What's the purpose of testing these cars in a wind tunnel? Are they just making sure the lights don't tear through the roof and fly away? They'd go nuts with the pizza delivery signs that get driven around on top of cars around here. I think those are magnetic.
I think you better realize that EVERYTHING you do is getting raked over by the Chinese Government's servers
That's a possibility. It's been investigated repeatedly and nothing's been found, but that's not 100% confidence and I trust the Chinese even less than MS and Google. Of the sites I mentioned, only Pandora has any financial information from me and it wasn't transmitted through Opera. Opera's my main browser at home, but not my only one. If the Chinese want to know which news articles I read, it bothers me the same amount as if my ISP does. Chrome's probably mined deeper than Opera simply because I'll bet Google's better at it than the Chinese government.
Yeah, anything beyond the top 5 I'm happy to call "fringe". So, according to you, that makes it "likely to be garbage and full of malware". I believe Opera's neither garbage nor full of malware.
As opposed to what, exactly?...Any of the fringe browsers, which are likely to be garbage and full of malware, too?
Does Opera count as fringe? I'm in Chrome right now (at work), but Opera's my main browser at home. It'll run indefinitely on my Win10 box without leaking or crashing while browsing CNN, Facebook, Youtube, Xvideos, Slashdot, Pandora, Netflix, Plex, etc. I'd be very surprised to learn there was malware incorporated.
I don't approve of The Donald, but I also don't see how someones weight or BMI plays a role in how well they can lead a country.
If he's so unhealthy that he's going to croak in office or that his health might affect his decision making skills, it would be good to know. If he's going to come in last at the World Leaders' 5k Fun Run, I couldn't care less. Setting a good example wouldn't hurt, but that's not part of the job description.
That will happen right after Pelosi takes the same mental exam...
Pelosi is not the president. She also doesn't seem as divorced from facts as DJT. You might have an issue with her positions, but she doesn't have the habit of distributing misinformation at the rate DJT does. If DJT believes everything he says, a head check is entirely appropriate.
...Hillary takes the same physical (with the same doctor) Trump did. Oh, and results have to be made public just like his were.
Fucking Hillary? You mean the private citizen that neither holds nor is running for any public office? What in the fuck does Hillary have to do with the presidency and why would ANYONE except her care if she's unhealthy? Her physical results are as important to the country as yours are.
There are a lot of physically and mentally unfit members of the House and Senate who need to make their medical records public. Let's see all of those first.
Tremendous idea! We'll start with the dog catchers, work our way up to mayors and, once we've cleared every other public servant, we'll check the president last. Why on Earth would we prioritize him?
That's what I was trying to imply. When your numbers put you 1 lb or 0.2" away from obesity, they look fishy. Especially with him getting taller. I predict pretty confidently that he'll ignore the offer to donate to his favorite charity if we can verify his claim. I don't want to cause a panic, but I suspect that DJT lied to the American people.
Our president is 6'3" & 239 lbs. If he was 6'2.5" or 240 lbs, he'd cross the line into obesity. There's already an offer of $100k to DJT's favorite charity if he'll get on a real scale.
A 10 kiloton warhead in the centre of any city would cause at least 45,000 immediate deaths and about 250,000 injuries.
Huh? You're making an identical estimate for NYC & Muleshoe, TX? The average population for a US city isn't anywhaere near 250,000. Maybe you're going off a list of likely targets? Where in the world are these numbers coming from?
How much good is it going to do to "take warnings seriously"?
Depends. Your odds are better in a bomb shelter than operating a hot dog cart when a bomb hits, but whether it actually does you any good depends on a lot of things. If you're in Seoul and NK starts firing conventional artillery at you, taking the warning seriously could save your life.
Is it recording at all times and spewing compressed audio back to the mothership?
Of course it is. Why would anyone believe anything else?
Lack of evidence beyond paranoid speculation? I'm all for jumping on the Google-hate wagon, but I really doubt they're doing this. It's of questionable benefit and the consequences of getting caught would be pretty major.
Just looked back at the thread. I like the other guy's analogy about drunk driving better than mine about roulette/skydiving. When you make the decision to drive drunk, you may be committing for life to the person you maim on the way home. When you engage in risky sex, you may be committing to parenthood. If you're a man, the only decisions you get to make about parenthood happen prior to penetration.
