I liked being able to use my bank and accept paypal since people use it.
Instead, I'd just use my credit card directly for online purchases, subscriptions, and I'd only accept the main credit card companies for my payment gateway.
Right now I use them for my payment gateway and online transactions.
If paypal demanded I receive robo calls on my fucking phone line as part of their fucking service, as someone who has been completely happy with paypal up to that point, I'd drop them like the biggest fucking rock into the biggest fucking ocean with a large karploosh like someone taking a giant shit and flushing it down the fucking toliet.
It's bad enough that ads all over visually and sometimes audio ads on webpages. You think my person communication device for talking to people I know is another platform for fucking advertisements? Fuck you you fucking bastards, I'd close my fucking account so fucking fast.
It would be the god damn end of paypal. Everyone would switch back to using their CC online or another provider would step in and paypal would hopefully be permanently fucked hard.
If anything they'd piss me off so fucking much that I would personally find each paypals employee phone numbers for their cell phones and robo call the fuck out of it, Always going "Do you like this? How do you fucking like it? I say you agreed to it by annyoing the piss out of me. Do you like this? How do..."
There are reasons other than system crackers that you would want people to not know specifically which terminal a request came from and use nat.
Security through obfuscation. It's not something you compare to a firewall. It's not all about probing your networks, it's about the connections your networks make outbound as well.
The more transparent your connections are, the more information people can gather for social manipulation / hacks even. I'm not going to go into details so don't ask
I dont think the rest of the 'Internet' should be free. I think sneaky deceptive tactics to gain clicks needs to die. Ads went too far, and if your business cannot succeed without a ton of garbage and absolutely has to have its shit everywhere to survive then it might not be as important to people as you think. Maybe your ad based business needs a better business model or to close down. You can't get mad if people are sick of your shit and aren't willing to pay the price you want.
Like websites acting like they are some how protected from their old shifty business models from failing. You're not filling enough politicians pockets like major car companies to get a bail out. You don't get to change consumers, you get to change your business model.
If people want to block ads because they are exhausted by them then let them. Move on.
If people didn't get so ad garbage greedy this wouldn't be even a topic.
P.S It would certainly bring internet services down in price. People are only willing to pay so much for internet. You drop the value on it, providers are going to lose clients too. no one is going to pay 200$ bills for surfing the web at home or websites say 'Insert wallet, remove when empty'
That's entirely different, you're physically removing something from the store that has single use, or degrades after use. It does not retain it's integrity and multiple people cannot use the same product (E.G Eat the same carrot after it's been eaten)
Let me equate this for you on an actual equal term. You purchase a used book from a book store. One that has been read many times, and when you're finished, you can let other people read it too.
You are asked to pay additional fees per page you turn.
Or advertisements about toothbrushes flip out over your entire page and you are required to read it before you can go back to reading your book.
Here's another. You pay for a taxi to the store, then they charge you to read their prices for their products. Then if you want to purchase your product you pay more.
Turning the internet into your little piggy bank of extra cash grab for everything you do is the dumbest idea yet. It sounds/FANTASTIC/ for your pocket, but no one wants it and very few will buy it.
You know why it's not done? Because whomever implements that will have an unused site. Sites that advertise too much? I don't use them.
Sites that OFFER SOMETHING OF VALUE. I likely already have a subscription to anything I'd be interested in or that provides me service. Like Netflix, or google music.
Here's one last quote at your silly comparison. I pay for internet and go to Ebay, and/then/ they expect me to pay for the product I want! Guess what, it exists.
Your they want me to pay twice is much similar to my statement to pay to read their price tags.
I like that you want me to pay for Internet so that I can pay for Internet while internetting. No.
Not everyone gets to dig their hands into my pocket. Everyone wants only 5 to 10 dollars more, and act like it's not much. Except 20 other guys want 10 bucks more too. Now it's an extra 100 to 200. So no. I don't need Internet that bad.
The problem is that ads went too far, you got too fucking ballsy, you started faking out download links, spamming ads everywhere you went.
You fucked up son, you got greedy. Now we are taking measures against the ads. Too bad, it's called consequences, sit down and eat your shit pile you made.
No morefunds hidden surprise audio, no more roll over my entire page after reading for a few, no more sudden video ads eating my expensive mobile data, NO MORE ME PAYING FOR THE CABLE, INTERNET, MOBILE DATA FOR/YOU/ TO DISPLAY CONTENT I DON'T WANT.
Once upon a time ads were reasonable, no, get fucked
I believe the ones that commit terrible acts as are supposed to be role models should be punished harsher, but it's not right to subject a good, hard working police officer who puts their life on the line daily with shitty attitudes and treatment.
