Volvo's had this since at least 1998. I just got done dealing with replacing it, the antenna goes out after awhile and even though the key is correct nothing will happen.
The funny thing is after I replaced the antenna the security system needed to be reset. Dealership wanted $xxx and a week to do the work.
A few minutes on google showed me all you do is lock/unlock the door 5 times to reset it. A week my ass.
Personally I just install a hidden kill switch to every car I own. Difficult to start the car if there is no power going to either the ignition coil or starter relay.
Pretty good summary. I made a comment on it and within the hour I had SRS harassing me along with somebody making a new account with a nearly identical username as mine.
Not really worth my time so I just deleted my account. They started threatening to "dox" me, but considering I currently use 6 different unrelated usernames for websites along with following the golden rule of never giving the internet personally identifiable information, they're going to have fun wasting their time.
1986 Saab 900 SPG. Old Saabs and Volvos can go nearly forever if maintained, my mother has a 1979 volvo 242dl she's owned since she graduated highschool, still original everything.
Well, I bought it 5 years ago with the odometer stuck at just over 700k. Nobody really knows how many miles, but it runs smooth and compression test checks out. No head gaskets so far.
I actually bought and rebuilt an engine for it, but it just sits in the garage because this one just won't die. Starting to burn more and more oil though.
First time I've ever seen anyone else mention this trick, it's always the first thing I do before considering a hard reset. What's the logic behind it though?
I don't understand why this is so 'unbelievable'. We have had methods of providing thrust in space without using rockets since 1916, the year the first ion thruster was built. Both use electricity to produce thrust.
What is bugging me is that every article about this 'em drive' claims that it doesn't use any fuel, it makes it sound like a free energy machine. Is electricity not a fuel?
What I would like to see is a comparison between this new 'em drive' and an ion thruster. How much electricity they consume for the same amount of thrust, which accelerates faster, etc.
Until then I can't really get excited about it. It might be a new method of propulsion, but if it is inferior to other methods we have had for nearly a century, what's the point?
Power steering failure? I must really be out of the loop. Why is what was traditionally a hydraulically controlled mechanism, running off a belt driven pump suddenly reliant upon electronics?
"KingofPol just got sent the emergency services to his place, someone used his doxx to send a false alert for a suicide attempt"
"I hope you all die of bone cancer"
"I'm going to kill you misogynist fucks"
She isn't special just because people threaten her over the internet. You know how many times I've received "personal" death threats? it isn't unusual in the slightest. The difference being is that I don't take every single idiot on the internet seriously to the point of being scared some keyboard warrior is actually going to show up on my doorstep.
And you call me the paranoid one? Go look in the mirror.
Oh, and I don't tweet bomb threats to people I don't like.
I never said death threats weren't wrong, so stop trying to misrepresent what I'm saying. Both sides have done wrong. BOTH SIDES. That doesn't make it right, but sitting in the corner pretending to be the victim when you're just as guilty is laughable.
I'm going to need to call false equivalence, as there is a massive degree of difference between mean words and physical violence/injury. We are talking about two groups saying mean things over the internet, which are more or less equal.
I'm not insisting that all wrongs are equal, or that it's all okay because they both sides emotionally harmed each other.
This assumes that, in all areas, one is greater than the other. It isn't as black and white as that. There are many issues at hand, it isn't as simple as taking away from one side and adding to the other.
I would love to have this conversation, but everywhere I try either bans me for asking or gives the "educate yourself!" cop-out answer.
So, the topic is social, political, legal, and economic rights.
Now, a quick google search gives this as the definition of social rights:
"Social rights include at least the right to education and the right to found and maintain a family but also many of the rights often regarded as civil’ rights: for example, the rights to recreation, health care, privacy and freedom from discrimination."
As far as I can tell, woman (In the United States) have all of these rights. They can go to public schools, have a family, get a job, have health care and it is illegal to discriminate against them in any of these areas.
Political rights:
"Civil and political rights are a class of rights that protect individuals' freedom from infringement by governments, social organizations and private individuals, and which ensure one's ability to participate in the civil and political life of the society and state without discrimination or repression."
Again, seems like woman have all of these rights. You could argue that private individuals can discriminate as they are entitled to their own opinion, but in this definition their freedom is not being restricted by that.
Legal rights:
"Legal rights are those bestowed onto a person by a given legal system."
