Of course I am. If I am in a left lane, and the right lane is packed with cars that are all spaced at the 'safe following distance', I will pull between them when I need to exit the roadway on the right. No one is going to believe that you are not also " willfully ignorant of how to drive properly. I bet you're one of the guys who pulls into a safe following distance spot and causes these issues in the first place."
Your claim that you match the speed in front of you also isn't particularly believable, since the cars that are pulling in front of you are not going to wait for you to get your safe following distance before pulling in front of you.
For the vast majority PC sold, XP mode is a secondary application that has an added cost above and beyond the cost of their OS. It also requires that they know it exists and has a seperate install.
I went to your traffic simulator, and it showed that you got traffic jams due to quantity of cars, not because of breaking. That was with only one on ramp. It was clear that if you had multiple on ramps the problem would be far worse.
You are wrong...period. Having a car stopped in the middle of the road does not reduce accidents. If you really follow your claimed behavior, you slow down with the first car that goes around you and consumes your 'safe' distance. You slow down more with the second car that goes around you to fills your new 'safe' distance. By the time 10 or so cars go around you, you will have slowed to a complete stop as cars are changing lanes, and merging to get around the car that has 'stalled' in the road.
So, we are left with the exercise of figuring out your real situation. Either you are a massive danger to all those around you, you are lying about your driving habits, or you live in an area with so low of traffic density that you are oblivious to how traffic works in normal cities.
It is possible that this meat would quickly be a species of it's own. It may start out as beef, but it will have extremely strong evolutionary pressures (if they don't outright change the genetic code) and there won't be any pesky ethics issues of killing off any tissue that doesn't exhibit the traits being selected for.
There is a big difference. The Id model of would be the same as the companies who now offer a limit free version, with an expanded pay version. The scammy in-game purchases are the "Pay to Win" model.
If Google doesn't decide to ignore this, I would suggest they license the rights to the Rick Aston video, detect if the connection is coming from this software and RickRoll anyone using it.
I doubt it. No one is going to buy a Windows Phone because of the ad bypass and Windows Phone is too small of a market to matter. My guess is that Google will just ignore it.
To be fair, most kids have been raised by the state for several generations. We have long been an orphanage culture. So, biological parents being children's actual parent has been a rare thing for some time.
An example of "for the safety of their children" are things like the hospital I am in right now. If someone spoke to a child's mother the way they have been speaking to me, the mother could give them the what for. Anyone hearing it would call the mother "caring". They would say, "You don't mess with a mother's child", and pat her on the back for being "protective" and "nurturing". The same behavior by a man is likely to lead to the police. So, as a man, you have to just take the abuse and appear to be less protective and nurturing.
Of course, that doesn't even start into situations like divorce where men just get the shaft completely. My 9 yo son has two friends (10 and 14) who are currently being held as political prisoners in the state of Illinois because of the states discrimination of men. Illinois just assumes that women are "more nurturing", so when the three brothers who live with their caring and nurturing father, go on their once a year visitation, the Illinois courts assign her custody. Since Mom's house is violent and dysfunctional, the cops end up being called. The three boys end up in jail with no charges pressed because they had committed no crime other than wanting to go home. The state of Illinois takes the stance that any child that wants to go home to their father when they cans stay and be beaten by their mother must be mentally ill. That is when the 're-education' starts. They dope them up. The keep them incarcerated. The 10 yo get physically tortured. The oldest (16) escaped because his father had a laptop and credit cards smuggled to him and the 16 year old signed up and attended Stanford remotely. Part of the Stanford program required 2 weeks be spent on campus. Luckily for the oldest, preventing him from attending college would have been ugly enough that the state of Illinois let him leave the state and thus he could get back home to CA. It has been 9 months that the two remaining brothers have been held against their will, being drugged and tortured because of people who "don't see men as nurturing".
Then there is the question of what being nurturing really means. Is the father who gives up trips to the park to put food on the child's table less nurturing than the mother who will let the child go hungry so that she can spend time with the child? I would say not. It is common for people to confuse selfish women as nurturing because they use children as a tool to get what they want.
One last point. In many states, including here in CA, special laws were enacted to make being a dead beat mom legal. The reason? To prevent the frequent murders that women were committing to avoid caring for their children.
Do I believe that women are less nurturing than men? Not really. I think that our social-political environment is so screwed up that any biological differences are lost as noise.
You are rationalizing. You don't see nurturing men because you don't want to see men as nurturing. That kind of attitude creates situation where men have to appear less nurturing for the safety of their children. I am literally posting this from the maternity ward of a hospital. What I can tell you is that even before a child is born, men are treated like crap when it comes to children. They are insulted. They are sidelined. They are abused.
Being the completely supportive father, I have been told "Men are childish". "She should hit you like I hit my husband". "I don't trust dads." My child has been told "I know, you would rather be with mom." These are just the overt sexist comments that are made in the maternity ward to men. There is a non-stop subtle indications that men are only being tentatively tolerated. I feel very confident if I were to confront any of the people about their disrespect, they would have people with guns first "ask" me to leave, and if that failed, physically remove me from my child. They would feel completely justified in their actions because they have the same attitude that you have. The disrespect and denial of men starts before the children are born and extends every day through the child's life.
