"I can't believe the Democrats will be stupid enough to run Hillary. "
You are missing an important fact - deep down inside, in a place they hope no one can see, many Democrats want Bill Clinton as President for Life. And they think that, by electing Hillary, they will really be getting Bill.
"There are a lot of Republicans who just WON'T vote for McCain. "
Yep, and if they are typically loudmouth about it. Which is going to be really interesting, because:
1) Loudmouths are loudmouths, and won't stop being so after election. 2) If Hillary wins, the same Repubs who sat out the election will be loudly proclaiming what a shitty president Hillary is/will be. 3) the internet is forever.
therefor 4) Republicans who sit out the general election because they don't like McCain need to be struck dumb and have their fingers amputated or they will be subject to the biggest flamefest in the history of the internet when they try to tell other Repubs how badly they failed in allowing Hillary to get elected.
A simple multiplier is far too crude. The proper mathematical representation is (N-1)!. This represents the sex act with all different partners, not double counting. This does not factor in sex by oneself, which would change it to (N)!, or variations in position, which would be N*(N-1)!. However, these are advanced topics in Theory and Practice of Sexual Coupling, and given the experience level of the majority of Slashdot readers, may be too advanced.
"*Why is it, when talking about gay porn, it is always about two men having sex but no one seems to have a problem with two women having sex? Why is the chant, "It's Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve" rather than, "It's Adam and Eve not Shannon and Eve"?"
Simple arithmetic, my friend.
Naked Woman: +1 Naked Man: -1 Sex Act: +1
So...
Man+woman+sex=+1-1+1=+1
Man+man+sex=-1-1+1=-1
Woman+woman+sex=+1+1+1=3
As is plainly demonstrated, visual representations of lesbians having sex are 3 times as good as those representing heterosexual couples, whereas visual representations of gays having sex are the opposite of good, which is to say, bad.
For the student: Assign numerical values to various sex acts and intermediate/alternate genders/species and present all permutations for any 4 factors.
You are correct, but wholly off topic. In my case, the leak was caused by a missing plastic shield. When it rained heavily, the rain would sheet down the windshield and hit the windshield wiper, which happened to be shaped enough like a ramp that the water jumped over, right into the open vent, then down through the air intake for the heater. I couldn't find it for months, as it only happened when it rained heavily, and I wouldn't go outside to watch.
I checked the heater core, I re-sealed the windshield, and finally just put a basin in the footwell, emptying it after a heavy rain. I finally figured it out after taking a hose to the car and sticking my head under the dashboard.
Careful: "Circumstantial" evidence is a large category. For instance, if you walk in to a room and a 4 year old has blueberry pie all over his face, and there is an empty blueberry pie pan next to him, I think it's safe to say beyond a reasonable doubt that he ate some pie. No, you didn't SEE him eat the pie, and you haven't taken DNA samples, but someone is going to be in trouble nonetheless.
No, Sean Sturgeon *claims* to have killed a bunch of people. I don't believe he's been charged, much less prosecuted. He strikes me as a publicity whore, like that gut that confessed to the Jon Benet Ramsey killing.
"Nina Reiser was a physician"
That is either a huge non sequiter or I am missing something.
"Who the hell commits a crime with pair of books on crime in their vehicle, and then leave it all there for someone to find."
Umm, criminals? They aren't the smartest bunch, you know. Evidence? they get caught.
I used to offer up target shooting as another "sporting purpose" in addition to hunting, but I realized that it just plays into the gun control lobby's game.
1) Some firearms are designed as implements of war, i.e. killing. 2) Some people need to be killed. 3) It is not the state's right to determine IN ADVANCE that the individual cannot be given the power to kill, because to do so would be to deny the fundamental rights of self defense, defense of family, and defense of liberty.
Like I said, I had a perfectly good reason to have the seat removed, and I could explain why, when, and how the seat was removed. I could even recreate the leak. But my understanding is that Reiser hasn't offered a plausible explanation for the seat removal. Someone offered that street racers often remove their seats for weight savings, and they also favor Civics. But there's no evidence he was a street racer, and why wasn't the back seat removed?
There's a sizable amount of circumstantial evidence that he did it, with little plausible explanations in his defense. And no, "the other guy did it" doesn't convince me.
I know plenty of "non-fundy" conservatives. NO ONE believes Bloomberg is a conservative, except liberal reactionaries who automatically equate "rich" with "conservative". Every commentator who brings up the subject opines on how a Bloomberg run would affect the Democrats, not the Republicans.
