You can put the natural gas directly in the car to solve that issue.
Unfortunately CNG cars never really caught on, about the only places you can fuel them are airports and government facilities (and perhaps your own house if you make the needed modifications to your gas lines assuming they are affordable and legal in your area).
"You're welcome" can come across as slightly arrogant. As in, "you are right to show gratitude for the generosity I have shown". Conversely, "no problem" and "no worries" can be interpreted as "no need to thank me, any reasonable person would have done the same" and conveys humility.
I suspect I'm not the only one who feels some variant of this, whether it is conscious or not. probably due to people of the previous generations using "you're welcome" pointedly when people forget to say thank you.
That's quite interesting, though the anchor did not reveal anything I did not already suspect. With RT you know what you get - news with an extra helping of bias, just like everyone else. It's actually easier to see through RT's because the bias is focused on Russian interests, but everyone does it. Fox's is deeply conservative, CNN's is deeply liberal, and BBC is close to neutral but still very western-slanted. The best approach is to read / watch news from different sources and form opinions then, especially while keeping in mind the biases of each one. For internet news I cycle through CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, BBC, the Sydney Morning Herald, the Straits Times, Asahi Shimbun, and yes RT.
My complaint is the way the original article threw "Kremlin backed" out there, as if that were unusual. BBC is backed by the British and Al Jazeera is backed by Qatar. Yet the same people who decry RT espouse these two as bastions of truth. While I do trust BBC more than the average US-based news site and certainly over RT and Al J, I recognize that is an opinion shaped by being Western rather than some magical knowledge. Both sides of US media bought the "we have proof Saddam has WMDs!!" rhetoric hook line and sinker for years. Either they suck at their job or pressure was put on to avoid digging into that.
I just told you they are NOT expensive on Sprint, since mid 2015 or so it is no additional charge. I've used it in four different countries in SE Asia and Oceania. Proof: Sprint Global Roaming. If you're going to "correct" me please do some research first.
Actually Sprint is great if you do travel internationally. They have unlimited global data (though only 3G speeds outside US/Canada) and texting at no additional charge. There's also some sort of $5/month pro-ratable plan that upgrades you to unlimited full speed data/talk/text in some countries, if you ask for it they'll automatically add/take it off during your stay. It ended up being their saving grace for me because their in-store customer service is abysmal.
There were some winners and some losers for that. For about two years, I had the same discount applied twice by accident (came out to about 34% off). When some audit system finally caught it, I got a form letter apologizing profusely for the 2 years of billing errors "I had to endure". It's true, the extra cash in my wallet was little heavy to carry...
Perhaps if the locks are constantly getting hit with the lock command, the knob can't be turned?
Smashing the thing and disconnecting the battery would let you out in that case (the batteries are typically stored on the inside part of the unit, otherwise it's a pretty shitty lock).
SSRIs don't turn you into some kind of psychopath that doesn't give a shit. That sounds like something straight out of "reefer madness".... Please don't perpetuate bullshit about SSRIs that may prevent even more people from being helped by them. They may not work for everyone, but the picture you have painted here about both kinds of drugs is completely absurd.
I didn't say that. People still care about things (work, friends, their own self being). FTR l've found them quite helpful for OCD at a low dose. But I've heard from a few people who take higher dosages that intense feelings of love for their children or s/o simply disappear over time (yes I know plural of anecdote is not data, but you can find internet corroboration). To say they are devoid of side effects that some find undesirable is a bit disingenuous. An artist friend of mine stopped because she thought it changed her brain such that she was a different person - except that is kindof the point of taking them. OCD me is an environmental activist/SJW who freaks out every time his roommate puts recyclables in the regular trash, and triple checks to make sure doors are locked. SSRI me gives 0 fucks.
And yes I know regular usage of benzos is bad - that is why I was advocating it as the "spot" solution not the "pop one every morning" solution. Any drug that has fast acting psychoactive effects can be abused. But for some people who only have depression cycles once or twice a month, a spot fix is all that is needed (not to mention requires less pills, so cheaper).
