Looks like the restriction is probably legal. He doesn't have exclusive use of the south-facing wall (or any use, apparently), and a 117-year-old house is certainly on the Historic Register.
Depends on where you live. Where I live, buildings that new are most certainly NOT on the historic register unless they happen to have other historical significance besides age. Keep in mind also that owners can choose to *not* put their buildings on the historic register -- the designation has drawbacks as well as advantages.
In college, I lived for a year in a house that had been built in the 1840s. It was a piece of shit, and the owner was a slumlord. The walls were literally falling down (plaster over rotten lathe) -- he told us if we wanted it fixed, he'd buy the materials but we'd have to fix it ourselves. He dropped off two rolls of duct tape and a gallon of cheap-ass paint. Seriously. I mean, I love duct tape as much as the next guy, but to fix a wall?
Anyway... where was I... oh yes. I think you nailed it with the "exclusive use" bit, but the historic bit may or may not apply.
Are you saying the majority of us eat so much salt and sugar and fat because we're malnourished in them?
I'm saying no such thing, as is abundantly clear from my post. Are you asking a silly question because it makes you feel good to have a strawman to argue against?
Neptune was Roman. Poseidon is the Greek analogue. Besides which, Poseidon (or Neptune) have nothing to do with rain... that would be Zeus (or Jupiter).
Yes, yes, you were trying to make a joke... but please do be accurate lest Poseidon's horses carry you away (yes, the greek god of the sea was also the god of horses. Go figure.).
You ever stash some airline food and eat it in a different setting? It tastes very different. Not good per se, but definitely not bland.
Did this with some breakfast sandwich that my wife didn't like... I ate mine (room-temperature, as they served it before I was really awake on a 10-hour international red-eye), and saved hers for after we landed 2 hours later.
I even remarked to her that hers tasted different than mine... this could be a possible explanation.
Seriously, where else in nature can you find "seasoning"?
All over the place. Animals require salt to live. Some get it from their diet alone, but you ever check out the herbivore traffic around a natural salt lick? You ever try to raise animals without providing them with a source of salt and other minerals?
And how about natural seasonings like pepper, cinnamon, thyme, etc.?
You evolved to eat salty and fatty foods preferentially... if you want to eat what you evolved to eat, you should be eating salty and fatty foods. Of course, maybe then you should also go through protracted periods of scarcity, since we also evolved to deal with those conditions.
Just a standard $40 Microsoft wireless optical I bought a couple years ago... needed it in a hurry, and there's a cap on how much my employer will reimburse me for purchase of a mouse.:)
I don't do a lot of gaming, nor do I need a very precise mouse... most of the time I just use the touchpad on my laptop anyway. The mouse is for occasionally editing pictures or playing games, or when I've burnt my fingertips on the grill.
Unfortunately, for those who are ill-equipped or disinclined (by disposition) to debate, an attempt to engage in rational and or critical analysis and discussion can be treated as if it were offensive.
The problem is with the person trying to initiate a debate. Most people, when having a conversation in real life or online, are not looking for a debate. Someone who fails to pick up on the actual wants of the other person in the conversation, and instead tries to initiate a debate, causes offense. This is because the social norm is to not engage in debate; absent cues that debate is actually desired, the default response should be something other than debate. Typically, this would be a "feeler response" to determine if the other person in the conversation really wants to debate, or if they're just broadcasting opinion, or something else entirely.
Ironically, rather than send a "feeler response" here, I've entered into debate -- but there are cues in your post tell me that you won't be offended.:)
Strange. When I use a mouse, it doesn't touch my palm at all. The pad of my palm glides on the desk surface, as does the mouse, which is cradled entirely in my fingers and the pads of my fingers, no 'claw' action at all.
For reference, my hand is about normal length for a 6' male, but very broad, and I have what may be called "sausage fingers".
Sadly both content providers and advertisers value our time very cheaply. TV rates work out to about $2.40 per hour. That is how little advertisers price your "attention".
Well, I may be an edge case, but given how little "attention" I give to their adverts, I'd say they're actually far overpaying:)
Advertisements in movie theaters have a higher CPM than ads on television, because the audience is captive. Not sure how the cost breaks down...
Plus, in my experience (limited, as I only see 1-2 movies in a theater per year), there are a lot of local ads. I assume this means that the theaters negotiate local ad placement, which is priced differently than national/regional placement. I don't know the pricing structure for theater ads... but my best guess is that your estimate is a little on the low side. I wonder if $0.30 per viewer per show would be enough for the theater to break even on splicing the ads onto the reels, administration of ad placement, etc. Net? Sure, it's worth it... but gross?
But then, what you say is that the rule of law is not a justice principle you find valuable, full stop.
No, that is not what I'm saying. You are missing half of my argument.
The rule of law is just only when those under the law have the means to legally make changes to the law. When the ability to change the law through legal means has been subjected, then the rule of law is no longer valid. This is the crux of revolting on the basis of "no taxation without representation", which is on part of it.
There can't be such a thing as a "rule of law that is only valid when the law is just".