Your comment is more of the same. No doubt that the sexist, disrespectful and abusive women working in this maternity ward believe that they aren't doing anything wrong. No doubt they believe they are just recognizing how inferior men really are. But then, that is how most people think when they abuse other groups. Very few people look at themselves and say "I am a horrible person for the way I treat that group, but I'm going to do it anyway." The fact that you don't see nurturing fathers says more about you than it does men.
That isn't really true. It actually gives negative 8 to 12 weeks for planning. It is illegal to permanently replace the woman. She loses benefits of she quits to have the child, so the employer doesn't know if he can replace her until here maternity leave is up.
Your whole argument is that it is OK to discriminate against men because men are genetically less capable of bonding with their children. So, yes, YOU said that you didn't bond with your daughter. At least not beyond superficially. You inability to bond deeply with your child isn't because of your penis. It is because you are dysfunctional. Of course, you know full well that a demand of scientific proof of emotional bonds is impossible. That is why you ask for it.
"Those things" that the parent poster was in reference to parenting, caring for children, and sharing a bond with children. Pretending to misunderstand in an attempt create strawman is a common tactic of bigots.
Of course, maybe you are just joking and are mocking people that respond that way seriously.
You want me to come up with scientific proof that my bond with my child is as strong as what a typical woman has? Do you even listen to yourself? You think that unless men can prove scientifically that they can form as strong of bonds that they should be treated as second class parents? You are definitely not arguing against your dysfunction. I get that you don't want to believe that your inability to bond with your children isn't your fault, but that doesn't mean the rest of us have your dysfunction.
Either you are stupid or my son is a zombie. Given that I don't believe in magic, including the kind that make the dead walk the earth, I have to assume that you are stupid.
I am going to be interested in what Kinect 2, 3,4.... have to offer. The current Kinect is pretty cool, but it is cool in the way the Vic20 or C64 were cool. It is awesome for those that are into that specific tech, and you can see the future written on the wall for that type of device, but it is still a gimmick for the masses.
If future versions scale in usability the way that personal computers have, I could see a Kinect style device in most rooms of the house connecting features that we haven't even imagined yet.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course I am. If I am in a left lane, and the right lane is packed with cars that are all spaced at the 'safe following distance', I will pull between them when I need to exit the roadway on the right. No one is going to believe that you are not also " willfully ignorant of how to drive properly. I bet you're one of the guys who pulls into a safe following distance spot and causes these issues in the first place."
Your claim that you match the speed in front of you also isn't particularly believable, since the cars that are pulling in front of you are not going to wait for you to get your safe following distance before pulling in front of you.
I cranked "politeness" up to maximum. The simulation is a best case scenario simulation, and still doesn't show what you claim it shows.
For the vast majority PC sold, XP mode is a secondary application that has an added cost above and beyond the cost of their OS. It also requires that they know it exists and has a seperate install.
I went to your traffic simulator, and it showed that you got traffic jams due to quantity of cars, not because of breaking. That was with only one on ramp. It was clear that if you had multiple on ramps the problem would be far worse.
You are wrong...period. Having a car stopped in the middle of the road does not reduce accidents. If you really follow your claimed behavior, you slow down with the first car that goes around you and consumes your 'safe' distance. You slow down more with the second car that goes around you to fills your new 'safe' distance. By the time 10 or so cars go around you, you will have slowed to a complete stop as cars are changing lanes, and merging to get around the car that has 'stalled' in the road.
So, we are left with the exercise of figuring out your real situation. Either you are a massive danger to all those around you, you are lying about your driving habits, or you live in an area with so low of traffic density that you are oblivious to how traffic works in normal cities.
If you can read, you can find the control panel. It is right there on the start menu.
Yes.
It is possible that this meat would quickly be a species of it's own. It may start out as beef, but it will have extremely strong evolutionary pressures (if they don't outright change the genetic code) and there won't be any pesky ethics issues of killing off any tissue that doesn't exhibit the traits being selected for.
There is a big difference. The Id model of would be the same as the companies who now offer a limit free version, with an expanded pay version. The scammy in-game purchases are the "Pay to Win" model.
If Google doesn't decide to ignore this, I would suggest they license the rights to the Rick Aston video, detect if the connection is coming from this software and RickRoll anyone using it.
You seem to forget that Google could easily use the three magic words that nullify hundreds of years of precedence. "On a computer"
I doubt it. No one is going to buy a Windows Phone because of the ad bypass and Windows Phone is too small of a market to matter. My guess is that Google will just ignore it.
I could have sworn that this is pretty much what people were complaining about happening to MySQL.
To be fair, most kids have been raised by the state for several generations. We have long been an orphanage culture. So, biological parents being children's actual parent has been a rare thing for some time.
Actually, they should have included emulated XP in Windows 7 with an upgrade to convert your existing XP install into a virtual machine.
It only violates the laws of thermodynamics if you have no anus.
