Of course it's been "taken into consideration by the people in charge." That doesn't mean they care. Speed limit laws are never going to get significantly changed or repealed. Those who benefit from them (insurance companies and state and city governments) can always fall back on the ironclad argument (despite any evidence to the contrary) about them protecting people's safety. How can we change or remove speed limits, they will howl, when it will KILL SO MANY BABIES?!?!
Forget it. Passing laws is ten times easier than getting them removed from the books, and in this case, getting them removed is impossible. The best you can do is buck the system and fight against any additional restrictions being placed on your liberties.
I NEED the ability to lie about the above two. Why? Because I live in New York City, where speed limits are set arbitrarily low in really stupid places for the express purpose of allowing cops to pick up people for speeding and feed the city coffers.
If anything, this technology SHOULD allow one to completely eliminate speed limits from the books. Exceeding the speed limit DANGEROUSLY can be called "reckless driving," so why do we have have to have extra laws for it in addition to reckless driving violations? For one reason only: those who make the laws realize that one can drive fast without driving dangerously, but if they let us do that they'd never make any money.
Driving at 85 mph in the rain on a twisty road in the middle of the night with cars on it? Yes. Your ass should be prosecuted.
Driving at 80 mph "in a 50" in the middle of the night, with not a cloud in the sky, on a completely empty, straight road? No.
Actually, what bothered me was that there were clearly MANY more locations to gate to than the number of symbols on the gates, and since the the 7th chevron is always the point of origin...
But at the very least, electors should be eliminated. There should be no possibility of "faithless electors" who are accountable to absolutely no one going against the wishes of their constituents.
The existence of the electoral college implies that the federal government is a creation of the states. The federal government is a creation of the PEOPLE.
Regardless of the outcome of this election, I would have still wanted the electoral college to be abolished.
Please submit your application for girlfriendhood below:
1) Name 2) Rank 3) Serial Number 4) Favorite Golden Girl 5) Favorite Color 6) Favorite Musical Group/Type/Artist 7) Favorite Pasta 8) Brief Paragraph Describing Yourself
I am an equal-opportunity dater and do not discriminate based on differences of race, creed, ethnic origin, or political party, even if you're a dirty, dirty, filthy Communist. You godless Red, you. You're thinking about undermining the dollar right now, aren't you?
If you do that, though, you're just gonna get bored and break up with her eventually, or some kind of pain is going to happen because of it that causes you to break up, ad infinitum.
That was sort of the point. That all the other qualities (sane, hot, intelligent, nice) can exist in one girl, but that she will always have a boyfriend who isn't you.
(I am, of course, being somewhat facetious here, but subjectively it makes a lot of sense.)
Those are some cheap chocolate bars you've got (ours are at least 35p, typically). Also some expensive CD-Rs. I can get CD-Rs for around a nickel (2-3p, about) apiece.
Personally, if she's lying to me that puts her somewhere way down the undesirable list anyway.
And if she is the type to absolve herself of responsibility in the above way, it's going to come out later in the [relationship/dalliance/affair/whatever] and I'll end up writing her off too. Nothing more attractive than a chick who can't follow through with anything she says. [/sarcasm]
Sanity is probably THE most important trait. Trust me on this one. There is nothing like the angst generated by a decent guy who is tortured by his fucked-up girlfriend.
So that you can have a future with her and there isn't a massive amount of baggage surrounding the relationship having to do with the fact that she has a boyfriend.
If she cheats with you, she'll cheat with someone else while she's with you.
You should continue to qualify that statement with "hot women," though. And it IS just a generalization.
Typically, the range of women presented to your average geek is:
sane, hot, intelligent, available, nice
Pick any four.
Not only that, but typically, girls who are hot just don't have to be nice. Or intelligent, or pursue any kind of intellectual pursuit. And the ones that are hot AND intelligent usually have something seriously wrong with them emotionally/mentally. Something about being attractive and knowing you're attractive, and being told you're attractive and getting your way because you're attractive for most of your life, drastically messes people up.
There are exceptions, of course, to these rules of thumb. But the exceptions always have boyfriends. Who aren't you, by the way.
Not much has happened in my 25 years of life to ever shake me from this analysis of the situation, but I'd be very interested in the opinions of anyone who thinks otherwise.
I'm a self-aware, thinking creature. Evolutionary standpoints do not matter one whit to me.
