I don't know whether you realize that calling those who believe otherwise is quite literally presumptive and indeed a form of ridicule.
Actually I am a lot more in tune with you on lifestyle than I probably let on. My car gets 46-48 mpg and goes well over 600 miles on a tank, and fairly often over 700. I use fluorescents and LEDs. My desktop PC is low power and my notebook is ultra low power. I don't use air conditioning at all. I make these choices on my own; not because some fascist thugs force me to. And these choices don't puff me up at all - I don't care one way or the other if anybody else makes the same ones, and they don't make me better or worse than anybody else.
But AGW is pure and transparent religious bullshit. And you can bet on this: any suggestion of enforcing bullshit policies on free men through arrogant force makes me plenty angry. Short of that, confrontational is about the last thing I am.
I drive the 1.9TDI variant and on one 55l tank of diesel I drive 900-1050Km (550-650 miles roughly).
Most US consumers are about as intelligent as a turtle, but we do have the Golf and Jetta (Bora in the real world) and (until recently) New Beetle TDI here, and some of us have the sense to buy them. Actually the TDI is quite prevalent on VW dealer lots these days. My best tank of fuel in my 99.5 Golf TDI has been 792 miles, and that is with an AUTOMATIC transmission. I regularly get well over 600 miles. Ours was detuned to 90 hp (raised to 100 for 2004 and 140 for 2009), but with all the torque it feels like much more and is plenty fun to drive. But get this - ONLY VW (and Audi and Mercedes, but at insane prices) offers a diesel passenger car in the US, so I ask you: is it the chicken or the egg that comes first?
Oh, and VW offers financing deals in the US, but specifically NOT ON DIESELS! And they won't bring the Polo TDI here.
The secret to having real fun in a TDI is to upgrade the suspension to Bilstein PSS9 so you don't have to slow down as much on the corners.
The problem is that I saw the VW Golf (you call it Rabbit now)
OK, they have changed the name back to Golf in the US. There is no limit to the inanity of the US arm of VW. The name history of this line over the years has literally been Rabbit, Golf, Rabbit, Golf.
In THEORY we have a two party democratic republic. In REALITY we have a corruptocracy composed of a consipiracy between politicians and mega-corporations. The two parties are a charade. They are tweedledum and tweedledee.
Concrete is not "stronger" than steel, it is simply better in compression than steel (it can support more weight).
That is wildly incorrect. Concrete is very usable in compressive members, and is used for a variety of reasons (cost being an extremely important reason), but none of the reasons is because it is stronger than steel. High strength concrete is defined by the American Concrete Institute as having greater than 6000 psi compressive strength. Concrete with 12,000 psi strength is used in structures requiring high performance, and represents a slightly higher strength than was thought possible in 1970. You can get concrete of 19,000 psi strength if you want to pay for it.
Regular dirt cheap time honored 1012 carbon steel had a strength of about 50,000 psi. Concrete is not stronger than that, eh? High strength structural steel is at least 80,000 psi. "Maraging" steel's strength is over 200,000 psi and up to 300,000 psi.
Strength to weight ratio is of course what matters, and here concrete looks considerably better because of its low density. In these terms it's close to so-called high strength structural steel, but doesn't even come close to something like maraging steel, and is outperformed by plain old 6061-T6 aluminum alloy.
Actually, they were going damn fast. The terrorists felt free to break all FAA air traffic rules. They were going hell bent for leather at very low altitude; something commercial planes never do. The speed at the time of striking the buildings has been variously estimated (by examining frames of video) from 503 to 590 mph at approximately 1000 feet altitude. It was possible to reach this speed at such a low altitude, in dense air, because they were in a shallow dive. Yes, this is subsonic, but I would hardly call it "slow." This is part of the reason for the devastating effects of the strikes. The buildings had been designed for jetliner impact, but it had been assumed that any jetliner at that altitude was in a landing or takeoff phase, and would have been going not much over 200 mph.
Horse shit. You don't understand the concept of jury trials. Juries have COMPLETE power to render any verdict. Look up "jury nullification" some time. The term sounds like a precise, carefully codified provision of law. It isn't. It's an expression of the power of a jury to express its will free of restraint, long established in common law. The jury can acquit because they think the defendant is a jolly fellow and they like the cut of his jib. Or they can acquit because to do otherwise would be a violation of justice. Regardless of the law! They can acquit for ANY reason. And they CANNOT be compelled to give a reason.
There is not even any basis for a judge to declare a mistrial if he feels that a jury has "obviously" rendered a "wrong" verdict. A mistrial can only be applied for very specific cause.
