People get up and walk out of movies all the time, usually to use the bathroom. That's why my wife and I set at the aisle, within a few rows from the exit, whether the exit is at the back or the side.
Anyone "on-call" would do the same thing if they just had to see a movie.
They can use a "walk-thru" metal detector, and refuse entry to anyone who won't go through it. With the shootings lately, even movie theaters are searching for guns.
The Electoral College is the best thing in all of human history. Knowledge of it has saved me from so many disasters I have lost count. I do agree that it is confusing to people who have no understanding of history, but please know you mess with it at peril of your very soul.
I just tried both the link, and googling for the same story. They are not paywalled. Here is the first section of the story.
The soldiers at the blast crater sensed something was wrong. It was August 2008 near Taji, Iraq. They had just exploded a stack of old Iraqi artillery shells buried beside a murky lake. The blast, part of an effort to destroy munitions that could be used in makeshift bombs, uncovered more shells. Two technicians assigned to dispose of munitions stepped into the hole. Lake water seeped in. One of them, Specialist Andrew T. Goldman, noticed a pungent odor, something, he said, he had never smelled before. He lifted a shell. Oily paste oozed from a crack. “That doesn’t look like pond water,” said his team leader, Staff Sgt. Eric J. Duling. The specialist swabbed the shell with chemical detection paper. It turned red — indicating sulfur mustard, the chemical warfare agent designed to burn a victim’s airway, skin and eyes. All three men recall an awkward pause. Then Sergeant Duling gave an order: “Get the hell out.” Five years after President George W. Bush sent troops into Iraq, these soldiers had entered an expansive but largely secret chapter of America’s long and bitter involvement in Iraq. From 2004 to 2011, American and American-trained Iraqi troops repeatedly encountered, and on at least six occasions were wounded by, chemical weapons remaining from years earlier in Saddam Hussein’s rule. In all, American troops secretly reported finding roughly 5,000 chemical warheads, shells or aviation bombs, according to interviews with dozens of participants, Iraqi and American officials, and heavily redacted intelligence documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act. The United States had gone to war declaring it must destroy an active weapons of mass destruction program. Instead, American troops gradually found and ultimately suffered from the remnants of long-abandoned programs, built in close collaboration with the West. The New York Times found 17 American service members and seven Iraqi police officers who were exposed to nerve or mustard agents after 2003. American officials said that the actual tally of exposed troops was slightly higher, but that the government’s official count was classified.
Not exactly. Here is the right information, straight from the horse's mouth.
Universal Service Fund
Prior to the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the Universal Service Fund (USF) operated as a mechanism by which interstate long distance carriers were assessed to subsidize telephone service to low-income households and high-cost areas. The Communications Act of 1934 stated that all people in the United States shall have access to rapid, efficient, nationwide communications service with adequate facilities at reasonable charges.
The Telecommunications Act of 1996 expanded the traditional definition of universal service - affordable, nationwide telephone service to include among other things rural health care providers and eligible schools and libraries. Today, FCC provides universal service support through four mechanisms:
1. High Cost Support Mechanism provides support to certain qualifying telephone companies that serve high cost areas, thereby making phone service affordable for the residents of these regions. 2. Low Income Support Mechanism assists low-income customers by helping to pay for monthly telephone charges as well as connection charges to initiate telephone service. 2. Rural Health Care Support Mechanism allows rural health care providers to pay rates for telecommunications services similar to those of their urban counterparts, making telehealth services affordable. 4. Schools and Libraries Support Mechanism, popularly know as the "E-Rate," provides telecommunication services (e.g., local and long-distance calling, high-speed lines), Internet access, and internal connections (the equipment to deliver these services) to eligible schools and libraries.
I don't claim to be an expert on this, but I can certainly see that the subsidies you are referring to are used to provide service to the exceptional locations, not every customer Comcast serves.
No, I have contempt for both the parties. And I've voted for candidates from each as well, and third party and independent. I'd be big-L libertarian if they were sensible and honest, but they are who they are, so I've never voted for one of them.
I don't care for Trump, but think he would make a much better president then people think. I despise Hillary, and still think she would make a better president than her detractors think. I plan to vote for the Green Party again, just like last time.
So, in conclusion, no I wouldn't care if the Russians found out the Republican Party was corrupt and released that information. My observation of PopeRatzo's behavior is based on his post history, which stands out for its condemnation of anything that hurts his favorite politicians and full-blown support for the same activity if it hurts their opponents.
