Too complicated, my inferior American brain can't handle a system of measurement with the "beginning" and "*end*" located at fundamentally important phase changes of the most important substance on earth.
That would just make sense, and we can't be having any such chicanery afoot around here!
No, it's a crime that people are so fucking stupid that they keep going and playing. It's one thing if gambling of the sort offered in Las Vegas were offered in every town on the planet, but people schedule entire vacations just to go out to Vegas and piss their money away. If it were offered everywhere, I'd agree it was messed up. But you have to physically go there, for pretty much the express purpose of gambling, to get ripped off. It boggles the mind.
Anyone who lives in a northern area can handle temperatures like that. You get used to it. It was 38 out a few days ago and I had all the windows open in the house, enjoying the fresh air. Sure, I had to put pants and a hoodie on, but it was great.
Don't get me wrong, when it gets < 0 (F), especially with wind, I need a hat and gloves too. But 20F isn't all that bad.
Not really my app, it's the client's app. Also, JWS requires that Java (from Sun) be installed. That isn't as pervasive as you might think, with a lot of people running off of Microsoft's VM instead (just think about how many people are still running IE6 at home).
It is close, though, and I have used it for a few clients. Their biggest complaint was how incredibly long it took to load, which is more indicative of the time it takes for windows to launch the JVM than it was anything else.
Strawman after strawman, and complete lack of comprehension on your part as to the point.
The point, my arrogant friend, is that JavaScript is used for more than simply popping up advertisements. As a contractor, many of my clients wish to give their web pages more of an "application" feel to them. For the sorts of features they explicitly request, the vast majority of them require the use of, at minimum, JavaScript, if not some other plugin. As I'm not a fan of Flash or ActionScript, I focus most of my efforts on JavaScript. If I can get away with some sort of visual hoopajoop with CSS, believe me, I use CSS. JS is to be used minimally.
Your basic argument is that, because JavaScript is in some cases used for evil, no one should ever attempt to use it for any other purpose, much like knives, guns, cars, drugs, alcohol, roller coasters, sex, marriage, or brownies. My argument is that that makes you a fucking retard for not realizing that all of those can be used in a completely legitimate way if the time and the space require it.
I further went on to say that if the use of these bothers you so much, you can block them (in the case of JavaScript), or walk away (in the others). Neither I nor my customers care about that minimal loss when weighed against their perception of gain.
Now, if my client said "don't use JavaScript, Flash, Quicktime, and don't you dare write a single IE specific CSS hack - this has to be 100% standards compliant!", then believe me, I'd be fine with that too.
The point I'm making is that if JS is so offensive to you, block it. We don't fucking care. We're going to continue using it, and continue requiring it, and if you don't like it you can leave, because, as I reiterate, we don't fucking care.
I'm sorry, I didn't realize that in your world JavaScript, CSS2, and XHTML Strict were "ignoring standards".
Web Application does not necessarily require ActiveX, you know.
The smart phone platform presents some very interesting problems of its own. In my opinion, your web application as a whole should not be tailored to the phone; the cost of making your entire application readable and usable for a touch screen phone would cost more than just reproducing the front-end for a smart-phone-only audience.
A significant problem with smart phones are the differences between touch screen and non-touch-screen user interfaces, and trying to take advantage of the ways each works. The advent of the iPhone really brought a different (from traditional web/desktop) way of looking at UI development for smart phones, and people have been doing some very impressive things as a result. I don't think you try to have your "rich, dynamic Web Application Experience" (whatever that means) work the same on both a smart phone and a PC. This seems to be too diverse of UI domains to use the same View code for each without falling into the "jack of all trades, master of none" situation.
I'm not entirely sure about the rest of your post, as it doesn't seem like you understand in the slightest what a "web application" currently means. It's simply a web page that offers application-like functionality to its users. If you can add UI enhancements with JavaScript and DHTML, you can make a better usability experience for the vast majority of people. If your a significant portion of your target audience would be accessing it via a Smart Phone, you need to write two sets of presentation logic and associated views while maintaining the core business logic as being the same for either. But this diatribe about IE is simply you not having a fucking clue about what I am even talking about. You apparently hear "web application" and think an ActiveX nightmare, eschewing all standards at every moment.