In short, juries are not limited in what they may consider; their ability to weigh any evidence or fact or feeling or anything else is not circumscribed. The judge may "instruct" in any terms he pleases, and they are free to reject such "instruction."
Long live freedom, and long live the traditional jury system. It is a triumphal expression of putting limits on "the system."
_This_ jury was a compliant, cog-in-the-system disgrace, however. This, sadly, is not a rarity. Non-compliant jury candidates are carefully weeded out by the prosecution during the selection process, if they catch the smell of truly free, self thinking people in the jury pool.
I mean for chrissake, how hard can it be to take a domain name and return an IP, and vice versa? It's a database with a coupla queries. Sheesh. And why churn out code that is full of security vulnerabilities? A security vulnerability is a shitty piece of code. Plain and simple.
With all the collective intellect of slashdot users, hasn't it even occurred to a single one of you geniuses that maybe, just maybe, this news is a bit of disinformation that has been spread deliberately to obscure some kind of real reorganization/shakeup that is taking place? Huh? I doubt in the extreme that the DOD has gone to war with the CIA, or that they are this blatantly making like the Keystone Kops.
[operator] Machine: orders: dot the i's, cross the t's, and kill [cosmic ray strikes machine] [machine] Cross the i's, dot the t's, kill, aye aye sir... done [operator] Good work... oh, wait... oh no...
Well, there has to be SOME barrier to inclusion on the ballot, so the entire white pages doesn't end up on an 8-mile-long ballot. I certainly agree that the barrier seems to be too high. It seems to me that somewhere around 1/2-1% is a more reasonable requirement; certainly the effort should be to ensure that practically no contests end up as two-way races, while the list is seldom longer than, say, 6-12. And certainly the petitions ought to be allowed to be online, so the resources involved are not so beyond the means of almost all candidates.
The specifics are debatable, but this sidesteps the issue, anyway. The issue is why the people are not more interested in dealing a death blow to two party hegemony as the approval ratings of incumbents as a whole plunge toward zero. Just to begin with, why are they so unresponsive to write-in campaigns? It does tax one's faith in humanity.
Why do poor people need broadband internet: Since when is broadband internet a right, and the government has to intervene to make sure everyone has it. That is total crap. It's literally stealing my money, and giving it to someone else.
I'm going to assume your post is not pure sarcasm, and is merely a true expression of extreme libertarianism. Its not genuine conservatism, if that's what you think it is. If this is a mistake, sorry, but it was the poorest attempt at sarcasm I have ever seen.
First, get over the "right" hangup. The debate should be framed in terms of whether it should be an entitlement. And knock off the dismissive term "poor people."
Discounting any argument based on social contract, please consider that it is in the interest of anyone who wants wiser, more enlightened, more efficient, and more effective government to have voters who are well informed and able to readily interact in the true, cross section of society, commons -- for which the internet is ideally suited. Anything that effectively acts against the establishment and perpetuation of a turned-off, resentful, disadvantaged underclass is good for everyone. And, sheesh, the per capita expense involved is so small. You had better worry instead about burgeoning, crippling health care expense and national indebtedness on an insane, unsustainable level, which can only lead to a future of unimaginable inflation and poverty.
If you really want a worthwhile debate, think about whether the Great Society and the War on Poverty has led to an improved situation with respect to the social underclass, or a hopeless perpetuation of same.
Actually, in the U.S., though entrenched interests in the name of the two party system (the Tweedledees and the Tweedledums, a.k.a. Demicans and Republicrats) do indeed control the political scene, it is only because of the sheep-like mentality of the stupid bulk of voters. Nothing limits their choice to the two main party candidates except their own mentality (not wanting to vote for someone who "can't win", a self-fulfilling attitude if there ever was one). There are usually other parties represented on the ballot for national office contests, and even if not, anyone can write in any individual's name, and if they are legally qualified, the winner will indeed be awarded the office.
The existence, and a picture of what it is claimed to look like, is not a secret, but just about everything else about it appears to be a secret. How come the Wikipedia page is virtually empty? There is some good insight here: discussion . The X-37B seems to be a pretty extensive rework of X-37A, so information about X-37A, which was nothing but a glider without any reentry heat protection, is not of much use.
Slashdot Mirror
Way to miss the point. Spectacular.
I know I'm a straight man stepping into a pool of goo, but ... WHY?
To the fucking asshole who moded this troll. Get a brain. Words have meaning, moron.
Horse shit. Making a copy is not stealing. Get your terms right.