"If the GOP were nominating a religious fanatic, he'd be able to draw enough secular conservatives to do well, but with McCain getting the GOP nomination, the constituency just isn't there for him."
Are you kidding? Every conservative I know views Bloomberg as a sneaking, dishonest limousine liberal who posed as a Republican to get the NY Mayoralty and then did absolutely zero to live up to the moniker. He's basically Corzine, only less honest.
Believe it or not, I have been in a situation where I had a removed front passenger seat and a soaked footwell. I was having a problem with water getting into the car and couldn't find it. It was coming from under the dashboard, so I removed the seat so I could get my head in there to look closely. But then I ran out of time, so I just left it like that till next weekend.
Sure enough, during the week I got pulled over for speeding. The cop certainly looked at me funny, but I didn't have a warrant out for my arrest, so all was OK.
I'd email this story to Reiser's lawyers, but for 2 things: 1) I had a VW, and the leak was idiosyncratic to that model. He drove a Civic. 2) I think he's guilty.
"Where gun culture plays into it is that there is a ridiculous degree of resistance to legitimate regulation on people buying weapons that serve no purpose other than killing people. Gun nuts that support not just the use of pistols, rifles and shotguns for hunting, but also fully automatic weapons for hunting as well."
Your argument proceeds from a false premise: that the only legitimate use for a firearm in civilian hands is hunting. Firearms can be used for many reasons - hunting, punching little (or big) holes in paper and tin cans and other stuff, and finally, killing people. Yes, having the ability to kill someone is a perfectly legitimate reason for someone to own a firearm. The right to self defense and defense of one's kin is a fundamental right, needing no explanation. Likewise, if one needs to use lethal force to implement that right, then the right to have that lethal force available is implicit. Every single citizen of the planet has the right to be able to kill someone if the circumstances dictate; abridging that right is tyranny. That does not mean that there are no consequences to improperly exercising that right, but that is the same with all rights.
The founding fathers also recognized another right besides self defense - armed resistance to a tyrannical government. The right to bear arms is a bulwark against government run amok, and the founders recognized that. Don't like it? Change the constitution.
Oh, BTW, you are confusing "full automatic" with "semi-automatic" - the first means that more than one projectile can be discharged with a single pull of the trigger; the second is better termed "self loading", in that the action is cycled using the firearm's own energy, not the users. And I have never seen anyone advocate the use of fully automatic weapons for hunting, and I'm sure you haven't either. As for semi-auto weapons, yes, they do have a legitimate hunting purpose, in that they can be used effectively to hunt. How much more legitimacy do you want?
I believe there are legal consequences to making public statements like that, but I forget the legal principle - it basically says "once you announce something in public, you can't just 'take it back'".
"All of that considerably cheaper than USA or UK and a lot of that much better quality than the USA or UK. They buy some avionics from BAE, but otherwise their weapons industry is mostly native. In fact, IIRC, USA is importing some small arms from Sweden for their special forces. So does UK."
While I admire the Swede's determination to keep a homegrown arms industry, lets not get too carried away. The US buys weapons from EVERYWHERE - FN of Belgium has been selling a lot to the Army, the M1 Abrams tank barrels come from Germany. Britain is the same. I wouldn't go crowing about the superiority of Swedish weapons because they've sold a few on the international market.
As for the Gripen, it's development was bit checkered. Sweden sunk a lot of money into the development of a fighter they could call their own, only to wind up with the functional equivalent of an F-16 - IIRC it was a minor scandal at the time, because they could have bought a fleet top grade F16's for less than the development costs of 1 Gripen.
There are plenty of reasons to keep a native arms industry - economy and quality aren't necessarily 2 of them.
Slashdot Mirror
Pleasepleasepleaseplease...
"Fomer mayor Frank Rizzo once claimed that the Philadelphia police department could invade Cuba and win."
Considering the Phila PD had their own Luftwaffe ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Move_bombing#MOVE_organization ), I tend to agree.
"I can't believe the Democrats will be stupid enough to run Hillary. "
You are missing an important fact - deep down inside, in a place they hope no one can see, many Democrats want Bill Clinton as President for Life. And they think that, by electing Hillary, they will really be getting Bill.
"There are a lot of Republicans who just WON'T vote for McCain. "
Yep, and if they are typically loudmouth about it. Which is going to be really interesting, because:
1) Loudmouths are loudmouths, and won't stop being so after election.