I validate each and every page, thanks. I test in 5 different browsers; Safari, Firefox 2, Firefox 3, IE 7, and IE6. I will soon be adding IE 8 to the mix. I have to write my own share of IE hax, and I, too, am fucking sick of it. I wouldn't piss on the developers of IE 6 (and 7) if they were on fire, though I'd uncork on the IE 8 development team. They still have a long fucking way to go before I don't despise their very existence, too.
But none of that changes a single bit of what I said.
In conclusion, you don't know what you're talking about, you threw up a strawman and shot it down, and I dub thee Lord High Asshat of Douchebaggia.
I think a more interesting feature would be for browsers to allow you to limit iframe src, js src, and css src to HAVE to refer to the same domain of the page that you are on (similar to the current restrictions on cross-domain scripting (as in, scripts talking to scripts)). In this case, we just apply it to the HTML and CSS in general.
That way people like me can use JS to our heart's content on the same site we're currently on, and others are screwed.
Just put it in as an optional feature in the popup blocker on your browsers and let users enable or disable that as they see fit. Then you won't necessarily need ABP + NoScript + FlashBlock all installed or else doom for them!
You don't need Javascript. I want to provide a more feature rich interface than HTML by itself provides. If you're not interested, then I am not angry with you. You can ignore what I have to offer, and I can accept that you're just not interested. I really don't care whether you look at it or not; in the long run, you're such an infinitesimal minority who is part of the unique overlap of a: having the technical knowledge to be able to equate the misuse of DHTML on other sites to the usage of JavaScript within browsers in general and b: having the personal distaste for such misuse to such a degree that you would eschew the primary building block (JS) altogether except for a few very specific instances.
To whit: I'm not going to cry about 0.00001% lost traffic, and more surprisingly, neither are my customers when I explain to them the pitfalls of making "web applications" with JavaScript. When I tell them they may lose a few geeks who are ideologically opposed to the use of JS in their "webapp", they basically just laugh and call you a retard.
(Note: I don't feel you're a retard; I get fired up over stuff like this too, usually. For me, this isn't a hot button issue, but I have other ones and I'm sure people call me a retard for feeling that way also).
Long story short: people want an application delivery mechanism that doesn't require a software install, update management, etc, and they're trying to make browsers be that mechanism. If you are really that against it, find a way of distributing that mechanism to every computer currently using the web, and then I can try convincing people that they should use that rather than fitting it into a browser. But until your mechanism reaches every computer a browser currently reaches, they aren't going to bite. And at the end of the day, I'm working to support my family, so if the customer really wants a "rich, dynamic Web Application Experience", then I'm going to give that to them.
I urge you not to assume that those against recent Israeli actions are pro-Hamas. If every last war-monger in Hamas died in spontaneous combustion, I'd likely throw a party.
But to act like Israel is 100% in the right at all times is, in my eyes, obscene. It's zealotry and does nothing but inflame others into useless hyperbole at best, and further atrocities at worst.
I can be anti-actions-of-Israel-the-state and anti-Palestinian-extremists at the same time, thanks. This is not an XOR relationship here. In fact, it's a question of degree; Israel has the upper hand, is using their position and stability to cause pain and suffering onto innocents as well as the guilty. Thus, I am more outspoken against their actions. Were the situation reversed, I would be more outspoken with regards to Hamas, as well. But Hamas is still in the wrong here as well, and their actions will not be tolerated either.
I liken this to the situation of two brothers fighting (even if that is not an accurate depiction); the elder, bigger, ostensibly smarter, stronger, and more mature has more responsibility to NOT fight with his brother than the younger, who is acting like a child. Unlike some parents who would only punish one; they both need punished. However, the punishment and standard for conduct is higher for the elder than it is the younger. Ever hear the line "you should know better"? If you're going to be considered a 1st world country, a civilized bastion in a world of barbarism, then you have to act like it, always. If you don't, that's fine too, but there are repercussions for your decision.
