Reminds me of a TV commercial from a while back, put out by one razor blade company, to make fun of another razor blade company for continually adding additional blades. I seem to recall that not long after those ads started airing, they disappeared, and the first company began adding additional blades as well.
Not sure I understand how "who" could be considered a spoiler. I could see someone caring about the how/why he needs to regenerate, but not who he regenerates into.
It appears the police added the word "bombs" to cover up their amateur-hour faux pas so that an investigation sounds reasonable.
Just playing Devil's Advocate, but not necessarily. If you are researching pressure cookers, chances are you're going to want to know how safe different brands/models are. And a search on which pressure cookers to avoid because of a tendency to explode may look pretty similar to one on which pressure cookers to buy if you want an explosion.
So on a street that has houses on both sides of the road, your mail boxes are all on the same side of the road, such that one person's mail box is in another person's yard? Because that's not what I've seen. But I honestly haven't paid any attention to mail box placement outside of what I see on my own street, so I don't know how common that might be. But it does seem weird.
Interesting, but I'm not sure that is what nbritton meant. As you said, it keeps the dog from chewing on itself. But the goal here is to keep it from chewing on other things. And if the dog can still eat, then it can still chew on other things. So although an e-collar may be the Cone Of Shame, I'm thinking nbritton meant a collar that would deliver a small electric shock, similar to the invisible fence collars.
Yeah, but you know what kills more people? The actual disease!
Yeah, but first you have to catch the disease. And in this day and age, it is far more likely to die from a vaccine than it is to catch the disease in the first place. Therefore my child will take that risk.
Yes, I realize the folly of that logic. I'm simply saying what I suspect others may be thinking.
Having never let a valet park my car, I never realized it was customary to tip the valet. But now knowing that it is, wouldn't you tip them when they bring your car back? Tipping when you drop the car off, to me, seems like it'd be like tipping your waiter/waitress when they seat you.
but neither is it fair to call pro-life "anti-abortion" or "anti-choice."
Anti-choice I'll grant you, but why anti-abortion? I'd imagine they'd just sort of look at you funny, thinking "I don't get it. You say anti-abortion like it's a bad thing."
At least half of those people are apparently hypocrites
Um, the set of all Americans that have had a fetus diagnosed with DS is smaller than the set of all Americans. Even just focusing on women who have ever been pregnant, you can probably still have 20% of those women oppose abortion in all situations, and 90% of those woman that have had a fetus diagnosed with DS be ok with abortions, and not have any hypocrites.
For example, take a group of 1,000 women that, at one point in time, have been pregnant. If 20% of them oppose abortion in all situations, that still leaves us with 800 women. I don't know what percentage of fetuses have DS, but if it is 88% or less, then it is possible to have no hypocrites in this sample group.
Or do you believe somebody putting a keylogger trojan on your computer should be legal?
Just because someone thinks the punishment is excessive, doesn't mean they think that the crime should be legal.
Likewise, just because someone thinks the punishment was excessive in one scenario, doesn't mean they'd think it excessive in other scenarios. You wouldn't punish someone for stealing a snickers bar as harshly as you would if they'd stolen an iPad, would you?
Sure the dog can see what is on TV but he really doesn't care that much
Some dogs do. Not sure how many, but I know at least 1 dog that goes nuts just from seeing another animal on TV. It doesn't even need to make a noise, the visual alone sets this dog off.
I was about to comment that people aren't likely to keep it on the dog channel once they get home, and thus the Lexus commercials that Poopsie sees when you are home won't be the same that can get her attention. But then I realized that the kinds of people you are referring to, probably would have a TV completely dedicated to Poopsie, such that the owner need not disturb Poopsie to watch what they want to watch.
Just to be fair, not all gay activists deserve to be tolerated either...
Agreed, which is why I said "maybe" when I addressed that line. As I stated in another reply, I've never a pro-gay activist that was pushing for something that should not be tolerated, but I won't dismiss it as impossible, so I said "maybe".
The key word there is "activists", used to describe the anti-gay group, but not the white supremacist group. Hence why I also said that the pro-gay group might not be deserving of tolerance, because activist was used there too. I've never a pro-gay activist that was pushing for something that should not be tolerated, but I won't dismiss it as impossible.
