My "special requirment" is not that special: it is to have relevant, accurate results. Is it really too much to ask for: search engine results that *gasp* contain what you asked specifically for?
Millions of people, and the slashbot hivemind, tend to find google to be a very useful search engine. You are not alone in your opinions, but you are outnumbered. Give up, nitpicker.
To be totally anal... if a man is married to a woman and has custody and parental rights over her child (who *is not his*) then the child would indeed be a red-headed stepchild.
Actually, no. That's what policy is for. See, the company says "Our employee handbook expressly prohibits what that peon did." The peon claims management turned a blind eye. Management claims the peon never brought it up. Peon gets fired for violating policy.*
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated...{snip}
This is generally construed... and has been promulgated by SCOTUS... as a right to privacy.
When you go to the shop for a new pc, rather then asking for the newest and fastest one with the most megahurts, ask for one that can`t get worms while you are just trying to read your mail.
That's all well and good...but I'll bet you lunch that if mom & pop ask that question at Best Buy, some enterprising salesman is going to package a copy of Norton or somesuch and tell them they're covered. He might even sell the extended service contract.
Only if you're getting butt-raped on shipping charges. Which, by the way, most places really do. More often than not, Shipping & Handling means $10 shipping and $10 profit.
Shipping is part of my job, so I'm pretty current on rates, and can double-check the stores that send me goods. In all seriousness, the H in S&H is all-too-often 50% or more of the actual cost to ship.
I used to be an example of this: I was practically armed and dangerous every time I'd call tech support, or even pick up a call from a telemarketer. Some of those calls ended on some very ugly notes.
Lately, I've been experimenting with niceness and vocal warmth - trying to establish rapport, etc... and *gasp* it works. I seem to be getting what I want, and quickly. YMMV.
If you include the weight of the shuttle itself, then, yes, it is 104000kg.
Saturn V's payload is 118000kg.
I'm merely attempting to point out that the Space Shuttle received all the power of the Saturn V, and then some.
These statements do not correspond well. The Sat V rocket could have carried the Shuttle *fully loaded*, with room to spare. Conversely, it would take 104 Full Shuttle Loads to carry One Saturn V rocket, "with a total mass of three thousand metric tonnes"...(that's 3 MILLION KG)...into LEO.
How exactly is that "all the power of the Saturn V, and then some."??
Coffee is typically served at 180 degrees or so...(snip)...Spilling typical coffee on your lap is going to hurt for a moment, and at worse you'll get a 1st degree burn i.e. sun burn. This is an accepted risk of drinking a hot beverage.
I beg to differ. When I was 14, I spilled coffee straight from a home-use (UL Listed) Mr. Coffee coffee machine... and got 2nd degree burns, blisters, and much pain. Spent the whole day in a cold-water bath. To this day (13 years later) I have a patch of leg that is darker-skinned than the rest. So you're entirely wrong when asserting that 'typical coffee' won't cause serious burns. I'd say that a Mr. Coffee coffee pot constitutes the De Facto typical cup of coffee, wouldn't you?
Now, I could have (in theory) sued over the temperature controls, but I was raised to have a healthy respect for personal responsibility, and I understand that accidents happen. How many other people got 3rd degree burns from McDonald's coffee? Was there a trend? If it was an isolated incident, you would be damn hard pressed to prove negligence. Juries often side with the 'little guy' because they don't like the looks of the corporate law team sitting at the defense table, and they want to help someone 'average' get some serious cash. They also have a perception that a company like McD's might not really miss a couple million bucks.
Um.... That makes you a de facto proponent of bigger government. The fact that you disclaim it just shows that you're uncomfortable with the fact that you're promoting big government in a forum where a majority prefer smaller government.;) See, us small government types know that saying 'this ought to be illegal' can lead to a slippery-slope situation over time. For example, what if this were made illegal, giving us precedent to mandate that all internet transactions provide authentication of the sender's identification? No more anonymity != limits on free speech. And away we go again...
And another fine example of the Stern crowd and why Stern and his followers are treated the way they are. Because they present themselves as inconsiderate, selfish a**holes. 'Hey! This crap needs to be on because I LIKE IT. F*k everyone else and their opinions!'
