Whether you voted for the guy or not, he's our commander in chief for another 4 years so there is no alternative but to stand by him...
That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. If the guy's no good at his job, you tell him that. If he doesn't listen, you say it louder. He's not an algorithm, he's a guy, and if enough people are pissed at him, he might change. That said, if the people who are pissed at him are also mostly jerks, which is the current case, it'll have the opposite effect.
I'd rather have a president that is overreacting than one who is doing nothing so as to avoid labels like fascist.
Which sounds not that bad in the general case, but when you're dealing with a threat that kills about the same number of people as falling coconuts, it's just plain crazy.
All he said is that a majority voted for him. A majority is, by defition, larger than half. What part of that description doesn't 51 or 52 doesn't fit?
The part where a majority of Americans either voted Kerry or stayed home and watched E! that night.
But you need to science-up the description, there. This sort of thing leads to those "NASA spent millions on device that tells which picture a person is looking at by scanning their brain, Russia looked over their shoulder," space-pen jokes.
you'll find so many shows dedicated to doctors (ER, grey's acadamy, chicago hope) lawyers (law and order: special victims unit, criminal intent, trial by jury) and cops (CSI miami, ny). you never hear anyone even mention engineers in movies or tv series.
You're right. And it would be so easy. The three-episode arc on tracking down an elusive double-free()d pointer practically writes itself.
Yeah. I was just answering "when is it no longer okay to kill a baby." Legislatively, you have to go with what is practical and won't cause riots, so you walk around a mall with some pictures and do some polling and pick the date where the vast majority of people see a kid as the upper bound. That will probably be before the end of the second trimester anyway, so current law is probably fine. And you tell people that claim to have magic knowledge of "when life begins" to go screw themselves.
Ideally. Obviously, in practice, those screwing themselves have most of the votes.
Idiots like you who don't give a damn about the issue as long as you can call your opposition names, on both sides, are the biggest problem with US politics.
It's perfectly possible for someone to oppose abortion and support the death penalty, although I'm not sure how it would fit into the Christian ethic espoused by Republicans of late in the US.
That's the nice thing about the Bible. It's really long, and it has plenty of time to take both sides of every issue.
I am troubled by abortion rights -- even in the absence of religious motivation -- because I can't answer the question, "When is it no longer OK to kill a baby?"
Let me know if you get a better answer, but for now I find it works out pretty well to use this one: if you have sympathy for it, don't kill it. Look at a picture of what your baby looks like at its current age, and if you see a baby, let it live. If you see a fish, and you really want it gone, get rid of it. Short of The Big Guy coming down and explaining it, I doubt you'll ever get a better answer than that.
A) If you give creationism equal time with evolution, you're going to have to either add a whole lot of unnecessary adjectives to the description of creationism or find a way to fit evolution into the same time it takes to say, "Or God did it."
B) If you're giving them equal time based on the fact that neither can be proven or disproven, then I'm going to have to insist it be 33/33/33 with The Flying Spaghetti Monster.
I'm actually doing okay, you shit. Maybe if you relaxed for five seconds, you could get in on some of that not-unhappiness yourself.
And to answer your question, I would have called it "Game." I'm bad at naming things. But if I was forced to name it, even just Peekaboo is better than Peekaboom.
Actually, if you look at his models, his end products look exactly like Spaceship One with bigger engine tubes coming out the back. Though I'm sure you didn't mean cosmetically, and you're probably right.
But the original poster was citing Burt's completely different accomplishment as proof of... Well, I'm not sure what it was meant to be proof of. The OP is a tad indecipherable. I think it was something like "tech from the 50s can get to space". Which is true, I guess, if you forget about the composites and the engine and the big flappy tail. But for all he knows, Burt is going to add a bunch of computers, a payload door, and some heat shielding and then two big SRBs and an external fuel tank to get it in the air. When Burt's orbitting with 50's tech, he'll have a valid argument.
The best evidence is B. Rattan and his X Prize effort. All he did was take the proved existing 1950's era tech and build it up with any modern available stuff. It works!
I love Burt, and I hope he keeps working, but from Wiki:
"a spacecraft must reach about 29,000 km/h (18,000 mph) to attain orbit. This compares to the relatively modest 4,000-4,800 km/h (2,500-3,000 mph) typically attained for sub-orbital crafts."
He's got a ways to go. Even farther because his ship has no computer control, would burn up on orbital re-entry, and only got as high as it did because they used the skinniest pilot they could find.
Keep going with the science, but I'm revoking your right to name anything. "Peekaboom." Good God.
