I'm sorry, but if you have to explain to a guy "on many occasions" that you're not interested in sex, but you insist on sharing a bed with him anyway, then I have zero sympathy if he decides to take advantage and grope you. You're really asking for it. (The "many occasions" bit there implies that this wasn't a surprise, one-time thing.)
Simple rule: if you're a female, and a male who has an obvious sexual interest in you wants to share a bed with you, and you don't have that same interest, (and you don't have complete trust in this guy to respect your boundaries based on long experience with him to know his character) find another bed.
The drooling masses of Luddites on Slashdot are probably still claiming that SpaceX's reusable rockets don't exist, or that all the videos of them landing after a launch are faked.
But you're probably right about the Hyperloop never coming to California, at least not any time soon. They'll probably build a bunch of them in various other countries on the other side of the planet first, and finally, 50 years later, California will decide it wants one after spending a few trillion on a high-speed rail project that never gets finished.
The Hyperloop plans I've seen call for the tube to be elevated on pylons over the ground. It's far cheaper that way, plus you don't have to worry much about seismic problems (you can engineer the pylons and tubes to have a certain amount of flexibility, much like skyscrapers do).
For the aluminum thing, *you're* doing it wrong. Aluminum was the original word, before some idiots decided to change it for no good reason.
If you disagree, you're a hypocrite, because all the other old latin element names, and some others, are the same: cuprum, ferrum, aurum, plumbum, argentum, hydragyrum, platinum, molybdenum, etc. In short, if you're not also insisting on calling Pt "platinium", then you're an idiot and a hypocrite.
All metric unit conversions can be done with NO complicated, useless, and perfunctory math.
The thing you're missing is that common people almost never do unit conversions?
Quick, how many inches in a mile? Answer: who cares. Regular people driving to work never need to figure that out. How many inches in 473 feet as in your example? Again, no one cares, they don't need to do that. Go find some housewife who's cooking something and ask her how many cubic inches are in a gallon. Guess what? She doesn't care, she's never needed to do that.
Easy unit conversions with metric units are really convenient when you're working in science or engineering. If you're an accountant or a manager, you never, ever need to do stuff like that. This is why in America, the scientists and engineers all use metric units at work (unless they work in defense), and switch back to conventional units when they leave the office. There simply isn't any need for it.
Exactly. As long as the Brits continue to state their body weight in "stones" (whatever TF that is), then shut up about us commonly using non-metric units.
Upgraded suspensions and other parts do not change the laws of physics. SUVs have a high center of gravity, and there is no way to change this short of perhaps sticking a bunch of tungsten plates in the floorboards. They are not safe at high speeds, and I really don't care what tests police departments have done. Those same departments thought Crown Vics were safe cars at high speeds, and they're not. They handle like boats (yes, I've driven them).
Americans in general don't have a clue what constitutes a safe vehicle at high speeds. They don't even know what handling is. There's a reason police in Germany would never use vehicles like that. Americans just slap a big engine in something and then think that makes it capable of high speeds, and for a drag strip, they're right, but that's it. But of course, Americans have little concept that roads might have something in them called "curves".
Porsche and BMW cannot change the laws of physics: a high center of gravity is a high center of gravity. But in addition to that, there's no way a US police department is going to use a Porsche or BMW. It's all Exploders and Yukons and stuff like that for them.
They already started suing every business around Olympia, WA and the Olympic Mountains for using "Olympic" in their name, despite the names coming from geographical location and some even being around longer than the modern Olympics
And did the local judges in Olympia actually put up with this charade?
I'm not sure how much of a hit if your song is about Frank swimming in raw sewage, coming down with dysentery from that, catching the Zika virus from hundreds of mosquito bites, and then being kidnapped for ransom, and then mugged after they release him.
Why any athlete would want to go to Brazil, I have no idea.
