Another cure for traffic jams is to make our highways 20-lanes wide (like in Asimov's novels). I guarantee that a nice, wide, open stretch of macadam won't jam up if you have that many lanes to serve the cars.
No, you'd just end up with 20 jerks preventing anyone from passing instead of the the two or three we have now.
Hmmm, I wonder if a shipping company could generate enough carbon credits by using the northern passage vs. the Suez passage to effectively make the trip between Europe and Asia free? Wouldn't that be a great unintended consequence of cap and trade!
And that's why we have barratry* laws, so that people can't use the courts to bludgeon others. Hopefully this woman can turn about and counter-sue her former landlord for all the pain and aggravation they're causing, especially since their own spokesman said "We're a sue first and ask questions later kind of organization." I'm sure a judge will love hearing that they'd rather waste the court's time on minutia instead of picking up the phone and talking about things rationally.
*Interestingly, Firefox's spell check thought I meant "barracuda". Guess Firefox doesn't like lawyers, either.
Yeah, Paris Hilton isn't all that beautiful, but if you had to choose between banging her or Roseanne Barr, which would you choose (let's assume for a moment that Paris doesn't have any STDs)?
You're also assuming Rosanne doesn't have any, either, which may not be a safe assumption.
My family moved from Philadelphia, PA, to Concord, CA, in 1976. I was only five and my younger brother was only four. My mom and step-dad weren't looking forward to two little kids, bored out of their minds on a long car trip (and even longer waits in gas lines). So my older brother, who had just gotten a brand new HP calculator for his birthday, wrote a lunar lander game on it that we could take turns playing in the back seat. When I try to explain to my kids about playing "computer" games on a calculator (and being grateful!), they barely look up from their DSs to mumble "That sounds lame."
Damn kids. At least they don't play their games on my lawn.
What if you're being carjacked? Or your stalker is driving behind you? Or some asshole just cut you off then started shooting cars to the left and right and you're trying to get away from the scene? Or something simply, like an accident has just happened but there's no safe place for you to stop?
Obviously those are all extremely unlikely scenarios for most people (none of them have ever happened to me except the last one), but any law that doesn't take them or things like them into account is a bad law.
1: Pass a law preventing making fun of religion
2: Start a new, silly religion (like I believe in an all-powerful, all-knowing being who needs your MONEY!)
3: Profit!
Theres nothing wrong with that though. Now, if you actually -do- any of those things, yes it is wrong. But talking about it? No one gets hurt so therefore it should not be prohibited.
Although if you do go through with it, there should be additional penalties for taking the time to plan it out with others. Conspiracy and all that.
Contracts similarly should be free for anything
Anything legal, that is. We can't let the courts be used to enforce illegal behavior, that would be schizophrenic to say the least.
You just don't understand how dangerous anthropogenic global warming (AGW) or anthropogenic climate change (ACC) are, do you?
AGW will re-write your hard drive. Not only
that, it will scramble any disks that are even close to your
computer. If you are at work, it will download porn to your hard
drive and the hard drives of all your co-workers.
It will recalibrate your refrigerator's coolness
setting so all your ice cream goes melty. It will demagnetize
the strips on all your credit cards, screw up the tracking on
your television and use subspace field harmonics to scratch
any CDs you try to play.
It will give your ex-girlfriend your new phone number. It
will mix Kool-aid into your fishtank. It will drink all your
beer and leave dirty socks on the coffee table when company
comes over. It will put a dead kitten in the back pocket of
your good suit pants and hide your car keys when you are late
for work.
AGW will make you fall in love with a penguin. It will
give you nightmares about circus midgets. It will pour sugar
in your gas tank and shave off both your eyebrows while dating
your girlfriend behind your back and billing the dinner and
hotel room to your Discover card.
It will seduce your grandmother. It does not matter if she
is dead, such is the power of AGW, it reaches out beyond
the grave to sully those things we hold most dear.
It moves your car randomly around parking lots so you can't
find it. It will kick your dog. It will leave libidinous
messages on your boss's voice mail in your voice. It is
insidious and subtle. It is dangerous and terrifying to
behold. It is also a rather interesting shade of mauve.
AGW will give you Dutch Elm disease. It will leave the
toilet seat up. It will make a batch of Methamphetamines in
your bathtub and then leave bacon cooking on the stove while
it goes out to chase gradeschoolers with your new snowblower.
One of the arguments against the Strategic Defense Initiative (Star Wars) was that it actually increased the risk of a nuclear war.
No, it increased the chances of such a war. The risk, at least to the developer of the defense, was considerably lessened.
The problem with MAD is that it depends on rational decision makers on both sides of the equation. Throw in someone like Osama bin Laden or Kim Jong-Il and suddenly MAD doesn't make as much sense anymore and it's a good idea to have countermeasures to the attack.
It should also be noted that with sufficient defenses, it could also render the need for a nuclear arsenal (or at least one large enough to guarantee MAD) unnecessary. Unfortunately, the peaceniks who protested Star Wars in the 80s never focused on that element of the program.