Well, you know how those browsers nowadays don't automatically put them in for you. We need to format it ourselves, manually, or nobody will be able to read it.
What I found this go-round was to start her out cold. As in, I was freezing my god damned balls off when we first started dating, trying to keep the house cold enough. This set the calibrated cold properly for her.
Now I can keep the house at 63 in the winter and she doesn't bat an eyelash, because it's a far sight better than the 52 it was before.
The downside is that now she whines twice as hard as I do when it hit 78 in the spring. Neither of us move much in the summer months.
Long story short: if you start out right, you can train them easily.
That's funny. I completely doubt that porn harms anyone. I'd like to see enough evidence that proves your stance that porn harms anyone other than monastery's enrollment rate.
This is the post I missed. My bad. I was like "I could have been sure I called someone out for not reading the article, after I assumed it was the *same* article I read, but turns out it wasn't! I owe them an apology!" I tried to run back in and apologize, but I forgot which post I said that in.
That's what I was going off on. There's no reason you should have known that unless you read it as well, and that's an unreasonable assumption for anyone to make.
So I apologize for making that assumption. With that said, reading *that* story, the kid isn't trying to shift any blame. He was desperately trying to get food and go to Gym class, where he could (ostensibly) play. That doesn't seem to me to be a "bad kid" in play, here. Just one who has been neglected and ill-taught.
I read the a different article on this from digg. The father was under court orders not to leave his son alone with the mother, but he left them alone together while he went to work. The mother was sleeping and let the kid get ready for school on his own. At 6.
Sorry, but that's bad parenting. Period. If you parent like that, then you are a bad parent, and your children should be removed from your car. Further, you should be neutered.
And I don't care if you agree with me or not. This isn't up for debate with me.
The father left for work, despite a court order telling him he was not allowed to leave his son alone with the mother under any circumstance.
The mother slept.
The boy, desperate to make it to school so that he could eat breakfast (state assisted at that - aka, free), whereas if he had to stay home he would be out a meal. So he took the keys and drove off.
This is a clear cut case of parents not parenting. That's fine. It's not this kid's fault his parents are useless. Put him in a different home and put these ass clowns in jail for a while, after removing their ability to father or bear children ever again. Then move on.
Since when did the kid not take responsibility for his actions? Did you even read the article? Nowhere did he claim what he was doing was not wrong. He didn't say GTA told him to do it.
This kid was desperate to eat breakfast. His family was probably so poor he wasn't able to get anything at home, so eating a hot meal for breakfast at school was an important thing. They asked him where he learned to drive, and he told them GTA. That has nothing to do with not taking responsibility for his actions, and shame on you for attributing that to him when he didn't even say it.
His parents are solely to blame. Solely. Put this kid in a different environment and he'll have a great chance at turning out to be a productive member of society. Keep him with these subhumans and you're right, he'll end up worse-than-useless.
I don't think the media did sensationalize it. I think it's quite reasonable to ask a 6 year old "Where did you learn how to drive?" after they made off with a car. After all, the parents in this case allowed a 6 year old to get themselves dressed and ready for school. It's reasonable to question their parenting, and subsequently not outside the bounds of reason to think it possible that the parents LET the child drive from time to time. After all, they DID make it 10 miles from home. No easy task for someone who was allegedly standing while driving.
No, I think the real problem in all of this was the parents who did no parenting. I can somewhat understand the father - if there had been no court order demanding he never leave his son alone with the mother, he'd be completely fine - but I also recognize that when a court fucking orders you to not leave your child alone with someone, you don't exercise your own discretion in the matter. Courts don't often go around telling mothers they can't be left alone with their children - this bitch MUST have done something so extraordinary for the court to say a thing about it. (My own brother wasn't removed from my mother's custody until after he was forced to drive her home from the bar because she got too drunk to drive, then beat the shit out of him when he didn't park correctly. He was 11. Her drug use and the beatings-with-a-coat-hanger weren't enough to take him off of her, so she apparently had to find a way to one-up it. Even then, the court was leaning toward "joint custody". That's how fucking bad our system is when it comes to mothers and their children and who gets custody.)
