Lawn mowers? Electric? Have you ever really tried to use one? No? My daughter (out of environmental respect) bought one and tried to make a go of it. The problem is unless you mow your lawn like a putting green an electric mower isn't going to cut the grass. Sure, if you need to take 0.5 inches off the top, no problem. But if you need to cut 2 inches of grass blade it will not function. So you can make it work if you cut your grass every couple of days - like a putting green. Or you can get a mower with 10x the power but has a gas engine. My daughter now has a gas mower after returning the electric one as being non-functional in her yard. Don't know anyone that has an electric one around here in Iowa either.
I'm from the UK, so there is obviously a culture difference, but from my point of view, if you are cutting 2 inches or more of grass you've got a paddock, not a lawn. If your lawn doesn't approach the putting green length, why bother? Long grass is entirely pointless, you might as well tarmac the thing over unless you're grazing animals on it.
Yes, most people have small gardens and lawns here by US standards, but the majority of mowers are electric ones. Petrol (gas) mowers are mainly used by (a) people who like noisy engines and (b) farmers, smallholders, country-dwellers, local councils or anyone else with a large area to mow.
Offended? Plz. Hardly. IRepeating the same headline year after year about the same trend misinforms the public about the gravity of the problem. The problem, as you point out, is that people don't get the basics, so why compound the problem with lousy reporting?
I don't understand. If the trend is continuing upwards year after year, doesn't this mean that AGW is being confirmed and that people should be worried about the gravity of the problem?
If there are arguments to be made about the validity or interpretation of AGW, fine: but just ignoring it is not a sensible option.
What would be the motivation of the majority of scientists worldwide to perpetrate such a gaint fraud? To hold back capitalsim? Do scientist hait Capitalism"
There are several stock slashdot answers to that:
1. They're mostly liberals. Yes. Yes.
2. They're greedy just to get grant money. They don't care. They don't care.
3. They are part of the wider ZOG conspiracy and have been infiltrated by alien lizard spies. Yes. Yes.
I would be amazed, if ever in the history of insurance companies, that a study of risk calculated that they could lower their premiums.
Translation: I don't work in the insurance industry, and know nothing about insurance.
Here's a hint: if insurance companies can lower their premiums in a particular area, do you think they are going to get more or less business than a competitor who keeps them the same?
believe it or not the last 50 some years in NYC have been very lite on hurricanes. in the last few hundred years when it was colder the NYC area has had a lot more frequent and powerful storms than Sandy
So because one particular place has had a favourable change in one particular type of weather over an arbitrary period of time, we can safely say that the whole AGW thing is just scare-mongering?
First of all in the shop they told me "HD is partitioned in two partitions, C and D". I think, cool, so user files go to D, and the system is on C. Well, no, the user files are on the C partition. In the shop I was about to ask something like "oh, so usr is mounted to D" when I realised that Windows doesn't do such things.
So D was empty. What's the use of that? I don't know. It was convenient for me to install Linux on it, three flavours, just to test what works best on that netbook. I'd like to keep Windows, can come in handy.
Most new Windows computers I've seen recently partition the hard drive into C and D and put the restoration image/files on D, so that in theory it's easy to re-install if something goes horribly wrong (short of a hard drive failure, obviously). Sounds to me like the shop somehow wiped the D partition when they re-installed Windows if you're sure it's empty..
Horses for courses, but if I want to play a game, I don't really care whether I have to wait for a couple of minutes to re-boot. I almost never feel the need to switch quickly back and forth between games and work, and if I did, I'd need it to be within the same OS at the click of a mouse: even 20 seconds to change from guest to host OS and start gaming is not that great.
There are tons of other legal prescription medication that people take that will fuck them up more then pot when it comes to being able to drive a car. Are we stopping people for that?
Those who can make it into the car and out of the parking lot are good enough to drive, it's my personal belief
Respect! That is hard core, old school stupidity. I expect the phrase "it's not far from home, the car practically drives itself there anyway" is no stranger to your lips.
I have a friend who has two jobs, goes to school for his bachelors degree, has a wife and a new-born son. When I asked him how he copes he replied: "Copious amount of marijuana, bro." He smokes when he wakes up, smokes on his drive in to work, smokes during lunch, smokes on his way to night classes or his second job and a few hits at night before bed.
Similarly, I have known several people who were functioning alcoholics. What exactly does this prove?
Want to get busted without drinking more than a tiny amount of booze? Just before you breath into the machine, swill some whiskey around in your mouth. Just a tablespoon should be enough.
