You just spray water on it with the mist setting all fire hoses have. If the water settling on the battery causes sparks, then it's live and high voltage. If the water puts the fire out, then it's not an issue. Even if it's high voltage, spraying water on it will close the circuit, rendering the surrounding area safe. Water is the appropriate response for a variety of reasons.
That grannies and 30 in a 70 zone drivers flocked to Volvo doesn't mean the car were safer. It just reflected the types of drivers drawn to them. Corvettes were safer than Volvos, they just were also idiot magnets.
Throwing water on a "lithium fire" isn't an issue. The absolutely worst case is that the battery reacts with the water to create some hydrogen gas, which then burns. Water is an appropriate fire suppression agent for a battery fire.
What in the Constitution would have a problem with that? If you can make genetic modification illegal or regulate it in the first place would face a harder Constitutional battle, but if you can make it illegal and regulated, the details of the regulation would be immaterial.
They are faking because their parents pressured them into pretending so the parents could get more attention for their hardships of raising a freak. A precious freak that must be protected from everything at all times.
Always seems more like the anti-SJW crowd trying to stir up the SJWs, as a form of trolling. The title is not supported by the story, the title is a troll, and the anti-SJW crowd fell for it, while the SJW crowd apparently didn't care (or perhaps are literate, and realized the title was a troll).
I haven't seen it since the theaters, but I recall the clinic scene making it sound like they construct an embryo from the parents, then implant it. They don't screen natural eggs/sperm to make the best of, but splice from both parents to make the best of. But then, that was many years ago, so I don't recall the details, just my impression of the scene.
If the "gene pool" is your concern, and not the person altered, then make it legal, with the one constraint that "altered" people are forbidden to reproduce, and that chemical and surgical means will be used to enforce that. Then we can have altered people, and not pollute the gene pool, that you gave as the only reason to resist.
Sky Tran is not technically and engineeringly complete. They had funding and permission and promised to deliver in Tel Aviv over a year ago. Still not operational, at least according to the links I could find. When will Tel Aviv be working? And what was the final cost?
You could do that for a future OS, but can you patch an old OS to reject current (new) processors? If you did patch it to do that, would anyone install those patches?
What was I defending, and when someone uses something wrong, why is that bad to point out? Oxycodone has legitimate uses, but when used "wrong" has bad effects. Many things, including DDT, are like that. How is it a bad thing to point out that Thalidomide isn't a bad thing, but prescribing it as a sleep aid to pregnant women is a bad thing?
Fixing vote fraud is as simple as moving to open voting. Every vote is placed next to your name and published. There is no way to fraud that, other than bribery or intimidation, both are currently illegal, so move to open voting and enforce current law, and the problem is gone. We had open voting for the first 100 years of the US, and much much less fraud than now. The war broke open voting, where the poll workers would change your vote, then kill you if you complained. And I'm guessing we aren't at that point now. So open voting will be great. Dead people will stop voting, and you can't lose a ballot box.
Ah, attacking the source. They document the lie and reasons it's a lie. What's your issue? They evaluate more of Trump's statements? That they come to the wrong conclusions on those statements?
Clinton's lies around the email server scandal
She's told a few lies around those, but the truth is that she did what the outgoing Republicans did and recommended she did. It was 100% legal at the time she did it. The rules changed with the intention of binding the person after her, and she was never bound by those rules. Some classified information was improperly handled, but that has happened in every administration since classifications were invented, and there was no leak or malice found.
Emails seems to be a way for a hillary-hater to claim hate for some reason other than "I hate women in power" but it always seems to boil down to that as the root issue.
Again, not advocating for Trump,
When there are two choices, and you tear down one, you are supporting the other. And note, you never once said which you prefer.
So, if the election was today, who would you vote for? (I expect an answer of "nobody" or "Johnson" but a vote to be cast for Trump)
The Democratic Party is the governing party of the United States of America
There is no "governing party" of the US. In the rest of the world, the "ruling party" has near complete control. In the US, one could claim any of the 3 branches to be the controlling branch, that one party controls one of those three doesn't make them the Ruling Party. And even if a single party were to control all 3, they wouldn't be a ruling party. So not only is your logic wrong, your facts are as well.