Except the best one (Diazepam aka Valium) is super controlled. You cease to give a shit about anything bad, and enjoy anything good, for quite a few hours. It's a spot solution that can turn a mood around that doesn't require regular dosage. The ones they like to prescribe instead (SSRIs) require regular dosage, have intense withdrawl symptoms, and at higher doses have a troubling mental side effect: you no longer 'love' anyone or anything, and even those who notice this will find they are not troubled by it.
Fair enough. I acknowlege that as a possibility, albeit an unlikely one. Currently through luck more than anything else, the nuclear-armed nations are large enough and have enough high elevation land to be able to help their own people resettle within their borders. Some might even have their populations benefit from climate change (deserts becoming less desert) at the expense of the current non-human ecosystem. In that sense I would say Donald Trump's election is dangerous - he wants to give places surrounded by water (Japan, S. Korea) nukes.
There's only 9 million in New York city, using the state population for hyperbole doesn't really help your case. In any event, the rest of the state (except Long Island, sorry guys) has tens of thousands of acres of quality land far above sea level. Much of it is currently being held by rednecks who *already* have been selling their parcels to developers building high end housing for people moving out of the city. Given the right storm, the situation would only be about 100x worse than New Orleans after Katrina. A disaster? Of course! Doomsday? Hardly not! The economy will take a dive for a little while, I'll get some new neighbours at 200' above sea level, but most importantly life goes on. Which it would not in the event of global nuclear war.
Calling me foolish? If you are seriously telling me that sea levels rising 6 inches a year is even in the same universe of terrifying as the world becoming uninhabitable within an hour, I think you'd best look in the mirror. Your low UID is implying to me that you've gone senile.
I will humour you to and pretend that you are capable of rudimentary thought. When water gets higher, you move inland. If there is no more inland to move to, sucks for you. But there's plenty of people who have further inland to move to, and plenty of people who are already inland. Like China, Europe, USA, Canada, Australia. Eventually landlocked countries will get some coastline. Essentially, those too stupid or poor to be able to escape slow but steady climate change will die off, likely at the hands of the military of more fortunate countries, while the majority of humanity continues on.
Yes but this clock is either representing "global" annihilation or "American" annihilation depending on how you look at it. If "American" you've already made my argument for me (people and resources can move). So global: if an arbitrary 20% of the countries in the world literally disappeared under the ocean tomorrow, unless one of those was China, "most" of the world is still fine and the event would not be called "doomsday". When it was concerned with just nuclear war, it was a measure of actual doomsday, as in more than half the planet becoming uninhabitable in less than an hour.
I cannot comprehend what goes on in people's minds, that they are more concerned about nuclear war (of all things) in this climate than they would have been with Hillary (who was openly hostile towards Russia). The decision to first strike with a nuke isn't ever going to be a knee-jerk reaction, so the cavalier statements Trump has said aren't any more dangerous than the loudmouth at the bar shouting "turn the middle east to glass!" However, continuing to poke the bear as Hillary would have done would have a greater chance at us being the target of said first strike. And then we retaliate, and then goodbye Northern Hemisphere.
They moved it forward several minutes when Reagan got elected to. In reality, not only did he not start a nuclear war but he ultimately ushered in the age of Perestroika [wikipedia.org] and an end to the Cold War.
If this is how things go for the next 8 years, then the biggest disaster we'll need to worry about is a shortage of crow to eat in blue states...
Nature is always around, it may be 1/4 mile walk involving a sketchy overpass over a highway, but once there it's green fields or lakes as far as the eye can see (well, until you reach the wall of trees separating the park from the highway). Thank Robert Moses for that I suppose.
As for kids going places without adult supervision, fortunately in NYC it is impossible to prevent. 1. When applying to high schools*, pick ones located more than 2 miles from home and on a subway line. Private or public does not matter for this purpose. 2. Day 1 of high school, get issued 3 ride + 3 transfers / day Metrocard. That is your school bus. 3. Ride #1 gets you to school, ride #2 takes you from school to somewhere fun, and ride #3 takes you back home.
