Science was already "there" for years before the dumbfucks who write for House even wrote that episode. Where do you think they got the idea, from doing medical research in their spare time? Those fucks are stupid enough to write a story where a "genius" continuously drinks fucking Robitussen to "make himself stupid", when anyone who's actually fairly inteligent and has drunk Robo "recreationally" knows it doesn't work like that. It's a partially debilitating semi-halucinogen, and does nothing to alleviate the "pain of genius" and make stupid people tolerable. You certainly couldn't function as a courier, for fuck's sake.
I think stealing in the moral sense is...
"Ill gotten gain"
Where "ill" is defined as anything other than straight honest by the book dealing.
Now you're headed down the rabbit hole of idiotic semantic arguments over colloquialisms. That way lies madness. Let's just stick to the legal definition of "stealing", shall we? Otherwise, this will devolve into verbal fistfights over what, exactly, it means when some jealous ex shouts "That bitch STOLE my boyfriend!"
My wristwatch worked in the nasty hillbilly backwoods of Paktia, Afghanistan. So did my Garmin GPS V. I love my Google G2, but I'd hate to try to call in close air support using Google Voice, getting my position from Google Maps.
...though looking now, they have surprisingly good coverage now.... there was basically nothing in 2002.
Exactly, because breaching a levee in one place does not magically strengthen it in others, nor does it "relieve the pressure" being exerted by a fucking hurricane. What kind of fucking numbnuts even entertains such a notion?
The fact that you pay California sales tax when you buy something there as a visitor is not part of the intent of sales tax, it's simply an unintended consequence of the implementation. The intent is to tax residents of the state on their purchases to fund improvements in the state. Using the aberration of an out of state visitor taxed on in state purchases as a justification to extend the aberration to mail order is fucking asinine.
but all of the national retail chains have to deal with it, so why can't Amazon and the other online retail companies?
Amazon is being asked to calculate the tax based on wherever they buyer is. Big department stores only need to have the manager of each individual store figure out what their tax rate is and that applies to anyone who shops there... you know, because the store doesn't move.
Demanding that a retailer 1200 miles away figure out where the customer lives, then what the tax rate would be if the customer had a retail business on his lawn, that's bullshit. It's a much bigger headache than brick & mortar stores have to deal with. It's also a load of crap because it's interstate commerce. Federal government rule #1 for states is "hands off interstate commerce".
If you invent a concept as fundamentally useful to humanity as a house you certainly deserve to be well-cared for throughout the remainder of your life.
They usually include a unique identifier in the form of a drivers license number on each license. You'd have a hard time arguing that there's a man at 121 Main Street with the same name AND license number as you.
they're making a politically-influenced interpretation of Congress' intent in drafting the Patent Act.
Not even the intent. They go by the specific wording of the law. If congress passes a law banning (say) all "personal audio transducers that fit within the ear" within the boundaries of national parks in order to stem the scourge of iPod wearing hipsters at Yellowstone, it doesn't matter that the intent was to ban headphones. The law as written is what they have to go by, so if the NPS starts confiscating bluetooth headsets and hearing aids, the intent of congress won't amount to anything if it comes up to the supreme court. Most likely, they'd say "the law says NPS can take away hearing aids. Congress needs to be more specific if it means something more specific".
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
The binding statement here is the right of "the People" to bear arms. The preamble can easily be read as a rationale. Note which part stands on it's own as a complete sentence (or more precisely, a complete thought).
That's kind of an awkward example, because we have extensive written documentation of the exact intent of the specific wording of the 2nd Amd, and the first half is actually more than just an explanatory preamble. When the Bill of Rights was being drafted, everyone agreed that enumerating the right of individuals to bear arms in defense of liberty was essential (seeing as how they had just won a war based on being armed and ready to shoot at their legitimate government) but representatives of various states had additional concerns. Primarily, they were concerned that the individual right to bear arms was useless unless the people were guaranteed the right to form local militias, and the federal government would render individual arms useless by forbidding any cooperation except under auspices of a federal military. That's why the 2nd has two clauses.
In a nutshell, the second amendment says: The people retain the right to own guns and form crowds of armed people to do the things that we sometimes need crowds of armed people for, and they don't need federal permission.
Of course, the clearly delineated intent of the original framers is generally ignored, so... whatever.
FFS, how any times are we going to have to hear idiotic permutations of that same joke?