I think that is the most useless piece of advice I have ever seen on the internet.
It looks like they mean 16% of people pulled over were positive, not 16% of people on the road. You would expect a significantly higher amount of people pulled over to show as positive compared to the background rate.
It didn't say they were pulled over for committing an offence, merely that these were "nighttime weekend “voluntary” roadside surveys." Although I'm not sure about the quotes around voluntary.
That is only really an issue in the US with for-profit prison systems. In most of the rest of the world, sending someone to prison is a last, expensive resort.
problem is, it is true;there have been independant studies of driving under marijuana influence and the subjects generally drive slower, tend to be over cautious, and realize they are impaired,which results in less driving errors.(sometimes even making less errors than when they are straight).In contrast to alcohol where subjects drive faster, are less cautious, and dont believe they are impaired.This is why the anti-pot advocates dont usually use marijuana driving stats for their cause.
That is pure bullshit, driving too slowly and over-cautiously can cause accidents just as much as speeding and recklessness. Whenever there are stories about speeding, everyone rushes to say this (and it's true). But because this is the wonder-substance pot, there can be no possible bad side effects, so paranoia is just "being careful" and the inability to gauge speed correctly is just "taking things slowly".
I'm all in favour of drugs, it's most fucking drug users that annoy me.
What level of marijuana impairs a driver?!? Weed gets you high. There is only one level of high, and that is high. You can smoke 100 joints an hour and still be at the level of high. You drink 100 beers an hour and you will be at the level of dead. There is NO comparison.
You are begging the question that being high doesn't impair your driving ability.
If there is indeed no gradation of impairment and it's just a binary thing then you just give everyone the same penalty. If there is no impairment in the first place, obviously there is no need to worry make it illegal to drive under the influence.
The reason you have a scale of penalties depending on how drunk someone is because having 8 beers demonstrably affects your driving more than 2, and 16 more than 8.
My first time wasn't like that. My roommate however, gets that every time.
Maybe you puritans should just not use it instead of trying to prevent me from using what for me is a working anti-depressant.
Everyone's different. Live with it.
There are few people more annoying than those who try to justify recreational drug use with claimed self-medication benefits. Just admit you like getting stoned. I don't kid myself that getting drunk is some serious health exercise, I just enjoy it.
Back on topic, I am also anti-drink driving and think this should apply to any drug use (legal or illegal) too. I don't care if you think you drive better with six beers or a couple of joints under your belt. You almost certainly can't, and if you can, tough shit, rules apply to everybody.
Very good point. I too am in favor of decriminalization but not legalization. Most people that don't smoke pot today that actually want to smoke it don't because of employment concerns. It's difficult nowadays to find a job that pays a decent wage that doesn't drug test. I know many people that I work with that talk about pot and how they'd like to smoke it but can't take a chance on losing their job. Note they didn't even mention the law.
Will it still be permissible to sack someone who tests positive for marijuana even where it's legal?
Killing many more innocent people of the opposing faction in retaliation for one's victims was a distinctive mark of the Nazis during WW2. Israel shouldn't become a monster to fight another one.
*golfclap*
Well done, you have confirmed the off shoot of Godwin's law that, in any internet discussion of the Middle East, someone will eventually liken Israel (and no other country) to Nazi Germany.
I would say that societies that don't value free inquiry, thought, expression--even assertion that makes people feel uncomfortable or that may attack the dignity one supposes is one's inherent state or due/rigth are doomed to fall into absurdity, subjection to arbitrary and capricious power careful only for itself, humiliation, oppression, and finally annihilation or defeat at the hands of a nation or nations that does not fall to such "empire" (look up the original meaning). It's why as much as I like bio I can't like Dawkins
I don't follow your argument.
Dawkins is anti-religion and uses his freedom of speech to express his beliefs. That does indeed make religious people feel uncomfortable.
But he's never shown any sign of "crushing unwanted ideas and manners of life" except in the sense of ridiculing them and showing that they are wrong. Do you think that people who believe in a Flat or (Hollow) Earth should not be argued with on the basis of scientific evidence??
Slashdot Mirror
Lawn mowers? Electric? Have you ever really tried to use one? No? My daughter (out of environmental respect) bought one and tried to make a go of it. The problem is unless you mow your lawn like a putting green an electric mower isn't going to cut the grass. Sure, if you need to take 0.5 inches off the top, no problem. But if you need to cut 2 inches of grass blade it will not function. So you can make it work if you cut your grass every couple of days - like a putting green. Or you can get a mower with 10x the power but has a gas engine. My daughter now has a gas mower after returning the electric one as being non-functional in her yard. Don't know anyone that has an electric one around here in Iowa either.
