Not meant to debate you at all, really, my only problem was with your sentence about it being illegal. That has no bearing whatsoever on whether it is bad. That's why I brought up the rewrite with fucking. Sodomy is illegal in many states, and so is premarrital sex. Laws against homosexual sex are still on the books in your beloved Texas, and were only invalidated recently.
That being said, let me repeat a few things you said: First of all, sodomy doesn't kill people.... And just as with the drunk driving example, the mere act of sodomy while infected with HIV is not a gauranteed death (although sodomy does have a fairly high infection rate--drunk driving probably has a much lower fatality rate).
Right, so drunk driving doesn't kill people, hitting them with the car does. And sodomy doesn't kill people. Infecting them with an infectious disease does. Now, just being devil's advocate here, but wouldn't it make more sense for it to be illegal to knowingly infect someone with an infectious disease without their knowledge? Wouldn't it also make more sense for it to be illegal to kill somebody rather than for it to be illegal to drive after having x number of alcoholic beverages, y doses of medicine which may or may not contain alcohol, etc.? How many other laws can you know the exact wording of and not be sure whether you're breaking the law or not? Sure, it's reasonably safe to assume that you'll be under the limit if you've only had two beers in the last hour, but you really don't KNOW. How many bars have breathalyzers available for use? How many people own their own? Are these accurate enough? Will the BAC continue to go up beyond the legal limit even after you stop drinking? So what if I own my own and know the answers to those questions. Most people don't. Some of the DUI laws on the books are absolute bullshit. I know one person who got a DUI for operating a bicycle. We had one here get a DUI for being in the vehicle with his keys within reach. He was sleeping off a night of boozing inside of his car, and his keys were in the glove compartment, but it was "within reach, and he could've driven the vehicle" so they still charged him. And that one won in court.
All I'm saying is, basically, that I agree that drinking and driving is a Bad Thing(TM) overall. I'm not trying to debate you on that at all. But keep in mind that most laws are poorly written bullshit at best, and downright totalitarian at worst. I wouldn't be caught dead using "it's illegal so it's bad" as the primary claim to support my argument. You could just say "it results in an intolerably large increase in the risks to others" or some other babble like that. At least you wouldn't be resorting to "but politicians said we shouldn't do it!"
And now videogames. Yes, it's a never ending cycle. Soon this will all blow over and something new will come along that people can point to and blame all of societies ills on.
We should just stop sending any aid over there whatsoever and let them figure it out for themselves.
That's the first intelligent thing I've seen you say so far! Finally, somebody who gets it!
Do people REALLY think that sending food, money, wealth, weapons, or technology is going to solve societal problems? It's the same old greed, hate, religion, and mental disorders that are causing the same problems society has had since that fateful day when the first monkey flung poo at the second monkey. If you want to eliminate these, you'll have to eliminate the people first.
But also the surface of mars has much evidence of erosion and it has cannons and such so i can see how it has tectonic plates as well!
Your teacher told you about the cannons on mars? Shame on him! That wasn't supposed to be declassified until the year 2150. Of course you'll probably be almost 162 years old by then, but with the help of modern tectonic heating plates, mars cannons, and incompetent Science teachers, you should be able to live that long. Unless, of course, you go to mars. Then your odds are much, much lower.
I know I'm blowing this out of proportion and it's not a "fair" comparison, but I'd like to remind you that it's not necessarily the illegality of something which makes it bad. Saying "because it's illegal" means absolutely nothing other than "you might get in trouble if you get caught or turned in for it." Or it could be used against you in situations where a DA can't find anything else to get you for.
Get over yourself. Drinking and driving is illegal. It kills people. It's also very, very easily tested for. Other bad driving actions are not so easily tested for, and thus it is much harder to get convictions. The fact that there are a dozen other poor driving habits that can contribute to deaths on the road does not absolve or mitigate the dangers of drunken driving. Perhaps one day we'll have black boxes in all our cars that can tattle on us if we are using our cellphones while driving and we cause an accident--until that day comes, unfortunately some people who are in the wrong will get off. But for the here and now, we can tell if you've been drinking.
Oh, and don't try your little trick down here in Texas. Here, driving with a license (considered a privilidge, just like most states) requires that you take a breathalyzer on demand or you lose your license, period. It's simply the agreement you make when you get a license. You effectively waive your right to an attorney beforehand.
Get over yourself. Sodomy is illegal. It kills people. It's also very, very easily tested for. Other sexually risque actions are not so easily tested for, and thus it is much harder to get convictions. The fact that there are a dozen other sexually risque actions that can contribute to deaths does not absolve or mitigate the dangers of sodomy. Perhaps one day we'll have black boxes in all our bodies that can tattle on us if we are sodomizing and we cause an injury--until that day comes, unfortunately some people who are in the wrong will get off. But for the here and now, we can tell if you've been sodomizing.
Oh, and don't try your little trick down here in Texas. Here, fucking [with a license] (considered a privilidge(sic), just like most states) requires that you take an anal virginity test on demand or you lose your license, period. It's simply the agreement you make when you get a license. You effectively waive your right to an attorney beforehand.
Thank you for informing us about this situation . Your country thanks you for what you have done; this information will be very useful to us in the future. Rest assured we will not rest until these criminals are stopped by any means necessary.
With Love,
Your Local Friendly Government
P.S. Only seven months left until your tax deadline! Don't be caught with your pants around your ankles!
