I just wish the phone manufacturers would follow suit. Think about how much better a Galaxy SIII would be if all the Samsung software were just apps that could be unloaded.
The reason that websites like Popular Mechanics do this is so that they don't have to argue about whether any of their content is appropriate for children. They surely don't look to put child unfriendly content in their magazine, but if they have an article with the acronym WTF, they don't want an angry horde of parents harassing them. If a parent complains, they just point to the ToS and tell the parent that their child was violating them.
They are fully aware that sane parents are just ignoring that piece of the ToS, and have no problem letting their children read the magazine anyway.
I think that Cracked is telling a Macro joke. Even if you never read any of their funny articles, It is pretty damn funny that a second rate Mad Magazine knockoff would reinvent itself as a comedy website that while funny is also insightful with real pearls of wisdom.
Even if the targeting system does engage the brakes, it is still not in the vast majority of vehicles and you don't need spikes on the front of your car anymore than you need bullets that explode on contact. The facts are clear. Far more people are killed by cars every year in the US than by guns. You are Rationalizing your murderous activity because it is your activity while making up untruths about other people's non-murderous activities.
So, while it it technically possible to get these features, you agree that some are totally unavailable, and the ones that are available are only available on a limited set of vehicles. Glad you agree that cars are designed to kill people, and those that use them are obviously intent on murder. Besides, pedestrian detection is no more a safety feature than a scope, and a hood airbag is not going to do much to protect your victims from your murderous rage when you use your pedestrian detection targeting system to make sure you hit your victim at 100mph.
The same reason that guns have safety switches. Beyond that, it is certainly a sign that you are rationalizing away what you know to be true by giving examples of "safety" equipment that is currently non-existent in the cars being sold today.
Wow, you are really paranoid. Do you really think that gun owners are sitting in the dark with their guns pointed at their doors? Based on your post, either you are lying in your belief that this is why gun owners buy guns, in which case you are a troll with nothing to add to the conversation, or you really believe it. If you do, you should seek professional help immediately. No joke. You have an honest to goodness mental illness. Not some hyperbole insult, but real delusions that are likely impacting your life in a negative way.
Your nitpick is wrong. It is no more accurate than saying your car is for running down multiple fleeing animals, including humans. After all, if it was only for driving on roads, it wouldn't need to be so powerful.
By that same logic, cars are designed specifically to roll over things. What other functional use does it have? Clearly if you own a car, you intent is to roll over people.
Star Trek wrestled with this and came up with the notion of the Prime Directive. Of course, that was a moral position and how well they followed it showed how ethical they were.
If you are talking about "Rape is a social construct", you would be wrong. We can't even agree on what rape is. In Sweden, (apparently) if a man has unprotected sex with a woman and she consents under the condition that he use birth control, Sweden calls it rape. In the USA if a woman does the same to a man, it is not called rape. At best it is called "trapping him". Not long ago in the USA, (and I assume in some countries to this day) forced sex was not considered rape if it was your wife.
The definition of rape has changed with societal development and is not consistent across different societies.
More likely, the answer they got was "People who agree with my morals are more moral than people that don't agree with my morals and my morals have a correlation with scientifically literate people."
The common person does not use "computer" to mean anything other than a device running Windows or maybe OSX. We all happen to know that "computer" means more than that.
In many newer neighborhoods, the mailboxes are just lockers at the end of the street anyway. I currently live in a neighborhood with delivery to each house, but a few years ago, the neighborhood I lived in only had deliver to an apartment style mailbox locker down the street. This was not a rural neighborhood. It was in the Sacramento metropolitan area.
Given that trailers are current common as it is, and the trailer is going to be no more explosive than the cars they currently run, I think that safety worries should be negligible compared to people driving cars at all. I would be more worried about people injuring themselves trying to pull the standard in car generator in and out than with the trailers. That being said, I agree that the only reason for a standard in car component should pose a problem would be due to stubborn unwillingness of car manufacturers. I would see an in car component being most useful for handling an individual's "normal" driving. While trailers would be better for a person's "unusual" driving. The two would in no way need to be exclusive of each other.
Slashdot Mirror
I just wish the phone manufacturers would follow suit. Think about how much better a Galaxy SIII would be if all the Samsung software were just apps that could be unloaded.
The reason that websites like Popular Mechanics do this is so that they don't have to argue about whether any of their content is appropriate for children. They surely don't look to put child unfriendly content in their magazine, but if they have an article with the acronym WTF, they don't want an angry horde of parents harassing them. If a parent complains, they just point to the ToS and tell the parent that their child was violating them.