Kids are kids. At what stage in their life you meet them (birth, or afterward) or whose DNA they happen to contain really doesn't make much of a difference if you're interesting in ultimately forming a family with someone.
Do you have some kind of problem with kids, and ascribe that merely to being male?
Anyway, back on topic:
"For instance, I put a camera in Fresh Kills landfill, just a little networked web cam. It went on whenever the background radiation flipped above the so-called safe level.
What was interesting was that Staten Island has a hospital on it, which was also measuring environmental radiation. Medical facilities are required to do that. So they had their dosimeter, I had my dosimeter. We're both gathering the same data and it's not that different.
But mine's triggering a web cam. So instead of presenting me with information so that it looks like science, like a little graph, it's clips. Every time the background radiation fluctuates above a certain level, you get two seconds of video.
When you look at that, you start to see things you were not looking for. Seagulls are always going past when this is being triggered. Something happens at sundown, there's a truck going past. That becomes interesting.
This issue of radioactive seagulls--there's only one other paper on it. I wasn't looking for radioactive seagulls. I had no idea about radioactive seagulls, or the concentration of radioactive diets that go on within the gullet of a seagull. It has actually been partially documented by some Greenpeace science groups in England, in Sellafield. But there are no publications on it here."
I just wanted to point this out because I think it's easy to gloss over. I LIVE on Staten Island and I haven't heard ANYTHING about this. What does the possibility of radioactive seagulls suggest to us? They sure as hell aren't eating granite. Where is the closest nuclear reactor to New York City - or is there a poorly-shielded nuclear weapons facility that we don't know about?
This, not to put too fine a point on it, is scary shit to me.
It's about time an American leader took the reins and firmly directed everyone's eyes at their feet rather than the stars. How dare we run around sending up multi-million dollar spacecraft when there are health care programs and social security to complain about and whine over?
Slashdot Mirror
Of course it's been "taken into consideration by the people in charge." That doesn't mean they care. Speed limit laws are never going to get significantly changed or repealed. Those who benefit from them (insurance companies and state and city governments) can always fall back on the ironclad argument (despite any evidence to the contrary) about them protecting people's safety. How can we change or remove speed limits, they will howl, when it will KILL SO MANY BABIES?!?!
Forget it. Passing laws is ten times easier than getting them removed from the books, and in this case, getting them removed is impossible. The best you can do is buck the system and fight against any additional restrictions being placed on your liberties.
I NEED the ability to lie about the above two. Why? Because I live in New York City, where speed limits are set arbitrarily low in really stupid places for the express purpose of allowing cops to pick up people for speeding and feed the city coffers.
If anything, this technology SHOULD allow one to completely eliminate speed limits from the books. Exceeding the speed limit DANGEROUSLY can be called "reckless driving," so why do we have have to have extra laws for it in addition to reckless driving violations? For one reason only: those who make the laws realize that one can drive fast without driving dangerously, but if they let us do that they'd never make any money.
Driving at 85 mph in the rain on a twisty road in the middle of the night with cars on it? Yes. Your ass should be prosecuted.
Driving at 80 mph "in a 50" in the middle of the night, with not a cloud in the sky, on a completely empty, straight road? No.
This is interesting. Do you consider software programmers to be "proletariat?"
You mean Leah LIED to me?!?!?
;)
^-- NSFW
Which means that you can't get to some gates from other gates, right? Unless it's always the same symbol on the ring displaced.
Actually, what bothered me was that there were clearly MANY more locations to gate to than the number of symbols on the gates, and since the the 7th chevron is always the point of origin...
No, what he got wrong was Step 5, which actually occurs at the same time as Step 1.
Still, it is the contentious bit.
But at the very least, electors should be eliminated. There should be no possibility of "faithless electors" who are accountable to absolutely no one going against the wishes of their constituents.
The existence of the electoral college implies that the federal government is a creation of the states. The federal government is a creation of the PEOPLE.
Regardless of the outcome of this election, I would have still wanted the electoral college to be abolished.
We have a winnah.
Please submit your application for girlfriendhood below:
1) Name
2) Rank
3) Serial Number
4) Favorite Golden Girl
5) Favorite Color
6) Favorite Musical Group/Type/Artist
7) Favorite Pasta
8) Brief Paragraph Describing Yourself
I am an equal-opportunity dater and do not discriminate based on differences of race, creed, ethnic origin, or political party, even if you're a dirty, dirty, filthy Communist. You godless Red, you. You're thinking about undermining the dollar right now, aren't you?