I honestly don't know if 365HP is enough to push an SUV to 140. It's more than enough for a smaller car, but wind resistance goes up with the cube of velocity (see here), and SUVs have far higher drag coefficients and frontal areas than cars. It's probably still enough though. But I still contend that their handling is too poor and this would be extremely dangerous because of this. SUVs (all of them) should be limited to about 65mph IMO because of safety (or maybe even 55). Their handling is just too poor for them to be driven faster. If you want to drive safely at higher speeds, you need a vehicle with a lower center of gravity.
365 HP may be enough to get you to 140, but the handling on SUVs is not sufficient for those vehicles to be safe at that speed. And a Ford Escort has a much lower center of gravity than any SUV.
Also, I have driven a 90s trooper car (a Ford Crown Vic). Those cars aren't safe to drive at 90, let alone 130. They're heaps of shit with the handling of a boat (and this was true when they were brand-new, which is when I drove one for work a few times).
2. A "more social" experience of the movie is better. It's not for those of us who are introverts. Having people talking and eating all around deprives us of our ability to really enjoy the movie and be completely immersed in the experience.
I completely disagree about the introvert thing.
I'm an introvert, but personally, I rarely want to watch a movie alone. I like to watch movie either with a partner (usually a romantic partner), or with a small group of friends.
However, in both these cases (or for watching it alone too, making it 3 cases), the home-theater is the best choice, by far:
For watching alone, you can be undistracted by others.
For watching with a romantic partner, you can be undistracted by others and cuddle all you want (can't do that in theater seats, there's a divider in the way).
For watching with a group of friends, it's more fun at someone's home where you can have a nice couch/sectional, serve food and drinks, talk to each other about the movie if you need to (and then rewind so you don't miss anything), pause if someone needs a bathroom break or wants to go make some popcorn, etc.
There simply isn't any case I can think of where going to a theater is really that much better than staying at home. So, back to your point about introverts, even for the social experience, watching a movie at home is a superior experience. If I'm with a group of friends and we want to pause the movie and talk about it, you can do that at home, but you can't in a theater. At home, you can limit the social interaction to your preferred companions, and then do whatever that group wants, unlike a theater where you're stuck in there with dozens of other strangers and subject to the rules of the establishment. So yes, for non-social watching, home is better, but for social watching, it's also better.
Here is how you take the fight to piracy -- take some risks, make some NEW movies (get off the remake train),
So, that's how you fight piracy James. Not make the movie theater experience "unique" -- fucking make the movies unique so we'll want to go see them
You'd think James would know about this too: Avatar (2009) was a hugely successful movie, and for good reason: it was an FX tour-de-force. It was absolutely unique, and it was new. (Yes, the plot wasn't completely unique, but most story plots throughout history are rehashed versions of Greek tales or Shakespeare anyway.) Avatar was a big risk at the time, and it paid off. From what I remember, the studios didn't want to finance it because it was too risky, so James financed a lot himself. This is the problem with Hollywood these days: they don't want to take a risk on a movie like Avatar that's all-new, this is why everything is a sequel, prequel, remake, or reboot: they're less profitable but they're much lower-risk and are usually guaranteed to make some kind of profit.
The sad fact is that TV has gotten much more interesting than movies in recent years. See Game of Thrones for proof of this. You won't see any movies like this from Hollywood.
I feel mostly the same way, but to be fair, I do have to point out that there are some (not many) cinemas which are actually pretty nice to go to. They're usually called "dinner theaters"; they cater to adults only, they serve alcohol and full meals, and you sit at tables and watch the movie. You have a button you can press to summon a server. The one I went to a couple of times was run by AMC if I recall correctly.
I also hear good things about Alamo Drafthouse, which I think is similar.
Of course, these things aren't that common, and are entirely regional (Alamo Drafthouse is only in a few cities I think).
Of course, they're not perfect, and have the following problems: 1) tickets are pricey (slightly more than normal theaters usually, but they get more profit from the food and drinks anyway, the meals aren't cheap), 2) there's no pause or rewind, like with any theater.