In case you reply to this instead of my longer comment, I'll conclude again with: WTF is "forced parenthood"?
Are you seriously making the argument that a decision to have sex means that society can blithely tell a person "Sorry - you should have thought of that before having sex"?
Yes. Well put. If you knock a woman up and don't agree with her decision to keep the baby, "you should have thought of that before having sex." If you don't wrap it up and get an STD, "you should have thought of that before having sex." If she now thinks she's your girlfriend and won't leave you alone, "you should have thought of that before having sex."
Once again, gender is immaterial - if you're willing to say that people who have sex should stand by their decision to risk pregnancy then you're going to annoy a large number of people.
Again, yes. I'm willing to say that people who have sex should stand by their decision to risk pregnancy. People who sky dive make the decision to risk going splat.
The only way your argument can work is if you bring gender into it...
We're talking about pregnancy. How can you not bring gender into it? Men have very low pregnancy rates. When a man and a woman have a baby, the woman bears most of the wear and tear up to and including birth. You can scream that gender is a social construct all you want, but the gear you're born with makes all the difference about whether or not you're eligible for pregnancy.
gender is immaterial
I don't know how you can seriously suggest that.
...try making whatever argument you think you're making without referring to the gender of the parent-to-be.
That would be nonsensical. Only an idiot would ignore gender when discussing abortions. The rate of men getting abortions is pretty minimal. The decision on whether to abort a pregnancy ultimately lies with the pregnant person. That's the woman. Are you suggesting that these situations are gender neutral? They're not.
The minute you toss out gender considerations the arguments for/against forced parenthood fall apart.
You keep saying "forced parenthood". WTF is "forced parenthood"? A case of rape, yeah. What else? Divine conception?
gender is a social construct after all and the argument for one way or the other doesn't have a logical ending
If you want to make it legal for men to have abortions, I won't stand in your way. They should also have the option to exercise birth control. I got snipped after kid #2.
Do you believe that a man should be able to force a woman to have an abortion because he regrets his choice?
Why would I believe such a thing?
That's the only way I could think of to prevent "forcing a man into parenthood" after he's knocked a woman up. If that's not what you were talking about, then WTF IS the alternative to "forcing a man into parenthood" once he's made the decision to get a woman pregnant?
Again? I'm not quoting your entire post because that would be fucking stupid. Are you worried about slashdotters skipping your post, going straight to my response, and getting confused? Nobody's confused about context. You're doing a fine job of repeating yourself at least as much as necessary.
I did not ask about consent to sex. I asked about consent to parenthood.
I did not ask about consent to PLACE a bet. I asked about consent to LOSE a bet. Just because I bet on red and the wheel came up black, you're going to force me to give up my chips???
Do you believe that people should be forced into parenthood even if they do not want to be a parent?
Of course not. In case you're missing what I thought was an obvious implication, I'm saying that they make that decision when they make the baby. Situations where somebody is forced to make a baby are unfortunate and should be avoided. Women can make the decision to abort because, you know, it's their body. Forcing a woman to abort a pregnancy because a man regrets his decision to knock her up is ludicrous. Saying that having a baby that was created consensually is "forcing a man into parenthood" is fucking stupid, but that's what I'm getting out of your posts.
Do you believe that a man should be able to force a woman to have an abortion because he regrets his choice?
When you remove the negative consequences from something, you diminish the merits of those who would have have otherwise avoided it.
Are you suggesting a reward for people who successfully use birth control? How does one person having an abortion "diminish the merits" of a person that avoided pregnancy?
Slashdot Mirror
...tested in a wind canal...
What's the purpose of testing these cars in a wind tunnel? Are they just making sure the lights don't tear through the roof and fly away? They'd go nuts with the pizza delivery signs that get driven around on top of cars around here. I think those are magnetic.
If your "thoughts and actions" lead you to vote unironically...
How do you vote ironically?
Unless you are voting Republican next time around her mental state IS definitely an issue.
More important than Trump's like reboot said? No. Also, "testing mental state" is pretty generous for this.
Have you actually heard some of the things she has said?
Compared to DJT? Talk to this guy.
WTF do Bernie & Hillary have to do with anything?