And another fine example of the FCC crowd and why they are treated the way they are. Because they present themselves as inconsiderate, selfish a**holes. 'Hey! This crap needs to be banned because I DON'T LIKE IT. F*k everyone else and their opinions!'
You only think it's strange because of your own preconceived notions about how other people should think.;)
Given that moderator points are (supposedly) distributed at random, and that hundreds, if not thousands, of mod points are spent in the making of post ranks... I would say this is likely a good indicator that there are a bunch of porn lovers out there, and not as many porn haters.;);)
You could consider this a clue, but it is not mandatory.
If he was on a street corner in Phoenix using the same language over a bullhorn I would probably not be the first one to call the cops.
Hey, dipshit... Bad Analogies Suck Ass. The way I read your comment: 'if he was on a street corner in Phoenix, but I had a personal mute button for him, I'd still be in favor of calling the cops. Because you DO have a mute button. It's called a RADIO DIAL.
And to all those asshats who break out the 'public good' tripe - The airwaves were never about the public good. They are, were, and always will be about the money. The public good is a convenient sound bite - and nothing more. If that argument wasn't good enough for you, then consider that entertainment IS supposed to be a 'public good'. Whether or not YOU find it entertaining, someone else certainly does...else he would be out of a job.
What truly sickens me is all the de-regulation Republicans who want 'government out of your life', but who turn around and regulate other things to control you anyway. They're worse than the regulate-everything Dems...at least those dickheads are honest about what they want.
And yeah, I did use vulgarity in this post simply because the topic was Stern.;)
How about next time, instead of referencing two out of three, you just reference them all? Saying your reader is too lazy to do his own research is a writing sin all its own, especially when you're providing partial references. It really makes it look like a baseless assertion because you were so proud to provide links to the other two, but just made a claim on the last. My criticisms are intended to help others get better at writing, expressing critical thought, and clearly communicating to an audience. Ignore or accept that criticism; the choice is always yours, but I won't be hurt either way.;)
Our troops are doing a great job. Not their fault they're stuck fighting Vietnam II, "Desert of Doom."
In light of the fact that we have our 'all volunteer' armed forces, it is 100% their fault. Any service member who regrets his deployment to a war zone should have considered that possibility before putting ink to paper. I'm against the war, but I feel no pity for those soldiers who want to come home. Signing up MEANT that this could happen to them. Just like voting, it could have even sent a sign to the Elected that they were WILLING to be used for this purpose.
Naderites might wish to decriminalize drugs, but they sure as hell would want the government to regulate their quality to ensure they were safe. Which sounds reasonable to me...
Oh, really?Excerpt: How good is America's drug safety system? Since 1997, more than a dozen prescription drugs have been taken off the market due to serious side effects -- in some cases after hundreds of injuries and even deaths have occurred...
It might also be pointed out that the current regulation system is the one that's keeping prices of prescription drugs so high that many people routinely spend more on medication than on their home or vehicle payments.
It might also be pointed out that there is no justification (short of Interstate Commerce Clause) that gives the gov't the ability to regulate in the first place. The ICC wasn't meant to provide this window, as can be seen by the Amendments regarding prohibition. Only after that debacle was it decided that the gov't really did have the power, after all.
Yeah, maybe so. I'm a geek, politically interested, and libertarian. I think maybe it's the fact that we deal with logic that will blow up if not formed properly. In the real world, screwing up your logic might still convince someone. In the computer world, bad logic = total failure.
Have you ever looked at the history of the Pledge? If you ask me, no child should ever be asked to blindy chant obedience. If you love your country and want to pledge, no one will ever stop you. But where do you draw the line when classes are told that 'now it's time to say the pledge. Would everyone please stand?'
What if all your friends stand? Would you be brave enough to continue sitting?
For what it's worth, I spent the vast majority of my eighth-grade year (1990, god does that make me old?) FORCED to sit outside my first-hour English classroom because I wouldn't stand or recite the pledge. My teacher punished me for not sheeping along.