Personally, I'd rather just stay at home and watch a movie. I can sit in my recliner, I can eat or drink whatever I want (and it's as cheap as I can buy it for at the grocery store), I can pause to go to the bathroom, I can rewind if I miss something or don't understand something, I can turn on subtitles if someone has a thick accent, I can start the movie whenever I want, I can cuddle with a girlfriend (can't do that in a theater because the seats physically prevent it) or a cat, I can adjust the volume to my liking (theaters are usually too loud), I don't have to drive a long way to see the movie and worry about getting a speeding ticket or in an accident with a drunk, I could go on and on.
The main thing people like Cameron seem to be pushing with theaters is the social aspect. I'm sorry, I don't buy it. Who actually talks to or meets new people at a theater? Any socialization is between people who are already friends; if I have some friends that want to watch a movie, we can all meet up at someone's house instead (and then they can even spend the night...). I have no desire to socialize with random strangers in a theater, and in fact, this just isn't normal anyway. "Sharing the experience" is worthless to me. I'd rather share the experience with some friends at home. And I suspect I'm not unusual in this regard.
The only reason theaters did so well in the past is because people couldn't afford equipment that was even remotely as good as what a theater used. Thanks to gigantic LCD TVs at dirt-cheap prices, this has all changed.
I think there's more to it than that. People use Windows because it's "the standard", and "everyone else uses it". If some of their software stops working on it, they're going to blame the software, not the OS, and not many of them are going to decide to dump the OS and switch to Linux or Mac: it's just too much of a change for them.
I agree that that's bad, but I don't see that nearly as often as I see from the people who speed up to keep people from passing them. Basically, you seem to be justifying this behavior on the basis that some passers will do what you describe.
I seriously doubt 365 HP (which is pretty lousy these days honestly; a stock Camaro has around that much) is enough to push that brick through the air at 140mph. And it if is, that is extremely dangerous: there is no way an Explorer has the handling necessarily to drive safely at that speed.
There's also the chance the guy you're passing will speed up as you attempt to overtake,
I see this a lot. I really wish the cops would drive around in unmarked cars armed with radars and cameras and look for this behavior, and any time they catch someone doing it, arrest them on the spot and haul them to jail. It's incredibly dangerous behavior.
How are they "dead"? What are users going to do if MS makes Steam completely inoperable on Windows? Whine and complain? Users have already proven they're completely unwilling to leave the Windows platform, so MS has every incentive to screw them over as much as they want.
They're not going to be able to get users excited about their products like with Apple, but they have a huge userbase that just isn't going anywhere, ever, so they might as well come up with any method they can of milking these people for money: advertising baked into the OS, the Windows app store, spyware and selling info to marketers, etc. Why shouldn't they? And exactly what incentive do they have to not be as overt about their customer-screwing as they want?
Will they be able to deal with the giant backlash they'll receive from their growing Win10 user base when Steam stops working? There are so many steam clients installed on Win10 machines, I don't see how MS can just patch out Steam until it's too buggy to use, then shuffle in the windows store.
Why wouldn't they? What are the users going to do, switch to Linux? MS could make Steam stop working tomorrow and users would put up with it. Why should MS care about a "backlash"? Again, what are the users going to do about it? Whine and complain?
In reality, a few people actually would switch to Linux or Mac, the rest would just complain a lot and then buy stuff from the Windows store. I honestly don't know why MS isn't even more aggressive with this stuff, unless there's a very real possibility of governmental action against them. The late 90s court case proved that the US government isn't going to do a damn thing to stop them (remember, they were found "guilty" and then there was no punishment at all), so I can only guess they're trying to avoid action by the EU. If it weren't for that, they could just screw over users as much as they wanted, and again, what are the users going to do? They've already proven that 95% of them are completely unwilling to leave the Windows platform.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm sorry, but if you have to explain to a guy "on many occasions" that you're not interested in sex, but you insist on sharing a bed with him anyway, then I have zero sympathy if he decides to take advantage and grope you. You're really asking for it. (The "many occasions" bit there implies that this wasn't a surprise, one-time thing.)
