I completely agree. However if my tax dollars are going for someone elses healthcare, I want it to go for things that are not their fault. If the problem is self inflicted then they should be paying for it.
However, the judge didn't care that there was no reason to be pulled over (with photos of the left-turn sign) since the cop explicitly said it wasn't due to erratic driving, *only* the 'illegal' left turn. Examples must be made. DUI upheld.
He blew over - he was guilty! Why would he even expect to be let off?
It failed, it creates an infinite loop in most of the cases if you ignore some keyboard input. If you would allow any keyboard input, like ctrl-c, you will need more than that.
And to get an Infinity Loop, you gotta do much much more.
You made an assumption that there's actually an operating system running in the background. If this was an embedded device with no OS this is a perfect infinite loop.
I see that you are very short sighted, and intolerant of others freedoms.
I'm not intolerant of other peoples freedoms - I would forcefully oppose a ban on anything. However peoples choices have consequences and they should be held responsible for them.
If I have to pay $1.60 instead of $1.40 for a plate of greasy fries if I want one, I really couldn't care, and I should be able to enjoy that in peace. However someone who regularly make a meal out of fries and pop is going to have health problems and the money collected should go to offset those health costs. I should npt be on the hook for someone elses crappy diet decisions, and doing so is restricting *my* freedoms.
Your sig says "No Big 3 bailout", but if government can tax fat people why can't they give the money to the Big 3? Put, differently, on what principle would you base your objection?
The exact same principle. For the auto industry, why should I bail out a company that is consistently on the top ten worst performing cars (7 out of 10 for last year for Chrysler). The execs screwed up the company with waste and excess and never took care of the business.
And it's exactly the same with people that are overweight and have massive health problems due to their own choices in poor diet. I see no reason to pay for the consequences for other peoples poor judgement and deliberate mistakes.
A being better than B does not mean B is bad. Organically-raised beef is certainly better than commercially-farmed McBeef in flavor, and for the sake of argument, let us also concede that it is even marginally better nutritionally. However that does NOT mean that McBeef is nutritionally BAD. If you need proof that McBeef is bad food, you need to look elsewhere, or redefine 'bad.'
Which would you rather eat, a cow that looks and behaves healthy or one that just collapsed and died in front of you?
You are out of your gourd if you think corn has no nutritional value. It was the staple grain in the diet of many Native American tribes for centuries. That doesn't mean we should turn it in to a sugar substitute and put it in everything, but trying to pretend that it isn't an important grain is silly.
But corn was not the only or even primary food, like it is now for factory fed cattle.
Also don't forget that after corn was introduced to Europe, there were a lot of deaths from malnutrition as corn was adopted by the countries poor as a cheap food.
Really? Omaha Steaks is pretty darn famous all around the world. I believe they sell "corn-fed beef". If they don't that sure is the popular opinion. I don't care to JFGI.
This is just marketing crap. Just because its labeled as 'corn fed' doesn't mean its better. Try tasking the difference between corn fed and range fed, where the cows are allowed to roam and eat a variety of natural grasses. Theres no comparison - range fed is way better.
Yes. I don't particularly care about the long-term health of the cow.
Provided that the meat contains sufficient amounts of protein (it does), is available in lean cuts (it is), and is free of known pathogens (barring the occasional outbreak, it is) I couldn't care less about what happens to the cow.
The problem is it's not 'you are what you eat', but 'you are what you eat eats'. If you've ever tasted the difference between regular commercial corn fed beef, and organic range fed beef, you would start to care. The difference in taste is incredible.
This is also true of fruits and vegetables and is the major push behind the reason for organic farming. What goes into your food also goes into you.
It's not a money grab - I would totally support this.
I'm tired of my taxes paying the health care bills of these fat bastards. They eat crap, get overweight, next thing they are in for knee surgeries and lifelong diabetes management.
I'm also tired of getting on a plane and seeing a fare increase for more fuel when people around me weigh 100lbs more than they should. They then proceed to disgustingly 'flow' out of their seat and into mine. I would celebrate the day they charge passengers a low base rate then extra per pound for person and luggage combined. Kids and fit people would fly cheap, and it would encourage you to fly light.
You got that right. Corn production in the US is massively subsidized, so much so that Mexico can no longer afford to produce its own corn.
