Even with the increased risk, however, you're still about three times more likely to die in a car crash in a given year. So, how much does talking on your cell while driving increase those odds?
No, the term ricer comes from 'rice burner,' referring to Japanese cars, not people. If you have any proof to the contrary, please provide a link and I will retract my statement and apologize to any Japanese I may have offended.
Riced-out comes from 'rice burner.' Implying that Japanese cars burn rice instead of gasoline. Is that racist? I'd love a car that ran on rice.
Originally, the term referred to a certain subset of Japanese who liked to make their cars look fast without actually spending much money one them. They would add huge 'fart-cannon' tailpipes, park bench sized spoilers (even to front wheel drive cars), VTEC and red R stickers (even to non-Hondas), and outrageously ugly paint and body jobs. Eventually, the term came to refer to anyone that did ridiculous things to their car to make it seem faster than it actually was. The term isn't really racist in practice, it has a meaning similar to 'poser.'
Well, Soros is a noted commie fighter, perhaps he sees open source as communist? I kid, likely, it is Microsoft. Our intelligence agencies protect and serve our major corporations and in return, those corporations provide cover for their spies. Microsoft is almost certainly deeply in bed with those agencies.
Someone that smart and well connected does not throw money away on a lost cause, this has to be something more than an investment.
You absolute, incredible idiot. Way to misinterpret my point. I agree that artists should profit from their work. What I'm saying is, it is a government system, not a natural right. It's my natural right to do anything with my own internal experiences that I want. Including copying anything I see or experience. But I see the value in partially giving up that right, in order to have more control over my own creations, yes, but also to encourage others to share theirs.
God made the universe 6,000 years ago. If you do not worship him and subjugate yourself to his will, he will torture you forever. He just put in things like dinosaur bones and black holes to mess with your head, to get you to disbelieve in him, so that he can torture you forever without feeling guilty about it.
He's kinda messed up because he was alone for like, eternity, until he made up some friends in his head, but he's incapable of imagining anything that is actually his peer, so he secretly hates us all for not providing the companionship he needs. That is how the universe works.
Silly troll. Artists can do whatever they like with their creations. But barring agreements to the contrary, as soon as that creation is outside their own head, anyone can copy it. Copies of their work are not their creations. There is no moral reason not to copy their work. There is no moral reason to share your profits with them. So they made something, so what? They still have it, I have deprived them of nothing. Get it? I have not taken anything away from them. They can still do with it what they please, but I never agreed not to copy it. What gives them the right to profit from my work of copying theirs? Why should they get something for free?
Copyright and patents exist to give creative types a government sanctioned monopoly on their creations. We agree to let them profit off of the work of others in order to encourage them to share what they have created. Do you understand? They are getting something from us for free.
Contributing factor? In every single case of breast cancer, the woman had consumed so much dihydrogen monoxide that their bodies were composed of 70% of the stuff! Also, women who discontinue the use of dihydrogen monoxide never die from breast cancer.
Not all forms of organised labour get to air their grievances on screen via the conduit of Letterman or endless news reports. Hardly a surprise that the TV writers' strike was all over the TV news. Yes, because management always enjoys giving a soapbox to striking workers./sarcasm
Huh? You couldn't be less clear. Complaining about net neutrality? Complaining that it's good, or bad? And what does this have to do with the parent post? Sorry, maybe it's my lack of coffee this morning, but I'm just not following you here.
His whole rant supports your theory. The poster you replied to has a hidden agenda. It is an attack against science. The basics of propaganda are: you never state your central thesis. You merely proceed as if it were true. His basic thesis is a core component of intelligent design, and it goes like this: "Complex things like cars and televisions don't just happen. They need a designer. Therefore, all complex things must need a designer. Basset hounds need a designer, there's no wild basset hound in nature. Therefore, other animals must have had a designer as well." It's not good logic, but it's how many people think.
I also think he's lying when he claims no belief in God. Maybe not the God of Christianity, but I'm sure he believes in some sort of Designer.
You are arguing with an anarchist. Anarcho-Syndicalist and proud card carrying member of the IWW. As far as I know, and I'm prepared to be corrected, the Libertarian Party are all market anarchists. Libertarians refuse to use the word anarchist, even though the word 'libertarian' has become just as tainted through their actions. Just call yourselves anarchists, don't pretend like you invented the philosophy! I really hate it when people say that anarchism is a part of libertarianism, when its the other way around. Libertarianism is an offshoot of anarchism. Maybe in Europe they use the word libertarian to mean general anarchism, but here in America it means only market anarchism.
I'm familiar with the forms of anarchism, have lived in communes and worked in collectives. So I don't need an education as to what the different branches are. It all boils down to terminology, and I'm guessing that is based on where we're both from. Personally, I've found that most people who claim to be libertarian are, at best, one step up from the gutter punks with the circle A tattoos in their political analysis and thought. Most espouse libertarianism only because they don't want to pay taxes.
Come off it, c6gunner. You were in the military, you've heard the phrase collateral damage before. Odd as it may seem, yes, people are more concerned about killing hundreds of friendly civilians and allies and iradiating their own launch sites than they are with killing hundreds of thousands of of enemies. Now, if you'd said "But it uses conventional rockets for launch and propulsion until it gets to cruising altitude," then you would have had a point.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, why get involved with that tar baby if you don't have to?
No, the term ricer comes from 'rice burner,' referring to Japanese cars, not people. If you have any proof to the contrary, please provide a link and I will retract my statement and apologize to any Japanese I may have offended.
What does this incident have to do with liberals?
Riced-out comes from 'rice burner.' Implying that Japanese cars burn rice instead of gasoline. Is that racist? I'd love a car that ran on rice.
