You should know that "pulling out" is a very ineffective birth control method. Please return to your sophmore year in high school and listen to the gym coach one more time.
The dimples help by adding energy to the boundary layer when the airflow is transitioning from laminar to turbulent. The point is to keep the airflow from becoming detached. If you know what those terms mean, then go beat up your car in very specific areas to make it ugly as hell, and it will perform ever so slightly better under very constrained test conditions. Otherwise, it will just make the car ugly. For the most part though, cars don't travel fast enough to make boundary layer aerodynamics a significant factor until the separation at the rear.
A physics professor can proclaim all day that everything is made of rubber. You'll never REALLY understand that until you chuck a steel round in a lathe and start trying to get a smooth cut.
You can use a 3D package to design a perfectly smooth functioning machine with zero tolerance. You don't REALLY understand how meticulously difficult such a thing is to produce until you start trying to bend the metal on a brake.
No amount of civics or geography classes can describe the difference between a rip saw or crosscut blade, or how each affect hardwoods vs pines.
And yet, all of these affect you more directly every day of your life than does the name of the capitol of a country on the other side of the world.
The best civics lesson is a shop class. There is no half-points or grading on a curve with reality. You either cut the two boards the same length, or you didn't. The bolt either fits the hole, or it doesn't. I do things that most people consider manual labor as a hobby...and I love it, 'cause there is no way in hell to lie to myself. Shop class teaches one to deal with the truth.
the schools around here have gotten rid of all the metal and wood shops, along with anything else that might provide useful skills for the real world including reading, writing and math.
Am I the only one who saw the final episode, thought "well, that was unsatisfying" and walked away from it to other things?
Possibly. I saw the final episode and thought, "wow! That made the pain of the last two seasons bearable." I don't tend to nitpick shows. Hell, I've already had to supsend belief to buy that there are robots walking around with that much power. The fact that they wrapped up most of the ridiculous amount of loose ends in a couple of episodes in what I considered a fairly grand fashion was good enough for me.
And why is this priceless? It seems to me to be pretty worthless.
Someone helped William secure a position. That says nothing about William's qualifications to hold that position. I've referred friends to jobs. They still had to interview, and have the skills for the job. I wouldn't have recommended my friends for the positions if I thought they would embarrass me, and I doubt Irving would have went out on a limb to help William a second time if he flopped the first. Networking to get ahead is a valuable social skill. Putting people in positions to meet a government quota subverts meritocracy.
Someone on/. said a long time ago, "People don't vote for laws to restrict themselves. They vote to restrict their neighbors." Then there is the old adage that when the populace finds that they can vote themselves largess from the public purse, the country is doomed (I paraphrase).
Combine those two. No one can get elected saying that Granny should go penniless in her old age, because she partied her whole life instead of preparing for it. No one can get elected saying that we don't need to be responsible for the bastard children of vagabonds and sluts. No one can get elected saying that we shouldn't tap everyone's phone in order to catch the terrorist. No one can get elected saying that it's not our damn business to tell an adult what they can smoke.
Basically, we have very smart people telling us that they can solve all of our problems, if we just let them have control. The majority of the people buy into that bullshit.
If you think a single person living in the US and involved in politics actually desires to harm this country, then you're a moron and shouldn't be allowed to vote.
If you like the way things are, and someone comes in with a promise to "fundamentally change" it, and then makes a concerted effort to change it to something you don't like, how do you not see it as someone wanting to harm you?
There are two types of car insurance I know of, collision and liability.
Liability insurance is to cover another person if you cause an accident. In North Carolina, I can opt out of the mandatory liability insurance if I post a bond. Basically, I have to show fiscal ability to cover the cost of an accident. If I'm in an accident, the liability insurance will do nothing for me.
Collision insurance covers my costs if I cause an accident. It is nearly always required by the lender if you get a loan for the car, but the government doesn't care.
As soon as I paid off my car note, I dropped the collision insurance. Why? Insurance is paying someone to cover a possible liability that I won't be able to. It is a gamble. I can cover the cost of an replacement vehicle. It may be a $500 clunker, or it may mean getting another car loan. But, in no way does it make sense to pay someone with their extra overhead to handle a liability that I can cover myself.
Healthcare, other than catestrophic(sp?), is a similar situation. Why does it make sense to pay people to shift paperwork around, when I could just pay for the $60 office visit myself. $60 is less than most people's monthly cell phone bill.
But, but, the Democrats has a filibuster proof majority in both houses and they had the Presidency. How did they stop the government again?
Oh, yeah, I remember now. The Dems knew how hard set the majority of the country was against their policies, and they needed the Rep to join them so they could have legitimacy.
Except that the tea-party isn't really a 3rd party. Most of their candidates competed in republican primaries.
What would you expect when the Democrats started criticizing them as soon as they started holding rallies? You can't call someone crazy today, and expect them to support you tomorrow.