I'm from the UK, so there is obviously a culture difference, but from my point of view, if you are cutting 2 inches or more of grass you've got a paddock, not a lawn. If your lawn doesn't approach the putting green length, why bother? Long grass is entirely pointless, you might as well tarmac the thing over unless you're grazing animals on it.
Yes, most people have small gardens and lawns here by US standards, but the majority of mowers are electric ones. Petrol (gas) mowers are mainly used by (a) people who like noisy engines and (b) farmers, smallholders, country-dwellers, local councils or anyone else with a large area to mow.
Offended? Plz. Hardly. IRepeating the same headline year after year about the same trend misinforms the public about the gravity of the problem. The problem, as you point out, is that people don't get the basics, so why compound the problem with lousy reporting?
I don't understand. If the trend is continuing upwards year after year, doesn't this mean that AGW is being confirmed and that people should be worried about the gravity of the problem?
If there are arguments to be made about the validity or interpretation of AGW, fine: but just ignoring it is not a sensible option.
What would be the motivation of the majority of scientists worldwide to perpetrate such a gaint fraud? To hold back capitalsim? Do scientist hait Capitalism"
There are several stock slashdot answers to that:
1. They're mostly liberals. Yes. Yes.
2. They're greedy just to get grant money. They don't care. They don't care.
3. They are part of the wider ZOG conspiracy and have been infiltrated by alien lizard spies. Yes. Yes.
I would be amazed, if ever in the history of insurance companies, that a study of risk calculated that they could lower their premiums.
Translation: I don't work in the insurance industry, and know nothing about insurance.
Here's a hint: if insurance companies can lower their premiums in a particular area, do you think they are going to get more or less business than a competitor who keeps them the same?
believe it or not the last 50 some years in NYC have been very lite on hurricanes. in the last few hundred years when it was colder the NYC area has had a lot more frequent and powerful storms than Sandy
So because one particular place has had a favourable change in one particular type of weather over an arbitrary period of time, we can safely say that the whole AGW thing is just scare-mongering?
Photorefractive Keratotomy?
Maybe... define your acronyms?
A quick google suggests PKR.com which is an online poker site, although why that should require Windows I have no idea, nor interest in finding out.
This may come as a shock to you, but over 99.73% of people don't work in the scientific academic domain.
First of all in the shop they told me "HD is partitioned in two partitions, C and D". I think, cool, so user files go to D, and the system is on C. Well, no, the user files are on the C partition. In the shop I was about to ask something like "oh, so usr is mounted to D" when I realised that Windows doesn't do such things.
So D was empty. What's the use of that? I don't know. It was convenient for me to install Linux on it, three flavours, just to test what works best on that netbook. I'd like to keep Windows, can come in handy.
Most new Windows computers I've seen recently partition the hard drive into C and D and put the restoration image/files on D, so that in theory it's easy to re-install if something goes horribly wrong (short of a hard drive failure, obviously). Sounds to me like the shop somehow wiped the D partition when they re-installed Windows if you're sure it's empty..
Horses for courses, but if I want to play a game, I don't really care whether I have to wait for a couple of minutes to re-boot. I almost never feel the need to switch quickly back and forth between games and work, and if I did, I'd need it to be within the same OS at the click of a mouse: even 20 seconds to change from guest to host OS and start gaming is not that great.
There are tons of other legal prescription medication that people take that will fuck them up more then pot when it comes to being able to drive a car. Are we stopping people for that?
We should be.
*effects, ahem, no, i've not smoked anything, and i bet you can't prove it!
Drugs can change your emotions quite a lot, so "affects" works too.
Those who can make it into the car and out of the parking lot are good enough to drive, it's my personal belief
Respect! That is hard core, old school stupidity. I expect the phrase "it's not far from home, the car practically drives itself there anyway" is no stranger to your lips.
I have a friend who has two jobs, goes to school for his bachelors degree, has a wife and a new-born son. When I asked him how he copes he replied: "Copious amount of marijuana, bro." He smokes when he wakes up, smokes on his drive in to work, smokes during lunch, smokes on his way to night classes or his second job and a few hits at night before bed.
Similarly, I have known several people who were functioning alcoholics. What exactly does this prove?