Purely as a semantic question, is the positive end of the political bigotry spectrum "more bigoted" or "less bigoted?"
I guess it depends on whether you use positive in the sense of "more," or in the sense of "better."
"Pedantic," eh? Is that what some of us mean when we say "correct?"
WHAT preeminence???
Well, that sure puts them in their place. LG can now only expect to sell 7,849,999 players in 2010 instead of the prior estimate of 7,850,000.
(LG Sales Projections)
I don't know whether you realize that calling those who believe otherwise is quite literally presumptive and indeed a form of ridicule.
Actually I am a lot more in tune with you on lifestyle than I probably let on. My car gets 46-48 mpg and goes well over 600 miles on a tank, and fairly often over 700. I use fluorescents and LEDs. My desktop PC is low power and my notebook is ultra low power. I don't use air conditioning at all. I make these choices on my own; not because some fascist thugs force me to. And these choices don't puff me up at all - I don't care one way or the other if anybody else makes the same ones, and they don't make me better or worse than anybody else.
But AGW is pure and transparent religious bullshit. And you can bet on this: any suggestion of enforcing bullshit policies on free men through arrogant force makes me plenty angry. Short of that, confrontational is about the last thing I am.
Most US consumers are about as intelligent as a turtle, but we do have the Golf and Jetta (Bora in the real world) and (until recently) New Beetle TDI here, and some of us have the sense to buy them. Actually the TDI is quite prevalent on VW dealer lots these days. My best tank of fuel in my 99.5 Golf TDI has been 792 miles, and that is with an AUTOMATIC transmission. I regularly get well over 600 miles. Ours was detuned to 90 hp (raised to 100 for 2004 and 140 for 2009), but with all the torque it feels like much more and is plenty fun to drive. But get this - ONLY VW (and Audi and Mercedes, but at insane prices) offers a diesel passenger car in the US, so I ask you: is it the chicken or the egg that comes first?
Oh, and VW offers financing deals in the US, but specifically NOT ON DIESELS! And they won't bring the Polo TDI here.
The secret to having real fun in a TDI is to upgrade the suspension to Bilstein PSS9 so you don't have to slow down as much on the corners.
OK, they have changed the name back to Golf in the US. There is no limit to the inanity of the US arm of VW. The name history of this line over the years has literally been Rabbit, Golf, Rabbit, Golf.
Evidently the people you ridicule are smarter than you are.
In THEORY we have a two party democratic republic. In REALITY we have a corruptocracy composed of a consipiracy between politicians and mega-corporations. The two parties are a charade. They are tweedledum and tweedledee.
That is wildly incorrect. Concrete is very usable in compressive members, and is used for a variety of reasons (cost being an extremely important reason), but none of the reasons is because it is stronger than steel. High strength concrete is defined by the American Concrete Institute as having greater than 6000 psi compressive strength. Concrete with 12,000 psi strength is used in structures requiring high performance, and represents a slightly higher strength than was thought possible in 1970. You can get concrete of 19,000 psi strength if you want to pay for it.
Regular dirt cheap time honored 1012 carbon steel had a strength of about 50,000 psi. Concrete is not stronger than that, eh? High strength structural steel is at least 80,000 psi. "Maraging" steel's strength is over 200,000 psi and up to 300,000 psi.
Strength to weight ratio is of course what matters, and here concrete looks considerably better because of its low density. In these terms it's close to so-called high strength structural steel, but doesn't even come close to something like maraging steel, and is outperformed by plain old 6061-T6 aluminum alloy.
Actually, they were going damn fast. The terrorists felt free to break all FAA air traffic rules. They were going hell bent for leather at very low altitude; something commercial planes never do. The speed at the time of striking the buildings has been variously estimated (by examining frames of video) from 503 to 590 mph at approximately 1000 feet altitude. It was possible to reach this speed at such a low altitude, in dense air, because they were in a shallow dive. Yes, this is subsonic, but I would hardly call it "slow." This is part of the reason for the devastating effects of the strikes. The buildings had been designed for jetliner impact, but it had been assumed that any jetliner at that altitude was in a landing or takeoff phase, and would have been going not much over 200 mph.
Sorry. You do know that sarcasm does not survive the writing of it?
Yes, there is always the spectre of a contempt charge from a tyrannical judge.
Horse shit. You don't understand the concept of jury trials. Juries have COMPLETE power to render any verdict. Look up "jury nullification" some time. The term sounds like a precise, carefully codified provision of law. It isn't. It's an expression of the power of a jury to express its will free of restraint, long established in common law. The jury can acquit because they think the defendant is a jolly fellow and they like the cut of his jib. Or they can acquit because to do otherwise would be a violation of justice. Regardless of the law! They can acquit for ANY reason. And they CANNOT be compelled to give a reason.