2) If Hillary wins, the same Repubs who sat out the election will be loudly proclaiming what a shitty president Hillary is/will be.
3) the internet is forever.
therefor
4) Republicans who sit out the general election because they don't like McCain need to be struck dumb and have their fingers amputated or they will be subject to the biggest flamefest in the history of the internet when they try to tell other Repubs how badly they failed in allowing Hillary to get elected.
It's "Don't vote? Don't bitch!" but on steroids.
So are you saying the data on Igor Sikorsky in the Wikipedia article isn't true? Or are you just a blowhard?
Because Slashdot is like the Special Olympics - the more retarded your opinions are, the higher you get modded.
(Yes, I am going to hell. See you there.)
"alternate between arrogant and whiny thus damaging its case in the court of public opinion."
Hmmm...sounds like every liberal blowhard I can think of.
Here's a hint - if you want folks to listen to you, try reasonable, and even indignant.
WTF is "ground setting? *&$^#% editors...oh, wait, this is /.
Nevermind.
A simple multiplier is far too crude. The proper mathematical representation is (N-1)!. This represents the sex act with all different partners, not double counting. This does not factor in sex by oneself, which would change it to (N)!, or variations in position, which would be N*(N-1)!. However, these are advanced topics in Theory and Practice of Sexual Coupling, and given the experience level of the majority of Slashdot readers, may be too advanced.
"*Why is it, when talking about gay porn, it is always about two men having sex but no one seems to have a problem with two women having sex? Why is the chant, "It's Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve" rather than, "It's Adam and Eve not Shannon and Eve"?"
Simple arithmetic, my friend.
Naked Woman: +1
Naked Man: -1
Sex Act: +1
So...
Man+woman+sex=+1-1+1=+1
Man+man+sex=-1-1+1=-1
Woman+woman+sex=+1+1+1=3
As is plainly demonstrated, visual representations of lesbians having sex are 3 times as good as those representing heterosexual couples, whereas visual representations of gays having sex are the opposite of good, which is to say, bad.
For the student: Assign numerical values to various sex acts and intermediate/alternate genders/species and present all permutations for any 4 factors.
You are correct, but wholly off topic. In my case, the leak was caused by a missing plastic shield. When it rained heavily, the rain would sheet down the windshield and hit the windshield wiper, which happened to be shaped enough like a ramp that the water jumped over, right into the open vent, then down through the air intake for the heater. I couldn't find it for months, as it only happened when it rained heavily, and I wouldn't go outside to watch.
I checked the heater core, I re-sealed the windshield, and finally just put a basin in the footwell, emptying it after a heavy rain. I finally figured it out after taking a hose to the car and sticking my head under the dashboard.
The missing shield was $2 at the local junkyard.
Careful: "Circumstantial" evidence is a large category. For instance, if you walk in to a room and a 4 year old has blueberry pie all over his face, and there is an empty blueberry pie pan next to him, I think it's safe to say beyond a reasonable doubt that he ate some pie. No, you didn't SEE him eat the pie, and you haven't taken DNA samples, but someone is going to be in trouble nonetheless.
"Sean Sturgeon is a known killer,"
No, Sean Sturgeon *claims* to have killed a bunch of people. I don't believe he's been charged, much less prosecuted. He strikes me as a publicity whore, like that gut that confessed to the Jon Benet Ramsey killing.
"Nina Reiser was a physician"
That is either a huge non sequiter or I am missing something.
"Who the hell commits a crime with pair of books on crime in their vehicle, and then leave it all there for someone to find."
Umm, criminals? They aren't the smartest bunch, you know. Evidence? they get caught.
I used to offer up target shooting as another "sporting purpose" in addition to hunting, but I realized that it just plays into the gun control lobby's game.
1) Some firearms are designed as implements of war, i.e. killing.
2) Some people need to be killed.
3) It is not the state's right to determine IN ADVANCE that the individual cannot be given the power to kill, because to do so would be to deny the fundamental rights of self defense, defense of family, and defense of liberty.
Mostly it is the seat.
Like I said, I had a perfectly good reason to have the seat removed, and I could explain why, when, and how the seat was removed. I could even recreate the leak. But my understanding is that Reiser hasn't offered a plausible explanation for the seat removal. Someone offered that street racers often remove their seats for weight savings, and they also favor Civics. But there's no evidence he was a street racer, and why wasn't the back seat removed?
There's a sizable amount of circumstantial evidence that he did it, with little plausible explanations in his defense. And no, "the other guy did it" doesn't convince me.
