The person in the passenger seat can actually be more of a distraction than someone on the phone, so what will we do, limit vehicles to not have any passenger seats?
The person in the passenger seat can also recognize dicey driving situations and hazards that the driver may not see. So we only need to make it illegal to drive with passengers who don't know when to shut up (hint: when someone is driving).
Focusing on cell phones because they are otherwise topical is a mistake because nay-sayers will always be able to argue that talking on a cell phone is no more dangerous than putting on makeup or leaning over to smack your kid in the back seat. Which is true. There are a million stupid and dangerous things that people do while driving.
However, in the push to make driving a consumption-heavy lifestyle and cars yet another arena for consuming various products and advertisements for even more products, the ship has pretty much sailed on acknowledging the fact that driving is inherently dangerous and that danger increases with every gadget and chatty passenger that you add to the equation.
I'm not interested in running for the rest of my life, so my goal would be to solve the problem permanently. If the problem is that I witnessed something, then I'd get my testimony and any relevant information in my possession as widely distributed as I could. Once the information is beyond containing, stopping me will no longer solve my opponent's problem. They'll have bigger problems to worry about than me. You can distribute your materials from anywhere these days - record a video on your phone, upload it to as many websites as possible, stick it on Wikileaks, email the press...
At that point, their best bet is to discredit you, using the same ease of spreading information. And once you are discredited, you are once again "solvable".
For people like me who tend to eat two meals a day (I'm in the habit of skipping breakfast as I tend to feel sick if I eat shortly after waking up), a 1000 Calorie meal is just about right. What makes me mad about all this stuff about fat people and messing with portions and taxing or removing certain types of food is that it also effects skinny people such as myself (I'm 5'11 and 120 pounds).
If you only eat two meals a day, that is all the more reason to make both of them good meals and not garbage convenience foods. Moreover, if you are buying real food you tend to get a discount if you buy in bulk. So that is a win-win for you.
It seems people keep trying to blame other things (too much TV, too much gaming, too much bacteria or antibiotics) instead of themselves. You weighed 120-140 when you were 18 (less for girls)..... no reason you can't weigh that now.
I can somewhat apprciate what you are saying, because I think the only "secret" to maintaining a healthy weight is eating a sensible diet of real food (not fast food or frozen dinners) and being active.
However, to do so requires resisting fairly strong social and economic pressures to a) work as much as possible and b) devote every other minute towards consumption, usually of industrialized foods and sedentary entertainments. These pressures are woven into our economy and reinforced constantly by advertising.
I'm not saying it is impossible or even necessarily difficult to eat well and be active. I weigh less than I did in HS more than 20 years later, having spent most of that time working desk jobs. On the other hand, people who live life "the way they are supposed to" like "normal Americans" are likely to end up overweight.
Try cutting out the cupcakes and bread. Go paleo, cut out all grains, eat only vegetables, meat, fatty meat, organ meat, and a bit of fruit. I am fairly sure you'd not be fat after two years on such a diet. Not kidding either so don't mod me funny.
Or keep the bread, eat mostly real* food and get a few active hobbies. If you can get in good enough shape to maintain a high level of physical activity and find ways to make that physical activity enjoyable, you can eat all of the cupcakes you'll want (made with real ingredients, not that processed crap).
All this is assuming no other medical abnormalities.
*Avoid foods made by faceless, profit driven strangers.
It is a very sorry world we are creating. We push aside religion for being too invasive and controlling and then ask the government to be even more invasive and controlling than the religion could ever hope to be.
Nobody expects, er, remembers the Spanish Inquisition!
The "government" is the electorate, and the electorate's demand for regulation is in response to the unregulated's history of abusive practices.
Totally. Free speech is only for saying pleasant stuff, or for saying murderous stuff when you're part of a viral marketing campaign.
Free speech is for guaranteeing every person's right to be heard by anyone who cares to listen, and accepting the consequences as bound by the law.
If the State somehow prevents this guy from continuing to exercise his free speech, we might have a problem. On the contrary, I suspect that they would love to have him exercise his right to express his views to doctors, DAs, judges and juries.
However, I'd have to figure that any time a well trained soldier, airman, marine, or whatever is talking about archaic weaponry such as axes, the chances is they are actually less serious than some civilian nutcase who thinks an axe is some sort of really elite weapon that might easily get them past modern arm bearing security guards and such. I don't think the Marines are suddenly teaching people that axes beat assault rifles and sub-machine guns - at least I hope not.
And if the axe stuff is metaphorical?
