"Hey, I've always wanted to have sex with two beautiful women such as yourselves, but I've never had the nerve. Well, I'm dying of cancer and... well... here. Let me show you my medical records first."
So the summary says that this thing targets porn watchers specifically, but I couldn't find any stats on what percentage of the total net population that is.
Scientists Discover How To Track Natural Errors In DNA Replication
"Scientists"?! Yeah, "scientists" from the NSA, maybe!!!! Those fuckers will stop at NOTHING to track every damn little thing and now this?! What did poor little DNA ever do to you, you fascist bastards?!
I've got an idea of who might best be able to help out. Lemme call him...
*ring*
*click*
"Hello and thank you for calling the Fucking Batman. I kick the asses of miscreants everywhere as well as providing consultation services for security and anti-criminal measures. I also am available for bachelorette parties on Fridays and Saturdays with at least 72 hours' prior notice and a minimum of ten ladies. Tipping for excellent service is optional but appreciated. Please leave a message with your name and number and a good time to call you back or activate the Bat-signal anytime from dusk to dawn and I'll get right back with you as soon as my schedule permits."
We vote, we count votes, and the person who gets the most votes takes office (with rare exceptions like Gore in 2000 when Gore got more votes in Florida). That's democracy.
That's direct democracy, which we do not have except in limited instances. Your example of the presidency is an excellent example of this, actually. Are you aware of this thing called "the electoral college"? When was the last time you voted for members of the electoral college? Okay, so the POTUS election isn't an actual "one man, one vote" type deal in the direct democratic sense. Plus, it's winner-take-all for each state and thus not even a true representation of how the various electoral college members actually voted. So, not directly democratic either even in the limited arena of the electoral college.
Okay, so how about the supreme court justices? Who did you vote for during the last election? Or hugely influential people in the various cabinets such as Secretary of State. Who did you vote for?
Huh. Okay, so while the US has some parts of government directly democratic ("one man, one vote"), there were deliberately set in place those checks and balances (a constitution and republican structure of other parts of government) to thoughtfully and precisely limit direct democracy, as the Founders felt that direct democracy would be too damaging ("tyranny of the majority" for example) and unwieldy to boot.
All I know is that more than half the time, the screen stops halfway during the slide and it wastes my time and makes the iPhone look and feel shoddy.
"Here at Apple, we care about security. We care so much about security, in fact, that we refuse access to not only thieves and hackers but to our Valued Customers too!"
Why is there even a code on the Doctor's enterance in the first place? The Doctor's have enough to be concerned with without someone elses technological "solution" getting in their way.
Exactly. Doctors do not need a coded door; they just need a body of water to walk on.
It was a state court that issued the ruling under Virginia law, not a Federal court under Federal law. The US Federal government still has a Constitution and three branches of government for checks and balances.
Oh, I dunno, hopefully someone who has a clearer memory will be along to help me out, but I thought that his book, Pastwatch: The Redemption of Christopher Columbus was a very good book and didn't seem to me to be all that homophobic or racist either. May want to give that one a try.
OTOH, there hasn't been a single crime committed with a lawfully-owned civilian machine gun (or other automatic firearm) since 1934.
I believe you are correct. In fact, the only one on record that I can find was done by a cop who is automatically (no pun intended) exempt from the laws regarding ownership of fully automatic firearms in the US.
"On September 15th, 1988, a 13-year veteran of the Dayton, Ohio police department, Patrolman Roger Waller, then 32, used his fully automatic MAC-11.380 caliber submachine gun to kill a police informant, 52-year-old Lawrence Hileman. Patrolman Waller pleaded guilty in 1990, and he and an accomplice were sentenced to 18 years in prison. The 1986 'ban' on sales of new machine guns does not apply to purchases by law enforcement or government agencies."
Are you made that the government is allowed to enforce the law and you as an individual are not? Is that hypocritical of the government to keep law enforcement to itself?
