When was the last time we used a submarine to do any kind of warfare or political maneuvering? I'd say that ended in the cold war.
Really? I'd say you're very ill-informed (See "Strength," right column). Or you could read this, or this, or you could just do your own search. There is little doubt in my mind that both China and the US patrol each other's waters with subs, and they would be the first line of attack in any international conflict, which is why subs are commonly referred to as the "tip of the spear." Subs have been an essential part of a comprehensive defense strategy. They are today, and they will continue to be for the foreseeable future.
Speed limits are often based on the quality of the road (of the road surface, of the ability of drivers entering the road to see cars coming, and of the ability of drivers on the road to see hazards on the road ahead of them (reduced by curves, for instance)).
No, speed limits are often based on regulations, such as "25 for residential areas, 35 for commercial districts, 45 for rural roads, 55 for interstates unless otherwise posted," which vary from state to state. Those limits are typically required knowledge to pass the written test and can be used for prosecution even if a speed limit sign is missing so, assuming you have a license, you should already know that.
The problem is that "speeding" is an arbitrary and capricious term. 36 in a 35 is speeding, but is it any more dangerous? Not in and of itself. So no, "speeding" is not dangerous. Exceeding the safe limits of your vehicle, driving abilities, road surface conditions, traffic conditions, and other contributing factors is dangerous (by definition), but *speeding* is not a measure of any of those things. It's not a measure of anything other than exceeding the arbitrary limit.
Likewise, I typically drive slower than 25 in residential areas, especially those with heavy parallel parking, because despite the posted limits, I'm not comfortable with the stopping distances involved at that speed. Kids running out into the street, people opening car doors, and other factors make traversing such roads inherently more risky than a highway. At the same time, I'm not inclined to go below 75 on known stretches of highway unless there are actual circumstances which compel me to go slower, including much slower traffic in an adjacent lane, where someone is likely to try to change into my lane given the slightest opportunity. I just factor the risk of the occasional speeding ticket into part of the expense of driving (although I've only had one ticket in the past decade).
I have on occasion (particularly in my youth) driven unsafely, which I regret, and speeding is often a part of such unsafe behavior, but is not inherently unsafe.
Diversification, as in all things, is no substitute for solid reasoning and research; it is merely a method to hedge one's bets. No one would recommend, for example, that you diversify your investment portfolio into penny stocks and junk bonds for the mere sake of diversification. Likewise, it may be counterproductive to provide research funding for avenues which show little promise. The fact that breakthroughs occasionally come from unexpected places does not negate the fact that progress comes much more often and, overall, more significantly in incremental steps. That's not to say that promising alternatives should be dismissed, but you shouldn't go throwing turtles together expecting to find the solution either, and some of the "alternative" theories are only slightly more scientifically sound (though frequently *sound* much more scientific than they are).
Especially if the sports car *has* a back seat. Some people may be under the mistaken impression that these "seats" are for anything other than an insurance benefit. Some of those people have even been known to try to cram their friends and family into said "seats," assuming that since they exist, they must be able to hold an actual person. Consumer Reports is doing a huge service to the uninformed consumer, and to their friends and families who have not yet experienced necrosis of the legs.
As a reviewer, I am under no obligation to promote the zesty, robust taste of Doritos brand tortilla chips, regardless of how great a snack they may be for lunchtime, munch time, anytime. It's illegal for my crunch money here to pay for the review, but it is legal for it to pay for my website, and the website can report on Frito Lay. Advert: "Eat them." Reviewer: "I just happen to like 'em."
You joke -- obviously God doesn't need a microwave when he can simply will his food to be cooked -- but in all seriousness, they come from his X-Ray vision.
I'm not saying one is more confusing than the other, but if you're going to refer to the base-2 forms, PLEASE use the proper names: kibblebytes, nibblebytes, gigglebytes, and tribblebytes.
Sure, along with Medicare, Social Security, National Parks, the EPA, Endangered Species, and forget about socialized healthcare. Of course, we can all rely on our state governments to pick up the slack and provide those services, and even if they don't all get on board, we can all choose where we want to live, right? And I'm sure there won't be any N year time limits for in-state benefits to kick in after moving, because that sort of thing doesn't happen at all right now with tuition rates and the like.