Granted, everyone has the means of doing tremendous violence these days, thanks to our permissive culture WRT gratuitously deadly weapons. A trained warrior arguably may have greater technical capabilities and access to destructive materials.
Opportunities are everywhere for people looking to create mayhem, as we have seen recently.
The icing on the cake here is the motive, as expressed on this guy's page.
At any given point, the "new" Mario is for the new audience that has entered the game playing demographic since the last "new" Mario. I suspect that the intended audience is happy enough with the classic concept, mechanics and story lines that the rest of us have grown out of over the last 30 years. I hope so, anyway, for their sake.
Anyone wondering if Nintendo has what it takes to keep them playing Mario games after 30 years has lost the plot.
When I talked with my grandparents when they were alive and my parents who are in their 80's now, the educational system back then was heavily based upon early memorization which gives you the fundamentals. Then in high school, they were opened up to the "think about it" model. Now days, kids aren't forced to memorize anything, and they are the ones that are hosed.
Consider that education 80 years ago may have included antiquated beliefs about what children are capable of learning and/or may not have arrived a effective methods for teaching more.
Do you want 2 people going for the same job to have sat different jobs, where one person's biology test included a religious explanation of the origin of the world, or a scientific theory? Or does the ACT have no bearing on the marketplace?
Which one has 10 years of experience but only wants a salary commensurate with 0 years of experience.
They shouldn't have the right to deny their children a credible education. Their children are citizens of this country, and even these regions were cast off, they would be close enough to have an impact on our society.
Just look at the impact of deprivation and corruption in other parts of the world has on us, starting just across our own border but really spanning the globe. World wars, terrorism, humanitarian crises, infectious disease, etc.
We can't ignore these problems and hope that they won't affect us.
Institute a requirement that candidates have at least a middle-school level of scientific literacy in order to become part of the government.
That doesn't work when the politicians are manipulating religion in order to keep everyone else more ignorant than them, and thus less able to challenge their rule.
The problem is that creationists think that somehow their worldview is legitimate science, and they are trying to push this into science classes.
No, they think that science is liberal witchcraft. They want to push religion in to science class for the same reason that they would push it into history and civics classes if they had the chance.
They don't believe there is anything worth knowing that is not written in the Bible (as asserted by a religious authority). Possible exceptions may be made for the dictates of "job creators".
Long story short: I never got anything for my warranty besides the inflated price for the bike and the lesson what a lifetime warranty is *really* worth these days.
So, they gave you your money back, adjusted for inflation? And that money covered the price of the whole bike, and not just the frame? If so, that sounds pretty reasonable. What more could they do (other than perhaps compensate you for the time it took to get them to honor their warranty)?
Assuming so, what is the tangible benefit of doing that? Does Mitt Romney win the election if he has more (albiet fake) Twitter followers?
Many voters, probably most, are too apathetic to bother evaluating candidates on their merits. Instead they extrapolate those merits from things like poll numbers and other horse race indicators. "Well, if that many people follow Romney on Twitter, he must be legit." "Well if more people favor Romeny over Obama in this or that completely unscientific and opaquely evaluated popularity contest, he must be the better candidate!"
Its true that only an idiot would use a candidate's number of Twitter followers to make their choice in a political election. Which is exactly why this is a potential problem.
Uh, let me get this straight. An explosion happens in a cartoon and instead of being injured, maimed, or killed the character has his face covered in soot. This is racist? How?
Because it is an explicit reference to overt, crude and insulting parodies of black people. Its not like these are nuanced jokes. Any child could connect the dots.
That said, I say leave them in. Let kids today see what mean-spirited entertainments were popular back in the day. This is important information for them to have when deciding what lessons to learn from history, and how to view the current day in a realistic context.
This self-censorship is more about CYA for the perpetrators of racism than protecting the targets of racism from being offended.
Why? This is part of history, and people should know what attitudes were publicly held and presented to see how much we've changed over the years.
We haven't changed over the years. Those attitudes are still common, but they are no longer publicized. So, by self-censoring itself in public, Disney is accurately reflecting racial attitudes in American society.
So, is Disney to teach us about history? Or the present?
Slashdot Mirror
The person in the passenger seat can actually be more of a distraction than someone on the phone, so what will we do, limit vehicles to not have any passenger seats?
The person in the passenger seat can also recognize dicey driving situations and hazards that the driver may not see. So we only need to make it illegal to drive with passengers who don't know when to shut up (hint: when someone is driving).