Simple rule: if you're a female, and a male who has an obvious sexual interest in you wants to share a bed with you, and you don't have that same interest, (and you don't have complete trust in this guy to respect your boundaries based on long experience with him to know his character) find another bed.
The drooling masses of Luddites on Slashdot are probably still claiming that SpaceX's reusable rockets don't exist, or that all the videos of them landing after a launch are faked.
But you're probably right about the Hyperloop never coming to California, at least not any time soon. They'll probably build a bunch of them in various other countries on the other side of the planet first, and finally, 50 years later, California will decide it wants one after spending a few trillion on a high-speed rail project that never gets finished.
The Hyperloop plans I've seen call for the tube to be elevated on pylons over the ground. It's far cheaper that way, plus you don't have to worry much about seismic problems (you can engineer the pylons and tubes to have a certain amount of flexibility, much like skyscrapers do).
Citation needed. Everything I've read states that it'll be a mild vacuum. There's no such thing as a "complete vacuum" on earth.
For the aluminum thing, *you're* doing it wrong. Aluminum was the original word, before some idiots decided to change it for no good reason.
If you disagree, you're a hypocrite, because all the other old latin element names, and some others, are the same: cuprum, ferrum, aurum, plumbum, argentum, hydragyrum, platinum, molybdenum, etc. In short, if you're not also insisting on calling Pt "platinium", then you're an idiot and a hypocrite.
All metric unit conversions can be done with NO complicated, useless, and perfunctory math.
The thing you're missing is that common people almost never do unit conversions?
Quick, how many inches in a mile? Answer: who cares. Regular people driving to work never need to figure that out. How many inches in 473 feet as in your example? Again, no one cares, they don't need to do that. Go find some housewife who's cooking something and ask her how many cubic inches are in a gallon. Guess what? She doesn't care, she's never needed to do that.
Easy unit conversions with metric units are really convenient when you're working in science or engineering. If you're an accountant or a manager, you never, ever need to do stuff like that. This is why in America, the scientists and engineers all use metric units at work (unless they work in defense), and switch back to conventional units when they leave the office. There simply isn't any need for it.
Exactly. As long as the Brits continue to state their body weight in "stones" (whatever TF that is), then shut up about us commonly using non-metric units.
Well their location is one of the worst possible places in America to live. I wouldn't work there just because of where they are.
Upgraded suspensions and other parts do not change the laws of physics. SUVs have a high center of gravity, and there is no way to change this short of perhaps sticking a bunch of tungsten plates in the floorboards. They are not safe at high speeds, and I really don't care what tests police departments have done. Those same departments thought Crown Vics were safe cars at high speeds, and they're not. They handle like boats (yes, I've driven them).
Americans in general don't have a clue what constitutes a safe vehicle at high speeds. They don't even know what handling is. There's a reason police in Germany would never use vehicles like that. Americans just slap a big engine in something and then think that makes it capable of high speeds, and for a drag strip, they're right, but that's it. But of course, Americans have little concept that roads might have something in them called "curves".
Porsche and BMW cannot change the laws of physics: a high center of gravity is a high center of gravity. But in addition to that, there's no way a US police department is going to use a Porsche or BMW. It's all Exploders and Yukons and stuff like that for them.
They already started suing every business around Olympia, WA and the Olympic Mountains for using "Olympic" in their name, despite the names coming from geographical location and some even being around longer than the modern Olympics
And did the local judges in Olympia actually put up with this charade?
I'm not sure how much of a hit if your song is about Frank swimming in raw sewage, coming down with dysentery from that, catching the Zika virus from hundreds of mosquito bites, and then being kidnapped for ransom, and then mugged after they release him.
Why any athlete would want to go to Brazil, I have no idea.
