Because the easiest way to improve gas mileage is to reduce the weight of the vehicle, meaning less steel protecting you in an accident.
You know, this is something that amazes me about auto manufacturers and, to an extent, the government -
We all know that race car drivers enjoy a fairly low fatality rate due to 2 key safety devices: The roll cage, and the multi-point restraint system. With modern alloys, building a rollcage into the frame of every car off the line should be a trivial matter, right? So why, then, are cars filled with all manner of airbags and other expensive (especially in terms of power:weight ratios) "safety" features, when the 2 methods proven to keep a person alive even after launching into the air and flipping multiple times are completely ignored by the commercial auto business.
I tried playing GH lefty myself, but apparently I just plain suck at that game.
Then again, even on a real guitar it seems like I'd want my right hand on the fretboard, but I don't know how to play so maybe there are important points I'm overlooking.
Anecdotally speaking, yes. I know, it seems counter-intuitive, but from my experience, switching stance to right-hand-on-fretboard is far more difficult than it at first appears.
Nice strawman. One of the functions of government has always been to promote behavior beneficial for society, and prevent behavior that is detrimental to it. How else can you argue that science and evolution should be taught in the (public) classroom and not creationism (young-earth creationism, specifically)?
Because evolution is a proven scientific fact, unlike the speculation that smoking pot == lower IQ. Or have we forgotten that correlation != causation? Hard to imagine we have, considering how often the phrase is mentioned here.
I could also get into the statistical relevance of allowing a certain subset of society fall out in order to make room for others to excel, but I won't.
Because the former is good for society (well educated populace), while the latter is not.
As stated above, the real reason is because one (evolution) is a verifiable fact, whereas the other (creationism) is unverifiable hocus-pocus. Their effect on the general populace is immaterial (besides, if you think schools are incapable of teaching creationism as though it were fact, you have never been to either A) catholic/baptist/other religious school, or B) Texas).
That is why government offers education in the first place and requires children to be educated. Because it is necessary for a well-formed society, which is in turn required for a well-formed government.
Yea, and look at how well all that is working out for us. As I recall, the mandatory school day was put in place to prevent kids from being forced to work in factories, as it was back during the Industrial Revolution. The intellectual advancement of society in general was more of a side effect; also, it can be argued that public schooling, with regards to collective intellect, is a bell curve - there comes a point where more schooling (or rather, several years of rehashing American History between 1780 and 1900) is detrimental, as students will become bored with the repetitive classwork, and grades will slip.
Also, if that's your best argument for legalization of marijuana ("because otherwise it's like living in 1984!") then you can expect reasonable people to simply ignore you.
That post of mine had far less to do with pot than it did with your assumptions about "the greater good" - a fact I assumed reasonable people would be able to see without having it pointed out to them.
But of course, that's all lies and false propaganda right?
Considering that your first link is to the official Government Office of Anti-Drug Propaganda, and the second one explicitly denies that any conclusive evidence regarding marijuana use and long-term ill effects exists? I'd say it's more a test of your own gullibility than the veracity of your cited sources.
Hey, I've got this bridge for sale in NYC, perhaps you're interested in purchasing it...
Counter-anecdote: I smoked tons of pot in high school, and never had trouble finding work. Of course, this was shortly before and after Bush II became president, and the economy was doing pretty damn good back then if I recall correctly.
Shit, I've had far more trouble finding good, steady work the last couple years than I ever did when I was a dope-addled teen.
It's not about individual intelligence, it's about herd intelligence. If individuals lower their intelligence, the intelligence of the group goes down, and in a democratic society that is devastating. It's actually a problem in any society (except maybe a tyranny or dictatorship), but it's worse when individuals have the ability to influence society directly. Unless, of course, drug users would be willing to give up their vote, which I don't imagine is going to happen anytime soon (nor, indeed, would it be enough to counteract the effects completely.)
By lowering your intelligence, you aren't hurting other individuals, you are hurting your entire culture and their ability to make prudent and intelligent decisions, which in a way is worse than harming individual people, since the effects can last for generations.
Right - what's good for the Party is good for you, Winston.
War is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength.
Do you have any evidence to support that assertion?
The medical community has known for some time that marijuana has adverse effects.
Lol, it never fails to amuse me when someone lambastes another for making an un-backed statement without citing any evidence... moments before they themselves make an un-backed statement without citing any evidence.
To that end, who is this 'medical community' of which you speak, and what are these 'adverse affects' you so ambiguously refer to?