Re:The other questions
on
19 million Amps
·
· Score: 2, Informative
From a Z-machine article, which claims that its 290 trillion watt output is 80 times world production, world production is 3.625 trillion watts. Times 4 is 14.5 trillion watts. Divided by 19 million amps (wattage is voltage time amperage, right?) is about 760,000 volts. But we don't need that number, just the 14.5 terawatts. Which is 11,983 times 1.21 Gigawatts. I'm estimating that the weight of a DeLorean is about a ton? Which means this thing, with appropriate flux capacitance, of course, can send about 12,000 tons back in time 30 years, or one ton 36,000 years (of course assuming that energy required is linear and proportional to weight and not size. If it's dependent on vehicle contents, then the same numbers work if you have access to 12,000 Marty McFlys, which this author assumes that you do).
My math might be off by a digit or two, so if you're going to be sending an aircraft carrier back in time to invade 1975 France (I'm looking at you, Mr. President), you're using these numbers at your own risk.
He's from Delaware, if I recall. What I know about Delaware is, I admit, taken entirely from Wayne's World, but I didn't imagine it having too many serious candidates from third parties. But even if they do, I'm not sure telling them you'll vote for a third party is more effective than telling them you won't vote. It makes you a "likely voter" on the cusp of not caring. If I were a senator, I'd be more worried about the silent droves of those people than the few who are smart enough to be able to figure out which third party they want to vote for. Also, it makes you a dissatisfied friend rather than an angry opponent.
But if there are non-crazy third-party candidates in Delaware, sure, that'll work, too.
Aye. Dems, I know it's fun to hate Repulicans, and they do do some awfully stupid stuff, but let's not overlook it when our side does something this profoundly retarded. If you live in his state, please let Tommy know he's being a jackass and that you're just going to watch TV on election night if he doesn't cut it out.
You're right. I didn't list every tiny exception. For that, I'm sorry. For reasons why I didn't bother listing that great victory for embryonic stem cell research, see one of the 50-ish angry responses to similar posts attached to this article.
What was stated: "due to the direct intervention of Bush that the stem cell research was banned in the USA."
What it was obviously supposed to say: "due to the direct intervention of Bush that public funding for stem cell research was banned in the USA."
Three words, whose implicit inclusion was obvious to anyone who at all cares about the issue, were left out. Same meaning, shorter sentence. Short hand. You can feel free to keep screaming, "It's not banned," but you're just going to make yourself look dumb, 'cause everybody already knew what he meant.
But since you were shot in the head last night, what you're glad about carries less weight. We only care what the people who knew you are glad about, and they're kind of glad you're gone. You were an accident. Plus, you were a microscopic fish up until that bullet hit you, which makes sympathy harder.
Hmmm, yes a "clump of cells" as long as it wasn't the "clump of cells" that turned out to be you.
If it was the clump of cells that would have turned out to be me, I promise you I wouldn't have minded at the time, and after that I wouldn't be in a position to be minding anything.
when are you clueless people going to figure it out. Repeat after me.. Stem cell research is not banned in the United States.
When are you clueless people going to figure out that even the most dimwitted among your opposition knows that? It's short-hand. Quit being so God damned pedantic.
"Your abortion will be put to good use, we can find cures to diseases with your embryo". That might be the extra push that convinces her to get an abortion. Even though there are no gaurentees that there will be any breakthroughs.
Except nobody would ever say that. That's what pisses me off so much about your side. What kind of freaking monsters do you imagine doctors to be? "If you get an abortion, you get a lollypop... Come on. Do it, do it, do it. Sissy." There are way more than enough people getting abortions already to satisfy any research needs. You're still going to be throwing most of them out even if you could use them for government funded research. If it turns out we need thousands of babies for actual treatments, we can have this talk, but what you're imagining is just not going to happen.
Except if "Vista" the software company ever puts out a piece of software and writes in big letters "Vista Flabbledygooker" on the box, it becomes potentially confusing. And it's going to be especially annoying if they have to write in nearly-as-big letters, "Not Windows(TM) Vista compatible" to keep from getting billions of angry letters.
They didn't take those steps because they don't care. Even when they lose court battles, they end up just giving away thirty bucks worth of their software as a penalty. And even if they had to give up some actual cash, they have so much money that they only keep bothering to make more out of habit. They couldn't care less if they had to pay off a company so small that they'd have to look them up to see if they're infringing.
Slashdot Mirror
Whether you voted for the guy or not, he's our commander in chief for another 4 years so there is no alternative but to stand by him...