I think you better realize that EVERYTHING you do is getting raked over by the Chinese Government's servers
That's a possibility. It's been investigated repeatedly and nothing's been found, but that's not 100% confidence and I trust the Chinese even less than MS and Google. Of the sites I mentioned, only Pandora has any financial information from me and it wasn't transmitted through Opera. Opera's my main browser at home, but not my only one. If the Chinese want to know which news articles I read, it bothers me the same amount as if my ISP does. Chrome's probably mined deeper than Opera simply because I'll bet Google's better at it than the Chinese government.
Yes. It was originally Norwegian, but was sold to "Golden Brick Capital Private Equity Fund I Limited Partnership" for $600M at the end of 2016.
Yeah, anything beyond the top 5 I'm happy to call "fringe". So, according to you, that makes it "likely to be garbage and full of malware". I believe Opera's neither garbage nor full of malware.
We need to know so we can all switch to it.
Lynx's security is second to none.
As opposed to what, exactly? ...Any of the fringe browsers, which are likely to be garbage and full of malware, too?
Does Opera count as fringe? I'm in Chrome right now (at work), but Opera's my main browser at home. It'll run indefinitely on my Win10 box without leaking or crashing while browsing CNN, Facebook, Youtube, Xvideos, Slashdot, Pandora, Netflix, Plex, etc. I'd be very surprised to learn there was malware incorporated.
I don't approve of The Donald, but I also don't see how someones weight or BMI plays a role in how well they can lead a country.
If he's so unhealthy that he's going to croak in office or that his health might affect his decision making skills, it would be good to know. If he's going to come in last at the World Leaders' 5k Fun Run, I couldn't care less. Setting a good example wouldn't hurt, but that's not part of the job description.
18.75 hands and 17 stone.
That will happen right after Pelosi takes the same mental exam...
Pelosi is not the president. She also doesn't seem as divorced from facts as DJT. You might have an issue with her positions, but she doesn't have the habit of distributing misinformation at the rate DJT does. If DJT believes everything he says, a head check is entirely appropriate.
...Hillary takes the same physical (with the same doctor) Trump did. Oh, and results have to be made public just like his were.
Fucking Hillary? You mean the private citizen that neither holds nor is running for any public office? What in the fuck does Hillary have to do with the presidency and why would ANYONE except her care if she's unhealthy? Her physical results are as important to the country as yours are.
There are a lot of physically and mentally unfit members of the House and Senate who need to make their medical records public. Let's see all of those first.
Tremendous idea! We'll start with the dog catchers, work our way up to mayors and, once we've cleared every other public servant, we'll check the president last. Why on Earth would we prioritize him?
Except he is not 6'3".
That's what I was trying to imply. When your numbers put you 1 lb or 0.2" away from obesity, they look fishy. Especially with him getting taller. I predict pretty confidently that he'll ignore the offer to donate to his favorite charity if we can verify his claim. I don't want to cause a panic, but I suspect that DJT lied to the American people.
...clothing from the US is simply too large...
Our president is 6'3" & 239 lbs. If he was 6'2.5" or 240 lbs, he'd cross the line into obesity. There's already an offer of $100k to DJT's favorite charity if he'll get on a real scale.
I believe these false alerts are deliberate...
...I think that's a credible idea.
Hanlon's razor: "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."
Do you think Japan & Hawaii coordinated these experiments or that they came up with the same idea independently? Seems far-fetched to me.
A 10 kiloton warhead in the centre of any city would cause at least 45,000 immediate deaths and about 250,000 injuries.
Huh? You're making an identical estimate for NYC & Muleshoe, TX? The average population for a US city isn't anywhaere near 250,000. Maybe you're going off a list of likely targets? Where in the world are these numbers coming from?
How much good is it going to do to "take warnings seriously"?
Depends. Your odds are better in a bomb shelter than operating a hot dog cart when a bomb hits, but whether it actually does you any good depends on a lot of things. If you're in Seoul and NK starts firing conventional artillery at you, taking the warning seriously could save your life.
Is it recording at all times and spewing compressed audio back to the mothership?
Of course it is. Why would anyone believe anything else?
Lack of evidence beyond paranoid speculation? I'm all for jumping on the Google-hate wagon, but I really doubt they're doing this. It's of questionable benefit and the consequences of getting caught would be pretty major.