I can't think of any laws that discriminate against woman. In fact, if anything I believe I could make an argument that the law favors woman, but that isn't the topic at hand.
Economic rights:
"Economic, social and cultural rights are socio-economic human rights, such as the right to education, right to housing, right to adequate standard of living, right to health and the right to science and culture."
Can't think of anything discriminatory here either. Everyone in the United States has the right to education and housing. Adequate standards of living is debatable but doesn't discriminate.
What am I missing here? Are we using different definitions?
I don't recall saying it excuses either side. What I'm saying is you get nowhere when you are unwilling to admit that both sides were in the wrong and attack neutral parties purely because they are neutral.
"Based on your 'but they do it too!' bullshit above"
How is it bullshit when both sides did, infact, do immoral things to each other?
Part of being an adult is realizing issues are not black and white, good against evil. Another part of it is willing to admit you have made mistakes. This person is unwilling to do that, so I can't possibly take her seriously.
"Being neutral about threats to murder, rape and intimidate women with opinions is a character defect."
Once again, the narrative is that the entire controversy was "evil misogynistic gamers" vs "poor innocent woman".
Both sides have done fuck up things. Trying to pretend it was a completely black and white, good vs evil conflict does not get you any respect, neither does being a professional victim.
"Feminism is advocating equal social, political, legal, and economic rights for women - and we are at a huge deficit with those rights."...What rights do men have that woman do not?
Slashdot Mirror
Why?
So you look like a goddamned wizard. This is not just any book, this is a book full of water filtering spells!
>Oxidation Technology
And this is where I completely lost my shit.
Volvo's had this since at least 1998. I just got done dealing with replacing it, the antenna goes out after awhile and even though the key is correct nothing will happen.
The funny thing is after I replaced the antenna the security system needed to be reset. Dealership wanted $xxx and a week to do the work.
A few minutes on google showed me all you do is lock/unlock the door 5 times to reset it. A week my ass.
Personally I just install a hidden kill switch to every car I own. Difficult to start the car if there is no power going to either the ignition coil or starter relay.
Pretty good summary. I made a comment on it and within the hour I had SRS harassing me along with somebody making a new account with a nearly identical username as mine.
Not really worth my time so I just deleted my account. They started threatening to "dox" me, but considering I currently use 6 different unrelated usernames for websites along with following the golden rule of never giving the internet personally identifiable information, they're going to have fun wasting their time.
1986 Saab 900 SPG. Old Saabs and Volvos can go nearly forever if maintained, my mother has a 1979 volvo 242dl she's owned since she graduated highschool, still original everything.
Well, I bought it 5 years ago with the odometer stuck at just over 700k. Nobody really knows how many miles, but it runs smooth and compression test checks out. No head gaskets so far.
I actually bought and rebuilt an engine for it, but it just sits in the garage because this one just won't die. Starting to burn more and more oil though.
I was just talking about this with a friend of mine, along with the old BMW hack and the Jeep.
Thanks. I'll stick with my 1980's turbo shitbox. 700k miles and still boosting strong.
First time I've ever seen anyone else mention this trick, it's always the first thing I do before considering a hard reset. What's the logic behind it though?
Finally, a laser that only provides white power.
This is how I rationalize keeping around a few old PII/PIII machines.
Reading more about this, I see why I got it wrong.
It also seems like this is anything but real evidence that it works.
"White and Tajmar have impeccable credentials that put them beyond cheap dismissal and scorn."
Then why does Tajmar seem to have so many unreproducible experiments?
How does it violate conservation of momentum?
How is this any better than an ion thruster?
I don't understand why this is so 'unbelievable'. We have had methods of providing thrust in space without using rockets since 1916, the year the first ion thruster was built. Both use electricity to produce thrust.
What is bugging me is that every article about this 'em drive' claims that it doesn't use any fuel, it makes it sound like a free energy machine. Is electricity not a fuel?
What I would like to see is a comparison between this new 'em drive' and an ion thruster. How much electricity they consume for the same amount of thrust, which accelerates faster, etc.
Until then I can't really get excited about it. It might be a new method of propulsion, but if it is inferior to other methods we have had for nearly a century, what's the point?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Power steering failure? I must really be out of the loop. Why is what was traditionally a hydraulically controlled mechanism, running off a belt driven pump suddenly reliant upon electronics?
