>In the early 1900's were there laws to require car purchasers to buy buggy whips too?
Surprisingly, the laws for vehicles back then were _really_ wacky. Basically, in many states, you had to pay someone to walk in front of your vehicle waving a flag to warn horse driven vehicles you were approaching...
Kinda takes the fun out of driving, doesn't it?;-)
Yes, but then if the damage is on the front of the car, it should be assumed you were trying to avoid some insane driver in front of you...
Not that a judge is going to pay attention to a tampered box, anyways.:-) You'd be much better off figuring out a way to feed just _slightly_ less bogus data to the recorder. Say, shave 10% off your speed all the time.
Perhaps you haven't driven out in the country yet. Generally, even if you are caught DOUBLING the speed limit (160 km/h in an 80 zone) if you live there, you can avoid points on your license, never mind getting your license taken away.
The average speed is 110 km/h, and if you aren't doing that, you _are_ going to suffer rear-end consequences from impatient drivers. And contrary to popular belief, if you are in more than a couple of accidents that aren't your fault, your insurance company will still raise your rates. They'll tell you not to drive in dangerous areas if you ask them why.
>I see plenty of cars that don't signal when they turn/change lanes. What's your point?
If there's witnesses stating the car didn't do this in an accident, generally the car signalling properly is less at fault. However, in my experience many (although not all) drivers signal their turns. NO bicyclists signal their turns, though, in my experience. Catch my drift?
>Cars can slow/stop without any indication, too.
I suppose if you smash out the brake lights, yeah. But usually it only takes a day or two before a cop notices and orders you to fix them.
>It's better to actually see the trafic coming at you, rather than be suddenly overtaken by a vehical you didn't know was there, which can startle you and cause an accident.
It is? Out in the country, where most drivers are doing 100 - 120 km/h, you would like to make the collision speed 160 km/h rather than 80 km/h?
That sounds like a good way to die!
>AFAIK, all bikes are sold with relectors attached to them.
I have a huffy mountain bike (last one I bought) that says 'no'. Maybe expensive bikes do...
Unless you mean wheel reflectors. These are totally useless. They're like side lights on a car. You notice them a second or two before you smash into it. Crapola.
>As for riding at night, if it's bright enough for a biker to ride, it's bright enough for a driver (who _has_ headlights!) to see them.
True, unless the biker is one of those idiots with few to no reflectors and wearing black. Happens far more often to me than you'd like to think... (I happen to live in a part of the country that's really popular for cyclists to ride/train in, due to there being less traffic).
...that the majority of Automobile vs. Bicycle accidents were caused by cyclists pretending they were pedestrians wearing body armour.
I don't know the specifics of your accident, so I won't make a judgement there, but the fact remains that the majority of cyclists (at least in my area) totally ignore the rules, 100%. This means that the very few legitimate cases tend to be downplayed. Sorry if you got the short end of the stick. Perhaps you might consider driving a vehicle that's a little more "respected" by the courts? (Don't take that personally!;-)
Yes, I have never, not even once, seen a cyclist motion which way they intend to go. I've never seen a cyclist motion to slow or stop. I often see cyclists in the country riding AGAINST traffic (illegal, obviously). To top it all off, the less professional ones don't even wear HELMETS, and don't have any lighting or reflectors on their bikes at night at all! All of these are required (where I live), and if you don't do them, well, fuck, you're putting your life in danger. I'd rather have one of those new police video cameras strapped onto my car than a black box. That way I could tape the rule breaking cyclist if (sorry, at this rate, more like WHEN) I smash in to them and they sue me for their brain damage (most likely caused prior to the accident -- why else would you ride like you have a death wish).
>Why on earth haven't they told people about these devices?
Simple. Because now my next hack plans are to see what I can do to either disable that box, or to fix the data going to it. I expect I'm just one in a soon to be large pool of people hacking their cars.
Wouldn't it be neat to go -20 km/h all the time!:-) "I couldn't have possibly caused that accident, sir, I was in reverse the entire time!"
>So at the moment, I see them as nothing but good.
And they sure are. But that doesn't mean I won't do what it takes to avoid getting in trouble. It's human nature.
>The war wasn't about the oil. It was about freeing the Iraqi people from the human rights abuses and brining democracy to them just like our other allies have like our good allies and trading partners Saudi Arabia and China.
No, it wasn't about any of that. The fact is the American president himself stated it was about one purpose: To oust Saddam Hussein on the knowledge he had WMDs. I can find the speech, if you'd like.
