I also own a 1979 Ford Bronco with a 351m bored over 20 with a 850CFM Holley Truck Avenger carburetor, snorkel and smokestack sitting on DANA-60's, 36" SuperSwampers and air-auto-lockers, lifted etc., rigged for both plow and tow. It gets about six miles to the gallon. The floorboards are above the average knee, and if I am careful, I can drive it pretty much anywhere (got to watch out for little efficient cars). It is mainly a toy, A MONSTER TRUCK!1!11!!, but once again, it has special abilities that are needed: I think I fell in love just now.
But you are the exception. Most people (at least in my neighborhood) are afraid to take them to fast over mild speedbumps - it would never occur to the average SUV driver to actually *gasp* take it offroad. (It might get scratched! Oh noes!)
It's technically illegal in Omaha, but no sane person rides in the street, as people will aim for you. Wh owoulda thought that Omaha could be such an interesting place?
It's an accepted usage in the four I cited, as well as the big fat Unabridged sitting here at home. You can pick the/one/ that hints at an opinion, but the fact remains that the usage was correct in all regards. Because something is "criticized" doesn't mean it's wrong - it means only that some people (such as yourself) think it's wrong.
I was agreeing with you until the last line. People that recognize it's the interpretation that is more important will be smarter, but from what I've seen it's the quick regurgitation that's the more prized ability (on the internet of course). Could you link a source for that please?
Since all those messages trying to "coerce" me into buying penis pills will be illegal. And if that doesn't fit, then the quantity should certainly qualify as harassment which will also be outlawed. Cool! Hm - you say that presumably in jest, but I wonder if there's something to it. Receiving dozens of emails stating that my p3n1s is too sm4ll is very demoralizing, and it makes me feel very harassed.
Whatever happened to parents' responsibility for what their kids do
While I do agree with you, I can't help but laugh that you said that. The case specifically being cited as the reason for such a law was not a kid being bullied by another kid, but a kid that was more or less goaded into committing suicide by the MOTHER of her friend. I think GP was referring to the parent of the kid who killed herself.
methods of causing massive harm before you can be prevented are literally without limit
That word doesn't mean what you think it means. I can't leap outside and kick the planet into the sun, no matter how willing I am to ride down with it. I can't even kill you with my brain.
I always use the words I want to use.
#
2 (intensifier before a figurative expression) without exaggeration; "our eyes were literally pinned to TV during the Gulf War" Or how about:
4. in effect; in substance; very nearly; virtually. Or maybe:
2 : in effect Try again?
Holy crap. I was beginning to think that I was the only sane person left; it seems like most people really are ignorant of the damage one person can cause essentially anywhere, without even putting a lot of effort into it.
I could drive a homemade bomb into work at a major financial company if I wanted to. Water supplies are unprotected. I can cause a 100+ care pileup with dozens of fatalities whenever I decide to do it.
When getting caught (or staying alive) is not a concern for the perpetrator, the methods of causing massive harm before you can be prevented are literally without limit.
The point, of course, is that if anyone/wanted/ to do these things, they can't be stopped through pointless exercises such as the laughable airport 'security' we have today. We rely a lot more than most people know on the fact that the vast majority of the world's population does/not/ want to cause this kind of damage.
In what way is scanning our persons any worse than scanning our belongings, which we have submitted since long before 9/11? I'm not a fan of either one, but realistically scanning baggage is a far more egregious privacy violation. You can learn a lot more about people by scanning what they carry their baggage or requiring them to turn on and use their laptops than you can by scanning their bodies.
I realize that as a society that we're very paranoid about hiding our penises and vaginae from the world, but realistically there's very little privacy violation in a body scan in comparison to the existing searches.
The time to raise the privacy raise outcry was 20 years ago when they started poking around into the things we carry with us and we make them stop.
I'm fairly confident, though, that people will fight against the body scan - and if they win, they'll feel convinced that their privacy is somehow intact; that they've won a great victory when once again "only" scanning and searching of baggage is performed.
The point is it would allow for identification of and arrest of criminals more easily. Known criminals who have proven that they are willing to use firearms in committing their crimes will be arrested easily?
why is the 2nd amendment more important than the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 13th, 14th, 15th, 19th let alone them combined? Those worthy amendments have not been under decades of systematic attack, so that's a bit of a straw man don't you think?
You go on to say that you can't figure out why anyone cares about it. You you care about it - at least enough to argue the point.
Sure, but I'd like to know what those bugfixes are - the firefox release notes page hasn't changed significantly (that I've seen) since Beta 1. Kind of frustrating when you want to see what's actually in the release, and not a sales pitch.
