I ride in the u.s.a. Generally the pedestrians are totally oblivious to what is going on around them. The ones without headphones are just as oblivious as the ones with. The ones most oblivious seem be the ladies talking to their lady friends. So are you going to ban talking to your friends while walking? I hate the fact that people are so friggin unaware of what is going on right next to them, but dislike the ideas of an additional law more.
What I think should happen is let about 10 specially trained man eating tigers out into the city. These tigers will randomly pounce on people that choose to forget to look around at their surroundings. Ultimately my idea would prevent accidents, and save lives. It is a shame that people live such comfortable sheltered lives that they forget the basic survival instinct that a field mouse is born with but it is what it is.
-Man is part of nature, and ultimately nature does not have an obligation to ensure your survival.
So when the Gun Victim's Council of Australia (or whatever group is was) managed to get your guns taken away, where they a fringe element run by the media. Just because a group is wacky, doesn't mean you should just ignore them and not address the issues they present. If they are truly a media whore, I would be very afraid of them. People as a whole will go along with whatever the media tells them to do. All you need to do is repeat the message constantly. This is how all advertising works. Hell If you can convince people that they need to buy a paticular brand of shoes, you certainly can convince them that all their problems are caused by jews, or cannanites, or communists, people wearing ipods. The sensicallness (i might have mispelled this word) has nothing to do with the issue.
One of the major problems in the u.s.a is that medical cost are flexible. There is not big board that says a new liver costs $290,000. Cost usually amount to exactly the amount that is willing to be paid by the insurance companies or the patients. This creates a system where you do away with market forces, and create a defacto socialized medical system. This system allows the patient to get doubly screwed by the insurance companies, and by the hospitals who are both trying to maximize profit. In an ideal capitalist system, the patient is looking out for their own best interest. With the system we have now, the patient is giving gobs of money to insurance companies who 'say' they will always do best for for patient. Yea right.
I have personal experience with this. My mother got in a bad accident with a driver who swerved into the wrong way down the road and ended up in a head on collision. She ended up breaking her neck, but absolutely nothing happed to the other driver, because he was an illegal immigrant. Not even an appolgy. If seems if you do not have the documentation, you do not have to play by the rules. It is just to much trouble getting an interpreter, and going though the hastle with the ACLU.
Would a speed lower speed limit have prevented the accident? No. 90% of the people regularly break the law and exceed the posted limits. They realize the speeds are too conservative, the cops realize it. Doesn't this mean there is something fundumentaly wrong with the law making process.
As a counter to your example; what if your wifes huband's sister, is backing up out of the driveway and runs over my grandmother. Should we allow people to back up out of the driveway whenever they want wrapped in 3500 pound cacoons of death? I think not. We need to pass laws against these steel death traps. By totally eliminating these contraptions from the roads highway accidents will drop down to close to 0. More people die in car accidents every year then died in 9-11. The usa fought two wars against countries because of 9-11, shouldn't we do the same against automobiles?
Your contention is that yes, people are not cognizant enough to make their own determination of a safe speed. My contention is that if you are right, people are just too stupid to be driving on their own.
So, I guess that Germans are just better the USAians because they have tougher rules and laws. Without these rules and laws, people would be running into each other all the time because their cars were breaking down and the roads did not meet grade specifications. The fact that the German government trusts the population enough to judge their own safe speed, and hence the drivers know they need to pay attention has nothing to do with the accident rate. It is all because they have exacting German road specifications.
I say let people speed. This will have a counterintuitive affect of decreasing the accident rate.
Self preservation is the most basic instinct that man has. People if left to their own devices are not going to drive in such a manner that is likely to kill themselves. They do not need an arbitrary law telling them how fast they can drive.
Most people are probably shaking their head at this. It is a shocking concept for people who live in an environment that distrusts the ability of the individual, while placing a great confidence in the judgment of the state and the community.
As for being responsible for your actions. Of coarse I agree. If you kill someone from your negligence either speeding or not paying attention, you should naturally be held responsible. I have a problem with forcing people to obey unnecessarily conservative traffic laws when they have not killed or injured anyone in an accident. By your reasoning, we need traffic laws to prevent behaviors that are likely to cause injury to 'innocent' people. This is a preemptive law for the greatest good. By a natural extension it is reasonable to guess that if you procreate, your kids MAY turn out to be thugs and end of killing some innocent person. Should we therefore enact a law requiring your to get a license to procreate, or possibly require you to send your kids to some state sponsored 'anti-violence' school that teaches your kid to behave in a non-violent way at all times. We can not preemptively legislate out every type of behavior that might injure an 'innocent' person. Every person reading this WILL die. It may be of old age, It may be due to disease. It may be due to the negligence of others. This is the part of the bargain you agreed to when you were born. Accept it.