I honestly don't know if 365HP is enough to push an SUV to 140. It's more than enough for a smaller car, but wind resistance goes up with the cube of velocity (see here), and SUVs have far higher drag coefficients and frontal areas than cars. It's probably still enough though. But I still contend that their handling is too poor and this would be extremely dangerous because of this. SUVs (all of them) should be limited to about 65mph IMO because of safety (or maybe even 55). Their handling is just too poor for them to be driven faster. If you want to drive safely at higher speeds, you need a vehicle with a lower center of gravity.
365 HP may be enough to get you to 140, but the handling on SUVs is not sufficient for those vehicles to be safe at that speed. And a Ford Escort has a much lower center of gravity than any SUV.
Also, I have driven a 90s trooper car (a Ford Crown Vic). Those cars aren't safe to drive at 90, let alone 130. They're heaps of shit with the handling of a boat (and this was true when they were brand-new, which is when I drove one for work a few times).
2. A "more social" experience of the movie is better. It's not for those of us who are introverts. Having people talking and eating all around deprives us of our ability to really enjoy the movie and be completely immersed in the experience.
I completely disagree about the introvert thing.
I'm an introvert, but personally, I rarely want to watch a movie alone. I like to watch movie either with a partner (usually a romantic partner), or with a small group of friends.
However, in both these cases (or for watching it alone too, making it 3 cases), the home-theater is the best choice, by far:
For watching alone, you can be undistracted by others.
For watching with a romantic partner, you can be undistracted by others and cuddle all you want (can't do that in theater seats, there's a divider in the way).
For watching with a group of friends, it's more fun at someone's home where you can have a nice couch/sectional, serve food and drinks, talk to each other about the movie if you need to (and then rewind so you don't miss anything), pause if someone needs a bathroom break or wants to go make some popcorn, etc.
There simply isn't any case I can think of where going to a theater is really that much better than staying at home. So, back to your point about introverts, even for the social experience, watching a movie at home is a superior experience. If I'm with a group of friends and we want to pause the movie and talk about it, you can do that at home, but you can't in a theater. At home, you can limit the social interaction to your preferred companions, and then do whatever that group wants, unlike a theater where you're stuck in there with dozens of other strangers and subject to the rules of the establishment. So yes, for non-social watching, home is better, but for social watching, it's also better.
Here is how you take the fight to piracy -- take some risks, make some NEW movies (get off the remake train),
So, that's how you fight piracy James. Not make the movie theater experience "unique" -- fucking make the movies unique so we'll want to go see them
You'd think James would know about this too: Avatar (2009) was a hugely successful movie, and for good reason: it was an FX tour-de-force. It was absolutely unique, and it was new. (Yes, the plot wasn't completely unique, but most story plots throughout history are rehashed versions of Greek tales or Shakespeare anyway.) Avatar was a big risk at the time, and it paid off. From what I remember, the studios didn't want to finance it because it was too risky, so James financed a lot himself. This is the problem with Hollywood these days: they don't want to take a risk on a movie like Avatar that's all-new, this is why everything is a sequel, prequel, remake, or reboot: they're less profitable but they're much lower-risk and are usually guaranteed to make some kind of profit.
The sad fact is that TV has gotten much more interesting than movies in recent years. See Game of Thrones for proof of this. You won't see any movies like this from Hollywood.
As that old Doors song goes, "the west is the best".
MN might be better than the east coast, but things are even better farther west (though not so great if you start going south).
I feel mostly the same way, but to be fair, I do have to point out that there are some (not many) cinemas which are actually pretty nice to go to. They're usually called "dinner theaters"; they cater to adults only, they serve alcohol and full meals, and you sit at tables and watch the movie. You have a button you can press to summon a server. The one I went to a couple of times was run by AMC if I recall correctly.
I also hear good things about Alamo Drafthouse, which I think is similar.
Of course, these things aren't that common, and are entirely regional (Alamo Drafthouse is only in a few cities I think).
Of course, they're not perfect, and have the following problems: 1) tickets are pricey (slightly more than normal theaters usually, but they get more profit from the food and drinks anyway, the meals aren't cheap), 2) there's no pause or rewind, like with any theater.