I've seen test sugesting the danger is not the cellphone at all, it's the fact that yhe driver loses consentration while talking. Same as driver losing consentration while talking to someone siting in the car, therefore, that should be ilegal to... right?:p
You should've read the whole study! The driver loses concentration because they're focusing on the person they're talking to, yes. This is the same in both situations. The difference is that the non-passenger can't see what's going on on the driver's side.
A passenger will recognize immediate danger and shutup, gasp, scream, or do something. Sometimes their reaction actually forces the driver to notice it. Most of the time it's more helpful than them continuing the conversation as normal.
The person you're talking to on the cell phone is going to keep talking like normal until you yell "SHIT" or they hear your car smash into another vehicle.
Hands-free headsets don't help with these problems at all; it's just more bullshit feel-good legislation designed to make people feel better about a perceived problem.
Actually, under a related theory, I propose that driving while receiving road head actually decreases accident rates infinitely more than using handsfree headsets. It not only gets your passenger to shutup, but forces you to be more alert and cautious as a driver (looking out for people with cameras, police, ad infinitum). It also has a tendency to temporarily reduce aggression, even after road head has reached its climax, which is known to be the cause of many accidents, all violence, and many unsafe habits.
I'd go so far as to say that all vehicles should be equipped with such devices by 2010. I'm even willing to risk my own safety and volunteer my time and technical skills as an alpha or beta tester.
This is why the government restricted FedEx and other package delivery services from carrying first class mail. USPS has a mandate to deliver anywhere; the package carriers don't want to deliver everywhere, just selected (more profitable) areas.
It's REALLY funny that you say this. My parents live in the middle of the desert, on a little dirt road. It's way back there, and takes at least ten minutes to get to from the little highway that runs through the area. And that's when I'm flying through in my 4WD SUV, chewing on the dust. USPS refuses to deliver to their house because the roads usually get washed away in the winter. UPS delivers straight to their door. If I want a package to be delivered to them, instead of making them drive all the way to the post office to pick it up, I have to send it UPS. They have to drive to the post office once or twice a week so they can check their mail.
Of course they don't have cable modem or DSL there, either, because both companies stopped offering their services a few thousand feet short of their house, and cell phones only work when the battery is fully charged and you stand on the porch, facing north, with your cell phone at the proper angle.
UPS is, amazingly, the only of the services that is reliable, timely, and doesn't mind serving their area. USPS's motto is a bunch of crap.
Here in Europe, most new cars from middle-class upwards have this.
Shhhhh! Don't tell the yanks! They're finally getting it now, only it's an expensive new feature. They're starting to catch up. They even got Fanta a few years ago!
To answer your questions though, yes, it is indeed a "cool new feature" in the states. This is straight out of the movies technology, as seen in The Transporter.
Operating systems CAN NOT tell if a program is good or bad. Operating systems only do what the user says to do. Frankly, if it did anything else I'd be pissed.
A *really* clever robot would spot the sniper *before* he fires. And evolution says a *really* clever soldier who can duck *before* the sniper fires should exist by now.
Of course if politicians had evolved to win hearts and minds less insurgents would be shooting at us, and if intelligence had evolved to better counter insurgencies we wouldn't be worrying so much either.
What am I saying? More technology is ALWAYS the solution.
Google proved that if you used targetted ads you could replace half a screen worth of ads with just one single group of text advertisements. I suspect they'll do something similar for an office suite, perhaps with the ads targetted to the content of your document.
And I can just see this being used on classified computer systems throughout the country:
SUPERSECRET//EYES ONLY
(SUPERSECRET) CHINA'S NEW MISSILE SYSTEM (TAIWAN-CRUSHER 36) IS EXPECTED TO LAUNCH...
Would you like to buy a new or used Chinese Missile System? EBAY.COM Are you interested in reading about crushing Taiwan? AMAZON.COM
...of a bursting shell and to boggle at making his eyes water by means of lachrymatory gas. It is not necessary to use only the most deadly gasses: gasses can be used which cause great inconvenience and would spread a lively terror and yet would leave no serious permanent effects on most of those affected... Right, you should be familiar with that one. I think it's called TEAR GAS. That's what we've historically used to shut a bunch of crying hippies up for a while. It also helps stop these non-violent peacelovers from killing anyone in their anger over violence.
Sure, it's been abused by police, and yes, it really, really hurts. I've inhaled it before, and that was a BIG mistake! But given the choice between being shot by a rubber bullet, smacked by a baton, gased by sarin, gased by mustard gas, or gased by a NON-TOXIC NON-FATAL NON-HARMFUL gas that makes your fucking eyes water and your skin itch while clearing out your sinuses? Please. I'll take the tear gas again, please.
Of course I guess you're about to tell me why this is no different from gasing the jews. You can tell that to my great grandparents and their siblings, and, while you're at it, try to help them find where the smoke from their dead fucking corpses landed. The only fucking evil YOU know is that tasty cheeseburger you're eating and the fucking PETA and ALF organizations your partners support.
Sorry if my profanity offends people reading this, but sometimes it's necessary to highlight certain thoughts in one's speech. I'm not a fucking macroverbumsciolist. It serves the purposes of communication, and is universally understood, unlike your fucking grandiloquence. You're probably stupid enough to think calling my comments "pithy" is a fucking insult. Wait, this paragraph may or may not apply to anyone reading it. I just got myself all worked up KNOWING what responses were going to follow. So please re-read my posts before you flame me, and keep in mind that I can't quite possibly be a nazi, even though I don't agree with everyone's views.