There's an argument to be made that if you know you have a given genetic trait that would be detrimental to your offspring, and you choose to have offspring, and those offspring inherit your trait, that you could be held liable for doing so. I don't know if we as a society want to go down that road, as it means that children would have to sue their parents for giving them life (and a court is unlikely to find the child has standing to do so, since the alternative means the child never would've existed in the first place), but it is an interesting intellectual exercise, regardless.
Marriage itself is "unnatural" in the most literal sense of the word, so that's hardly an argument against having multiple donors to a given person's genetic makeup. And if all of those people consent to the procedure, I find it difficult to imagine why it would be unethical to do that (as long as there's no fraud involved, of course).
Granted, ethics applies to what we do and morals apply to why we do it. So there may be an argument against the morality of combining more than two individuals' DNA into a new person (well, three, actually, since we already have surrogate mothers who invest a certain amount of their DNA through feeding and caring for the embryo in utero...a certain amount of that DNA inevitably winds up in the developing child's body), but I'm unaware of what it might be.
No, because there would still be at least a portion of the population having babies the old fashioned way. At worst, the balance would go in the direction of the old Beach Boys' song about Southern California ("two girls for every boy"). And if porn has taught me anything, it's that that would be very good.
The forms in question typically mention Tylenol by name because of most people's ignorance. Regardless, the FDA should not be in the business of preventing people from using pain medication that actually works because idiots can't be bothered to follow their doctor's orders.
Be careful on the pot smoking. THC and alcohol don't mix well in some people's chemistries. In mine, the combination makes me pass out and wake up with an even worse hangover. In my wife's, it makes her vomit continuously for a prolonged period. Needless to say, neither of us uses pot anymore because of this (and never used it much to start with).
Not to mention, those vehicles who drive exclusively or primary on private roads tend to have special registrations for when they do go on public roads. Here in Texas, they get a sticker designating them a "farm truck" and pay considerably less in registration fees than other vehicles. They can also fill up at private stations that pay less in taxes. I'm sure something similar could be worked out if a system like this were to be put in place.
Slashdot Mirror
This terrorist group is in the book is comprised of followers of Pythagoras.
Did Yoda write this review??
Another cure for traffic jams is to make our highways 20-lanes wide (like in Asimov's novels). I guarantee that a nice, wide, open stretch of macadam won't jam up if you have that many lanes to serve the cars.
No, you'd just end up with 20 jerks preventing anyone from passing instead of the the two or three we have now.
Hmmm, I wonder if a shipping company could generate enough carbon credits by using the northern passage vs. the Suez passage to effectively make the trip between Europe and Asia free? Wouldn't that be a great unintended consequence of cap and trade!
And that's why we have barratry* laws, so that people can't use the courts to bludgeon others. Hopefully this woman can turn about and counter-sue her former landlord for all the pain and aggravation they're causing, especially since their own spokesman said "We're a sue first and ask questions later kind of organization." I'm sure a judge will love hearing that they'd rather waste the court's time on minutia instead of picking up the phone and talking about things rationally.
*Interestingly, Firefox's spell check thought I meant "barracuda". Guess Firefox doesn't like lawyers, either.
If the Yellowstone volcano goes up, we'll have more immediate things to worry about than escaped pathogens. At least, some of us will.
But don't worry, it'll be different with health care. Promise.
ÃoeGoinÃ(TM) BerzerkÃ
Yep, that one's a classic, alright! Who could ever forget ÃoeGoinÃ(TM) BerzerkÃ?
Yeah, Paris Hilton isn't all that beautiful, but if you had to choose between banging her or Roseanne Barr, which would you choose (let's assume for a moment that Paris doesn't have any STDs)?
You're also assuming Rosanne doesn't have any, either, which may not be a safe assumption.
My family moved from Philadelphia, PA, to Concord, CA, in 1976. I was only five and my younger brother was only four. My mom and step-dad weren't looking forward to two little kids, bored out of their minds on a long car trip (and even longer waits in gas lines). So my older brother, who had just gotten a brand new HP calculator for his birthday, wrote a lunar lander game on it that we could take turns playing in the back seat. When I try to explain to my kids about playing "computer" games on a calculator (and being grateful!), they barely look up from their DSs to mumble "That sounds lame."
Damn kids. At least they don't play their games on my lawn.
What if you're being carjacked? Or your stalker is driving behind you? Or some asshole just cut you off then started shooting cars to the left and right and you're trying to get away from the scene? Or something simply, like an accident has just happened but there's no safe place for you to stop?
Obviously those are all extremely unlikely scenarios for most people (none of them have ever happened to me except the last one), but any law that doesn't take them or things like them into account is a bad law.
Because now the idiots who were claiming that storm clouds don't mean rain have to shut up and realize that, yes, yes they do.
1: Pass a law preventing making fun of religion
2: Start a new, silly religion (like I believe in an all-powerful, all-knowing being who needs your MONEY!)
