Inneresting. The CG increased the safety requirements on DUKWs after the Arkansas incident (there was at least one more, but not with as spectacular a bodycount... Ottawa?) but stopped short of requiring the NTSB-recommended changes (which amounted to "make them unsinkable even when they fill with water," apparently). Guess what it came down to was "Yeah, if you REALLY want to operate the things, you can... just don't take anybody down with you when you go, okay?"
I've seen them down in Mo/Ark (Table Rock area, IIRC) and I have to say, I just can't imagine getting on one of those beasties. They just scream "This thing should *not* float." In fact, a lot of people were rather confused about what they did, and assumed they just drove around on the bottom of the lake or something ("But how do they seal it up when it goes underwater?" "Uhhhh...")
Of course, I think they had (back when I saw them, anyway, which was before the Hot Springs incident) the big canopies that were part of the problem down there, which contributes to their unseaworthy appearance (and, apparently, their unseaworthiness... well, unlakeworthiness).
Actually, looks like they're shut down in Tampa now. "Insurance issues," probably a result of so many of 'em sinking (in at least two cases, with fatalities).
I notice this outfit is trying to distance itself from the DUKW problems... although it kind of amuses me that they advertise that their LARCs have "much heavier construction"... er, isn't that exactly the PROBLEM?
Sorry to be nasty, but your "report back when you've got some of your own" is just arrogant. How do you know I'm not Mormon and already have a dozen children?
Merely flippant, but not (intentionally, anyway) arrogant. How do you know your parents wouldn't say "Well, there *were* some times they would have come in handy, but it wasn't worth the trouble to actually buy them." (Or, perhaps, "but there are so many people who abuse them that I don't want to encourage that." My feelings are a mix of those.)
I'm not saying they're necessary, by any means. I'm just saying that there are times they're quite helpful and make a great deal of sense, in contrast to you and some other posters who seem to equate leashing with bad parenting. I'm just saying that's not *always* the case.
Excuse me, but my parents raised three kids sans leashes, and NEVER ONCE had a problem.
Heh. Hearsay is inadmissible in court... report back when you've got your own.
How about parents just pay attention to their kids?
Oh, trust me, leashes don't eliminate the need for that. I still pay attention to mine even when I've got a mommy-hand manacle clamped around his wrist. Leash and a straitjacket, *maybe*, but I wouldn't count on it with some kids...
In any event,"paying attention" isn't the problem. Like I said, a toddler can move faster through a crowd than a grownup, or duck through a store display a grownup has to go around. You can be paying close attention to them, but if they're not old enough to respond reliably to verbal commands, it doesn't always help. It may only mean you get to *see* them getting hit by the car, instead of just hearing it.
Certainly you don't want to leash a kid all the time, but there *are* plenty of times when it's appropriate to have a permanent physical attachment to a child... mine's tall enough now that I can hold his hand long-term when we're in that sort of situation, but if I had more than one child to keep track of, that might not be practical.
I still don't like the look of them, and they *are* often used as a substitute for parental attention, or for kids who *should* be old enough to have learned self-control (this last point is, I think, the most often abused... if the kid's on a leash whenever it's handy, versus only when it's necessary, he never learns). But I do, now that I've been there myself, appreciate that sometimes they're the most reasonable compromise.
If you're scared that he might be kidnapped, just teach him to cry in the loudest way possible, it's very easy.
You've never been the parent of a toddler, huh?
I've never put mine on a leash, but I can think of some situations in which it would have been the best, safest thing to do. Some times and places you get tired of carrying him, but it's too crowded to put him down (trust me, a two- or three-year-old can move through a dense crowd a *lot* faster than a grownup can), and he's not tall enough to make holding hands workable unless you enjoy walking like Quasimodo, and strollers are just intolerably rude in a crowd. A leash, held short enough not to tangle up with other people, is sometimes the most practical option there is.