Yeah, there's works to be done, yeah, everyone is human but just grouping them all up together. What, since it's becoming less socially acceptable to hate all of 'X Race' or 'X sexuality' they need to start on 'X organization'. Seriously, stop fucking generalizating and grouping everyone into a single 'They're all fucking bad' mentality.
A few bad apples need to be delt with, but it doesn't mean the entire tree is a shit tree that drops only shit apples.
I'd like to know how many commenting about how you can't have a camera or whatever negative police interaction they're going to have actually interacted with a police officer and found it negative.
I've never had an experience where an officer went beyond his expected role to follow the laws. While being pulled over, or interacting with them on the street. Not all of them are perfect but I certainly don't have some fear where I need to record every interaction with them.
I'm in Canada mind you, so maybe it's different in the US. RCMP are mostly pretty decent, albeit we all know there are always a few bad apples.
Some of my experiences:
Some normal things I do when being pulled over in a vehicle: - If it looks like the officer is pulling me over, but I'm not entirely sure, I pull over anyway just in case. This assures I'm either A- out of the way or B - it doesn't look like I'm thinking of not pulling over.
- I turn off any music so I can respectfully hear the officer easily and he can hear me as well. - If it is at night, I turn on my interior light, so he can safely see into my vehicle and see that there is nothing that is a safety risk to him. This is seriously important. Drug dealers or otherwise could have guns or other people in vehicles that could assault an officer. This is a human being, they need to feel safe just as we do.
- I remove my sun glasses if I'm wearing any so he can clearly see my face and out of respect. - If he asks for something, I let him know what I'm doing. E.G If he wants my vehicle registration and it's in my glove box, I tell him "It's in my glovebox, can I grab it?" This is also important. People will try to look like they are doing normal things expected when reaching for a weapon or it could look like you're doing something different from a different angle. Best to let him/her know so they know what to expect from your actions. This is a safety thing.
- I don't lie to them. I give them accurate information about my driving history etc. - The above applies at road stops too. Like drunk driving road checks at night. Turn on your interior light, do them a favor.
- I remove my keys from the ignition and put it either on my roof or dashboard Now - On to my experiences with these conditions
1. I was pulled over for going a little faster than I should on a single lane winding road. I should have gone a bit slower.
The officer pulled me over, was courtesy, requested my drivers license and registration. He asked if I've received previous speeding tickets. I told him it was clean, as it was.
He checked. Since I was honest and not being wreckless or rude, he let me off with a warning. He said "You know this road has hidden drive ways and a lot of curves, you should be going slower." He was right. I respected that and adjusted my driving behavior accordingly.
2. Another time on a highway. I was pulled over for going a little quick and changing lanes to get around vehicles. That last part I rarely do as I know that dramatically increases the chance for an accident. Sure enough, a undercover cop pulled me over.
I very quickly, and carefully pulled over somewhere where it would be safe Turned off my engine, took off my sun glasses, and put my keys on my dashboard. I also had my registration and drivers license ready for him.
He told me why he pulled me over, and asked me, "Do you think you're a good driver?" I responded, "Well, I think I could make some better choices"(Given that he pulled me over this was obvious)
I don't think he was expecting that answer, he said, "Well, these people aren't. If you come up on them quickly, changing lanes, they won't see you and might turn right into you." He was correct, and I knew this was a risk, an unnecessary one. He told me, "I'm going to check your license, if it's clean I'll let you off with a warning". Sure enough he comes back, "Well, it's clean like you said. Next time, someone is having a bad day and gives you a hard time, give them
The reason they want only younger applicants is to save time on people who know what their job is worth.
If they can sucker a younger inexperienced person in, they can tack on a shit ton of shitty and bull job responsibilities for crap pay. An older person knows what it's worth, will tell them no or demand more pay for the amount of work they want.
Simply put they're just trying to save time, they don't want to interview those folks. They should be forced to change their job postings to say:"Looking for young technologically capable but generally dumb otherwise to accept job with ridiciously low pay, crappy hours and way to much work"
There are women who can actually pee standing or in urinals. They just have to touch their junk like we do to make it happen.
I'm not going to get into a debate which is more convenient, but it has been shown to be done without requiring women to squat over something. Certainly being able to sit down and do your business is a lot nicer.
So on that one, are you telling me these women are genetically different? Or did they just prove those girls are the types to just get shit done in whatever situation like men often have to?
I will definitely say that I have nothing against making work places better for everyone, but it does piss me off when women are getting into roles that men typically did in the past and all of a sudden it's "What the fuck is this"
Where the fuck were you before? Narrow-minded self interest groups are a cancer. I'll support any true equality egalitarian groups, as I feel they look at the best interest of everybody, but not people who just want to focus on their particular gender only as a directly benefits them, on either gender.
What I said may not fully apply to you, simply as you aren't the gold star generation, but I'm seeing this come up frequently from that gen for not just KSP.
