I think the problem is that some people (myself included) thought that the proper way to compare it is interior pressure / exterior pressure. But from the comments, it sounds like interior pressure - exterior pressure is the correct way.
I can't help but feel that if I was up in the ISS, I'd want a solid metal wall, rather than an inflatable fabric one.
Agreed, though my (irrational) reasoning regards putting a sealed, pressurized object into a vacuum. Can it be done? Of course! Would I feel just as nervous about being in a space suit? While I cannot say for certain, I do not think so. But for some reason, thinking about being inside a balloon that isn't human-shaped leaves me feeling a little uneasy.
Exactly. I never understood people who claim that by restricting how much of a language they use, they some how have a better command of the language. It'd be like me claiming that my refusal to use the top gear in my car some how makes me a better driver than someone who uses all of their gears.
Not necessarily true. It varies state by state, but some places only restrict the sale of alcohol to minors, not the consumption. For example, it may be perfectly legal for a parent to give their child a beer.
Actually, a few of my friends are like that. "OMG! Computer brain implants with direct internet access that will monitor my thoughts? EBIL!...Wait, it's from Google? Where do I sign up???"
I keep meeting more and more people that hate both parties but vote for them, because "there's no other choice that's not throwing my vote away!"
What states do they live in? If it's a solidly red state, and they vote Democrat, tell them that they are already throwing their vote away. Likewise for solidly blue states and Republican voters.
the easy way to deal with it is for vehicle registration and tag renewal to take an odometer reading.
Further up this very thread, this idea was already proposed. As other posters have pointed out, you may be taxing miles driven out of state.
If for some reason that does not matter, then please explain why. If you simply do not care that Oregon may be charging someone based on miles driven in Washington, then please say that. But please do not simply ignore it.
Yes, being on a jury is what determines whether you're using the law's standards. [...] it's silly in the extreme to think that your familiarity with a case that likely amounts to short blurbs should outweigh a full trial by jury.
I can agree with that. My opinion was based on the assumption that a person on the jury and a person not on the jury are basing their decisions on the same set of evidence. If you base it on the assumption that the non-jury member isn't as informed, then I see your point.
Incorrect, the criteria is "beyond a reasonable doubt"
Reasonable, shadow, regardless of which word is used, if the law lets individual jury members decide for themselves if that level has been surpassed, I don't see how one can claim that coming to a different conclusion is the same as not using the law's standard. You can disagree with OP (and maybe I would too. As I said in another post, I have not followed this case), but it would still seem to fit the law's standard just fine.
Oh, and there's also the fact that he was found guilty of first-degree murder, so yes, it's certainly "instead of".
I don't see how that changes it. We're talking about different people coming to different conclusions about what constitutes a "reasonable doubt". So if the jury (there was a jury, right?) had found him not guilty, does that mean people such as yourself who looked at the evidence and decided he was guilty would be the ones who are not using the law's standards? Is being on the jury what determines whether OP is using the law's standards or not when deciding if the evidence has proven his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt?
What's the polite way to express something like this?
I'm not really sure. I'm not commenting one way or another on the modding of OP, I'm just commenting on AC's post.
But I can't say I've heard that definition of "inconvenient truth" before. I've always thought of a flamebait as intending to, well, bait someone into a heated argument. Word it differently, and it is no longer flamebait. Meanwhile, no matter how you phrase an inconvenient truth, there's no getting around the uncomfortable feeling it'll evoke in someone.
My Ford Escort proves you wrong. If I lock it with the remote, and then stick the physical key into the lock on the door and unlock it, the alarm goes off.
Until Reiser decided to take the blame, the whole situation was bullshit
Until then it was bullshit? I haven't been following that case at all, but the way it is being presented in these posts, how exactly does him confessing after he's been convicted make the situation not bullshit? It sounds like you're basically saying "Oh, so he really did do it? Then it was ok for the government to do what they did".
Whether someone did or did not do something should never change change the ok-ness of what was done in order to uncover that.
your personal standard of proof (instead of the legal one)
What do you mean "instead of"? As I understand it, the legal standard is "beyond the shadow of a doubt", but then it leaves the details of figuring out if that standard has been met up to the individual jury members. Is this incorrect?
Well by that logic, since OP did not specifically mention high school teachers, it is also ok for them to do such things to their students. And since OP also did not specifically mention sports coaches, it is also ok for them to do such things to their players. And since OP also did not....
Or maybe the fact that OP did not specifically mention Group X does not mean that OP supports Group X doing it?
Slashdot Mirror
I think the problem is that some people (myself included) thought that the proper way to compare it is interior pressure / exterior pressure. But from the comments, it sounds like interior pressure - exterior pressure is the correct way.
I can't help but feel that if I was up in the ISS, I'd want a solid metal wall, rather than an inflatable fabric one.
Agreed, though my (irrational) reasoning regards putting a sealed, pressurized object into a vacuum. Can it be done? Of course! Would I feel just as nervous about being in a space suit? While I cannot say for certain, I do not think so. But for some reason, thinking about being inside a balloon that isn't human-shaped leaves me feeling a little uneasy.
your word play is some nice poetry
Question. What makes what Xiph1980 said "word play", but what you said "philosophizing"?
demonstrating full command of the language
Exactly. I never understood people who claim that by restricting how much of a language they use, they some how have a better command of the language. It'd be like me claiming that my refusal to use the top gear in my car some how makes me a better driver than someone who uses all of their gears.
