Of course he is because that's what most people touch on a daily basis and its the thing people were concerned about. He says some words that appease the people makes some meaningless changes and everything stays the same.
The tablet would only be permitted if it's car mode is interlocked with the vehicle. That means where or not that mode is activated is dependent on the state of the vehicle. I'm sure most tablets don't actually interlock with the vehicle.
At what point would it be satisfactory that a google glass could be used while operating a motor vehicle? I can't see any point where it would be as long as the law is actively enforced rather than passively enforced as an "extra" after an accident occurs. As long as the device is sold independently of vehicles and not integrated there's no way to ensure or tell which drivers are or are not interlocked with the operation of the vehicle.
February 15th was the date beyond which the survival of the Columbia crew was unlikely due to suffocation.
A Soyuz has a three person capacity. I don't think Russia had enough lying around waiting to be launched. You're looking at 3, 4, or 7 launches to rescue the entire Columbia crew with Soyuz and they would need to occur in short order. Atmosphere loss from cycling the airlocks would be too great and cause the February 15th survival date to no longer be tenable.
The Columbia crew were dead men walking the moment the foam damaged the tiles. Columba was a wreck the moment the foam caused the damage. She would never reach earth's surface whole once she entered space.
The only possible way to get Columbia's crew safely to earth would be to ramp up refitting Atlantis for launch use a crew of four astronauts, and figure out a way of successfully transferring crew from Columbia to Atlantis since they had no equipment to perform an orbiter to orbiter docking. That operation alone would introduce significant risk to both orbiters during the operation due to station keeping further complicated by the fact that air quality in Columbia would have to be significantly reduced so the CO2 scrubbers would last long enough. So hopefully all that station keeping and maneuvering could be solely handled by Atlantis while the cross space transfer of crew is performed.
Performing the rescue itself would have involved doing things in time frames that were never intended and could introduce risk for Atlantis and her crew. It's tragic but I don't think there was any other outcome. The only way it could have ended without death would have been if the foam impact had been observed during launch while it was still possible to abort. It wasn't noticed until after Columbia was in orbit.
It's not going to improve any in water aspects of special forces. This would have more value on land. Then the scuba gear doesn't have to be stashed (reducing detectability) and can actually be used if another body of water is encountered.
Unmanned drones means commanders would be more likely to commit them to action since they aren't human bodies. If this happens with regularity then the chances of a conflict escalating increase. If the doomsday clock measures the probability of global thermonuclear war wiping out humanity that's certainly an escalation of conflict. Drones, at least marginally, contribute to it. I guess you could use a similar justification for climate change. Changing climate makes resources more scarce and major conflict more likely.
But the ISPs aren't classified as common carriers and thus aren't public utilities. So by what you've wrote, since they aren't public utilities the franchise agreement can be made to allow only one ISP to run cable in an area.
You're making the assumption that she was aware the old man had a handgun out.
Whether or not the post you responded to is right in the motive for her action if she had one or both hands on her husbands chest, and was shot through one, then there is a probability that she was facing her husband and not the old man and completely unaware that he had drawn the handgun.
- Yes, at bars or restaurants. You don't have to be a drunk to go to a bar for 1-2 drinks once in a while
Restaurants aren't places to meet people. There's rarely single people there, except at the bar (if it has one), and you don't walk up to women sitting alone at a table and ask to sit with them. And yes, the people who frequent bars usually are drunks. There is one exception: you'll sometimes find single non-drunk people sitting at the bar in a nice restaurant, eating actual food, but frequently these people are business travelers. That's fine if you want a one-night stand, but not so great for a relationship, since long-distance relationships almost never work out.
I'm a single non-drunk person sitting at a bar in a nice restaurant which I assume means a business whose primary front would be a restaurant with a bar rather than a bar with a restaurant. I'm a business traveller only in the sense that I'm doing so on my way home from work. I am certainly an exception given the amount of time I've spent in restaurants. Your statement does echo rather true. The majority of single people I see are working at the restaurant and not patronizing it, well at least single people that I would consider at all within my age range (which means under 38). I think I see the occasional divorcee or widow but at a much older age.