The Clinton's gave up control of the charity, so by your logic, anyone that gives to the Red Cross does so to get special favors from Obama, as I've heard he's spoken well of them.
No matter who loses, the loser will point to tampering. It was true in 2000, and 2004, and we've not done anything to stop it. Both sides do it, so it's true. Whether it did, or would have, affecte the election is a separate question. But both sides do vote fraud. That's why the only ethical and rational vote is for a 3rd party. You aren't throwing your vote away, even if you hate one of the candidates more than the other.
Sure, did you tell yourself that about lead in gasoline and smoking cigarettes too? What else do you believe is "shaky science" that really isn't.
DDT is shakey science because indoor spraying in smaller concentrations has since been shown to have no ill effects on the environment. The initial science was wrong, overblown by the hippie movement, and poor application of DDT in mass outdoor spraying.
There are other polinators. And there are plants thriving in areas without large natural bee populations. The result would be bad, but lying about it just weakens your stance.
The large portion of illegal workers are illegal aliens. Second to that are deadbeat dads. Those who fear that making legal money will result in arrest or confiscation. After those, come those on welfare. Of those on welfare, SS recipients are tops, and the rest in smaller amounts after that.
Though, the numbers of illegal workers are hard to get, because they are illegal. So feel free to provide numbers, if you don't like my assessment.
I'm not running a double-blind test. I'm reporting the extent that people have gone, and still been detected, though no word on the false negative rate, those can't be reported in practice, as, by definition, they are missed.
Slashdot Mirror
You just spray water on it with the mist setting all fire hoses have. If the water settling on the battery causes sparks, then it's live and high voltage. If the water puts the fire out, then it's not an issue. Even if it's high voltage, spraying water on it will close the circuit, rendering the surrounding area safe. Water is the appropriate response for a variety of reasons.
That grannies and 30 in a 70 zone drivers flocked to Volvo doesn't mean the car were safer. It just reflected the types of drivers drawn to them. Corvettes were safer than Volvos, they just were also idiot magnets.
Throwing water on a "lithium fire" isn't an issue. The absolutely worst case is that the battery reacts with the water to create some hydrogen gas, which then burns. Water is an appropriate fire suppression agent for a battery fire.
What in the Constitution would have a problem with that? If you can make genetic modification illegal or regulate it in the first place would face a harder Constitutional battle, but if you can make it illegal and regulated, the details of the regulation would be immaterial.
They are faking because their parents pressured them into pretending so the parents could get more attention for their hardships of raising a freak. A precious freak that must be protected from everything at all times.
Always seems more like the anti-SJW crowd trying to stir up the SJWs, as a form of trolling. The title is not supported by the story, the title is a troll, and the anti-SJW crowd fell for it, while the SJW crowd apparently didn't care (or perhaps are literate, and realized the title was a troll).
I haven't seen it since the theaters, but I recall the clinic scene making it sound like they construct an embryo from the parents, then implant it. They don't screen natural eggs/sperm to make the best of, but splice from both parents to make the best of. But then, that was many years ago, so I don't recall the details, just my impression of the scene.
If the "gene pool" is your concern, and not the person altered, then make it legal, with the one constraint that "altered" people are forbidden to reproduce, and that chemical and surgical means will be used to enforce that. Then we can have altered people, and not pollute the gene pool, that you gave as the only reason to resist.
Sky Tran is not technically and engineeringly complete. They had funding and permission and promised to deliver in Tel Aviv over a year ago. Still not operational, at least according to the links I could find. When will Tel Aviv be working? And what was the final cost?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
That you object to the english words for a technical term doesn't mean the technical term doesn't have some meaning.
You could do that for a future OS, but can you patch an old OS to reject current (new) processors? If you did patch it to do that, would anyone install those patches?
Using "citation needed" in place of calling someone a liar makes you look like a lying idiot.
