"You could live for some time off of that." No you can't, it's just over 200 gallons. Unless by some time you mean about a week. You need to drink 1/2 gallon a day alone.
Bath: 40 gallons
Shower: 2.5 gallons per minute Old showerheads may use 4 gal/min whereas newer low-flow showerheads use about 2.
Teeth brushing: 1 gallon Depends on if you let the water run while brushing
Hands/face washing: 1 gallon
Face/leg shaving: 1 gallon Depends on if you let the water run while shaving.
Dishwasher: 20 gallons/load New energy-efficient models may only use 4 gallons.
Dishwashing by hand: 4 gallons/minute With a low-flow faucet head, might be 1 gallon.
Clothes washing (machine): : 40 gallons/load (top loading) Front-loaders may use about 20 gallons/load.
Toilet flush: 3 gallons Older models may use more, but new energy-efficient toilets might only use 1 gallon/flush.
Glasses of water drunk: 8 oz. per glass (1/16th of a gallon) Did you drink your "eight glasses of water" today?
Do you ever get tired of being wrong? is the idea of research and changing a narrative based on facts foreign to you? The PR company that sets talking point for conservative have been spreading that law, but that doesn't excuse you of the fact that you swallow it with out verification. You are being a bad thinker, shame on you. Here is the definition of the time:
well-regulated (adj.) 1709 (Shaftsbury), from well (adv.) + past participle of regulate (v.).
regulate (v.) early 15c., "adjust by rule, control," from Late Latin regulatus, past participle of regulare "to control by rule, direct," from Latin regula "rule" (see regular). Meaning "to govern by restriction" is from 1620s. Related: Regulated; regulating.
well (adv.) "in a satisfactory manner," Old English wel "abundantly, very, very much; indeed, to be sure; with good reason; nearly, for the most part," from Proto-Germanic *welo- (cognates: Old Saxon wela, Old Norse vel, Old Frisian wel, Dutch wel, Old High German wela, German wohl, Gothic waila "well"), from PIE root *wel- (2) "to wish, will" (cognates: Sanskrit prati varam "at will," Old Church Slavonic vole "well," Welsh gwell "better," Latin velle "to wish, will," Old English willan "to wish;" see will (v.)).
Funny thing is, according to the supreme court of the US, it is NOT unconstitutional
In United States v. Cruikshank (1876), the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that, "The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence" and limited the applicability of the Second Amendment to the federal government.[9] In United States v. Miller (1939), the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government and the states could limit any weapon types not having a “reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia”
In United States v. Cruikshank (1876), the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that, "The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence" and limited the applicability of the Second Amendment to the federal government.[9] In United States v. Miller (1939), the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government and the states could limit any weapon types not having a “reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia”.
"United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)". Cornell University Law School. Retrieved September 5, 2013.
CRS Report for Congress District of Columbia v. Heller: The Supreme Court and the Second Amendment April 11, 2008 Congressional Research Service T.J. Halsted,Legislative Attorney,American Law Division. Order Code RL34446
Everything since then as been pretty much Lies and fear spread by the PR company that runs the NRA.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
It's a horrid sentence. Add to that what many states signed was different.
then: As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
And of course everything has changed since then. Technology, society, military, police force. It is in no way the same world. If they had used coordinating conjunctions things would be much more understandable.
"There are only a very few obvious prohibitions, namely against convicted felons and those declared mentally incompetent or ill. which are weakly enforce, and when people want to make enforcement of those laws stronger gun nuts go freaking ape shit.
", there are people in the US who fear the things so much, " That they need to carry a murder weapon everywhere they go.
"and IMHO should not be taken, lest it set a dangerous precedent " There are a lot of weapons you are not allowed to own.
" The fear of any given law-abiding person owning a firearm is irrational at best.: That will make sense as soon as you can guarantee law abiding citizen will stop being law abiding any time in there life. Until then, it's logically fallacious.
"If you wish to live in community that heavily regulates firearms, then band together and do so": as soon s you do that, fucktwads^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H Gun Owners come out of the woodwork and try to live their to force the local community to change their ways through abusing the court system.
We can't even have a person make a gun that only fires when it's near a device without people threatening the life of the person who does it, And I guarantee you their are 'law abiding citizen' applauding the person making the threats.
"The fear of any given law-abiding person owning a firearm is irrational at best." The belief that someone will be forever law abiding, never have a weapon stolen and forever be mentally stable is irrational. In fact, the belief that everyone is out to get you and the only way to deal with it is to kill them is irrational, yet it's the most widely used excuse. For the record: I have fired pretty much every weapon in civilian use as of 15 years ago, and many military weapons. I am not afraid of guns, I understand how they work very well, and at the time my accuracy was pretty good.