Personally, I'd rather just stay at home and watch a movie. I can sit in my recliner, I can eat or drink whatever I want (and it's as cheap as I can buy it for at the grocery store), I can pause to go to the bathroom, I can rewind if I miss something or don't understand something, I can turn on subtitles if someone has a thick accent, I can start the movie whenever I want, I can cuddle with a girlfriend (can't do that in a theater because the seats physically prevent it) or a cat, I can adjust the volume to my liking (theaters are usually too loud), I don't have to drive a long way to see the movie and worry about getting a speeding ticket or in an accident with a drunk, I could go on and on.
The main thing people like Cameron seem to be pushing with theaters is the social aspect. I'm sorry, I don't buy it. Who actually talks to or meets new people at a theater? Any socialization is between people who are already friends; if I have some friends that want to watch a movie, we can all meet up at someone's house instead (and then they can even spend the night...). I have no desire to socialize with random strangers in a theater, and in fact, this just isn't normal anyway. "Sharing the experience" is worthless to me. I'd rather share the experience with some friends at home. And I suspect I'm not unusual in this regard.
The only reason theaters did so well in the past is because people couldn't afford equipment that was even remotely as good as what a theater used. Thanks to gigantic LCD TVs at dirt-cheap prices, this has all changed.
I think there's more to it than that. People use Windows because it's "the standard", and "everyone else uses it". If some of their software stops working on it, they're going to blame the software, not the OS, and not many of them are going to decide to dump the OS and switch to Linux or Mac: it's just too much of a change for them.
I agree that that's bad, but I don't see that nearly as often as I see from the people who speed up to keep people from passing them. Basically, you seem to be justifying this behavior on the basis that some passers will do what you describe.
I seriously doubt 365 HP (which is pretty lousy these days honestly; a stock Camaro has around that much) is enough to push that brick through the air at 140mph. And it if is, that is extremely dangerous: there is no way an Explorer has the handling necessarily to drive safely at that speed.
Well obviously he wasn't driving one of those big SUVs that a lot of police departments are using these days.
There's also the chance the guy you're passing will speed up as you attempt to overtake,
I see this a lot. I really wish the cops would drive around in unmarked cars armed with radars and cameras and look for this behavior, and any time they catch someone doing it, arrest them on the spot and haul them to jail. It's incredibly dangerous behavior.
How are they "dead"? What are users going to do if MS makes Steam completely inoperable on Windows? Whine and complain? Users have already proven they're completely unwilling to leave the Windows platform, so MS has every incentive to screw them over as much as they want.
They're not going to be able to get users excited about their products like with Apple, but they have a huge userbase that just isn't going anywhere, ever, so they might as well come up with any method they can of milking these people for money: advertising baked into the OS, the Windows app store, spyware and selling info to marketers, etc. Why shouldn't they? And exactly what incentive do they have to not be as overt about their customer-screwing as they want?
Will they be able to deal with the giant backlash they'll receive from their growing Win10 user base when Steam stops working? There are so many steam clients installed on Win10 machines, I don't see how MS can just patch out Steam until it's too buggy to use, then shuffle in the windows store.
Why wouldn't they? What are the users going to do, switch to Linux? MS could make Steam stop working tomorrow and users would put up with it. Why should MS care about a "backlash"? Again, what are the users going to do about it? Whine and complain?
In reality, a few people actually would switch to Linux or Mac, the rest would just complain a lot and then buy stuff from the Windows store. I honestly don't know why MS isn't even more aggressive with this stuff, unless there's a very real possibility of governmental action against them. The late 90s court case proved that the US government isn't going to do a damn thing to stop them (remember, they were found "guilty" and then there was no punishment at all), so I can only guess they're trying to avoid action by the EU. If it weren't for that, they could just screw over users as much as they wanted, and again, what are the users going to do? They've already proven that 95% of them are completely unwilling to leave the Windows platform.