Arguably, the big problem is when Earth and Mars are on opposite sides of the sun so that direct communicatiosn become impossible. Which is what you address with 60 degrees ahead and behind Mars. The advantage to the la grangian point is the stability that would mitigate the need for fuel for maneuvering.
This is the thing that annoys me about some people talking about (say) pot. "If it's not addicitive, then quit." Why would one want to quit to prove a point to some random nay-sayer who won't be convinced anyway? One could say much the same about fried potato. No way I'm going to stop eating that because it's so darn delicious (and the hefty dose of fat and carbs does have an effect on my mood). Of course I could stop eating it, but no, I'm not going to.
I'm not a pot smoker/eater myself, but these arguments really annoy me. For some reason people seem to think they're OK because it's a "drug".
I'm also not going to stop drinking fine scoth either to prove I'm not addicted to booze.
People have a bad habit of taking statements literally whenever it will let them trivialize and ignore what other people say. To the layman there is no difference between drug addiction and drug dependence. They lump both in as addiction. What I see, as an outside observer is the laymen using addiction as an argument to which pot advocates tend to respond with the true statements that pot is not an addictive drug. Since the laymen tend to be ignorant of the difference between drug addiction and drug dependence it just spirals down from there because the laymen aren't able to articulate that it's the dependence that they are concerned with. I find that when drug dependence is used, instead of addiction, pot advocates tend to not fair as well because all their normal talking points tend to be structured against the fact that pot is not addictive. So the advocates don't address the points that the detractors are concerned with.
For what its worth, it does appear to me that many pot users do have a psychological dependence on marijuana use. They, perhaps unconsciously, use language that suggests dependence (need vs like) or describe scenarios of repetitive use or situations where they feel uneasiness or other issues when separated from the drug.
once we found a dudes wallet (I have no idea why it'd eat that) My uncle. who's been a bass fisherman for 50yrs. has a favorite line "If Bass got as big as sharks I'd never go in the water"
Probably for the same reason we find sharks with license plates and other random assortments.
It is possible. In general large universe fictional settings will often times have a lot of individual writings that are developed that shape the universe prior to any large scale work is written. While Tolkein had some other short stories in the universe other than the Hobbit, some of which became part of the Simarillion, he didn't start writing LOTR until the end of 1937, the same year in which the Hobbit was published.
I sincerely believe that ACA is designed to fail. It's a stepping stone towards the single-payer system that the progressives really want, only they know it would be difficult or impossible to directly sell that to the American people, so they use these drawn-out tactics. And in the meantime the insurance companies get a nice hefty kickback so you also have multibillion dollar industries behind its stated purposes, making it politically feasible.
It disgusting really. They don't care how the end goal is achieved. They don't care that by going this route, even if they get their sought after single-payer system, they are unnecessarily increasing the fiscal burden on people in a punitive fashion. Actually, I might think they're intentionally inflicting this pain as punishment for not supporting what they want.
Oh bullshit. I'd argue and be willing to bet that the reason kids have little respect for copyright law is their general disregard for authority figures (starting with their parents) and the fact that schools don't teach shit about civics.
The Hobbit was published in 1937. The Lord of the Rings was published in 1955. The Simirillion was published in 1977. I would like to know how you consider the Hobbit to not come first.
States generally require you to show proof of liability coverage and New Hampshire is one of these states. Auto insurance is one of many ways to show proof of liability coverage and some states may place restrictions on which proofs are permitted to which entities but very few, if any, states only allow auto insurance as the sole proof of liability.
The Japanese miracle was nano-bots that would scrub fallout that resulted from the use of nuclear weaponry but these nanobots had to be deployed prior to a blast to be useful. They're basically a deterrent for the use of nuclear weapons by making the radiation aspects of the weapons pointless.
You're right, we mostly see F250 for Home Depot and the railway. My point was more to illustrate the concerns that particular companies would face when looking at an additional cost aluminum body. I just chose poor companies as examples.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course he is because that's what most people touch on a daily basis and its the thing people were concerned about. He says some words that appease the people makes some meaningless changes and everything stays the same.
The tablet would only be permitted if it's car mode is interlocked with the vehicle. That means where or not that mode is activated is dependent on the state of the vehicle. I'm sure most tablets don't actually interlock with the vehicle.