-To sue God over a natural disaster like Katrina would be silly, yet it is normal for some reason to sue the federal government. Go Figure.
- John Billingsworth.
Amen. After having lived in a place where 'traffic laws' were more vague general suggestion, that you might choose to follow if you were so inclined, I can say that I felt much safer driving there than here. Traffic generally flowed much better, and it seemed to me there were fewer accidents.
Over there (Bahrain), The roads where chaos, but everyone knew that, so they were on the top of their game when traveling. If you didn't pay attention you would probably die real quick.(and they would push you off the side of the road to keep traffic moving).
Over here (USA) traffic moves so slow that I can read a book, while texting my Mom, while drinking a fith of wisky and be safe 95% of the time. Thanks to the mommy and daddy state that have conditioned drivers to be slow pokes and to always obey the laws, you really do not need to pay attention to the roads. They problem comes when something does come up unexpectedly, the drivers have been lulled into such a false sense of security that they are not able to handle it, and they get in an accident. Then when the inevitable accident does occur, traffic gets backed up for miles and comes to an even slower crawl. Because traffic is moving sooo slow, more drivers inevitable get into fender benders because despite what they say in school, you can never really divert your full attention to something that is not moving fast (unless you are taking your government prescribed medication for A.D.D)
I have never been to Germany, but I have been told that the Autobahn actually (discovery channel) has fewer accidents then the U.S.A interstate. This makes sense, because you have to pay attention.
Personally I would choose freedom, and let people make their own decision about their safety then to trust the 'super smart hiway engineers' to make the decision for me.
So you are saying that the people actually driving their vehicles are not cognizant enough to determine their own speed, and let them pay the consequences if they go to fast. Instead we should rely on some super smart government engineers to tell us how fast we can go. These super engineers are just like mommy and daddy and always looking out for your best interest, when you are not smart enough.
I guess this explains why it is illegal to pass through a red light at 2:am when clearly there is noone else coming through in the other direction. Instead I must wait 5 minutes for the light to turn green, and also hold up the person behind me.
This makes perfect sense, because I am sure if I were to pass through the red light, an invisible car, that I can not see (because I am not smart like the government engineers) would come careening through T-Bone me, and kill a mother and 2 cute kids in process.
The problem is that stupid irresponsible people are allowed to procreate. We need to come up with government board that determines the suitability of parents to procreate. If the board determines that you are responsible, and you pay the correct fees you can become a dooley licensed parent. I don't see any problem with this idea. It is the only solution to keep the good people (you) from having to take care of those bums that are creating a burden on society, (those other people who are not reading this)
The good responsible people do not have a problem with creating a system where the state can tell you how to drive, if you may own firearms, when you may sell alcohol(at a hefty state profit). Shouldn't the next step on the road to a harmonious society be to create an official procreation sanctioning body.
The state is not responsible for people do stupid things. I just wish the state would get out of the gambling business and stop encouraging people to waste their money on lottery tickets. I also wish the state would stop profiting from the sale alcohol.
Sure, lets take everyone out of the gene pool who takes risks, and likes to experience a little danger. Too bad our great grandfather's didn't think the same way. Think of all the lives that would have been saved from starvation, drowning, and dehydration if our forefathers had had only decided to act responsibly instead of venturing out across new lands and seas when they had no idea what was on the other side. They probably didn't even have health insurance when the did it. Yes siree, safety and responsibility is the best policy. I can see absolutely nothing wrong with your line of reasoning.
I talked to one of those criminals that was in the work release program. He said that a large portion of his salary was being given to the prison system. I do not know exactly what portion, but was led to believe that it was more then half. Isn't this heading toward a system of slave labor.
I can understand the point of paying for your sins. However if the system is set up so that it is being fed by those sins will naturally accumulate w/o regard to reality. Cops generally acknowledge that if they pull you over, they 'CAN' find some moving infraction that you are in violation of.
Just think that a large percentage of the population in the U.S depends upon people sinning. Judges, lawyers, cops, prison officials, etc. When you throw money and privatized prisons into the mix, bad things happen. In some ways the criminal system is the best thing going for drug dealers. Without it they would not be making the insane cash they are. So the drug dealers and the enforces prop each other up.