That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. If the guy's no good at his job, you tell him that. If he doesn't listen, you say it louder. He's not an algorithm, he's a guy, and if enough people are pissed at him, he might change. That said, if the people who are pissed at him are also mostly jerks, which is the current case, it'll have the opposite effect.
I'd rather have a president that is overreacting than one who is doing nothing so as to avoid labels like fascist.
Which sounds not that bad in the general case, but when you're dealing with a threat that kills about the same number of people as falling coconuts, it's just plain crazy.
All he said is that a majority voted for him. A majority is, by defition, larger than half. What part of that description doesn't 51 or 52 doesn't fit?
The part where a majority of Americans either voted Kerry or stayed home and watched E! that night.
But you need to science-up the description, there. This sort of thing leads to those "NASA spent millions on device that tells which picture a person is looking at by scanning their brain, Russia looked over their shoulder," space-pen jokes.
you'll find so many shows dedicated to doctors (ER, grey's acadamy, chicago hope) lawyers (law and order: special victims unit, criminal intent, trial by jury) and cops (CSI miami, ny). you never hear anyone even mention engineers in movies or tv series.
You're right. And it would be so easy. The three-episode arc on tracking down an elusive double-free()d pointer practically writes itself.
Yeah. I was just answering "when is it no longer okay to kill a baby." Legislatively, you have to go with what is practical and won't cause riots, so you walk around a mall with some pictures and do some polling and pick the date where the vast majority of people see a kid as the upper bound. That will probably be before the end of the second trimester anyway, so current law is probably fine. And you tell people that claim to have magic knowledge of "when life begins" to go screw themselves.
Ideally. Obviously, in practice, those screwing themselves have most of the votes.
Idiots like you who don't give a damn about the issue as long as you can call your opposition names, on both sides, are the biggest problem with US politics.
It's perfectly possible for someone to oppose abortion and support the death penalty, although I'm not sure how it would fit into the Christian ethic espoused by Republicans of late in the US.
That's the nice thing about the Bible. It's really long, and it has plenty of time to take both sides of every issue.
I am troubled by abortion rights -- even in the absence of religious motivation -- because I can't answer the question, "When is it no longer OK to kill a baby?"
Let me know if you get a better answer, but for now I find it works out pretty well to use this one: if you have sympathy for it, don't kill it. Look at a picture of what your baby looks like at its current age, and if you see a baby, let it live. If you see a fish, and you really want it gone, get rid of it. Short of The Big Guy coming down and explaining it, I doubt you'll ever get a better answer than that.
A) If you give creationism equal time with evolution, you're going to have to either add a whole lot of unnecessary adjectives to the description of creationism or find a way to fit evolution into the same time it takes to say, "Or God did it."
B) If you're giving them equal time based on the fact that neither can be proven or disproven, then I'm going to have to insist it be 33/33/33 with The Flying Spaghetti Monster.
I'm actually doing okay, you shit. Maybe if you relaxed for five seconds, you could get in on some of that not-unhappiness yourself.
And to answer your question, I would have called it "Game." I'm bad at naming things. But if I was forced to name it, even just Peekaboo is better than Peekaboom.
Actually, if you look at his models, his end products look exactly like Spaceship One with bigger engine tubes coming out the back. Though I'm sure you didn't mean cosmetically, and you're probably right.
But the original poster was citing Burt's completely different accomplishment as proof of... Well, I'm not sure what it was meant to be proof of. The OP is a tad indecipherable. I think it was something like "tech from the 50s can get to space". Which is true, I guess, if you forget about the composites and the engine and the big flappy tail. But for all he knows, Burt is going to add a bunch of computers, a payload door, and some heat shielding and then two big SRBs and an external fuel tank to get it in the air. When Burt's orbitting with 50's tech, he'll have a valid argument.
The best evidence is B. Rattan and his X Prize effort. All he did was take the proved existing 1950's era tech and build it up with any modern available stuff. It works!
I love Burt, and I hope he keeps working, but from Wiki:
"a spacecraft must reach about 29,000 km/h (18,000 mph) to attain orbit. This compares to the relatively modest 4,000-4,800 km/h (2,500-3,000 mph) typically attained for sub-orbital crafts."
He's got a ways to go. Even farther because his ship has no computer control, would burn up on orbital re-entry, and only got as high as it did because they used the skinniest pilot they could find.
Keep going with the science, but I'm revoking your right to name anything. "Peekaboom." Good God.