It's exceedingly difficult to trace.
Which leads me to a question.
At what point would it be satisfactory that a google glass could be used while operating a motor vehicle? I can't see any point where it would be as long as the law is actively enforced rather than passively enforced as an "extra" after an accident occurs. As long as the device is sold independently of vehicles and not integrated there's no way to ensure or tell which drivers are or are not interlocked with the operation of the vehicle.
February 15th was the date beyond which the survival of the Columbia crew was unlikely due to suffocation.
A Soyuz has a three person capacity. I don't think Russia had enough lying around waiting to be launched. You're looking at 3, 4, or 7 launches to rescue the entire Columbia crew with Soyuz and they would need to occur in short order. Atmosphere loss from cycling the airlocks would be too great and cause the February 15th survival date to no longer be tenable.
As for the Atlantis rescue. Me thinks you believe it to be far simpler than it truly was.
http://spaceflightnow.com/shuttle/sts107/030523rescue/
The Columbia crew were dead men walking the moment the foam damaged the tiles. Columba was a wreck the moment the foam caused the damage. She would never reach earth's surface whole once she entered space.
The only possible way to get Columbia's crew safely to earth would be to ramp up refitting Atlantis for launch use a crew of four astronauts, and figure out a way of successfully transferring crew from Columbia to Atlantis since they had no equipment to perform an orbiter to orbiter docking. That operation alone would introduce significant risk to both orbiters during the operation due to station keeping further complicated by the fact that air quality in Columbia would have to be significantly reduced so the CO2 scrubbers would last long enough. So hopefully all that station keeping and maneuvering could be solely handled by Atlantis while the cross space transfer of crew is performed.
Performing the rescue itself would have involved doing things in time frames that were never intended and could introduce risk for Atlantis and her crew. It's tragic but I don't think there was any other outcome. The only way it could have ended without death would have been if the foam impact had been observed during launch while it was still possible to abort. It wasn't noticed until after Columbia was in orbit.
It's not going to improve any in water aspects of special forces. This would have more value on land. Then the scuba gear doesn't have to be stashed (reducing detectability) and can actually be used if another body of water is encountered.
Unmanned drones means commanders would be more likely to commit them to action since they aren't human bodies. If this happens with regularity then the chances of a conflict escalating increase. If the doomsday clock measures the probability of global thermonuclear war wiping out humanity that's certainly an escalation of conflict. Drones, at least marginally, contribute to it. I guess you could use a similar justification for climate change. Changing climate makes resources more scarce and major conflict more likely.
What happens if it melts down? How would be able to read it?
Then you can bitch and moan about pirates.
Don't you mean bitch and moan about freeloaders?
But the ISPs aren't classified as common carriers and thus aren't public utilities. So by what you've wrote, since they aren't public utilities the franchise agreement can be made to allow only one ISP to run cable in an area.
You're making the assumption that she was aware the old man had a handgun out.
Whether or not the post you responded to is right in the motive for her action if she had one or both hands on her husbands chest, and was shot through one, then there is a probability that she was facing her husband and not the old man and completely unaware that he had drawn the handgun.
- Yes, at bars or restaurants. You don't have to be a drunk to go to a bar for 1-2 drinks once in a while
Restaurants aren't places to meet people. There's rarely single people there, except at the bar (if it has one), and you don't walk up to women sitting alone at a table and ask to sit with them. And yes, the people who frequent bars usually are drunks. There is one exception: you'll sometimes find single non-drunk people sitting at the bar in a nice restaurant, eating actual food, but frequently these people are business travelers. That's fine if you want a one-night stand, but not so great for a relationship, since long-distance relationships almost never work out.
I'm a single non-drunk person sitting at a bar in a nice restaurant which I assume means a business whose primary front would be a restaurant with a bar rather than a bar with a restaurant. I'm a business traveller only in the sense that I'm doing so on my way home from work. I am certainly an exception given the amount of time I've spent in restaurants. Your statement does echo rather true. The majority of single people I see are working at the restaurant and not patronizing it, well at least single people that I would consider at all within my age range (which means under 38). I think I see the occasional divorcee or widow but at a much older age.