It's the same as what's happened to me at work. Our offices have windows opening onto the hallways, but for years the windows have had frosted glass. THe new director of our division decided he wanted to be able to "see what we're doing in there", and paid to have clear glass put in. Doesn't bother me, because I'm too busy working to care. What really drives me up the wall is every goddamn jackass who walks by feels the need to knock on the window, or make a face, or clown around in front of the window. Yes, I get it. You can see me through that window, and before you could not. The window has been there four weeks! Get the fuck over it!.
So yeah, new pointless window jokers = stupid "i've patented jerking off" type jokes. Shut the fuck up already, willya?
And Fox would sue because they are being singled out because they are "conservative"
It'd never make it. It'd be dismissed pretty much instantly. There's no protected class of "conservative", and being listed on Google isn't a protected right.
Terrorism is a real threat, it's just nowhere near as large a threat as some would make it out to be.
Yeah, well, we're talking about airport terrorist screening here. Terrorism on airplanes is pretty much over. The idea that we need to protect against guys getting on with box cutters is absolutely ludicrous. If anything, the shift in public perception of hijacking should have allowed a relaxing of security at airports, as the passengers will immediately hogtie, pummel, and sedate any idiot dumb enough to try anything. Really, the only thing left to look out for is explosives, and that's a fairly simple chemistry problem. All this shit with taking off shoes, smelling us for fear, and peering through our clothes with machines is expensive security theater to mitigate a problem that's already been solved.
Actually, it's quite possible that, due to a translation error that sounds like something only Douglas Adams could have come up with, the actual line states not "virgins", but "white raisins of crystal clarity". Seriously!
define wisdom, dork. Never mind, I'll do it for you:"The ability to discern or judge what is true, right, or lasting; insight; Common sense; good judgment"
Basically the combination of knowledge and experience and an ability to intelligently apply them.
"Wisdom" is an old fashioned term, used by people who don't know education from intelligence, and simpy measure it all as one thing, saying "That ol' man Harris sure is wise!"
Black people are different on the outside, why can't they be different on the inside, too?
Because what makes them different on the outside is such a mind-bogglingly infinitesimal fraction of the entire genetic code. It's simply not likely that there are any broad measures of mental capacity linked to it. About the only things closely linked are discrete details like larger gaps between the condyles in the knee, angle of the upper mandibular ridge, etc. Something as broadly affected as mental capacity is unlikely to have much correlation.
...and if they're different, why is it hard to believe that somebody with an agenda can make a test which shows that difference?
Because if no such differences have even been documented, it's highly unlikely that anyone has had the opportunity to go a step further and tailor a test that exploits them.
Intelligence is part heredity, and part random. Smart people tend to have smart kids, and sometimes even dumb people come up with the occasional poindexter. Skin color simply isn't ever going to be a predictor. Skin color is still highly correlated to poverty, though, and poverty is known to result in a poor learning environment. The difficulty with IQ tests is that they always presume some base level of literacy, and weight based on age. Subsequently, IQ tests are not accurate when literacy levels and ages are varied. That's whey we repeatedly get to hear about that fraud Marilyn vos Savant and her supposed IQ of 228... when the only IQ test she's taken that showed that was one at 10 years old. When they say that IQ measurements at the high end are somewhat inaccurate, they're not just whistling dixie. Any time you evaluate the outliers in any test population you're going to be reduced to pretty much wild-ass guessing, because the entire system is based on fixing 100 as the dead center.
I used to have a gutless wonder '80 Mazda 626. The engine was so weak that if you were on any sort of incline at all, you'd have to goose the throttle significantly as you let up the clutch or the engine would die. If you were on a steep freeway offramp waiting for a green light, you'd have to operate the clutch with your left foot, the brake with your right heel, and the accelerator with your right toe to keep from rolling backwards or killing the engine.
Brakes are capable of locking the tyres at any speed (in the absense of ABS). If not, your brakes are not good enough. How many engines are capable of spinning the tyres at any speed?
Failure to understand the difference between inertia and torque.
This feature has existed for decades. My 94 Honda Civic will only turn to Accessory and then stops. To turn it to LOCK you have to push the key in. Even my old 79 Dodge Van wouldn't turn past OFF to LOCK without pushing in on the chrome collar around the key.. unfortunately, the collar spring is invariably weak, and most people push in the collar by habit when they turn the key, so that safety feature might as well not even be there.
Slashdot Mirror
Science was already "there" for years before the dumbfucks who write for House even wrote that episode. Where do you think they got the idea, from doing medical research in their spare time? Those fucks are stupid enough to write a story where a "genius" continuously drinks fucking Robitussen to "make himself stupid", when anyone who's actually fairly inteligent and has drunk Robo "recreationally" knows it doesn't work like that. It's a partially debilitating semi-halucinogen, and does nothing to alleviate the "pain of genius" and make stupid people tolerable. You certainly couldn't function as a courier, for fuck's sake.
