It's annoying to those of us who read once in a while. Typos are one thing, everyone makes typos, but thinking that you need an apostrophe for a plural is ignorant. When I see that particular mistake I don't picture a nerd writing it, I picture a dumb jock that never finished a book in his life. Sorry, but that's the perception. On somewhere like Yahoo? I expect Yahoo rednecks to be semiliterate at best, but not slashdot nerds.
Yes, in fact it does. You can't concentrate on the phone and your driving at the same time; this has been proven time and again. If you refuse to believe the studies you're a moron.
What about the same number of idiotic drivers before cell phones existed?
There were far fewer. The thing is, there are always a certain number of idiots on the road, but anyone talking on a phone has almost zero awareness of anything else, even though you probably think you're fully aware. Again, this has been demonstrated scientifically. Drunks usually think they're ok to drive, too.
Of course not, you already determined that "cell phones are evil".
You're an ass, I never said any such thing. I said cell phone use while driving is stupid. I like my beer, but I don't drive after drinking it. Likewise, the cell phone is a handy gadget but using it while driving pegs you as mentally retarded.
I'm pointing out the simple truth that stupid people will act stupid with a cell phone and intelligent people won't.
That's right, intelligent people don't wander the sidewalks bumping into people, they use it somewhere wher they're not in everyone's way. Likewise, intelligent people don't use a cell phone while driving. It's stupid, and apparently you are, too, since you think this dangerous activity is ok.
Well, if you're going to argue with Harvard researchers and aciddent investigators, there's little to say except WTF?
However, the benefits of penalizing drunk driving (at least if you restrict it to actual drunks, and not the mildly buzzed at 0.08) are much greater.
.08 is three shots of Jack Daniels for a 160 pound man. If three shots only gives you a mild buzz, you're an alcoholic and should NEVER be behind the wheel.
Let's go really rediculous and tax them at 100% of thier total income and take all thier property, you come up with about 700 billion dollars. Now what? You need twice that to break even.
Economies can grow or shrink. Grow the economy and you grow the tax base, and the deficit takes care of itself.
Companies don't pay taxes, never have, never will. Raise the tax rate on a company, they raise prices to the consumer.
They raise prices, they lose business. With a corporate tax I can pay Chevy's tax, or Ford's tax, or not buy a car at all and not pay the tax; it's my choice. Tax me directly and I have no choice. If Ford passes 100% of the taxes on to the consumer, and Chevy passes 75% on and takes the rest from dividends, Chevy has an advantage. To a corporation, taxes are just another cost of diong business, no different than lawyers, accountants, and machinery.
Wait, did you actually believe that raising the tax rate on the rich would even the deficit?
That tired old argumant is stupid. Don't raise taxes on the rich because it won't cure the deficit? Fine, my taxes won't either, how about I just don't have to pay them? It doesn't MATTER if raising taxes on the rich will solve the deficit, IT'S A START IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION. The rich have been paying far too little tax for far too long, which is one reason the deficit is so bad. Federal taxes are lower than any time since the Truman administration. Greedy selfish motherfuckers are NOT paying their share.
Democrats want to remove subsidies from SPECIFIC COMPANIES, not the "oil industry".
Then they're wrong. Nobody in the oil industry should be getting a subsidy
Tell me one thing you NEED that isn't/can't be provided.
I'm doing fine, but many I know are hurting badly, lacking food, even homes. The spoiled little bitches on Wall Street and Washington don't give a rat's ass about them. I do.
Unions are no more people than corporations. Union members are people, just like corporate employees.
Nope. To union leadership the union members, who voted them into office, are people. To the CEO and board they're assets, not people.
Union and corporate interests should be represented through their members and employees, not through the union leadership and corporate CEOs with the political connections and big checkbooks.
One group is for smaller, less intrusive government
No, they're for dismantling the government's power to regulate large industries so those large industries can screw you over; for dismantling the EPA (let corporations pollute all they want), FAA (as if flying isn't bad enough that I refuse to any more), the department of energy (as if we're not close to peak oil), deregulating banks so they can screw you over easier, etc.
Oh, and they're for lower Federal taxes even though taxes are lower than any time since the Truman administration. But they don't want to lower my middle class taxes, they scream bloody murder when the Democrats want to lower them, they want to lower taxes on the rich and only the god damned rich. Oh, and they pretend to be Christians even though Christ was against everything they're for (e.g., taxes -- "render unto Ceasar that which is Ceasar's" and "it's as hard for a 1%er to get to heaven as for a camel to go through the eye of a needle").