That said, I don't get the people who put 6-year-olds on leashes. *That* just looks wrong. A toddler doesn't have the impulse control to keep from running off after things and forgetting your instructions, but an older kid really ought to be able to.
Sure, there are times when I'll dump my entire music collection into the playlist, but there are other times when I really don't want, say, Sisters of Mercy to be followed directly by Tom Lehrer.
That's nothing. Imagine Joe Satriani followed directly by Wee Sing.
(Actually, I think the other way around would be slightly more traumatic, but still.)
If it makes you feel any better, though your copyright doesn't go poof, your ability to get certain sorts of damages (the name of which escaped me shortly after I took that allergy medicine earlier this afternoon, though I didn't notice until just now) does go poof if you let other violations slide. I think those sorts of damages are restricted to registered copyrights anyway, too.
Note that Y > X by such a significant amount that if the X payees knew the Y number, they would likely vomit and then quit their jobs
Okay, everybody raise your hand if you've known the salaries of all your higherups at every job you've ever worked.
Yep, me too. Even when payroll was handled offsite, I had the XVP call me into his office for help with a spreadsheet formula. The spreadsheet was all of upper management's salaries and profit sharing.
I didn't vomit, but I did take one look at the spreadsheet and tell him to go to hell. Well, that's what *he* thought I said. I'd actually said "Okay, go to 'help.'" Still, whatever works.
I've had to point my side mirror at the ground because the guy tailgating me is hugging the centre line instead of driving in the middle of the lane. His headlight reflecting off the mirror and staring me in the face.
I've had people do that on long trips... easing all the way left, then all the way right, and they track right along with you. Easing over onto the rumble strips generally differentiates the "Whoops, I was following their taillights instead of watching the road" folks from the "Ha ha, I can shine my headlights in their face" folks. In the latter case, I just slow down until they give up and pass and go play with somebody else. And let 'em sweat about whether I'm going to return the favor.
You made $100 an hour at your first job??! Wow, I must seriously be in the wrong line of work!
Not only that, those were early-1980's dollars.
Of course, the subtle bit you overlooked was that it was my employer that made that money. It's been a really long time, but I think I started at $14,500/year (obOnTopic: salaried, so no overtime pay, but I didn't have to work much overtime, and got comp time when I did, with which I was perfectly happy).
I didn't find out what my employer was billing me at until after I quit, though, or I might have quit sooner. Of course, we had a lot of non-billable hours, so it wasn't quite as outrageous as it could have been.
Boss: "I appreciate your work ethic, but the law says you have to take a break."
My very first job involved some contracting for the local electric company. I was working on the computer when the gals in the office I was in came to me and said "It's break time." I said thanks, but I was salaried. No, they insisted, they *had* to go on break, and exactly when they were scheduled to (union rules), and they couldn't leave a contractor unattended at the computers (company policy).
So I went and took a fifteen-minute break with them, for which they got billed at $100/hour.
Ah, if we're going to get into "silly holiday stories," I've got one. Local grocery store chain is open 24/7, 364 days a year. They close Christmas Eve at 6, and reopen at noon or something like that. When WalMart moved into town and started leaving one store open even on Christmas, so did this chain.
So someone had to do some grocery shopping, and went to the local grocery store. A few other people showed up. But when they went to check out, they couldn't find an employee... and ended up calling the police to try to track down a manager, because eventually they realized that this *wasn't* the store that was open. But because it (generally) never closed, nobody actually locked the doors...
("I thought *you* locked the doors." "I don't even have a key... I figured *you* did.")
I don't shop at walmart either because of all the other people that do. Parking lots are like a warzone and the checkout lines aren't much better.
I hit WalMart maybe once a year before my son was born, for exactly this reason. Why fight the crowds?
After I became a SAHM, though, I discovered it was a whole 'nother place on Monday morning, and the cheapest place in town to buy diapers, *and* I could pick up pretty much everything I needed there (99% of which was stuff I never considered owning until I became a parent, of course) with one stop, which is a major deal when you're having to get an infant carrier in and out of the car, etc.
