First, put in some table salt. A couple tablespoons will do.
Then put in about half as much 90% isopropanol in as you would water.
Cover all the holes, and shake the hell out of it. The salt will act as an abrasive to remove the tar, because it won't dissolve in alcohol. The 10% water in the solvent will make the salt a little slushy, but this is good.
Then rinse it out and let it dry, or put it back in service once you can no longer smell alcohol.
Stem cleaning should also be done with alcohol, though pipe cleaners and cotton swabs work better than salt for things you can actually reach.
I'm willing to bet a disproportionate number of buyers will be enginerd types, and that very little will go wrong with them that isn't the result of deliberate experimentation.
It does? I haven't gotten it in a proper prescription bottle, ever so far. Sometimes I'll put it in one because they seal so nicely, but weed comes in much flimsier containers with simple flip lids. They're not bad for keeping an air seal, but they're not as good as the "push down and turn" caps. I'm sure they're also much cheaper to make (being one piece), and use somewhat less plastic.
If the storm kicked up after the people were already there, then those people should have been pulled into the most reinforced areas of the building (typically the office) until it passed, because walls do collapse. This is not an unforeseeable event. Get the people away from the most hazardous conditions and ride it out. Don't just keep working.
I suppose you'd argue against evacuating the entire building when there's a fire, too. Only move the people that will be in the way of the fire department. No. Overreaction for the sake of caution is tolerable when the events are infrequent enough.
I don't mean this was the fault of the workers. Quite the contrary. If conditions outside are such that it's barely safe for emergency crews, then an employer who is not involved directly in health and safety has no business calling its employees in to work. Now two people are dead because the warehouse couldn't deal with hunkering down for a storm.
I could see keeping a Wal-Mart open under such conditions. People may need things desperately, and people might need a place to shelter if things get really bad. But there is nothing that warehouse could do to help the situation right that moment, and it should have been left to a skeleton crew of security guards who can hunker down wherever they feel safe -- NOT try to work through the storm.
Attraction causes a force along the axis between the objects, but a repulsive one as part of a dipole pair is going to induce a torque on the magnets instead, since flipping one of them around to then attract is a lower energy state. The repulsion serves only as a means to move things around until they are attracted instead. Then they are bound to each other.
Someone will notice, but attribute it to Windows 10. They will probably see the image change, which is a normal Windows thing, and there you go. Background swapping got turned on. Someone adding more pictures will never occur to them.
Although it probably won't get the attention you sought, at least this is truly harmless. It doesn't have to be changed back, ever, and operations are not affected. This is more like wrapping everything on someone's desk in foil when they take a sick day and you're sure they're actually hung over (maybe because you were at the same party).
You are right that someone may retrieve it, but that is because it is not in the middle of nowhere. It's in orbit around an object that is rather easy to track, and is the largest object in its class (asteroid) by far. If it's not disturbed, and we as a species live long enough, then someone will pay it a visit.
First you have to win Congress, and the Senate, and the Presidency, and fill a couple Supreme Court seats currently held by "originalists".
Then you can start making noise about enacting something that won't just get repealed the next time power changes hands.
In the meantime, those you're worried about already have their guns. We should too. I'm even willing to give the ammosexuals money rather than buy new. (Not like money will mean much when lead starts flying.)
This transforms "what you know" into a shade of "who you are". Stay with passcodes and passwords. The legal system would love for us to all move to biometrics, so we can't "forget" and deny them access.
Accept gun control, and there are still 300 million firearms in the country, half of which are in a small number of hands that aren't going to relinquish them short of house-to-house searches (which will be resisted with lethal force).
Oh yes, the theory of appropriate inertia. This is not a debunking, this is a rationalization. Because Dvorak didn't succeed, it must suck, because good things never fail by virtue of being beaten to market. This is only "proof" if you are a true drinker of the free market kool-aid.
It's now officially sanctioned, but it's still a beta. I have previously been shouted down for proposing stories of beta releases -- "we aren't interested in unstable releases", I was told. Why is this one different?
How is this made any better by putting the human in the front vehicle? If they have to rely on sensors and displays anyhow, why not "lead" from a few vehicles back?
I have lots of problems with what the military is tasked with doing. I'm also quite skeptical that things like automated armeddrones are going to turn out well. But convoy vehicles that are, at best, moderately armored and lightly armed? It doesn't bother me at all of that particular aspect of warfare is made a little bit safer. It's NOT out killing people itself.