Another group want someone else to pay thier student loans, free healthcare, not willing to start at the bottom and work thier way up. Generally want somone else to support them.
Where does this incorrect garbage you teabaggers spew come from, anyway? That is NOT what Occupy is for. In fact, it's the 1% that you idiot teabaggers support that demand government entitlements -- like grants to oil companies, for example.
Tea party is for the 1% and the 1% only, and anyone in the 99% who support them are incredibly stupid.
Can't remember, which group was throwing malatov cocktails at police?
Neither one, that was rioters in England. Or did Rush tell you different?
Please tell me why "conservatives" can seldom use a homophone properly? The lack of basic literacy skills says a lot about why the tea party, Rush Limbaugh, and Newt Gingrich are popular.
Look, I know you athiests love bashing religion, but you're slandering a dead man there, bub. Jesus never said any such thing. Who are you going to slander next, Ghandi?
You, sir, are an asshole. Go fuck yourself, preferably with something sharp.
No. Occupy and the foreign protests were grassroots movements, the tea party was astroturf. Taxes are lower than any time since Truman, and nobody squealed about the deficit until "spend like a drunken sailor" Bush was out of office. The rich Republicans got their idiot redneck followers to join; anybody with a 3 digit IQ can see it.
The Tea Party is a fake movement that's for the very people the Occupy movement is against, and it managed to fool the stupider of the 99% to lobby for things that harm themselves.
If you're a tea partier earning less than $300k per year, you're an idiot.
Maybe not, but women have it GREAT. For example, they have a plethora of birth control choices, men have three: abstinence, condoms, and permanent surgery. Men have to reproductive rights whatever. If she gets pregnant and wants an abortion, she gets the abortion even if he wants the child. If he doesn't want the child and she does, she has the kid and he pays for it.
Why should the onus of child support fall on the man, who has no reproductive rights whatever, and not on the women, who is in a position to control her reproduction?
If you're looking for a job, and the other, equally qualified candidate is a woman, guess who gets the job?
Maybe it has to do with jurisdiction, but in Ilinois if you have an order of protection against someone, you are under the same constraints as they are. If you take out an order of protection against me, then show up at a bar I'm in, I can have you jailed.
When a person grows up and realizes that they need changes in their life and puts an effort into those changes, You change your "tastes".
And it's not just growing up, you'll find your tastes changing as you age. Changes in music, women, everything. In my case, my musical preferances have expanded to the point that I like just about anything but opera and hip-hop. With women, when I was young I was after the skinny ones, these days the skinny ones turn me right off. I used to be partial to larger breasts, but women my age with large breasts tend to have them hanging to their knees.
what really is the difference between a democratic government and a democratic group blog like Wikipedia?
The difference is neither one is a democracy. Your vote is meaningless; the corporates get politicians elected. Your wikipedia edit will be undone. No democracy in either place.
Put another way, if you can't trust a bunch of old guys in suits not to become corrupt, why can you trust a bunch of stoned basement dwellers to avoid corruption?
That suit and tie should clue you in to the fact that the people wearing them worship wealth and power. Wealth and power begs for corruption. The stoned guy in the basement? Being stoned usually makes one not give a damn about wealth or power.
Power doesn't corrupt, power attracts the corruptable.
As much as I dislike using a car analogy, I think if we hadn't have chosen automobiles as our primary form of transportation, we wouldn't have emission standards and the like, because what makes it an issue is quantity
Way back in 1876 a rather prescient fellow predicted that in a hundred years there would be a terrible pollution problem.
"In a hundred years we'll all be up to our asses in horse shit."
all torrent downloaders are committing copyright infringement if their torrent client uploads what they've already downloaded
Yeah? I'm torrenting Mandriva, Kubuntu, Mint, and my own book right now. Oh, and two MP3s of music I wrote that my daughter performed. No copyright is being violated. But your "all torrent downloaders are committing copyright infringement" is just what the media conglomerates want you to think. So please stop it. There is FAR more legal content on BT than illigitimate material.
...means that if the enviro-whackos are going to get their wish to return us to the stone age...
Enviro-whackos? Return us to the stone age? WTF, boy, put that oxycontin down and shut off that stoner on your AM radio. You have no clue how bad it was before the "enviro-whackos" got the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act passed. Do you work in the oil industry, by chance, or are you just ignorant?
By the way, get that damned car you have on blocks out of your front yard. Moron.
Irrelevant i any case, there is no evidence fracking impacts any water supply.
The practice of hydraulic fracturing has come under scrutiny internationally due to apparent concerns about the environment, health and safety, and has been suspended or banned in some countries.