3: Profit!
That's different from all other religions how?
Theres nothing wrong with that though. Now, if you actually -do- any of those things, yes it is wrong. But talking about it? No one gets hurt so therefore it should not be prohibited.
Although if you do go through with it, there should be additional penalties for taking the time to plan it out with others. Conspiracy and all that.
Contracts similarly should be free for anything
Anything legal, that is. We can't let the courts be used to enforce illegal behavior, that would be schizophrenic to say the least.
You just don't understand how dangerous anthropogenic global warming (AGW) or anthropogenic climate change (ACC) are, do you?
AGW will re-write your hard drive. Not only that, it will scramble any disks that are even close to your computer. If you are at work, it will download porn to your hard drive and the hard drives of all your co-workers.
It will recalibrate your refrigerator's coolness setting so all your ice cream goes melty. It will demagnetize the strips on all your credit cards, screw up the tracking on your television and use subspace field harmonics to scratch any CDs you try to play.
It will give your ex-girlfriend your new phone number. It will mix Kool-aid into your fishtank. It will drink all your beer and leave dirty socks on the coffee table when company comes over. It will put a dead kitten in the back pocket of your good suit pants and hide your car keys when you are late for work.
AGW will make you fall in love with a penguin. It will give you nightmares about circus midgets. It will pour sugar in your gas tank and shave off both your eyebrows while dating your girlfriend behind your back and billing the dinner and hotel room to your Discover card.
It will seduce your grandmother. It does not matter if she is dead, such is the power of AGW, it reaches out beyond the grave to sully those things we hold most dear.
It moves your car randomly around parking lots so you can't find it. It will kick your dog. It will leave libidinous messages on your boss's voice mail in your voice. It is insidious and subtle. It is dangerous and terrifying to behold. It is also a rather interesting shade of mauve.
AGW will give you Dutch Elm disease. It will leave the toilet seat up. It will make a batch of Methamphetamines in your bathtub and then leave bacon cooking on the stove while it goes out to chase gradeschoolers with your new snowblower.
One of the arguments against the Strategic Defense Initiative (Star Wars) was that it actually increased the risk of a nuclear war.
No, it increased the chances of such a war. The risk, at least to the developer of the defense, was considerably lessened.
The problem with MAD is that it depends on rational decision makers on both sides of the equation. Throw in someone like Osama bin Laden or Kim Jong-Il and suddenly MAD doesn't make as much sense anymore and it's a good idea to have countermeasures to the attack.
It should also be noted that with sufficient defenses, it could also render the need for a nuclear arsenal (or at least one large enough to guarantee MAD) unnecessary. Unfortunately, the peaceniks who protested Star Wars in the 80s never focused on that element of the program.
Not yet, but that's supposed to be a feature in Windows 7.
There's an argument to be made that if you know you have a given genetic trait that would be detrimental to your offspring, and you choose to have offspring, and those offspring inherit your trait, that you could be held liable for doing so. I don't know if we as a society want to go down that road, as it means that children would have to sue their parents for giving them life (and a court is unlikely to find the child has standing to do so, since the alternative means the child never would've existed in the first place), but it is an interesting intellectual exercise, regardless.
This is Slashdot. That's not "news", that's "Friday night".
Marriage itself is "unnatural" in the most literal sense of the word, so that's hardly an argument against having multiple donors to a given person's genetic makeup. And if all of those people consent to the procedure, I find it difficult to imagine why it would be unethical to do that (as long as there's no fraud involved, of course). Granted, ethics applies to what we do and morals apply to why we do it. So there may be an argument against the morality of combining more than two individuals' DNA into a new person (well, three, actually, since we already have surrogate mothers who invest a certain amount of their DNA through feeding and caring for the embryo in utero...a certain amount of that DNA inevitably winds up in the developing child's body), but I'm unaware of what it might be.
No, because there would still be at least a portion of the population having babies the old fashioned way. At worst, the balance would go in the direction of the old Beach Boys' song about Southern California ("two girls for every boy"). And if porn has taught me anything, it's that that would be very good.
Another reason they call it "the screwing you get for the screwing you got".
The forms in question typically mention Tylenol by name because of most people's ignorance. Regardless, the FDA should not be in the business of preventing people from using pain medication that actually works because idiots can't be bothered to follow their doctor's orders.
Be careful on the pot smoking. THC and alcohol don't mix well in some people's chemistries. In mine, the combination makes me pass out and wake up with an even worse hangover. In my wife's, it makes her vomit continuously for a prolonged period. Needless to say, neither of us uses pot anymore because of this (and never used it much to start with).
Is this a Slashdot post or a commercial for Bing?
Not to mention, those vehicles who drive exclusively or primary on private roads tend to have special registrations for when they do go on public roads. Here in Texas, they get a sticker designating them a "farm truck" and pay considerably less in registration fees than other vehicles. They can also fill up at private stations that pay less in taxes. I'm sure something similar could be worked out if a system like this were to be put in place.