Actually I think there would have to be a new regulatory commision created, so that *certain political figureheads* can give out more important positions as political favors CERTAIN POLITICAL FIGUREHEADS? How about all of them. Every last one of them. The more powerful they are, the more positions they're going to have to give out. I hope this new regulatory commission has a large enough budget to sustain all of that!
But honestly, you're fooling yourself if you think that one party is squeeky clean and the other is corrupt and evil. A lot of the politicians who got themselves elected with their own money just got that money from illegal activities, family money from illegal activities, or flat-out extortion or manipulation of the capitalist system. Not that I think this is a terribly bad system, it's certainly better than Divine Right. I'm just saying you should know that the same shit happened under a lot of democratic presidents, republican presidents, and yes, even intelligent presidents.
I think I have found the connection . They are better present than the current President of the USA Yeah, this coming from FIDEL CASTRO. If you wanted to shock me you could've praised capitalism and christianity.
I'm not going to argue about who is or isn't a better president because I don't really have any objective method of measuring such a thing. All I'm going to say is that President Bush is very, very good at what he does. I'm just not quite sure what he's doing all the time, and many of the reasons are eluding me. He's obviously quite good at it though, otherwise he'd never have been elected twice. And don't give me that crap about stealing an election. Even if that's true and all he did was stuff ballot boxes, he's damned good at it! Right now he's the best out of all the politicians, and that takes SKILL, my friend.
All that being said, it'll be really interesting how history views this in 20 years. Some presidents have presided over absolute fucking chaos. Lincoln is a great example of this. Brutal marshall law imposed against the citizens for a war many thought was stupid and pointless. Hundreds of thousands of casualties. A horde of DARK PEOPLE unleashed upon society! But our opinion now is that it was the Right Thing (TM) because it ended up in a way that we feel benefits us and is better than the alternative. Only time will tell how this affects the future. We may end up thinking it was a huge blunder, and we may end up praising the man for his convictions. One thing's for sure: As the older generations die off, the younger generations will get older, consider themselves wiser, become more conservative, and start worrying about the younger generations.
My money is on the USA doing the same thing it did in Vietnam. Stick with it for a long, bloody time, then get fed up with it and pull out at JUST the right time so that massive repercussions await those who allied with us. Ever talked to someone who managed to escape south vietnam in its final days? I have met quite a few. Their story is usually along the lines of "I thank you for what you did for us, but I don't know if I can ever forgive you for what you did to us." Basically that we pulled out, entire families were brutally slaughtered all over the place, especially for their support for America. A lot of people that escaped were the only survivors in their family. Why? Because America gets sick of dying for other people. Even if its the only thing keeping those other people alive. Also because politicians, in the end, cater to the largest and loudist lobbying groups, and nothing is fucking louder than a group of war protesters.
I'm not saying whether any of this is right or wrong. I'm not saying whether America's leadership is a bunch of assholes or heros. I'm just saying that these are things that people need to rationally look at, preferably without the political blinders on, and discuss the ramifications of. And then keep in mind that most of us are probably wrong.
First off, assuming you're not lying, I thank you on actually having some knowledge on what you're posting. It'd be nice if this could be more of a logical, reasonable, technical debate instead of an emotional argument. I understand the need for not discussing certain things, and for that same reason I'm not going to be publicly posting anything about what I do. I will admit that I don't work in your field, and it's been a while since I worked with many engineers. I don't think I even need Physics 101 to support my arguments on this matter, as I'm not debating science, engineering, or any technical details whatsoever. In fact, my debate is purely in the humanities side of the house, and I have all the necessary credentials for that - I'm human.
Now on to the arguing:
Really? I don't see any huge public movement for NASA to cancel space flight which would the case if your statement was correct. Most of the public is IGNORANT of the risks, they just like the "gee whiz" effect. And for sure they are not competent to judge the risks. Those of us who ARE competent to judge the risks and the chances those risk may come to pass are not highly thought of at NASA. We just give off too many "negative vibes" I guess.
They DO NOT want to go up and NOT come down. SAFETY of the entire MISSION is critical to them.
I think those two statements say it all. One sounds like the typical "let's cancel all manned space flight until it's 100% safe" bullshit, the second iteration is entirely reasonable, and exactly what I would expect out of a bunch of astronauts. But when reading both of your posts one would get the impression of "they shouldn't go up because it's too dangerous". In your first post that's pretty much all you said, and that's where my complaint was. There may be some serious problems at NASA. The entire shuttle program may be fatally flawed. It may be a waste of lives, money, man-hours, fuel, and hope. Nobody can objectively make that decision, and anyone who says they can is lying.
I'm not saying astronauts want to die. I'm not saying pilots don't (or shouldn't) have a blind faith in the engineers, nor am I saying it has never been misplaced. I'll even say that there will never, EVER be a 100% safe manned space flight program. I simply don't see why that should stop us from having manned space flight. Certainly it's no different than normal flight in this regard. It will never be totally safe. Neither will crossing the street or driving your car or walking your dog be 100% safe. You might have a heart attack while sexing your wife. Why should this STOP us from doing any of this? Do we, as a society, really want to live in terror because something might hurt us? Furthermore, do we want to force everyone else to live safely because the idea of THEM getting hurt scares the crap out of us? That's what this all really boils down to. Since you don't like me much, I'm sure you would agree that I should be able to jump off a cliff without a parachute to test my new theories on flight.