You might be part of the older crowd but I wonder if you were part of the dial up age when online gaming first brokered, or played games before that. Games were actually hard back then.
Part of the problem now is regardless of generation, internet is common place, you don't have to know anything that requires thinking to get games installed and configured anymore. This is allowing a different breed of people into a world that used to be reserved for the more intellectual on the problem solving side, it was full of challenges and people accepted them.
If some drag effects and heat re-entry make the game a pile of shit you wouldn't recommend to friends, that says something.
If you said you'd rather the game wasn't that hard for yourself, that you may mod it to be easier for you, or would have liked an option for the new flight system or old, I could respect that.
But dismissing the game as immediately too hard not fun any more, you're not leaving a lot of space to accept your issue beyond someone who won't play anything harder than angry birds.
There's a large group of people who behave that way and really stifle some cool innovations from indy developers. Usually I find it's often the children, teenagers that mostly make up this crowd.
Societal good? Like drinking wells? Well first that isn't very difficult.
Look, we all want to do special cool little projects and make money. None of us want to do boring menial tasks that aren't fulfilling, don't allow us to be smug and feel like we're better than everyone else because we're charging the world.
Men have been the provider for a long time, so they got used to "Tough shit, you need to make money, do it anyway" I'm glad we have equality or well, trying to reach that because women are just as capable as men.
However some of them are getting a rude awakening I guess. Then they blame society for not having jobs that they want or some shit and it's mens fault. No, welcome to the real world, not all this shit is fun and fantastic like what you were raised to believe.
I saw a TV show doing undercover boss for waste management. There were no time for breaks to go to the washroom, so you brought a pale for you.
It was a big issue for a women to have to piss in a bucket or whatever they had to do. No one gave a shit at all that men had to do the same thing. Now, don't get me wrong, I don't think/anyone/ should have to on a job like that.
However apparently when women get the same shitty stick men do, it's a sexist thing or improper. Welcome to the world, you wanted an equal part of it. You don't get just lick the icing off and not eat the rest of the cake.
[quote=DerekLyons]They also gave us a more advanced (and accurate) aerodynamics and engine performance model - but at the cost of the game's much vaunted simplicity and user friendliness.[/quote]
This kind of thought is the same as the people who all raged and said they will never play minecraft ever ever again if they make torches run out.
I've played it from the start and the most recent flight models are really cool and impressive. I thought they were a lot more fun. I'm sure there will be a mod to make the game easier to you but really, it feels like this is new generation it must award me 5 stars and say Good job! You're the best! Or else people won't play with it.
Egotistical? Unfair? Take your crap up with genetics, evolution, god, the universe, all creation, nature, (or continue to blame men) over if it's fair if the responsibility is put on the one who carries the child to term and biologically assumes all medical related risks to it.
Why is it fucking fair that men generally tend to be stronger and suited for hard labor and that no feminist group that exists is advocating for more women in heavy stress highly physically demanding work in high risk environments.
Fair my ass, don't even try it. Men tend to be stronger and better equipped to handle these jobs so we tend to use our biological differences to advantage. There are women who are stronger than men but they're the exception, not the rule.
Women when they get a penis inserted into them can become risk to growing another human, medical stresses or even death. Buck up, take some ownership over your body AND the responsibility that goes with it. Quit trying to spread the blame and responsibility when in the end you get sole choice.
You want equal responsibility? Fine, we'll make it equal, which (Oh my gods, here comes an ego statement! Fire up your double standard machines!) that men, if they have EQUAL responsibility, then they get EQUAL control over the situation. Yeah I bet you don't like that thought, everyone loves MEN being responsible for the consequences or "equally" responsible even though they're not equals in making the decision on if you keep that child, have an abortion, stay together or pay child support.
Equal rights equal responsibility. If you have MORE RIGHTS on what is to become of that child, then you GET MORE RESPONSIBILITY too. Suck it the fuck up.
You should be sad for humanity, because men or women, both do some pretty shitty things.
That aside, women, rightfully in my opinion, call out that it's their body, they have the right to make choices that affect their body. Yet for everyone pointing a finger a men, what happened to this right to choose what happens to your body, what, you get the right to chose but don't have the responsibility?
Male birth control is the right step forward for equality for men. You see, although all the more extreme fem groups are all looking at the CEO's and measuring their own personal wealth against it, deciding it's the old boys club, there are other areas that have inequity for men, such as decreased pleasure sexually to prevent pregnancy, the way the courts favor women for parenting, that family courts are HEAVILY populated by women, almost always a female judge with female representatives, and that men are on the hook for children women decide to keep or come to term.
Well, this is one way we can make our own choices about what responsibilities we're going to accept and it will be out of a woman's hand, so I'm all for it.
Well, this will take away that excuse for behaving irresponsibly.