And I'd imagine by recording the license plates, it may help them track down individuals who are likely selling weapons without a license. If you have the same guy showing up at every gun show in a given area, and he doesn't have an FFL or doesn't work for and FFL, he either *really* loves gun shows or is an illegal dealer.
And if you record every car at several newspaper office, and find out the same car went to all of them, and the owner of that car didn't go to journalism school, you can conclude he really loves divulging national secrets, or is an illegal reporter.
I remember back in the fifth grade I wrote a story that had two people arguing. One of them sued the other, but I didn't know how "sue" was spelled, since it certainly wasn't the same as someone's name. I chose to go with "sew" as well, since it matched the pattern of "blew", "new", or "stew".
I'm sure my teacher had the same laugh at my expense as you just did with Baloo.:^)
Wait a minute. The story was EXACTLY THAT when people were complaining about spying. Government stooges on this site would respond with "well, it's okay to spy on other nations. They do it all time. It's their job."
But when it's USA being spied on (hypothetically, these russia claims are complete bullshit).. whoa ho ho, now it's "act of war", "rally the troops" time.
Fucking hypocrites.
You missed part of the Pope's argument. It is a serious violation, because the Russians (or others) made the Democrats look bad.
If someone did this same thing against the Republicans, or against a Republican administration, poperatzo would support it.
I wrote a reply to this on Monday, but for some reason it didn't get posted. I don't feel like trying to redo it again, with all the quoting and unquoting, so I'll just leave the basics instead.
My intention was simply to see the response to the question, which usually gets reactions like Cederic's above. (The fact I asked an off-topic question does not warrant the level of vitriol in his post. I have to assume he has a personal animosity against whatever point he believes I was making.) I started asking similar questions a few years back, during abortion debates, after one poster on a forum stated that a human embryo is "no more human than a cancerous lump in a goat testicle".
I'm agnostic on the abortion debate, and think both sides have valid points. (Literally, I don't care if it is legal or illegal. Where it is legal, it can be done in accordance with regulations. Where illegal, those who are involved should be arrested like any other lawbreaker.) Both side also have stupid arguments and outright lies, to try to win over people to their mindset. I'm tired of the BS.
Lately the arguments have gotten to the point of debating if the embryo/fetus/unborn baby is "a person" or not. Another tactic on the pro-life side is asking if abortion should be allowed one day before a woman's due date. This often leads to the "a person/not a person" debate. Well, rather than try to nail down what designates "personhood", I moved to the scientific terminology, remembering the idiocy of the "cancerous goat testicle" line. Someone can make the argument that a fetus is not a person, but they can't make the argument that a full term fetus is not of the species Homo sapiens. Just as a monarch butterfly is Danaus plexippus, even when it's actually a caterpillar or inside a cocoon.
So, no, I wasn't specifically trying to imply that you are not following a scientific line of reasoning in your own actions. But I did ask it to determine if you, or other responders, do use scientific or unscientific reasoning.
My wife has a gold bracelet that is 24K. She only wears it on special occasions, and keeps it in a soft cloth bag in her jewelry box. Its clasp is just a "S" curve of 24K gold, that I bend it open to loop the other end's ring onto, then bend it closed again.
The AC I responded to made the statement that "Science is true whether you believe in it or not." I simply asked a question that has a scientific foundation, rather than berating him with juvenile tantrums about going off-topic.
As for whether you need a biology degree to know what's inside a chicken egg, I'll leave that for the original AC to answer, which he did below.
Thank you for your reply. I've asked that question on/. before, and you are the first person who has responded with anything resembling an actual answer to the question.
Slashdot Mirror
Holy textwall, Batman.
That is a long Wikipedia entry just to discuss the use of the word "they" in the singular.
It's 17 screens long on my laptop. YRMV
That's still a good sized fuel tank. My Saturn four-door has a ten gallon tank that goes from dry to past-full with only 9.8 gallons.
People get up and walk out of movies all the time, usually to use the bathroom. That's why my wife and I set at the aisle, within a few rows from the exit, whether the exit is at the back or the side.
Anyone "on-call" would do the same thing if they just had to see a movie.
"I don't have a phone."
They can't search me ...
They can use a "walk-thru" metal detector, and refuse entry to anyone who won't go through it. With the shootings lately, even movie theaters are searching for guns.