Well, it's a bit of a Heads-You-Win, Tails-I-Lose scenario. The longer we go without an attack, the more justified the programs appear. The only way to prove that the system is ineffective is to sustain another attack. That's almost the definition of the Catch-22: you can only be mentally evaluated upon request, but requesting to be evaluated is evidence of sanity. I believe there is merit to the idea that would-be terrorists are largely preoccupied with working in the mid-east, but unfortunately it is neither tenable nor productive to remain there indefinitely, and the cost is hardly worth the gains. I'm not saying we shouldn't be trying to save lives, but, as mentioned earlier, we could save MORE lives more by expending our resources more judiciously, such as with healthcare, traffic safety, and the other things that are killing us on a daily basis.
The best arguments against these programs, in my view, is not whether or not they are effective, but that they are allowing our enemies to dictate our policies and our behavior. Furthermore, as has also been stated, our policies -- foreign and domestic -- appear to be promoting further anti-American/anti-government opinion, which is exactly the opposite of what we want to accomplish, or at the very least what a democratic government should seek to avoid. We don't need to make everyone happy, but we don't need to piss everyone off either.
Socialism...has more or less been accepted in some form or another across the industrialized world (apart from the US, which has spent far too much effort fighting the reds to allow such a thing to happen).
What are you talking about? We have Medicare, Medicaid, Food Stamps, Welfare, Section 8, Unemployment, Public Education, Pell Grants, Social Security, and socialized healthcare is on the horizon. The US has largely embraced Socialism in all but name.
You're forgetting economies of scale. The cost of a wiretap is determined by the cost of the program divided by the number of wiretaps. If the cost grows marginally while the number of taps grows exponentially, it can be affordable to tap everyone. The more we wiretap, the cheaper it becomes. It's a win-win!
It's all fun and games until Jack Thompson burns his own children alive outside of the local Best Buy in "protest." Thompson cites divine inspiration. Film at 11.
Slashdot Mirror
When was the last time we used a submarine to do any kind of warfare or political maneuvering? I'd say that ended in the cold war.
Really? I'd say you're very ill-informed (See "Strength," right column). Or you could read this, or this, or you could just do your own search. There is little doubt in my mind that both China and the US patrol each other's waters with subs, and they would be the first line of attack in any international conflict, which is why subs are commonly referred to as the "tip of the spear." Subs have been an essential part of a comprehensive defense strategy. They are today, and they will continue to be for the foreseeable future.
1.21 Gigawatts, to be precise.
Yes, but to confuse everyone, this time let's pronounce it "Shar-pay."
For those who haven't seen the poster.
Not exactly; that's just a byproduct of their desire to replace all of the Mac's transistors with tubes.
But boogelyphile and harsh highs clash with melodic lows which provide warm supper feeling deep in the brain stem. Tubes!
What, yours didn't?
Speed limits are often based on the quality of the road (of the road surface, of the ability of drivers entering the road to see cars coming, and of the ability of drivers on the road to see hazards on the road ahead of them (reduced by curves, for instance)).
No, speed limits are often based on regulations, such as "25 for residential areas, 35 for commercial districts, 45 for rural roads, 55 for interstates unless otherwise posted," which vary from state to state. Those limits are typically required knowledge to pass the written test and can be used for prosecution even if a speed limit sign is missing so, assuming you have a license, you should already know that.
The problem is that "speeding" is an arbitrary and capricious term. 36 in a 35 is speeding, but is it any more dangerous? Not in and of itself. So no, "speeding" is not dangerous. Exceeding the safe limits of your vehicle, driving abilities, road surface conditions, traffic conditions, and other contributing factors is dangerous (by definition), but *speeding* is not a measure of any of those things. It's not a measure of anything other than exceeding the arbitrary limit.
Likewise, I typically drive slower than 25 in residential areas, especially those with heavy parallel parking, because despite the posted limits, I'm not comfortable with the stopping distances involved at that speed. Kids running out into the street, people opening car doors, and other factors make traversing such roads inherently more risky than a highway. At the same time, I'm not inclined to go below 75 on known stretches of highway unless there are actual circumstances which compel me to go slower, including much slower traffic in an adjacent lane, where someone is likely to try to change into my lane given the slightest opportunity. I just factor the risk of the occasional speeding ticket into part of the expense of driving (although I've only had one ticket in the past decade).
I have on occasion (particularly in my youth) driven unsafely, which I regret, and speeding is often a part of such unsafe behavior, but is not inherently unsafe.