Environmental concerns with hydraulic fracturing include the potential contamination of ground water, risks to air quality, the potential migration of gases and hydraulic fracturing chemicals to the surface, the potential mishandling of waste, and the health effects of these.[23][24] A 2004 study by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) concluded that the injection of hydraulic fracturing fluids into CBM wells posed minimal threat to underground drinking water sources.[25] This study has been criticised for only focusing on the injection of fracking fluids, while ignoring other aspects of the process such as disposal of fluids, and environmental concerns such as water quality, fish kills and acid burns; the study was also concluded before public complaints of contamination started emerging.[26]:780 Largely on the basis of this study, in 2005 hydraulic fracturing was exempted by US Congress from any regulation under the Safe Drinking Water Act.
With the explosive growth of natural gas wells in the US, researcher Valerie Brown predicted in 2007 that "public exposure to the many chemicals involved in energy development is expected to increase over the next few years, with uncertain consequences."[24] As development of natural gas wells in the U.S. since the year 2000 has increased, so too have claims by private well owners of water contamination. This has prompted EPA and others to re-visit the topic.
While the EPA recognizes the potential for contamination of water by hydraulic fracturing, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson testified in a Senate Hearing Committee "I'm not aware of any proven case where the fracking process itself has affected water...".[27] There are, however, documented incidents of contamination. In 2006 drilling fluids and methane were detected leaking from the ground near a gas well in Clark, Wyoming; 8 million cubic feet of methane were eventually released, and shallow groundwater was found to be contaminated.[24] In the town of Dimock, Pennsylvania, 13 water wells were contaminated with methane (one of them blew up), and the gas company, Cabot Oil & Gas, had to financially compensate residents and construct a pipeline to bring in clean water; the company continued to deny, however, that any "of the issues in Dimock have anything to do with hydraulic fracturing".
If I'm not working (and subsequently have no money), I don't date. Aside from the fact that I wouldn't be able to cover expenses such as contraceptives, dates, etc., I am not in a position to raise a family.
Let her pay, you chauvinist. Women have jobs these days. I've picked up the tab for a lot of unemployed women, why can't an employed one pick up the tab for you? Or don't any women ask you out?
Christ, who's doing the moderating today? The parent comment wasn't offtopic, although I am. Do you even know what thread you're moderating? Some people should never get mod points.
Treat the bar like your own personal, undeclared speed-dating session and talk to the ladies in the bar. Look for signs that what they're saying is too good to be true, and filter those out if you're actually looking for a long-term relationship.
A bar is the LAST place to go to look for a long-term relationship. It can happen, but it's unlikely you'll find one there.
BTW, dancing is a great way to meet women for non-long-term relationships too.
The bar is the place to look for a non-long term relationship, unless you don't want to do any more than dance.
Church is the last place to look for any kind of relationship, but again, it happens -- my grandmother met her 2nd husband in church (Grandpa died ten years earlier).
I've found that the best way to find women is to stop looking for them. It's weird how shit just seems to happen sometimes.
Slashdot Mirror
It's annoying to those of us who read once in a while. Typos are one thing, everyone makes typos, but thinking that you need an apostrophe for a plural is ignorant. When I see that particular mistake I don't picture a nerd writing it, I picture a dumb jock that never finished a book in his life. Sorry, but that's the perception. On somewhere like Yahoo? I expect Yahoo rednecks to be semiliterate at best, but not slashdot nerds.
So the evil phone made them stupid?
Yes, in fact it does. You can't concentrate on the phone and your driving at the same time; this has been proven time and again. If you refuse to believe the studies you're a moron.
What about the same number of idiotic drivers before cell phones existed?
There were far fewer. The thing is, there are always a certain number of idiots on the road, but anyone talking on a phone has almost zero awareness of anything else, even though you probably think you're fully aware. Again, this has been demonstrated scientifically. Drunks usually think they're ok to drive, too.
Of course not, you already determined that "cell phones are evil".
You're an ass, I never said any such thing. I said cell phone use while driving is stupid. I like my beer, but I don't drive after drinking it. Likewise, the cell phone is a handy gadget but using it while driving pegs you as mentally retarded.
I'm pointing out the simple truth that stupid people will act stupid with a cell phone and intelligent people won't.
That's right, intelligent people don't wander the sidewalks bumping into people, they use it somewhere wher they're not in everyone's way. Likewise, intelligent people don't use a cell phone while driving. It's stupid, and apparently you are, too, since you think this dangerous activity is ok.
I do not believe those figures are accurate.
Well, if you're going to argue with Harvard researchers and aciddent investigators, there's little to say except WTF?