Focusing on cell phones because they are otherwise topical is a mistake because nay-sayers will always be able to argue that talking on a cell phone is no more dangerous than putting on makeup or leaning over to smack your kid in the back seat. Which is true. There are a million stupid and dangerous things that people do while driving.
However, in the push to make driving a consumption-heavy lifestyle and cars yet another arena for consuming various products and advertisements for even more products, the ship has pretty much sailed on acknowledging the fact that driving is inherently dangerous and that danger increases with every gadget and chatty passenger that you add to the equation.
- Bus into town, taxi to real bus station, bus anywhere.
I would imagine they would expect you to take public transportation.
Moreover, if I have to travel by bus, just shoot me here.
Okay, so you are not a threat. But your life is still potentially ruined, and you may be imprisoned or dead anyway.
I'm not interested in running for the rest of my life, so my goal would be to solve the problem permanently. If the problem is that I witnessed something, then I'd get my testimony and any relevant information in my possession as widely distributed as I could. Once the information is beyond containing, stopping me will no longer solve my opponent's problem. They'll have bigger problems to worry about than me. You can distribute your materials from anywhere these days - record a video on your phone, upload it to as many websites as possible, stick it on Wikileaks, email the press...
At that point, their best bet is to discredit you, using the same ease of spreading information. And once you are discredited, you are once again "solvable".
He would sit in there for 45 minutes crapping, eating his chips and talking to people that came and went from the bathroom as he did. It was insane.
Or genius? One time I lost 10 pounds after being laid up for a week with a stomach virus.
For people like me who tend to eat two meals a day (I'm in the habit of skipping breakfast as I tend to feel sick if I eat shortly after waking up), a 1000 Calorie meal is just about right. What makes me mad about all this stuff about fat people and messing with portions and taxing or removing certain types of food is that it also effects skinny people such as myself (I'm 5'11 and 120 pounds).
If you only eat two meals a day, that is all the more reason to make both of them good meals and not garbage convenience foods. Moreover, if you are buying real food you tend to get a discount if you buy in bulk. So that is a win-win for you.
Nice try.
It seems people keep trying to blame other things (too much TV, too much gaming, too much bacteria or antibiotics) instead of themselves. You weighed 120-140 when you were 18 (less for girls)..... no reason you can't weigh that now.
I can somewhat apprciate what you are saying, because I think the only "secret" to maintaining a healthy weight is eating a sensible diet of real food (not fast food or frozen dinners) and being active.
However, to do so requires resisting fairly strong social and economic pressures to a) work as much as possible and b) devote every other minute towards consumption, usually of industrialized foods and sedentary entertainments. These pressures are woven into our economy and reinforced constantly by advertising.
I'm not saying it is impossible or even necessarily difficult to eat well and be active. I weigh less than I did in HS more than 20 years later, having spent most of that time working desk jobs. On the other hand, people who live life "the way they are supposed to" like "normal Americans" are likely to end up overweight.
Try cutting out the cupcakes and bread. Go paleo, cut out all grains, eat only vegetables, meat, fatty meat, organ meat, and a bit of fruit. I am fairly sure you'd not be fat after two years on such a diet. Not kidding either so don't mod me funny.
Or keep the bread, eat mostly real* food and get a few active hobbies. If you can get in good enough shape to maintain a high level of physical activity and find ways to make that physical activity enjoyable, you can eat all of the cupcakes you'll want (made with real ingredients, not that processed crap).
All this is assuming no other medical abnormalities.
*Avoid foods made by faceless, profit driven strangers.
When are they going to get to the fireworks factory?
It is a very sorry world we are creating. We push aside religion for being too invasive and controlling and then ask the government to be even more invasive and controlling than the religion could ever hope to be.
Nobody expects, er, remembers the Spanish Inquisition!
The "government" is the electorate, and the electorate's demand for regulation is in response to the unregulated's history of abusive practices.
Totally. Free speech is only for saying pleasant stuff, or for saying murderous stuff when you're part of a viral marketing campaign.
Free speech is for guaranteeing every person's right to be heard by anyone who cares to listen, and accepting the consequences as bound by the law.
If the State somehow prevents this guy from continuing to exercise his free speech, we might have a problem. On the contrary, I suspect that they would love to have him exercise his right to express his views to doctors, DAs, judges and juries.
However, I'd have to figure that any time a well trained soldier, airman, marine, or whatever is talking about archaic weaponry such as axes, the chances is they are actually less serious than some civilian nutcase who thinks an axe is some sort of really elite weapon that might easily get them past modern arm bearing security guards and such. I don't think the Marines are suddenly teaching people that axes beat assault rifles and sub-machine guns - at least I hope not.