Is this accurate? If I had a newer car I can't even get a different radio?
And people wonder why I love my 80s 16T.
Hahaha, shit I almost forgot about Zero Wing. Now you have me reminiscing about my old dialup connection and blinkenlights.
Have you ever tried making an argument without using an ad hominem?
Saying "talk to women" and "lol grow up" isn't a valid answer to a question, it's nothing but a meme to avoid the issue.
Still awaiting an answer. What social, political, legal, and economic rights do men have that women do not?
You seem to forget that the people on "her" side of the argument also made death and rape threats. There's even an entire website dedicated to it.
http://gamergateharassment.tum...
"KingofPol just got sent the emergency services to his place, someone used his doxx to send a false alert for a suicide attempt"
"I hope you all die of bone cancer"
"I'm going to kill you misogynist fucks"
She isn't special just because people threaten her over the internet. You know how many times I've received "personal" death threats? it isn't unusual in the slightest. The difference being is that I don't take every single idiot on the internet seriously to the point of being scared some keyboard warrior is actually going to show up on my doorstep.
And you call me the paranoid one? Go look in the mirror.
Oh, and I don't tweet bomb threats to people I don't like.
http://www.polygon.com/2015/5/...
I never said death threats weren't wrong, so stop trying to misrepresent what I'm saying. Both sides have done wrong. BOTH SIDES. That doesn't make it right, but sitting in the corner pretending to be the victim when you're just as guilty is laughable.
I'm going to need to call false equivalence, as there is a massive degree of difference between mean words and physical violence/injury. We are talking about two groups saying mean things over the internet, which are more or less equal.
I'm not insisting that all wrongs are equal, or that it's all okay because they both sides emotionally harmed each other.
This assumes that, in all areas, one is greater than the other. It isn't as black and white as that. There are many issues at hand, it isn't as simple as taking away from one side and adding to the other.
I would love to have this conversation, but everywhere I try either bans me for asking or gives the "educate yourself!" cop-out answer.
So, the topic is social, political, legal, and economic rights.
Now, a quick google search gives this as the definition of social rights:
"Social rights include at least the right to education and the right to found and maintain a family but also many of the rights often regarded as civil’ rights: for example, the rights to recreation, health care, privacy and freedom from discrimination."
As far as I can tell, woman (In the United States) have all of these rights. They can go to public schools, have a family, get a job, have health care and it is illegal to discriminate against them in any of these areas.
Political rights:
"Civil and political rights are a class of rights that protect individuals' freedom from infringement by governments, social organizations and private individuals, and which ensure one's ability to participate in the civil and political life of the society and state without discrimination or repression."
Again, seems like woman have all of these rights. You could argue that private individuals can discriminate as they are entitled to their own opinion, but in this definition their freedom is not being restricted by that.
Legal rights:
"Legal rights are those bestowed onto a person by a given legal system."
I can't think of any laws that discriminate against woman. In fact, if anything I believe I could make an argument that the law favors woman, but that isn't the topic at hand.
Economic rights:
"Economic, social and cultural rights are socio-economic human rights, such as the right to education, right to housing, right to adequate standard of living, right to health and the right to science and culture."
Can't think of anything discriminatory here either. Everyone in the United States has the right to education and housing. Adequate standards of living is debatable but doesn't discriminate.
What am I missing here? Are we using different definitions?
I don't recall saying it excuses either side. What I'm saying is you get nowhere when you are unwilling to admit that both sides were in the wrong and attack neutral parties purely because they are neutral.
"Based on your 'but they do it too!' bullshit above"
How is it bullshit when both sides did, infact, do immoral things to each other?
Part of being an adult is realizing issues are not black and white, good against evil. Another part of it is willing to admit you have made mistakes. This person is unwilling to do that, so I can't possibly take her seriously.
I can't make sense of that sentence. If it assumes everyone starts in an equal situation, then equal rights are already obtained.
"Being neutral about threats to murder, rape and intimidate women with opinions is a character defect."
Once again, the narrative is that the entire controversy was "evil misogynistic gamers" vs "poor innocent woman".
Both sides have done fuck up things. Trying to pretend it was a completely black and white, good vs evil conflict does not get you any respect, neither does being a professional victim.
"Feminism is advocating equal social, political, legal, and economic rights for women - and we are at a huge deficit with those rights." ...What rights do men have that woman do not?