However, the benefits of penalizing drunk driving (at least if you restrict it to actual drunks, and not the mildly buzzed at 0.08) are much greater.
Let's go really rediculous and tax them at 100% of thier total income and take all thier property, you come up with about 700 billion dollars. Now what? You need twice that to break even.
Economies can grow or shrink. Grow the economy and you grow the tax base, and the deficit takes care of itself.
Companies don't pay taxes, never have, never will. Raise the tax rate on a company, they raise prices to the consumer.
They raise prices, they lose business. With a corporate tax I can pay Chevy's tax, or Ford's tax, or not buy a car at all and not pay the tax; it's my choice. Tax me directly and I have no choice. If Ford passes 100% of the taxes on to the consumer, and Chevy passes 75% on and takes the rest from dividends, Chevy has an advantage. To a corporation, taxes are just another cost of diong business, no different than lawyers, accountants, and machinery.
Wait, did you actually believe that raising the tax rate on the rich would even the deficit?
That tired old argumant is stupid. Don't raise taxes on the rich because it won't cure the deficit? Fine, my taxes won't either, how about I just don't have to pay them? It doesn't MATTER if raising taxes on the rich will solve the deficit, IT'S A START IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION. The rich have been paying far too little tax for far too long, which is one reason the deficit is so bad. Federal taxes are lower than any time since the Truman administration. Greedy selfish motherfuckers are NOT paying their share.
Democrats want to remove subsidies from SPECIFIC COMPANIES, not the "oil industry".
Then they're wrong. Nobody in the oil industry should be getting a subsidy
Tell me one thing you NEED that isn't/can't be provided.
I'm doing fine, but many I know are hurting badly, lacking food, even homes. The spoiled little bitches on Wall Street and Washington don't give a rat's ass about them. I do.
With the exception of the Temasters (terrible union, I was in the Teamsters once) your grandpa is wrong.
Unions are no more people than corporations. Union members are people, just like corporate employees.
Nope. To union leadership the union members, who voted them into office, are people. To the CEO and board they're assets, not people.
Union and corporate interests should be represented through their members and employees, not through the union leadership and corporate CEOs with the political connections and big checkbooks.
I agree completely.
One group is for smaller, less intrusive government
No, they're for dismantling the government's power to regulate large industries so those large industries can screw you over; for dismantling the EPA (let corporations pollute all they want), FAA (as if flying isn't bad enough that I refuse to any more), the department of energy (as if we're not close to peak oil), deregulating banks so they can screw you over easier, etc.
Oh, and they're for lower Federal taxes even though taxes are lower than any time since the Truman administration. But they don't want to lower my middle class taxes, they scream bloody murder when the Democrats want to lower them, they want to lower taxes on the rich and only the god damned rich. Oh, and they pretend to be Christians even though Christ was against everything they're for (e.g., taxes -- "render unto Ceasar that which is Ceasar's" and "it's as hard for a 1%er to get to heaven as for a camel to go through the eye of a needle").
Another group want someone else to pay thier student loans, free healthcare, not willing to start at the bottom and work thier way up. Generally want somone else to support them.
Where does this incorrect garbage you teabaggers spew come from, anyway? That is NOT what Occupy is for. In fact, it's the 1% that you idiot teabaggers support that demand government entitlements -- like grants to oil companies, for example.
Tea party is for the 1% and the 1% only, and anyone in the 99% who support them are incredibly stupid.
Can't remember, which group was throwing malatov cocktails at police?
Neither one, that was rioters in England. Or did Rush tell you different?
Please tell me why "conservatives" can seldom use a homophone properly? The lack of basic literacy skills says a lot about why the tea party, Rush Limbaugh, and Newt Gingrich are popular.
Look, I know you athiests love bashing religion, but you're slandering a dead man there, bub. Jesus never said any such thing. Who are you going to slander next, Ghandi?
You, sir, are an asshole. Go fuck yourself, preferably with something sharp.
Or are not all protesters created equal?
No. Occupy and the foreign protests were grassroots movements, the tea party was astroturf. Taxes are lower than any time since Truman, and nobody squealed about the deficit until "spend like a drunken sailor" Bush was out of office. The rich Republicans got their idiot redneck followers to join; anybody with a 3 digit IQ can see it.
The Tea Party is a fake movement that's for the very people the Occupy movement is against, and it managed to fool the stupider of the 99% to lobby for things that harm themselves.
If you're a tea partier earning less than $300k per year, you're an idiot.
Kent State.
Being a man isn't so bad in and of itself.