I love the ironic juxtaposition of people claiming to be atheist, i.e., deny the existence of any sort of deity -
You see, in order to claim that something doesn't exist, you have to first admit that it does exist, even if only as a construct of the human mind. So, by outwardly claiming that god (or God or dog or whatever you call the concept) doesn't exist, they are in fact admitting their belief in said concept's existence.
FYI, this is a fun one to break out when some asshole, fundamental extremist 'atheist' is shoving their theological dogma down your throat; the look that pops up on their faces is fucking priceless.
I'm guessing the regulation of a rail gun would fall into categories based on scale, both the size of the projectile and the potential destructive force.
Though I see where you're coming from, I was specifically asking about current regulation that would cover 'destructive devices' powered by electro-magnetism. I wonder, would they be subject to current legislation regulating air-powered weapons? Admittedly, my knowledge of non-firearm projectile weapons regulation is severely lacking.
Something that will launch a volkswagen downrange at a speed that will turn a tank into a puddle of plasma? Not so fine.
Don't know about anyone else, but the image that sentence places in my mind is some seriously hilarious shit; well done.
Slashdot Mirror
Probably a bit easier for you because you're a natural lefty.
I've got a spare acoustic, may be time to string it backwards and give 'er another go...
Why?
Because the easiest way to improve gas mileage is to reduce the weight of the vehicle, meaning less steel protecting you in an accident.
You know, this is something that amazes me about auto manufacturers and, to an extent, the government -
We all know that race car drivers enjoy a fairly low fatality rate due to 2 key safety devices: The roll cage, and the multi-point restraint system. With modern alloys, building a rollcage into the frame of every car off the line should be a trivial matter, right? So why, then, are cars filled with all manner of airbags and other expensive (especially in terms of power:weight ratios) "safety" features, when the 2 methods proven to keep a person alive even after launching into the air and flipping multiple times are completely ignored by the commercial auto business.
soccer mom texting in her gas guzzling behemoth, when wrecking with a subcompact, tends to survive better than the poor guy in the subcompact
so the real solution is to just get rid of the gas guzzling behemoths
Why, so everybody dies, instead of just the guy in the tin can?
Hell, if anything, your little anecdote is a rationale for people to drive nothing but SUVs.
Then again, even on a real guitar it seems like I'd want my right hand on the fretboard, but I don't know how to play so maybe there are important points I'm overlooking.
Anecdotally speaking, yes. I know, it seems counter-intuitive, but from my experience, switching stance to right-hand-on-fretboard is far more difficult than it at first appears.
Nice strawman. One of the functions of government has always been to promote behavior beneficial for society, and prevent behavior that is detrimental to it. How else can you argue that science and evolution should be taught in the (public) classroom and not creationism (young-earth creationism, specifically)?
Because evolution is a proven scientific fact, unlike the speculation that smoking pot == lower IQ. Or have we forgotten that correlation != causation? Hard to imagine we have, considering how often the phrase is mentioned here.
I could also get into the statistical relevance of allowing a certain subset of society fall out in order to make room for others to excel, but I won't.
Because the former is good for society (well educated populace), while the latter is not.
As stated above, the real reason is because one (evolution) is a verifiable fact, whereas the other (creationism) is unverifiable hocus-pocus. Their effect on the general populace is immaterial (besides, if you think schools are incapable of teaching creationism as though it were fact, you have never been to either A) catholic/baptist/other religious school, or B) Texas).
That is why government offers education in the first place and requires children to be educated. Because it is necessary for a well-formed society, which is in turn required for a well-formed government.
Yea, and look at how well all that is working out for us. As I recall, the mandatory school day was put in place to prevent kids from being forced to work in factories, as it was back during the Industrial Revolution. The intellectual advancement of society in general was more of a side effect; also, it can be argued that public schooling, with regards to collective intellect, is a bell curve - there comes a point where more schooling (or rather, several years of rehashing American History between 1780 and 1900) is detrimental, as students will become bored with the repetitive classwork, and grades will slip.
Also, if that's your best argument for legalization of marijuana ("because otherwise it's like living in 1984!") then you can expect reasonable people to simply ignore you.
That post of mine had far less to do with pot than it did with your assumptions about "the greater good" - a fact I assumed reasonable people would be able to see without having it pointed out to them.
http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/marijuana http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-term_effects_of_cannabis
But of course, that's all lies and false propaganda right?