If you do that, though, you're just gonna get bored and break up with her eventually, or some kind of pain is going to happen because of it that causes you to break up, ad infinitum.
That was sort of the point. That all the other qualities (sane, hot, intelligent, nice) can exist in one girl, but that she will always have a boyfriend who isn't you.
(I am, of course, being somewhat facetious here, but subjectively it makes a lot of sense.)
"Amen" means "I believe it."
:D
Therefore, I completely agree with you.
I'd be worried if Kerry DIDN'T masturbate.
I'm sure Bush is completely convinced that masturbation is evil, against the Word of God and a terrorist action.
(Incidentally, that's a lovely country you've got there. Lots of fun - good craic, as they say.)
YOU'RE one of the bastards taking them off the market! ;)
Those are some cheap chocolate bars you've got (ours are at least 35p, typically). Also some expensive CD-Rs. I can get CD-Rs for around a nickel (2-3p, about) apiece.
But what do you mean by "a byte-order issue with drive images made on PCs?" Is this an issue with endian-ness?
Personally, if she's lying to me that puts her somewhere way down the undesirable list anyway.
And if she is the type to absolve herself of responsibility in the above way, it's going to come out later in the [relationship/dalliance/affair/whatever] and I'll end up writing her off too. Nothing more attractive than a chick who can't follow through with anything she says. [/sarcasm]
Sanity is probably THE most important trait. Trust me on this one. There is nothing like the angst generated by a decent guy who is tortured by his fucked-up girlfriend.
So that you can have a future with her and there isn't a massive amount of baggage surrounding the relationship having to do with the fact that she has a boyfriend.
If she cheats with you, she'll cheat with someone else while she's with you.
You should continue to qualify that statement with "hot women," though. And it IS just a generalization.
Typically, the range of women presented to your average geek is:
sane, hot, intelligent, available, nice
Pick any four.
Not only that, but typically, girls who are hot just don't have to be nice. Or intelligent, or pursue any kind of intellectual pursuit. And the ones that are hot AND intelligent usually have something seriously wrong with them emotionally/mentally. Something about being attractive and knowing you're attractive, and being told you're attractive and getting your way because you're attractive for most of your life, drastically messes people up.
There are exceptions, of course, to these rules of thumb. But the exceptions always have boyfriends. Who aren't you, by the way.
Not much has happened in my 25 years of life to ever shake me from this analysis of the situation, but I'd be very interested in the opinions of anyone who thinks otherwise.
I'm a self-aware, thinking creature. Evolutionary standpoints do not matter one whit to me.
Kids are kids. At what stage in their life you meet them (birth, or afterward) or whose DNA they happen to contain really doesn't make much of a difference if you're interesting in ultimately forming a family with someone.
Do you have some kind of problem with kids, and ascribe that merely to being male?
Anyway, back on topic:
"For instance, I put a camera in Fresh Kills landfill, just a little networked web cam. It went on whenever the background radiation flipped above the so-called safe level.
What was interesting was that Staten Island has a hospital on it, which was also measuring environmental radiation. Medical facilities are required to do that. So they had their dosimeter, I had my dosimeter. We're both gathering the same data and it's not that different.
But mine's triggering a web cam. So instead of presenting me with information so that it looks like science, like a little graph, it's clips. Every time the background radiation fluctuates above a certain level, you get two seconds of video.
When you look at that, you start to see things you were not looking for. Seagulls are always going past when this is being triggered. Something happens at sundown, there's a truck going past. That becomes interesting.
This issue of radioactive seagulls--there's only one other paper on it. I wasn't looking for radioactive seagulls. I had no idea about radioactive seagulls, or the concentration of radioactive diets that go on within the gullet of a seagull. It has actually been partially documented by some Greenpeace science groups in England, in Sellafield. But there are no publications on it here."
I just wanted to point this out because I think it's easy to gloss over. I LIVE on Staten Island and I haven't heard ANYTHING about this. What does the possibility of radioactive seagulls suggest to us? They sure as hell aren't eating granite. Where is the closest nuclear reactor to New York City - or is there a poorly-shielded nuclear weapons facility that we don't know about?
This, not to put too fine a point on it, is scary shit to me.
Joke, dude. I totally agree with you.
It's about time an American leader took the reins and firmly directed everyone's eyes at their feet rather than the stars. How dare we run around sending up multi-million dollar spacecraft when there are health care programs and social security to complain about and whine over?
After all, there's clearly no future in space.