Maybe not, but women have it GREAT. For example, they have a plethora of birth control choices, men have three: abstinence, condoms, and permanent surgery. Men have to reproductive rights whatever. If she gets pregnant and wants an abortion, she gets the abortion even if he wants the child. If he doesn't want the child and she does, she has the kid and he pays for it.
Why should the onus of child support fall on the man, who has no reproductive rights whatever, and not on the women, who is in a position to control her reproduction?
If you're looking for a job, and the other, equally qualified candidate is a woman, guess who gets the job?
How pitiful. I'm glad I'm no lilly livered coward like you. Grow a spine, son.
http://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/02/us-katrina-trial-idUSTRE77171J20110802&sa=U&ei=TPzoTtnIKJKHsALq15DtCA&ved=0CBoQFjAC&usg=AFQjCNHXrFcWPhxoZ_2QSti4ezArsrIDIQ
Maybe it has to do with jurisdiction, but in Ilinois if you have an order of protection against someone, you are under the same constraints as they are. If you take out an order of protection against me, then show up at a bar I'm in, I can have you jailed.
When a person grows up and realizes that they need changes in their life and puts an effort into those changes, You change your "tastes".
And it's not just growing up, you'll find your tastes changing as you age. Changes in music, women, everything. In my case, my musical preferances have expanded to the point that I like just about anything but opera and hip-hop. With women, when I was young I was after the skinny ones, these days the skinny ones turn me right off. I used to be partial to larger breasts, but women my age with large breasts tend to have them hanging to their knees.
what really is the difference between a democratic government and a democratic group blog like Wikipedia?
The difference is neither one is a democracy. Your vote is meaningless; the corporates get politicians elected. Your wikipedia edit will be undone. No democracy in either place.
Put another way, if you can't trust a bunch of old guys in suits not to become corrupt, why can you trust a bunch of stoned basement dwellers to avoid corruption?
That suit and tie should clue you in to the fact that the people wearing them worship wealth and power. Wealth and power begs for corruption. The stoned guy in the basement? Being stoned usually makes one not give a damn about wealth or power.
Power doesn't corrupt, power attracts the corruptable.
As much as I dislike using a car analogy, I think if we hadn't have chosen automobiles as our primary form of transportation, we wouldn't have emission standards and the like, because what makes it an issue is quantity
Way back in 1876 a rather prescient fellow predicted that in a hundred years there would be a terrible pollution problem.
"In a hundred years we'll all be up to our asses in horse shit."
all torrent downloaders are committing copyright infringement if their torrent client uploads what they've already downloaded
Yeah? I'm torrenting Mandriva, Kubuntu, Mint, and my own book right now. Oh, and two MP3s of music I wrote that my daughter performed. No copyright is being violated. But your "all torrent downloaders are committing copyright infringement" is just what the media conglomerates want you to think. So please stop it. There is FAR more legal content on BT than illigitimate material.
...means that if the enviro-whackos are going to get their wish to return us to the stone age...
Enviro-whackos? Return us to the stone age? WTF, boy, put that oxycontin down and shut off that stoner on your AM radio. You have no clue how bad it was before the "enviro-whackos" got the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act passed. Do you work in the oil industry, by chance, or are you just ignorant?
By the way, get that damned car you have on blocks out of your front yard. Moron.
Aren't all of those except the Miley Cyrus bit streamed from the network? Why pirate what's already free?
Irrelevant i any case, there is no evidence fracking impacts any water supply.
If I'm not working (and subsequently have no money), I don't date. Aside from the fact that I wouldn't be able to cover expenses such as contraceptives, dates, etc., I am not in a position to raise a family.
Let her pay, you chauvinist. Women have jobs these days. I've picked up the tab for a lot of unemployed women, why can't an employed one pick up the tab for you? Or don't any women ask you out?
Christ, who's doing the moderating today? The parent comment wasn't offtopic, although I am. Do you even know what thread you're moderating? Some people should never get mod points.
Treat the bar like your own personal, undeclared speed-dating session and talk to the ladies in the bar. Look for signs that what they're saying is too good to be true, and filter those out if you're actually looking for a long-term relationship.
A bar is the LAST place to go to look for a long-term relationship. It can happen, but it's unlikely you'll find one there.
BTW, dancing is a great way to meet women for non-long-term relationships too.
The bar is the place to look for a non-long term relationship, unless you don't want to do any more than dance.
Church is the last place to look for any kind of relationship, but again, it happens -- my grandmother met her 2nd husband in church (Grandpa died ten years earlier).
I've found that the best way to find women is to stop looking for them. It's weird how shit just seems to happen sometimes.