In circumstances like that (which I know happen, don't try to kid me), I support a full, 100% revocation of the pledge in any form of law. It should remain outside legal bounds. Again, if you want, have fun. But don't make it routine practice.
Also, the ACLU has made some oversteps, but they are operating under an assumption that government isn't worth trusting. Interestingly, that's the same attitude the Founding Fathers held, and the same attitude held by a majority of our people. Why do you think people don't vote???
Mr AC, you must be retarded. Your vehicle is FAR, FAR more dangerous than even the most powerful weapon banned under the law (which was duplicitous in that the weapons and parts banned were prohibited because they looked like military weapons - pistol grips on rifles, bayonet mounts).
Who NEEDS personal, private transportation? Wouldn't it more effective to just let government worry about getting me from place to place? Why should I have the CONSITUTIONAL RIGHT to travel at my own direction and pace? After all, I'm endangering others, aren't I? Maybe we could start a division of gov't just for that purpose, and have Congress renew its charter every couple of years just to keep it legal. Sound fun?
Slashdot Mirror
Millions of people, and the slashbot hivemind, tend to find google to be a very useful search engine. You are not alone in your opinions, but you are outnumbered. Give up, nitpicker.
*=Not necessarily for the given reason. ;) ;)
Hey, I live in the middle of nowhere... just got DSL *this week*. :) Happy to have joined the 36%!
This is generally construed... and has been promulgated by SCOTUS... as a right to privacy.
That's all well and good...but I'll bet you lunch that if mom & pop ask that question at Best Buy, some enterprising salesman is going to package a copy of Norton or somesuch and tell them they're covered. He might even sell the extended service contract.
Shipping is part of my job, so I'm pretty current on rates, and can double-check the stores that send me goods. In all seriousness, the H in S&H is all-too-often 50% or more of the actual cost to ship.
Lately, I've been experimenting with niceness and vocal warmth - trying to establish rapport, etc... and *gasp* it works. I seem to be getting what I want, and quickly. YMMV.
This is the perfect time for me to post this link.
Interesting point here is that the Constitution specifies that treaties we sign and get ratified by Congress BECOME the law of the land. ;)
Saturn V's payload is 118000kg.
I'm merely attempting to point out that the Space Shuttle received all the power of the Saturn V, and then some.
These statements do not correspond well. The Sat V rocket could have carried the Shuttle *fully loaded*, with room to spare. Conversely, it would take 104 Full Shuttle Loads to carry One Saturn V rocket, "with a total mass of three thousand metric tonnes"...(that's 3 MILLION KG)...into LEO.
How exactly is that "all the power of the Saturn V, and then some."??
I beg to differ. When I was 14, I spilled coffee straight from a home-use (UL Listed) Mr. Coffee coffee machine... and got 2nd degree burns, blisters, and much pain. Spent the whole day in a cold-water bath. To this day (13 years later) I have a patch of leg that is darker-skinned than the rest. So you're entirely wrong when asserting that 'typical coffee' won't cause serious burns. I'd say that a Mr. Coffee coffee pot constitutes the De Facto typical cup of coffee, wouldn't you?
Now, I could have (in theory) sued over the temperature controls, but I was raised to have a healthy respect for personal responsibility, and I understand that accidents happen. How many other people got 3rd degree burns from McDonald's coffee? Was there a trend? If it was an isolated incident, you would be damn hard pressed to prove negligence. Juries often side with the 'little guy' because they don't like the looks of the corporate law team sitting at the defense table, and they want to help someone 'average' get some serious cash. They also have a perception that a company like McD's might not really miss a couple million bucks.
Um.... That makes you a de facto proponent of bigger government. The fact that you disclaim it just shows that you're uncomfortable with the fact that you're promoting big government in a forum where a majority prefer smaller government. ;) See, us small government types know that saying 'this ought to be illegal' can lead to a slippery-slope situation over time. For example, what if this were made illegal, giving us precedent to mandate that all internet transactions provide authentication of the sender's identification? No more anonymity != limits on free speech. And away we go again...