Performer in a private venue is not public.
That's an interesting point. Since the venue is not public, can the venue owner ban blacks and jews from entering the "private venue"?
If the light bulb burns out, do you switch to a candle-based library?
Don't blame me. I voted for Kodos.
The Electoral College is the best thing in all of human history. Knowledge of it has saved me from so many disasters I have lost count. I do agree that it is confusing to people who have no understanding of history, but please know you mess with it at peril of your very soul.
I just tried both the link, and googling for the same story. They are not paywalled. Here is the first section of the story.
The soldiers at the blast crater sensed something was wrong.
It was August 2008 near Taji, Iraq. They had just exploded a stack of old Iraqi artillery shells buried beside a murky lake. The blast, part of an effort to destroy munitions that could be used in makeshift bombs, uncovered more shells.
Two technicians assigned to dispose of munitions stepped into the hole. Lake water seeped in. One of them, Specialist Andrew T. Goldman, noticed a pungent odor, something, he said, he had never smelled before.
He lifted a shell. Oily paste oozed from a crack. “That doesn’t look like pond water,” said his team leader, Staff Sgt. Eric J. Duling.
The specialist swabbed the shell with chemical detection paper. It turned red — indicating sulfur mustard, the chemical warfare agent designed to burn a victim’s airway, skin and eyes.
All three men recall an awkward pause. Then Sergeant Duling gave an order: “Get the hell out.”
Five years after President George W. Bush sent troops into Iraq, these soldiers had entered an expansive but largely secret chapter of America’s long and bitter involvement in Iraq.
From 2004 to 2011, American and American-trained Iraqi troops repeatedly encountered, and on at least six occasions were wounded by, chemical weapons remaining from years earlier in Saddam Hussein’s rule.
In all, American troops secretly reported finding roughly 5,000 chemical warheads, shells or aviation bombs, according to interviews with dozens of participants, Iraqi and American officials, and heavily redacted intelligence documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act.
The United States had gone to war declaring it must destroy an active weapons of mass destruction program. Instead, American troops gradually found and ultimately suffered from the remnants of long-abandoned programs, built in close collaboration with the West.
The New York Times found 17 American service members and seven Iraqi police officers who were exposed to nerve or mustard agents after 2003. American officials said that the actual tally of exposed troops was slightly higher, but that the government’s official count was classified.
Look up the universal service fund.
OK
We were taxed extra to pay for those lines.
Not exactly. Here is the right information, straight from the horse's mouth.
Universal Service Fund
Prior to the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the Universal Service Fund (USF) operated as a mechanism by which interstate long distance carriers were assessed to subsidize telephone service to low-income households and high-cost areas. The Communications Act of 1934 stated that all people in the United States shall have access to rapid, efficient, nationwide communications service with adequate facilities at reasonable charges.
The Telecommunications Act of 1996 expanded the traditional definition of universal service - affordable, nationwide telephone service to include among other things rural health care providers and eligible schools and libraries. Today, FCC provides universal service support through four mechanisms:
1. High Cost Support Mechanism provides support to certain qualifying telephone companies that serve high cost areas, thereby making phone service affordable for the residents of these regions.
2. Low Income Support Mechanism assists low-income customers by helping to pay for monthly telephone charges as well as connection charges to initiate telephone service.
2. Rural Health Care Support Mechanism allows rural health care providers to pay rates for telecommunications services similar to those of their urban counterparts, making telehealth services affordable.
4. Schools and Libraries Support Mechanism, popularly know as the "E-Rate," provides telecommunication services (e.g., local and long-distance calling, high-speed lines), Internet access, and internal connections (the equipment to deliver these services) to eligible schools and libraries.
I don't claim to be an expert on this, but I can certainly see that the subsidies you are referring to are used to provide service to the exceptional locations, not every customer Comcast serves.
No, I have contempt for both the parties. And I've voted for candidates from each as well, and third party and independent. I'd be big-L libertarian if they were sensible and honest, but they are who they are, so I've never voted for one of them.
I don't care for Trump, but think he would make a much better president then people think. I despise Hillary, and still think she would make a better president than her detractors think. I plan to vote for the Green Party again, just like last time.
So, in conclusion, no I wouldn't care if the Russians found out the Republican Party was corrupt and released that information. My observation of PopeRatzo's behavior is based on his post history, which stands out for its condemnation of anything that hurts his favorite politicians and full-blown support for the same activity if it hurts their opponents.