Not that a single WMD has EVER been discovered in Iraq, apart from anything the US already gave him to fight Iran in the 80's (oh, the irony that the US is planning to target them now too). Basically, the US president needs to resign for starting a baseless war with a country. He's not just a liar... he's a liar that's willing to kill over 3000 innocent Iraqi civilians to cover it up.
Heads up to any other countries: Gifts from the US come with strings attached. Don't take their Trojan Horses.
>If you buy a can opener and it breaks, do you expect to get another can opener for free
If I happen to have a metal shop in the back of my house, yes.
I don't see any laws that are going to prevent me from copying my $0.99 can opener. I just don't do it because the price of the can opener isn't overly inflated.
Same thing with a DVD. No burner, no computer, no copy.
Generally, if you have the tools to do a job, you can (or should be able to) copy pretty much anything you like (apart from patented things and trademarks).
>More relevant to the copyright law: when you buy a book, do you copy/scan every page in the book, on the off chance that your dog will eat the book?
Unless the dog is ravenously hungry, the book will still be pretty readable, if messed up.
Now, imagine a DVD after it's ripped from the jaws of a growling canine. And that's before ingestion...
>Seriously, if I'm managing you and you are getting paid to do 8 hours of work, then you are going to do EIGHT HOURS OF WORK.
You manage a McDonald's, right? Cause that's a fast food pit ethic!
Always fresh, always ready, right now, right away. Tastes great, even late! Have it your way, right away! Would you like fries with that? Hold the pickles, hold the lettuce, special orders don't upset us!
BTW: If you were managing a maintenance team, would you go around breaking things so that there'd be work to do? Well, it seems you already do, so what the hell...
I'm glad you exist, though. I'm opening a company, and it's nice to know that I won't have a hard breaking some of my competition. TNX+1E6!:o)
Well, first off, why, oh WHY are people still using email lists?
Fuggedaboutit. These types of things belong on web forums or usenet. Both work exceedingly better on so many levels its laughable that anyone is on anything but a receive-only mailing list right now.
If, for some idiotic reason you really need to deal with two-way listservs, you are probably "elite" enough to have a separate email account just for that without the spam protection, or at least with non-whitelisting protection.
Next, if you plan to send out a confirmation email from a web-form (like so many BROKEN sites do) it is only polite to let the user know in advance what the seding address will be, so whitelists can be updated. If you don't, I think it's only fair that you have to deal with confirmation messages.
Then they worry that spammers will confirm the messages, even if the confirmation requires a lot of computational power to solve. HUH? Do you have any clue how much effort and bandwidth the spammer will need to buy to deal with this? These people are working on perhaps 1 out of 100,000 people buying their idiotic product. Even if each email cost them just $0.01 to deal with, that's $1,000 wasted per sale. Ain't gonna happen, no way in hell.
The only legitimate worry is that a malicious from address might be placed in a spam to deluge an anti-spammer with email. That's what we need identity laws to protect against. Those are the only anti-spam laws I now think should exist. You should be able to trust the from line isn't forged to DoS attack someone.
>Now we'll have challenge systems duelling to the death, since everyone will be insisting that everyone else confirm first.
??? That's just stupid. This guy has enough knowledge to know how to deal with vacation replies properly, but can't think of of a way around this?
Simply have a check string in your signature that, if it exists in a reply email, the email is allowed through. What a concept! *(and it's already done)*
So, let's see:
- People who need to reply to mailing lists are special and generally have the knowledge needed to deal with this already.
- Spammers won't forge real email addresses in the from field because they'll be seeing a judge (even now, DoS is illegal in most countries).
- Spammers won't want to read all your confirmation messages, even automatically, because they can't afford to. Already, as it is, spammers use hacked servers, and sometimes open relays to lower their expenses. Imagine if they had to deal with the emails themselves. HAH!
So, I remain spam free, and the internet works. It hasn't been a problem for me yet, and it hasn't been a problem for anyone else I know yet.
Just my 2 cents. Perhaps you can come up with a better argument?:)
>Its simple. It is the guy who is NOT wearing a shirt.
Yes. With the suspect's shirt off it is much easier to tell their skin colour!
Play the COPS drinking game:
- Every black guy arrested, have 1 shot.
- Every brown guy/mexican/white-wife-beater arrested, have 2 shots.
- Every asian guy arrested, down the bottle.
- Every white guy arrested for something other than wife beating, purge.
