it probably has a higher radar cross-section, so it's fairly useless as a spy-plane. The only thing you are really hiding from are people. Or civilians. Might be usefull as a close-rage spybot on a battlefield, but anybody with smart weapons can see and hit it quickly.
So... Usefull against an insurgency. Not usefull if invading the swiss.
I wonder if anyone concerned with insurgencies has got some kind of large military budget... they might want a few of these.
in response to the growing, and in this thread expressed, opinion that people *outdoors* should also refrain from smoking. Outdoors is a public place, and that was what I was aiming at. [...] But, in any case, I do live in a city, and I am forced to inhale car fumes of people that enjoy their mobility for no good reason. What are your thoughts on this
The assumption is that Condi couldn't have gotten the position through any other means than her race.
I personally think that, as a criminal mastermind, she's perfectly qualified to be at a high position in this administration.
But you have to admit, she sticks out in their line up of old white men, and they'd hate to loose that. So I think "conspicuously black and female" is one of her qualifications that got her the job. That's a far cry from "her only qualification", mind you, but it still counts.
Yes, Rice is black and female. So. What. Neither fact speaks to her qualifications to be National Security Advisor.
They don't, but tokenism makes people suspicious of multi-minority high-profile characters: If they got rid of her, their politically-correct minimum requirement of women and racial minorites could drop below acceptable levels.
For instance, Condi's name came up a lot during the whole "George Bush doesn't care about black people" hilarity. That makes people think this is a big part of her job: Being conspicuously black, and female. Politics is a show, after all.
Come on, everytime a firecracker went off in the late 90's, the media's reaction was to say that Bin Laden was the primary suspect.
He was the big honcho suspect in the truck-bombing of the WTC, his picture was on TV when the Oklahoma city bombing ocurred (before it turned out to be a white american christian veteran what did it).
I think Condi went "yeah, we know, Bin Laden bad, duh".
You might enjoy your meal without being forced to inhale cigarette smoke, I on the other hand cannot enjoy a walk without the great stimulant of car fumes.
Clean energy is a separate issue, you're more than welcome to take a stance supporting it, but that's not relevant to the issue of smokers who insist on imposing their habits on others (*).
I'd say electric cars and renewable energy sources would do, in the long run. Push for better public transportation in the meantime.
(*) I smoke the occasional cigar, sometimes even tobacco from a pipe or shisha. I would NEVER go do that next to non-smokers and expect them to leave to accomodate my whimsy.
The question though is would it be cheaper to kill a few million people in a neighbouring country or to go searching through space for water and minerals.
Find a big chunk of minerals and drop it on your neighbours.
In public, who the fuck are you to force me to inhale your car's pollutants?
If we were in person, you would now have a swollen lip and a few loose teeth, because I'd slap you hard for being so fucking stupid you don't realise that car exhaust are not in confined spaces where I'm eating, you retard.
Seriously, your argument is so fucking stupid, I'm surprised someone so obviously devoid of intellectual faculties can find the [submit] button. So, gorram, stupid.
It would be impossible for me to shoot or stab or bomb another human being and even attempting to do so would make me sick to my stomach.
I used to think, back when I was a small, angelic child, that I could never punch someone. Then this kid kept pestering me, and he got a fist to the forehead, knocked him on his ass.
It's a question of when push comes to shove... I never seeked out agression, but when it came, it found me unwilling, but quite able.
Violence in video games and movies does NOT desensitize you to violence in the real world.
In fact, I think that violent movies and games are usefull in reducing agressive tendencies, through catharsis. When I'm stressed out, and I feel like dragging jerks out of their cars and forcing them to swallow their turn-signal levers, a good violent flick will calm me down. Then I can drive and tolerate the ubiquitous stupidity for another day.
I'm sure you are familiar with the anecdote regarding the percentage of soldiers in WWI that couldn't bring themselves to shoot another human being. [...] what happens when those with the predisposition to violence finally snap?
Those are not the same kind of people that were unwilling to shoot the other saps.
Don't bring up the WWII vets that didn't want to shoot people to prop up the argument that the guys who WANT to shoot people will be trained by the damn games, sheesh.
or they could go to a private establishment where the owner decided they wanted to not allow smoking.
It must be fun to be ablt to completely ignore reality when arguing like that. Because, and I've told you this already: Without those laws, NO place is non-smoker.
But, who are YOU or the govt. to tell me what I can and cannot do to or ingest into my body???
In YOUR house? I'm not telling you squat.