An example of "for the safety of their children" are things like the hospital I am in right now. If someone spoke to a child's mother the way they have been speaking to me, the mother could give them the what for. Anyone hearing it would call the mother "caring". They would say, "You don't mess with a mother's child", and pat her on the back for being "protective" and "nurturing". The same behavior by a man is likely to lead to the police. So, as a man, you have to just take the abuse and appear to be less protective and nurturing.
Of course, that doesn't even start into situations like divorce where men just get the shaft completely. My 9 yo son has two friends (10 and 14) who are currently being held as political prisoners in the state of Illinois because of the states discrimination of men. Illinois just assumes that women are "more nurturing", so when the three brothers who live with their caring and nurturing father, go on their once a year visitation, the Illinois courts assign her custody. Since Mom's house is violent and dysfunctional, the cops end up being called. The three boys end up in jail with no charges pressed because they had committed no crime other than wanting to go home. The state of Illinois takes the stance that any child that wants to go home to their father when they cans stay and be beaten by their mother must be mentally ill. That is when the 're-education' starts. They dope them up. The keep them incarcerated. The 10 yo get physically tortured. The oldest (16) escaped because his father had a laptop and credit cards smuggled to him and the 16 year old signed up and attended Stanford remotely. Part of the Stanford program required 2 weeks be spent on campus. Luckily for the oldest, preventing him from attending college would have been ugly enough that the state of Illinois let him leave the state and thus he could get back home to CA. It has been 9 months that the two remaining brothers have been held against their will, being drugged and tortured because of people who "don't see men as nurturing".
Then there is the question of what being nurturing really means. Is the father who gives up trips to the park to put food on the child's table less nurturing than the mother who will let the child go hungry so that she can spend time with the child? I would say not. It is common for people to confuse selfish women as nurturing because they use children as a tool to get what they want.
One last point. In many states, including here in CA, special laws were enacted to make being a dead beat mom legal. The reason? To prevent the frequent murders that women were committing to avoid caring for their children.
Do I believe that women are less nurturing than men? Not really. I think that our social-political environment is so screwed up that any biological differences are lost as noise.
You are rationalizing. You don't see nurturing men because you don't want to see men as nurturing. That kind of attitude creates situation where men have to appear less nurturing for the safety of their children. I am literally posting this from the maternity ward of a hospital. What I can tell you is that even before a child is born, men are treated like crap when it comes to children. They are insulted. They are sidelined. They are abused.
Being the completely supportive father, I have been told "Men are childish". "She should hit you like I hit my husband". "I don't trust dads." My child has been told "I know, you would rather be with mom." These are just the overt sexist comments that are made in the maternity ward to men. There is a non-stop subtle indications that men are only being tentatively tolerated. I feel very confident if I were to confront any of the people about their disrespect, they would have people with guns first "ask" me to leave, and if that failed, physically remove me from my child. They would feel completely justified in their actions because they have the same attitude that you have. The disrespect and denial of men starts before the children are born and extends every day through the child's life.
Your comment is more of the same. No doubt that the sexist, disrespectful and abusive women working in this maternity ward believe that they aren't doing anything wrong. No doubt they believe they are just recognizing how inferior men really are. But then, that is how most people think when they abuse other groups. Very few people look at themselves and say "I am a horrible person for the way I treat that group, but I'm going to do it anyway." The fact that you don't see nurturing fathers says more about you than it does men.
Let's see it you are brought enough to spot the hypocrisy of your post. My guess is not. It would make you feel bad about yourself.
That isn't really true. It actually gives negative 8 to 12 weeks for planning. It is illegal to permanently replace the woman. She loses benefits of she quits to have the child, so the employer doesn't know if he can replace her until here maternity leave is up.
Your whole argument is that it is OK to discriminate against men because men are genetically less capable of bonding with their children. So, yes, YOU said that you didn't bond with your daughter. At least not beyond superficially. You inability to bond deeply with your child isn't because of your penis. It is because you are dysfunctional. Of course, you know full well that a demand of scientific proof of emotional bonds is impossible. That is why you ask for it.
"Those things" that the parent poster was in reference to parenting, caring for children, and sharing a bond with children. Pretending to misunderstand in an attempt create strawman is a common tactic of bigots. Of course, maybe you are just joking and are mocking people that respond that way seriously.
You want me to come up with scientific proof that my bond with my child is as strong as what a typical woman has? Do you even listen to yourself? You think that unless men can prove scientifically that they can form as strong of bonds that they should be treated as second class parents? You are definitely not arguing against your dysfunction. I get that you don't want to believe that your inability to bond with your children isn't your fault, but that doesn't mean the rest of us have your dysfunction.
Either you are stupid or my son is a zombie. Given that I don't believe in magic, including the kind that make the dead walk the earth, I have to assume that you are stupid.
I am going to be interested in what Kinect 2, 3,4.... have to offer. The current Kinect is pretty cool, but it is cool in the way the Vic20 or C64 were cool. It is awesome for those that are into that specific tech, and you can see the future written on the wall for that type of device, but it is still a gimmick for the masses.
If future versions scale in usability the way that personal computers have, I could see a Kinect style device in most rooms of the house connecting features that we haven't even imagined yet.