>I only say circumstantial because the recording was made while the officer didn't consider it important/wasn't paying attention.
I dunno. I think it'll be treated like CCTV at your local mini-mart. All those cameras recording in the shops you visit, few, if any, actually have people paying attention to them during the crimes, yet the evidence is still considered quite strong.
What WILL be interesting is if the entire cache can be requested by those being arrested. The cop might only transfer the last three minutes to permanent storage if, say, he screws up your miranda rights or something at minus four minutes.
It shouldn't be minutes, it should be an entire hour previous, and it shouldn't be modifiable by the police.
Ever wondered about those $10 printers at Future Shop?
How likely is it they cost under $10 to get from Malysia to your home?
Not likely. But they get away with it through the magic of rebates. Sell the printer for $60 to Future Shop, they sell it to you at cost (pretty much), then HP/Apollo/Epson/whoever give you a $50 rebate.
Since the government still gets all their coveted taxes, they're more than happy to play along.
And that's only TWO books! What is that, 5% of the bible? Want more examples? There's literally hundreds, if not THOUSANDS more!
But, if you don't take those ideas literally, and simply take them as warnings, such as "Swearing at dad isn't a good thing", then it's fine (although, still intolerant, but as long as you're not going to force your religion on me, so be it).
But taking the bible literally is a call to anarchy, and most wouldn't consider that sane. Of course, if you think it's sane to murder people for being offensive, well, go right ahead (well, on second thought, please don't). I'm pretty sure they call that type of behaviour "psychotic", though.
>No, I think you show pretty well what intolerence looks like.
I'm neither. You're free to preach the ways of wickedness against homosexuals, but I'm free to say you're nuts for doing so.
The bible is ONLY a good book if it is read carefully, and NOT interpreted literally. Otherwise it is a prelude to all out anarchy and war.
>but if you happen to interperet it more literally (ie. maybe, just maybe Jesus really meant it when he said "No on can enter the Father except through me.") then I don't like you and I am going to call you intolerent, a bigot, and 10 other things
Oh, no, that John 14:6 is perfectly fine with me, even if it is a confusing piece of the bible, it's relatively inoffensive.
I just have problems with the whole "Kill people because they are bad" thing, you know. I suppose you are right, I'm intolerant of people who have murder on their mind. Maybe that makes me a horrible sinful person.
That and the whole animal sacrifices thing, that disturbs me as well.
I HATE MURDERERS! SMITE ME! I'M AN INTOLERANT SOB (Aren't I supposed to be killed for that as well? Or at least smited for life!)
Hey, you asked for me to show you what I'm talking about. Which reminds me... I need to print out this post for the Jehovah's Witnesses next time they come by -- they did ask me what I had trouble with in the bible! Might as well be honest! That is a virtue... not something I'll be killed for... right?
>I always hear atheists say that Christians are intolerent because they think their was is the only way.
Only Christians that take the bible literally are intolerant. In the bible various passages encourage poor treatment of women, and in the extreme, murdering gays.
Most Christians are willing to overlook these things because they know that intolerance without reason is a sign of insanity (well, that and I'm sure it says somewhere in the bible how tolerance is a virtue or something.)
>If religion is about feeling fulfilled, then yeah, there may be several ways, but if it is about the truth, then there is only one way, because there is only one truth.
Why does there have to be only one truth? In fact, there's a whole "religion" to itself about that point, agnosticism. While, to a certain degree, I've made my choice (and it'll take some hard scientific evidence to change it), I wouldn't suggest that there is only one "truth". Just as in science, new ideas are highly debateable, and there are many solutions to the same problem (take, for example, high school physics and the discussion of how light is both a particle and a wave), there is room for more than one religion to be correct, IMHO.
I don't think someone who has decided that there _is_ a God is wrong, I simply think they've come to a different decision than my own.
Real truth is ever changing as more facts and ideas come about. And _that's_ where I draw the line. When a sect of a religion decides they will no longer face facts, and decide they won't change for any reason at all, that's when that religion is insane and wrong. And usually we call these people "Fundamentalists", or, if you are GWB, "Terrorists".:^)
>Maybe certain athiests are right, maybe Christians are right, maybe Muslims are right, or maybe no one has discovered the complete truth yet.
This, this I agree with.
But when it comes to religion, I really do think there's more than one way to skin a cat.
Well, that and I think the best way to change someone's mind is through understanding, acceptance, and tolerance. You aren't going to win anyone over by telling them they're going to burn in hell for the rest of their lives if they don't do as you ask.:)
>I'm pretty sure the "h" in hologram is not silent.