Try again. Or here, let me help you: What the big players need to do is create a common deliver platform. One place people can go to find there shows. Don't compete on the delivery, compete on the show quality/popularity. Charge 17.99 a month for deliver, with 5 min commercials every 30 minutes. Most people don't mind commercials becasue they know it pays for the content. Allow people to pay not to have commercials. 99 cents for every 30 minutes. Have a no commercial subscription tier charge and addition 29.99 Rent/Sell a small box with an HDMI port on one side, and an ethernet port on the other for people who don't want a 'computer' in the living room.
Put everything up there. The industry would replace DVRs becasue getting whatever a person wants when they want it is what people want.
The industry doesn't need the cable companies anymore, everyone has internet. Well, people don't need the TV part of cable companies.
Use some of the lobbing money to get the intern declares a common carrier. Make it easier and cheaper for people to already have the pipe.
ACTORS: The model is changing, life time royalties must end. In fact, royalties for more then 2 years should end. You are killing television history.
NO, that is a common misunderstanding of economics. one free market crazies often make.
Lets say you can seat 200, and 300 show up every night. So you say, lets go from 49 dollars a plate, to 50. You could loose 200 or more customers, over a dollar. Add to that he uses it to accelerate a hip persona, it make sense.
This is more of a service where he comes to the home, and not an actual restaurant per se. I just used a restaurant as an example.
Don't. Chickens a make noise, all the time. They poop FAR more then you think, they're are stupid and do stupid things. They get diseases, there are predators, they die, they can fly over fences.
Unless you have and acre, they will cost you more then you save.
and you would see a lot of former democrat start voting republican. Hardly the first time the parties changed.
"Politicians are not for and against science. They are just going to have a position that gets them their most votes." Republican have been lying about science in order to get money from industry while keeping there masses from braying too much.
The only knifes that go into a machine to wash are the plastic handled(Dexter Russel, I think.) commercial kitchen knives. Unless you are Micheal J. Fox*, everything else should be hand washed. And it is easy to hand wash knives.
Too Soon?
That said, the Dexter Rusell knives are inexpensive, and do a really good job. They aren't a life time knife, but more then worth the money.
Slashdot Mirror
"You could live for some time off of that."
No you can't, it's just over 200 gallons.
Unless by some time you mean about a week. You need to drink 1/2 gallon a day alone.
Bath: 40 gallons
Shower: 2.5 gallons per minute
Old showerheads may use 4 gal/min whereas newer low-flow showerheads use about 2.
Teeth brushing: 1 gallon
Depends on if you let the water run while brushing
Hands/face washing: 1 gallon
Face/leg shaving: 1 gallon
Depends on if you let the water run while shaving.
Dishwasher: 20 gallons/load
New energy-efficient models may only use 4 gallons.
Dishwashing by hand: 4 gallons/minute
With a low-flow faucet head, might be 1 gallon.
Clothes washing (machine): : 40 gallons/load (top loading)
Front-loaders may use about 20 gallons/load.
Toilet flush: 3 gallons
Older models may use more, but new energy-efficient toilets might only use 1 gallon/flush.
Glasses of water drunk: 8 oz. per glass (1/16th of a gallon)
Did you drink your "eight glasses of water" today?
False, it is False. Completely and utterly False. Neither of you seems to understand what the word 'drught' means. Look it up.
That would be hoprrid.
That means some rich guy will dictate who gets water. What's that? CA votes dem? well, no water for you.
There is no link between water pumped into the ground for extraction and drinking supply. None What So Ever.
Ignore Arker, he is a troll and an attention whore.
Do you ever get tired of being wrong? is the idea of research and changing a narrative based on facts foreign to you?
The PR company that sets talking point for conservative have been spreading that law, but that doesn't excuse you of the fact that you swallow it with out verification. You are being a bad thinker, shame on you.
Here is the definition of the time:
well-regulated (adj.)
1709 (Shaftsbury), from well (adv.) + past participle of regulate (v.).
regulate (v.)
early 15c., "adjust by rule, control," from Late Latin regulatus, past participle of regulare "to control by rule, direct," from Latin regula "rule" (see regular). Meaning "to govern by restriction" is from 1620s. Related: Regulated; regulating.
well (adv.)
"in a satisfactory manner," Old English wel "abundantly, very, very much; indeed, to be sure; with good reason; nearly, for the most part," from Proto-Germanic *welo- (cognates: Old Saxon wela, Old Norse vel, Old Frisian wel, Dutch wel, Old High German wela, German wohl, Gothic waila "well"), from PIE root *wel- (2) "to wish, will" (cognates: Sanskrit prati varam "at will," Old Church Slavonic vole "well," Welsh gwell "better," Latin velle "to wish, will," Old English willan "to wish;" see will (v.)).
Funny thing is, according to the supreme court of the US, it is NOT unconstitutional
In United States v. Cruikshank (1876), the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that, "The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence" and limited the applicability of the Second Amendment to the federal government.[9] In United States v. Miller (1939), the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government and the states could limit any weapon types not having a “reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia”
Tthe Supreme Court has ruled on it twice.