Right, because men make the choice if the child was given up for adoption, day after pill or abortions. Or the fact that men don't have to carry a growing life inside of them with potential medical risks and bringing into the world, you know, because, that's clearly not possibly in the range of responsibility for a woman.
I'm responsible myself, but seriously, if I would get a tiny life form growing inside of me, I would assume it's MY responsibility to decide if *I* want that to happen to me. Pro choice pro your body pro your responsiblity? Yeah no one likes that last part. Lot of special interest groups are pro everything I want except the responsibility that comes with that freedom of choice.
This alternative will be a true freedom for men however, especially for couples when birth control doesn't work well for some women out there.
However, this will also protect men from some other issues, like forced responsibility for the irresponsibility of women. If a women makes the mistake of not ensuring she will not get pregnant when both parties claim not to want children, there is no forced responsibility for a child to grow up in a broken home and finances garnished. You'll lose that "Well You're A MAN and you're responsible too!" Because a lot of us will be, a lot more than you would expect, and it will shift things in our favor.
In addition, this will be so new that for women who do cheat (No no, not accusing all women, men do it to, yatta yatta, get your narrow minded self interests out), it will create a different scenario where more women won't be on birth control, but men will be. So when she suddenly gets knocked up, this is going to be interesting on a social / society level.
"My teacher told me the sky is blue because rainbow faries decided it to be" Grit - Studies rainbow faeries exaustively, scores high on test! Great personality! Very open! Pat on back, here's your fucking marks!
Intelligence, "My teacher tells me that the sky is blue because of magic faeries. This of course, is silly and can be explained in more detail scientifically" Intelligence: Submits paper on light refraction within the atmosphere. Scores lower. This wasn't the report the assignment was asking for.
Questioning people, having people not like you, not doing exactly as they say are all trade mark things you can do to lower your performance in school.
Tests are not graded by machines. Teachers have been known to be pissed at a student and deliberately give them lower marks.
Anyone trying to claim personality is more important potenitally will spread it from school to life and in a lot of ways it's true. But you can see this popular people are on the rise thanks to things like social media, so here it is.
"If I don't like you, you will be less successful. Do what I like, because that means you are open and have a great personality"
Where are your statistics? This sounds like something just pulled out of no where.
Here's some facts. - Vehicles travelling the same speed and same direction cannot cause can accident. It's called physics. We can all agree on this. If the car in front of you is going 120 KM/H, and you are going 120 KM/H, neither of you change directions, it's physically impossible to collide.
If the average driver is going 120 KM/H, and you are going the speed limit of 110 KM/H, you are now an object in the way of every other drive on the road. Now, as road safety is for the masses of the road, not the individual, who is flawed? Clearly the single person causing a disruption in the flow of traffic.
Also at higher speeds, the average driver tends to leave significantly more space between them and other drives. That's from my personal experience on the road, I've seen plenty of examples at higher than usual speeds where traffic is quite spread out.
Also if vehicles are moving at a faster rate, it's more likely that vehicles will remove themselves from that road faster, preventing congestion. This will also increase the distance between vehicles.
The slower traffic is going, the more moves drivers make to try and get ahead, changing lanes, having to change speeds because traffic is slowing down in front of them. This leads to accidents.
Statsitically, the more variance in speed in direction, each time you make a change, you increase your odds of getting into an accident, as mentioned above, same speed, same direction, no accident. So that means 1 of out X changes in speeds or direction changes, there will be an accident.
Reducing the variance in speed and direction changes is the only true solution. If 80% of people are driving faster than the speed limit (Seriously, the highways out here, everyone always goes 10-20 KM faster than the speed limit, entire flow of traffic except the odd driver) then the speed limit should be based on the 80%. If more drives increase their speeds to the new speed limit, 85%, or even 90% of drivers going the same speed will reduce risks.
Trying to make people slow down in places that don't make any sense isn't working. Why don't we try speeding up some of the other drives in places that are safe to do so?
The question is, how much force can it handle? Large electro-mags can pick up entire cars. Sure, it's huge, but it's lifting up 2700 lbs+. Also the surface area is large because the objects surface area is large. If a really high powered small electro mag was used, it would just rip out that piece of metal.
How many pounds of force can the small one withstand? It's possible using two small unpowered magnets to easily make one that could crush a hand if a hand was implace and restraints were let go on the mags.
I imagine it could potentially with a little voltage withstand a lot of torque, and limited slip to prevent spin outs, it might be fantastic for rovers. They're often in lower gravity environments to begin with.
Slashdot Mirror
I liked being able to use my bank and accept paypal since people use it.
Instead, I'd just use my credit card directly for online purchases, subscriptions, and I'd only accept the main credit card companies for my payment gateway.
Right now I use them for my payment gateway and online transactions.