In public, who the FUCK ARE YOU to force ME to smoke? As you said: what the fuck gives you that right over my right of choice of what to do to myself?? Extra question marks and all.
I believe it SHOULD be legal to smoke in any private establishment that wants to allow it....a bar or restaurant is such a place. [...] Now...what problem is with this?
What's the problem? The problem is that before legal bans on public smoking of addictive substances, there were 0% of businesses that banned smoking.
Gives adults full choice on their health concerns.
Addiction takes away a person's ability to make that choice.
So it's only bad to put carcinogens that are addictive into your body.
So, people willingly inhale concentrated barbeque smoke now? Funny, I,ve never seen people hooking up a pipe to a barbeque and huffing from it. And people at camp fires make it a point to upt themselves downwind of the smoke in order to breathe in as much of it as possible? Weird, all the campfires I,ve been to, it was the exact opposite.
Face it, campfires and barbeques are NOT comparable to cigarettes.
The fact that you hang on to your invalid comparison after it was demonstrated to be null proves you are dishonest about this, mr. troll.
Don't like my smoke in a public place? Leave.
Don't like my mace in your face? Leave. What could possibly make you think that you have the right to, literally, smoke people out of public places? Your petty desires trump other people's right? That's a nifty definition of narcissism.
There are plenty of private places you can go to if you...want to smoke.
you can't face the fucking reality of being in public. Crybaby.
Who's the crybaby? The one who can't face the reality of smoking bans? Yeah, sounds about right.
Slashdot Mirror
it probably has a higher radar cross-section, so it's fairly useless as a spy-plane. The only thing you are really hiding from are people. Or civilians. Might be usefull as a close-rage spybot on a battlefield, but anybody with smart weapons can see and hit it quickly.
So...
Usefull against an insurgency.
Not usefull if invading the swiss.
I wonder if anyone concerned with insurgencies has got some kind of large military budget... they might want a few of these.
in response to the growing, and in this thread expressed, opinion that people *outdoors* should also refrain from smoking. Outdoors is a public place, and that was what I was aiming at. [...]
But, in any case, I do live in a city, and I am forced to inhale car fumes of people that enjoy their mobility for no good reason. What are your thoughts on this
There we go.
The assumption is that Condi couldn't have gotten the position through any other means than her race.
I personally think that, as a criminal mastermind, she's perfectly qualified to be at a high position in this administration.
But you have to admit, she sticks out in their line up of old white men, and they'd hate to loose that.
So I think "conspicuously black and female" is one of her qualifications that got her the job. That's a far cry from "her only qualification", mind you, but it still counts.
There are no refunds.
This is a website about technology, not politics
1 6266399
Your post's adress: http:/// politics.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=198521&cid=
Yes, Rice is black and female. So. What. Neither fact speaks to her qualifications to be National Security Advisor.
They don't, but tokenism makes people suspicious of multi-minority high-profile characters: If they got rid of her, their politically-correct minimum requirement of women and racial minorites could drop below acceptable levels.
For instance, Condi's name came up a lot during the whole "George Bush doesn't care about black people" hilarity.
That makes people think this is a big part of her job: Being conspicuously black, and female.
Politics is a show, after all.
Come on, everytime a firecracker went off in the late 90's, the media's reaction was to say that Bin Laden was the primary suspect.
He was the big honcho suspect in the truck-bombing of the WTC, his picture was on TV when the Oklahoma city bombing ocurred (before it turned out to be a white american christian veteran what did it).
I think Condi went "yeah, we know, Bin Laden bad, duh".
You might enjoy your meal without being forced to inhale cigarette smoke, I on the other hand cannot enjoy a walk without the great stimulant of car fumes.
Clean energy is a separate issue, you're more than welcome to take a stance supporting it, but that's not relevant to the issue of smokers who insist on imposing their habits on others (*).
I'd say electric cars and renewable energy sources would do, in the long run. Push for better public transportation in the meantime.
(*) I smoke the occasional cigar, sometimes even tobacco from a pipe or shisha. I would NEVER go do that next to non-smokers and expect them to leave to accomodate my whimsy.
The question though is would it be cheaper to kill a few million people in a neighbouring country or to go searching through space for water and minerals.
Find a big chunk of minerals and drop it on your neighbours.
In public, who the fuck are you to force me to inhale your car's pollutants?
If we were in person, you would now have a swollen lip and a few loose teeth, because I'd slap you hard for being so fucking stupid you don't realise that car exhaust are not in confined spaces where I'm eating, you retard.