That depends on your english dialect.
Many UK dialects drop preceeding letter Hs in words. Often, these are viewed as spoken by "lesser" people there, but they are still valid dialects.
I know this as my parents are from such a region (Lake District).
If the preceeding letter H is dropped then one would use "an" if either you weren't thinking too much, or you intend the reader to read your writing aloud.
If you search google, you'll see much discussion of this topic (h-dropping).
Really, it's just Sony vs. Not-Sony for the formats.
Witness:
MD vs. DAT/Casette Beta vs. VHS MemoryStick vs. CF/SmartMedia/SD PlayStation vs. Everyone Else (although this is the norm for consoles)
I'm sure there are many more failed Sony-only ideas. I really wish Sony would give up on their BS formats. Some of their products look interesting, but the only one I've ever bought was the PS2, the rest are simply too incompatible with my life. Heck, I only bought the PS2 because at the time the benefits (being, at the time, the only new console able to back up games with a ModChip) outweighed the minuses (that being it is Sony crap).
BTW: I'm not sure, but I have a feeling Sony was originally backing DVD+R (am I right? I'd love to know, I want to be sure that my DVD-R purchase will have the longetivity normally associated with non-Sony formats).
It takes a good man to acknowledge what works best for himself. It takes an even greater man to acknowledge that there are more solutions to a problem than his own.
I'm an Atheist, and while I laugh at the truly insane (that is, those that will believe in anything to support their viewpoints) I certainly think there is room for religion in the life of others, without it making them silly. I had a good time explaining this to the last set of Jehovah's Witnesses that came a-knocking. I guess they were surprised that an atheist could appreciate a reasonable approach to religion, and that an Atheist would say the bible, on the whole, is a decent guide to life (however, I do feel it has its mistakes). I guess what I'm trying to say is "Don't knock other religions before you see the results of most people practicing them".
>Ah, correlating for your own political benefit (I'm going to guess that you're from Alberta...just a wild guess).
Nope, Ontario actually.
>Well the dollar has gained about 13% in the past couple of months, so I guess we'd damn well better vote the Liberals back in to keep this going, means that they're directly responsible for its valuation.
Because Jean Chretien has said he will step down. What a nice thug. Perhaps he'll be given the shawinigan handshake, rather than a golden one.
>are you "hard hearted"?
Sure am. And I prefer it that way, too.
>I think you're looking for a disparaging word for Liberal supporters, but if "soft hearted" is the best you can come up with then you should buy a thesaurus).
No, they are soft hearted. They want everyone to have everything (sort of). That isn't possible, and the suffering is done by our economy, and our rights.
Soft hearted is the perfect word, it's just that a lot of people think being soft hearted is always a good thing (IMHO, it isn't).
>Of course the reality is that our dollar value is completely controlled by the US government
Again, because Canada won't stand up to them. That's because Jean Chretien's idea of defending us is 30 year old military equipment that even Somalia has beat.
>http://www.audioreview.com/PRD_124054_1584crx.asp x
LOL, thanks, I haven't read something that funny since I saw a BOSE review comparing BOSE speakers to their GPX clock radio (the clock radio won, BTW, as it could also tell time).
>You know, bi-wiring and the CD markers actually do make small sonic differences on high-priced systems.
Yes, if you are bi-wiring 24 AWG wire, I'm sure it does.
Also, if your CD is cracked and the CD marker was infact a glue stick, I'm sure it would also improve the sound.
But I'm not sure why this would only help high-end systems. Seems even a YorX would benefit from bi-wiring considering the wire included with their systems.
Slashdot Mirror
>In the early 1900's were there laws to require car purchasers to buy buggy whips too?
;-)
Surprisingly, the laws for vehicles back then were _really_ wacky. Basically, in many states, you had to pay someone to walk in front of your vehicle waving a flag to warn horse driven vehicles you were approaching...
Kinda takes the fun out of driving, doesn't it?
>Um, you know you can crash in reverse too?
:-) You'd be much better off figuring out a way to feed just _slightly_ less bogus data to the recorder. Say, shave 10% off your speed all the time.
Yes, but then if the damage is on the front of the car, it should be assumed you were trying to avoid some insane driver in front of you...
Not that a judge is going to pay attention to a tampered box, anyways.
>How about just not speeding, then ?
LOL. And get smashed from behind?