If paypal demanded I receive robo calls on my fucking phone line as part of their fucking service, as someone who has been completely happy with paypal up to that point, I'd drop them like the biggest fucking rock into the biggest fucking ocean with a large karploosh like someone taking a giant shit and flushing it down the fucking toliet.
It's bad enough that ads all over visually and sometimes audio ads on webpages. You think my person communication device for talking to people I know is another platform for fucking advertisements? Fuck you you fucking bastards, I'd close my fucking account so fucking fast.
It would be the god damn end of paypal. Everyone would switch back to using their CC online or another provider would step in and paypal would hopefully be permanently fucked hard.
If anything they'd piss me off so fucking much that I would personally find each paypals employee phone numbers for their cell phones and robo call the fuck out of it, Always going "Do you like this? How do you fucking like it? I say you agreed to it by annyoing the piss out of me. Do you like this? How do..."
There are reasons other than system crackers that you would want people to not know specifically which terminal a request came from and use nat.
Security through obfuscation. It's not something you compare to a firewall. It's not all about probing your networks, it's about the connections your networks make outbound as well.
The more transparent your connections are, the more information people can gather for social manipulation / hacks even. I'm not going to go into details so don't ask
Just something you should think about.
Is a smart phone, runs android 4.2, lasts over a week if only dumb phone features are used. 100 or so dollars.
Obviously how much you talk on it like a dumb phone matters, if I don't use it much I can get two weeks
I dont think the rest of the 'Internet' should be free. I think sneaky deceptive tactics to gain clicks needs to die. Ads went too far, and if your business cannot succeed without a ton of garbage and absolutely has to have its shit everywhere to survive then it might not be as important to people as you think. Maybe your ad based business needs a better business model or to close down. You can't get mad if people are sick of your shit and aren't willing to pay the price you want.
Like websites acting like they are some how protected from their old shifty business models from failing. You're not filling enough politicians pockets like major car companies to get a bail out. You don't get to change consumers, you get to change your business model.
If people want to block ads because they are exhausted by them then let them. Move on.
If people didn't get so ad garbage greedy this wouldn't be even a topic.
P.S It would certainly bring internet services down in price. People are only willing to pay so much for internet. You drop the value on it, providers are going to lose clients too. no one is going to pay 200$ bills for surfing the web at home or websites say 'Insert wallet, remove when empty'
That's entirely different, you're physically removing something from the store that has single use, or degrades after use. It does not retain it's integrity and multiple people cannot use the same product (E.G Eat the same carrot after it's been eaten)
Let me equate this for you on an actual equal term.
You purchase a used book from a book store. One that has been read many times, and when you're finished, you can let other people read it too.
You are asked to pay additional fees per page you turn.
Or advertisements about toothbrushes flip out over your entire page and you are required to read it before you can go back to reading your book.
Here's another. You pay for a taxi to the store, then they charge you to read their prices for their products. Then if you want to purchase your product you pay more.
Turning the internet into your little piggy bank of extra cash grab for everything you do is the dumbest idea yet. It sounds /FANTASTIC/ for your pocket, but no one wants it and very few will buy it.
You know why it's not done? Because whomever implements that will have an unused site.
Sites that advertise too much? I don't use them.
Sites that OFFER SOMETHING OF VALUE. I likely already have a subscription to anything I'd be interested in or that provides me service. Like Netflix, or google music.
Here's one last quote at your silly comparison. /then/ they expect me to pay for the product I want!
I pay for internet and go to Ebay, and
Guess what, it exists.
Your they want me to pay twice is much similar to my statement to pay to read their price tags.
I like that you want me to pay for Internet so that I can pay for Internet while internetting. No.
Not everyone gets to dig their hands into my pocket. Everyone wants only 5 to 10 dollars more, and act like it's not much. Except 20 other guys want 10 bucks more too. Now it's an extra 100 to 200. So no. I don't need Internet that bad.
The problem is that ads went too far, you got too fucking ballsy, you started faking out download links, spamming ads everywhere you went.
You fucked up son, you got greedy. Now we are taking measures against the ads. Too bad, it's called consequences, sit down and eat your shit pile you made.
No morefunds hidden surprise audio, no more roll over my entire page after reading for a few, no more sudden video ads eating my expensive mobile data, NO MORE ME PAYING FOR THE CABLE, INTERNET, MOBILE DATA FOR /YOU/ TO DISPLAY CONTENT I DON'T WANT.
Once upon a time ads were reasonable, no, get fucked
I believe the ones that commit terrible acts as are supposed to be role models should be punished harsher, but it's not right to subject a good, hard working police officer who puts their life on the line daily with shitty attitudes and treatment.
Yeah, there's works to be done, yeah, everyone is human but just grouping them all up together. What, since it's becoming less socially acceptable to hate all of 'X Race' or 'X sexuality' they need to start on 'X organization'. Seriously, stop fucking generalizating and grouping everyone into a single 'They're all fucking bad' mentality.