But the mother? Who the hell leaves a 6 year old to fend for themselves in the morning to get to school? This woman deserves to have her tubes tied and be thrown out on the street to live or die as fate decrees. Her kid deserves a better life than that.
In all honesty, I'm for it. We don't have the phat loots right now to be going to the moon, or to mars, or any crazy shenanigans like that.
Much like my retired grandmother, we have just about enough money to make a weekly run to the grocery store and church, provided our means of transportation doesn't break down.
Unfortunately, that isn't the case right now. The shuttles are a bust, as unfortunate as that is.
So our choice now is either scrap it entirely or piggyback on some military technology, provided it won't jeopardize national security in the process. If it would end up posing a grave threat to our security, then fuck it. We'll stay at home for a while. If it only poses a modest threat, then I'm for it. It's worth the risk, imo.
With that said; NASA needs to run NASA missions and the AF needs to run AF missions. There's no reason to merge the two into one organization. NASA takes care of all the fluffy civilian stuff, and the AF can throw up military satelites to their heart's content. I'm fine keeping that as it is.
But there's nothing wrong with sharing technology between the two organizations.
That's my opinion, and whether a Democrat or Republican agrees with me, it doesn't make a whit of difference to me. Hell, you could say "robo mecha cyborg hitler (from hell) also agrees!" and I wouldn't give a shit.
I donno man, I'm an atheist and had a little old grandma spit on me, too. People can be ignorant savages regardless of skin tone. If you're different than they are with something they identify strongly with, they'll turn on you no matter what.
Slashdot Mirror
Too complicated, my inferior American brain can't handle a system of measurement with the "beginning" and "*end*" located at fundamentally important phase changes of the most important substance on earth.
That would just make sense, and we can't be having any such chicanery afoot around here!
No, it's a crime that people are so fucking stupid that they keep going and playing. It's one thing if gambling of the sort offered in Las Vegas were offered in every town on the planet, but people schedule entire vacations just to go out to Vegas and piss their money away. If it were offered everywhere, I'd agree it was messed up. But you have to physically go there, for pretty much the express purpose of gambling, to get ripped off. It boggles the mind.
Anyone who lives in a northern area can handle temperatures like that. You get used to it. It was 38 out a few days ago and I had all the windows open in the house, enjoying the fresh air. Sure, I had to put pants and a hoodie on, but it was great.
Don't get me wrong, when it gets < 0 (F), especially with wind, I need a hat and gloves too. But 20F isn't all that bad.
I was wondering about that as I was reading it.
"Nailor? I hardly know her!"
Not really my app, it's the client's app. Also, JWS requires that Java (from Sun) be installed. That isn't as pervasive as you might think, with a lot of people running off of Microsoft's VM instead (just think about how many people are still running IE6 at home).
It is close, though, and I have used it for a few clients. Their biggest complaint was how incredibly long it took to load, which is more indicative of the time it takes for windows to launch the JVM than it was anything else.
Strawman after strawman, and complete lack of comprehension on your part as to the point.
The point, my arrogant friend, is that JavaScript is used for more than simply popping up advertisements. As a contractor, many of my clients wish to give their web pages more of an "application" feel to them. For the sorts of features they explicitly request, the vast majority of them require the use of, at minimum, JavaScript, if not some other plugin. As I'm not a fan of Flash or ActionScript, I focus most of my efforts on JavaScript. If I can get away with some sort of visual hoopajoop with CSS, believe me, I use CSS. JS is to be used minimally.
Your basic argument is that, because JavaScript is in some cases used for evil, no one should ever attempt to use it for any other purpose, much like knives, guns, cars, drugs, alcohol, roller coasters, sex, marriage, or brownies. My argument is that that makes you a fucking retard for not realizing that all of those can be used in a completely legitimate way if the time and the space require it.
I further went on to say that if the use of these bothers you so much, you can block them (in the case of JavaScript), or walk away (in the others). Neither I nor my customers care about that minimal loss when weighed against their perception of gain.
