km/h corner and end up in a hedge. Only a trap for new players, but still worth mentioning.
Honda + four people weighing 350 each?
Dear GOD! 350 pounds? Nearly 160kg? I'm a big bastard at ~230 pounds, the idea of someone half again my size is fucking terrifying.
Have you ever been a passenger in a car being driven by a teenage girl? Stereotypes exist because despite there being exceptions, IN GENERAL, that's what it's like. Thank god my wife grew up on a farm and understands machinery, she's one of the few women whose driving doesn't scare me. (It scares everyone else, but that's probably because she drives like me. :D I had to train her out of left foot braking for her driving test though. :P )
If you can't drive an auto, you're in no position to be criticising anyone else's driving. After all, your *worst case* scenario is having to change gears like you would in a manual, just without pushing in a clutch.
Steady on, he didn't say he can't drive an auto. He said he feels like he's going to die every time he's in busy traffic in an auto. I know what he means - for a yawning commute to work in the morning, you can't beat an auto, but the moment anything remotely interesting happens, automatic transmissions are terrifying. Best case, you know your transmission perfectly and you can predict what it'll do, so you can drive around its quirks. Worst case, you're unfamiliar with the car and it kicks down in the middle of a corner, sending you ass backwards through a hedge (or concrete barrier, or oncoming traffic).
Unlike the GP, though, I've usually had over-revvy automatics than ones that lug the engine. Nothing like going up a slight incline and the car deciding it needs to be at 5000rpm when it could easily do the hill at 2000rpm if it'd just say in goddamn 4th.
My '89 Supra has a polite note in the owners' manual after the usual "1st -> 2nd: 15km/h, 2nd -> 3rd: 40km/h" stuff stating "We recommend the listed speeds for gear changes, but we understand that some driving circumstances require maximum acceleration. In such a case, please do not exceed the following speeds:" It only lists top speeds for the first three gears, and they're at 62km/h, 102km/h and 145km/h respectively. :D
And this is why you can take my manual transmission when you pry it from my cold, dead hands. There's only one driver in my car, and until my car is able to completely drive itself without my help, it had better do what it's goddamn told.