And I'd imagine by recording the license plates, it may help them track down individuals who are likely selling weapons without a license. If you have the same guy showing up at every gun show in a given area, and he doesn't have an FFL or doesn't work for and FFL, he either *really* loves gun shows or is an illegal dealer.
And if you record every car at several newspaper office, and find out the same car went to all of them, and the owner of that car didn't go to journalism school, you can conclude he really loves divulging national secrets, or is an illegal reporter.
There you go again. Using facts and reasoning to back up your argument. These guys hate that.
I remember back in the fifth grade I wrote a story that had two people arguing. One of them sued the other, but I didn't know how "sue" was spelled, since it certainly wasn't the same as someone's name. I chose to go with "sew" as well, since it matched the pattern of "blew", "new", or "stew".
I'm sure my teacher had the same laugh at my expense as you just did with Baloo. :^)
with worse acting and more explosions.
Come to think of it, MacGuyver is back on TV. I'm sure that fits the description perfectly.
Wait a minute. The story was EXACTLY THAT when people were complaining about spying. Government stooges on this site would respond with "well, it's okay to spy on other nations. They do it all time. It's their job."
But when it's USA being spied on (hypothetically, these russia claims are complete bullshit).. whoa ho ho, now it's "act of war", "rally the troops" time.
Fucking hypocrites.
You missed part of the Pope's argument. It is a serious violation, because the Russians (or others) made the Democrats look bad.
If someone did this same thing against the Republicans, or against a Republican administration, poperatzo would support it.
Some even dye their hair and run for president.
While wearing colorful pantsuits.
I wrote a reply to this on Monday, but for some reason it didn't get posted. I don't feel like trying to redo it again, with all the quoting and unquoting, so I'll just leave the basics instead.
My intention was simply to see the response to the question, which usually gets reactions like Cederic's above. (The fact I asked an off-topic question does not warrant the level of vitriol in his post. I have to assume he has a personal animosity against whatever point he believes I was making.) I started asking similar questions a few years back, during abortion debates, after one poster on a forum stated that a human embryo is "no more human than a cancerous lump in a goat testicle".
I'm agnostic on the abortion debate, and think both sides have valid points. (Literally, I don't care if it is legal or illegal. Where it is legal, it can be done in accordance with regulations. Where illegal, those who are involved should be arrested like any other lawbreaker.) Both side also have stupid arguments and outright lies, to try to win over people to their mindset. I'm tired of the BS.
Lately the arguments have gotten to the point of debating if the embryo/fetus/unborn baby is "a person" or not. Another tactic on the pro-life side is asking if abortion should be allowed one day before a woman's due date. This often leads to the "a person/not a person" debate. Well, rather than try to nail down what designates "personhood", I moved to the scientific terminology, remembering the idiocy of the "cancerous goat testicle" line. Someone can make the argument that a fetus is not a person, but they can't make the argument that a full term fetus is not of the species Homo sapiens. Just as a monarch butterfly is Danaus plexippus, even when it's actually a caterpillar or inside a cocoon.
So, no, I wasn't specifically trying to imply that you are not following a scientific line of reasoning in your own actions. But I did ask it to determine if you, or other responders, do use scientific or unscientific reasoning.
My wife has a gold bracelet that is 24K. She only wears it on special occasions, and keeps it in a soft cloth bag in her jewelry box. Its clasp is just a "S" curve of 24K gold, that I bend it open to loop the other end's ring onto, then bend it closed again.
Yes, 24K gold is very soft.
Because they have a sense of humor.
The AC I responded to made the statement that "Science is true whether you believe in it or not." I simply asked a question that has a scientific foundation, rather than berating him with juvenile tantrums about going off-topic.
As for whether you need a biology degree to know what's inside a chicken egg, I'll leave that for the original AC to answer, which he did below.
He didn't write it but he did sign it.
He signed it so he would get re-elected.
Of course, in Europe, anyone who thinks people have the right to own property is "right wing".
Thank you for your reply. I've asked that question on /. before, and you are the first person who has responded with anything resembling an actual answer to the question.
Oh, my mistake. I was unaware that only questions about the US presidency were allowed on this site.
Or, alternatively, your response is the exact reason why the question is relevant.
Thirdly, you don't need a degree in biology to answer a very straightforward question.