Diversification, as in all things, is no substitute for solid reasoning and research; it is merely a method to hedge one's bets. No one would recommend, for example, that you diversify your investment portfolio into penny stocks and junk bonds for the mere sake of diversification. Likewise, it may be counterproductive to provide research funding for avenues which show little promise. The fact that breakthroughs occasionally come from unexpected places does not negate the fact that progress comes much more often and, overall, more significantly in incremental steps. That's not to say that promising alternatives should be dismissed, but you shouldn't go throwing turtles together expecting to find the solution either, and some of the "alternative" theories are only slightly more scientifically sound (though frequently *sound* much more scientific than they are).
I'm a wheelchair, you insensitive clod.
Especially if the sports car *has* a back seat. Some people may be under the mistaken impression that these "seats" are for anything other than an insurance benefit. Some of those people have even been known to try to cram their friends and family into said "seats," assuming that since they exist, they must be able to hold an actual person. Consumer Reports is doing a huge service to the uninformed consumer, and to their friends and families who have not yet experienced necrosis of the legs.
As a reviewer, I am under no obligation to promote the zesty, robust taste of Doritos brand tortilla chips, regardless of how great a snack they may be for lunchtime, munch time, anytime. It's illegal for my crunch money here to pay for the review, but it is legal for it to pay for my website, and the website can report on Frito Lay. Advert: "Eat them." Reviewer: "I just happen to like 'em."
You joke -- obviously God doesn't need a microwave when he can simply will his food to be cooked -- but in all seriousness, they come from his X-Ray vision.
They're deprecated you insensitive clod.
I'm not saying one is more confusing than the other, but if you're going to refer to the base-2 forms, PLEASE use the proper names: kibblebytes, nibblebytes, gigglebytes, and tribblebytes.
I'm selling cash, but I only accept gold.
-50 points for missing the joke, and -1000 points for incorrectly attributing 1984 to "orson well's".
Sure, along with Medicare, Social Security, National Parks, the EPA, Endangered Species, and forget about socialized healthcare. Of course, we can all rely on our state governments to pick up the slack and provide those services, and even if they don't all get on board, we can all choose where we want to live, right? And I'm sure there won't be any N year time limits for in-state benefits to kick in after moving, because that sort of thing doesn't happen at all right now with tuition rates and the like.
Well, it's a bit of a Heads-You-Win, Tails-I-Lose scenario. The longer we go without an attack, the more justified the programs appear. The only way to prove that the system is ineffective is to sustain another attack. That's almost the definition of the Catch-22: you can only be mentally evaluated upon request, but requesting to be evaluated is evidence of sanity. I believe there is merit to the idea that would-be terrorists are largely preoccupied with working in the mid-east, but unfortunately it is neither tenable nor productive to remain there indefinitely, and the cost is hardly worth the gains. I'm not saying we shouldn't be trying to save lives, but, as mentioned earlier, we could save MORE lives more by expending our resources more judiciously, such as with healthcare, traffic safety, and the other things that are killing us on a daily basis.
The best arguments against these programs, in my view, is not whether or not they are effective, but that they are allowing our enemies to dictate our policies and our behavior. Furthermore, as has also been stated, our policies -- foreign and domestic -- appear to be promoting further anti-American/anti-government opinion, which is exactly the opposite of what we want to accomplish, or at the very least what a democratic government should seek to avoid. We don't need to make everyone happy, but we don't need to piss everyone off either.
Socialism...has more or less been accepted in some form or another across the industrialized world (apart from the US, which has spent far too much effort fighting the reds to allow such a thing to happen).
What are you talking about? We have Medicare, Medicaid, Food Stamps, Welfare, Section 8, Unemployment, Public Education, Pell Grants, Social Security, and socialized healthcare is on the horizon. The US has largely embraced Socialism in all but name.
"Causation != Correlation. La la la la na na."
Except causation is absolutely a correlation. Just not all correlations are causal.
You're forgetting economies of scale. The cost of a wiretap is determined by the cost of the program divided by the number of wiretaps. If the cost grows marginally while the number of taps grows exponentially, it can be affordable to tap everyone. The more we wiretap, the cheaper it becomes. It's a win-win!
Religion is a philosophy based on lack of evidence.
Atheism is a philosophy based on lack of evidence.
Agnosticism says you can't know either way, so it's a moot point.
Yeah, well.. so is dysentery.
It's all fun and games until Jack Thompson burns his own children alive outside of the local Best Buy in "protest." Thompson cites divine inspiration. Film at 11.