This is where you're missing the second part, that being when the means to change the law are not held by those subject to the law.
Let me restate in simple terms, yet again, so you can understand. Remember to read the entire thing this time.
The rule of law is only valid when the laws are just -- when the means to address wrongs in the law are available to those subject to the law.
Is that better for you? Does it make sense now, or are you going to continue to ignore that part of my statements that you have so studiously chosen to ignore and/or misrepresent?
I touched on this in another post... have you thought about contracting with a local butcher on the meat locker/walk-in freezer? He'll take a cut, but you could pass that on to your customers... and he'd be the one doing the customer service on retrieval.
I've got a chest freezer, but with all the produce I freeze, the hog and lamb I get every year... well... I can't fit a side of beef.
When I was a kid, we had a meat locker at the butcher's... that was awesome. Especially since it was half-filled with our lamb and pork, and half-filled with a side of beef from a friend we bartered with.
Anyway, here in the NE, there are a quite a few guys that sell quarters and sides, they have a large enough retail ops that it's worth it for them to sell that way. But I find that they are just as expensive (or more!) as the butcher or grocery store, they don't compete on price... they compete on "knowing where your food comes from" and some agritourism (come tour our farm and then overpay for our beef!).
Oh well.
Good idea on the feed store... I'll have to swing by there.
The meatpacking industry in the US has undergone a huge consolidation in the past 20 years, and while this bodes well for industry efficiency, it *sucks* for the small farmers.
To the parent: where are you located? My beef guy is switching to buffalo, and his new prices will be too much for me. I need a new one (though I only buy a quarter a year).
For that matter, good luck feeding everyone on organicly grown food. If you want an all-organic future, then you need to either admit that billions would starve to death or start advocating for population control.
No, you don't need to do either of those things. We have plenty of arable land sufficient to organically provide enough calories and other nutrition for the entire world population. In the US and the EU, it'd be difficult due to high labor costs, but it could be done. All we'd need to do is reduce the amount of meat eaten by a large factor.
Got a link or a cite for that? I'd like to read up on it.
My past reading on the subject said that when cattle were dosed with non-therapeutic levels of antibiotics that (1) they grew faster and (2) they suffered from fewer bacterial infections. It's not clear that (1) follows from (2), but it sure makes a lot of sense. IIRC, the unanswered question was how the supposedly non-therapeutic levels of antibiotics prevent illness.
Most if not all antihistamines work by increasing the adrenaline levels.
What? That's not true at all.
Antihistamines work exactly as their name implies -- they block the histamine response that causes inflammation, etc. They do not increase adrenaline levels.
Slashdot Mirror
Depends on where you live. Where I live, buildings that new are most certainly NOT on the historic register unless they happen to have other historical significance besides age. Keep in mind also that owners can choose to *not* put their buildings on the historic register -- the designation has drawbacks as well as advantages.
In college, I lived for a year in a house that had been built in the 1840s. It was a piece of shit, and the owner was a slumlord. The walls were literally falling down (plaster over rotten lathe) -- he told us if we wanted it fixed, he'd buy the materials but we'd have to fix it ourselves. He dropped off two rolls of duct tape and a gallon of cheap-ass paint. Seriously. I mean, I love duct tape as much as the next guy, but to fix a wall?
Anyway... where was I... oh yes. I think you nailed it with the "exclusive use" bit, but the historic bit may or may not apply.
I'm saying no such thing, as is abundantly clear from my post. Are you asking a silly question because it makes you feel good to have a strawman to argue against?
Neptune was Roman. Poseidon is the Greek analogue. Besides which, Poseidon (or Neptune) have nothing to do with rain... that would be Zeus (or Jupiter).
Yes, yes, you were trying to make a joke... but please do be accurate lest Poseidon's horses carry you away (yes, the greek god of the sea was also the god of horses. Go figure.).
You ever stash some airline food and eat it in a different setting? It tastes very different. Not good per se, but definitely not bland.
Did this with some breakfast sandwich that my wife didn't like... I ate mine (room-temperature, as they served it before I was really awake on a 10-hour international red-eye), and saved hers for after we landed 2 hours later.
I even remarked to her that hers tasted different than mine... this could be a possible explanation.
All over the place. Animals require salt to live. Some get it from their diet alone, but you ever check out the herbivore traffic around a natural salt lick? You ever try to raise animals without providing them with a source of salt and other minerals?
And how about natural seasonings like pepper, cinnamon, thyme, etc.?
You evolved to eat salty and fatty foods preferentially... if you want to eat what you evolved to eat, you should be eating salty and fatty foods. Of course, maybe then you should also go through protracted periods of scarcity, since we also evolved to deal with those conditions.
Did you by chance happen to search your screen name, and then your real name in a successive search?
PeekYou seems to me to be a really good way to scrape connections that aren't already made...
Just a standard $40 Microsoft wireless optical I bought a couple years ago... needed it in a hurry, and there's a cap on how much my employer will reimburse me for purchase of a mouse. :)
I don't do a lot of gaming, nor do I need a very precise mouse... most of the time I just use the touchpad on my laptop anyway. The mouse is for occasionally editing pictures or playing games, or when I've burnt my fingertips on the grill.