Why is it that society feels comfortable with spending great gobs of money on enforcement, but hardly any on treatment. President Nixon was the only president to have spent more money on treatment then incarceration.
For the truly horrendous crimes there should be a summary execution. If society can't stomach that, they have not business being in the prison business.
I am looking forward to up to a year in prison. My crime was failing to maintain insurance on my automobile. In massachusets not having valid insurance and registration is considered a criminal offense. Yes what I did was extremely stupid. However do to my stupidity I could possibly be awarded with 1 year free room and board. Personally, I am looking forward to my stay. I want to thank the tax payers in my state ahead of time. You may not recognize me when I get out because I will be so jacked and shredded.
Note that if I had smoked pot, or killed someone, I could very well get of with less time then I am facing. So once again thanks. The cost of rent was getting too high.
Earlier, I said I was stupid, but I wonder who is stupider, me or the taxpayers for supporting a system like we have now.
The canonical definition of chutzpah is to be able to go before the a jury of your piers and convince them to not find you guilty of murdering your parents because you are in fact an orphan. Now I will say that way he did is 'cool'. We should all go out and buy his stuff because of the coolness factor.
Now for a legitimate example of chutzpah, refer to the posts below attributing the word to a yiddish origin instead of a Polish origin. If you get enough people claiming something it becomes true. The inference here is that the jews invented all the cool words, while once again the polls have their heritage stolen from them.
You are an idiot. This is a parabolic collector. Those old fashioned 'resonant' antennas you are thinking of were used by your grandparents back in the days when USians were smart. The dish is much bigger then the wavelength of the 'C' band transmissions, so it reflects those magical rf waves to the antenna proper, which IS resonant with a wavelength of around:
wavelength = C/ 4Ghz ~= 0.000075 meters, which is approximately resonant with the freq. you are looking at.
All the dish does is collect the rf waves and point them at the antenna. Since the wavelengths are small, the antenna is small. The dish is NOT the antenna. The dish just scoops up the energy. Hence a bigger dish is better. I had some ascii pictures to go along with this. But slashdot said they were all 'junk' characters so I could not include them.
Sorry for calling you an idiot. Really I am just railing against the declining nature of the U.S. educational system, which I am a symptom of. Really I am the idiot. I wish I was a European, then I could speak 6 different languages, and smash atoms at CERn all day. As it is, the only thing that I have to look forward to is big macs and slashdot.
However, I have driven a car before. After spending some time driving, I did find myself thinking about Richard Simmons. I also found that my eyes kept moving toward the ass of this nice bicyclist wearing these tight lycra shorts. I don't know why, I usually don't consider myself a homosexual, but after I spend a lot of time cooped up in an automobile, I find my thoughts wonder in that direction. Maybe it is the fact that when I am sitting impotent for hours in traffic, while more manly men pass by my doors riding their bicycles. Maybe it is just lack of manly exercise for prolonged periods of time. I am really not sure what the cause is, but I think someone should study it.
Thanks for the information. However, in my case there is not 'and inch or two separating that point' Maybe I am just a freak.
As for guys riding in spandex I could not agree more. For girls it is OK though. I like to ride, but would not be caught dead wearing leotards.
If bicyclist want to increase the 'critical mass' of the sport, guys need to stop wearing spandex. That is just asking to be called a fag. On the other hand we need to start turning the tables on the motorists. Henceforth any personally owned vehicles should be known as fagmobiles. Whenever anyone says they rode their fagmobile to work, we should look at them as if they were a bit fruity, and turn our heads away. The only reason someone would ride their fagmobile (for distances.lt 30 mi) is because they are physically weak, or too cowardly to brave the dangers of city streets crowded with careless motorists.
For all those fags who might take offense at this, know that I am not homophobic, it is just that the greater good (less pollution, less traffic, less wear and tear on the streats, better health, fewer wars in the middle east, etc) is served by labeling all motorist as gay.
Remember kids, if you buy gas, you like to take it up the ass.
You kind of missed the point of the argument. Your right not being allowed to own your own nuke does not mean you are 'coddled from the cradle to the grave'. I was trying to show logical conclusion of the arguments from a to the left a left/right argument.
Personally I am in favor of outlawing fire. Sure fire is a useful tool, but what if some crazy person decides to light their house or someone elses house on fire. We can not have people just lighting fires willy nilly all over the place. Lets get matches and lighters taken out of the stores, where they can be purchased by children. The only exception, I can see is if you receive a rigorous state sponsored fire training coarse and are over the age of 21. You would of coarse pay taxes on all the matches and butane lighters you buy. This would help defray inevitable cost of people going crazy and setting their cats and front lawns on fire.