They are fully aware that sane parents are just ignoring that piece of the ToS, and have no problem letting their children read the magazine anyway.
You really should seek help. This isn't an attempt at insult. You are having honest to goodness paranoid delusions.
I think that Cracked is telling a Macro joke. Even if you never read any of their funny articles, It is pretty damn funny that a second rate Mad Magazine knockoff would reinvent itself as a comedy website that while funny is also insightful with real pearls of wisdom.
Why even do it on a river? Take huge strip mines, build a giant wall down the middle and pump from one side to the other.
That is what dams are for.
Even if the targeting system does engage the brakes, it is still not in the vast majority of vehicles and you don't need spikes on the front of your car anymore than you need bullets that explode on contact. The facts are clear. Far more people are killed by cars every year in the US than by guns. You are Rationalizing your murderous activity because it is your activity while making up untruths about other people's non-murderous activities.
So, while it it technically possible to get these features, you agree that some are totally unavailable, and the ones that are available are only available on a limited set of vehicles. Glad you agree that cars are designed to kill people, and those that use them are obviously intent on murder. Besides, pedestrian detection is no more a safety feature than a scope, and a hood airbag is not going to do much to protect your victims from your murderous rage when you use your pedestrian detection targeting system to make sure you hit your victim at 100mph.
The same reason that guns have safety switches. Beyond that, it is certainly a sign that you are rationalizing away what you know to be true by giving examples of "safety" equipment that is currently non-existent in the cars being sold today.
Wow, you are really paranoid. Do you really think that gun owners are sitting in the dark with their guns pointed at their doors? Based on your post, either you are lying in your belief that this is why gun owners buy guns, in which case you are a troll with nothing to add to the conversation, or you really believe it. If you do, you should seek professional help immediately. No joke. You have an honest to goodness mental illness. Not some hyperbole insult, but real delusions that are likely impacting your life in a negative way.
Your nitpick is wrong. It is no more accurate than saying your car is for running down multiple fleeing animals, including humans. After all, if it was only for driving on roads, it wouldn't need to be so powerful.
By that same logic, cars are designed specifically to roll over things. What other functional use does it have? Clearly if you own a car, you intent is to roll over people.
As for
Star Trek wrestled with this and came up with the notion of the Prime Directive. Of course, that was a moral position and how well they followed it showed how ethical they were.
The answer seems to be "Not very ethical."
If you are talking about "Rape is a social construct", you would be wrong. We can't even agree on what rape is. In Sweden, (apparently) if a man has unprotected sex with a woman and she consents under the condition that he use birth control, Sweden calls it rape. In the USA if a woman does the same to a man, it is not called rape. At best it is called "trapping him". Not long ago in the USA, (and I assume in some countries to this day) forced sex was not considered rape if it was your wife.
The definition of rape has changed with societal development and is not consistent across different societies.
Heck, we can't even all agree on the definition of "cheat on their partners".
More likely, the answer they got was "People who agree with my morals are more moral than people that don't agree with my morals and my morals have a correlation with scientifically literate people."
I can't count the number of times I heard people say "You don't change leaders in the middle of a war." as a reason to vote Bush in for a second term.
A C64 or Apple II are not practical either. That doesn't mean they are not computers.
The common person does not use "computer" to mean anything other than a device running Windows or maybe OSX. We all happen to know that "computer" means more than that.
I was thinking Amiga boxes.
Hey now. Us Americans have been told that every square inch of Europe is accessible by superb public transportation. You must be pulling our leg.
In many newer neighborhoods, the mailboxes are just lockers at the end of the street anyway. I currently live in a neighborhood with delivery to each house, but a few years ago, the neighborhood I lived in only had deliver to an apartment style mailbox locker down the street. This was not a rural neighborhood. It was in the Sacramento metropolitan area.
Sorry, hommies, but government doesn't play dat.
I'm thinking that results of the experiment disagree with you.
Given that trailers are current common as it is, and the trailer is going to be no more explosive than the cars they currently run, I think that safety worries should be negligible compared to people driving cars at all. I would be more worried about people injuring themselves trying to pull the standard in car generator in and out than with the trailers. That being said, I agree that the only reason for a standard in car component should pose a problem would be due to stubborn unwillingness of car manufacturers. I would see an in car component being most useful for handling an individual's "normal" driving. While trailers would be better for a person's "unusual" driving. The two would in no way need to be exclusive of each other.
Nothing except proper police work, you mean.
Well, there we go. You have successfully proven your point that gun control is a terrible idea.