Dang that thagomizer, skewing the statistics down.
I think stealing in the moral sense is... "Ill gotten gain" Where "ill" is defined as anything other than straight honest by the book dealing.
Now you're headed down the rabbit hole of idiotic semantic arguments over colloquialisms. That way lies madness. Let's just stick to the legal definition of "stealing", shall we? Otherwise, this will devolve into verbal fistfights over what, exactly, it means when some jealous ex shouts "That bitch STOLE my boyfriend!"
My wristwatch worked in the nasty hillbilly backwoods of Paktia, Afghanistan. So did my Garmin GPS V. I love my Google G2, but I'd hate to try to call in close air support using Google Voice, getting my position from Google Maps.
...though looking now, they have surprisingly good coverage now.... there was basically nothing in 2002.
Exactly, because breaching a levee in one place does not magically strengthen it in others, nor does it "relieve the pressure" being exerted by a fucking hurricane. What kind of fucking numbnuts even entertains such a notion?
The fact that you pay California sales tax when you buy something there as a visitor is not part of the intent of sales tax, it's simply an unintended consequence of the implementation. The intent is to tax residents of the state on their purchases to fund improvements in the state. Using the aberration of an out of state visitor taxed on in state purchases as a justification to extend the aberration to mail order is fucking asinine.
but all of the national retail chains have to deal with it, so why can't Amazon and the other online retail companies?
Amazon is being asked to calculate the tax based on wherever they buyer is. Big department stores only need to have the manager of each individual store figure out what their tax rate is and that applies to anyone who shops there... you know, because the store doesn't move.
Demanding that a retailer 1200 miles away figure out where the customer lives, then what the tax rate would be if the customer had a retail business on his lawn, that's bullshit. It's a much bigger headache than brick & mortar stores have to deal with. It's also a load of crap because it's interstate commerce. Federal government rule #1 for states is "hands off interstate commerce".
If you invent a concept as fundamentally useful to humanity as a house you certainly deserve to be well-cared for throughout the remainder of your life.
Unsupported assertion. What do you base this on?
They usually include a unique identifier in the form of a drivers license number on each license. You'd have a hard time arguing that there's a man at 121 Main Street with the same name AND license number as you.
they're making a politically-influenced interpretation of Congress' intent in drafting the Patent Act.
Not even the intent. They go by the specific wording of the law. If congress passes a law banning (say) all "personal audio transducers that fit within the ear" within the boundaries of national parks in order to stem the scourge of iPod wearing hipsters at Yellowstone, it doesn't matter that the intent was to ban headphones. The law as written is what they have to go by, so if the NPS starts confiscating bluetooth headsets and hearing aids, the intent of congress won't amount to anything if it comes up to the supreme court. Most likely, they'd say "the law says NPS can take away hearing aids. Congress needs to be more specific if it means something more specific".
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
The binding statement here is the right of "the People" to bear arms. The preamble can easily be read as a rationale. Note which part stands on it's own as a complete sentence (or more precisely, a complete thought).
That's kind of an awkward example, because we have extensive written documentation of the exact intent of the specific wording of the 2nd Amd, and the first half is actually more than just an explanatory preamble. When the Bill of Rights was being drafted, everyone agreed that enumerating the right of individuals to bear arms in defense of liberty was essential (seeing as how they had just won a war based on being armed and ready to shoot at their legitimate government) but representatives of various states had additional concerns. Primarily, they were concerned that the individual right to bear arms was useless unless the people were guaranteed the right to form local militias, and the federal government would render individual arms useless by forbidding any cooperation except under auspices of a federal military. That's why the 2nd has two clauses.
In a nutshell, the second amendment says: The people retain the right to own guns and form crowds of armed people to do the things that we sometimes need crowds of armed people for, and they don't need federal permission.
Of course, the clearly delineated intent of the original framers is generally ignored, so... whatever.
Am I supposed to put forth the observation here that patents are themselves already a case of government meddling in the free market?
FFS, how any times are we going to have to hear idiotic permutations of that same joke?
It's the same as what's happened to me at work. Our offices have windows opening onto the hallways, but for years the windows have had frosted glass. THe new director of our division decided he wanted to be able to "see what we're doing in there", and paid to have clear glass put in. Doesn't bother me, because I'm too busy working to care. What really drives me up the wall is every goddamn jackass who walks by feels the need to knock on the window, or make a face, or clown around in front of the window. Yes, I get it. You can see me through that window, and before you could not. The window has been there four weeks! Get the fuck over it!.