LOLWUT?
National debt != trade imbalance.
The national debt is a measure of how much the government owes to its creditors; what you are referring to is an entirely separate issue.
The problem is with the person trying to initiate a debate. Most people, when having a conversation in real life or online, are not looking for a debate. Someone who fails to pick up on the actual wants of the other person in the conversation, and instead tries to initiate a debate, causes offense. This is because the social norm is to not engage in debate; absent cues that debate is actually desired, the default response should be something other than debate. Typically, this would be a "feeler response" to determine if the other person in the conversation really wants to debate, or if they're just broadcasting opinion, or something else entirely.
:)
Ironically, rather than send a "feeler response" here, I've entered into debate -- but there are cues in your post tell me that you won't be offended.
Strange. When I use a mouse, it doesn't touch my palm at all. The pad of my palm glides on the desk surface, as does the mouse, which is cradled entirely in my fingers and the pads of my fingers, no 'claw' action at all.
For reference, my hand is about normal length for a 6' male, but very broad, and I have what may be called "sausage fingers".
Well, I may be an edge case, but given how little "attention" I give to their adverts, I'd say they're actually far overpaying :)
Advertisements in movie theaters have a higher CPM than ads on television, because the audience is captive. Not sure how the cost breaks down...
Plus, in my experience (limited, as I only see 1-2 movies in a theater per year), there are a lot of local ads. I assume this means that the theaters negotiate local ad placement, which is priced differently than national/regional placement. I don't know the pricing structure for theater ads... but my best guess is that your estimate is a little on the low side. I wonder if $0.30 per viewer per show would be enough for the theater to break even on splicing the ads onto the reels, administration of ad placement, etc. Net? Sure, it's worth it... but gross?
No, that is not what I'm saying. You are missing half of my argument.
The rule of law is just only when those under the law have the means to legally make changes to the law. When the ability to change the law through legal means has been subjected, then the rule of law is no longer valid. This is the crux of revolting on the basis of "no taxation without representation", which is on part of it.
This is where you're missing the second part, that being when the means to change the law are not held by those subject to the law.
Let me restate in simple terms, yet again, so you can understand. Remember to read the entire thing this time.
The rule of law is only valid when the laws are just -- when the means to address wrongs in the law are available to those subject to the law.
Is that better for you? Does it make sense now, or are you going to continue to ignore that part of my statements that you have so studiously chosen to ignore and/or misrepresent?
I touched on this in another post... have you thought about contracting with a local butcher on the meat locker/walk-in freezer? He'll take a cut, but you could pass that on to your customers... and he'd be the one doing the customer service on retrieval.
I've got a chest freezer, but with all the produce I freeze, the hog and lamb I get every year... well... I can't fit a side of beef.
When I was a kid, we had a meat locker at the butcher's... that was awesome. Especially since it was half-filled with our lamb and pork, and half-filled with a side of beef from a friend we bartered with.
Anyway, here in the NE, there are a quite a few guys that sell quarters and sides, they have a large enough retail ops that it's worth it for them to sell that way. But I find that they are just as expensive (or more!) as the butcher or grocery store, they don't compete on price... they compete on "knowing where your food comes from" and some agritourism (come tour our farm and then overpay for our beef!).
Oh well.
Good idea on the feed store... I'll have to swing by there.
Thanks, I enjoyed your comment and the cite.
By "this comment" in the above post, I meant the parent to my post.
...
Doh. And by parent to my post, I mean the grandparent to this post.
Some please mod this comment up. It is spot-on.
The meatpacking industry in the US has undergone a huge consolidation in the past 20 years, and while this bodes well for industry efficiency, it *sucks* for the small farmers.
To the parent: where are you located? My beef guy is switching to buffalo, and his new prices will be too much for me. I need a new one (though I only buy a quarter a year).
No, you don't need to do either of those things. We have plenty of arable land sufficient to organically provide enough calories and other nutrition for the entire world population. In the US and the EU, it'd be difficult due to high labor costs, but it could be done. All we'd need to do is reduce the amount of meat eaten by a large factor.
Got a link or a cite for that? I'd like to read up on it.
My past reading on the subject said that when cattle were dosed with non-therapeutic levels of antibiotics that (1) they grew faster and (2) they suffered from fewer bacterial infections. It's not clear that (1) follows from (2), but it sure makes a lot of sense. IIRC, the unanswered question was how the supposedly non-therapeutic levels of antibiotics prevent illness.
Animals that are sick do not grow as fast, and possibly not as much in total, as healthy animals.
The reason it increases their size is because it keeps them disease-free.
Livestock stressed by illness don't grow as fast.
No shit. And my point is that the rule of law cannot continue when the law is unjust, and the means of legally changing the law are subverted.
Are you deliberately misunderstanding my point?
What? That's not true at all.
Antihistamines work exactly as their name implies -- they block the histamine response that causes inflammation, etc. They do not increase adrenaline levels.
MK is just a moronic internet tough-guy troll. No need to feed him...