And if the axe stuff is metaphorical?
Granted, everyone has the means of doing tremendous violence these days, thanks to our permissive culture WRT gratuitously deadly weapons. A trained warrior arguably may have greater technical capabilities and access to destructive materials.
Opportunities are everywhere for people looking to create mayhem, as we have seen recently.
The icing on the cake here is the motive, as expressed on this guy's page.
Means, motive, & opportunity.
At any given point, the "new" Mario is for the new audience that has entered the game playing demographic since the last "new" Mario. I suspect that the intended audience is happy enough with the classic concept, mechanics and story lines that the rest of us have grown out of over the last 30 years. I hope so, anyway, for their sake.
Anyone wondering if Nintendo has what it takes to keep them playing Mario games after 30 years has lost the plot.
When I talked with my grandparents when they were alive and my parents who are in their 80's now, the educational system back then was heavily based upon early memorization which gives you the fundamentals. Then in high school, they were opened up to the "think about it" model. Now days, kids aren't forced to memorize anything, and they are the ones that are hosed.
Consider that education 80 years ago may have included antiquated beliefs about what children are capable of learning and/or may not have arrived a effective methods for teaching more.
Do you want 2 people going for the same job to have sat different jobs, where one person's biology test included a religious explanation of the origin of the world, or a scientific theory? Or does the ACT have no bearing on the marketplace?
Which one has 10 years of experience but only wants a salary commensurate with 0 years of experience.
Its their lives, their children, their right.
They shouldn't have the right to deny their children a credible education. Their children are citizens of this country, and even these regions were cast off, they would be close enough to have an impact on our society.
Just look at the impact of deprivation and corruption in other parts of the world has on us, starting just across our own border but really spanning the globe. World wars, terrorism, humanitarian crises, infectious disease, etc.
We can't ignore these problems and hope that they won't affect us.
Institute a requirement that candidates have at least a middle-school level of scientific literacy in order to become part of the government.
That doesn't work when the politicians are manipulating religion in order to keep everyone else more ignorant than them, and thus less able to challenge their rule.
Not exactly. They think religious "freedom" means that they have the freedom to teach their kids to believe whatever they want (which is true).
Why should that be true?
The problem is that creationists think that somehow their worldview is legitimate science, and they are trying to push this into science classes.
No, they think that science is liberal witchcraft. They want to push religion in to science class for the same reason that they would push it into history and civics classes if they had the chance.
They don't believe there is anything worth knowing that is not written in the Bible (as asserted by a religious authority). Possible exceptions may be made for the dictates of "job creators".
Long story short: I never got anything for my warranty besides the inflated price for the bike and the lesson what a lifetime warranty is *really* worth these days.
So, they gave you your money back, adjusted for inflation? And that money covered the price of the whole bike, and not just the frame? If so, that sounds pretty reasonable. What more could they do (other than perhaps compensate you for the time it took to get them to honor their warranty)?
Assuming so, what is the tangible benefit of doing that? Does Mitt Romney win the election if he has more (albiet fake) Twitter followers?
Many voters, probably most, are too apathetic to bother evaluating candidates on their merits. Instead they extrapolate those merits from things like poll numbers and other horse race indicators. "Well, if that many people follow Romney on Twitter, he must be legit." "Well if more people favor Romeny over Obama in this or that completely unscientific and opaquely evaluated popularity contest, he must be the better candidate!"
Its true that only an idiot would use a candidate's number of Twitter followers to make their choice in a political election. Which is exactly why this is a potential problem.
Uh, let me get this straight. An explosion happens in a cartoon and instead of being injured, maimed, or killed the character has his face covered in soot. This is racist? How?
Because it is an explicit reference to overt, crude and insulting parodies of black people. Its not like these are nuanced jokes. Any child could connect the dots.
That said, I say leave them in. Let kids today see what mean-spirited entertainments were popular back in the day. This is important information for them to have when deciding what lessons to learn from history, and how to view the current day in a realistic context.
This self-censorship is more about CYA for the perpetrators of racism than protecting the targets of racism from being offended.
Why? This is part of history, and people should know what attitudes were publicly held and presented to see how much we've changed over the years.
We haven't changed over the years. Those attitudes are still common, but they are no longer publicized. So, by self-censoring itself in public, Disney is accurately reflecting racial attitudes in American society.
So, is Disney to teach us about history? Or the present?