Now, if my client said "don't use JavaScript, Flash, Quicktime, and don't you dare write a single IE specific CSS hack - this has to be 100% standards compliant!", then believe me, I'd be fine with that too.
The point I'm making is that if JS is so offensive to you, block it. We don't fucking care. We're going to continue using it, and continue requiring it, and if you don't like it you can leave, because, as I reiterate, we don't fucking care.
I'm sorry, I didn't realize that in your world JavaScript, CSS2, and XHTML Strict were "ignoring standards".
Web Application does not necessarily require ActiveX, you know.
The smart phone platform presents some very interesting problems of its own. In my opinion, your web application as a whole should not be tailored to the phone; the cost of making your entire application readable and usable for a touch screen phone would cost more than just reproducing the front-end for a smart-phone-only audience.
A significant problem with smart phones are the differences between touch screen and non-touch-screen user interfaces, and trying to take advantage of the ways each works. The advent of the iPhone really brought a different (from traditional web/desktop) way of looking at UI development for smart phones, and people have been doing some very impressive things as a result. I don't think you try to have your "rich, dynamic Web Application Experience" (whatever that means) work the same on both a smart phone and a PC. This seems to be too diverse of UI domains to use the same View code for each without falling into the "jack of all trades, master of none" situation.
I'm not entirely sure about the rest of your post, as it doesn't seem like you understand in the slightest what a "web application" currently means. It's simply a web page that offers application-like functionality to its users. If you can add UI enhancements with JavaScript and DHTML, you can make a better usability experience for the vast majority of people. If your a significant portion of your target audience would be accessing it via a Smart Phone, you need to write two sets of presentation logic and associated views while maintaining the core business logic as being the same for either. But this diatribe about IE is simply you not having a fucking clue about what I am even talking about. You apparently hear "web application" and think an ActiveX nightmare, eschewing all standards at every moment.
I validate each and every page, thanks. I test in 5 different browsers; Safari, Firefox 2, Firefox 3, IE 7, and IE6. I will soon be adding IE 8 to the mix. I have to write my own share of IE hax, and I, too, am fucking sick of it. I wouldn't piss on the developers of IE 6 (and 7) if they were on fire, though I'd uncork on the IE 8 development team. They still have a long fucking way to go before I don't despise their very existence, too.
But none of that changes a single bit of what I said.
In conclusion, you don't know what you're talking about, you threw up a strawman and shot it down, and I dub thee Lord High Asshat of Douchebaggia.
(It's a rockin' title. Wear it with pride.)
And likewise if your content is residing on my harddrive then you are squatting on my property and must pay me rent.
(I wonder how much more surreal we can make this? ;D)
I think a more interesting feature would be for browsers to allow you to limit iframe src, js src, and css src to HAVE to refer to the same domain of the page that you are on (similar to the current restrictions on cross-domain scripting (as in, scripts talking to scripts)). In this case, we just apply it to the HTML and CSS in general.
That way people like me can use JS to our heart's content on the same site we're currently on, and others are screwed.
Just put it in as an optional feature in the popup blocker on your browsers and let users enable or disable that as they see fit. Then you won't necessarily need ABP + NoScript + FlashBlock all installed or else doom for them!
You don't need Javascript. I want to provide a more feature rich interface than HTML by itself provides. If you're not interested, then I am not angry with you. You can ignore what I have to offer, and I can accept that you're just not interested. I really don't care whether you look at it or not; in the long run, you're such an infinitesimal minority who is part of the unique overlap of a: having the technical knowledge to be able to equate the misuse of DHTML on other sites to the usage of JavaScript within browsers in general and b: having the personal distaste for such misuse to such a degree that you would eschew the primary building block (JS) altogether except for a few very specific instances.
To whit: I'm not going to cry about 0.00001% lost traffic, and more surprisingly, neither are my customers when I explain to them the pitfalls of making "web applications" with JavaScript. When I tell them they may lose a few geeks who are ideologically opposed to the use of JS in their "webapp", they basically just laugh and call you a retard.
(Note: I don't feel you're a retard; I get fired up over stuff like this too, usually. For me, this isn't a hot button issue, but I have other ones and I'm sure people call me a retard for feeling that way also).