Simply put, it doesn't. To be more precise, there are some powers delegated to the government regarding things like search and seizure, but I am fully able to, under the law, "enforce the law" as a common citizen. Some might argue that it is our duty to do so even.
Are you American? If so, you should know this already, if you feel yourself able to make knowledgeable comments on this topic.
That's very wrong. I pay my insurance premiums for decades until at some point when I need to be covered and the very same insurance company can deny coverage for that based on whatever reason. They do not suddenly refund all the premiums I've paid in since that time, do they?
That's the real disconnect when it comes to people and insurance companies. The vast majority of people do not want to rip anyone off; they just want the services for which they've been paying if the situation ever arises -- which is the whole bloody point of insurance, isn't it?
Hopefully this is not a stupid question, but how long would it be, approximately, before much of these data go stale (stale before it becomes useless)?
You can keep trying to insult me and poisoning the well; it does nothing to change the facts as I have already stated.
You wrote "[i]t is dangerous to text at traffic lights. You are more likely to be rear-ended, and more likely to cause a delay (And delays increase congestion and congestion increases crashes)." That is a positive claim against the null hypothesis that texting at stoplights is no more dangerous than just sitting there.
Your positive claim, your burden of proof. That you are not willing to come up with any evidence is fine; it just means that your statement is unevidenced opinion and can be dismissed as such. The null hypothesis stands.
If you'll read what I wrote you'll see that when I quoted your specific words, I used quotation marks. Where I did not quote your specific words, I did not use quotation marks. If conversation and clarification were important to you, you'd have noticed that I paraphrased what I understood your point to be and addressed that rather than playing your little game of trying to distract by attacking me.
A few posts previously, your actual words were "[i]t is dangerous to text at traffic lights. You are more likely to be rear-ended, and more likely to cause a delay (And delays increase congestion and congestion increases crashes)."
This statement is a positive assertion which means the burden is on you to provide some evidence that it's valid and to disprove the null hypothesis.
It's not really that difficult a concept to grasp.
Ha ha ha. That's the state of the Internet. Assert something stupid "texting at a light is not dangerous" And don't back it up with explanation or cite. Then when someone disagrees, with a logical argument (a non moving car at a green light is more likely to be rear ended), demand cites to oppose your uncited opinion.
What's the rule, he who demands cites first, wins?
Umm... no, it's called 'logic'. To put a more-formal title to it, it's called 'the null hypothesis' -- in this instance, texting at a stoplight is no more or less dangerous than merely sitting at the light and waiting for it to turn green. You came along and said that texting at stoplights was far more dangerous than sitting there; that's a positive assertion which retains the burden of proof (i.e., show evidence which supports your conclusion and which disproves the null hypothesis).
Also, stating that "a non-moving car at a green light is more likely to be rear-ended" is trivially true; your unstated presumption is that texting while waiting for the light to change is the cause for a sharp increase in these kinds of rear-end collisions (which you'd also need to show).
I took one, for the Defense Intelligence Agency. And in addition to the stuff you mentioned, I sat on a pad that was wired to the same machine the rest of it was. Considering this is the federal govt that pressed charges, not some low budget local police station, I'd say my experience is a little note relevant.
Holy shit, you are such an asshole. Yes, it was King County Sheriff's department. My fucking mistake. I was never arrested; I took the screening polygraph for potential employment and very grateful now that I didn't pass.
Slashdot Mirror
Does she wear french-cut panties or granny panties?
Depends.
"Hey, I've always wanted to have sex with two beautiful women such as yourselves, but I've never had the nerve. Well, I'm dying of cancer and... well... here. Let me show you my medical records first."
I've heard of a male contraceptive that came out years ago. You take the pill and it changes your blood type.
I would love to escape that kind of career.
I'm not really a programmer, but maybe this'll help?
career{that kind} ^[ ^D
So the summary says that this thing targets porn watchers specifically, but I couldn't find any stats on what percentage of the total net population that is.