*If you're lucky and end up in a middle school outside your school district, you can get one of these cards even earlier.
I'll take a third choice: instead of a social safety net (or even raising the minimum wage), spend that money on low-skill government jobs that no one is doing, with no cap on hires. Pay the $15 minimum. Cleaning litter, landscaping highway medians, cleaning train stations and trains. Oh wait, never going to happen, for two reasons: The right: that's expansion of government! They're taking more of our tax money! The left: If they don't want to do those jobs they shouldn't have to just to live!
Never mind the benefit of overall wage / working condition improvements to all jobs across the board. The power of "My crappy office job is so terrible that pulling weeds along the highway for $15/hour and benefits is appealing, and I can get that job tomorrow" would set standards naturally without needing legislation.
So why not "outsource" to somewhere cheaper in the center of the country. Just pick a breadbasket state and go for it. The map here is a good reference: How Much $100 is really worth in every state. Think of it like playing with exchange rates, but domestically.
If that is true, thank God for private school (in some cases literally, as many are run by religious institutions). The people who espouse homeschooling are sounding less crazy every year.
City life is perfectly fine for raising kids, as long as the city itself is safe. That requires a significantly increased police presence with tougher enforcement, and reversing the "homeless friendly" attitude which has made SF their mecca. These are both actions which the current residents would never support. Since the current residents do not support the actions needed to make the city safe for kids, it can be assumed that they do not want kids.
This is too bad because growing up in a safe city is far better than suburban life. Kids gain travel freedom equivalent to their parents the moment they get a transit pass (no getting rides logistics to worry about). Hell one Saturday while I was in middle school I planned and took a solo day trip to Philadelphia from NYC, successfully finding all the tourist spots. In high school, my friend and I visited all the northeast colleges we were thinking of going to by ourselves.
And meanwhile in Japan, kids as young as 8 are riding the Tokyo subways and commuter trains by themselves, and (more importantly) not pissing off the other passengers while doing so.
If fired your only responsibility is to forget every last thing about that job, immediately. If there is no human redundancy already (there should always be multiple people capable of doing the same tasks) they deserve exactly what they got, which so far seems to be a half million dollars in losses. The employee "got hit by a bus" or "won the lottery" protections also work for firings. They clearly were unprepared for any of those scenarios.
Handles suspended from above? You must have found the deluxe room. Even the one at the airport requires careful balance.
Urban Japanese must be just as put off by the squat toilets as we are, as evidenced by my finding bathrooms with only western style toilets in many office buildings and train stations (even outside the touristy areas).
The Japanese take daily baths/showers as well (and also a ritual where you wash before entering a public bath or hot spring), so I think there's more to it than shower culture.
As for "without agitation" the force these things use is insane - obligatory car analogy: Compare to washing your car. If you use a garden hose you need a sponge and soap. But, after a major rainstorm, every car on the block glistens after experiencing nothing but the sheer force of water. This is a rainstorm directed squarely onto your bunghole. And there is TP available, so you have both methods of cleaning at your "disposal" for maximum effectiveness (truthfully you should use the TP anyway just to dry off faster).
Thank you for a reasonable explanation, rather than the typical "omfg you're all transphobic nazis!!!" responses that seem to pop up in response to the (rather common) dismissal of the concept of "gender identity".
In Snowden's case he wasn't even in a state when he released the documents. In trying to research whether a crime committed in a federal building could be prosecuted at the state level (for the taking of the documents in the first place), I essentially came to the conclusion of "it depends on the property". Meaning if the government simply owns the land in the same manner as a regular private entity would, or it is of "concurrent legislative jurisdiction", the state and city still have law enforcement responsibility. But if it owns the land via "exclusive legislative jurisdiction" you're effectively not in a state while on the property. If you break the equivalent of a state law while in such a location, the feds can "assimilate" the appropriate state law and prosecute it as a federal crime.