Originally, the term referred to a certain subset of Japanese who liked to make their cars look fast without actually spending much money one them. They would add huge 'fart-cannon' tailpipes, park bench sized spoilers (even to front wheel drive cars), VTEC and red R stickers (even to non-Hondas), and outrageously ugly paint and body jobs. Eventually, the term came to refer to anyone that did ridiculous things to their car to make it seem faster than it actually was. The term isn't really racist in practice, it has a meaning similar to 'poser.'
Reminds me of a post a long time ago when I said, "Gentoo is for ricers." Next I suppose you'll be telling us 'niggardly' is racist...
Nice analysis, you are very likely completely correct on this.
Dude, you and the Muslims worship the same God. I'm making fun of them at the same time. And when God made Satan, God knew exactly what he was doing.
Well, Soros is a noted commie fighter, perhaps he sees open source as communist? I kid, likely, it is Microsoft. Our intelligence agencies protect and serve our major corporations and in return, those corporations provide cover for their spies. Microsoft is almost certainly deeply in bed with those agencies.
Someone that smart and well connected does not throw money away on a lost cause, this has to be something more than an investment.
He does if he or his partners are already in it, deep and dirty, and they don't want the dirt seeing the light of day. Call it $100M in hush money.
You absolute, incredible idiot. Way to misinterpret my point. I agree that artists should profit from their work. What I'm saying is, it is a government system, not a natural right. It's my natural right to do anything with my own internal experiences that I want. Including copying anything I see or experience. But I see the value in partially giving up that right, in order to have more control over my own creations, yes, but also to encourage others to share theirs.
You are really thick, aren't you?
God made the universe 6,000 years ago. If you do not worship him and subjugate yourself to his will, he will torture you forever. He just put in things like dinosaur bones and black holes to mess with your head, to get you to disbelieve in him, so that he can torture you forever without feeling guilty about it.
He's kinda messed up because he was alone for like, eternity, until he made up some friends in his head, but he's incapable of imagining anything that is actually his peer, so he secretly hates us all for not providing the companionship he needs. That is how the universe works.
Silly troll. Artists can do whatever they like with their creations. But barring agreements to the contrary, as soon as that creation is outside their own head, anyone can copy it. Copies of their work are not their creations. There is no moral reason not to copy their work. There is no moral reason to share your profits with them. So they made something, so what? They still have it, I have deprived them of nothing. Get it? I have not taken anything away from them. They can still do with it what they please, but I never agreed not to copy it. What gives them the right to profit from my work of copying theirs? Why should they get something for free?
Copyright and patents exist to give creative types a government sanctioned monopoly on their creations. We agree to let them profit off of the work of others in order to encourage them to share what they have created. Do you understand? They are getting something from us for free.
Sorry about being a dick before. I'm quitting smoking and I've been a dick to nearly everyone recently.
Ask not for whom the ass farts. It farts for thee.
Okay, I'm now seriously embarrassed for everyone in this thread...
Contributing factor? In every single case of breast cancer, the woman had consumed so much dihydrogen monoxide that their bodies were composed of 70% of the stuff! Also, women who discontinue the use of dihydrogen monoxide never die from breast cancer.
Huh? You couldn't be less clear. Complaining about net neutrality? Complaining that it's good, or bad? And what does this have to do with the parent post? Sorry, maybe it's my lack of coffee this morning, but I'm just not following you here.
Some of the cables will be live and have shorts in the insulation.
His whole rant supports your theory. The poster you replied to has a hidden agenda. It is an attack against science. The basics of propaganda are: you never state your central thesis. You merely proceed as if it were true. His basic thesis is a core component of intelligent design, and it goes like this: "Complex things like cars and televisions don't just happen. They need a designer. Therefore, all complex things must need a designer. Basset hounds need a designer, there's no wild basset hound in nature. Therefore, other animals must have had a designer as well." It's not good logic, but it's how many people think.
I also think he's lying when he claims no belief in God. Maybe not the God of Christianity, but I'm sure he believes in some sort of Designer.
Did you light the grail science-beacon on top of the castle? You must be punished!
You are arguing with an anarchist. Anarcho-Syndicalist and proud card carrying member of the IWW. As far as I know, and I'm prepared to be corrected, the Libertarian Party are all market anarchists. Libertarians refuse to use the word anarchist, even though the word 'libertarian' has become just as tainted through their actions. Just call yourselves anarchists, don't pretend like you invented the philosophy! I really hate it when people say that anarchism is a part of libertarianism, when its the other way around. Libertarianism is an offshoot of anarchism. Maybe in Europe they use the word libertarian to mean general anarchism, but here in America it means only market anarchism.
I'm familiar with the forms of anarchism, have lived in communes and worked in collectives. So I don't need an education as to what the different branches are. It all boils down to terminology, and I'm guessing that is based on where we're both from. Personally, I've found that most people who claim to be libertarian are, at best, one step up from the gutter punks with the circle A tattoos in their political analysis and thought. Most espouse libertarianism only because they don't want to pay taxes.
Come off it, c6gunner. You were in the military, you've heard the phrase collateral damage before. Odd as it may seem, yes, people are more concerned about killing hundreds of friendly civilians and allies and iradiating their own launch sites than they are with killing hundreds of thousands of of enemies. Now, if you'd said "But it uses conventional rockets for launch and propulsion until it gets to cruising altitude," then you would have had a point.
They must see it as some sort of rival. "Hey, that monkey's lookin' at me funny!" Monkey see, monkey click.
No, you're playing "Troll the Slashdot Geeks." And winning handily, I might add.
Crucifixion's a doddle.