It's 118%.
Scientists Discover How To Track Natural Errors In DNA Replication
"Scientists"?! Yeah, "scientists" from the NSA, maybe!!!! Those fuckers will stop at NOTHING to track every damn little thing and now this?! What did poor little DNA ever do to you, you fascist bastards?!
Good idea.
I've got an idea of who might best be able to help out. Lemme call him...
*ring*
*click*
"Hello and thank you for calling the Fucking Batman. I kick the asses of miscreants everywhere as well as providing consultation services for security and anti-criminal measures. I also am available for bachelorette parties on Fridays and Saturdays with at least 72 hours' prior notice and a minimum of ten ladies. Tipping for excellent service is optional but appreciated. Please leave a message with your name and number and a good time to call you back or activate the Bat-signal anytime from dusk to dawn and I'll get right back with you as soon as my schedule permits."
We're not a bunch of hipster douchebags who have nothing better to do than to break out in bad choreographed dancing at staff meetings.
That's a little harsh, man. I worked all month for that "tribute to Bob Fosse" number.
We vote, we count votes, and the person who gets the most votes takes office (with rare exceptions like Gore in 2000 when Gore got more votes in Florida). That's democracy.
That's direct democracy, which we do not have except in limited instances. Your example of the presidency is an excellent example of this, actually. Are you aware of this thing called "the electoral college"? When was the last time you voted for members of the electoral college? Okay, so the POTUS election isn't an actual "one man, one vote" type deal in the direct democratic sense. Plus, it's winner-take-all for each state and thus not even a true representation of how the various electoral college members actually voted. So, not directly democratic either even in the limited arena of the electoral college.
Okay, so how about the supreme court justices? Who did you vote for during the last election? Or hugely influential people in the various cabinets such as Secretary of State. Who did you vote for?
Huh. Okay, so while the US has some parts of government directly democratic ("one man, one vote"), there were deliberately set in place those checks and balances (a constitution and republican structure of other parts of government) to thoughtfully and precisely limit direct democracy, as the Founders felt that direct democracy would be too damaging ("tyranny of the majority" for example) and unwieldy to boot.
People James may know
Wen Wu
Chengang Wu
Cheng G Gong
Fan Wu
Chenggang G Wu
Wen G Gong
Cheng H Wu
Woh. I wonder wu else he knows, though my guess is he's long gong by now so wei can't ask him.
All I know is that more than half the time, the screen stops halfway during the slide and it wastes my time and makes the iPhone look and feel shoddy.
"Here at Apple, we care about security. We care so much about security, in fact, that we refuse access to not only thieves and hackers but to our Valued Customers too!"
Use of the product constitutes acceptance of its terms.
Use of the software constitutes acceptance, sure. Use of the car that the software just happens to be in, doesn't have the protection of copyright.
Why is there even a code on the Doctor's enterance in the first place? The Doctor's have enough to be concerned with without someone elses technological "solution" getting in their way.
Exactly. Doctors do not need a coded door; they just need a body of water to walk on.
It was a state court that issued the ruling under Virginia law, not a Federal court under Federal law. The US Federal government still has a Constitution and three branches of government for checks and balances.
And Virginia doesn't?
Oh, I dunno, hopefully someone who has a clearer memory will be along to help me out, but I thought that his book, Pastwatch: The Redemption of Christopher Columbus was a very good book and didn't seem to me to be all that homophobic or racist either. May want to give that one a try.
OTOH, there hasn't been a single crime committed with a lawfully-owned civilian machine gun (or other automatic firearm) since 1934.
I believe you are correct. In fact, the only one on record that I can find was done by a cop who is automatically (no pun intended) exempt from the laws regarding ownership of fully automatic firearms in the US.