Slashdot Mirror
You can put the natural gas directly in the car to solve that issue.
Unfortunately CNG cars never really caught on, about the only places you can fuel them are airports and government facilities (and perhaps your own house if you make the needed modifications to your gas lines assuming they are affordable and legal in your area).
"You're welcome" can come across as slightly arrogant. As in, "you are right to show gratitude for the generosity I have shown". Conversely, "no problem" and "no worries" can be interpreted as "no need to thank me, any reasonable person would have done the same" and conveys humility.
I suspect I'm not the only one who feels some variant of this, whether it is conscious or not. probably due to people of the previous generations using "you're welcome" pointedly when people forget to say thank you.
That's quite interesting, though the anchor did not reveal anything I did not already suspect. With RT you know what you get - news with an extra helping of bias, just like everyone else. It's actually easier to see through RT's because the bias is focused on Russian interests, but everyone does it. Fox's is deeply conservative, CNN's is deeply liberal, and BBC is close to neutral but still very western-slanted. The best approach is to read / watch news from different sources and form opinions then, especially while keeping in mind the biases of each one. For internet news I cycle through CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, BBC, the Sydney Morning Herald, the Straits Times, Asahi Shimbun, and yes RT.
My complaint is the way the original article threw "Kremlin backed" out there, as if that were unusual. BBC is backed by the British and Al Jazeera is backed by Qatar. Yet the same people who decry RT espouse these two as bastions of truth. While I do trust BBC more than the average US-based news site and certainly over RT and Al J, I recognize that is an opinion shaped by being Western rather than some magical knowledge. Both sides of US media bought the "we have proof Saddam has WMDs!!" rhetoric hook line and sinker for years. Either they suck at their job or pressure was put on to avoid digging into that.
I just told you they are NOT expensive on Sprint, since mid 2015 or so it is no additional charge. I've used it in four different countries in SE Asia and Oceania. Proof: Sprint Global Roaming. If you're going to "correct" me please do some research first.
Actually Sprint is great if you do travel internationally. They have unlimited global data (though only 3G speeds outside US/Canada) and texting at no additional charge. There's also some sort of $5/month pro-ratable plan that upgrades you to unlimited full speed data/talk/text in some countries, if you ask for it they'll automatically add/take it off during your stay. It ended up being their saving grace for me because their in-store customer service is abysmal.
There were some winners and some losers for that. For about two years, I had the same discount applied twice by accident (came out to about 34% off). When some audit system finally caught it, I got a form letter apologizing profusely for the 2 years of billing errors "I had to endure". It's true, the extra cash in my wallet was little heavy to carry...
Perhaps if the locks are constantly getting hit with the lock command, the knob can't be turned?
Smashing the thing and disconnecting the battery would let you out in that case (the batteries are typically stored on the inside part of the unit, otherwise it's a pretty shitty lock).
SSRIs don't turn you into some kind of psychopath that doesn't give a shit. That sounds like something straight out of "reefer madness".... Please don't perpetuate bullshit about SSRIs that may prevent even more people from being helped by them. They may not work for everyone, but the picture you have painted here about both kinds of drugs is completely absurd.
I didn't say that. People still care about things (work, friends, their own self being). FTR l've found them quite helpful for OCD at a low dose. But I've heard from a few people who take higher dosages that intense feelings of love for their children or s/o simply disappear over time (yes I know plural of anecdote is not data, but you can find internet corroboration). To say they are devoid of side effects that some find undesirable is a bit disingenuous. An artist friend of mine stopped because she thought it changed her brain such that she was a different person - except that is kindof the point of taking them. OCD me is an environmental activist/SJW who freaks out every time his roommate puts recyclables in the regular trash, and triple checks to make sure doors are locked. SSRI me gives 0 fucks.
And yes I know regular usage of benzos is bad - that is why I was advocating it as the "spot" solution not the "pop one every morning" solution. Any drug that has fast acting psychoactive effects can be abused. But for some people who only have depression cycles once or twice a month, a spot fix is all that is needed (not to mention requires less pills, so cheaper).
