As such, in my country (Romania) only tires with M+S, MS, M.S. rating are legally accepted as winter tires
Which doesn't indicate that any tire with M+S would be banned from being a "summer tire". Yes, all winter tires will have M+S rating, but not all M+S tires will be winter tires.
In the US, there are summer, all-season, and winter tires. M+S is a separate rating. All-season are more like summer tires with design in them for colder temperatures and such, rarely without M+S rating. M+S can be had in a summer tire if it has sufficiently self-cleaning tread (so the mud/snow doesn't get stuck, but instead falls out as the tire goes around, improving performance in deeper snow and mud. All-season would to better on ice, sand, and packed snow, and possibly in the rain. winter would beat them all for very cold temperatures, and in snow and ice. Studded can give better grip on ice than summer on dry pavement.
Just because M+S on summer (non all-season) is rare, doesn't mean you can't get it.
But all that's a distraction from the original point. The driver makes much more difference than the tires. The tires matter, but only within a skill level, not across it.
Nah, I gave up. a few hours of play, and the introductory quests are not obvious. "go to this system and kill the bad ships" but you start in that system, and see no red ships. Where do you go? And the tutorial gave no directions how to fly, only how to go somewhere. Apparently there's no way to fly your ship FPS style. The flying physics seem to mimic an airplane, despite the lack of atmosphere, so why can't I fly it from the cockpit to explore areas?
It's hard, and that'll turn off casual new players. It's not worth the dedication to learn how to play, just to learn how to play. Like smoking, if the first time sucks, maybe it isn't worth the time to keep trying until you are addicted.
A large number of high speed chases are of stolen cars that weren't in the possession of the criminals long enough for them to do so. If someone stole your car, would you rather they recover the blood-stained pieces, or arrest the guy and hand you back your car in pristine condition?
Try that in Alaska. I remember going to work the day after a record snow (About 3' in 24 hours), I had to find a rut to follow, but made it to work, as did most everyone else. I hear it's similar in places with more snow that Alaska (like Buffalo with all the lake effect).
You still have to have the blades to put on the front. And usually the trucks prefer some permanent modifications, like stronger front suspension. And the spreaders for the back aren't trivial.
Since almost nobody does it the way you suggest, it seems unlikely to be an overall optimal solution.
If the road is 3 lanes wide, it only takes 1-3 bad drivers to block a few million behind them. Someone had to be at the front, and the people caught in the middle mentioned the roads weren't a problem with going, but the driver in front of them.
I never bothered with summer tires. I really don't see what you'd need them for unless you're into racing or something like that.
They are quieter and usually give better mileage as well (stiffer treat with fewer, larger tread gaps).
And there's nothing like a turn that is so tight your passengers cry. The average person is "uncomfortable" at about 0.2g of lateral acceleration in a car. Most will do 0.7+g, with nice tires, lots of cars will approach 1g lateral acceleration. Those kinds of numbers are entertaining, and don't require that one speed or otherwise break the law to experience regularly on the road.
Tires don't matter as much as people think. I ran summer M+S tires (no, not "all season", though many consider summer tires M+S rated to be "all season") all year round in Alaska, with no issues. The conditions after a snow storm are different in the north from the south.
A cold front in those conditions with 1" of snow would cripple any city that can't salt/sand every road. In the south, the ground is 40F when the snowfall starts. The first 1/4" melts, then freezes as the snow/cold air cools down the ground. So you have a perfectly smooth undercoating of ice (might as well be polished) with 3/4" of snow on top. If you don't have a road cover to lay down or studded tires, you aren't going to have any control. Yes, in those conditions, I've seen a car come to a complete stop on a flat surface, and have the wind blow hard enough to move it. Or look up all the youtube videos of busses and such on light gradients sliding around with all-4 wheels locked. Yes, I know you have more traction when rolling than locked, but you'll never get any better than when you are at a full stop with all 4 wheels locked.
In the north, the ground is already below freezing when the snow falls, so the conditions are often very different.
You have to believe something and what you believe is passed on directly or indirectly in almost every interaction you have with another human being.