In United States v. Cruikshank (1876), the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that, "The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence" and limited the applicability of the Second Amendment to the federal government.[9] In United States v. Miller (1939), the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government and the states could limit any weapon types not having a “reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia”.
"United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)". Cornell University Law School. Retrieved September 5, 2013.
CRS Report for Congress District of Columbia v. Heller: The Supreme Court and the Second Amendment April 11, 2008 Congressional Research Service T.J. Halsted,Legislative Attorney,American Law Division. Order Code RL34446
Everything since then as been pretty much Lies and fear spread by the PR company that runs the NRA.
Nope as passed by congress:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
It's a horrid sentence. Add to that what many states signed was different.
then:
As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
And of course everything has changed since then. Technology, society, military, police force. It is in no way the same world.
If they had used coordinating conjunctions things would be much more understandable.
Actually it doesn't show that at all.
You've have bought into the 'balance' myth.
IT's an option now. No one does it. That's why it need to be a mandate.
We can get rid of guns. Just takes time and will.
"There are only a very few obvious prohibitions, namely against convicted felons and those declared mentally incompetent or ill.
which are weakly enforce, and when people want to make enforcement of those laws stronger gun nuts go freaking ape shit.
", there are people in the US who fear the things so much, "
That they need to carry a murder weapon everywhere they go.
"and IMHO should not be taken, lest it set a dangerous precedent "
There are a lot of weapons you are not allowed to own.
" The fear of any given law-abiding person owning a firearm is irrational at best.:
That will make sense as soon as you can guarantee law abiding citizen will stop being law abiding any time in there life.
Until then, it's logically fallacious.
"If you wish to live in community that heavily regulates firearms, then band together and do so":
as soon s you do that, fucktwads^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H Gun Owners come out of the woodwork and try to live their to force the local community to change their ways through abusing the court system.
We can't even have a person make a gun that only fires when it's near a device without people threatening the life of the person who does it,
And I guarantee you their are 'law abiding citizen' applauding the person making the threats.
"The fear of any given law-abiding person owning a firearm is irrational at best."
The belief that someone will be forever law abiding, never have a weapon stolen and forever be mentally stable is irrational.
In fact, the belief that everyone is out to get you and the only way to deal with it is to kill them is irrational, yet it's the most widely used excuse.
For the record: I have fired pretty much every weapon in civilian use as of 15 years ago, and many military weapons. I am not afraid of guns, I understand how they work very well, and at the time my accuracy was pretty good.
Yes, but not video experts.
Try again. Or here, let me help you:
What the big players need to do is create a common deliver platform. One place people can go to find there shows. Don't compete on the delivery, compete on the show quality/popularity.
Charge 17.99 a month for deliver, with 5 min commercials every 30 minutes. Most people don't mind commercials becasue they know it pays for the content.
Allow people to pay not to have commercials. 99 cents for every 30 minutes.
Have a no commercial subscription tier charge and addition 29.99
Rent/Sell a small box with an HDMI port on one side, and an ethernet port on the other for people who don't want a 'computer' in the living room.
Put everything up there. The industry would replace DVRs becasue getting whatever a person wants when they want it is what people want.
The industry doesn't need the cable companies anymore, everyone has internet. Well, people don't need the TV part of cable companies.
Use some of the lobbing money to get the intern declares a common carrier. Make it easier and cheaper for people to already have the pipe.
ACTORS:
The model is changing, life time royalties must end. In fact, royalties for more then 2 years should end. You are killing television history.
I can get a custom cut at almost every grocery store within 15 miles of my home.
Did you ask anyone at your meat dept.?
NO, that is a common misunderstanding of economics. one free market crazies often make.
Lets say you can seat 200, and 300 show up every night. So you say, lets go from 49 dollars a plate, to 50. You could loose 200 or more customers, over a dollar.
Add to that he uses it to accelerate a hip persona, it make sense.
This is more of a service where he comes to the home, and not an actual restaurant per se. I just used a restaurant as an example.
you're gray water is going into you plants?
I don't care f you were offering me directions out of hell, there is no way I would take your advice.
Don't.
Chickens a make noise, all the time. They poop FAR more then you think, they're are stupid and do stupid things. They get diseases, there are predators, they die, they can fly over fences.
Unless you have and acre, they will cost you more then you save.
Where are food prices skyrocketing?
Kill the warlords and distribute the food.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Thanks.
But it isn't local food. Maybe shaved ice.
and you would see a lot of former democrat start voting republican.
Hardly the first time the parties changed.
"Politicians are not for and against science. They are just going to have a position that gets them their most votes."
Republican have been lying about science in order to get money from industry while keeping there masses from braying too much.
The only knifes that go into a machine to wash are the plastic handled(Dexter Russel, I think.) commercial kitchen knives. Unless you are Micheal J. Fox*, everything else should be hand washed. And it is easy to hand wash knives.
Too Soon?
That said, the Dexter Rusell knives are inexpensive, and do a really good job. They aren't a life time knife, but more then worth the money.
http://www.japanesechefsknife....