Why can't someone in one of the following vehicles be remotely driving the front one? This would at least force an attacker to make a lucky guess where the human is, and that human can also take over control of one of the other vehicles (even if it's just the one they're in) to peel the surviving convoy members away.
The positions of the parties were vastly different 150 years ago. The only things they really retained were the names. Republicans have moved further and further to the right, and an a direct consequence, so have the Democrats, merely by accepting the people who feel the Republicans have left them.
We don't actually know what a Democratic administration would do about state attempts at Net Neutrality, because the two have never overlapped. This is likely because a Democrat-appointed FCC chair never would have rammed the reversal through in the first place.
Medical cannabis, yes, a Democratic administration declined to crack down on it, and there is little doubt this is because the move would have been wildly unpopular. So far, no Republican administration has wanted to attack this one either, presumably for the same reason.
Immigration is a Federal issue, hands down. States don't hand out citizenship. However since the states are going BOTH directions relative to Federal policy (some are racial profiling, others are setting up sanctuaries), cracking down on this would either have to take on both sides (and piss off some allies no matter what side is doing it), or attack only one side which would open the issue to clear partisanship.
Second amendment rights: no, this isn't a states' rights thing. The two sides have vastly different interpretations of what the 2A means, and both are relatively consistent with their stated positions. Even Republicans don't think the 2A is absolute. You can't own a tank with a working cannon on it, although you can own a tank. You aren't allowed to make explosives without a license. You can't transfer a fully automatic weapon without going through a lot of paperwork and clearances -- which is a policy initiated by Reagan.
Calexit isn't any more than a bunch of talk, and last I checked, we were still allowed to talk.
No, Democrats are much more uniformly for a strong Federal government and less leeway for the states. Only the Republicans keep flipping back and forth as they find convenient.
Slashdot Mirror
You mean you won't know which unless your cat tells you. Because if the cat tells you anything at all, you're probably high.
Bong cleaning is easy.
First, put in some table salt. A couple tablespoons will do.
Then put in about half as much 90% isopropanol in as you would water.
Cover all the holes, and shake the hell out of it. The salt will act as an abrasive to remove the tar, because it won't dissolve in alcohol. The 10% water in the solvent will make the salt a little slushy, but this is good.
Then rinse it out and let it dry, or put it back in service once you can no longer smell alcohol.
Stem cleaning should also be done with alcohol, though pipe cleaners and cotton swabs work better than salt for things you can actually reach.
I'm willing to bet a disproportionate number of buyers will be enginerd types, and that very little will go wrong with them that isn't the result of deliberate experimentation.
It does? I haven't gotten it in a proper prescription bottle, ever so far. Sometimes I'll put it in one because they seal so nicely, but weed comes in much flimsier containers with simple flip lids. They're not bad for keeping an air seal, but they're not as good as the "push down and turn" caps. I'm sure they're also much cheaper to make (being one piece), and use somewhat less plastic.
If the storm kicked up after the people were already there, then those people should have been pulled into the most reinforced areas of the building (typically the office) until it passed, because walls do collapse. This is not an unforeseeable event. Get the people away from the most hazardous conditions and ride it out. Don't just keep working.
I suppose you'd argue against evacuating the entire building when there's a fire, too. Only move the people that will be in the way of the fire department. No. Overreaction for the sake of caution is tolerable when the events are infrequent enough.
I don't mean this was the fault of the workers. Quite the contrary. If conditions outside are such that it's barely safe for emergency crews, then an employer who is not involved directly in health and safety has no business calling its employees in to work. Now two people are dead because the warehouse couldn't deal with hunkering down for a storm.
I could see keeping a Wal-Mart open under such conditions. People may need things desperately, and people might need a place to shelter if things get really bad. But there is nothing that warehouse could do to help the situation right that moment, and it should have been left to a skeleton crew of security guards who can hunker down wherever they feel safe -- NOT try to work through the storm.
Attraction causes a force along the axis between the objects, but a repulsive one as part of a dipole pair is going to induce a torque on the magnets instead, since flipping one of them around to then attract is a lower energy state. The repulsion serves only as a means to move things around until they are attracted instead. Then they are bound to each other.
At least that's my guess what he's getting at.