I have to believe something? And I can't deal with anyone else without passing it on? As an athiest, I've been called "the best Christian in the group" based on my interactions with the people in the group.
The problem comes when you get into areas like don't be gay,
don't have sex, don't have abortions, don't have unprotected sex, or don't talk about sex at all where different groups
have different opinion.
The problem comes in when the rules pertain to "victimless" acts, or are in place because of some presumed problem with some future problem not necessarily directly related to the act itself. "don't have unprotected sex" is not something anyone pushes. The "conservatives" push "don't have sex at all" and the liberals push "if you are going to have sex, you should use protection", but neither is a push to "don't have unprotected sex."
"tune" antimatter? Sure, the same way we "tune" the material in nuclear bombs. If we can create arbitrary antimatter, why not antimatter uranium? Make a nuclear bomb out of antimatter, then detonate that, and the fireball that explodes when the 99% of the rest of the bomb, mostly antimatter, dust impacts the surrounding material.
Or when we can hold a nuclear blast in a jar. Focus the blast towards something. Yes, I understand, the blow-back would be as bad as the shot out the front, but materials strong enough to contain a nuclear blast would have a big change in the use and damage capabilities of them. That and when we get non-nuclear EMPs of nuke-level power (one big one over Kansas could take out almost all the USA - the real worry we should be focusing on, not deaths.
Infertility cover would be a poor insurance to offer. It's not like a 5 year old would want or care about it, nor a 70 year old. The only people who would consider buying it are people who are trying to conceive. That would make it a very tiny pool to spread risk around. Someone should have offered it to you, then denied you for a prior condition. You can't wait until you are burgled to buy insurance. Nor would it work if people waited until it was confirmed they were infertile before seeking coverage.
Yet part of our insurance premiums go to pay for no-cost birth control. How is that fair to us?
Would you rather that they keep the birth coverage and drop the birth control? That'd likely cost you more, with all the plan members getting pregnant.
Like I said, I get it. But life is unfair and everyone can probably point to some issue that has affected them personally. At the end of the day, we're alive and our lives aren't directly being threatened.
You have the freedom to do anything you want. If you think that the insurance coverage is poor, you can start your own insurance company. But a gay person, can't marry who they want, can't necessarily live where they want, and have a risk to health and life from anti-gay zealots. You have complete freedom, even if not as many advantages as some other groups.
(And before someone says that birth control actually reduce what insurance needs to pay out, tell me, why did we need the law to force insurance companies to cover it? If it were cost effective, it would have been covered enthusiastically by all insurance plans.)
You are presuming a logic that doesn't exist. Helmets on motorcyclists increase hospital costs. So could an insurance company cut rates if you agree to never wear a helmet? Nope. They are regulated companies. The state tells them what they must cover, and if the state doesn't mandate it, they won't cover it. With universal health care, you would likely have been covered (it's covered in some of the "socialist" countries I've looked at). But the private system in the US has bizarre laws because there are 52+ sets of rules (one for each state, federal, and territories) regulating insurance. The answer likely comes back to your state's rules, not the insurance company's free will. Birth control was often not covered because it's Satanic to allow women to have choice, so states stepped in to force the choice to be allowed.
It's against the Constitution to establish an official religion, or force or prevent the exercise there of. You could pass a law baning the teaching of all religions in school, but not banning only one, or all but one.
Non-belief in a deity is just as much a belief system as belief in a deity. It
is not "neutral" ground as some like to believe.
Non-belief is a belief system like not collecting stamps is a hobby.
Seems to me that the atheists attach the religions that attack them (in proportion to the effort expended to attack them). If Christians didn't spend so much time attacking others, I think the complaints against them would decrease.
Anyone who mentions "late term" gets ignored by me. I've never seen anyone advocate for arbitrary late term abortions without reason. The only requests for it have been from those who want it as a medical choice if the pregnancy is experiencing life-threatening complications. Late term is a red herring.
I went to a city council meeting where it was moved to include "gay" as a protected class for housing. The result was that it was legal to deny housing to a person because you don't like gays. What rights does a fertile person have that an infertile person not have? You can still visit your pertner in the hospital (unlike gays in many places)? Then I don't see where the law treats you unfairly.