A few bad apples need to be delt with, but it doesn't mean the entire tree is a shit tree that drops only shit apples.
I'd like to know how many commenting about how you can't have a camera or whatever negative police interaction they're going to have actually interacted with a police officer and found it negative.
I've never had an experience where an officer went beyond his expected role to follow the laws. While being pulled over, or interacting with them on the street. Not all of them are perfect but I certainly don't have some fear where I need to record every interaction with them.
I'm in Canada mind you, so maybe it's different in the US. RCMP are mostly pretty decent, albeit we all know there are always a few bad apples.
Some of my experiences:
Some normal things I do when being pulled over in a vehicle:
- If it looks like the officer is pulling me over, but I'm not entirely sure, I pull over anyway just in case. This assures I'm either A- out of the way or B - it doesn't look like I'm thinking of not pulling over.
- I turn off any music so I can respectfully hear the officer easily and he can hear me as well.
- If it is at night, I turn on my interior light, so he can safely see into my vehicle and see that there is nothing that is a safety risk to him.
This is seriously important. Drug dealers or otherwise could have guns or other people in vehicles that could assault an officer. This is a human being, they need to feel safe just as we do.
- I remove my sun glasses if I'm wearing any so he can clearly see my face and out of respect.
- If he asks for something, I let him know what I'm doing. E.G If he wants my vehicle registration and it's in my glove box, I tell him "It's in my glovebox, can I grab it?"
This is also important. People will try to look like they are doing normal things expected when reaching for a weapon or it could look like you're doing something different from a different angle. Best to let him/her know so they know what to expect from your actions. This is a safety thing.
- I don't lie to them. I give them accurate information about my driving history etc.
- The above applies at road stops too. Like drunk driving road checks at night. Turn on your interior light, do them a favor.
- I remove my keys from the ignition and put it either on my roof or dashboard
Now - On to my experiences with these conditions
1. I was pulled over for going a little faster than I should on a single lane winding road. I should have gone a bit slower.
The officer pulled me over, was courtesy, requested my drivers license and registration. He asked if I've received previous speeding tickets.
I told him it was clean, as it was.
He checked. Since I was honest and not being wreckless or rude, he let me off with a warning. He said "You know this road has hidden drive ways and a lot of curves, you should be going slower." He was right. I respected that and adjusted my driving behavior accordingly.
2. Another time on a highway. I was pulled over for going a little quick and changing lanes to get around vehicles. That last part I rarely do as I know that dramatically increases the chance for an accident. Sure enough, a undercover cop pulled me over.
I very quickly, and carefully pulled over somewhere where it would be safe Turned off my engine, took off my sun glasses, and put my keys on my dashboard.
I also had my registration and drivers license ready for him.
He told me why he pulled me over, and asked me, "Do you think you're a good driver?" I responded, "Well, I think I could make some better choices"(Given that he pulled me over this was obvious)
I don't think he was expecting that answer, he said, "Well, these people aren't. If you come up on them quickly, changing lanes, they won't see you and might turn right into you." He was correct, and I knew this was a risk, an unnecessary one. He told me, "I'm going to check your license, if it's clean I'll let you off with a warning". Sure enough he comes back, "Well, it's clean like you said. Next time, someone is having a bad day and gives you a hard time, give them
Desktop IT support is only in abundance of people who use google.
People who actually know what they're doing are in short supply. Googlers have no shame on their resume.
Yeah that would work, but they don't want to list the prices as it might start a wage war.
The reason they want only younger applicants is to save time on people who know what their job is worth.
If they can sucker a younger inexperienced person in, they can tack on a shit ton of shitty and bull job responsibilities for crap pay.
An older person knows what it's worth, will tell them no or demand more pay for the amount of work they want.
Simply put they're just trying to save time, they don't want to interview those folks. :"Looking for young technologically capable but generally dumb otherwise to accept job with ridiciously low pay, crappy hours and way to much work"
They should be forced to change their job postings to say
There are women who can actually pee standing or in urinals. They just have to touch their junk like we do to make it happen.
I'm not going to get into a debate which is more convenient, but it has been shown to be done without requiring women to squat over something. Certainly being able to sit down and do your business is a lot nicer.
So on that one, are you telling me these women are genetically different? Or did they just prove those girls are the types to just get shit done in whatever situation like men often have to?
I will definitely say that I have nothing against making work places better for everyone, but it does piss me off when women are getting into roles that men typically did in the past and all of a sudden it's "What the fuck is this"
Where the fuck were you before? Narrow-minded self interest groups are a cancer. I'll support any true equality egalitarian groups, as I feel they look at the best interest of everybody, but not people who just want to focus on their particular gender only as a directly benefits them, on either gender.