Except the best one (Diazepam aka Valium) is super controlled. You cease to give a shit about anything bad, and enjoy anything good, for quite a few hours. It's a spot solution that can turn a mood around that doesn't require regular dosage. The ones they like to prescribe instead (SSRIs) require regular dosage, have intense withdrawl symptoms, and at higher doses have a troubling mental side effect: you no longer 'love' anyone or anything, and even those who notice this will find they are not troubled by it.
Fair enough. I acknowlege that as a possibility, albeit an unlikely one. Currently through luck more than anything else, the nuclear-armed nations are large enough and have enough high elevation land to be able to help their own people resettle within their borders. Some might even have their populations benefit from climate change (deserts becoming less desert) at the expense of the current non-human ecosystem. In that sense I would say Donald Trump's election is dangerous - he wants to give places surrounded by water (Japan, S. Korea) nukes.
There's only 9 million in New York city, using the state population for hyperbole doesn't really help your case. In any event, the rest of the state (except Long Island, sorry guys) has tens of thousands of acres of quality land far above sea level. Much of it is currently being held by rednecks who *already* have been selling their parcels to developers building high end housing for people moving out of the city. Given the right storm, the situation would only be about 100x worse than New Orleans after Katrina. A disaster? Of course! Doomsday? Hardly not! The economy will take a dive for a little while, I'll get some new neighbours at 200' above sea level, but most importantly life goes on. Which it would not in the event of global nuclear war.
Calling me foolish? If you are seriously telling me that sea levels rising 6 inches a year is even in the same universe of terrifying as the world becoming uninhabitable within an hour, I think you'd best look in the mirror. Your low UID is implying to me that you've gone senile.
I will humour you to and pretend that you are capable of rudimentary thought. When water gets higher, you move inland. If there is no more inland to move to, sucks for you. But there's plenty of people who have further inland to move to, and plenty of people who are already inland. Like China, Europe, USA, Canada, Australia. Eventually landlocked countries will get some coastline. Essentially, those too stupid or poor to be able to escape slow but steady climate change will die off, likely at the hands of the military of more fortunate countries, while the majority of humanity continues on.
Yes but this clock is either representing "global" annihilation or "American" annihilation depending on how you look at it. If "American" you've already made my argument for me (people and resources can move). So global: if an arbitrary 20% of the countries in the world literally disappeared under the ocean tomorrow, unless one of those was China, "most" of the world is still fine and the event would not be called "doomsday". When it was concerned with just nuclear war, it was a measure of actual doomsday, as in more than half the planet becoming uninhabitable in less than an hour.
I cannot comprehend what goes on in people's minds, that they are more concerned about nuclear war (of all things) in this climate than they would have been with Hillary (who was openly hostile towards Russia). The decision to first strike with a nuke isn't ever going to be a knee-jerk reaction, so the cavalier statements Trump has said aren't any more dangerous than the loudmouth at the bar shouting "turn the middle east to glass!" However, continuing to poke the bear as Hillary would have done would have a greater chance at us being the target of said first strike. And then we retaliate, and then goodbye Northern Hemisphere.
They moved it forward several minutes when Reagan got elected to. In reality, not only did he not start a nuclear war but he ultimately ushered in the age of Perestroika [wikipedia.org] and an end to the Cold War.
If this is how things go for the next 8 years, then the biggest disaster we'll need to worry about is a shortage of crow to eat in blue states...
Nature is always around, it may be 1/4 mile walk involving a sketchy overpass over a highway, but once there it's green fields or lakes as far as the eye can see (well, until you reach the wall of trees separating the park from the highway). Thank Robert Moses for that I suppose.
As for kids going places without adult supervision, fortunately in NYC it is impossible to prevent.
1. When applying to high schools*, pick ones located more than 2 miles from home and on a subway line. Private or public does not matter for this purpose.
