Wrong. They use 100LL, for "low lead", which isn't really low at all. All standard small-engine aircraft use this fuel, unless it's some "experimental" aircraft with a Subaru automotive engine or something.
Actually, STCs are available for many standard small-engine aircraft to allow them to run on auto fuel: http://www.autofuelstc.com/app...
I'm always desperately confused by Exploding Kittens. Everything I saw in the kickstarter was that it wasn't a fun game. Then when they finally released gameplay videos. I was still lost as to why I would want it. And yet it kept making more and more. But that's a fairly accurate description. "War without the strategic depth". I'm gonna steal that.
It reminds me a lot of UNO, but even simpler. There's not much strategy or learning curve, so it's good for playing a quick game with people who are new to it.
Yep. No liberal I know votes democrat because they trust the politicians or has any faith in them delivering on election promises. They vote democrat because if they dont the republicans would give big red button to a batshit insane lunatic.
Better a bad but sane president than a batshit crazy one. Good candidates dont get to be an option anymore.
And this is what's wrong with America. Everyone votes for the lesser of two evils, so the Rs and Ds have no reason to change. Only when you stop living in fear and vote third party will there be any change.
The reason I think being authoritarian is the best approach in certain times is because it objectively is. Let me explain:
I have a close family member who's a cancer survivor. She is a child. She received treatment and she is fine now (more or less).
There are sizable numbers of people who would have not treated her and instead prayed to God. She would have died. That is a fact. What ever else you believe or don't believe that is a fact.
This is not hypothetical. There have been cases where folks with strong religion had their children taken away from them because they choose to "Trust in the Lord".
I know you've got a dozen things to say to my story above about how/why it was OK to be authoritarian in the cases above. But the fact is you're being authoritarian. There is such a thing as an authority. It's possible to be right and it's possible to be wrong.
Then again you might just wash your hands. Sorting out right and wrong is _hard_. It requires real work and real compromises. It's much, much easier to just wash your hands and say "Oh fuck it, I don't want to impose my beliefs". It's especially seductive because it lets you ignore all the real world suffering by telling yourself you'd only make things worse. But that's a half assed cop out that doesn't save any lives.
So you're suggesting it's objectively better that no one ever die? Or should we only save them if it doesn't cost very much? What if it's a million dollars? A billion?
You don't want DSL. The fastest DSL is slower than the worst cable connection Comcast or Charter can make. It's better and faster to get two teenage boys with semaphore flags and binoculars than to attempt DSL.
That's interesting, because in my area Frontier offers 25 Mbit DSL, and I'm getting 25 Mbit cable from Comcast.
From the link GP posted, it would appear the VTOL capability is perhaps only operational at low (almost empty fuel) weight, so it could relocate to nearby field to refuel and perform STVOL.
Actually....why NOT start basis fares on weight? It would maybe encourage people TO actually try to live and eat healthier. A heavier person does require more fuel, etc....so, it isn't a discriminating factor based on a person's looks, but upon a cold hard cash factor in that it is more $$ to fly that person than someone that weighs less. I know the money is a drop in the bucket on one flight, but it adds up significantly over the airlines' fleets.
I'd be all for that.
Sure. Sounds great.
Now, why don't we just take it a little bit further. Males statistically weigh more than females. Taller, stronger, more muscle build by nature.
Why don't we charge males more than females to fly?
If airlines start charging by weight, they will charge the average male more than the average female. As a male, this does not offend me.
Actual feminism is as much about hatred as the civil rights movement was in the 60s. You are confusing some very vocal idiots with the rest of the movement. "Feminist" is what you call someone when they think men and women should be treated equally. That's it. It's got "fem" in the name because currently women are getting the raw deal at the moment. If women were in disproportionately in control, men had lower wages, were denied opportunities, etc. then it would be called "masculism" and the end goal would be the same - equality between the sexes.
If it's about equality, why isn't it called "egalitarianism"?
I was going to dispute the 24% figure in Washington where I live, but then I discovered I never told T-Mobile I left California a few years ago, so I'm only getting hit with about 16% taxes.
Again you're adamant that it has nothing to do with the license, except it still states on the clang website that it was one of the reasons for its existence.
Just because it's one of the reasons for its existence doesn't mean that's the reason Apple chose it.