What I said may not fully apply to you, simply as you aren't the gold star generation, but I'm seeing this come up frequently from that gen for not just KSP.
You might be part of the older crowd but I wonder if you were part of the dial up age when online gaming first brokered, or played games before that. Games were actually hard back then.
Part of the problem now is regardless of generation, internet is common place, you don't have to know anything that requires thinking to get games installed and configured anymore. This is allowing a different breed of people into a world that used to be reserved for the more intellectual on the problem solving side, it was full of challenges and people accepted them.
If some drag effects and heat re-entry make the game a pile of shit you wouldn't recommend to friends, that says something.
If you said you'd rather the game wasn't that hard for yourself, that you may mod it to be easier for you, or would have liked an option for the new flight system or old, I could respect that.
But dismissing the game as immediately too hard not fun any more, you're not leaving a lot of space to accept your issue beyond someone who won't play anything harder than angry birds.
There's a large group of people who behave that way and really stifle some cool innovations from indy developers. Usually I find it's often the children, teenagers that mostly make up this crowd.
Societal good? Like drinking wells? Well first that isn't very difficult.
Look, we all want to do special cool little projects and make money. None of us want to do boring menial tasks that aren't fulfilling, don't allow us to be smug and feel like we're better than everyone else because we're charging the world.
Men have been the provider for a long time, so they got used to "Tough shit, you need to make money, do it anyway"
I'm glad we have equality or well, trying to reach that because women are just as capable as men.
However some of them are getting a rude awakening I guess. Then they blame society for not having jobs that they want or some shit and it's mens fault. No, welcome to the real world, not all this shit is fun and fantastic like what you were raised to believe.
I saw a TV show doing undercover boss for waste management. There were no time for breaks to go to the washroom, so you brought a pale for you.
It was a big issue for a women to have to piss in a bucket or whatever they had to do. /anyone/ should have to on a job like that.
No one gave a shit at all that men had to do the same thing. Now, don't get me wrong, I don't think
However apparently when women get the same shitty stick men do, it's a sexist thing or improper. Welcome to the world, you wanted an equal part of it. You don't get just lick the icing off and not eat the rest of the cake.
[quote=DerekLyons]They also gave us a more advanced (and accurate) aerodynamics and engine performance model - but at the cost of the game's much vaunted simplicity and user friendliness.[/quote]
This kind of thought is the same as the people who all raged and said they will never play minecraft ever ever again if they make torches run out.
I've played it from the start and the most recent flight models are really cool and impressive. I thought they were a lot more fun. I'm sure there will be a mod to make the game easier to you but really, it feels like this is new generation it must award me 5 stars and say Good job! You're the best! Or else people won't play with it.
Generation Megaman is too hard.
P.S - Addendum to female responsibility, a big duh, because you will be the one bringing the child to term, not him.
Egotistical? Unfair? Take your crap up with genetics, evolution, god, the universe, all creation, nature, (or continue to blame men) over if it's fair if the responsibility is put on the one who carries the child to term and biologically assumes all medical related risks to it.
Why is it fucking fair that men generally tend to be stronger and suited for hard labor and that no feminist group that exists is advocating for more women in heavy stress highly physically demanding work in high risk environments.
Fair my ass, don't even try it. Men tend to be stronger and better equipped to handle these jobs so we tend to use our biological differences to advantage. There are women who are stronger than men but they're the exception, not the rule.
Women when they get a penis inserted into them can become risk to growing another human, medical stresses or even death. Buck up, take some ownership over your body AND the responsibility that goes with it. Quit trying to spread the blame and responsibility when in the end you get sole choice.
You want equal responsibility? Fine, we'll make it equal, which (Oh my gods, here comes an ego statement! Fire up your double standard machines!) that men, if they have EQUAL responsibility, then they get EQUAL control over the situation. Yeah I bet you don't like that thought, everyone loves MEN being responsible for the consequences or "equally" responsible even though they're not equals in making the decision on if you keep that child, have an abortion, stay together or pay child support.
Equal rights equal responsibility. If you have MORE RIGHTS on what is to become of that child, then you GET MORE RESPONSIBILITY too. Suck it the fuck up.
You should be sad for humanity, because men or women, both do some pretty shitty things.
That aside, women, rightfully in my opinion, call out that it's their body, they have the right to make choices that affect their body.
Yet for everyone pointing a finger a men, what happened to this right to choose what happens to your body, what, you get the right to chose but don't have
the responsibility?
Male birth control is the right step forward for equality for men. You see, although all the more extreme fem groups are all looking at the CEO's and measuring their own personal wealth against it, deciding it's the old boys club, there are other areas that have inequity for men, such as decreased pleasure sexually to prevent pregnancy, the way the courts favor women for parenting, that family courts are HEAVILY populated by women, almost always a female judge with female representatives, and that men are on the hook for children women decide to keep or come to term.