Of coarse you the reader and I, are both reasonable adults with above average intelligence and morality but your neighbors might not be. It is better to just ban matches. If my measures can save just one life they will be worth the effort involved.
--I drove my car in Massachusetts w/o Insurance. Now they want to award me with free room and board for a year.
This is an obvious jab at the evil right wing conspiracy that wants to allow every man woman child to have a nuclear weapon. However there is nothing philosophically inconsistent with the former governor's argument. If you take the right wing argument to its natural conclusion, it is understandable that the Governor of the live free or die state would want to have nukes in the event that a hostile federal government.
However, it is also entirely natural that the left leaning know it alls would find fault with the argument. To you the role of the state should be to mitigate risk to its citizens. That often means giving those that are hard up food, housing, or unemployment assistance. You also naturally can't have people running around armed. The only problem is that if you take your argument to it's natural conclusion, you have a prison. The first thing they do when you enter prison is strip you and search you for weapons.
So I guess the choice is do you want take the risks and live like a free man, where you as an individual are the arbitrator of your destiny, or do you want to be coddled by the all encompassing power of the state. Do you want to live like a wolf in the wild, or do you want to live like a lap dog, knowing that your owners will give you food and water, but first must trim your claws and pull out your fangs so that you don't make the company nervous.
-I drove my car in Massachusetts w/o Insurance. Now they want to award me with free room and board.
This means i do not have to buy one of those faggoty ass hybrids. I am now safe and secure in my knowledge that I can run over just as many meat paddies in my Hummer as I would in one of those sissy electric cars.
-Remember kids. If you walk or ride a bicycle you are a FAG.
-Brought to you buy a good ole MLB base ball fan. Go Boston Red Soks!!!!!
On one hand you say that Compressor blades / turbines are light and fluffy, and then you say that a carbon fibre fly wheel is the stuff of instantaneous death and destruction. I can see that this argument will not be one by words. It is time to resort to pictures.
The idea of powering something with a burnable fluid dangersous fluid would not be acceptable today.
Failure of gasoline: Fire. Failure of a flywheel: Explosion.
You really don't notice the difference?
You really have never heard of the Ford Pinto? If you get gasoline and air in the right mixture, you can get an explosion. However, just because something does not EXPLODE holywood style, does not mean it is not dangerous. Ask an someone who has had to watch someone being burned alive in a automobile gasoline fire. It happened quite a lot before proper engineering controls were put in place. The generations before our had to deal with this. It took the previous generation(s) to build the automobile. They were noisy, dangerous, and unreliable, but they built them nonetheless. The truth is that anything powerful enough to power and automobile whether it be a Gasoline, Steam, flywheels or batteries packs enough energy to cause significant loss of life. My point is not that flywheels are necessarily the safest thing around, nor even that flywheels are necessarily the best solution. My point is that in today's political climate new inventions can not be brought to bear unless they are so safe that they are practically useless. Do you really think the lawyers would have allowed automobile / airplanes to be created if they were invented today? Hydrocarbon fuels were grandfathered in from a previous century. As for batteries, the public has the impression that batteries are safe and environmentally friendly. This may change over time when the energy density of batteries starts to compete with fossil fuels, and more laptop batteries start catching fire.
Planes and cars were engineered before during a time when people were willing to live with a little danger
Ah, the old "golden age" myth. The good old days when women weren't even supposed to ride in planes because of the danger.
Just because you scoff at an argument does not mean you actually answered the argument. As for women flying in planes, I don't know what that has to do with the argument. There are plenty of women aviators.
But to be perfectly honest with you I really don't know what you are arguing about, unless you just like arguing.
Slashdot Mirror
I ride in the u.s.a. Generally the pedestrians are totally oblivious to what is going on around them. The ones without headphones are just as oblivious as the ones with. The ones most oblivious seem be the ladies talking to their lady friends. So are you going to ban talking to your friends while walking? I hate the fact that people are so friggin unaware of what is going on right next to them, but dislike the ideas of an additional law more.
What I think should happen is let about 10 specially trained man eating tigers out into the city. These tigers will randomly pounce on people that choose to forget to look around at their surroundings. Ultimately my idea would prevent accidents, and save lives. It is a shame that people live such comfortable sheltered lives that they forget the basic survival instinct that a field mouse is born with but it is what it is.
-Man is part of nature, and ultimately nature does not have an obligation to ensure your survival.