I guess this is where you and I disagree. I don't consider charging enough to make a living ripping people off. Assuming sufficient competition and lack of collusion, consumers will have a choice of whether they consider my offer to be a good value to them, or whether they want to shop elsewhere.
No they don't. Most laws deal with the concept of propertional action. That is that you are allowed to break some laws to stop someone else from breaking worse laws, but you are not allowed to break a much worse law to stop a minor one (murder vs trespassing),
So if someone who's bigger than you decides to trespass, maybe steal some of your stuff, but not actually physically harm you, you're SOL?
Well isn't that the very issue I am talking about? Libertarians pick and choose which liberties they support and do not support. That they often oppose worker liberty in subordination to owner liberty is telling.
I know, right? Can't they see that the only true liberty is the liberty to work at the job of your choice for the salary of your choice?
What do you mean it was proven wrong? It never was, and it hasn't been yet. It probably can't be. (Well, except in the sense that Newtonian Mechanics was wrong.)
Sure it was. We now understand the laws of gravity (to within a marginal percent, anyway). Orbiting bodies have orbital periods corresponding with their distance from the center body and the weight of the center body. The planets all orbit the sun, and the moon orbits the earth.
Apple was a pioneer of an accounting technique known as the “Double Irish With a Dutch Sandwich,” which reduces taxes by routing profits through Irish subsidiaries and the Netherlands and then to the Caribbean. Today, that tactic is used by hundreds of other corporations — some of which directly imitated Apple’s methods, say accountants at those companies.
Sure, race cars are both lighter and more survivable. They also cost far more. When you care about improving safety, but cost is also a constraint, weight is pretty easy to sacrifice. After all, you can always stuff a bigger engine in there so the car won't be slower than last year's model.
The tests are too easy. 5-star isn't safe, just better than pinto. The real tests should be reset so that the S gets 3 stars. Then watch everyone else get 1 star for the next 10 years. Eventually, people will build to the new 5-star, and we'll all be safer.
Also, cars will then weigh about 6500 lbs for a coupe, up to 8000 for an SUV.
Huh, funny that, the REAL voter fraud was only switching votes from Dem to Pub, but the claims of switching votes from Pub to Dem have no such evidence, only spurious claims. My guess it that some fucktard racist white assholes decided to lie and stir up some shit; the alternative explanation is that they were too stupid to press a button.
Stop being such a frightened coward. Be a man and accept that there are risks in life. You simply cannot stop suicide bombers. Most of them don't have a Facebook page for your friends to monitor. They may not have an internet connection at all and certainly don't have a smartphone.
Some of us value liberty, value not being watched by law enforcement agents every second of our lives to see if we might be breaking some law or might secretly be planning to blow up the white house. Do you have no understanding of the sort of freedom this country was founded on?
Pff, shows what you know! The NSA/TSA/DHS have already stopped hundreds of thousands of terrorist plots based on monitoring our communication!
to say a car is "a 10 second car" means it takes 10 seconds to go from 0 KPH to 100 KPH.
If you have trouble with that measurement, please stop talking about cars now.
Eh, there's plenty of people that use it to refer to the quarter mile. E.g.: 2013 Nissan GT-R is a 10 Second Car! refers to the quarter mile, as the car takes 2.7 seconds to get to 60 MPH.
Nevertheless, it was pretty obvious from context what your reference was.
Fair enough, although mine is just your position taken to the extreme. Would you find this to be an acceptable sentence: "Who should I address this to?"?
'Whom' is archaic. Only pedants use it, and that has been true for a couple hundred years at least. Do you also insist on "thou" as a second-person pronoun? Do you complain that "curse" and "horse" are unacceptable bastardizations of "cuss" and "hoss"?
As a grammar nazi myself, I advise you to let this one go. The language is better without 'whom', and speakers have long since left it behind.
ur right also we shud get rid of of speling punctionn an gramer as there not needed in modern languag
Slashdot Mirror
Wrong. They use 100LL, for "low lead", which isn't really low at all. All standard small-engine aircraft use this fuel, unless it's some "experimental" aircraft with a Subaru automotive engine or something.
Actually, STCs are available for many standard small-engine aircraft to allow them to run on auto fuel: http://www.autofuelstc.com/app...
I'm always desperately confused by Exploding Kittens. Everything I saw in the kickstarter was that it wasn't a fun game. Then when they finally released gameplay videos. I was still lost as to why I would want it. And yet it kept making more and more. But that's a fairly accurate description. "War without the strategic depth". I'm gonna steal that.