I know plenty of "non-fundy" conservatives. NO ONE believes Bloomberg is a conservative, except liberal reactionaries who automatically equate "rich" with "conservative". Every commentator who brings up the subject opines on how a Bloomberg run would affect the Democrats, not the Republicans.
Really, what are his conservative credentials?
I remember Dennis Miller describing him as "a Hobbit in a golf cart."
Best.Description.EVAR
"If the GOP were nominating a religious fanatic, he'd be able to draw enough secular conservatives to do well, but with McCain getting the GOP nomination, the constituency just isn't there for him."
Are you kidding? Every conservative I know views Bloomberg as a sneaking, dishonest limousine liberal who posed as a Republican to get the NY Mayoralty and then did absolutely zero to live up to the moniker. He's basically Corzine, only less honest.
I'm all for him running - he can throw the election to the Republicans like he did last time.
Believe it or not, I have been in a situation where I had a removed front passenger seat and a soaked footwell. I was having a problem with water getting into the car and couldn't find it. It was coming from under the dashboard, so I removed the seat so I could get my head in there to look closely. But then I ran out of time, so I just left it like that till next weekend.
Sure enough, during the week I got pulled over for speeding. The cop certainly looked at me funny, but I didn't have a warrant out for my arrest, so all was OK.
I'd email this story to Reiser's lawyers, but for 2 things:
1) I had a VW, and the leak was idiosyncratic to that model. He drove a Civic.
2) I think he's guilty.
"Where gun culture plays into it is that there is a ridiculous degree of resistance to legitimate regulation on people buying weapons that serve no purpose other than killing people. Gun nuts that support not just the use of pistols, rifles and shotguns for hunting, but also fully automatic weapons for hunting as well."
Your argument proceeds from a false premise: that the only legitimate use for a firearm in civilian hands is hunting. Firearms can be used for many reasons - hunting, punching little (or big) holes in paper and tin cans and other stuff, and finally, killing people. Yes, having the ability to kill someone is a perfectly legitimate reason for someone to own a firearm. The right to self defense and defense of one's kin is a fundamental right, needing no explanation. Likewise, if one needs to use lethal force to implement that right, then the right to have that lethal force available is implicit. Every single citizen of the planet has the right to be able to kill someone if the circumstances dictate; abridging that right is tyranny. That does not mean that there are no consequences to improperly exercising that right, but that is the same with all rights.
The founding fathers also recognized another right besides self defense - armed resistance to a tyrannical government. The right to bear arms is a bulwark against government run amok, and the founders recognized that. Don't like it? Change the constitution.
Oh, BTW, you are confusing "full automatic" with "semi-automatic" - the first means that more than one projectile can be discharged with a single pull of the trigger; the second is better termed "self loading", in that the action is cycled using the firearm's own energy, not the users. And I have never seen anyone advocate the use of fully automatic weapons for hunting, and I'm sure you haven't either. As for semi-auto weapons, yes, they do have a legitimate hunting purpose, in that they can be used effectively to hunt. How much more legitimacy do you want?
There is no comparison. The IBM Model M Keyboard is the Chuck Norris of Keyboards.
1) Chuck Norris
2) Model M
3) Cage
4) Pay per view
5) PROFIT!
I believe there are legal consequences to making public statements like that, but I forget the legal principle - it basically says "once you announce something in public, you can't just 'take it back'".
"All of that considerably cheaper than USA or UK and a lot of that much better quality than the USA or UK. They buy some avionics from BAE, but otherwise their weapons industry is mostly native. In fact, IIRC, USA is importing some small arms from Sweden for their special forces. So does UK."
While I admire the Swede's determination to keep a homegrown arms industry, lets not get too carried away. The US buys weapons from EVERYWHERE - FN of Belgium has been selling a lot to the Army, the M1 Abrams tank barrels come from Germany. Britain is the same. I wouldn't go crowing about the superiority of Swedish weapons because they've sold a few on the international market.
As for the Gripen, it's development was bit checkered. Sweden sunk a lot of money into the development of a fighter they could call their own, only to wind up with the functional equivalent of an F-16 - IIRC it was a minor scandal at the time, because they could have bought a fleet top grade F16's for less than the development costs of 1 Gripen.
There are plenty of reasons to keep a native arms industry - economy and quality aren't necessarily 2 of them.
I bet he has a vewy good fwiend in Wome named Bigus Dickus.