Perhaps you haven't driven out in the country yet. Generally, even if you are caught DOUBLING the speed limit (160 km/h in an 80 zone) if you live there, you can avoid points on your license, never mind getting your license taken away.
The average speed is 110 km/h, and if you aren't doing that, you _are_ going to suffer rear-end consequences from impatient drivers. And contrary to popular belief, if you are in more than a couple of accidents that aren't your fault, your insurance company will still raise your rates. They'll tell you not to drive in dangerous areas if you ask them why.
Like young drives said, "go with the flow".
>I see plenty of cars that don't signal when they turn/change lanes. What's your point?
If there's witnesses stating the car didn't do this in an accident, generally the car signalling properly is less at fault. However, in my experience many (although not all) drivers signal their turns. NO bicyclists signal their turns, though, in my experience. Catch my drift?
>Cars can slow/stop without any indication, too.
I suppose if you smash out the brake lights, yeah. But usually it only takes a day or two before a cop notices and orders you to fix them.
>It's better to actually see the trafic coming at you, rather than be suddenly overtaken by a vehical you didn't know was there, which can startle you and cause an accident.
It is? Out in the country, where most drivers are doing 100 - 120 km/h, you would like to make the collision speed 160 km/h rather than 80 km/h?
That sounds like a good way to die!
>AFAIK, all bikes are sold with relectors attached to them.
I have a huffy mountain bike (last one I bought) that says 'no'. Maybe expensive bikes do...
Unless you mean wheel reflectors. These are totally useless. They're like side lights on a car. You notice them a second or two before you smash into it. Crapola.
>As for riding at night, if it's bright enough for a biker to ride, it's bright enough for a driver (who _has_ headlights!) to see them.
True, unless the biker is one of those idiots with few to no reflectors and wearing black. Happens far more often to me than you'd like to think... (I happen to live in a part of the country that's really popular for cyclists to ride/train in, due to there being less traffic).
...that the majority of Automobile vs. Bicycle accidents were caused by cyclists pretending they were pedestrians wearing body armour.
;-)
I don't know the specifics of your accident, so I won't make a judgement there, but the fact remains that the majority of cyclists (at least in my area) totally ignore the rules, 100%. This means that the very few legitimate cases tend to be downplayed. Sorry if you got the short end of the stick. Perhaps you might consider driving a vehicle that's a little more "respected" by the courts? (Don't take that personally!
Yes, I have never, not even once, seen a cyclist motion which way they intend to go. I've never seen a cyclist motion to slow or stop. I often see cyclists in the country riding AGAINST traffic (illegal, obviously). To top it all off, the less professional ones don't even wear HELMETS, and don't have any lighting or reflectors on their bikes at night at all! All of these are required (where I live), and if you don't do them, well, fuck, you're putting your life in danger. I'd rather have one of those new police video cameras strapped onto my car than a black box. That way I could tape the rule breaking cyclist if (sorry, at this rate, more like WHEN) I smash in to them and they sue me for their brain damage (most likely caused prior to the accident -- why else would you ride like you have a death wish).
Not that I'm saying you didn't. But hey...
Sorry for the rant.
>Why on earth haven't they told people about these devices?
:-) "I couldn't have possibly caused that accident, sir, I was in reverse the entire time!"
Simple. Because now my next hack plans are to see what I can do to either disable that box, or to fix the data going to it. I expect I'm just one in a soon to be large pool of people hacking their cars.
Wouldn't it be neat to go -20 km/h all the time!
>So at the moment, I see them as nothing but good.
And they sure are. But that doesn't mean I won't do what it takes to avoid getting in trouble. It's human nature.
>The war wasn't about the oil. It was about freeing the Iraqi people from the human rights abuses and brining democracy to them just like our other allies have like our good allies and trading partners Saudi Arabia and China.
No, it wasn't about any of that. The fact is the American president himself stated it was about one purpose: To oust Saddam Hussein on the knowledge he had WMDs. I can find the speech, if you'd like.
Not that a single WMD has EVER been discovered in Iraq, apart from anything the US already gave him to fight Iran in the 80's (oh, the irony that the US is planning to target them now too). Basically, the US president needs to resign for starting a baseless war with a country. He's not just a liar... he's a liar that's willing to kill over 3000 innocent Iraqi civilians to cover it up.
Heads up to any other countries: Gifts from the US come with strings attached. Don't take their Trojan Horses.
>Copyright is against natural law.
Please say you don't vote for them.