It reminds me a lot of UNO, but even simpler. There's not much strategy or learning curve, so it's good for playing a quick game with people who are new to it.
Yep. No liberal I know votes democrat because they trust the politicians or has any faith in them delivering on election promises. They vote democrat because if they dont the republicans would give big red button to a batshit insane lunatic.
Better a bad but sane president than a batshit crazy one. Good candidates dont get to be an option anymore.
And this is what's wrong with America. Everyone votes for the lesser of two evils, so the Rs and Ds have no reason to change. Only when you stop living in fear and vote third party will there be any change.
It was also written at a time when groups of armed men could defend themselves against a belligerent government.
Now that the government has tanks, cruise missiles, and nuclear weapons, a pistol or machine gun won’t stop them. Hence, we don’t need to own guns.
Good point; a modern interpretation of the second amendment should include the right to military grade hardware.
The reason I think being authoritarian is the best approach in certain times is because it objectively is. Let me explain: I have a close family member who's a cancer survivor. She is a child. She received treatment and she is fine now (more or less). There are sizable numbers of people who would have not treated her and instead prayed to God. She would have died. That is a fact. What ever else you believe or don't believe that is a fact. This is not hypothetical. There have been cases where folks with strong religion had their children taken away from them because they choose to "Trust in the Lord". I know you've got a dozen things to say to my story above about how/why it was OK to be authoritarian in the cases above. But the fact is you're being authoritarian. There is such a thing as an authority. It's possible to be right and it's possible to be wrong. Then again you might just wash your hands. Sorting out right and wrong is _hard_. It requires real work and real compromises. It's much, much easier to just wash your hands and say "Oh fuck it, I don't want to impose my beliefs". It's especially seductive because it lets you ignore all the real world suffering by telling yourself you'd only make things worse. But that's a half assed cop out that doesn't save any lives.
So you're suggesting it's objectively better that no one ever die? Or should we only save them if it doesn't cost very much? What if it's a million dollars? A billion?
You don't want DSL. The fastest DSL is slower than the worst cable connection Comcast or Charter can make. It's better and faster to get two teenage boys with semaphore flags and binoculars than to attempt DSL.
That's interesting, because in my area Frontier offers 25 Mbit DSL, and I'm getting 25 Mbit cable from Comcast.
From the link GP posted, it would appear the VTOL capability is perhaps only operational at low (almost empty fuel) weight, so it could relocate to nearby field to refuel and perform STVOL.
Actually....why NOT start basis fares on weight? It would maybe encourage people TO actually try to live and eat healthier. A heavier person does require more fuel, etc....so, it isn't a discriminating factor based on a person's looks, but upon a cold hard cash factor in that it is more $$ to fly that person than someone that weighs less. I know the money is a drop in the bucket on one flight, but it adds up significantly over the airlines' fleets.
I'd be all for that.
Sure. Sounds great. Now, why don't we just take it a little bit further. Males statistically weigh more than females. Taller, stronger, more muscle build by nature. Why don't we charge males more than females to fly?
If airlines start charging by weight, they will charge the average male more than the average female. As a male, this does not offend me.
Actual feminism is as much about hatred as the civil rights movement was in the 60s. You are confusing some very vocal idiots with the rest of the movement. "Feminist" is what you call someone when they think men and women should be treated equally. That's it. It's got "fem" in the name because currently women are getting the raw deal at the moment. If women were in disproportionately in control, men had lower wages, were denied opportunities, etc. then it would be called "masculism" and the end goal would be the same - equality between the sexes.
If it's about equality, why isn't it called "egalitarianism"?
I was going to dispute the 24% figure in Washington where I live, but then I discovered I never told T-Mobile I left California a few years ago, so I'm only getting hit with about 16% taxes.
Again you're adamant that it has nothing to do with the license, except it still states on the clang website that it was one of the reasons for its existence.
Just because it's one of the reasons for its existence doesn't mean that's the reason Apple chose it.
Taxing income taxes you for ripping people off.
I guess this is where you and I disagree. I don't consider charging enough to make a living ripping people off. Assuming sufficient competition and lack of collusion, consumers will have a choice of whether they consider my offer to be a good value to them, or whether they want to shop elsewhere.