Couldn't you use the Sun-Earth L4 & L5?
Arguably, the big problem is when Earth and Mars are on opposite sides of the sun so that direct communicatiosn become impossible. Which is what you address with 60 degrees ahead and behind Mars. The advantage to the la grangian point is the stability that would mitigate the need for fuel for maneuvering.
This is the thing that annoys me about some people talking about (say) pot. "If it's not addicitive, then quit." Why would one want to quit to prove a point to some random nay-sayer who won't be convinced anyway? One could say much the same about fried potato. No way I'm going to stop eating that because it's so darn delicious (and the hefty dose of fat and carbs does have an effect on my mood). Of course I could stop eating it, but no, I'm not going to.
I'm not a pot smoker/eater myself, but these arguments really annoy me. For some reason people seem to think they're OK because it's a "drug".
I'm also not going to stop drinking fine scoth either to prove I'm not addicted to booze.
People have a bad habit of taking statements literally whenever it will let them trivialize and ignore what other people say. To the layman there is no difference between drug addiction and drug dependence. They lump both in as addiction. What I see, as an outside observer is the laymen using addiction as an argument to which pot advocates tend to respond with the true statements that pot is not an addictive drug. Since the laymen tend to be ignorant of the difference between drug addiction and drug dependence it just spirals down from there because the laymen aren't able to articulate that it's the dependence that they are concerned with. I find that when drug dependence is used, instead of addiction, pot advocates tend to not fair as well because all their normal talking points tend to be structured against the fact that pot is not addictive. So the advocates don't address the points that the detractors are concerned with.
For what its worth, it does appear to me that many pot users do have a psychological dependence on marijuana use. They, perhaps unconsciously, use language that suggests dependence (need vs like) or describe scenarios of repetitive use or situations where they feel uneasiness or other issues when separated from the drug.
Don't worry, in a decade or two minorities will dominate the tech and science fields once whites are no longer the majority race in America.
once we found a dudes wallet (I have no idea why it'd eat that) My uncle. who's been a bass fisherman for 50yrs. has a favorite line "If Bass got as big as sharks I'd never go in the water"
Probably for the same reason we find sharks with license plates and other random assortments.
PETA would be trespassing to use such a drone in private property they don't own.
It is possible. In general large universe fictional settings will often times have a lot of individual writings that are developed that shape the universe prior to any large scale work is written. While Tolkein had some other short stories in the universe other than the Hobbit, some of which became part of the Simarillion, he didn't start writing LOTR until the end of 1937, the same year in which the Hobbit was published.
I sincerely believe that ACA is designed to fail. It's a stepping stone towards the single-payer system that the progressives really want, only they know it would be difficult or impossible to directly sell that to the American people, so they use these drawn-out tactics. And in the meantime the insurance companies get a nice hefty kickback so you also have multibillion dollar industries behind its stated purposes, making it politically feasible.
It disgusting really. They don't care how the end goal is achieved. They don't care that by going this route, even if they get their sought after single-payer system, they are unnecessarily increasing the fiscal burden on people in a punitive fashion. Actually, I might think they're intentionally inflicting this pain as punishment for not supporting what they want.
Oh bullshit. I'd argue and be willing to bet that the reason kids have little respect for copyright law is their general disregard for authority figures (starting with their parents) and the fact that schools don't teach shit about civics.
The Hobbit was published in 1937. The Lord of the Rings was published in 1955. The Simirillion was published in 1977. I would like to know how you consider the Hobbit to not come first.
States generally require you to show proof of liability coverage and New Hampshire is one of these states. Auto insurance is one of many ways to show proof of liability coverage and some states may place restrictions on which proofs are permitted to which entities but very few, if any, states only allow auto insurance as the sole proof of liability.
The Japanese miracle was nano-bots that would scrub fallout that resulted from the use of nuclear weaponry but these nanobots had to be deployed prior to a blast to be useful. They're basically a deterrent for the use of nuclear weapons by making the radiation aspects of the weapons pointless.
You're right, we mostly see F250 for Home Depot and the railway. My point was more to illustrate the concerns that particular companies would face when looking at an additional cost aluminum body. I just chose poor companies as examples.