Want to get busted without drinking more than a tiny amount of booze? Just before you breath into the machine, swill some whiskey around in your mouth. Just a tablespoon should be enough.
I think that is the most useless piece of advice I have ever seen on the internet.
It looks like they mean 16% of people pulled over were positive, not 16% of people on the road. You would expect a significantly higher amount of people pulled over to show as positive compared to the background rate.
It didn't say they were pulled over for committing an offence, merely that these were "nighttime weekend “voluntary” roadside surveys." Although I'm not sure about the quotes around voluntary.
I drive high all the time, never had a problem. I am infinitely safer than somebody texting or speeding or following too close.
That's exactly what drink-drivers say.
LOL he should chill out and smoke some pot.
the prison-industrial complex being profitable
That is only really an issue in the US with for-profit prison systems. In most of the rest of the world, sending someone to prison is a last, expensive resort.
problem is, it is true;there have been independant studies of driving under marijuana influence and the subjects generally drive slower, tend to be over cautious, and realize they are impaired,which results in less driving errors.(sometimes even making less errors than when they are straight).In contrast to alcohol where subjects drive faster, are less cautious, and dont believe they are impaired.This is why the anti-pot advocates dont usually use marijuana driving stats for their cause.
That is pure bullshit, driving too slowly and over-cautiously can cause accidents just as much as speeding and recklessness. Whenever there are stories about speeding, everyone rushes to say this (and it's true). But because this is the wonder-substance pot, there can be no possible bad side effects, so paranoia is just "being careful" and the inability to gauge speed correctly is just "taking things slowly".
I'm all in favour of drugs, it's most fucking drug users that annoy me.
What level of marijuana impairs a driver?!? Weed gets you high. There is only one level of high, and that is high. You can smoke 100 joints an hour and still be at the level of high. You drink 100 beers an hour and you will be at the level of dead. There is NO comparison.
You are begging the question that being high doesn't impair your driving ability.
If there is indeed no gradation of impairment and it's just a binary thing then you just give everyone the same penalty. If there is no impairment in the first place, obviously there is no need to worry make it illegal to drive under the influence.
The reason you have a scale of penalties depending on how drunk someone is because having 8 beers demonstrably affects your driving more than 2, and 16 more than 8.
My first time wasn't like that. My roommate however, gets that every time.
Maybe you puritans should just not use it instead of trying to prevent me from using what for me is a working anti-depressant.
Everyone's different. Live with it.
There are few people more annoying than those who try to justify recreational drug use with claimed self-medication benefits. Just admit you like getting stoned. I don't kid myself that getting drunk is some serious health exercise, I just enjoy it. Back on topic, I am also anti-drink driving and think this should apply to any drug use (legal or illegal) too. I don't care if you think you drive better with six beers or a couple of joints under your belt. You almost certainly can't, and if you can, tough shit, rules apply to everybody.
Very good point. I too am in favor of decriminalization but not legalization. Most people that don't smoke pot today that actually want to smoke it don't because of employment concerns. It's difficult nowadays to find a job that pays a decent wage that doesn't drug test. I know many people that I work with that talk about pot and how they'd like to smoke it but can't take a chance on losing their job. Note they didn't even mention the law.
Will it still be permissible to sack someone who tests positive for marijuana even where it's legal?
Just curious.
Killing many more innocent people of the opposing faction in retaliation for one's victims was a distinctive mark of the Nazis during WW2. Israel shouldn't become a monster to fight another one.
*golfclap*
Well done, you have confirmed the off shoot of Godwin's law that, in any internet discussion of the Middle East, someone will eventually liken Israel (and no other country) to Nazi Germany.
I would say that societies that don't value free inquiry, thought, expression--even assertion that makes people feel uncomfortable or that may attack the dignity one supposes is one's inherent state or due/rigth are doomed to fall into absurdity, subjection to arbitrary and capricious power careful only for itself, humiliation, oppression, and finally annihilation or defeat at the hands of a nation or nations that does not fall to such "empire" (look up the original meaning). It's why as much as I like bio I can't like Dawkins
I don't follow your argument.
Dawkins is anti-religion and uses his freedom of speech to express his beliefs. That does indeed make religious people feel uncomfortable.
But he's never shown any sign of "crushing unwanted ideas and manners of life" except in the sense of ridiculing them and showing that they are wrong. Do you think that people who believe in a Flat or (Hollow) Earth should not be argued with on the basis of scientific evidence??
Israel doesn't want peace. It wants land.
So how come it isn't occupying Gaza or the Sinai any more?