At the very least you have multiple use animals like sheep, where some are better for wool and others are better for meat, but there are also differences for different environments.
Another thing, look you, boyo - when it comes down to it, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, isn'it?
Perhaps he assumes that people should be pay[sic] attention to things in the decreasing order of probability of killing them?
Garbage.
One, because you can't pay attention to everything. Two, a low threat is not a zero threat. Three, a high threat plus a low threat is an even higher threat.
Do you smoke? Do you look before you cross the road? That's assuming you're old enough to do the former and allowed to do the latter by yourself.
Perhaps he assumes that adding a risk makes an existing one go away.
"Of course I wasn't distracted by watching a DVD while driving, officer - I was already distracted by the kids, the raging blizzard and the pain from my broken leg".
So it's designed for firefighting & rescue. Nice to see it's intended for a beneficial use. And who doesn't believe that? After all there's absolutely no reason at all that the Chinese might want to transport things like military equipment to places where there are no long-runway airfields but plenty of water.
Slashdot Mirror
Another thing, look you, boyo - when it comes down to it, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, isn'it?
Garbage.
One, because you can't pay attention to everything.
Two, a low threat is not a zero threat.
Three, a high threat plus a low threat is an even higher threat.
Do you smoke? Do you look before you cross the road? That's assuming you're old enough to do the former and allowed to do the latter by yourself.
I was talking about why "floating underwater" sounds wrong.
Did you read this bit of TFA?
I don't think they're talking about the same thing.
Indeed. And the way some people waste it, you'd think it just falls out of the sky.
Why is this better than sitting the tubes on the bottom?
The issue isn't about having some part below the water. It's about having none above it.
If you're doing serious riding in winter you could try a different oil.
That won't help encourage girls to consider STEM careers.
No aircraft of that time was capable of that. Do you know how much maintenance engines needed?
Perhaps he assumes that adding a risk makes an existing one go away.
"Of course I wasn't distracted by watching a DVD while driving, officer - I was already distracted by the kids, the raging blizzard and the pain from my broken leg".
Wrong. Henry V had to borrow money from Dick Whittington (yes, him with the cat). And he wasn't the only one.
s/means/causes/ and it's equally true.
That's precisely why they shouldn't be there. Because then they don't have to worry about them, moron.
As long as they don't wear red jackets and call themselves an army it's perfectly constitutional.
Ah. That would explain the total absence of PBY Catalinas in that theatre during WW2.
Spoken like someone who considers ground level to be up.
That's the most retarded thing I've ever read. You have a situation that already has intrinsic dangers, and you think adding an avoidable one helps?
At a distance they can look like apostrophes.
I'm sure drones could be useful - as part of a coordinated operation with other units - and they're probably considering it.
That's absolutely not the same as having rank amateurs wandering around wherever they please and getting in the way.
Or two from darkening.
So it's designed for firefighting & rescue. Nice to see it's intended for a beneficial use. And who doesn't believe that? After all there's absolutely no reason at all that the Chinese might want to transport things like military equipment to places where there are no long-runway airfields but plenty of water.
I wasna-with-a-hat(TM)t aware that it did.
You think you're an expert on logical fallacies, which you aren't. But you just hit the excluded middle bang dead centre.
It's not a fallacy, it's true. How many lines of Rust are in use compared to C or even COBOL?