Your primary argument shouldn't be "oh no, astronauts might die". Your primary argument could be "NASA is lying to its astronauts about the safety of the shuttle". It could be "We're spending too much money on shuttles that will inevitably just blow up". It could be "This is what needs to be done to replace the shuttle". But telling me that it's too dangerous for astronauts, and that's the reason we need to STOP MANNED SPACE FLIGHT just isn't going to cut it. Either you're against manned space flight (and I read that to mean For the Eventual Extinction of the Species) or you have a problem with how it's being carried out. If the former is true you have no business working in that industry, nor do you have any business working on the CAIB. If the latter is true, you misspoke in your post, but I'm still capable of respecting you, and may even end up trying to further your cause.
As for the rest of your reply, I've learned that a UserID on slashdot do
Sounds to me like you need to learn a lesson in respect, you fuckwit anus licking terrorist motherfucker.
Right, RESPECT! You sure showed me how respect works!
I may be a fuckwit and an anus licker, but I'm neither a terrorist nor a motherfucker. But I have nothing against fucking the mother of a terrorist, so I guess I could be a terrorist motherfucker, come to think of it.
But back to respect. Respect is exactly what I'm talking about. If a soldier dies for a cause he and his family feel worthy of dying for, should not his wishes be respected after his death? Shouldn't he (via a will) or his family be able to stop protest groups from using his name or image for political purposes? I know I'd never want my death to be used to push a political agenda I'd never agree with.
Why did I use it as an example in a conversation about the space shuttle? Because the same thing implies. If the family of a dead astronaut wants to get on TV and say "Mr. Astronaut submitted all of these requests to change such and such about the shuttle, but the administration always turned him down. He did not (know the dangers) (volunteer for the job) or (would not have volunteered the job had he known such and such was a possibility)" then that's all well and good. That's something that should be done, not only to improve society, but out of respect for the wishes and life of the deceased. The same is going on with soldiers that are killed in action, only the protests have a lot more media attention, and most people can more closely relate to military service or war than space exploration - though the vast majority of the population knows very little of either.
Admittedly I'm no astronaut, nor do I claim to be an expert in any sort of manned space exploration. I haven't personally known any astronauts that have died in the line of duty. But I think it's safe to claim that the following statements are likely fact:
1. It was not their wishes that their death be used as a weapon against manned space flight 2. That they knew the risks they were undertaking and did so willingly 3. That they fought to have the chance of taking the risks they took 4. The bullshit factor on this whole thing is really, really high.
Americans are free to protest and say whatever the hell they want (as long as it doesn't piss off anyone with the power to make a constitutional amendment against it), and as long as they don't swear in a medium the FCC can touch, and as long as they don't violate any other ridiculous laws, have the proper permits, etc. I'm not suggesting that the police come in and kill protesters for being assholes who are abusing the names, images, and wishes of deceased heros. I'm simply suggesting that I don't fucking like people who do that. Maybe it's because I have respect for people who die doing stuff like that, respect for their wishes, or respect for free speech and my duty to uphold such laws as long as I can.
Perhaps you should quit offering to "teach me a lesson in respect", start actually reading what people are saying, and take notice of the respect those people have. Then you can try imitating it, learn some respect for yourself, possibly some respect for me as well as for your beliefs by not posting as an AC, and maybe in the future have some respect for the beliefs of those who disagree with you.
According to an electronic memo from FBI headquarters, established legal precedents indicate that conviction is most likely in cases where the content "includes bestiality, urination, defecation, as well as sadistic and masochistic behavior."
I was fine with killing all the indians. I was fine with burning witches. I was fine with stealing half of mexico. I was fine with putting the japs in a bunch of camps. I was fine with american imperialism. I'm fine with a war on islam (if it weakens christianity). But if they take away my fucking porn, I'm going to lead an armed rebellion. We can move to canada, arm up, then invade from the north! They'll NEVER expect that!
I know exactly why they're doing this. It's the same reason you might offer someone $500 for a car you intend to pay $2000 for. Offer the extreme and make them bargain with you to the point where you're happy, but this way they feel relieved because they didn't get totally fucked. So instead of us arguing to make prostitution and marijuana legal, we're fighting this battle over something much more severe, and losing territory in the mean time. Brilliant strategy on their part, really, until it pisses people off.
Those of us who ARE competent to judge the risks and the chances those risk may come to pass are not highly thought of at NASA. We just give off too many "negative vibes" I guess. I don't know what you do at NASA, but you don't sound like an astronaut to me, and you definitely don't sound like an engineer in your previos posts, so I'd love to see your credentials in this matter. Do you work in risk analysis?
All of that aside, you obviously were never a pilot or aircrew member anywhere. Nobody is more hated than the asshole who's always telling you you're going to die as you go up for a mission. Nobody likes the guy who calls the air (or space) craft that is keeping them alive a "deathtrap". If you started that crap around here you'd be punched in the face.
Furthermore, unless you're an astronaut, I don't care on your opinion of the risks. If the astronauts feel they're too dangerous too fly, we shouldn't. If we can't afford to fly them, we need to find a cheaper replacement. Otherwise, since we've already built the damned things, and the astronauts apparently think the risks are worth it, we should (as a population) should quit crying about the people whose names we don't even know and let them do their fucking jobs.