Stop considering them as clones, but applications on their own If we do that, we have to question the horrible interface decisions -- to all appearances, the reason a lot of them were made was to ease the transition from Office.
Let's revisit that when it can load in under 5 seconds on a modern machine -- without needing a 'preloader' resident in memory. This is something that the various MS Office suite products have been able to do (though I have not tested this with the latest versions of office) since 2000 or so.
I use openoffice.org (can't beat the price), but let's not kid ourselves -- this is just one way of many in which it's simply not there yet.
But the point is if it was slowed down by design that wouldn't work - because it would remain undetected. That might have other repercussions as well: major outbreaks would not have immediately visible symptoms (such as flooding probes), and so may actually be harder to detect.
Hm - kind of. An argument could be made that it would slow the spread of the botnet. And it is probably a safe bet that if the machines can get infected in the first place (unless it's a brand new exploit), there won't be patch updates/installs forthcoming from those particular users...
Slashdot Mirror
But you are the exception. Most people (at least in my neighborhood) are afraid to take them to fast over mild speedbumps - it would never occur to the average SUV driver to actually *gasp* take it offroad. (It might get scratched! Oh noes!)
Oh, is it?
It's an accepted usage in the four I cited, as well as the big fat Unabridged sitting here at home. You can pick the /one/ that hints at an opinion, but the fact remains that the usage was correct in all regards. Because something is "criticized" doesn't mean it's wrong - it means only that some people (such as yourself) think it's wrong.
Whoosh ;)
That word doesn't mean what you think it means. I can't leap outside and kick the planet into the sun, no matter how willing I am to ride down with it. I can't even kill you with my brain.
I always use the words I want to use. # 2 (intensifier before a figurative expression) without exaggeration; "our eyes were literally pinned to TV during the Gulf War" Or how about: 4. in effect; in substance; very nearly; virtually. Or maybe: 2 : in effect Try again?In my opinion you would be - because that's not the topic being discussed in this thread.
What I love about this is that we very likely made some fool mod waste 3-4 mod points just to mark a clearly offtopic thread as 'offtopic' :D
Actually, his post was only barely on topic - replies should be on-topic to their parent, not to the original article.
I could drive a homemade bomb into work at a major financial company if I wanted to. Water supplies are unprotected. I can cause a 100+ care pileup with dozens of fatalities whenever I decide to do it.
When getting caught (or staying alive) is not a concern for the perpetrator, the methods of causing massive harm before you can be prevented are literally without limit.
The point, of course, is that if anyone /wanted/ to do these things, they can't be stopped through pointless exercises such as the laughable airport 'security' we have today. We rely a lot more than most people know on the fact that the vast majority of the world's population does /not/ want to cause this kind of damage.
In what way is scanning our persons any worse than scanning our belongings, which we have submitted since long before 9/11? I'm not a fan of either one, but realistically scanning baggage is a far more egregious privacy violation. You can learn a lot more about people by scanning what they carry their baggage or requiring them to turn on and use their laptops than you can by scanning their bodies.
I realize that as a society that we're very paranoid about hiding our penises and vaginae from the world, but realistically there's very little privacy violation in a body scan in comparison to the existing searches.
The time to raise the privacy raise outcry was 20 years ago when they started poking around into the things we carry with us and we make them stop.
I'm fairly confident, though, that people will fight against the body scan - and if they win, they'll feel convinced that their privacy is somehow intact; that they've won a great victory when once again "only" scanning and searching of baggage is performed.
That couldn't possibly be the reason I chose that particular quote as my signature, could it?
You go on to say that you can't figure out why anyone cares about it. You you care about it - at least enough to argue the point.
"The amazing thing about a dancing bear is not how well it dances, but that it dances at all. "
Optionally - if you disable it, it still loads quickly though.
Sure, but I'd like to know what those bugfixes are - the firefox release notes page hasn't changed significantly (that I've seen) since Beta 1. Kind of frustrating when you want to see what's actually in the release, and not a sales pitch.
I use openoffice.org (can't beat the price), but let's not kid ourselves -- this is just one way of many in which it's simply not there yet.
But the point is if it was slowed down by design that wouldn't work - because it would remain undetected. That might have other repercussions as well: major outbreaks would not have immediately visible symptoms (such as flooding probes), and so may actually be harder to detect.
Hm - kind of. An argument could be made that it would slow the spread of the botnet. And it is probably a safe bet that if the machines can get infected in the first place (unless it's a brand new exploit), there won't be patch updates/installs forthcoming from those particular users...