For what my opinion is worth, I have my doubts that the tea-party will have any real policy impact on the republicans (or the democrats). There is a heck of lot of chatter about small government, but hardly any serious policy discussion. The part of the regular republican party that seems to be responding to the tea-partiers is even more vague about what parts of government they would really cut. There's hand-waving that "everything is on the table" but I haven't seen anything more concrete than that.
Talk of cutting ANY government program, regardless of how useless or inappropriate, is the third rail of American politics. Everyone that ever gets a check from the federal government believes they deserve to get that check forever. Anyone that is specific is immediately vilified and torn apart by the corporate media, regardless of how much obvious sense the cut would make.
Why do you think the R's are more Libertarian leaning now? Ron Paul? Sharon Angle? Do you think they would be in the race without a huge amount of discontent from the Tea Party? Big ships don't turn on a dime, and saying, "I don't vote because I didn't get my way" is pathetic. Vote L or G, and push the ship in the direction you want it to go. I may not get my way, but I WILL get my say.
You're using freedom here to mean "freedom from", as in freedom from hunger. Many Americans use the term in the sense of "freedom to", as in freedom to start my own business.
Both are valid viewpoints, but we can't have a useful conversation until we come to an agreement about what we're talking about. The first conversation must be about which "freedom" is more important. If the government insuring my "freedom from hunger" leads to me losing my "freedom to start my own business", I don't want it. You may disagree with my preference, but can you at least agree that there is a trade-off to be made?
You are correct. But unless I stole what is in my wallet (in which case the government should rightfully be coming after me with large guns), the contents got here by valid agreements with some of the people I have connections with. The government should not oversee who is in my bedroom either.
Say, I have the title to my truck. But my wife can tell me when and where I can drive it. She'll take it whenever she likes. Who really "owns" the truck?
I "own" my home. If I dont' make the mortgage payment, the bank will send a Sheriff with a gun and have me removed. If I don't pay the property taxes, the State will send a Sheriff with a gun and have me removed. Who really "owns" my home?
Socialism should be more properly defined as the common control of the means of production.
Slashdot Mirror
You should know that "pulling out" is a very ineffective birth control method. Please return to your sophmore year in high school and listen to the gym coach one more time.
No. Men dump their girls right after Valentines, because they quickly tire of the incessant bitching and the entitlement attitude.
In that case, you should really stop reading nothing but Slashdot, get out of your parents, and talk to people in the real world.
But...but...I voted for Bob Barr.
No. You will be able to print your own toner!!
The dimples help by adding energy to the boundary layer when the airflow is transitioning from laminar to turbulent. The point is to keep the airflow from becoming detached. If you know what those terms mean, then go beat up your car in very specific areas to make it ugly as hell, and it will perform ever so slightly better under very constrained test conditions. Otherwise, it will just make the car ugly. For the most part though, cars don't travel fast enough to make boundary layer aerodynamics a significant factor until the separation at the rear.
Considering that you will be able to print your own cartridges, I would expect for them to sell for nothing!!
A physics professor can proclaim all day that everything is made of rubber. You'll never REALLY understand that until you chuck a steel round in a lathe and start trying to get a smooth cut.
You can use a 3D package to design a perfectly smooth functioning machine with zero tolerance. You don't REALLY understand how meticulously difficult such a thing is to produce until you start trying to bend the metal on a brake.
No amount of civics or geography classes can describe the difference between a rip saw or crosscut blade, or how each affect hardwoods vs pines.
And yet, all of these affect you more directly every day of your life than does the name of the capitol of a country on the other side of the world.
The best civics lesson is a shop class. There is no half-points or grading on a curve with reality. You either cut the two boards the same length, or you didn't. The bolt either fits the hole, or it doesn't. I do things that most people consider manual labor as a hobby...and I love it, 'cause there is no way in hell to lie to myself. Shop class teaches one to deal with the truth.
BTW, motorheads don't generally pound nails.
Sorry, the fundamental premise of primary education is that it is, and must remain, completely useless. In a practical, economic sense.
Methinks they have carried that sentiment to far.
the schools around here have gotten rid of all the metal and wood shops, along with anything else that might provide useful skills for the real world including reading, writing and math.
Am I the only one who saw the final episode, thought "well, that was unsatisfying" and walked away from it to other things?
Possibly. I saw the final episode and thought, "wow! That made the pain of the last two seasons bearable." I don't tend to nitpick shows. Hell, I've already had to supsend belief to buy that there are robots walking around with that much power. The fact that they wrapped up most of the ridiculous amount of loose ends in a couple of episodes in what I considered a fairly grand fashion was good enough for me.
And why is this priceless? It seems to me to be pretty worthless.
Someone helped William secure a position. That says nothing about William's qualifications to hold that position. I've referred friends to jobs. They still had to interview, and have the skills for the job. I wouldn't have recommended my friends for the positions if I thought they would embarrass me, and I doubt Irving would have went out on a limb to help William a second time if he flopped the first. Networking to get ahead is a valuable social skill. Putting people in positions to meet a government quota subverts meritocracy.