To me it's just like some of the anti-war protesters complaining about US casualties, putting up the crosses, etc. They don't speak for the majority of the soldiers who are fighting, nor do they speak for the majority of the soldiers' families, nor do they speak for the majority of the dead soldiers, nor do they speak for the majority of the families of the dead soldiers. They're protesting, using the names of dead soldiers against the wishes of the soldiers and their families. There are many names for that in english, but it's definitely not genuine concern for the person they're trying to pretend they care about.
It's politics, pure and simple, only now you're playing off the death of one more crew of astronauts to push your agenda and beliefs.
Slashdot Mirror
Thank you. I may be sad that you beat me to it, but I'm damned happy that somebody else said it. Good reminder of why I added you as a friend
Why do I get the feeling you've been enjoying a little Penn & Teller lately?
Not meant to debate you at all, really, my only problem was with your sentence about it being illegal. That has no bearing whatsoever on whether it is bad. That's why I brought up the rewrite with fucking. Sodomy is illegal in many states, and so is premarrital sex. Laws against homosexual sex are still on the books in your beloved Texas, and were only invalidated recently.
...
That being said, let me repeat a few things you said:
First of all, sodomy doesn't kill people.
And just as with the drunk driving example, the mere act of sodomy while infected with HIV is not a gauranteed death (although sodomy does have a fairly high infection rate--drunk driving probably has a much lower fatality rate).
Right, so drunk driving doesn't kill people, hitting them with the car does. And sodomy doesn't kill people. Infecting them with an infectious disease does.
Now, just being devil's advocate here, but wouldn't it make more sense for it to be illegal to knowingly infect someone with an infectious disease without their knowledge? Wouldn't it also make more sense for it to be illegal to kill somebody rather than for it to be illegal to drive after having x number of alcoholic beverages, y doses of medicine which may or may not contain alcohol, etc.? How many other laws can you know the exact wording of and not be sure whether you're breaking the law or not? Sure, it's reasonably safe to assume that you'll be under the limit if you've only had two beers in the last hour, but you really don't KNOW. How many bars have breathalyzers available for use? How many people own their own? Are these accurate enough? Will the BAC continue to go up beyond the legal limit even after you stop drinking? So what if I own my own and know the answers to those questions. Most people don't. Some of the DUI laws on the books are absolute bullshit. I know one person who got a DUI for operating a bicycle. We had one here get a DUI for being in the vehicle with his keys within reach. He was sleeping off a night of boozing inside of his car, and his keys were in the glove compartment, but it was "within reach, and he could've driven the vehicle" so they still charged him. And that one won in court.
All I'm saying is, basically, that I agree that drinking and driving is a Bad Thing(TM) overall. I'm not trying to debate you on that at all. But keep in mind that most laws are poorly written bullshit at best, and downright totalitarian at worst. I wouldn't be caught dead using "it's illegal so it's bad" as the primary claim to support my argument. You could just say "it results in an intolerably large increase in the risks to others" or some other babble like that. At least you wouldn't be resorting to "but politicians said we shouldn't do it!"
And now videogames. Yes, it's a never ending cycle. Soon this will all blow over and something new will come along that people can point to and blame all of societies ills on.
I'll take religion for 500, Alex.
That's the first intelligent thing I've seen you say so far! Finally, somebody who gets it!
Do people REALLY think that sending food, money, wealth, weapons, or technology is going to solve societal problems? It's the same old greed, hate, religion, and mental disorders that are causing the same problems society has had since that fateful day when the first monkey flung poo at the second monkey. If you want to eliminate these, you'll have to eliminate the people first.
Your teacher told you about the cannons on mars? Shame on him! That wasn't supposed to be declassified until the year 2150. Of course you'll probably be almost 162 years old by then, but with the help of modern tectonic heating plates, mars cannons, and incompetent Science teachers, you should be able to live that long. Unless, of course, you go to mars. Then your odds are much, much lower.
Get over yourself. Sodomy is illegal. It kills people. It's also very, very easily tested for. Other sexually risque actions are not so easily tested for, and thus it is much harder to get convictions. The fact that there are a dozen other sexually risque actions that can contribute to deaths does not absolve or mitigate the dangers of sodomy. Perhaps one day we'll have black boxes in all our bodies that can tattle on us if we are sodomizing and we cause an injury--until that day comes, unfortunately some people who are in the wrong will get off. But for the here and now, we can tell if you've been sodomizing.
Oh, and don't try your little trick down here in Texas. Here, fucking [with a license] (considered a privilidge(sic), just like most states) requires that you take an anal virginity test on demand or you lose your license, period. It's simply the agreement you make when you get a license. You effectively waive your right to an attorney beforehand.
Dear Mr. Zoloto,
Thank you for informing us about this situation . Your country thanks you for what you have done; this information will be very useful to us in the future. Rest assured we will not rest until these criminals are stopped by any means necessary.
With Love,
Your Local Friendly Government
P.S. Only seven months left until your tax deadline! Don't be caught with your pants around your ankles!
When the drivers where installed in an foreign country was this an unfriendly act of espionage by the US government.
We're the government. We're here to check the serial number on your printer.
That's why I hire someone to handle mine for me.
No, no, no, you've got it all backwards. The larger the number the better.
You should've read the whole study! The driver loses concentration because they're focusing on the person they're talking to, yes. This is the same in both situations. The difference is that the non-passenger can't see what's going on on the driver's side.
A passenger will recognize immediate danger and shutup, gasp, scream, or do something. Sometimes their reaction actually forces the driver to notice it. Most of the time it's more helpful than them continuing the conversation as normal.