Considering that your first link is to the official Government Office of Anti-Drug Propaganda, and the second one explicitly denies that any conclusive evidence regarding marijuana use and long-term ill effects exists? I'd say it's more a test of your own gullibility than the veracity of your cited sources.
Hey, I've got this bridge for sale in NYC, perhaps you're interested in purchasing it...
I don't care about your parties, I don't even live in your country anymore (assuming you are in USA).
Therefore, your opinion regarding US drug laws and policies are moot.
Who rattled your kennel, anyway?
FYI:
Right hand on fretboard == left-handed play.
I say this as both a rightie and a guitarist.
"Dope" is heroin.
Meth, if you're from the midwest.
Counter-anecdote: I smoked tons of pot in high school, and never had trouble finding work. Of course, this was shortly before and after Bush II became president, and the economy was doing pretty damn good back then if I recall correctly.
Shit, I've had far more trouble finding good, steady work the last couple years than I ever did when I was a dope-addled teen.
It's not about individual intelligence, it's about herd intelligence. If individuals lower their intelligence, the intelligence of the group goes down, and in a democratic society that is devastating. It's actually a problem in any society (except maybe a tyranny or dictatorship), but it's worse when individuals have the ability to influence society directly. Unless, of course, drug users would be willing to give up their vote, which I don't imagine is going to happen anytime soon (nor, indeed, would it be enough to counteract the effects completely.)
By lowering your intelligence, you aren't hurting other individuals, you are hurting your entire culture and their ability to make prudent and intelligent decisions, which in a way is worse than harming individual people, since the effects can last for generations.
Right - what's good for the Party is good for you, Winston.
War is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength.
We've always been at war with EastAsia.
Do you have any evidence to support that assertion?
The medical community has known for some time that marijuana has adverse effects.
Lol, it never fails to amuse me when someone lambastes another for making an un-backed statement without citing any evidence... moments before they themselves make an un-backed statement without citing any evidence.
To that end, who is this 'medical community' of which you speak, and what are these 'adverse affects' you so ambiguously refer to?
It seems I cannot opt out of installing the search bar during installation.
So sandbox it in a VM; that's my plan.
They didn't mention that the most common write-in vote among IT staff was Gordon Freeman.
Aide: Mr. President, how should we deal with this burgeoning international conflict?
... {Crowbar}
Pres. Freeman:
He's got my vote!
Not my point; my point was, your second statement is a direct contradiction of the first.
Prosecuting someone for following their religious tenements doesn't sound much like 'ignoring' to me.
I posit that the only reason 'Not Sure' was the number one response is likely because 'None of the Above' wasn't an option.
You may want to notice that public and political discourse is way saner in secular countries than in (partially) theocracies like Iran and the US.
Which countries have an all-out ban on religion? Do those places require the militant atheists to stifle as well?
I love the ironic juxtaposition of people claiming to be atheist, i.e., deny the existence of any sort of deity -
You see, in order to claim that something doesn't exist, you have to first admit that it does exist, even if only as a construct of the human mind. So, by outwardly claiming that god (or God or dog or whatever you call the concept) doesn't exist, they are in fact admitting their belief in said concept's existence.
FYI, this is a fun one to break out when some asshole, fundamental extremist 'atheist' is shoving their theological dogma down your throat; the look that pops up on their faces is fucking priceless.
Long answer: Atone for your transgressions, then ask again.
Cultures that are more passive-aggressive about their misogyny totally get away with it.
Exempli gratia, the gender pay gap that we see in "civilized," western societies.
Where do we find companies that have respect for user/consumer rights, because I would be happy to use their products and services.
RepRap/equivalent, Arduino/equivalent, and the firearm industry.
Yup, that about covers it...
It's only a Republican convention so only half the rats, alas.
A better rationale for combining the RNC and DNC conventions into a single event, I have yet to see.
Though if you make a really powerful one, they may decide it violates other unspecified laws and take it away.
I just can't imagine...
I'm guessing the regulation of a rail gun would fall into categories based on scale, both the size of the projectile and the potential destructive force.
Though I see where you're coming from, I was specifically asking about current regulation that would cover 'destructive devices' powered by electro-magnetism. I wonder, would they be subject to current legislation regulating air-powered weapons? Admittedly, my knowledge of non-firearm projectile weapons regulation is severely lacking.
Something that will launch a volkswagen downrange at a speed that will turn a tank into a puddle of plasma? Not so fine.
Don't know about anyone else, but the image that sentence places in my mind is some seriously hilarious shit; well done.