Long story short: people want an application delivery mechanism that doesn't require a software install, update management, etc, and they're trying to make browsers be that mechanism. If you are really that against it, find a way of distributing that mechanism to every computer currently using the web, and then I can try convincing people that they should use that rather than fitting it into a browser. But until your mechanism reaches every computer a browser currently reaches, they aren't going to bite. And at the end of the day, I'm working to support my family, so if the customer really wants a "rich, dynamic Web Application Experience", then I'm going to give that to them.
Sorry :(
oh man, I can't tell if you're serious or not, but I'm laughing so hard.
I knew it was time for me to quit WoW when I started looking forward to going to work over playing the fucking game.
I urge you not to assume that those against recent Israeli actions are pro-Hamas. If every last war-monger in Hamas died in spontaneous combustion, I'd likely throw a party.
But to act like Israel is 100% in the right at all times is, in my eyes, obscene. It's zealotry and does nothing but inflame others into useless hyperbole at best, and further atrocities at worst.
I can be anti-actions-of-Israel-the-state and anti-Palestinian-extremists at the same time, thanks. This is not an XOR relationship here. In fact, it's a question of degree; Israel has the upper hand, is using their position and stability to cause pain and suffering onto innocents as well as the guilty. Thus, I am more outspoken against their actions. Were the situation reversed, I would be more outspoken with regards to Hamas, as well. But Hamas is still in the wrong here as well, and their actions will not be tolerated either.
I liken this to the situation of two brothers fighting (even if that is not an accurate depiction); the elder, bigger, ostensibly smarter, stronger, and more mature has more responsibility to NOT fight with his brother than the younger, who is acting like a child. Unlike some parents who would only punish one; they both need punished. However, the punishment and standard for conduct is higher for the elder than it is the younger. Ever hear the line "you should know better"? If you're going to be considered a 1st world country, a civilized bastion in a world of barbarism, then you have to act like it, always. If you don't, that's fine too, but there are repercussions for your decision.
But all of this is quite off topic.
Well, you know how those browsers nowadays don't automatically put them in for you. We need to format it ourselves, manually, or nobody will be able to read it.
Anywhere.
What I found this go-round was to start her out cold. As in, I was freezing my god damned balls off when we first started dating, trying to keep the house cold enough. This set the calibrated cold properly for her.
Now I can keep the house at 63 in the winter and she doesn't bat an eyelash, because it's a far sight better than the 52 it was before.
The downside is that now she whines twice as hard as I do when it hit 78 in the spring. Neither of us move much in the summer months.
Long story short: if you start out right, you can train them easily.
There... isn't?
That's funny. I completely doubt that porn harms anyone. I'd like to see enough evidence that proves your stance that porn harms anyone other than monastery's enrollment rate.
This is the post I missed. My bad. I was like "I could have been sure I called someone out for not reading the article, after I assumed it was the *same* article I read, but turns out it wasn't! I owe them an apology!" I tried to run back in and apologize, but I forgot which post I said that in.
In any event, the story, as I read it on digg, is here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/06/AR2009010601195.html
That's what I was going off on. There's no reason you should have known that unless you read it as well, and that's an unreasonable assumption for anyone to make.
So I apologize for making that assumption. With that said, reading *that* story, the kid isn't trying to shift any blame. He was desperately trying to get food and go to Gym class, where he could (ostensibly) play. That doesn't seem to me to be a "bad kid" in play, here. Just one who has been neglected and ill-taught.
Memory doesn't cost *that* much more. More, yes, but it's not an obscene amount.
However, the mobos are still running at 200$ for the cheapest ones. Oomph.
I read the a different article on this from digg. The father was under court orders not to leave his son alone with the mother, but he left them alone together while he went to work. The mother was sleeping and let the kid get ready for school on his own. At 6.
Sorry, but that's bad parenting. Period. If you parent like that, then you are a bad parent, and your children should be removed from your car. Further, you should be neutered.
And I don't care if you agree with me or not. This isn't up for debate with me.
They didn't let him to exit the house.