Without "activists", "crazy white supremacists deserve tolerance" sounds like it is simply about "people who hold the belief that whites are the superior race". Throw in activists, and yes, they would be undeserving of tolerance. Just as I've never met a pro-gay activist that was pushing for something that should not be tolerated, I have also never met a while supremacist activist who was pushing for something that should. I guess it's possible, but it seems a lot less likely.
tl;dr, I tolerate the KKK's opinions. But their actions I would not.
Why do you want to punish people for their opinion in a way that has nothing at all to do with the opinion?
This has nothing to do with the guy's opinion, and everything to do with his actions. As I understand the situation, he has actively tried to disallow gays from marrying the one that they love. If all he's done is said "I don't agree, but whatever", then that'd be fine. But that isn't what he does.
I don't support gay marriage, but honestly it's never even occurred to me to boycott movies by director who do support gay marriage. I mean who cares? They support gay marriage. Oh no, I'm so threatened I have to shut them down!!!
Funny, because I suspect that is how people who oppose gay marriage feel, threatened by the idea that gay marriage may become a reality, and as a result, it would only be natural that they would not want to give money to those who would use that money to try and make gay marriage a reality. I actually find it surprising that it's never occurred to you to boycott people who support gay marriage.
But then again, just because you do not support something, does not mean you support getting rid of it. I do not support spinach, but that does not mean I would support getting rid of it.
those who have different points of view deserve tolerance, regardless of whether you agree with them or not
Correct.
Crazy communists deserve tolerance,
Correct.
Crazy white supremacists deserve tolerance,
Correct.
Crazy Tea party members deserve tolerance,
Correct.
Crazy gay activists deserve tolerance,
Maybe. Depends what they are trying to achieve.
Crazy anti-gay activists deserve tolerance.
False false false. Unless you are using a different definition of activist from me, the anti-gay activist, crazy or otherwise, is actively working against me. The activist isn't gonna say "I dislike what you do, but whatever", they are going to say "I dislike what you do, and will do everything in my power to keep you from doing it". And that does not deserve tolerance. It deserves to be called out at every opportunity.
(Ignoring for a second the catch-22 of "I won't vote for someone that is not electable")
While in general there are two electable people on the national stage, if you live in a non-swing state, there is really only one electable person that you personally can vote for. Everyone else, even "the other guy", all unelectable. And in such states, it is actually voting for "the other guy" that is equivalent to throwing your vote away. A vote for a third party, while it may not add up to overthrow "the guy who is guaranteed to win the state", there is at least a non-zero chance that it will be noticed.
"Oh look, the guy guaranteed to win the state won, and the other guy came in 2nd. Big shocker." isn't gonna do anything.
"Huh. The guy guaranteed to win the state won, and the other guy came in 2nd, but not by as much as he usually does." may make people notice.
I am also not a lawyer, but the phrase "and the Effect thereof", makes it sound like Congress has the power to allow Alabama to not recognize a same-sex marriage from another state. IE, Alabama is required to accept that you have a New York marriage license, but they are not required to treat you as married unless Congress says they are.
I do not know what that would mean, but that is how it sounds. Nor do I have any idea how that would translate to things like hospitals and other non-governmental agencies that happen to be in Alabama.
Having one of your friends 'sign off' on saying you're good to sit behind the wheel of what is essentially a two ton ballistic projectile seems insane.
I cannot speak for all states, but in Maryland, the friend can only sign off on your operating that two ton ballistic projectile if they are in the front passenger seat with you, which the risk is somewhat mitigated by the fact that, I believe the friend then assumes all responsibility for any mistakes that you make.
The friend cannot sign off on allowing you to drive unsupervised though. You need to go to the DMV and take their test before the state will allow you to drive unsupervised.
Slashdot Mirror
Reminds me of a TV commercial from a while back, put out by one razor blade company, to make fun of another razor blade company for continually adding additional blades. I seem to recall that not long after those ads started airing, they disappeared, and the first company began adding additional blades as well.