I _really_ don't want to hold hands with my neighbours every week to improve my karma.
>If you buy a can opener and it breaks, do you expect to get another can opener for free
If I happen to have a metal shop in the back of my house, yes.
I don't see any laws that are going to prevent me from copying my $0.99 can opener. I just don't do it because the price of the can opener isn't overly inflated.
Same thing with a DVD. No burner, no computer, no copy.
Generally, if you have the tools to do a job, you can (or should be able to) copy pretty much anything you like (apart from patented things and trademarks).
>More relevant to the copyright law: when you buy a book, do you copy/scan every page in the book, on the off chance that your dog will eat the book?
Unless the dog is ravenously hungry, the book will still be pretty readable, if messed up.
Now, imagine a DVD after it's ripped from the jaws of a growling canine. And that's before ingestion...
>Seriously, if I'm managing you and you are getting paid to do 8 hours of work, then you are going to do EIGHT HOURS OF WORK.
:o)
You manage a McDonald's, right? Cause that's a fast food pit ethic!
Always fresh, always ready, right now, right away. Tastes great, even late! Have it your way, right away! Would you like fries with that? Hold the pickles, hold the lettuce, special orders don't upset us!
BTW: If you were managing a maintenance team, would you go around breaking things so that there'd be work to do? Well, it seems you already do, so what the hell...
I'm glad you exist, though. I'm opening a company, and it's nice to know that I won't have a hard breaking some of my competition. TNX+1E6!
Well, first off, why, oh WHY are people still using email lists?
:)
Fuggedaboutit. These types of things belong on web forums or usenet. Both work exceedingly better on so many levels its laughable that anyone is on anything but a receive-only mailing list right now.
If, for some idiotic reason you really need to deal with two-way listservs, you are probably "elite" enough to have a separate email account just for that without the spam protection, or at least with non-whitelisting protection.
Next, if you plan to send out a confirmation email from a web-form (like so many BROKEN sites do) it is only polite to let the user know in advance what the seding address will be, so whitelists can be updated. If you don't, I think it's only fair that you have to deal with confirmation messages.
Then they worry that spammers will confirm the messages, even if the confirmation requires a lot of computational power to solve. HUH? Do you have any clue how much effort and bandwidth the spammer will need to buy to deal with this? These people are working on perhaps 1 out of 100,000 people buying their idiotic product. Even if each email cost them just $0.01 to deal with, that's $1,000 wasted per sale. Ain't gonna happen, no way in hell.
The only legitimate worry is that a malicious from address might be placed in a spam to deluge an anti-spammer with email. That's what we need identity laws to protect against. Those are the only anti-spam laws I now think should exist. You should be able to trust the from line isn't forged to DoS attack someone.
>Now we'll have challenge systems duelling to the death, since
everyone will be insisting that everyone else confirm first.
??? That's just stupid. This guy has enough knowledge to know how to deal with vacation replies properly, but can't think of of a way around this?
Simply have a check string in your signature that, if it exists in a reply email, the email is allowed through. What a concept! *(and it's already done)*
So, let's see:
- People who need to reply to mailing lists are special and generally have the knowledge needed to deal with this already.
- Spammers won't forge real email addresses in the from field because they'll be seeing a judge (even now, DoS is illegal in most countries).
- Spammers won't want to read all your confirmation messages, even automatically, because they can't afford to. Already, as it is, spammers use hacked servers, and sometimes open relays to lower their expenses. Imagine if they had to deal with the emails themselves. HAH!
So, I remain spam free, and the internet works. It hasn't been a problem for me yet, and it hasn't been a problem for anyone else I know yet.
Just my 2 cents. Perhaps you can come up with a better argument?
>Its simple. It is the guy who is NOT wearing a shirt.
Yes. With the suspect's shirt off it is much easier to tell their skin colour!
Play the COPS drinking game:
- Every black guy arrested, have 1 shot.
- Every brown guy/mexican/white-wife-beater arrested, have 2 shots.
- Every asian guy arrested, down the bottle.
- Every white guy arrested for something other than wife beating, purge.
>I only say circumstantial because the recording was made while the officer didn't consider it important/wasn't paying attention.
I dunno. I think it'll be treated like CCTV at your local mini-mart. All those cameras recording in the shops you visit, few, if any, actually have people paying attention to them during the crimes, yet the evidence is still considered quite strong.
What WILL be interesting is if the entire cache can be requested by those being arrested. The cop might only transfer the last three minutes to permanent storage if, say, he screws up your miranda rights or something at minus four minutes.