This glut of corn has resulted in a number of rather poor changes to the US diet. HFCS as a substitute for sugar is one. Massive amounts of corn for feeding beef cattle is another - corn is not a natural diet for cows and is so bad many farmers are on record stating the cows would have died in 6 months anyway from organ failure if they were not slaughtered first. Is this really what you want to eat?
Corn is basically a product for making money, and has no real nutritional value at all.
The reason for the high heat is the extreme orbital velocity required to keep them up. If they reduced it to 0, when they dropped back into the atmosphere, the atmosphere itself would act like a cushion, and as they fell into the atmosphere, their own terminal velocity would slow them down gracefully.
Actually the extreme heat is the friction against the atmosphere that is slowing them down. If you maintain orbit outside the atmosphere, there is no heat from the velocity.
If they brought the whole shuttle in that way, assuming in a flat orientation (bottom down, top up, 0 ground speed), it would slow down very gracefully
In reality it would very likely burn up due to extreme friction against the atmosphere.
When they do the deorbit burn, they slow down by about 150mph, and the orbit decays rapidly.
They don't carry enough fuel to bring that down to 0 though.
Actually, no where near 0. In a three minute burn they reduce the speed by ~300 km/h but they are still flying at around 30000 km/h.
You stated just because people can take pictures of everything and publish them, they probably shouldn't. I merely pointed out the same argument but replacing cameras with guns. At no point did I state my position on gun control.
Then like a true red state Republican you made ridiculous assumptions and attacked me. Good job at pretending its all my fault though.
Slashdot Mirror
I completely agree. However if my tax dollars are going for someone elses healthcare, I want it to go for things that are not their fault. If the problem is self inflicted then they should be paying for it.
OR you can simply not drink before you drive, or if you do drink find alternate transportation home.
If you don't commit a crime there cannot be any evidence against you. Unless of course you happen to be pulled over in redneck Texas.
However, the judge didn't care that there was no reason to be pulled over (with photos of the left-turn sign) since the cop explicitly said it wasn't due to erratic driving, *only* the 'illegal' left turn. Examples must be made. DUI upheld.
He blew over - he was guilty! Why would he even expect to be let off?
Yup. And a surefire way to start an argument is to put two or more programmers in a room and ask them how a coding project should be done.
It failed, it creates an infinite loop in most of the cases if you ignore some keyboard input. If you would allow any keyboard input, like ctrl-c, you will need more than that. And to get an Infinity Loop, you gotta do much much more.
You made an assumption that there's actually an operating system running in the background. If this was an embedded device with no OS this is a perfect infinite loop.
Are there studies showing chemically recognizable different between corn-fed and range-fed beef?
There definitely is a chemical and nutrition difference. Read this: http://www.foodrevolution.org/grassfedbeef.htm
I see that you are very short sighted, and intolerant of others freedoms.
I'm not intolerant of other peoples freedoms - I would forcefully oppose a ban on anything. However peoples choices have consequences and they should be held responsible for them.
If I have to pay $1.60 instead of $1.40 for a plate of greasy fries if I want one, I really couldn't care, and I should be able to enjoy that in peace. However someone who regularly make a meal out of fries and pop is going to have health problems and the money collected should go to offset those health costs. I should npt be on the hook for someone elses crappy diet decisions, and doing so is restricting *my* freedoms.
I repeat this is classic New York politics, not about some angry skinny little prissy nerd like yourself bitching because people are fat.
I'm 6'3" 205lbs, but I don't overflow my airline seat when I sit in it like the blobs I'm referring to.
BMI calculation does not apply to athletes.
Your sig says "No Big 3 bailout", but if government can tax fat people why can't they give the money to the Big 3? Put, differently, on what principle would you base your objection?
The exact same principle. For the auto industry, why should I bail out a company that is consistently on the top ten worst performing cars (7 out of 10 for last year for Chrysler). The execs screwed up the company with waste and excess and never took care of the business.
And it's exactly the same with people that are overweight and have massive health problems due to their own choices in poor diet. I see no reason to pay for the consequences for other peoples poor judgement and deliberate mistakes.
A being better than B does not mean B is bad. Organically-raised beef is certainly better than commercially-farmed McBeef in flavor, and for the sake of argument, let us also concede that it is even marginally better nutritionally. However that does NOT mean that McBeef is nutritionally BAD. If you need proof that McBeef is bad food, you need to look elsewhere, or redefine 'bad.'
Which would you rather eat, a cow that looks and behaves healthy or one that just collapsed and died in front of you?