From a Z-machine article, which claims that its 290 trillion watt output is 80 times world production, world production is 3.625 trillion watts. Times 4 is 14.5 trillion watts. Divided by 19 million amps (wattage is voltage time amperage, right?) is about 760,000 volts. But we don't need that number, just the 14.5 terawatts. Which is 11,983 times 1.21 Gigawatts. I'm estimating that the weight of a DeLorean is about a ton? Which means this thing, with appropriate flux capacitance, of course, can send about 12,000 tons back in time 30 years, or one ton 36,000 years (of course assuming that energy required is linear and proportional to weight and not size. If it's dependent on vehicle contents, then the same numbers work if you have access to 12,000 Marty McFlys, which this author assumes that you do).
My math might be off by a digit or two, so if you're going to be sending an aircraft carrier back in time to invade 1975 France (I'm looking at you, Mr. President), you're using these numbers at your own risk.
He's from Delaware, if I recall. What I know about Delaware is, I admit, taken entirely from Wayne's World, but I didn't imagine it having too many serious candidates from third parties. But even if they do, I'm not sure telling them you'll vote for a third party is more effective than telling them you won't vote. It makes you a "likely voter" on the cusp of not caring. If I were a senator, I'd be more worried about the silent droves of those people than the few who are smart enough to be able to figure out which third party they want to vote for. Also, it makes you a dissatisfied friend rather than an angry opponent.
But if there are non-crazy third-party candidates in Delaware, sure, that'll work, too.
Aye. Dems, I know it's fun to hate Repulicans, and they do do some awfully stupid stuff, but let's not overlook it when our side does something this profoundly retarded. If you live in his state, please let Tommy know he's being a jackass and that you're just going to watch TV on election night if he doesn't cut it out.
Exactly. Only without the part about keeping them away from violence. Just keep them away from power tools and they'll be fine.
You're right. I didn't list every tiny exception. For that, I'm sorry. For reasons why I didn't bother listing that great victory for embryonic stem cell research, see one of the 50-ish angry responses to similar posts attached to this article.
What was stated: "due to the direct intervention of Bush that the stem cell research was banned in the USA."
What it was obviously supposed to say: "due to the direct intervention of Bush that public funding for stem cell research was banned in the USA."
Three words, whose implicit inclusion was obvious to anyone who at all cares about the issue, were left out. Same meaning, shorter sentence. Short hand. You can feel free to keep screaming, "It's not banned," but you're just going to make yourself look dumb, 'cause everybody already knew what he meant.
But since you were shot in the head last night, what you're glad about carries less weight. We only care what the people who knew you are glad about, and they're kind of glad you're gone. You were an accident. Plus, you were a microscopic fish up until that bullet hit you, which makes sympathy harder.
Hmmm, yes a "clump of cells" as long as it wasn't the "clump of cells" that turned out to be you.
If it was the clump of cells that would have turned out to be me, I promise you I wouldn't have minded at the time, and after that I wouldn't be in a position to be minding anything.
when are you clueless people going to figure it out. Repeat after me.. Stem cell research is not banned in the United States.
When are you clueless people going to figure out that even the most dimwitted among your opposition knows that? It's short-hand. Quit being so God damned pedantic.
"Your abortion will be put to good use, we can find cures to diseases with your embryo". That might be the extra push that convinces her to get an abortion. Even though there are no gaurentees that there will be any breakthroughs.
Except nobody would ever say that. That's what pisses me off so much about your side. What kind of freaking monsters do you imagine doctors to be? "If you get an abortion, you get a lollypop... Come on. Do it, do it, do it. Sissy." There are way more than enough people getting abortions already to satisfy any research needs. You're still going to be throwing most of them out even if you could use them for government funded research. If it turns out we need thousands of babies for actual treatments, we can have this talk, but what you're imagining is just not going to happen.
Um... The menu is clearly intended to be movable. It's got the "movable" thingy on the left. If it's not now, it will be at release.
Except if "Vista" the software company ever puts out a piece of software and writes in big letters "Vista Flabbledygooker" on the box, it becomes potentially confusing. And it's going to be especially annoying if they have to write in nearly-as-big letters, "Not Windows(TM) Vista compatible" to keep from getting billions of angry letters.
They didn't take those steps because they don't care. Even when they lose court battles, they end up just giving away thirty bucks worth of their software as a penalty. And even if they had to give up some actual cash, they have so much money that they only keep bothering to make more out of habit. They couldn't care less if they had to pay off a company so small that they'd have to look them up to see if they're infringing.