Then Albertson's pulled out, so now I'm at the Super WalMart twice a week (but never evenings and weekends) grocery shopping, because the only alternative is a Kroger-owned chain with loyalty cards. Bah. (And I hear Albertson's has implemented the cards, too, but back when they were here in Kansas they were pimping "Low prices without the card!" Heh.)
Privoxy does this, and it's pretty handy. As a webmaster, I hate it (seeing how users navigate around helps me improve the site), but as a user, I like hiding my referer [sic], because I know as a webmaster I point and laugh at the wacky search terms people use.
Here, lemme demonstrate... in the past 24 hours, I've gotten hits from "why I like cooking", "how do i get interested in stuff", and "how do you spell fiance". (Yeah, ask.com always gets the best Stupid User Queries. I should go see if they run a ticker like Google does (used to?))
I'd agree, though, but for different reasons than the grandposter. I'd have to add "... because I'd rather see them take something that's not so much of a challenge to adapt, rather than ruin something I value more."
Slashdot Mirror
For the telemarketers, you can pick up a Telezapper for about $20 at Best Buy or a similar store.
They're in the discount bin at the local Office Depot (or is that Max? Whichever). Evidently the DNC list undercut the demand.
Inneresting. The CG increased the safety requirements on DUKWs after the Arkansas incident (there was at least one more, but not with as spectacular a bodycount... Ottawa?) but stopped short of requiring the NTSB-recommended changes (which amounted to "make them unsinkable even when they fill with water," apparently). Guess what it came down to was "Yeah, if you REALLY want to operate the things, you can... just don't take anybody down with you when you go, okay?"
I've seen them down in Mo/Ark (Table Rock area, IIRC) and I have to say, I just can't imagine getting on one of those beasties. They just scream "This thing should *not* float." In fact, a lot of people were rather confused about what they did, and assumed they just drove around on the bottom of the lake or something ("But how do they seal it up when it goes underwater?" "Uhhhh...")
Of course, I think they had (back when I saw them, anyway, which was before the Hot Springs incident) the big canopies that were part of the problem down there, which contributes to their unseaworthy appearance (and, apparently, their unseaworthiness... well, unlakeworthiness).
Actually, looks like they're shut down in Tampa now. "Insurance issues," probably a result of so many of 'em sinking (in at least two cases, with fatalities).
I notice this outfit is trying to distance itself from the DUKW problems... although it kind of amuses me that they advertise that their LARCs have "much heavier construction"... er, isn't that exactly the PROBLEM?
Sorry to be nasty, but your "report back when you've got some of your own" is just arrogant. How do you know I'm not Mormon and already have a dozen children?
Merely flippant, but not (intentionally, anyway) arrogant. How do you know your parents wouldn't say "Well, there *were* some times they would have come in handy, but it wasn't worth the trouble to actually buy them." (Or, perhaps, "but there are so many people who abuse them that I don't want to encourage that." My feelings are a mix of those.)
I'm not saying they're necessary, by any means. I'm just saying that there are times they're quite helpful and make a great deal of sense, in contrast to you and some other posters who seem to equate leashing with bad parenting. I'm just saying that's not *always* the case.
Excuse me, but my parents raised three kids sans leashes, and NEVER ONCE had a problem.
Heh. Hearsay is inadmissible in court... report back when you've got your own.
How about parents just pay attention to their kids?
Oh, trust me, leashes don't eliminate the need for that. I still pay attention to mine even when I've got a mommy-hand manacle clamped around his wrist. Leash and a straitjacket, *maybe*, but I wouldn't count on it with some kids...