If you're selling your product/services for zero profit, what money do you use to pay for your house/rent, food, clothing, transportation, etc.?
No they don't. Most laws deal with the concept of propertional action. That is that you are allowed to break some laws to stop someone else from breaking worse laws, but you are not allowed to break a much worse law to stop a minor one (murder vs trespassing),
So if someone who's bigger than you decides to trespass, maybe steal some of your stuff, but not actually physically harm you, you're SOL?
Well isn't that the very issue I am talking about? Libertarians pick and choose which liberties they support and do not support. That they often oppose worker liberty in subordination to owner liberty is telling.
I know, right? Can't they see that the only true liberty is the liberty to work at the job of your choice for the salary of your choice?
What do you mean it was proven wrong? It never was, and it hasn't been yet. It probably can't be. (Well, except in the sense that Newtonian Mechanics was wrong.)
Sure it was. We now understand the laws of gravity (to within a marginal percent, anyway). Orbiting bodies have orbital periods corresponding with their distance from the center body and the weight of the center body. The planets all orbit the sun, and the moon orbits the earth.
Apple was a pioneer of an accounting technique known as the “Double Irish With a Dutch Sandwich,” which reduces taxes by routing profits through Irish subsidiaries and the Netherlands and then to the Caribbean. Today, that tactic is used by hundreds of other corporations — some of which directly imitated Apple’s methods, say accountants at those companies.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/29/business/apples-tax-strategy-aims-at-low-tax-states-and-nations.html?_r=0
Apple literally invented the technique. Others followed to compete.
Personally, I support any and all means of tax avoidance, so I don't count it against them. But I love bursting Apple Fanboys bubbles.
Oddly enough, that usually involves saying Apple didn't invent something.
Reality is that cars are far heavier now than a few decades ago due to improved safety standards: http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2012/08/daily-chart
Sure, race cars are both lighter and more survivable. They also cost far more. When you care about improving safety, but cost is also a constraint, weight is pretty easy to sacrifice. After all, you can always stuff a bigger engine in there so the car won't be slower than last year's model.
The tests are too easy. 5-star isn't safe, just better than pinto. The real tests should be reset so that the S gets 3 stars. Then watch everyone else get 1 star for the next 10 years. Eventually, people will build to the new 5-star, and we'll all be safer.
Also, cars will then weigh about 6500 lbs for a coupe, up to 8000 for an SUV.
Huh, funny that, the REAL voter fraud was only switching votes from Dem to Pub, but the claims of switching votes from Pub to Dem have no such evidence, only spurious claims. My guess it that some fucktard racist white assholes decided to lie and stir up some shit; the alternative explanation is that they were too stupid to press a button.
Remember Florida?
Stop being such a frightened coward. Be a man and accept that there are risks in life. You simply cannot stop suicide bombers. Most of them don't have a Facebook page for your friends to monitor. They may not have an internet connection at all and certainly don't have a smartphone.
Some of us value liberty, value not being watched by law enforcement agents every second of our lives to see if we might be breaking some law or might secretly be planning to blow up the white house. Do you have no understanding of the sort of freedom this country was founded on?
Pff, shows what you know! The NSA/TSA/DHS have already stopped hundreds of thousands of terrorist plots based on monitoring our communication!
In all fairness, Google was in favor of net neutrality before they became evil. Things are different on the dark side.
As John Kerry might say, they actually were for it before they were against it.
If by 10 seconds,
to say a car is "a 10 second car" means it takes 10 seconds to go from 0 KPH to 100 KPH. If you have trouble with that measurement, please stop talking about cars now.
Eh, there's plenty of people that use it to refer to the quarter mile. E.g.: 2013 Nissan GT-R is a 10 Second Car! refers to the quarter mile, as the car takes 2.7 seconds to get to 60 MPH. Nevertheless, it was pretty obvious from context what your reference was.
Fair enough, although mine is just your position taken to the extreme. Would you find this to be an acceptable sentence: "Who should I address this to?"?
'Whom' is archaic. Only pedants use it, and that has been true for a couple hundred years at least. Do you also insist on "thou" as a second-person pronoun? Do you complain that "curse" and "horse" are unacceptable bastardizations of "cuss" and "hoss"?
As a grammar nazi myself, I advise you to let this one go. The language is better without 'whom', and speakers have long since left it behind.
ur right also we shud get rid of of speling punctionn an gramer as there not needed in modern languag