Well, to be technical I'm sure they aren't as good as someone not talking to people while driving, so they would still 'suck'.
Well, someone talking to you is better than someone sleeping in the seat next to you. Driving is not something that requires 100% of your attention all the time, and chatting with someone keeps you alert.
My honest opinion is that driving should be like a pilot flying, and taken as seriously.
Hehe, when I was a kid, I got to go see the pilot in the cockpit of an airliner: Feet up on the console, drinking cofee and looking at other planes go by, chatting with the copilot. The only guy doing any work was the navigator. The thing about planes, is that there's very few mid-air collisions, you don't have to constantly keep an eye out for other planes that might hit you. You don't have to keep an eye for pedestrians with funny ideas about road safety, you don't have to worry about the plane in front of you ramming on the brakes for no reason, etc.
My friend's ex used to do a lot of driving for the gang (big car), and I had the misfortune to see him drive straight, high, and on the cellphone. He was worse on the cell than high (heavy smoker, I think stoned was his natural state). Left turns were the worse on cell phones, he had a really hard time keeping all the variables straight, he'd miss opportunities (slowed ractions), he'd ignore possible risky drivers around (tunnel vision?), it was scary. He was almost as bad high and on the phone as my other friend's girlfriend!;-)
So while we're studying things, how about the people driving and talking to passengers? I bet they suck too.
How much did you loose on that bet? I think that was on that Mythbuster episode... Passengers are in the same environment as the driver, and react to it with the driver... well, some times (arguments happen). People on the phone, however, don't wait to ask a question after you're done doing your left turn. It's really a different situation.
And don't forget: anything distracting besidses the phone, you can ADD to the phone. You can have people on the phone and in the car talking to you at once, be drunk and on the phone, be tired and on the phone, etc.
I'm only interested in girls once they get signs of being able to breed. You know those things like boobies and hips. [...] How common, and what exactly is the fascination with pre-pubescent kids? I just don't get it.
So you like 'em at around 12... 13? Just when breasts start showing?
"Man I would hate to see your toilet" Meaning that the poster never flushs it?
No, after a while, a toilet bowl grows a nice, strong bacterial colony in its well oxyenated waters regularly, supplied with organic matter and fresh new unicellular recruits.
I believe that my driving is no worse with the cell phone
I don't care if you believe pixies will magically steer your car away from accidents. I'm telling you: People driving with cell phones drive worse than without the cell phone.
This isn't an opinion, nor a belief, it's an observation.
I'm solidly middle class, and so is (was) my father-in-law. Yet we just barely missed having to pay estate taxes on our inheritance. It's quite easy, if you make around $150k/yr
$150k is middle class now? Excuse me, I have to inform everyone I know that they're poor.
not having to put up with the hassles of tending to kids. I'm sure many traditionally-raised folks might see this as immature or selfish, but it all depends on the point of view.
On the point of view of Darwin, you're gonna be out-bred by the traditionalists, and your lifestyle will go the way of the dodo.
I reject the traditional concepts of maturity. I refuse to spend my life doing things I don't like because of some outmoded notion of 'have to.'
Man I would hate to see your toilet, though you neighbours can probably smell it... I, on the other hand, still watch cartoons, still throw paper airplanes, but when I 'have to' do something I don't like to do, I fucking do it.
With the resources and technology we have available to humanity today, we could provide for every human being on the planet, and we could all work only 20 hours a week.
If everyone on the planet only worked 20 hours a week, and relied on technology and handouts for food and clothing, there would be no technology, no clothes and no food.
What he said, but the opposite! Who has time to support an assertion these days, huh?
Professor: Good news everyone. While Fox's quality programming is out of our reach
Peter: Everybody I've got bad news. We've been cancelled. Lois: Oh no Peter! How could they do that?
Peter: Well unfortuantely Lois, there's just no more room on the schedule. We just gotta accept the fact that FOX has to make room for terrific shows like Dark Angel, Titus, Undeclared, Action, That 80's Show, Wonder Falls, Fast Lane, Andy Richter Controls The Universe, Skin, Girl's Club, Cracking Up, The Pitts, Firefly, Get Real, Freaky Links, Wanda At Large, Costello, The Lone Gunman, A Minute with Stan Hooper, Normal Ohio, Pasadena, Harsh Realm, Keen Eddy, The Street, American Embassy, Cedric The Entertainer, The Tick, Louie, And Greg The Bunny...
Lois: Is there no hope? Peter: Well I suppose if ALL those shows go down the tubes we might have a shot.
What about the freedom of citizens to not be spammed by (potentially abusive) phone calls?
When they stop spamming me with their crap teen pop "music" over the radio in every business I visit, THEN they can expect the same courtesy. In the meantime, they're asking for it.
Nobody is forcing you to buy music from major record labels. [...] That's where your analogy colapses. Whereas the British had soldiers with guns that actually did force you to do something (i.e. pay taxes)
Nobody was forcing anyone in Boston to buy any tea, either.