Seriously, your argument is so fucking stupid, I'm surprised someone so obviously devoid of intellectual faculties can find the [submit] button.
So, gorram, stupid.
It would be impossible for me to shoot or stab or bomb another human being and even attempting to do so would make me sick to my stomach.
I used to think, back when I was a small, angelic child, that I could never punch someone. Then this kid kept pestering me, and he got a fist to the forehead, knocked him on his ass.
It's a question of when push comes to shove... I never seeked out agression, but when it came, it found me unwilling, but quite able.
Violence in video games and movies does NOT desensitize you to violence in the real world.
In fact, I think that violent movies and games are usefull in reducing agressive tendencies, through catharsis.
When I'm stressed out, and I feel like dragging jerks out of their cars and forcing them to swallow their turn-signal levers, a good violent flick will calm me down. Then I can drive and tolerate the ubiquitous stupidity for another day.
I'm sure you are familiar with the anecdote regarding the percentage of soldiers in WWI that couldn't bring themselves to shoot another human being. [...] what happens when those with the predisposition to violence finally snap?
Those are not the same kind of people that were unwilling to shoot the other saps.
Don't bring up the WWII vets that didn't want to shoot people to prop up the argument that the guys who WANT to shoot people will be trained by the damn games, sheesh.
or they could go to a private establishment where the owner decided they wanted to not allow smoking.
It must be fun to be ablt to completely ignore reality when arguing like that.
Because, and I've told you this already: Without those laws, NO place is non-smoker.
But, who are YOU or the govt. to tell me what I can and cannot do to or ingest into my body???
In YOUR house? I'm not telling you squat.
In public, who the FUCK ARE YOU to force ME to smoke? As you said: what the fuck gives you that right over my right of choice of what to do to myself??
Extra question marks and all.
I believe it SHOULD be legal to smoke in any private establishment that wants to allow it....a bar or restaurant is such a place. [...]
Now...what problem is with this?
What's the problem?
The problem is that before legal bans on public smoking of addictive substances, there were 0% of businesses that banned smoking.
Gives adults full choice on their health concerns.
Addiction takes away a person's ability to make that choice.
songs from the Zune Marketplace will cost just under $0.99.
At first...
Lung cancer is survivable -- even more than 50% of *active smokers* who get it survive. We are not killing you.
Getting shot in the head is survivable too, jerk.
It's my body and I'll do what I want.
If your smoke reaches me, it's not your choice, it's mine.
You wanna poison yourself? Smoke in your house.
The DMCA is the government saying it is immoral to
BZZZZZZT! Wrong!
Get your head on straight: The DMCA is about money, greed, control.
You'd think that if they guy wasn't a total jerk, he'd at least as permission of everyone nearby before he did this.
;-)
q.e.d.
Laws are always moral matters.
That's a common myth.
See the DMCA as a good example.
So it's only bad to put carcinogens that are addictive into your body.
...want to smoke.
So, people willingly inhale concentrated barbeque smoke now? Funny, I,ve never seen people hooking up a pipe to a barbeque and huffing from it.
And people at camp fires make it a point to upt themselves downwind of the smoke in order to breathe in as much of it as possible? Weird, all the campfires I,ve been to, it was the exact opposite.
Face it, campfires and barbeques are NOT comparable to cigarettes.
The fact that you hang on to your invalid comparison after it was demonstrated to be null proves you are dishonest about this, mr. troll.
Don't like my smoke in a public place? Leave.
Don't like my mace in your face? Leave.
What could possibly make you think that you have the right to, literally, smoke people out of public places? Your petty desires trump other people's right? That's a nifty definition of narcissism.
There are plenty of private places you can go to if you
you can't face the fucking reality of being in public. Crybaby.
Who's the crybaby? The one who can't face the reality of smoking bans? Yeah, sounds about right.
Since intelligent design is an ideology, then opposition to ID is also an ideology
No.
One group can't distort life-sciences as an ideology simply by rah-rah-rah-ing loudly about their ideological objections to it's findings.
Emotionally, it might seem like it, but rationally, no: Putting an ideology next to science doesn't corrupt science by association.
Are they physically addictive?
Are they used daily, all day long, in enclosed spaces?
Are they known for causing tens of thousands of deaths a year?
No, no, no, no and no?
Then STFU and stop comparing apples and oranges.
I hear Dems say "Keep your morals off my body!" when referring to abortion or drugs and then demand universal healthcare or public smoking bans
Public_health != morals;