I think you're confused. The day was September 11th, commonly referred to as 9-11 (Month 9, Day 11)... NOT "9th of September". THAT would be 9/9.
And another fine example of the FCC crowd and why they are treated the way they are. Because they present themselves as inconsiderate, selfish a**holes. 'Hey! This crap needs to be banned because I DON'T LIKE IT. F*k everyone else and their opinions!'
Given that moderator points are (supposedly) distributed at random, and that hundreds, if not thousands, of mod points are spent in the making of post ranks... I would say this is likely a good indicator that there are a bunch of porn lovers out there, and not as many porn haters. ;) ;)
You could consider this a clue, but it is not mandatory.
Hey, dipshit... Bad Analogies Suck Ass. The way I read your comment: 'if he was on a street corner in Phoenix, but I had a personal mute button for him, I'd still be in favor of calling the cops. Because you DO have a mute button. It's called a RADIO DIAL.
And to all those asshats who break out the 'public good' tripe - The airwaves were never about the public good. They are, were, and always will be about the money. The public good is a convenient sound bite - and nothing more. If that argument wasn't good enough for you, then consider that entertainment IS supposed to be a 'public good'. Whether or not YOU find it entertaining, someone else certainly does...else he would be out of a job.
What truly sickens me is all the de-regulation Republicans who want 'government out of your life', but who turn around and regulate other things to control you anyway. They're worse than the regulate-everything Dems...at least those dickheads are honest about what they want.
And yeah, I did use vulgarity in this post simply because the topic was Stern. ;)
How about next time, instead of referencing two out of three, you just reference them all? Saying your reader is too lazy to do his own research is a writing sin all its own, especially when you're providing partial references. It really makes it look like a baseless assertion because you were so proud to provide links to the other two, but just made a claim on the last. My criticisms are intended to help others get better at writing, expressing critical thought, and clearly communicating to an audience. Ignore or accept that criticism; the choice is always yours, but I won't be hurt either way. ;)
In light of the fact that we have our 'all volunteer' armed forces, it is 100% their fault. Any service member who regrets his deployment to a war zone should have considered that possibility before putting ink to paper. I'm against the war, but I feel no pity for those soldiers who want to come home. Signing up MEANT that this could happen to them. Just like voting, it could have even sent a sign to the Elected that they were WILLING to be used for this purpose.
Oh, really? Excerpt: How good is America's drug safety system? Since 1997, more than a dozen prescription drugs have been taken off the market due to serious side effects -- in some cases after hundreds of injuries and even deaths have occurred...
It might also be pointed out that the current regulation system is the one that's keeping prices of prescription drugs so high that many people routinely spend more on medication than on their home or vehicle payments.
It might also be pointed out that there is no justification (short of Interstate Commerce Clause) that gives the gov't the ability to regulate in the first place. The ICC wasn't meant to provide this window, as can be seen by the Amendments regarding prohibition. Only after that debacle was it decided that the gov't really did have the power, after all.
At least that's my take on it. ;)
What if all your friends stand? Would you be brave enough to continue sitting?
For what it's worth, I spent the vast majority of my eighth-grade year (1990, god does that make me old?) FORCED to sit outside my first-hour English classroom because I wouldn't stand or recite the pledge. My teacher punished me for not sheeping along.
In circumstances like that (which I know happen, don't try to kid me), I support a full, 100% revocation of the pledge in any form of law. It should remain outside legal bounds. Again, if you want, have fun. But don't make it routine practice.
Also, the ACLU has made some oversteps, but they are operating under an assumption that government isn't worth trusting. Interestingly, that's the same attitude the Founding Fathers held, and the same attitude held by a majority of our people. Why do you think people don't vote???
Have you been hiding in a cave in Afghanistan for the last four years?
Look Here
Who NEEDS personal, private transportation? Wouldn't it more effective to just let government worry about getting me from place to place? Why should I have the CONSITUTIONAL RIGHT to travel at my own direction and pace? After all, I'm endangering others, aren't I? Maybe we could start a division of gov't just for that purpose, and have Congress renew its charter every couple of years just to keep it legal. Sound fun?