So when the Gun Victim's Council of Australia (or whatever group is was) managed to get your guns taken away, where they a fringe element run by the media. Just because a group is wacky, doesn't mean you should just ignore them and not address the issues they present. If they are truly a media whore, I would be very afraid of them. People as a whole will go along with whatever the media tells them to do. All you need to do is repeat the message constantly. This is how all advertising works. Hell If you can convince people that they need to buy a paticular brand of shoes, you certainly can convince them that all their problems are caused by jews, or cannanites, or communists, people wearing ipods. The sensicallness (i might have mispelled this word) has nothing to do with the issue.
One of the major problems in the u.s.a is that medical cost are flexible. There is not big board that says a new liver costs $290,000. Cost usually amount to exactly the amount that is willing to be paid by the insurance companies or the patients. This creates a system where you do away with market forces, and create a defacto socialized medical system. This system allows the patient to get doubly screwed by the insurance companies, and by the hospitals who are both trying to maximize profit. In an ideal capitalist system, the patient is looking out for their own best interest. With the system we have now, the patient is giving gobs of money to insurance companies who 'say' they will always do best for for patient. Yea right.
I have personal experience with this. My mother got in a bad accident with a driver who swerved into the wrong way down the road and ended up in a head on collision. She ended up breaking her neck, but absolutely nothing happed to the other driver, because he was an illegal immigrant. Not even an appolgy. If seems if you do not have the documentation, you do not have to play by the rules. It is just to much trouble getting an interpreter, and going though the hastle with the ACLU.
Would a speed lower speed limit have prevented the accident? No. 90% of the people regularly break the law and exceed the posted limits. They realize the speeds are too conservative, the cops realize it. Doesn't this mean there is something fundumentaly wrong with the law making process.
As a counter to your example; what if your wifes huband's sister, is backing up out of the driveway and runs over my grandmother. Should we allow people to back up out of the driveway whenever they want wrapped in 3500 pound cacoons of death? I think not. We need to pass laws against these steel death traps. By totally eliminating these contraptions from the roads highway accidents will drop down to close to 0. More people die in car accidents every year then died in 9-11. The usa fought two wars against countries because of 9-11, shouldn't we do the same against automobiles?
Your contention is that yes, people are not cognizant enough to make their own determination of a safe speed. My contention is that if you are right, people are just too stupid to be driving on their own.
So, I guess that Germans are just better the USAians because they have tougher rules and laws. Without these rules and laws, people would be running into each other all the time because their cars were breaking down and the roads did not meet grade specifications. The fact that the German government trusts the population enough to judge their own safe speed, and hence the drivers know they need to pay attention has nothing to do with the accident rate. It is all because they have exacting German road specifications.
I say let people speed. This will have a counterintuitive affect of decreasing the accident rate.
Self preservation is the most basic instinct that man has. People if left to their own devices are not going to drive in such a manner that is likely to kill themselves. They do not need an arbitrary law telling them how fast they can drive.
Most people are probably shaking their head at this. It is a shocking concept for people who live in an environment that distrusts the ability of the individual, while placing a great confidence in the judgment of the state and the community.
As for being responsible for your actions. Of coarse I agree. If you kill someone from your negligence either speeding or not paying attention, you should naturally be held responsible. I have a problem with forcing people to obey unnecessarily conservative traffic laws when they have not killed or injured anyone in an accident. By your reasoning, we need traffic laws to prevent behaviors that are likely to cause injury to 'innocent' people. This is a preemptive law for the greatest good. By a natural extension it is reasonable to guess that if you procreate, your kids MAY turn out to be thugs and end of killing some innocent person. Should we therefore enact a law requiring your to get a license to procreate, or possibly require you to send your kids to some state sponsored 'anti-violence' school that teaches your kid to behave in a non-violent way at all times. We can not preemptively legislate out every type of behavior that might injure an 'innocent' person. Every person reading this WILL die. It may be of old age, It may be due to disease. It may be due to the negligence of others. This is the part of the bargain you agreed to when you were born. Accept it.
-To sue God over a natural disaster like Katrina would be silly, yet it is normal for some reason to sue the federal government. Go Figure.
- John Billingsworth.
Amen. After having lived in a place where 'traffic laws' were more vague general suggestion, that you might choose to follow if you were so inclined, I can say that I felt much safer driving there than here. Traffic generally flowed much better, and it seemed to me there were fewer accidents.