"On September 15th, 1988, a 13-year veteran of the Dayton, Ohio police department, Patrolman Roger Waller, then 32, used his fully automatic MAC-11 .380 caliber submachine gun to kill a police informant, 52-year-old Lawrence Hileman. Patrolman Waller pleaded guilty in 1990, and he and an accomplice were sentenced to 18 years in prison. The 1986 'ban' on sales of new machine guns does not apply to purchases by law enforcement or government agencies."
Are you made that the government is allowed to enforce the law and you as an individual are not? Is that hypocritical of the government to keep law enforcement to itself?
Simply put, it doesn't. To be more precise, there are some powers delegated to the government regarding things like search and seizure, but I am fully able to, under the law, "enforce the law" as a common citizen. Some might argue that it is our duty to do so even.
Are you American? If so, you should know this already, if you feel yourself able to make knowledgeable comments on this topic.
That's very wrong. I pay my insurance premiums for decades until at some point when I need to be covered and the very same insurance company can deny coverage for that based on whatever reason. They do not suddenly refund all the premiums I've paid in since that time, do they?
That's the real disconnect when it comes to people and insurance companies. The vast majority of people do not want to rip anyone off; they just want the services for which they've been paying if the situation ever arises -- which is the whole bloody point of insurance, isn't it?
Hopefully this is not a stupid question, but how long would it be, approximately, before much of these data go stale (stale before it becomes useless)?
You can keep trying to insult me and poisoning the well; it does nothing to change the facts as I have already stated.
You wrote "[i]t is dangerous to text at traffic lights. You are more likely to be rear-ended, and more likely to cause a delay (And delays increase congestion and congestion increases crashes)." That is a positive claim against the null hypothesis that texting at stoplights is no more dangerous than just sitting there.
Your positive claim, your burden of proof. That you are not willing to come up with any evidence is fine; it just means that your statement is unevidenced opinion and can be dismissed as such. The null hypothesis stands.
If you'll read what I wrote you'll see that when I quoted your specific words, I used quotation marks. Where I did not quote your specific words, I did not use quotation marks. If conversation and clarification were important to you, you'd have noticed that I paraphrased what I understood your point to be and addressed that rather than playing your little game of trying to distract by attacking me.
A few posts previously, your actual words were "[i]t is dangerous to text at traffic lights. You are more likely to be rear-ended, and more likely to cause a delay (And delays increase congestion and congestion increases crashes)."
This statement is a positive assertion which means the burden is on you to provide some evidence that it's valid and to disprove the null hypothesis.
It's not really that difficult a concept to grasp.
Ha ha ha. That's the state of the Internet. Assert something stupid "texting at a light is not dangerous" And don't back it up with explanation or cite. Then when someone disagrees, with a logical argument (a non moving car at a green light is more likely to be rear ended), demand cites to oppose your uncited opinion.
What's the rule, he who demands cites first, wins?
Umm... no, it's called 'logic'. To put a more-formal title to it, it's called 'the null hypothesis' -- in this instance, texting at a stoplight is no more or less dangerous than merely sitting at the light and waiting for it to turn green. You came along and said that texting at stoplights was far more dangerous than sitting there; that's a positive assertion which retains the burden of proof (i.e., show evidence which supports your conclusion and which disproves the null hypothesis).
Also, stating that "a non-moving car at a green light is more likely to be rear-ended" is trivially true; your unstated presumption is that texting while waiting for the light to change is the cause for a sharp increase in these kinds of rear-end collisions (which you'd also need to show).
Yes, thank you. I didn't read Wiki in my relatively brief search, but what I did read meshes with that.
I took one, for the Defense Intelligence Agency. And in addition to the stuff you mentioned, I sat on a pad that was wired to the same machine the rest of it was. Considering this is the federal govt that pressed charges, not some low budget local police station, I'd say my experience is a little note relevant.
Yup, that's why I sought clarification.
Holy shit, you are such an asshole. Yes, it was King County Sheriff's department. My fucking mistake. I was never arrested; I took the screening polygraph for potential employment and very grateful now that I didn't pass.