This is why we have universities. The drug companies might get there first because they have larger budgets and a narrower focus, but independent research labs will make the discovery eventually.
That's a pretty ridiculous thing to say. Yes, pharmaceutical companies want to make a buck, but scientists are human beings and many of them are doing their best to create the best drugs they can to help people. To think that they're intentionally withholding drugs or not trying to cure diseases to keep making money is simply ridiculous and paranoid.
Sorry, it's not. Between a cure and a treatment, drug companies will pick the treatment. Those scientists might want to save the world, but they signed an NDA that might have them simply reduce the world's suffering through sustained use of a lesser product. The scientists don't make the research budget, they don't controll what gets kept under the lid. And if you think drug companies are very ethical and always act in the best interest of the public, you need to read a bit more about their past actions.
First, remember; this is a song, not meant to be a logically rigorous defense of theology nor a mathematical proof we're talking about.
Tell it to the dark age monks... but about the psalm...
That's why it's in Psalms.
Where in psalms? I looked, it's not where the GP said. Closest I could find from memory and a bit of google was in ecclesiastes, go have a look.
Now it's quite possible that there's a sound theological argument here, but I really don't care what it is; the point is that it's not being made, and the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premise. One would think that Sagan himself would be aware of something like this, given that he is the author (but by no means inventor) of the Baloney Detection Kit.
And while you're at your bible, look at Luke 6:42.
I suppose it all depends on what the word "it" refers to. If "it" doesn't strictly refer to the physical composition of the earth and cosmos, then the poster you responded to has a valid question.
Well, hard to tell, since psalm 119 doesn't say what the original poster think it says.
I think, though, he meant: Ecclesiastes 1:9 (English Standard Version)
What has been is what will be,
and what has been done is what will be done,
and there is nothing new under the sun.
Which does refer specifically to the physical world.
Slashdot Mirror
BTW, I don't count MythBusters as fact
;-)
Don't blame you.
Well, to be technical I'm sure they aren't as good as someone not talking to people while driving, so they would still 'suck'.
Well, someone talking to you is better than someone sleeping in the seat next to you. Driving is not something that requires 100% of your attention all the time, and chatting with someone keeps you alert.
My honest opinion is that driving should be like a pilot flying, and taken as seriously.
Hehe, when I was a kid, I got to go see the pilot in the cockpit of an airliner: Feet up on the console, drinking cofee and looking at other planes go by, chatting with the copilot. The only guy doing any work was the navigator.
The thing about planes, is that there's very few mid-air collisions, you don't have to constantly keep an eye out for other planes that might hit you. You don't have to keep an eye for pedestrians with funny ideas about road safety, you don't have to worry about the plane in front of you ramming on the brakes for no reason, etc.
My friend's ex used to do a lot of driving for the gang (big car), and I had the misfortune to see him drive straight, high, and on the cellphone. He was worse on the cell than high (heavy smoker, I think stoned was his natural state). Left turns were the worse on cell phones, he had a really hard time keeping all the variables straight, he'd miss opportunities (slowed ractions), he'd ignore possible risky drivers around (tunnel vision?), it was scary. He was almost as bad high and on the phone as my other friend's girlfriend!
So while we're studying things, how about the people driving and talking to passengers? I bet they suck too.
How much did you loose on that bet?
I think that was on that Mythbuster episode... Passengers are in the same environment as the driver, and react to it with the driver... well, some times (arguments happen). People on the phone, however, don't wait to ask a question after you're done doing your left turn. It's really a different situation.
And don't forget: anything distracting besidses the phone, you can ADD to the phone. You can have people on the phone and in the car talking to you at once, be drunk and on the phone, be tired and on the phone, etc.
I'm only interested in girls once they get signs of being able to breed. You know those things like boobies and hips. [...] How common, and what exactly is the fascination with pre-pubescent kids? I just don't get it.
So you like 'em at around 12... 13? Just when breasts start showing?
Eeeeeew.
"Man I would hate to see your toilet"
Meaning that the poster never flushs it?
No, after a while, a toilet bowl grows a nice, strong bacterial colony in its well oxyenated waters regularly, supplied with organic matter and fresh new unicellular recruits.
What about those people who become less aggressive beause they're on the phone and they take extra precautions for just that reason?
The road ragers who are too distracted by the phone to focus their anger on the drivers around them?
frankly, NASA already *IS* ancient history.
:)
Nah, it's history when it's done.
The moribond last throes don't count
I believe that my driving is no worse with the cell phone
I don't care if you believe pixies will magically steer your car away from accidents. I'm telling you: People driving with cell phones drive worse than without the cell phone.
This isn't an opinion, nor a belief, it's an observation.
I'm solidly middle class, and so is (was) my father-in-law. Yet we just barely missed having to pay estate taxes on our inheritance. It's quite easy, if you make around $150k/yr
$150k is middle class now?
Excuse me, I have to inform everyone I know that they're poor.
why should they be protected? Let market forces dominate and offshore the whole lot!