So yeah, new pointless window jokers = stupid "i've patented jerking off" type jokes. Shut the fuck up already, willya?
And Fox would sue because they are being singled out because they are "conservative"
It'd never make it. It'd be dismissed pretty much instantly. There's no protected class of "conservative", and being listed on Google isn't a protected right.
Terrorism is a real threat, it's just nowhere near as large a threat as some would make it out to be.
Yeah, well, we're talking about airport terrorist screening here. Terrorism on airplanes is pretty much over. The idea that we need to protect against guys getting on with box cutters is absolutely ludicrous. If anything, the shift in public perception of hijacking should have allowed a relaxing of security at airports, as the passengers will immediately hogtie, pummel, and sedate any idiot dumb enough to try anything. Really, the only thing left to look out for is explosives, and that's a fairly simple chemistry problem. All this shit with taking off shoes, smelling us for fear, and peering through our clothes with machines is expensive security theater to mitigate a problem that's already been solved.
Actually, it's quite possible that, due to a translation error that sounds like something only Douglas Adams could have come up with, the actual line states not "virgins", but "white raisins of crystal clarity". Seriously!
define wisdom, dork. Never mind, I'll do it for you:"The ability to discern or judge what is true, right, or lasting; insight; Common sense; good judgment"
Basically the combination of knowledge and experience and an ability to intelligently apply them.
"Wisdom" is an old fashioned term, used by people who don't know education from intelligence, and simpy measure it all as one thing, saying "That ol' man Harris sure is wise!"
Black people are different on the outside, why can't they be different on the inside, too?
Because what makes them different on the outside is such a mind-bogglingly infinitesimal fraction of the entire genetic code. It's simply not likely that there are any broad measures of mental capacity linked to it. About the only things closely linked are discrete details like larger gaps between the condyles in the knee, angle of the upper mandibular ridge, etc. Something as broadly affected as mental capacity is unlikely to have much correlation.
...and if they're different, why is it hard to believe that somebody with an agenda can make a test which shows that difference?
Because if no such differences have even been documented, it's highly unlikely that anyone has had the opportunity to go a step further and tailor a test that exploits them.
Intelligence is part heredity, and part random. Smart people tend to have smart kids, and sometimes even dumb people come up with the occasional poindexter. Skin color simply isn't ever going to be a predictor. Skin color is still highly correlated to poverty, though, and poverty is known to result in a poor learning environment. The difficulty with IQ tests is that they always presume some base level of literacy, and weight based on age. Subsequently, IQ tests are not accurate when literacy levels and ages are varied. That's whey we repeatedly get to hear about that fraud Marilyn vos Savant and her supposed IQ of 228... when the only IQ test she's taken that showed that was one at 10 years old. When they say that IQ measurements at the high end are somewhat inaccurate, they're not just whistling dixie. Any time you evaluate the outliers in any test population you're going to be reduced to pretty much wild-ass guessing, because the entire system is based on fixing 100 as the dead center.
Ah...nevermind. If your name and sig are not untrue, I suspect you are quite familiar with debouncing.
Almost sounds like bad debouncing in the switch. You click it up once, and the un-debounced signal gets interpretted as 20-40 individual up clicks.
I used to have a gutless wonder '80 Mazda 626. The engine was so weak that if you were on any sort of incline at all, you'd have to goose the throttle significantly as you let up the clutch or the engine would die. If you were on a steep freeway offramp waiting for a green light, you'd have to operate the clutch with your left foot, the brake with your right heel, and the accelerator with your right toe to keep from rolling backwards or killing the engine.
Brakes are capable of locking the tyres at any speed (in the absense of ABS). If not, your brakes are not good enough. How many engines are capable of spinning the tyres at any speed?
Failure to understand the difference between inertia and torque.
My old 1967 Dodge Dart! V8 engine, 4 wheel drum brakes. No fucking WAY you're going to stop that car with a wide open throttle.
This feature has existed for decades. My 94 Honda Civic will only turn to Accessory and then stops. To turn it to LOCK you have to push the key in. Even my old 79 Dodge Van wouldn't turn past OFF to LOCK without pushing in on the chrome collar around the key.. unfortunately, the collar spring is invariably weak, and most people push in the collar by habit when they turn the key, so that safety feature might as well not even be there.
I correct myself: EU regs, that should be. BMWs comply with EU speedometer regs. US regs are straight +/-5%. EU regs are +10%/-0%