You have pocket lint that's "nearly impossible to get out" from a lightning connector that isn't even harder to get out of a micro-USB connector with it's central post and more complicated shape? Suuurrreeee you do...
Well, I HAVE had problems with micro-USB and I am no anonymous coward. It may have been "designed" to have the wear on the connector, but I've seen connectors wear out to the point where the connection is very unreliable and even some where the post inside the female side of the connector snapped off. As for the abortion called micro-usb3 that is wider than USB type A...
See my comment to the same prejudiced twit: sometimes it isn't even with the length of the skirt but just conditions.
Where I live, many young tourists like to sit on the steps of the monuments. Guess what is in plain sight to anyone in front and below them? Are we all criminals because they were too thoughtless to consider the consequences and so prudish as to consider it a crime? No.
Are all the men and women who work below the grates in sidewalks criminals? Again, no.
Listen you brainless prejudiced twit, your not being comfortable with how much skin you show in public is your problem. As I have said elsewhere in this thread I respect all women who dress how they are comfortable with in public.
You see those grates in the sidewalk? I have worked below some of them. To the women who walked above me and realized that they had shown more than they thought: - and laughed: my thanks and respect - and scurried off: sorry, wear something you're more comfortable with so you don't embarrass yourself next time - and yelled at us because in their opinion (like yours) we were somehow villainous for appreciating the occasional glances: go home woman & put on some pants. I'm not the problem, you are. - and came back, this time without panties: uh thanks, but we're trying to work down here.
No. I respect those who dress according to their beliefs (through religion, morality, whatever). If you're not comfortable with showing it, whether it's accidentally or on purpose, then don't. Full stop.
I don't care whether it's wearing a skirt & no panties or not wearing a headscarf, stop complaining when people look at what you reveal, thats just being hypocrical. Assume yourself.
On the other end of the spectrum I also uphold the rights of those who want to dress differently -- not being forced to wear a burqua or headscarf or pants or long skirts or whatever.
It seems to me that you want to force your dress codes on everyone else through some sens of "this is right", because somone other than the wearer doesn't like it. When you get down to it, you use the same reasonning as the mullahs.
I know women who are very tightly buttened up & show nothing more than face, neck & hands. I also know women who are comfortable on nude beaches. I respect all of these women & all those between thes two extremes who dress according to what they are comfortable with.
Those I have little respect for are the hypocritical people who dress so that people will look at them then complain that they are looked at.
Oh but it's special because they're girls? That's sexist bullshit.
. . so people cant wear skirts anymore? Sharia Law is over there . . ..
No. Get over your prudishness. If you want to flash it, like the girl in the microscopic Brazilian bathing suit that bent over to adjust her beach blanket last week in Miami, then flash it. If you're too prudish to do so other than when you've drunk half a bottle of alcohol to obliterate your self restraint, then that's your problem.
If you're not comfortable with wearing revealing clothing then don't wear it but don't whine that it's anyone's fault other than your own.
Compare the zero deaths from the meltdown to the thousands of deaths from the tsunami. The Anti-Nuke crowd (like the submitter) wants us to worry about the zero death scenario whereas the rational man worries more about the thousands of deaths. I don't claim that there are no dangers to nuclear energy but between the need to reduce carbon without breaking the economy and the massive amounts of radioactivity dispersed by coal plants without the Anti-Nukes reacting, I am more pro Nuke than anti & refuse to be swayed by irrational arguments.
Close also applies to nuclear weapons and the version of that saying I most commonly see includes them as well.
If you loosen the rules to exclude Apollo 13 because it was only close to killing off the crew (yhough Lovell, Swigert & Haise would probably disagree) then I rule out Soyuz 11 as the accident only occurred once they began descent.
Yo dimwit, the discussion is about ICBM/IRBM active guidance hypersonic vehicles along the lines of the Pershing II, not your mama's pea shooter. At the distances these are used, terminal guidance is essential which makes my comments germane and yours the sign that you have no frigging idea. Now go back to reddit you fuckwit.
Satellites will not survive long enough to be a problem in any scenario where China is lobbing missiles at a US carrier group. You may have a point in a few decades if China develops stealth but for the moment they don't exist
Getting hit by a laser would render the missile completely blind and thus incapable of the terminal guidance necessary to achieve a hit on a maneuvering target. Just another reason hyper velocity missiles are not the magic weapon the journalist is pretending they are.
I have a new concept for you, Coward, it's called "field of view". To properly understand it's effects I suggest trying to play a game like football while only looking through paper tubes 10 inches long. Your missiles may see at the speed of light but they can only see in a very restricted cone (practically blind) and can barely maneuver.
The only country currently exploring hypervelocity missiles is China. The South China Sea is a lot bigger than the gulf so again, the journalist is just playing chicken little.
Add to that the targeting dilemma where missiles at that speed are practically blind. Hypervelocity missiles are good for "journalists" in order to sell paper but not so much against the US Navy.
Slashdot Mirror
You have pocket lint that's "nearly impossible to get out" from a lightning connector that isn't even harder to get out of a micro-USB connector with it's central post and more complicated shape? Suuurrreeee you do...
Well, I HAVE had problems with micro-USB and I am no anonymous coward. It may have been "designed" to have the wear on the connector, but I've seen connectors wear out to the point where the connection is very unreliable and even some where the post inside the female side of the connector snapped off. As for the abortion called micro-usb3 that is wider than USB type A...
See my comment to the same prejudiced twit: sometimes it isn't even with the length of the skirt but just conditions.