Why?
Well, because you don't want the whole lot offshored... because then it's someone else's space program, and you're ancient history.
Damn, I can't belive I'm defending the military-industrial complex! I feel dirty.
not having to put up with the hassles of tending to kids.
I'm sure many traditionally-raised folks might see this as immature or selfish, but it all depends on the point of view.
On the point of view of Darwin, you're gonna be out-bred by the traditionalists, and your lifestyle will go the way of the dodo.
I reject the traditional concepts of maturity. I refuse to spend my life doing things I don't like because of some outmoded notion of 'have to.'
Man I would hate to see your toilet, though you neighbours can probably smell it... I, on the other hand, still watch cartoons, still throw paper airplanes, but when I 'have to' do something I don't like to do, I fucking do it.
On a less general note, if you want to be 6 again, fuck off and go be 6. Work in a factory
He wants to be 6 in a rich country, not in the third world.
"fuck" every 4th word to make it sound adult. When are people going to realize that guy's a hack?
No comment.
What he said, but the opposite!
Who has time to support an assertion these days, huh?
One week Lisa will be super smart and a veggie and the next week suddenly she's as dumb as Bart and eating a pork chop. So WTF?
Reruns don't always show in their production order.
Professor: Good news everyone. While Fox's quality programming is out of our reach
Peter: Everybody I've got bad news. We've been cancelled.
Lois: Oh no Peter! How could they do that?
Peter: Well unfortuantely Lois, there's just no more room on the schedule. We just gotta accept the fact that FOX has to make room for terrific shows like Dark Angel, Titus, Undeclared, Action, That 80's Show, Wonder Falls, Fast Lane, Andy Richter Controls The Universe, Skin, Girl's Club, Cracking Up, The Pitts, Firefly, Get Real, Freaky Links, Wanda At Large, Costello, The Lone Gunman, A Minute with Stan Hooper, Normal Ohio, Pasadena, Harsh Realm, Keen Eddy, The Street, American Embassy, Cedric The Entertainer, The Tick, Louie, And Greg The Bunny...
Lois: Is there no hope?
Peter: Well I suppose if ALL those shows go down the tubes we might have a shot.
What about the freedom of citizens to not be spammed by (potentially abusive) phone calls?
When they stop spamming me with their crap teen pop "music" over the radio in every business I visit, THEN they can expect the same courtesy.
In the meantime, they're asking for it.
Nobody is forcing you to buy music from major record labels. [...]
That's where your analogy colapses. Whereas the British had soldiers with guns that actually did force you to do something (i.e. pay taxes)
Nobody was forcing anyone in Boston to buy any tea, either.
This is why we have universities. The drug companies might get there first because they have larger budgets and a narrower focus, but independent research labs will make the discovery eventually.
Well, ideally.
Unfortunatly, they're in bed together. So it's not a given.
That's a pretty ridiculous thing to say. Yes, pharmaceutical companies want to make a buck, but scientists are human beings and many of them are doing their best to create the best drugs they can to help people. To think that they're intentionally withholding drugs or not trying to cure diseases to keep making money is simply ridiculous and paranoid.
Sorry, it's not. Between a cure and a treatment, drug companies will pick the treatment. Those scientists might want to save the world, but they signed an NDA that might have them simply reduce the world's suffering through sustained use of a lesser product. The scientists don't make the research budget, they don't controll what gets kept under the lid.
And if you think drug companies are very ethical and always act in the best interest of the public, you need to read a bit more about their past actions.
I always found the Oddworld games to be visually stunning.
You can say that again!
story with a headline that will start an instant flame war.
;-)
More pageviews means more money.
And it worked on both of us!
Although, I suspect that the editors just want to read the +5 funnies
First, remember; this is a song, not meant to be a logically rigorous defense of theology nor a mathematical proof we're talking about.
Tell it to the dark age monks... but about the psalm...
That's why it's in Psalms.
Where in psalms? I looked, it's not where the GP said.
Closest I could find from memory and a bit of google was in ecclesiastes, go have a look.
Now it's quite possible that there's a sound theological argument here, but I really don't care what it is; the point is that it's not being made, and the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premise. One would think that Sagan himself would be aware of something like this, given that he is the author (but by no means inventor) of the Baloney Detection Kit.
And while you're at your bible, look at Luke 6:42.
If "it" doesn't strictly refer to the physical composition of the earth and cosmos, then the poster you responded to has a valid question.
Well, hard to tell, since psalm 119 doesn't say what the original poster think it says.
I think, though, he meant: Ecclesiastes 1:9 (English Standard Version)
Which does refer specifically to the physical world.
As it was in the beginning, is now, and always shall be: for ever and ever.
to
unchanged since Creation and would remain unchanged forever after
is a non sequitur
Please explain how "it was always like this and it will never change" does not equate to "it's been this way forever and this is how it will stay".
"I can only hope that Google hires some gymnastic girls in tights to defend their site."
Me too!