Someone on /. said a long time ago, "People don't vote for laws to restrict themselves. They vote to restrict their neighbors." Then there is the old adage that when the populace finds that they can vote themselves largess from the public purse, the country is doomed (I paraphrase).
Combine those two. No one can get elected saying that Granny should go penniless in her old age, because she partied her whole life instead of preparing for it. No one can get elected saying that we don't need to be responsible for the bastard children of vagabonds and sluts. No one can get elected saying that we shouldn't tap everyone's phone in order to catch the terrorist. No one can get elected saying that it's not our damn business to tell an adult what they can smoke.
Basically, we have very smart people telling us that they can solve all of our problems, if we just let them have control. The majority of the people buy into that bullshit.
If you think a single person living in the US and involved in politics actually desires to harm this country, then you're a moron and shouldn't be allowed to vote.
If you like the way things are, and someone comes in with a promise to "fundamentally change" it, and then makes a concerted effort to change it to something you don't like, how do you not see it as someone wanting to harm you?
Guess what? It sucks. Guess what else? Canada's and Europe's systems don't.
Except for the parts that do, which don't get advertised much over here.
Do you also oppose mandatory Car Insurance?
There are two types of car insurance I know of, collision and liability.
Liability insurance is to cover another person if you cause an accident. In North Carolina, I can opt out of the mandatory liability insurance if I post a bond. Basically, I have to show fiscal ability to cover the cost of an accident. If I'm in an accident, the liability insurance will do nothing for me.
Collision insurance covers my costs if I cause an accident. It is nearly always required by the lender if you get a loan for the car, but the government doesn't care.
As soon as I paid off my car note, I dropped the collision insurance. Why? Insurance is paying someone to cover a possible liability that I won't be able to. It is a gamble. I can cover the cost of an replacement vehicle. It may be a $500 clunker, or it may mean getting another car loan. But, in no way does it make sense to pay someone with their extra overhead to handle a liability that I can cover myself.
Healthcare, other than catestrophic(sp?), is a similar situation. Why does it make sense to pay people to shift paperwork around, when I could just pay for the $60 office visit myself. $60 is less than most people's monthly cell phone bill.
But, but, the Democrats has a filibuster proof majority in both houses and they had the Presidency. How did they stop the government again?
Oh, yeah, I remember now. The Dems knew how hard set the majority of the country was against their policies, and they needed the Rep to join them so they could have legitimacy.
Except that the tea-party isn't really a 3rd party.
Most of their candidates competed in republican primaries.
What would you expect when the Democrats started criticizing them as soon as they started holding rallies? You can't call someone crazy today, and expect them to support you tomorrow.
For what my opinion is worth, I have my doubts that the tea-party will have any real policy impact on the republicans (or the democrats). There is a heck of lot of chatter about small government, but hardly any serious policy discussion. The part of the regular republican party that seems to be responding to the tea-partiers is even more vague about what parts of government they would really cut. There's hand-waving that "everything is on the table" but I haven't seen anything more concrete than that.
Talk of cutting ANY government program, regardless of how useless or inappropriate, is the third rail of American politics. Everyone that ever gets a check from the federal government believes they deserve to get that check forever. Anyone that is specific is immediately vilified and torn apart by the corporate media, regardless of how much obvious sense the cut would make.
Libertarians were excluded from some debates, because they didn't get enough votes in the last election.
3rd party votes DO matter.
Why do you think the R's are more Libertarian leaning now? Ron Paul? Sharon Angle? Do you think they would be in the race without a huge amount of discontent from the Tea Party? Big ships don't turn on a dime, and saying, "I don't vote because I didn't get my way" is pathetic. Vote L or G, and push the ship in the direction you want it to go. I may not get my way, but I WILL get my say.
You're using freedom here to mean "freedom from", as in freedom from hunger. Many Americans use the term in the sense of "freedom to", as in freedom to start my own business.
Both are valid viewpoints, but we can't have a useful conversation until we come to an agreement about what we're talking about. The first conversation must be about which "freedom" is more important. If the government insuring my "freedom from hunger" leads to me losing my "freedom to start my own business", I don't want it. You may disagree with my preference, but can you at least agree that there is a trade-off to be made?
Maybe choosing R means that the car is in a ditch, and the D thinks the way to get it out is to push it off a cliff...with alligators at the bottom.
You are correct. But unless I stole what is in my wallet (in which case the government should rightfully be coming after me with large guns), the contents got here by valid agreements with some of the people I have connections with. The government should not oversee who is in my bedroom either.
And yet, somehow Mrs. Thatcher reached the highest office in the UK. How did she manage that without any sort of popular support?
Define "ownership".
Say, I have the title to my truck. But my wife can tell me when and where I can drive it. She'll take it whenever she likes. Who really "owns" the truck?
I "own" my home. If I dont' make the mortgage payment, the bank will send a Sheriff with a gun and have me removed. If I don't pay the property taxes, the State will send a Sheriff with a gun and have me removed. Who really "owns" my home?
Socialism should be more properly defined as the common control of the means of production.