Not necessarily true. It varies state by state, but some places only restrict the sale of alcohol to minors, not the consumption. For example, it may be perfectly legal for a parent to give their child a beer.
There's not much you would normally cook without exceeding 100F.
So pick a metal that breaks at 500F instead, or whatever would be a good upper range.
What makes you think pink = women everywhere falling all over themselves to buy this item?
Well, it's apparently worth-while enough for Craftsman to produce an entire line of pink products.
How does this compare to the weight it's been losing over the years?
Hey! It was hot out and the line was short!
I don't know about evil, but bad-ass Mickey is the one with the keyblade.
You can't and won't.
Actually, a few of my friends are like that. "OMG! Computer brain implants with direct internet access that will monitor my thoughts? EBIL! ...Wait, it's from Google? Where do I sign up???"
I keep meeting more and more people that hate both parties but vote for them, because "there's no other choice that's not throwing my vote away!"
What states do they live in? If it's a solidly red state, and they vote Democrat, tell them that they are already throwing their vote away. Likewise for solidly blue states and Republican voters.
Maybe it was the ultimate GTFO? As in "if you chose A or B, you are welcome back any time. Otherwise we never want to see you again".
Do you continue to pay your assassins long after they get the job done? Because I don't.
And with GPS isn't that a serious privacy issue?
That's ok, they just won't require that you put a GPS on your vehicle.
:P
But if you don't, then the tax is 1 million dollars a year.
the easy way to deal with it is for vehicle registration and tag renewal to take an odometer reading.
Further up this very thread, this idea was already proposed. As other posters have pointed out, you may be taxing miles driven out of state.
If for some reason that does not matter, then please explain why. If you simply do not care that Oregon may be charging someone based on miles driven in Washington, then please say that. But please do not simply ignore it.
So does that mean Jon Johansen and his accomplices are in fact criminals for writing and distributing DeCSS
Maybe? IANAL so cannot say for sure. However...
and we were wrong in supporting and defending the cause all these years?
Just because something is illegal does not make it wrong.
Yes, being on a jury is what determines whether you're using the law's standards. [...] it's silly in the extreme to think that your familiarity with a case that likely amounts to short blurbs should outweigh a full trial by jury.
I can agree with that. My opinion was based on the assumption that a person on the jury and a person not on the jury are basing their decisions on the same set of evidence. If you base it on the assumption that the non-jury member isn't as informed, then I see your point.
Incorrect, the criteria is "beyond a reasonable doubt"
Reasonable, shadow, regardless of which word is used, if the law lets individual jury members decide for themselves if that level has been surpassed, I don't see how one can claim that coming to a different conclusion is the same as not using the law's standard. You can disagree with OP (and maybe I would too. As I said in another post, I have not followed this case), but it would still seem to fit the law's standard just fine.
Oh, and there's also the fact that he was found guilty of first-degree murder, so yes, it's certainly "instead of".
I don't see how that changes it. We're talking about different people coming to different conclusions about what constitutes a "reasonable doubt". So if the jury (there was a jury, right?) had found him not guilty, does that mean people such as yourself who looked at the evidence and decided he was guilty would be the ones who are not using the law's standards? Is being on the jury what determines whether OP is using the law's standards or not when deciding if the evidence has proven his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt?
What's the polite way to express something like this?
I'm not really sure. I'm not commenting one way or another on the modding of OP, I'm just commenting on AC's post.
But I can't say I've heard that definition of "inconvenient truth" before. I've always thought of a flamebait as intending to, well, bait someone into a heated argument. Word it differently, and it is no longer flamebait. Meanwhile, no matter how you phrase an inconvenient truth, there's no getting around the uncomfortable feeling it'll evoke in someone.
My Ford Escort proves you wrong. If I lock it with the remote, and then stick the physical key into the lock on the door and unlock it, the alarm goes off.
Until Reiser decided to take the blame, the whole situation was bullshit
Until then it was bullshit? I haven't been following that case at all, but the way it is being presented in these posts, how exactly does him confessing after he's been convicted make the situation not bullshit? It sounds like you're basically saying "Oh, so he really did do it? Then it was ok for the government to do what they did".
Whether someone did or did not do something should never change change the ok-ness of what was done in order to uncover that.
your personal standard of proof (instead of the legal one)
What do you mean "instead of"? As I understand it, the legal standard is "beyond the shadow of a doubt", but then it leaves the details of figuring out if that standard has been met up to the individual jury members. Is this incorrect?
I haven't looked at the logo, but you seem to be implying that something cannot be both true and flamebait.
Well by that logic, since OP did not specifically mention high school teachers, it is also ok for them to do such things to their students. And since OP also did not specifically mention sports coaches, it is also ok for them to do such things to their players. And since OP also did not....
Or maybe the fact that OP did not specifically mention Group X does not mean that OP supports Group X doing it?