It shouldn't be minutes, it should be an entire hour previous, and it shouldn't be modifiable by the police.
Ever wondered about those $10 printers at Future Shop?
How likely is it they cost under $10 to get from Malysia to your home?
Not likely. But they get away with it through the magic of rebates. Sell the printer for $60 to Future Shop, they sell it to you at cost (pretty much), then HP/Apollo/Epson/whoever give you a $50 rebate.
Since the government still gets all their coveted taxes, they're more than happy to play along.
>How you interperet the Bible has absolutely nothing to do with how tolerent you are!!
So, let's see, if we take the bible as a literal guide to life:
Mudering abusers is just.
Murdering brat children is such a good idea, God does it for you.
You should harm others at least as much as they harm you.
Do God a favour and kill all the gays so he doesn't have to.
Don't forget the furries too!
Let's not forget about the wiccans! Goddam hippies!
Everyone in Canada needs to commit suicide, now.
And that's only TWO books! What is that, 5% of the bible? Want more examples? There's literally hundreds, if not THOUSANDS more!
But, if you don't take those ideas literally, and simply take them as warnings, such as "Swearing at dad isn't a good thing", then it's fine (although, still intolerant, but as long as you're not going to force your religion on me, so be it).
But taking the bible literally is a call to anarchy, and most wouldn't consider that sane. Of course, if you think it's sane to murder people for being offensive, well, go right ahead (well, on second thought, please don't). I'm pretty sure they call that type of behaviour "psychotic", though.
>No, I think you show pretty well what intolerence looks like.
It looks like this. That's intolerance. On both sides.
I'm neither. You're free to preach the ways of wickedness against homosexuals, but I'm free to say you're nuts for doing so.
The bible is ONLY a good book if it is read carefully, and NOT interpreted literally. Otherwise it is a prelude to all out anarchy and war.
>but if you happen to interperet it more literally (ie. maybe, just maybe Jesus really meant it when he said "No on can enter the Father except through me.") then I don't like you and I am going to call you intolerent, a bigot, and 10 other things
Oh, no, that John 14:6 is perfectly fine with me, even if it is a confusing piece of the bible, it's relatively inoffensive.
I just have problems with the whole "Kill people because they are bad" thing, you know. I suppose you are right, I'm intolerant of people who have murder on their mind. Maybe that makes me a horrible sinful person.
Tolerance? You say a literal of interpretation of the Bible preaches tolerance? LOL!
But, thou shalt not kill, right?
That and the whole animal sacrifices thing, that disturbs me as well.
I HATE MURDERERS! SMITE ME! I'M AN INTOLERANT SOB (Aren't I supposed to be killed for that as well? Or at least smited for life!)
Hey, you asked for me to show you what I'm talking about. Which reminds me... I need to print out this post for the Jehovah's Witnesses next time they come by -- they did ask me what I had trouble with in the bible! Might as well be honest! That is a virtue... not something I'll be killed for... right?
>I always hear atheists say that Christians are intolerent because they think their was is the only way.
:^)
:)
Only Christians that take the bible literally are intolerant. In the bible various passages encourage poor treatment of women, and in the extreme, murdering gays.
Most Christians are willing to overlook these things because they know that intolerance without reason is a sign of insanity (well, that and I'm sure it says somewhere in the bible how tolerance is a virtue or something.)
>If religion is about feeling fulfilled, then yeah, there may be several ways, but if it is about the truth, then there is only one way, because there is only one truth.
Why does there have to be only one truth? In fact, there's a whole "religion" to itself about that point, agnosticism. While, to a certain degree, I've made my choice (and it'll take some hard scientific evidence to change it), I wouldn't suggest that there is only one "truth". Just as in science, new ideas are highly debateable, and there are many solutions to the same problem (take, for example, high school physics and the discussion of how light is both a particle and a wave), there is room for more than one religion to be correct, IMHO.
I don't think someone who has decided that there _is_ a God is wrong, I simply think they've come to a different decision than my own.
Real truth is ever changing as more facts and ideas come about. And _that's_ where I draw the line. When a sect of a religion decides they will no longer face facts, and decide they won't change for any reason at all, that's when that religion is insane and wrong. And usually we call these people "Fundamentalists", or, if you are GWB, "Terrorists".
>Maybe certain athiests are right, maybe Christians are right, maybe Muslims are right, or maybe no one has discovered the complete truth yet.
This, this I agree with.