2. Day 1 of high school, get issued 3 ride + 3 transfers / day Metrocard. That is your school bus.
3. Ride #1 gets you to school, ride #2 takes you from school to somewhere fun, and ride #3 takes you back home.
*If you're lucky and end up in a middle school outside your school district, you can get one of these cards even earlier.
I'll take a third choice: instead of a social safety net (or even raising the minimum wage), spend that money on low-skill government jobs that no one is doing, with no cap on hires. Pay the $15 minimum. Cleaning litter, landscaping highway medians, cleaning train stations and trains. Oh wait, never going to happen, for two reasons:
The right: that's expansion of government! They're taking more of our tax money!
The left: If they don't want to do those jobs they shouldn't have to just to live!
Never mind the benefit of overall wage / working condition improvements to all jobs across the board. The power of "My crappy office job is so terrible that pulling weeds along the highway for $15/hour and benefits is appealing, and I can get that job tomorrow" would set standards naturally without needing legislation.
So why not "outsource" to somewhere cheaper in the center of the country. Just pick a breadbasket state and go for it. The map here is a good reference: How Much $100 is really worth in every state. Think of it like playing with exchange rates, but domestically.
If that is true, thank God for private school (in some cases literally, as many are run by religious institutions). The people who espouse homeschooling are sounding less crazy every year.
City life is perfectly fine for raising kids, as long as the city itself is safe. That requires a significantly increased police presence with tougher enforcement, and reversing the "homeless friendly" attitude which has made SF their mecca. These are both actions which the current residents would never support. Since the current residents do not support the actions needed to make the city safe for kids, it can be assumed that they do not want kids.
This is too bad because growing up in a safe city is far better than suburban life. Kids gain travel freedom equivalent to their parents the moment they get a transit pass (no getting rides logistics to worry about). Hell one Saturday while I was in middle school I planned and took a solo day trip to Philadelphia from NYC, successfully finding all the tourist spots. In high school, my friend and I visited all the northeast colleges we were thinking of going to by ourselves.
And meanwhile in Japan, kids as young as 8 are riding the Tokyo subways and commuter trains by themselves, and (more importantly) not pissing off the other passengers while doing so.
If fired your only responsibility is to forget every last thing about that job, immediately. If there is no human redundancy already (there should always be multiple people capable of doing the same tasks) they deserve exactly what they got, which so far seems to be a half million dollars in losses. The employee "got hit by a bus" or "won the lottery" protections also work for firings. They clearly were unprepared for any of those scenarios.
Handles suspended from above? You must have found the deluxe room. Even the one at the airport requires careful balance.
Urban Japanese must be just as put off by the squat toilets as we are, as evidenced by my finding bathrooms with only western style toilets in many office buildings and train stations (even outside the touristy areas).
The Japanese take daily baths/showers as well (and also a ritual where you wash before entering a public bath or hot spring), so I think there's more to it than shower culture.
As for "without agitation" the force these things use is insane - obligatory car analogy: Compare to washing your car. If you use a garden hose you need a sponge and soap. But, after a major rainstorm, every car on the block glistens after experiencing nothing but the sheer force of water. This is a rainstorm directed squarely onto your bunghole. And there is TP available, so you have both methods of cleaning at your "disposal" for maximum effectiveness (truthfully you should use the TP anyway just to dry off faster).
Thank you for a reasonable explanation, rather than the typical "omfg you're all transphobic nazis!!!" responses that seem to pop up in response to the (rather common) dismissal of the concept of "gender identity".
In Snowden's case he wasn't even in a state when he released the documents. In trying to research whether a crime committed in a federal building could be prosecuted at the state level (for the taking of the documents in the first place), I essentially came to the conclusion of "it depends on the property". Meaning if the government simply owns the land in the same manner as a regular private entity would, or it is of "concurrent legislative jurisdiction", the state and city still have law enforcement responsibility. But if it owns the land via "exclusive legislative jurisdiction" you're effectively not in a state while on the property. If you break the equivalent of a state law while in such a location, the feds can "assimilate" the appropriate state law and prosecute it as a federal crime.