Over there (Bahrain), The roads where chaos, but everyone knew that, so they were on the top of their game when traveling. If you didn't pay attention you would probably die real quick.(and they would push you off the side of the road to keep traffic moving).
Over here (USA) traffic moves so slow that I can read a book, while texting my Mom, while drinking a fith of wisky and be safe 95% of the time. Thanks to the mommy and daddy state that have conditioned drivers to be slow pokes and to always obey the laws, you really do not need to pay attention to the roads. They problem comes when something does come up unexpectedly, the drivers have been lulled into such a false sense of security that they are not able to handle it, and they get in an accident. Then when the inevitable accident does occur, traffic gets backed up for miles and comes to an even slower crawl. Because traffic is moving sooo slow, more drivers inevitable get into fender benders because despite what they say in school, you can never really divert your full attention to something that is not moving fast (unless you are taking your government prescribed medication for A.D.D)
I have never been to Germany, but I have been told that the Autobahn actually (discovery channel) has fewer accidents then the U.S.A interstate. This makes sense, because you have to pay attention.
Personally I would choose freedom, and let people make their own decision about their safety then to trust the 'super smart hiway engineers' to make the decision for me.
So you are saying that the people actually driving their vehicles are not cognizant enough to determine their own speed, and let them pay the consequences if they go to fast. Instead we should rely on some super smart government engineers to tell us how fast we can go. These super engineers are just like mommy and daddy and always looking out for your best interest, when you are not smart enough.
I guess this explains why it is illegal to pass through a red light at 2:am when clearly there is noone else coming through in the other direction. Instead I must wait 5 minutes for the light to turn green, and also hold up the person behind me.
This makes perfect sense, because I am sure if I were to pass through the red light, an invisible car, that I can not see (because I am not smart like the government engineers) would come careening through T-Bone me, and kill a mother and 2 cute kids in process.
Sounds good.
The problem is that stupid irresponsible people are allowed to procreate. We need to come up with government board that determines the suitability of parents to procreate. If the board determines that you are responsible, and you pay the correct fees you can become a dooley licensed parent. I don't see any problem with this idea. It is the only solution to keep the good people (you) from having to take care of those bums that are creating a burden on society, (those other people who are not reading this)
The good responsible people do not have a problem with creating a system where the state can tell you how to drive, if you may own firearms, when you may sell alcohol(at a hefty state profit). Shouldn't the next step on the road to a harmonious society be to create an official procreation sanctioning body.
Just thinking...
The state is not responsible for people do stupid things. I just wish the state would get out of the gambling business and stop encouraging people to waste their money on lottery tickets. I also wish the state would stop profiting from the sale alcohol.
Sure, lets take everyone out of the gene pool who takes risks, and likes to experience a little danger. Too bad our great grandfather's didn't think the same way. Think of all the lives that would have been saved from starvation, drowning, and dehydration if our forefathers had had only decided to act responsibly instead of venturing out across new lands and seas when they had no idea what was on the other side. They probably didn't even have health insurance when the did it. Yes siree, safety and responsibility is the best policy. I can see absolutely nothing wrong with your line of reasoning.
I talked to one of those criminals that was in the work release program. He said that a large portion of his salary was being given to the prison system. I do not know exactly what portion, but was led to believe that it was more then half. Isn't this heading toward a system of slave labor.
I can understand the point of paying for your sins. However if the system is set up so that it is being fed by those sins will naturally accumulate w/o regard to reality. Cops generally acknowledge that if they pull you over, they 'CAN' find some moving infraction that you are in violation of.
Just think that a large percentage of the population in the U.S depends upon people sinning. Judges, lawyers, cops, prison officials, etc. When you throw money and privatized prisons into the mix, bad things happen. In some ways the criminal system is the best thing going for drug dealers. Without it they would not be making the insane cash they are. So the drug dealers and the enforces prop each other up.
Why is it that society feels comfortable with spending great gobs of money on enforcement, but hardly any on treatment. President Nixon was the only president to have spent more money on treatment then incarceration.
For the truly horrendous crimes there should be a summary execution. If society can't stomach that, they have not business being in the prison business.
I am looking forward to up to a year in prison. My crime was failing to maintain insurance on my automobile. In massachusets not having valid insurance and registration is considered a criminal offense. Yes what I did was extremely stupid. However do to my stupidity I could possibly be awarded with 1 year free room and board. Personally, I am looking forward to my stay. I want to thank the tax payers in my state ahead of time. You may not recognize me when I get out because I will be so jacked and shredded.