There is not even any basis for a judge to declare a mistrial if he feels that a jury has "obviously" rendered a "wrong" verdict. A mistrial can only be applied for very specific cause.
In short, juries are not limited in what they may consider; their ability to weigh any evidence or fact or feeling or anything else is not circumscribed. The judge may "instruct" in any terms he pleases, and they are free to reject such "instruction."
Long live freedom, and long live the traditional jury system. It is a triumphal expression of putting limits on "the system."
_This_ jury was a compliant, cog-in-the-system disgrace, however. This, sadly, is not a rarity. Non-compliant jury candidates are carefully weeded out by the prosecution during the selection process, if they catch the smell of truly free, self thinking people in the jury pool.
I mean for chrissake, how hard can it be to take a domain name and return an IP, and vice versa? It's a database with a coupla queries. Sheesh. And why churn out code that is full of security vulnerabilities? A security vulnerability is a shitty piece of code. Plain and simple.
With all the collective intellect of slashdot users, hasn't it even occurred to a single one of you geniuses that maybe, just maybe, this news is a bit of disinformation that has been spread deliberately to obscure some kind of real reorganization/shakeup that is taking place? Huh? I doubt in the extreme that the DOD has gone to war with the CIA, or that they are this blatantly making like the Keystone Kops.
[operator] Machine: orders: dot the i's, cross the t's, and kill ... done ... oh, wait ... oh no ...
[cosmic ray strikes machine]
[machine] Cross the i's, dot the t's, kill, aye aye sir
[operator] Good work
Well, there has to be SOME barrier to inclusion on the ballot, so the entire white pages doesn't end up on an 8-mile-long ballot. I certainly agree that the barrier seems to be too high. It seems to me that somewhere around 1/2-1% is a more reasonable requirement; certainly the effort should be to ensure that practically no contests end up as two-way races, while the list is seldom longer than, say, 6-12. And certainly the petitions ought to be allowed to be online, so the resources involved are not so beyond the means of almost all candidates.
The specifics are debatable, but this sidesteps the issue, anyway. The issue is why the people are not more interested in dealing a death blow to two party hegemony as the approval ratings of incumbents as a whole plunge toward zero. Just to begin with, why are they so unresponsive to write-in campaigns? It does tax one's faith in humanity.
I'm going to assume your post is not pure sarcasm, and is merely a true expression of extreme libertarianism. Its not genuine conservatism, if that's what you think it is. If this is a mistake, sorry, but it was the poorest attempt at sarcasm I have ever seen.
First, get over the "right" hangup. The debate should be framed in terms of whether it should be an entitlement. And knock off the dismissive term "poor people."
Discounting any argument based on social contract, please consider that it is in the interest of anyone who wants wiser, more enlightened, more efficient, and more effective government to have voters who are well informed and able to readily interact in the true, cross section of society, commons -- for which the internet is ideally suited. Anything that effectively acts against the establishment and perpetuation of a turned-off, resentful, disadvantaged underclass is good for everyone. And, sheesh, the per capita expense involved is so small. You had better worry instead about burgeoning, crippling health care expense and national indebtedness on an insane, unsustainable level, which can only lead to a future of unimaginable inflation and poverty.
If you really want a worthwhile debate, think about whether the Great Society and the War on Poverty has led to an improved situation with respect to the social underclass, or a hopeless perpetuation of same.
Actually, in the U.S., though entrenched interests in the name of the two party system (the Tweedledees and the Tweedledums, a.k.a. Demicans and Republicrats) do indeed control the political scene, it is only because of the sheep-like mentality of the stupid bulk of voters. Nothing limits their choice to the two main party candidates except their own mentality (not wanting to vote for someone who "can't win", a self-fulfilling attitude if there ever was one). There are usually other parties represented on the ballot for national office contests, and even if not, anyone can write in any individual's name, and if they are legally qualified, the winner will indeed be awarded the office.
The existence, and a picture of what it is claimed to look like, is not a secret, but just about everything else about it appears to be a secret. How come the Wikipedia page is virtually empty? There is some good insight here: discussion . The X-37B seems to be a pretty extensive rework of X-37A, so information about X-37A, which was nothing but a glider without any reentry heat protection, is not of much use.
Neither the megacorporations nor the politicians are puppets. They are two conspirators skulking in the corner whispering to each other.