Just looked back at the thread. I like the other guy's analogy about drunk driving better than mine about roulette/skydiving. When you make the decision to drive drunk, you may be committing for life to the person you maim on the way home. When you engage in risky sex, you may be committing to parenthood. If you're a man, the only decisions you get to make about parenthood happen prior to penetration.
In case you reply to this instead of my longer comment, I'll conclude again with: WTF is "forced parenthood"?
Are you seriously making the argument that a decision to have sex means that society can blithely tell a person "Sorry - you should have thought of that before having sex"?
Yes. Well put. If you knock a woman up and don't agree with her decision to keep the baby, "you should have thought of that before having sex." If you don't wrap it up and get an STD, "you should have thought of that before having sex." If she now thinks she's your girlfriend and won't leave you alone, "you should have thought of that before having sex."
Once again, gender is immaterial - if you're willing to say that people who have sex should stand by their decision to risk pregnancy then you're going to annoy a large number of people.
Again, yes. I'm willing to say that people who have sex should stand by their decision to risk pregnancy. People who sky dive make the decision to risk going splat.
The only way your argument can work is if you bring gender into it...
We're talking about pregnancy. How can you not bring gender into it? Men have very low pregnancy rates. When a man and a woman have a baby, the woman bears most of the wear and tear up to and including birth. You can scream that gender is a social construct all you want, but the gear you're born with makes all the difference about whether or not you're eligible for pregnancy.
gender is immaterial
I don't know how you can seriously suggest that.
...try making whatever argument you think you're making without referring to the gender of the parent-to-be.
That would be nonsensical. Only an idiot would ignore gender when discussing abortions. The rate of men getting abortions is pretty minimal. The decision on whether to abort a pregnancy ultimately lies with the pregnant person. That's the woman. Are you suggesting that these situations are gender neutral? They're not.
The minute you toss out gender considerations the arguments for/against forced parenthood fall apart.
You keep saying "forced parenthood". WTF is "forced parenthood"? A case of rape, yeah. What else? Divine conception?
gender is a social construct after all and the argument for one way or the other doesn't have a logical ending
If you want to make it legal for men to have abortions, I won't stand in your way. They should also have the option to exercise birth control. I got snipped after kid #2.
Do you believe that a man should be able to force a woman to have an abortion because he regrets his choice?
Why would I believe such a thing?
That's the only way I could think of to prevent "forcing a man into parenthood" after he's knocked a woman up. If that's not what you were talking about, then WTF IS the alternative to "forcing a man into parenthood" once he's made the decision to get a woman pregnant?
please don't snip the context out
Again? I'm not quoting your entire post because that would be fucking stupid. Are you worried about slashdotters skipping your post, going straight to my response, and getting confused? Nobody's confused about context. You're doing a fine job of repeating yourself at least as much as necessary.
I did not ask about consent to sex. I asked about consent to parenthood.
I did not ask about consent to PLACE a bet. I asked about consent to LOSE a bet. Just because I bet on red and the wheel came up black, you're going to force me to give up my chips???
Do you believe that people should be forced into parenthood even if they do not want to be a parent?
Of course not. In case you're missing what I thought was an obvious implication, I'm saying that they make that decision when they make the baby. Situations where somebody is forced to make a baby are unfortunate and should be avoided. Women can make the decision to abort because, you know, it's their body. Forcing a woman to abort a pregnancy because a man regrets his decision to knock her up is ludicrous. Saying that having a baby that was created consensually is "forcing a man into parenthood" is fucking stupid, but that's what I'm getting out of your posts.
Do you believe that a man should be able to force a woman to have an abortion because he regrets his choice?
Is it because you only have a point if you remove context?
Didn't mean to alter context. I didn't quote your entire post because it wasn't all relevant to my response and it's RIGHT THERE for everyone to see.
Do you agree, disagree or just don't care?
Agree 100%. Men should have to give consent every time they have sex. I'm firmly anti-rape.
What a self-righteous load of BS.
Let's just talk religion (Christian dogma).
It was God's plan to give us choice - along with the ability to repent of our sins and move on.
Everything is so much clearer now that I know which religion is right.
When you remove the negative consequences from something, you diminish the merits of those who would have have otherwise avoided it.
Are you suggesting a reward for people who successfully use birth control? How does one person having an abortion "diminish the merits" of a person that avoided pregnancy?
I propose that a man's consent is required before he is made into an unwilling parent
Are there a lot of incidents of men having their sperm stolen?