Where I live, many young tourists like to sit on the steps of the monuments. Guess what is in plain sight to anyone in front and below them? Are we all criminals because they were too thoughtless to consider the consequences and so prudish as to consider it a crime? No.
Are all the men and women who work below the grates in sidewalks criminals? Again, no.
Listen you brainless prejudiced twit, your not being comfortable with how much skin you show in public is your problem. As I have said elsewhere in this thread I respect all women who dress how they are comfortable with in public.
You see those grates in the sidewalk? I have worked below some of them. To the women who walked above me and realized that they had shown more than they thought:
- and laughed: my thanks and respect
- and scurried off: sorry, wear something you're more comfortable with so you don't embarrass yourself next time
- and yelled at us because in their opinion (like yours) we were somehow villainous for appreciating the occasional glances: go home woman & put on some pants. I'm not the problem, you are.
- and came back, this time without panties: uh thanks, but we're trying to work down here.
No. I respect those who dress according to their beliefs (through religion, morality, whatever). If you're not comfortable with showing it, whether it's accidentally or on purpose, then don't. Full stop.
I don't care whether it's wearing a skirt & no panties or not wearing a headscarf, stop complaining when people look at what you reveal, thats just being hypocrical. Assume yourself.
On the other end of the spectrum I also uphold the rights of those who want to dress differently -- not being forced to wear a burqua or headscarf or pants or long skirts or whatever.
It seems to me that you want to force your dress codes on everyone else through some sens of "this is right", because somone other than the wearer doesn't like it. When you get down to it, you use the same reasonning as the mullahs.
I know women who are very tightly buttened up & show nothing more than face, neck & hands. I also know women who are comfortable on nude beaches. I respect all of these women & all those between thes two extremes who dress according to what they are comfortable with.
Those I have little respect for are the hypocritical people who dress so that people will look at them then complain that they are looked at.
Oh but it's special because they're girls? That's sexist bullshit.
Now crawl back into your hole coward.
. . so people cant wear skirts anymore? Sharia Law is over there . . . .
No. Get over your prudishness. If you want to flash it, like the girl in the microscopic Brazilian bathing suit that bent over to adjust her beach blanket last week in Miami, then flash it. If you're too prudish to do so other than when you've drunk half a bottle of alcohol to obliterate your self restraint, then that's your problem.
If you're not comfortable with wearing revealing clothing then don't wear it but don't whine that it's anyone's fault other than your own.
Compare the zero deaths from the meltdown to the thousands of deaths from the tsunami. The Anti-Nuke crowd (like the submitter) wants us to worry about the zero death scenario whereas the rational man worries more about the thousands of deaths. I don't claim that there are no dangers to nuclear energy but between the need to reduce carbon without breaking the economy and the massive amounts of radioactivity dispersed by coal plants without the Anti-Nukes reacting, I am more pro Nuke than anti & refuse to be swayed by irrational arguments.
So tell us Coward, just how many deaths have there been from the meltdown? Still zero, right?
The dishonesty & cluelessness is coming from the anti-Nukes like you.
That the summary ends with "so far" when cesium levels should be slowly decreasing just shows how widespread the clueless are.
That's easily explained in a single word: Timothy
Close also applies to nuclear weapons and the version of that saying I most commonly see includes them as well.
If you loosen the rules to exclude Apollo 13 because it was only close to killing off the crew (yhough Lovell, Swigert & Haise would probably disagree) then I rule out Soyuz 11 as the accident only occurred once they began descent.
Neither of us mentioned the potentially fatal accidents the Russians had on Mir: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M...
Apollo 13 came perilously close to killing astronauts while neither taking off/landing...
Oh Bravo!
Yo dimwit, the discussion is about ICBM/IRBM active guidance hypersonic vehicles along the lines of the Pershing II, not your mama's pea shooter.
At the distances these are used, terminal guidance is essential which makes my comments germane and yours the sign that you have no frigging idea. Now go back to reddit you fuckwit.
Satellites will not survive long enough to be a problem in any scenario where China is lobbing missiles at a US carrier group. You may have a point in a few decades if China develops stealth but for the moment they don't exist
Regular ballistic missiles are already sufficient for that & hypervelocity brings almost nothing to the table
Getting hit by a laser would render the missile completely blind and thus incapable of the terminal guidance necessary to achieve a hit on a maneuvering target. Just another reason hyper velocity missiles are not the magic weapon the journalist is pretending they are.
I have a new concept for you, Coward, it's called "field of view". To properly understand it's effects I suggest trying to play a game like football while only looking through paper tubes 10 inches long. Your missiles may see at the speed of light but they can only see in a very restricted cone (practically blind) and can barely maneuver.
Ah, but a nuclear power lobbing ballistic missiles at US forces is a good idea? Suuuurrre...
Snort. If that's your take from what I wrote, I'd suggest remedial reding comprehension classes.
The only country currently exploring hypervelocity missiles is China. The South China Sea is a lot bigger than the gulf so again, the journalist is just playing chicken little.
Add to that the targeting dilemma where missiles at that speed are practically blind. Hypervelocity missiles are good for "journalists" in order to sell paper but not so much against the US Navy.
A forthcoming revelation from the Snowden files will prove conclusively that the NSA did it!
You don't have to have been condemned to be pardoned. For example, Ford preemptively pardoned Nixon.
Snowden may qualify for a partial pardon for whistleblowing on NSA domestic activities, but not for all the other info he released, IMO.
But only Timothy engages in systematic linkbaiting & selection of the summaries that try to sensationalize what everyone already knows.