If we're going to teach about Islam why is it suddenly taboo to teach about Christianity or creationism?
It's never been taboo to teach those things, just taboo to teach religion in science class. History class is full of religious teachings. As are language classes and philosophy classes. There are only complaints about those from the Christians who want to oppress all other religions.
I don't see the problem you are hinting at. There is no taboo against teaching Christianity in schools.
You are creating a difference between "I beleive there is no god, and thus don't believe in god" and "I believe there probably is no god, and thus don't believe in god."
Both are an atheistic lack of belief in God, so why does it matter if there is any diffference between them?
There is a huge difference. In your first quoted sentence, you are taking the affirmative position that pink unicorns do not exist. In the second, you are unsure if pink unicorns exist.
So "I don't believe in the Tooth Faerie" is completely different from "I believe there is no Tooth Faerie."
I think that most people would not see a substantial difference between the two. I don't think the first shows that much uncertainty. Both show a lack of belief in the Tooth Faerie.
It's a minor semantical issue to passivise the idea. If you don't beleive in the Tooth Faerie, then what do you believe in? I believe that there is no Tooth Faerie, but that the functions of said creature are carried out by parental units. I don't have "faith" that any particular parents will act in any particular fairy-amenable manner, but that having no-belief in something is the same as the belif in the no-something.
Proof of this is analysis of language. When someone says "I don't believe you filled up my [cup/fueltank/bathwater] sufficiently" they mean "I believe that you did not fill up my [whatever] sufficiently" but is worded in a passive manner. Agnosticism doesn't exist. It is a tiny grey area created by the Church to convince the large numbers of non-believers that they have different groups that deserve some in-fighting.
a-theism means without-God. Anyone who doesn't affirmatively believe that there is a god is an atheist. Believe that knowing the answer is impossible? Doesn't matter. You either believe, or you don't. Most agnostics are atheists. As my father put it, he's "agnostic" because it's more polite. He actively disbelieved in God (or believed in the No-God, if you prefer),,but self-identified as agnostic so that people wouldn't take his beliefs as contrary.
Slashdot Mirror
The same reason cheese and wine get better with age, and milk doesn't. When you start with bad ingredients, you'll sour, not get better.
As such, in my country (Romania) only tires with M+S, MS, M.S. rating are legally accepted as winter tires
Which doesn't indicate that any tire with M+S would be banned from being a "summer tire". Yes, all winter tires will have M+S rating, but not all M+S tires will be winter tires.
In the US, there are summer, all-season, and winter tires. M+S is a separate rating. All-season are more like summer tires with design in them for colder temperatures and such, rarely without M+S rating. M+S can be had in a summer tire if it has sufficiently self-cleaning tread (so the mud/snow doesn't get stuck, but instead falls out as the tire goes around, improving performance in deeper snow and mud. All-season would to better on ice, sand, and packed snow, and possibly in the rain. winter would beat them all for very cold temperatures, and in snow and ice. Studded can give better grip on ice than summer on dry pavement.
Just because M+S on summer (non all-season) is rare, doesn't mean you can't get it.
But all that's a distraction from the original point. The driver makes much more difference than the tires. The tires matter, but only within a skill level, not across it.
What would happen if the result was a vote voting in an ineligible candidate, whether Obama, Bush Jr., or Mickey Mouse?
Nah, I gave up. a few hours of play, and the introductory quests are not obvious. "go to this system and kill the bad ships" but you start in that system, and see no red ships. Where do you go? And the tutorial gave no directions how to fly, only how to go somewhere. Apparently there's no way to fly your ship FPS style. The flying physics seem to mimic an airplane, despite the lack of atmosphere, so why can't I fly it from the cockpit to explore areas?
It's hard, and that'll turn off casual new players. It's not worth the dedication to learn how to play, just to learn how to play. Like smoking, if the first time sucks, maybe it isn't worth the time to keep trying until you are addicted.
Is there a Toyota joke in there somewhere? Even inside the car in the driver's seat, you can't turn it off or slow it down.