Note that if I had smoked pot, or killed someone, I could very well get of with less time then I am facing. So once again thanks. The cost of rent was getting too high.
Earlier, I said I was stupid, but I wonder who is stupider, me or the taxpayers for supporting a system like we have now.
-Thanks for your time
Actually this is not 'chutzpah'.
The canonical definition of chutzpah is to be able to go before the a jury of your piers and convince them to not find you guilty of murdering your parents because you are in fact an orphan. Now I will say that way he did is 'cool'. We should all go out and buy his stuff because of the coolness factor.
Now for a legitimate example of chutzpah, refer to the posts below attributing the word to a yiddish origin instead of a Polish origin. If you get enough people claiming something it becomes true. The inference here is that the jews invented all the cool words, while once again the polls have their heritage stolen from them.
You are an idiot. This is a parabolic collector. Those old fashioned 'resonant' antennas you are thinking of were used by your grandparents back in the days when USians were smart. The dish is much bigger then the wavelength of the 'C' band transmissions, so it reflects those magical rf waves to the antenna proper, which IS resonant with a wavelength of around:
wavelength = C/ 4Ghz ~= 0.000075 meters, which is approximately resonant with the freq. you are looking at.
All the dish does is collect the rf waves and point them at the antenna. Since the wavelengths are small, the antenna is small. The dish is NOT the antenna. The dish just scoops up the energy. Hence a bigger dish is better. I had some ascii pictures to go along with this. But slashdot said they were all 'junk' characters so I could not include them.
Sorry for calling you an idiot. Really I am just railing against the declining nature of the U.S. educational system, which I am a symptom of. Really I am the idiot. I wish I was a European, then I could speak 6 different languages, and smash atoms at CERn all day. As it is, the only thing that I have to look forward to is big macs and slashdot.
-I am going to cry now.
\
Mmm. Footwear. You could have bought a house for that. Well at least her footsies have nice homes.
No. It may be the case that they don't.
However, I have driven a car before. After spending some time driving, I did find myself thinking about Richard Simmons. I also found that my eyes kept moving toward the ass of this nice bicyclist wearing these tight lycra shorts. I don't know why, I usually don't consider myself a homosexual, but after I spend a lot of time cooped up in an automobile, I find my thoughts wonder in that direction. Maybe it is the fact that when I am sitting impotent for hours in traffic, while more manly men pass by my doors riding their bicycles. Maybe it is just lack of manly exercise for prolonged periods of time. I am really not sure what the cause is, but I think someone should study it.
I am glad you agree with my proposal. It is amazing how many but pirates I saw on my way to work today, all driving their fagmobiles.
Seriously though if they call us fags why not call them fags back. At least we are not afraid of getting out and exercising.
Q: Why do all the but pirates like to drive around in Humvess.
A: That way they can pick up middles school boys and have gay sex with them in the back of their fag wagons without being seen. Hahaha
Thanks for the information. However, in my case there is not 'and inch or two separating that point' Maybe I am just a freak.
As for guys riding in spandex I could not agree more. For girls it is OK though. I like to ride, but would not be caught dead wearing leotards.
If bicyclist want to increase the 'critical mass' of the sport, guys need to stop wearing spandex. That is just asking to be called a fag. On the other hand we need to start turning the tables on the motorists. Henceforth any personally owned vehicles should be known as fagmobiles. Whenever anyone says they rode their fagmobile to work, we should look at them as if they were a bit fruity, and turn our heads away. The only reason someone would ride their fagmobile (for distances .lt 30 mi) is because they are physically weak, or too cowardly to brave the dangers of city streets crowded with careless motorists.
For all those fags who might take offense at this, know that I am not homophobic, it is just that the greater good (less pollution, less traffic, less wear and tear on the streats, better health, fewer wars in the middle east, etc) is served by labeling all motorist as gay.
Remember kids, if
you buy gas, you like to take it up the ass.
You kind of missed the point of the argument. Your right not being allowed to own your own nuke does not mean you are 'coddled from the cradle to the grave'. I was trying to show logical conclusion of the arguments from a to the left a left/right argument.
Personally I am in favor of outlawing fire. Sure fire is a useful tool, but what if some crazy person decides to light their house or someone elses house on fire. We can not have people just lighting fires willy nilly all over the place. Lets get matches and lighters taken out of the stores, where they can be purchased by children. The only exception, I can see is if you receive a rigorous state sponsored fire training coarse and are over the age of 21. You would of coarse pay taxes on all the matches and butane lighters you buy. This would help defray inevitable cost of people going crazy and setting their cats and front lawns on fire.
