Don't be so sure they don't have the votes. I live in NY, but I have family that until recently (they fled ahead of time) lived pretty close to New Orleans.
So you've got residents and their families, and even a lot of people who don't live there and don't have relatives still feel sympathy for what's happened in the area. There's quite a bit of leverage to get things done.
And the trick to getting a manager is if you can't find one, be irritating. I worked in a theatre as a teenager, and as soon as someone got even mildly annoying I'd pawn them off on a manager. No way I was taking that crap for minimum wage.
The problem I think you're running into is you're trying to get a useful value instead of blindly calculating passengers/mach. The 58 arrived at for the earlier poster's Camry is indeed correct, it's just not useful.
As ngm has pointed out in a couple places in this thread passenger machs (passengers multiplied by the speed aka mach) is a more informative value.
I think people who actually hold opinions with a genuine logical basis on opposite sides of the political spectrum have more in common with each other than with people who hold to the *exact same beliefs* (on whichever side) for dogmatic reasons.
I happen to agree that this nation has it priorities a little screwed up.
But consider that the negative consequences of violent acts tend to be fairly obvious, while the negative consequences of sexual acts are a good deal less so, especially since there's no guarantee that any particular time will have a negative consequence.
So some people are not that worried about the violence their kids are exposed too. They expect it to be clear what the problems with violence are. But the same people get nervous about exposing their kids to sexual content, as the problems are less clear.
I think we (Americans) freak out way too much about nudity, though I feel it's a bit more justified in the case of pornagraphic material.
The interview where I work requires that the applicant submit a code sample based on a relatively simple spec. Done right it's maybe 150 lines of C code. When I review them, I'm much more interested in how the applicant has organized the code and named variables/functions than I am in the syntax quality (though it does need to pass certain minimums). It's really remarkable what you can tell from a sample.
Time will tell. I believe the truth about the Flying Spaghetti Monster has only recently been revealed, so the dust hasn't quite settled yet. Besides, nothing can beat the pirates vs. global warming graph.
Slashdot Mirror
It nice that Rickford grant interview, but who Rickford?
Don't be so sure they don't have the votes. I live in NY, but I have family that until recently (they fled ahead of time) lived pretty close to New Orleans.
So you've got residents and their families, and even a lot of people who don't live there and don't have relatives still feel sympathy for what's happened in the area. There's quite a bit of leverage to get things done.
And the trick to getting a manager is if you can't find one, be irritating. I worked in a theatre as a teenager, and as soon as someone got even mildly annoying I'd pawn them off on a manager. No way I was taking that crap for minimum wage.
You can be subtle. You just have to live with the fact that some people won't get it :)
The problem I think you're running into is you're trying to get a useful value instead of blindly calculating passengers/mach. The 58 arrived at for the earlier poster's Camry is indeed correct, it's just not useful.
As ngm has pointed out in a couple places in this thread passenger machs (passengers multiplied by the speed aka mach) is a more informative value.
No, I think he did the math right.
.1 mach, but I'll call it .1 to make the math simpler.
The OP stated 100 passengers at Mach 2 == 50 passengers/mach.
That would 100 divided by 2.
65mph is a little less than
5 passengers at Mach 0.1 == 5 / 0.1 == 50
Since he got 58 and 65mph is less than Mach 0.1, it seems good to me.
Clearly the 'it' in this case is poon.
So we have:
1) Who has it? Duh, women.
2) Who doesn't? That'd be the guys.
3) Who wants it? Most men and a few women.
4) What will happen if they get it? A certain percentage of them would become fathers. The rest just a little less tense for a few days.
Which brings us to:
5) Why agree to this in the first place? Because it feels good.
But in all honesty, I agree with the other reply you got, which said "Huh?"
I looked and looked and I couldn't find a conspiracy theory in your post. Did you click submit too early?
This would have been funny if you hadn't put the disclaimer up there.
Don't be stupid. 12 and 60 are great for division, but they're not as good for multiplication.
If we were using base 12, multiplication by 12 or 60 would be fairly trivial.
I think people who actually hold opinions with a genuine logical basis on opposite sides of the political spectrum have more in common with each other than with people who hold to the *exact same beliefs* (on whichever side) for dogmatic reasons.
This makes me wish I could mod you +1, Terrifying.
Wow, if only they thought to put that on the tagline...
And my post proves my own point :)
It's 5760, not 5670, though the multiplication does comes out to 138240 when you put the right numbers in.
I suppose the rule about correct people's spelling also applies to correcting people's math...
5670 * 24 = 138240
I just feel like posting this here to see how many people read this thinking that it'll be from someone with a lower uid than you :)
I wish I had mod points for that comment.
The "wood" age starts at around 12 or 13 and can last indefinitly thanks to viagra.
Personally, I'll take any scenario where the White House and Congress are controlled by different parties.
I happen to agree that this nation has it priorities a little screwed up.
But consider that the negative consequences of violent acts tend to be fairly obvious, while the negative consequences of sexual acts are a good deal less so, especially since there's no guarantee that any particular time will have a negative consequence.
So some people are not that worried about the violence their kids are exposed too. They expect it to be clear what the problems with violence are. But the same people get nervous about exposing their kids to sexual content, as the problems are less clear.
I think we (Americans) freak out way too much about nudity, though I feel it's a bit more justified in the case of pornagraphic material.
You make it sound like you think it's wrong to eat people!
Imagine if it said "You're too loose, in their opinion."
Somehow the mind refuses to believe that they're all spelled correctly above.
Amen to that.
The interview where I work requires that the applicant submit a code sample based on a relatively simple spec. Done right it's maybe 150 lines of C code. When I review them, I'm much more interested in how the applicant has organized the code and named variables/functions than I am in the syntax quality (though it does need to pass certain minimums). It's really remarkable what you can tell from a sample.
Time will tell. I believe the truth about the Flying Spaghetti Monster has only recently been revealed, so the dust hasn't quite settled yet. Besides, nothing can beat the pirates vs. global warming graph.
It's not just the Christians. Those who believe in the FSM want their theories put into classrooms too.