Not sure I understand how "who" could be considered a spoiler. I could see someone caring about the how/why he needs to regenerate, but not who he regenerates into.
It appears the police added the word "bombs" to cover up their amateur-hour faux pas so that an investigation sounds reasonable.
Just playing Devil's Advocate, but not necessarily. If you are researching pressure cookers, chances are you're going to want to know how safe different brands/models are. And a search on which pressure cookers to avoid because of a tendency to explode may look pretty similar to one on which pressure cookers to buy if you want an explosion.
So on a street that has houses on both sides of the road, your mail boxes are all on the same side of the road, such that one person's mail box is in another person's yard? Because that's not what I've seen. But I honestly haven't paid any attention to mail box placement outside of what I see on my own street, so I don't know how common that might be. But it does seem weird.
Interesting, but I'm not sure that is what nbritton meant. As you said, it keeps the dog from chewing on itself. But the goal here is to keep it from chewing on other things. And if the dog can still eat, then it can still chew on other things. So although an e-collar may be the Cone Of Shame, I'm thinking nbritton meant a collar that would deliver a small electric shock, similar to the invisible fence collars.
Yeah, but you know what kills more people? The actual disease!
Yeah, but first you have to catch the disease. And in this day and age, it is far more likely to die from a vaccine than it is to catch the disease in the first place. Therefore my child will take that risk.
Yes, I realize the folly of that logic. I'm simply saying what I suspect others may be thinking.
Having never let a valet park my car, I never realized it was customary to tip the valet. But now knowing that it is, wouldn't you tip them when they bring your car back? Tipping when you drop the car off, to me, seems like it'd be like tipping your waiter/waitress when they seat you.
but neither is it fair to call pro-life "anti-abortion" or "anti-choice."
Anti-choice I'll grant you, but why anti-abortion? I'd imagine they'd just sort of look at you funny, thinking "I don't get it. You say anti-abortion like it's a bad thing."
At least half of those people are apparently hypocrites
Um, the set of all Americans that have had a fetus diagnosed with DS is smaller than the set of all Americans. Even just focusing on women who have ever been pregnant, you can probably still have 20% of those women oppose abortion in all situations, and 90% of those woman that have had a fetus diagnosed with DS be ok with abortions, and not have any hypocrites.
For example, take a group of 1,000 women that, at one point in time, have been pregnant. If 20% of them oppose abortion in all situations, that still leaves us with 800 women. I don't know what percentage of fetuses have DS, but if it is 88% or less, then it is possible to have no hypocrites in this sample group.
Or do you believe somebody putting a keylogger trojan on your computer should be legal?
Just because someone thinks the punishment is excessive, doesn't mean they think that the crime should be legal.
Likewise, just because someone thinks the punishment was excessive in one scenario, doesn't mean they'd think it excessive in other scenarios. You wouldn't punish someone for stealing a snickers bar as harshly as you would if they'd stolen an iPad, would you?
Hey now, I'll have you know I'm perfectly capable of being insane without needing a religious group backing me up, thank you very much. :P
Sure the dog can see what is on TV but he really doesn't care that much
Some dogs do. Not sure how many, but I know at least 1 dog that goes nuts just from seeing another animal on TV. It doesn't even need to make a noise, the visual alone sets this dog off.
I was about to comment that people aren't likely to keep it on the dog channel once they get home, and thus the Lexus commercials that Poopsie sees when you are home won't be the same that can get her attention. But then I realized that the kinds of people you are referring to, probably would have a TV completely dedicated to Poopsie, such that the owner need not disturb Poopsie to watch what they want to watch.
Just to be fair, not all gay activists deserve to be tolerated either...
Agreed, which is why I said "maybe" when I addressed that line. As I stated in another reply, I've never a pro-gay activist that was pushing for something that should not be tolerated, but I won't dismiss it as impossible, so I said "maybe".
The key word there is "activists", used to describe the anti-gay group, but not the white supremacist group. Hence why I also said that the pro-gay group might not be deserving of tolerance, because activist was used there too. I've never a pro-gay activist that was pushing for something that should not be tolerated, but I won't dismiss it as impossible.