What was I defending, and when someone uses something wrong, why is that bad to point out? Oxycodone has legitimate uses, but when used "wrong" has bad effects. Many things, including DDT, are like that. How is it a bad thing to point out that Thalidomide isn't a bad thing, but prescribing it as a sleep aid to pregnant women is a bad thing?
Fixing vote fraud is as simple as moving to open voting. Every vote is placed next to your name and published. There is no way to fraud that, other than bribery or intimidation, both are currently illegal, so move to open voting and enforce current law, and the problem is gone. We had open voting for the first 100 years of the US, and much much less fraud than now. The war broke open voting, where the poll workers would change your vote, then kill you if you complained. And I'm guessing we aren't at that point now. So open voting will be great. Dead people will stop voting, and you can't lose a ballot box.
Citation needed.
That Clinton didn't, or that Trump did? You'll need to be more specific on which parts you are disagreeing with.
And politifact is hopelessly biased.
Ah, attacking the source. They document the lie and reasons it's a lie. What's your issue? They evaluate more of Trump's statements? That they come to the wrong conclusions on those statements?
Clinton's lies around the email server scandal
She's told a few lies around those, but the truth is that she did what the outgoing Republicans did and recommended she did. It was 100% legal at the time she did it. The rules changed with the intention of binding the person after her, and she was never bound by those rules. Some classified information was improperly handled, but that has happened in every administration since classifications were invented, and there was no leak or malice found.
Emails seems to be a way for a hillary-hater to claim hate for some reason other than "I hate women in power" but it always seems to boil down to that as the root issue.
Again, not advocating for Trump,
When there are two choices, and you tear down one, you are supporting the other. And note, you never once said which you prefer.
So, if the election was today, who would you vote for? (I expect an answer of "nobody" or "Johnson" but a vote to be cast for Trump)
The Democratic Party is the governing party of the United States of America
There is no "governing party" of the US. In the rest of the world, the "ruling party" has near complete control. In the US, one could claim any of the 3 branches to be the controlling branch, that one party controls one of those three doesn't make them the Ruling Party. And even if a single party were to control all 3, they wouldn't be a ruling party. So not only is your logic wrong, your facts are as well.
The Clinton's gave up control of the charity, so by your logic, anyone that gives to the Red Cross does so to get special favors from Obama, as I've heard he's spoken well of them.
It could be fixed by the November election. The problem is nobody wants it fixed, because they know the flaws, and abuse them themselves.
So what you're saying is that the science for DDT does indicate that wide-spread application was wrong,
Nope. The "science" at the time said that any use was wrong. That we now know that to be only high-dose outdoor application doesn't change history.
No matter who loses, the loser will point to tampering. It was true in 2000, and 2004, and we've not done anything to stop it. Both sides do it, so it's true. Whether it did, or would have, affecte the election is a separate question. But both sides do vote fraud. That's why the only ethical and rational vote is for a 3rd party. You aren't throwing your vote away, even if you hate one of the candidates more than the other.
Sure, did you tell yourself that about lead in gasoline and smoking cigarettes too? What else do you believe is "shaky science" that really isn't.
DDT is shakey science because indoor spraying in smaller concentrations has since been shown to have no ill effects on the environment. The initial science was wrong, overblown by the hippie movement, and poor application of DDT in mass outdoor spraying.
Maybe we should just keep our women indoors.
And wrapped in a burqa.
Without bees there is no food.
There are other polinators. And there are plants thriving in areas without large natural bee populations. The result would be bad, but lying about it just weakens your stance.
The large portion of illegal workers are illegal aliens. Second to that are deadbeat dads. Those who fear that making legal money will result in arrest or confiscation. After those, come those on welfare. Of those on welfare, SS recipients are tops, and the rest in smaller amounts after that.
Though, the numbers of illegal workers are hard to get, because they are illegal. So feel free to provide numbers, if you don't like my assessment.
You just "no true scotsman" on a bag.
I'm not running a double-blind test. I'm reporting the extent that people have gone, and still been detected, though no word on the false negative rate, those can't be reported in practice, as, by definition, they are missed.