In any event,"paying attention" isn't the problem. Like I said, a toddler can move faster through a crowd than a grownup, or duck through a store display a grownup has to go around. You can be paying close attention to them, but if they're not old enough to respond reliably to verbal commands, it doesn't always help. It may only mean you get to *see* them getting hit by the car, instead of just hearing it.
Certainly you don't want to leash a kid all the time, but there *are* plenty of times when it's appropriate to have a permanent physical attachment to a child... mine's tall enough now that I can hold his hand long-term when we're in that sort of situation, but if I had more than one child to keep track of, that might not be practical.
I still don't like the look of them, and they *are* often used as a substitute for parental attention, or for kids who *should* be old enough to have learned self-control (this last point is, I think, the most often abused... if the kid's on a leash whenever it's handy, versus only when it's necessary, he never learns). But I do, now that I've been there myself, appreciate that sometimes they're the most reasonable compromise.
the six-year-old toddler
Six-year-olds are toddlers?
We should have taken out a patent!
Errm, you might have a bit of a prior art problem. Child leashes were available back in the 60's, and perhaps before.
If you're scared that he might be kidnapped, just teach him to cry in the loudest way possible, it's very easy.
You've never been the parent of a toddler, huh?
I've never put mine on a leash, but I can think of some situations in which it would have been the best, safest thing to do. Some times and places you get tired of carrying him, but it's too crowded to put him down (trust me, a two- or three-year-old can move through a dense crowd a *lot* faster than a grownup can), and he's not tall enough to make holding hands workable unless you enjoy walking like Quasimodo, and strollers are just intolerably rude in a crowd. A leash, held short enough not to tangle up with other people, is sometimes the most practical option there is.
That said, I don't get the people who put 6-year-olds on leashes. *That* just looks wrong. A toddler doesn't have the impulse control to keep from running off after things and forgetting your instructions, but an older kid really ought to be able to.
Kind of like the reason anti-persiprant deodorants are bing phased out in some places - they've been lined to breast cancer.
And Bill Gates is going to send me $25 if I forward this email, too. Uh huh.
Read what the American Cancer Society has to say on that subject.
Eminem ... Enya.
Hmm. Maybe.
Friend of mine says his wife gripes at him because he's got audiobooks in their mp3 player. *That* might trump everything, depending on the book.
Sure, there are times when I'll dump my entire music collection into the playlist, but there are other times when I really don't want, say, Sisters of Mercy to be followed directly by Tom Lehrer.
That's nothing. Imagine Joe Satriani followed directly by Wee Sing.
(Actually, I think the other way around would be slightly more traumatic, but still.)
punitive?
Statutory, I think.
If it makes you feel any better, though your copyright doesn't go poof, your ability to get certain sorts of damages (the name of which escaped me shortly after I took that allergy medicine earlier this afternoon, though I didn't notice until just now) does go poof if you let other violations slide. I think those sorts of damages are restricted to registered copyrights anyway, too.
You mean, no other crime, I assume. Violating a posted speed limit is a crime in and of itself.
The word you're looking for is "infraction." If you think it's a crime, try asking for a jury of your peers when you appeal a speeding ticket.
Note that Y > X by such a significant amount that if the X payees knew the Y number, they would likely vomit and then quit their jobs
Okay, everybody raise your hand if you've known the salaries of all your higherups at every job you've ever worked.
Yep, me too. Even when payroll was handled offsite, I had the XVP call me into his office for help with a spreadsheet formula. The spreadsheet was all of upper management's salaries and profit sharing.
I didn't vomit, but I did take one look at the spreadsheet and tell him to go to hell. Well, that's what *he* thought I said. I'd actually said "Okay, go to 'help.'" Still, whatever works.
I've had to point my side mirror at the ground because the guy tailgating me is hugging the centre line instead of driving in the middle of the lane. His headlight reflecting off the mirror and staring me in the face.