The person you're talking to on the cell phone is going to keep talking like normal until you yell "SHIT" or they hear your car smash into another vehicle.
Hands-free headsets don't help with these problems at all; it's just more bullshit feel-good legislation designed to make people feel better about a perceived problem.
Actually, under a related theory, I propose that driving while receiving road head actually decreases accident rates infinitely more than using handsfree headsets. It not only gets your passenger to shutup, but forces you to be more alert and cautious as a driver (looking out for people with cameras, police, ad infinitum). It also has a tendency to temporarily reduce aggression, even after road head has reached its climax, which is known to be the cause of many accidents, all violence, and many unsafe habits.
I'd go so far as to say that all vehicles should be equipped with such devices by 2010. I'm even willing to risk my own safety and volunteer my time and technical skills as an alpha or beta tester.
It's REALLY funny that you say this. My parents live in the middle of the desert, on a little dirt road. It's way back there, and takes at least ten minutes to get to from the little highway that runs through the area. And that's when I'm flying through in my 4WD SUV, chewing on the dust. USPS refuses to deliver to their house because the roads usually get washed away in the winter. UPS delivers straight to their door. If I want a package to be delivered to them, instead of making them drive all the way to the post office to pick it up, I have to send it UPS. They have to drive to the post office once or twice a week so they can check their mail.
Of course they don't have cable modem or DSL there, either, because both companies stopped offering their services a few thousand feet short of their house, and cell phones only work when the battery is fully charged and you stand on the porch, facing north, with your cell phone at the proper angle.
UPS is, amazingly, the only of the services that is reliable, timely, and doesn't mind serving their area. USPS's motto is a bunch of crap.
Here in Europe, most new cars from middle-class upwards have this.
Shhhhh! Don't tell the yanks! They're finally getting it now, only it's an expensive new feature. They're starting to catch up. They even got Fanta a few years ago!
To answer your questions though, yes, it is indeed a "cool new feature" in the states. This is straight out of the movies technology, as seen in The Transporter.
Operating systems CAN NOT tell if a program is good or bad. Operating systems only do what the user says to do. Frankly, if it did anything else I'd be pissed.
You're going to hate DRM, buddy.
name one thing MS has that there isn't prior art for.
Bill Gates' haircut.
A *really* clever robot would spot the sniper *before* he fires.
And evolution says a *really* clever soldier who can duck *before* the sniper fires should exist by now.
Of course if politicians had evolved to win hearts and minds less insurgents would be shooting at us, and if intelligence had evolved to better counter insurgencies we wouldn't be worrying so much either.
What am I saying? More technology is ALWAYS the solution.
Google proved that if you used targetted ads you could replace half a screen worth of ads with just one single group of text advertisements. I suspect they'll do something similar for an office suite, perhaps with the ads targetted to the content of your document.
And I can just see this being used on classified computer systems throughout the country:
SUPERSECRET//EYES ONLY
(SUPERSECRET) CHINA'S NEW MISSILE SYSTEM (TAIWAN-CRUSHER 36) IS EXPECTED TO LAUNCH...
Would you like to buy a new or used Chinese Missile System? EBAY.COM
Are you interested in reading about crushing Taiwan? AMAZON.COM
...of a bursting shell and to boggle at making his eyes water by means of lachrymatory gas.
It is not necessary to use only the most deadly gasses: gasses can be used which cause great inconvenience and would spread a lively terror and yet would leave no serious permanent effects on most of those affected...
Right, you should be familiar with that one. I think it's called TEAR GAS. That's what we've historically used to shut a bunch of crying hippies up for a while. It also helps stop these non-violent peacelovers from killing anyone in their anger over violence.
Sure, it's been abused by police, and yes, it really, really hurts. I've inhaled it before, and that was a BIG mistake! But given the choice between being shot by a rubber bullet, smacked by a baton, gased by sarin, gased by mustard gas, or gased by a NON-TOXIC NON-FATAL NON-HARMFUL gas that makes your fucking eyes water and your skin itch while clearing out your sinuses? Please. I'll take the tear gas again, please.
Of course I guess you're about to tell me why this is no different from gasing the jews. You can tell that to my great grandparents and their siblings, and, while you're at it, try to help them find where the smoke from their dead fucking corpses landed. The only fucking evil YOU know is that tasty cheeseburger you're eating and the fucking PETA and ALF organizations your partners support.
Sorry if my profanity offends people reading this, but sometimes it's necessary to highlight certain thoughts in one's speech. I'm not a fucking macroverbumsciolist. It serves the purposes of communication, and is universally understood, unlike your fucking grandiloquence. You're probably stupid enough to think calling my comments "pithy" is a fucking insult. Wait, this paragraph may or may not apply to anyone reading it. I just got myself all worked up KNOWING what responses were going to follow. So please re-read my posts before you flame me, and keep in mind that I can't quite possibly be a nazi, even though I don't agree with everyone's views.
Actually I think there would have to be a new regulatory commision created, so that *certain political figureheads* can give out more important positions as political favors
CERTAIN POLITICAL FIGUREHEADS? How about all of them. Every last one of them. The more powerful they are, the more positions they're going to have to give out. I hope this new regulatory commission has a large enough budget to sustain all of that!