The father left for work, despite a court order telling him he was not allowed to leave his son alone with the mother under any circumstance.
The mother slept.
The boy, desperate to make it to school so that he could eat breakfast (state assisted at that - aka, free), whereas if he had to stay home he would be out a meal. So he took the keys and drove off.
This is a clear cut case of parents not parenting. That's fine. It's not this kid's fault his parents are useless. Put him in a different home and put these ass clowns in jail for a while, after removing their ability to father or bear children ever again. Then move on.
Since when did the kid not take responsibility for his actions? Did you even read the article? Nowhere did he claim what he was doing was not wrong. He didn't say GTA told him to do it.
This kid was desperate to eat breakfast. His family was probably so poor he wasn't able to get anything at home, so eating a hot meal for breakfast at school was an important thing. They asked him where he learned to drive, and he told them GTA. That has nothing to do with not taking responsibility for his actions, and shame on you for attributing that to him when he didn't even say it.
His parents are solely to blame. Solely. Put this kid in a different environment and he'll have a great chance at turning out to be a productive member of society. Keep him with these subhumans and you're right, he'll end up worse-than-useless.
I don't think the media did sensationalize it. I think it's quite reasonable to ask a 6 year old "Where did you learn how to drive?" after they made off with a car. After all, the parents in this case allowed a 6 year old to get themselves dressed and ready for school. It's reasonable to question their parenting, and subsequently not outside the bounds of reason to think it possible that the parents LET the child drive from time to time. After all, they DID make it 10 miles from home. No easy task for someone who was allegedly standing while driving.
No, I think the real problem in all of this was the parents who did no parenting. I can somewhat understand the father - if there had been no court order demanding he never leave his son alone with the mother, he'd be completely fine - but I also recognize that when a court fucking orders you to not leave your child alone with someone, you don't exercise your own discretion in the matter. Courts don't often go around telling mothers they can't be left alone with their children - this bitch MUST have done something so extraordinary for the court to say a thing about it. (My own brother wasn't removed from my mother's custody until after he was forced to drive her home from the bar because she got too drunk to drive, then beat the shit out of him when he didn't park correctly. He was 11. Her drug use and the beatings-with-a-coat-hanger weren't enough to take him off of her, so she apparently had to find a way to one-up it. Even then, the court was leaning toward "joint custody". That's how fucking bad our system is when it comes to mothers and their children and who gets custody.)
But the mother? Who the hell leaves a 6 year old to fend for themselves in the morning to get to school? This woman deserves to have her tubes tied and be thrown out on the street to live or die as fate decrees. Her kid deserves a better life than that.
I respect actions, not age.
In all honesty, I'm for it. We don't have the phat loots right now to be going to the moon, or to mars, or any crazy shenanigans like that.
Much like my retired grandmother, we have just about enough money to make a weekly run to the grocery store and church, provided our means of transportation doesn't break down.
Unfortunately, that isn't the case right now. The shuttles are a bust, as unfortunate as that is.
So our choice now is either scrap it entirely or piggyback on some military technology, provided it won't jeopardize national security in the process. If it would end up posing a grave threat to our security, then fuck it. We'll stay at home for a while. If it only poses a modest threat, then I'm for it. It's worth the risk, imo.
With that said; NASA needs to run NASA missions and the AF needs to run AF missions. There's no reason to merge the two into one organization. NASA takes care of all the fluffy civilian stuff, and the AF can throw up military satelites to their heart's content. I'm fine keeping that as it is.
But there's nothing wrong with sharing technology between the two organizations.
That's my opinion, and whether a Democrat or Republican agrees with me, it doesn't make a whit of difference to me. Hell, you could say "robo mecha cyborg hitler (from hell) also agrees!" and I wouldn't give a shit.
I donno man, I'm an atheist and had a little old grandma spit on me, too. People can be ignorant savages regardless of skin tone. If you're different than they are with something they identify strongly with, they'll turn on you no matter what.
Bunch of savages in this town.
Coercion: "Give me a blowjob or you're going to lose your job".
Pure capitalism dictates this is perfectly acceptable.
Also, stop putting words in my mouth.