Well, this is one way we can make our own choices about what responsibilities we're going to accept and it will be out of a woman's hand, so I'm all for it.
Well, this will take away that excuse for behaving irresponsibly.
Right, because men make the choice if the child was given up for adoption, day after pill or abortions. Or the fact that men don't have to carry a growing life inside of them with potential medical risks and bringing into the world, you know, because, that's clearly not possibly in the range of responsibility for a woman.
I'm responsible myself, but seriously, if I would get a tiny life form growing inside of me, I would assume it's MY responsibility to decide if *I* want that to happen to me. Pro choice pro your body pro your responsiblity? Yeah no one likes that last part. Lot of special interest groups are pro everything I want except the responsibility that comes with that freedom of choice.
This alternative will be a true freedom for men however, especially for couples when birth control doesn't work well for some women out there.
However, this will also protect men from some other issues, like forced responsibility for the irresponsibility of women. If a women makes the mistake of not ensuring she will not get pregnant when both parties claim not to want children, there is no forced responsibility for a child to grow up in a broken home and finances garnished. You'll lose that "Well You're A MAN and you're responsible too!" Because a lot of us will be, a lot more than you would expect, and it will shift things in our favor.
In addition, this will be so new that for women who do cheat (No no, not accusing all women, men do it to, yatta yatta, get your narrow minded self interests out), it will create a different scenario where more women won't be on birth control, but men will be. So when she suddenly gets knocked up, this is going to be interesting on a social / society level.
That's what they judge as performance right?
"My teacher told me the sky is blue because rainbow faries decided it to be" Grit - Studies rainbow faeries exaustively, scores high on test! Great personality! Very open! Pat on back, here's your fucking marks!
Intelligence, "My teacher tells me that the sky is blue because of magic faeries. This of course, is silly and can be explained in more detail scientifically"
Intelligence: Submits paper on light refraction within the atmosphere.
Scores lower. This wasn't the report the assignment was asking for.
Questioning people, having people not like you, not doing exactly as they say are all trade mark things you can do to lower your performance in school.
Tests are not graded by machines. Teachers have been known to be pissed at a student and deliberately give them lower marks.
Anyone trying to claim personality is more important potenitally will spread it from school to life and in a lot of ways it's true.
But you can see this popular people are on the rise thanks to things like social media, so here it is.
"If I don't like you, you will be less successful. Do what I like, because that means you are open and have a great personality"
Manipulation at it's finest.
Where are your statistics? This sounds like something just pulled out of no where.
Here's some facts. - Vehicles travelling the same speed and same direction cannot cause can accident. It's called physics. We can all agree on this. If the car in front of you is going 120 KM/H, and you are going 120 KM/H, neither of you change directions, it's physically impossible to collide.
If the average driver is going 120 KM/H, and you are going the speed limit of 110 KM/H, you are now an object in the way of every other drive on the road. Now, as road safety is for the masses of the road, not the individual, who is flawed? Clearly the single person causing a disruption in the flow of traffic.
Also at higher speeds, the average driver tends to leave significantly more space between them and other drives. That's from my personal experience on the road, I've seen plenty of examples at higher than usual speeds where traffic is quite spread out.
Also if vehicles are moving at a faster rate, it's more likely that vehicles will remove themselves from that road faster, preventing congestion. This will also increase the distance between vehicles.
The slower traffic is going, the more moves drivers make to try and get ahead, changing lanes, having to change speeds because traffic is slowing down in front of them. This leads to accidents.
Statsitically, the more variance in speed in direction, each time you make a change, you increase your odds of getting into an accident, as mentioned above, same speed, same direction, no accident. So that means 1 of out X changes in speeds or direction changes, there will be an accident.
Reducing the variance in speed and direction changes is the only true solution. If 80% of people are driving faster than the speed limit (Seriously, the highways out here, everyone always goes 10-20 KM faster than the speed limit, entire flow of traffic except the odd driver) then the speed limit should be based on the 80%. If more drives increase their speeds to the new speed limit, 85%, or even 90% of drivers going the same speed will reduce risks.
Trying to make people slow down in places that don't make any sense isn't working. Why don't we try speeding up some of the other drives in places that are safe to do so?
The question is, how much force can it handle? Large electro-mags can pick up entire cars. Sure, it's huge, but it's lifting up 2700 lbs+. Also the surface area is large because the objects surface area is large. If a really high powered small electro mag was used, it would just rip out that piece of metal.
How many pounds of force can the small one withstand? It's possible using two small unpowered magnets to easily make one that could crush a hand if a hand was implace and restraints were let go on the mags.
I imagine it could potentially with a little voltage withstand a lot of torque, and limited slip to prevent spin outs, it might be fantastic for rovers.
They're often in lower gravity environments to begin with.