I've had people do that on long trips... easing all the way left, then all the way right, and they track right along with you. Easing over onto the rumble strips generally differentiates the "Whoops, I was following their taillights instead of watching the road" folks from the "Ha ha, I can shine my headlights in their face" folks. In the latter case, I just slow down until they give up and pass and go play with somebody else. And let 'em sweat about whether I'm going to return the favor.
You made $100 an hour at your first job??! Wow, I must seriously be in the wrong line of work!
Not only that, those were early-1980's dollars.
Of course, the subtle bit you overlooked was that it was my employer that made that money. It's been a really long time, but I think I started at $14,500/year (obOnTopic: salaried, so no overtime pay, but I didn't have to work much overtime, and got comp time when I did, with which I was perfectly happy).
I didn't find out what my employer was billing me at until after I quit, though, or I might have quit sooner. Of course, we had a lot of non-billable hours, so it wasn't quite as outrageous as it could have been.
Boss: "I appreciate your work ethic, but the law says you have to take a break."
My very first job involved some contracting for the local electric company. I was working on the computer when the gals in the office I was in came to me and said "It's break time." I said thanks, but I was salaried. No, they insisted, they *had* to go on break, and exactly when they were scheduled to (union rules), and they couldn't leave a contractor unattended at the computers (company policy).
So I went and took a fifteen-minute break with them, for which they got billed at $100/hour.
Ah, if we're going to get into "silly holiday stories," I've got one. Local grocery store chain is open 24/7, 364 days a year. They close Christmas Eve at 6, and reopen at noon or something like that. When WalMart moved into town and started leaving one store open even on Christmas, so did this chain.
So someone had to do some grocery shopping, and went to the local grocery store. A few other people showed up. But when they went to check out, they couldn't find an employee... and ended up calling the police to try to track down a manager, because eventually they realized that this *wasn't* the store that was open. But because it (generally) never closed, nobody actually locked the doors...
("I thought *you* locked the doors." "I don't even have a key... I figured *you* did.")
RFID chips in dental work
I had a filling put in the other day. As my dentist started to put it in, he nonchalantly said "And now, we install the RFID tracking chip..."
Hey, at least he was up front about it.
skewered: obliquely presented; distorted ranking.
Not unless it's a slang usage I was previously unaware of. As Google would say: "Did you mean skewed?"
skewered
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
(Either that, or it means something I don't think it means.)
I don't shop at walmart either because of all the other people that do. Parking lots are like a warzone and the checkout lines aren't much better.
I hit WalMart maybe once a year before my son was born, for exactly this reason. Why fight the crowds?
After I became a SAHM, though, I discovered it was a whole 'nother place on Monday morning, and the cheapest place in town to buy diapers, *and* I could pick up pretty much everything I needed there (99% of which was stuff I never considered owning until I became a parent, of course) with one stop, which is a major deal when you're having to get an infant carrier in and out of the car, etc.
Then Albertson's pulled out, so now I'm at the Super WalMart twice a week (but never evenings and weekends) grocery shopping, because the only alternative is a Kroger-owned chain with loyalty cards. Bah. (And I hear Albertson's has implemented the cards, too, but back when they were here in Kansas they were pimping "Low prices without the card!" Heh.)
you know what would be a great plugin for mozila.
Privoxy does this, and it's pretty handy. As a webmaster, I hate it (seeing how users navigate around helps me improve the site), but as a user, I like hiding my referer [sic], because I know as a webmaster I point and laugh at the wacky search terms people use.
Here, lemme demonstrate... in the past 24 hours, I've gotten hits from "why I like cooking", "how do i get interested in stuff", and "how do you spell fiance". (Yeah, ask.com always gets the best Stupid User Queries. I should go see if they run a ticker like Google does (used to?))
he was told by friends and family
I'm not buying it. You just *know* he was egosurfing.
What a bizarre non-sequitur.
I'd agree, though, but for different reasons than the grandposter. I'd have to add "... because I'd rather see them take something that's not so much of a challenge to adapt, rather than ruin something I value more."