But when it comes to religion, I really do think there's more than one way to skin a cat.
Well, that and I think the best way to change someone's mind is through understanding, acceptance, and tolerance. You aren't going to win anyone over by telling them they're going to burn in hell for the rest of their lives if they don't do as you ask.
>I'm pretty sure the "h" in hologram is not silent.
:)
That depends on your english dialect.
Many UK dialects drop preceeding letter Hs in words. Often, these are viewed as spoken by "lesser" people there, but they are still valid dialects.
I know this as my parents are from such a region (Lake District).
If the preceeding letter H is dropped then one would use "an" if either you weren't thinking too much, or you intend the reader to read your writing aloud.
If you search google, you'll see much discussion of this topic (h-dropping).
Heck, they made a whole MOVIE about this.
Really, it's just Sony vs. Not-Sony for the formats.
Witness:
MD vs. DAT/Casette
Beta vs. VHS
MemoryStick vs. CF/SmartMedia/SD
PlayStation vs. Everyone Else (although this is the norm for consoles)
I'm sure there are many more failed Sony-only ideas. I really wish Sony would give up on their BS formats. Some of their products look interesting, but the only one I've ever bought was the PS2, the rest are simply too incompatible with my life. Heck, I only bought the PS2 because at the time the benefits (being, at the time, the only new console able to back up games with a ModChip) outweighed the minuses (that being it is Sony crap).
BTW: I'm not sure, but I have a feeling Sony was originally backing DVD+R (am I right? I'd love to know, I want to be sure that my DVD-R purchase will have the longetivity normally associated with non-Sony formats).
It takes a good man to acknowledge what works best for himself.
It takes an even greater man to acknowledge that there are more solutions to a problem than his own.
I'm an Atheist, and while I laugh at the truly insane (that is, those that will believe in anything to support their viewpoints) I certainly think there is room for religion in the life of others, without it making them silly.
I had a good time explaining this to the last set of Jehovah's Witnesses that came a-knocking. I guess they were surprised that an atheist could appreciate a reasonable approach to religion, and that an Atheist would say the bible, on the whole, is a decent guide to life (however, I do feel it has its mistakes).
I guess what I'm trying to say is "Don't knock other religions before you see the results of most people practicing them".
Yeah, but don't forget that in the US those transistors were banned from letting you listen to cell networks.
:-)
I doubt that's likely to happen with a software radio (being that it would be hacked within minutes). Free airwaves for all, again!
RIAA man wants to speak with you for using the terms "Honest" and "Mistake".
Search results for Honest found "Rolling Stones", clearly a signed artist.
Search results for Mistake found "Sheryl Crow", also a signed artist.
Please do not encourage the use of the english language for furthering piracy anymore.
I was always wondering what the difference was. :-)
>Ah, correlating for your own political benefit (I'm going to guess that you're from Alberta...just a wild guess).
Nope, Ontario actually.
>Well the dollar has gained about 13% in the past couple of months, so I guess we'd damn well better vote the Liberals back in to keep this going, means that they're directly responsible for its valuation.
Because Jean Chretien has said he will step down. What a nice thug. Perhaps he'll be given the shawinigan handshake, rather than a golden one.
>are you "hard hearted"?
Sure am. And I prefer it that way, too.
>I think you're looking for a disparaging word for Liberal supporters, but if "soft hearted" is the best you can come up with then you should buy a thesaurus).
No, they are soft hearted. They want everyone to have everything (sort of). That isn't possible, and the suffering is done by our economy, and our rights.
Soft hearted is the perfect word, it's just that a lot of people think being soft hearted is always a good thing (IMHO, it isn't).
>Of course the reality is that our dollar value is completely controlled by the US government
Again, because Canada won't stand up to them. That's because Jean Chretien's idea of defending us is 30 year old military equipment that even Somalia has beat.
>http://www.audioreview.com/PRD_124054_1584crx.asp x
LOL, thanks, I haven't read something that funny since I saw a BOSE review comparing BOSE speakers to their GPX clock radio (the clock radio won, BTW, as it could also tell time).
>You know, bi-wiring and the CD markers actually do make small sonic differences on high-priced systems.
Yes, if you are bi-wiring 24 AWG wire, I'm sure it does.
Also, if your CD is cracked and the CD marker was infact a glue stick, I'm sure it would also improve the sound.
But I'm not sure why this would only help high-end systems. Seems even a YorX would benefit from bi-wiring considering the wire included with their systems.