You are out of your gourd if you think corn has no nutritional value. It was the staple grain in the diet of many Native American tribes for centuries. That doesn't mean we should turn it in to a sugar substitute and put it in everything, but trying to pretend that it isn't an important grain is silly.
But corn was not the only or even primary food, like it is now for factory fed cattle.
Also don't forget that after corn was introduced to Europe, there were a lot of deaths from malnutrition as corn was adopted by the countries poor as a cheap food.
Really? Omaha Steaks is pretty darn famous all around the world. I believe they sell "corn-fed beef". If they don't that sure is the popular opinion. I don't care to JFGI.
This is just marketing crap. Just because its labeled as 'corn fed' doesn't mean its better. Try tasking the difference between corn fed and range fed, where the cows are allowed to roam and eat a variety of natural grasses. Theres no comparison - range fed is way better.
Yes. I don't particularly care about the long-term health of the cow. Provided that the meat contains sufficient amounts of protein (it does), is available in lean cuts (it is), and is free of known pathogens (barring the occasional outbreak, it is) I couldn't care less about what happens to the cow.
The problem is it's not 'you are what you eat', but 'you are what you eat eats'. If you've ever tasted the difference between regular commercial corn fed beef, and organic range fed beef, you would start to care. The difference in taste is incredible.
This is also true of fruits and vegetables and is the major push behind the reason for organic farming. What goes into your food also goes into you.
It's not a money grab - I would totally support this.
I'm tired of my taxes paying the health care bills of these fat bastards. They eat crap, get overweight, next thing they are in for knee surgeries and lifelong diabetes management.
I'm also tired of getting on a plane and seeing a fare increase for more fuel when people around me weigh 100lbs more than they should. They then proceed to disgustingly 'flow' out of their seat and into mine. I would celebrate the day they charge passengers a low base rate then extra per pound for person and luggage combined. Kids and fit people would fly cheap, and it would encourage you to fly light.
You got that right. Corn production in the US is massively subsidized, so much so that Mexico can no longer afford to produce its own corn.
This glut of corn has resulted in a number of rather poor changes to the US diet. HFCS as a substitute for sugar is one. Massive amounts of corn for feeding beef cattle is another - corn is not a natural diet for cows and is so bad many farmers are on record stating the cows would have died in 6 months anyway from organ failure if they were not slaughtered first. Is this really what you want to eat?
Corn is basically a product for making money, and has no real nutritional value at all.
Interesting. Thanks!
That's the first rule I taught my children. Then I moved on to that talking to strangers thing.
Is 'pull my finger' before or after 'smell this' ?
I hear you can be arrested for taking pictures of an open 'fridge's innards. ;-)
Only if you are Google. Then you'd be accused of violating privacy rights of the mold and even be banned in some countries.
The reason for the high heat is the extreme orbital velocity required to keep them up. If they reduced it to 0, when they dropped back into the atmosphere, the atmosphere itself would act like a cushion, and as they fell into the atmosphere, their own terminal velocity would slow them down gracefully.
Actually the extreme heat is the friction against the atmosphere that is slowing them down. If you maintain orbit outside the atmosphere, there is no heat from the velocity.
If they brought the whole shuttle in that way, assuming in a flat orientation (bottom down, top up, 0 ground speed), it would slow down very gracefully
In reality it would very likely burn up due to extreme friction against the atmosphere.
When they do the deorbit burn, they slow down by about 150mph, and the orbit decays rapidly. They don't carry enough fuel to bring that down to 0 though.
Actually, no where near 0. In a three minute burn they reduce the speed by ~300 km/h but they are still flying at around 30000 km/h.
Hmmm.. They DO have parachutes now, don't they? They're used in case of low altitude failure, where they can jump out the lower door.
No, the astronauts no NOT have parachutes.
No, that was achurch.
Well for fucks sake why are you butting into our conversation??! No one asked you for your commie redneck opinions.
Go back to your basement, your tinfoil hats and your guns to wait for collapse of society.
No, thats not what I'm doing.
You stated just because people can take pictures of everything and publish them, they probably shouldn't. I merely pointed out the same argument but replacing cameras with guns. At no point did I state my position on gun control.
Then like a true red state Republican you made ridiculous assumptions and attacked me. Good job at pretending its all my fault though.
How the fuck did you turn this into an argument about gun control? I propose that we refer to this action as "Hestoning", similiar to invoking Godwin.
It's called a comparison. It's done to help you better understand the stupidity of your argument.