Without "activists", "crazy white supremacists deserve tolerance" sounds like it is simply about "people who hold the belief that whites are the superior race". Throw in activists, and yes, they would be undeserving of tolerance. Just as I've never met a pro-gay activist that was pushing for something that should not be tolerated, I have also never met a while supremacist activist who was pushing for something that should. I guess it's possible, but it seems a lot less likely.
tl;dr, I tolerate the KKK's opinions. But their actions I would not.
Why do you want to punish people for their opinion in a way that has nothing at all to do with the opinion?
This has nothing to do with the guy's opinion, and everything to do with his actions. As I understand the situation, he has actively tried to disallow gays from marrying the one that they love. If all he's done is said "I don't agree, but whatever", then that'd be fine. But that isn't what he does.
I don't support gay marriage, but honestly it's never even occurred to me to boycott movies by director who do support gay marriage. I mean who cares? They support gay marriage. Oh no, I'm so threatened I have to shut them down!!!
Funny, because I suspect that is how people who oppose gay marriage feel, threatened by the idea that gay marriage may become a reality, and as a result, it would only be natural that they would not want to give money to those who would use that money to try and make gay marriage a reality. I actually find it surprising that it's never occurred to you to boycott people who support gay marriage.
But then again, just because you do not support something, does not mean you support getting rid of it. I do not support spinach, but that does not mean I would support getting rid of it.
those who have different points of view deserve tolerance, regardless of whether you agree with them or not
Correct.
Crazy communists deserve tolerance,
Correct.
Crazy white supremacists deserve tolerance,
Correct.
Crazy Tea party members deserve tolerance,
Correct.
Crazy gay activists deserve tolerance,
Maybe. Depends what they are trying to achieve.
Crazy anti-gay activists deserve tolerance.
False false false. Unless you are using a different definition of activist from me, the anti-gay activist, crazy or otherwise, is actively working against me. The activist isn't gonna say "I dislike what you do, but whatever", they are going to say "I dislike what you do, and will do everything in my power to keep you from doing it". And that does not deserve tolerance. It deserves to be called out at every opportunity.
I had no idea that eBay would kick out sellers that get too much negative feedback. Or even just too much neutral feedback.
(Ignoring for a second the catch-22 of "I won't vote for someone that is not electable")
While in general there are two electable people on the national stage, if you live in a non-swing state, there is really only one electable person that you personally can vote for. Everyone else, even "the other guy", all unelectable. And in such states, it is actually voting for "the other guy" that is equivalent to throwing your vote away. A vote for a third party, while it may not add up to overthrow "the guy who is guaranteed to win the state", there is at least a non-zero chance that it will be noticed.
"Oh look, the guy guaranteed to win the state won, and the other guy came in 2nd. Big shocker." isn't gonna do anything.
"Huh. The guy guaranteed to win the state won, and the other guy came in 2nd, but not by as much as he usually does." may make people notice.
Ahh, thanks.
I'm sorry, 5150?
Having a fully developed brain doesn't even come close to guaranteeing that there was informed consent.
I meant strictly from a legal stand point. Legally, they cannot give informed consent.
I am also not a lawyer, but the phrase "and the Effect thereof", makes it sound like Congress has the power to allow Alabama to not recognize a same-sex marriage from another state. IE, Alabama is required to accept that you have a New York marriage license, but they are not required to treat you as married unless Congress says they are.
I do not know what that would mean, but that is how it sounds. Nor do I have any idea how that would translate to things like hospitals and other non-governmental agencies that happen to be in Alabama.
Having one of your friends 'sign off' on saying you're good to sit behind the wheel of what is essentially a two ton ballistic projectile seems insane.
I cannot speak for all states, but in Maryland, the friend can only sign off on your operating that two ton ballistic projectile if they are in the front passenger seat with you, which the risk is somewhat mitigated by the fact that, I believe the friend then assumes all responsibility for any mistakes that you make.
The friend cannot sign off on allowing you to drive unsupervised though. You need to go to the DMV and take their test before the state will allow you to drive unsupervised.
Ok, I hadn't thought about that, having a "full" license per the terms of another state for 3 years, but being under 21.