But honestly, you're fooling yourself if you think that one party is squeeky clean and the other is corrupt and evil. A lot of the politicians who got themselves elected with their own money just got that money from illegal activities, family money from illegal activities, or flat-out extortion or manipulation of the capitalist system. Not that I think this is a terribly bad system, it's certainly better than Divine Right. I'm just saying you should know that the same shit happened under a lot of democratic presidents, republican presidents, and yes, even intelligent presidents.
I think I have found the connection . They are better present than the current President of the USA
Yeah, this coming from FIDEL CASTRO. If you wanted to shock me you could've praised capitalism and christianity.
I'm not going to argue about who is or isn't a better president because I don't really have any objective method of measuring such a thing. All I'm going to say is that President Bush is very, very good at what he does. I'm just not quite sure what he's doing all the time, and many of the reasons are eluding me. He's obviously quite good at it though, otherwise he'd never have been elected twice. And don't give me that crap about stealing an election. Even if that's true and all he did was stuff ballot boxes, he's damned good at it! Right now he's the best out of all the politicians, and that takes SKILL, my friend.
All that being said, it'll be really interesting how history views this in 20 years. Some presidents have presided over absolute fucking chaos. Lincoln is a great example of this. Brutal marshall law imposed against the citizens for a war many thought was stupid and pointless. Hundreds of thousands of casualties. A horde of DARK PEOPLE unleashed upon society! But our opinion now is that it was the Right Thing (TM) because it ended up in a way that we feel benefits us and is better than the alternative. Only time will tell how this affects the future. We may end up thinking it was a huge blunder, and we may end up praising the man for his convictions. One thing's for sure: As the older generations die off, the younger generations will get older, consider themselves wiser, become more conservative, and start worrying about the younger generations.
My money is on the USA doing the same thing it did in Vietnam. Stick with it for a long, bloody time, then get fed up with it and pull out at JUST the right time so that massive repercussions await those who allied with us. Ever talked to someone who managed to escape south vietnam in its final days? I have met quite a few. Their story is usually along the lines of "I thank you for what you did for us, but I don't know if I can ever forgive you for what you did to us." Basically that we pulled out, entire families were brutally slaughtered all over the place, especially for their support for America. A lot of people that escaped were the only survivors in their family. Why? Because America gets sick of dying for other people. Even if its the only thing keeping those other people alive. Also because politicians, in the end, cater to the largest and loudist lobbying groups, and nothing is fucking louder than a group of war protesters.
I'm not saying whether any of this is right or wrong. I'm not saying whether America's leadership is a bunch of assholes or heros. I'm just saying that these are things that people need to rationally look at, preferably without the political blinders on, and discuss the ramifications of. And then keep in mind that most of us are probably wrong.
Do you really want to fight a war against a bunch of people who fuck horses, fuck babies, and get off on shitting and pissing all over each other?
Those are the kind of people my mother warned me about!
How do I opt-out of this war of yours?
First off, assuming you're not lying, I thank you on actually having some knowledge on what you're posting. It'd be nice if this could be more of a logical, reasonable, technical debate instead of an emotional argument. I understand the need for not discussing certain things, and for that same reason I'm not going to be publicly posting anything about what I do. I will admit that I don't work in your field, and it's been a while since I worked with many engineers. I don't think I even need Physics 101 to support my arguments on this matter, as I'm not debating science, engineering, or any technical details whatsoever. In fact, my debate is purely in the humanities side of the house, and I have all the necessary credentials for that - I'm human.
Now on to the arguing:
Really? I don't see any huge public movement for NASA to cancel space flight which would the case if your statement was correct. Most of the public is IGNORANT of the risks, they just like the "gee whiz" effect. And for sure they are not competent to judge the risks. Those of us who ARE competent to judge the risks and the chances those risk may come to pass are not highly thought of at NASA. We just give off too many "negative vibes" I guess.
They DO NOT want to go up and NOT come down. SAFETY of the entire MISSION is critical to them.
I think those two statements say it all. One sounds like the typical "let's cancel all manned space flight until it's 100% safe" bullshit, the second iteration is entirely reasonable, and exactly what I would expect out of a bunch of astronauts. But when reading both of your posts one would get the impression of "they shouldn't go up because it's too dangerous". In your first post that's pretty much all you said, and that's where my complaint was. There may be some serious problems at NASA. The entire shuttle program may be fatally flawed. It may be a waste of lives, money, man-hours, fuel, and hope. Nobody can objectively make that decision, and anyone who says they can is lying.
I'm not saying astronauts want to die. I'm not saying pilots don't (or shouldn't) have a blind faith in the engineers, nor am I saying it has never been misplaced. I'll even say that there will never, EVER be a 100% safe manned space flight program. I simply don't see why that should stop us from having manned space flight. Certainly it's no different than normal flight in this regard. It will never be totally safe. Neither will crossing the street or driving your car or walking your dog be 100% safe. You might have a heart attack while sexing your wife. Why should this STOP us from doing any of this? Do we, as a society, really want to live in terror because something might hurt us? Furthermore, do we want to force everyone else to live safely because the idea of THEM getting hurt scares the crap out of us? That's what this all really boils down to. Since you don't like me much, I'm sure you would agree that I should be able to jump off a cliff without a parachute to test my new theories on flight.