Someone will notice, but attribute it to Windows 10. They will probably see the image change, which is a normal Windows thing, and there you go. Background swapping got turned on. Someone adding more pictures will never occur to them.
Although it probably won't get the attention you sought, at least this is truly harmless. It doesn't have to be changed back, ever, and operations are not affected. This is more like wrapping everything on someone's desk in foil when they take a sick day and you're sure they're actually hung over (maybe because you were at the same party).
You are right that someone may retrieve it, but that is because it is not in the middle of nowhere. It's in orbit around an object that is rather easy to track, and is the largest object in its class (asteroid) by far. If it's not disturbed, and we as a species live long enough, then someone will pay it a visit.
Did you know Jack the Ripper has been identified as... the Loch Ness Monster?
Bullshit or not?
First you have to win Congress, and the Senate, and the Presidency, and fill a couple Supreme Court seats currently held by "originalists".
Then you can start making noise about enacting something that won't just get repealed the next time power changes hands.
In the meantime, those you're worried about already have their guns. We should too. I'm even willing to give the ammosexuals money rather than buy new. (Not like money will mean much when lead starts flying.)
This transforms "what you know" into a shade of "who you are". Stay with passcodes and passwords. The legal system would love for us to all move to biometrics, so we can't "forget" and deny them access.
Accept gun control, and there are still 300 million firearms in the country, half of which are in a small number of hands that aren't going to relinquish them short of house-to-house searches (which will be resisted with lethal force).
Great idea for making cops feel safer there.
I used it with an xfce desktop. Everything was ugly.
Oh yes, the theory of appropriate inertia. This is not a debunking, this is a rationalization. Because Dvorak didn't succeed, it must suck, because good things never fail by virtue of being beaten to market. This is only "proof" if you are a true drinker of the free market kool-aid.
My personal preference would be Audacious.
It's now officially sanctioned, but it's still a beta. I have previously been shouted down for proposing stories of beta releases -- "we aren't interested in unstable releases", I was told. Why is this one different?
Not a TANK cannon though. You can buy a tank, but the cannon on it must be rendered inoperable first.
How is this made any better by putting the human in the front vehicle? If they have to rely on sensors and displays anyhow, why not "lead" from a few vehicles back?
I have lots of problems with what the military is tasked with doing. I'm also quite skeptical that things like automated armeddrones are going to turn out well. But convoy vehicles that are, at best, moderately armored and lightly armed? It doesn't bother me at all of that particular aspect of warfare is made a little bit safer. It's NOT out killing people itself.
Why can't someone in one of the following vehicles be remotely driving the front one? This would at least force an attacker to make a lucky guess where the human is, and that human can also take over control of one of the other vehicles (even if it's just the one they're in) to peel the surviving convoy members away.
If I were a parent, I'd justifiably worry about both.
The positions of the parties were vastly different 150 years ago. The only things they really retained were the names. Republicans have moved further and further to the right, and an a direct consequence, so have the Democrats, merely by accepting the people who feel the Republicans have left them.
We don't actually know what a Democratic administration would do about state attempts at Net Neutrality, because the two have never overlapped. This is likely because a Democrat-appointed FCC chair never would have rammed the reversal through in the first place.
Medical cannabis, yes, a Democratic administration declined to crack down on it, and there is little doubt this is because the move would have been wildly unpopular. So far, no Republican administration has wanted to attack this one either, presumably for the same reason.
Immigration is a Federal issue, hands down. States don't hand out citizenship. However since the states are going BOTH directions relative to Federal policy (some are racial profiling, others are setting up sanctuaries), cracking down on this would either have to take on both sides (and piss off some allies no matter what side is doing it), or attack only one side which would open the issue to clear partisanship.
Second amendment rights: no, this isn't a states' rights thing. The two sides have vastly different interpretations of what the 2A means, and both are relatively consistent with their stated positions. Even Republicans don't think the 2A is absolute. You can't own a tank with a working cannon on it, although you can own a tank. You aren't allowed to make explosives without a license. You can't transfer a fully automatic weapon without going through a lot of paperwork and clearances -- which is a policy initiated by Reagan.
Calexit isn't any more than a bunch of talk, and last I checked, we were still allowed to talk.
You're one for five there.
No, Democrats are much more uniformly for a strong Federal government and less leeway for the states. Only the Republicans keep flipping back and forth as they find convenient.