A large number of high speed chases are of stolen cars that weren't in the possession of the criminals long enough for them to do so. If someone stole your car, would you rather they recover the blood-stained pieces, or arrest the guy and hand you back your car in pristine condition?
Try that in Alaska. I remember going to work the day after a record snow (About 3' in 24 hours), I had to find a rut to follow, but made it to work, as did most everyone else. I hear it's similar in places with more snow that Alaska (like Buffalo with all the lake effect).
You still have to have the blades to put on the front. And usually the trucks prefer some permanent modifications, like stronger front suspension. And the spreaders for the back aren't trivial.
Since almost nobody does it the way you suggest, it seems unlikely to be an overall optimal solution.
If the road is 3 lanes wide, it only takes 1-3 bad drivers to block a few million behind them. Someone had to be at the front, and the people caught in the middle mentioned the roads weren't a problem with going, but the driver in front of them.
I never bothered with summer tires. I really don't see what you'd need them for unless you're into racing or something like that.
They are quieter and usually give better mileage as well (stiffer treat with fewer, larger tread gaps).
And there's nothing like a turn that is so tight your passengers cry. The average person is "uncomfortable" at about 0.2g of lateral acceleration in a car. Most will do 0.7+g, with nice tires, lots of cars will approach 1g lateral acceleration. Those kinds of numbers are entertaining, and don't require that one speed or otherwise break the law to experience regularly on the road.
Tires don't matter as much as people think. I ran summer M+S tires (no, not "all season", though many consider summer tires M+S rated to be "all season") all year round in Alaska, with no issues. The conditions after a snow storm are different in the north from the south.
A cold front in those conditions with 1" of snow would cripple any city that can't salt/sand every road. In the south, the ground is 40F when the snowfall starts. The first 1/4" melts, then freezes as the snow/cold air cools down the ground. So you have a perfectly smooth undercoating of ice (might as well be polished) with 3/4" of snow on top. If you don't have a road cover to lay down or studded tires, you aren't going to have any control. Yes, in those conditions, I've seen a car come to a complete stop on a flat surface, and have the wind blow hard enough to move it. Or look up all the youtube videos of busses and such on light gradients sliding around with all-4 wheels locked. Yes, I know you have more traction when rolling than locked, but you'll never get any better than when you are at a full stop with all 4 wheels locked.
In the north, the ground is already below freezing when the snow falls, so the conditions are often very different.
You have to believe something and what you believe is passed on directly or indirectly in almost every interaction you have with another human being.
I have to believe something? And I can't deal with anyone else without passing it on? As an athiest, I've been called "the best Christian in the group" based on my interactions with the people in the group.
The problem comes when you get into areas like don't be gay, don't have sex, don't have abortions, don't have unprotected sex, or don't talk about sex at all where different groups have different opinion.
The problem comes in when the rules pertain to "victimless" acts, or are in place because of some presumed problem with some future problem not necessarily directly related to the act itself. "don't have unprotected sex" is not something anyone pushes. The "conservatives" push "don't have sex at all" and the liberals push "if you are going to have sex, you should use protection", but neither is a push to "don't have unprotected sex."
"tune" antimatter? Sure, the same way we "tune" the material in nuclear bombs. If we can create arbitrary antimatter, why not antimatter uranium? Make a nuclear bomb out of antimatter, then detonate that, and the fireball that explodes when the 99% of the rest of the bomb, mostly antimatter, dust impacts the surrounding material.
Or when we can hold a nuclear blast in a jar. Focus the blast towards something. Yes, I understand, the blow-back would be as bad as the shot out the front, but materials strong enough to contain a nuclear blast would have a big change in the use and damage capabilities of them. That and when we get non-nuclear EMPs of nuke-level power (one big one over Kansas could take out almost all the USA - the real worry we should be focusing on, not deaths.
Yet part of our insurance premiums go to pay for no-cost birth control. How is that fair to us?
Would you rather that they keep the birth coverage and drop the birth control? That'd likely cost you more, with all the plan members getting pregnant.
Like I said, I get it. But life is unfair and everyone can probably point to some issue that has affected them personally. At the end of the day, we're alive and our lives aren't directly being threatened.