Your primary argument shouldn't be "oh no, astronauts might die". Your primary argument could be "NASA is lying to its astronauts about the safety of the shuttle". It could be "We're spending too much money on shuttles that will inevitably just blow up". It could be "This is what needs to be done to replace the shuttle". But telling me that it's too dangerous for astronauts, and that's the reason we need to STOP MANNED SPACE FLIGHT just isn't going to cut it. Either you're against manned space flight (and I read that to mean For the Eventual Extinction of the Species) or you have a problem with how it's being carried out. If the former is true you have no business working in that industry, nor do you have any business working on the CAIB. If the latter is true, you misspoke in your post, but I'm still capable of respecting you, and may even end up trying to further your cause.
As for the rest of your reply, I've learned that a UserID on slashdot do
Right, RESPECT! You sure showed me how respect works!
I may be a fuckwit and an anus licker, but I'm neither a terrorist nor a motherfucker. But I have nothing against fucking the mother of a terrorist, so I guess I could be a terrorist motherfucker, come to think of it.
But back to respect. Respect is exactly what I'm talking about. If a soldier dies for a cause he and his family feel worthy of dying for, should not his wishes be respected after his death? Shouldn't he (via a will) or his family be able to stop protest groups from using his name or image for political purposes? I know I'd never want my death to be used to push a political agenda I'd never agree with.
Why did I use it as an example in a conversation about the space shuttle? Because the same thing implies. If the family of a dead astronaut wants to get on TV and say "Mr. Astronaut submitted all of these requests to change such and such about the shuttle, but the administration always turned him down. He did not (know the dangers) (volunteer for the job) or (would not have volunteered the job had he known such and such was a possibility)" then that's all well and good. That's something that should be done, not only to improve society, but out of respect for the wishes and life of the deceased. The same is going on with soldiers that are killed in action, only the protests have a lot more media attention, and most people can more closely relate to military service or war than space exploration - though the vast majority of the population knows very little of either.
Admittedly I'm no astronaut, nor do I claim to be an expert in any sort of manned space exploration. I haven't personally known any astronauts that have died in the line of duty. But I think it's safe to claim that the following statements are likely fact:
1. It was not their wishes that their death be used as a weapon against manned space flight
2. That they knew the risks they were undertaking and did so willingly
3. That they fought to have the chance of taking the risks they took
4. The bullshit factor on this whole thing is really, really high.
Americans are free to protest and say whatever the hell they want (as long as it doesn't piss off anyone with the power to make a constitutional amendment against it), and as long as they don't swear in a medium the FCC can touch, and as long as they don't violate any other ridiculous laws, have the proper permits, etc. I'm not suggesting that the police come in and kill protesters for being assholes who are abusing the names, images, and wishes of deceased heros. I'm simply suggesting that I don't fucking like people who do that. Maybe it's because I have respect for people who die doing stuff like that, respect for their wishes, or respect for free speech and my duty to uphold such laws as long as I can.
Perhaps you should quit offering to "teach me a lesson in respect", start actually reading what people are saying, and take notice of the respect those people have. Then you can try imitating it, learn some respect for yourself, possibly some respect for me as well as for your beliefs by not posting as an AC, and maybe in the future have some respect for the beliefs of those who disagree with you.
According to an electronic memo from FBI headquarters, established legal precedents indicate that conviction is most likely in cases where the content "includes bestiality, urination, defecation, as well as sadistic and masochistic behavior."
I was fine with killing all the indians. I was fine with burning witches. I was fine with stealing half of mexico. I was fine with putting the japs in a bunch of camps. I was fine with american imperialism. I'm fine with a war on islam (if it weakens christianity). But if they take away my fucking porn, I'm going to lead an armed rebellion. We can move to canada, arm up, then invade from the north! They'll NEVER expect that!
I know exactly why they're doing this. It's the same reason you might offer someone $500 for a car you intend to pay $2000 for. Offer the extreme and make them bargain with you to the point where you're happy, but this way they feel relieved because they didn't get totally fucked. So instead of us arguing to make prostitution and marijuana legal, we're fighting this battle over something much more severe, and losing territory in the mean time. Brilliant strategy on their part, really, until it pisses people off.
Those of us who ARE competent to judge the risks and the chances those risk may come to pass are not highly thought of at NASA. We just give off too many "negative vibes" I guess.
I don't know what you do at NASA, but you don't sound like an astronaut to me, and you definitely don't sound like an engineer in your previos posts, so I'd love to see your credentials in this matter. Do you work in risk analysis?
All of that aside, you obviously were never a pilot or aircrew member anywhere. Nobody is more hated than the asshole who's always telling you you're going to die as you go up for a mission. Nobody likes the guy who calls the air (or space) craft that is keeping them alive a "deathtrap". If you started that crap around here you'd be punched in the face.
Furthermore, unless you're an astronaut, I don't care on your opinion of the risks. If the astronauts feel they're too dangerous too fly, we shouldn't. If we can't afford to fly them, we need to find a cheaper replacement. Otherwise, since we've already built the damned things, and the astronauts apparently think the risks are worth it, we should (as a population) should quit crying about the people whose names we don't even know and let them do their fucking jobs.
To me it's just like some of the anti-war protesters complaining about US casualties, putting up the crosses, etc. They don't speak for the majority of the soldiers who are fighting, nor do they speak for the majority of the soldiers' families, nor do they speak for the majority of the dead soldiers, nor do they speak for the majority of the families of the dead soldiers. They're protesting, using the names of dead soldiers against the wishes of the soldiers and their families. There are many names for that in english, but it's definitely not genuine concern for the person they're trying to pretend they care about.
It's politics, pure and simple, only now you're playing off the death of one more crew of astronauts to push your agenda and beliefs.