Of coarse you the reader and I, are both reasonable adults with above average intelligence and morality but your neighbors might not be. It is better to just ban matches. If my measures can save just one life they will be worth the effort involved.
--I drove my car in Massachusetts w/o Insurance. Now they want to award me with free room and board for a year.
Can you explain to me how this works. If anything it would seem that the opposite was the case. You girls have a gap there, whereas we do not. 8-).
To me it seems like a specious argument designed to justify wearing those sexy bicycle outfits
-Regards
This is an obvious jab at the evil right wing conspiracy that wants to allow every man woman child to have a nuclear weapon. However there is nothing philosophically inconsistent with the former governor's argument. If you take the right wing argument to its natural conclusion, it is understandable that the Governor of the live free or die state would want to have nukes in the event that a hostile federal government.
However, it is also entirely natural that the left leaning know it alls would find fault with the argument. To you the role of the state should be to mitigate risk to its citizens. That often means giving those that are hard up food, housing, or unemployment assistance. You also naturally can't have people running around armed. The only problem is that if you take your argument to it's natural conclusion, you have a prison. The first thing they do when you enter prison is strip you and search you for weapons.
So I guess the choice is do you want take the risks and live like a free man, where you as an individual are the arbitrator of your destiny, or do you want to be coddled by the all encompassing power of the state. Do you want to live like a wolf in the wild, or do you want to live like a lap dog, knowing that your owners will give you food and water, but first must trim your claws and pull out your fangs so that you don't make the company nervous.
-I drove my car in Massachusetts w/o Insurance. Now they want to award me with free room and board.
I was planning on solving that next week. Now I have to figure something else to do. Might as well get drunk.
This means i do not have to buy one of those faggoty ass hybrids. I am now safe and secure in my knowledge that I can run over just as many meat paddies in my Hummer as I would in one of those sissy electric cars.
-Remember kids. If you walk or ride a bicycle you are a FAG.
-Brought to you buy a good ole MLB base ball fan. Go Boston Red Soks!!!!!
On one hand you say that Compressor blades / turbines are light and fluffy, and then you say that a carbon fibre fly wheel is the stuff of instantaneous death and destruction. I can see that this argument will not be one by words. It is time to resort to pictures.
These are all picture of the effects of parts of the engine flying off and traveling through the housing.
http://consumerist.com/images/resources/2007/12/Bad%20Looking%20Engine-thumb.jpg
http://img406.imageshack.us/i/img0163gu3.jpg/
http://www.iasa-intl.com/folders/belfast/AA763EngineFire-3_files/aa2.jpg
http://www.flightglobal.com/assets/getAsset.aspx?ItemID=16268
Wikipedia has an article about a plane that was brought down by one of these fluffy engine parts
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_232
The idea of powering something with a burnable fluid dangersous fluid would not be acceptable today.
Failure of gasoline: Fire.
Failure of a flywheel: Explosion.
You really don't notice the difference?
You really have never heard of the Ford Pinto? If you get gasoline and air in the right mixture, you can get an explosion. However, just because something does not EXPLODE holywood style, does not mean it is not dangerous. Ask an someone who has had to watch someone being burned alive in a automobile gasoline fire. It happened quite a lot before proper engineering controls were put in place. The generations before our had to deal with this. It took the previous generation(s) to build the automobile. They were noisy, dangerous, and unreliable, but they built them nonetheless. The truth is that anything powerful enough to power and automobile whether it be a Gasoline, Steam, flywheels or batteries packs enough energy to cause significant loss of life. My point is not that flywheels are necessarily the safest thing around, nor even that flywheels are necessarily the best solution. My point is that in today's political climate new inventions can not be brought to bear unless they are so safe that they are practically useless. Do you really think the lawyers would have allowed automobile / airplanes to be created if they were invented today? Hydrocarbon fuels were grandfathered in from a previous century. As for batteries, the public has the impression that batteries are safe and environmentally friendly. This may change over time when the energy density of batteries starts to compete with fossil fuels, and more laptop batteries start catching fire.
Planes and cars were engineered before during a time when people were willing to live with a little danger
Ah, the old "golden age" myth. The good old days when women weren't even supposed to ride in planes because of the danger.
Just because you scoff at an argument does not mean you actually answered the argument. As for women flying in planes, I don't know what that has to do with the argument. There are plenty of women aviators.
But to be perfectly honest with you I really don't know what you are arguing about, unless you just like arguing.
Meet the new Boss. Same as the old Boss