You have the freedom to do anything you want. If you think that the insurance coverage is poor, you can start your own insurance company. But a gay person, can't marry who they want, can't necessarily live where they want, and have a risk to health and life from anti-gay zealots. You have complete freedom, even if not as many advantages as some other groups.
(And before someone says that birth control actually reduce what insurance needs to pay out, tell me, why did we need the law to force insurance companies to cover it? If it were cost effective, it would have been covered enthusiastically by all insurance plans.)
You are presuming a logic that doesn't exist. Helmets on motorcyclists increase hospital costs. So could an insurance company cut rates if you agree to never wear a helmet? Nope. They are regulated companies. The state tells them what they must cover, and if the state doesn't mandate it, they won't cover it. With universal health care, you would likely have been covered (it's covered in some of the "socialist" countries I've looked at). But the private system in the US has bizarre laws because there are 52+ sets of rules (one for each state, federal, and territories) regulating insurance. The answer likely comes back to your state's rules, not the insurance company's free will. Birth control was often not covered because it's Satanic to allow women to have choice, so states stepped in to force the choice to be allowed.
How many Farad is that?
It's a discussion on a battle. Tactics are technology driven. War technology is "guns". Seemed like an on-topic analogy.
Non-belief in a deity is just as much a belief system as belief in a deity. It is not "neutral" ground as some like to believe.
Non-belief is a belief system like not collecting stamps is a hobby.
Seems to me that the atheists attach the religions that attack them (in proportion to the effort expended to attack them). If Christians didn't spend so much time attacking others, I think the complaints against them would decrease.
Anyone who mentions "late term" gets ignored by me. I've never seen anyone advocate for arbitrary late term abortions without reason. The only requests for it have been from those who want it as a medical choice if the pregnancy is experiencing life-threatening complications. Late term is a red herring.
I went to a city council meeting where it was moved to include "gay" as a protected class for housing. The result was that it was legal to deny housing to a person because you don't like gays. What rights does a fertile person have that an infertile person not have? You can still visit your pertner in the hospital (unlike gays in many places)? Then I don't see where the law treats you unfairly.
It's never been taboo to teach those things, just taboo to teach religion in science class. History class is full of religious teachings. As are language classes and philosophy classes. There are only complaints about those from the Christians who want to oppress all other religions.
I don't see the problem you are hinting at. There is no taboo against teaching Christianity in schools.
You are creating a difference between "I beleive there is no god, and thus don't believe in god" and "I believe there probably is no god, and thus don't believe in god."
Both are an atheistic lack of belief in God, so why does it matter if there is any diffference between them?
There is a huge difference. In your first quoted sentence, you are taking the affirmative position that pink unicorns do not exist. In the second, you are unsure if pink unicorns exist.
So "I don't believe in the Tooth Faerie" is completely different from "I believe there is no Tooth Faerie."
,but self-identified as agnostic so that people wouldn't take his beliefs as contrary.
I think that most people would not see a substantial difference between the two. I don't think the first shows that much uncertainty. Both show a lack of belief in the Tooth Faerie.
It's a minor semantical issue to passivise the idea. If you don't beleive in the Tooth Faerie, then what do you believe in? I believe that there is no Tooth Faerie, but that the functions of said creature are carried out by parental units. I don't have "faith" that any particular parents will act in any particular fairy-amenable manner, but that having no-belief in something is the same as the belif in the no-something.
Proof of this is analysis of language. When someone says "I don't believe you filled up my [cup/fueltank/bathwater] sufficiently" they mean "I believe that you did not fill up my [whatever] sufficiently" but is worded in a passive manner. Agnosticism doesn't exist. It is a tiny grey area created by the Church to convince the large numbers of non-believers that they have different groups that deserve some in-fighting.
a-theism means without-God. Anyone who doesn't affirmatively believe that there is a god is an atheist. Believe that knowing the answer is impossible? Doesn't matter. You either believe, or you don't. Most agnostics are atheists. As my father put it, he's "agnostic" because it's more polite. He actively disbelieved in God (or believed in the No-God, if you prefer),
You don't know 98.6F?