Given that the definition of a planet is dependent on the relationship between objects (planet and star, planet and moon, planet and other objects in the same orbit), how can something be classified as a type of planet if there are no observations of that object in relation to other objects in a planetary system?
Oh, and no ID check. Actually, the woman checking me out was my neighborhood. She laughed at me when I said my name, "I know you!" I said I wasn't sure if we needed to follow protocol;)
Wow. Well, good to see those folks will get their licenses reinstated.
If I wanted to get all 'conspiracy theory' on the situation, I could note it's Republicans who are pushing to require government ID (such as a drivers license) to vote and the stereotype is the folks who would have a license but not a car (and therefor not insurance) generally vote Democratic.
I'm sure it's of no relevance that at the state level, all major offices are held by Republicans and both state assemblies are dominated by Republicans. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_party_strength_in_Indiana)
While Indiana does require a photo ID to vote, it does not exclude suspended licenses, only expired. (http://www.in.gov/sos/elections/2401.htm)
Here in the US it's like that with car insurance. It doesn't matter if you don't own a car...
How does that work? I've lived and owned cars in several states. First, insurance rates are tied to the car being insured--what will it cost to fix/replace? is it a make/model that is often stolen? is it a sports car or other model that suggests the driven will be unsafe? Without a make/model, how does the insurance company determine what rate to change?
Second, the penalty for not insuring your car is your registration gets cancelled/not renewed. If you don't have a car, it's not an issue. Fine, don't let me register the car I don't have.
Where is this happening and how does it work, forcing people who don't a own a car to buy car insurance?
TLDR: I carry a gun because carrying a police man would be too heavy.
I don't believe you.
Given I carry one every day and have no desire to kill anyone I'm sure you'll be surprised when I say your statement is incorrect. I acknowledge my bias, I believe in the right of self-defense and having the best tools at hand to exercise that right. You on the other hand clearly do not believe in self-defense and only see evil where I see being prepared. Perhaps you should check your prejudices and approach things with a bit more of an open mind. My beliefs impose nothing at all on anyone else, yours appear to impose defenselessness.
Would you say "the only sane reason to carry a loaded gun is so you can use it" to the 100 pound woman who carries or is your prejudice only reserved for men? Do you also believe that someone else should be responsible for your safety? If that is how you choose to live your life, that's your choice. Not everyone chooses to shirk the responsibility for keeping themselves and their family safe. Hundreds of thousands of people, or more, feel that it isn't necessary or even right to foist that responsibility on a police man who likely won't arrive in time to do the job anyway.
I could carry a gun every day. And I don't mean in the strictly theoretical sense of, guns exist and I could get one... I mean, I have the gun, I have the ammo, I have the holster, and I have the little piece of paper from the state police saying I can legally own and carry those things. But I generally don't.
The best tool for self defense is not a firearm; it is the brain. That applies to the 100 pound woman as much as to the 300 pound man. This case is a great example of that. Perhaps at that moment, the only way for Zimmerman to escape serious injury or death was to discharge his weapon. But it seems, even with the most favorable reading of the facts, there were many points when he could have made a different decision so as to not end up in a situation where the only way out was to kill a person.
My beliefs impose nothing at all on anyone else, yours appear to impose defenselessness.
If you shoot someone, your beliefs certainly are imposing something on someone else. I can't help but think of the studies that show safety features in cars--such as air bags and ABS--cause people to drive more recklessly. That sense of safety, knowing the machine will protect me from myself, causes people to act in ways they might not if not given the expectation of a safety net.
So that's where this case comes down in my mind. If Zimmerman did what he would have done, as the neighborhood watch, even if he didn't have the firearm, if events would have played out the same except with a different ending, then he can say he used the gun in self defense.
But if that is not the case, if he would not have pursued and made contact with Martin if he didn't have the protection of the gun, then in my mind that crosses over in to the 'he was looking for trouble' territory.
Back to your statement, atriusofbricia, really? You really feel threatened every day? You really have no choice but to go in to those situations where you need a firearm to assure your safety? I am skeptical.
Is it really that difficult to acquire a lethal dose of a drug without doctor assistance?
You said "no", I call bullshit. You can overdose from alcohol; people do it all the time. They call it "alcohol poisoning." Others overdose on heroin and other opiates. Others, barbituates. In fact, almost every "downer" drug can be lethal, even the over-the-counter drugs like alcohol.
You got the second question right, though.
My experience is there is a stark contrast in the availability of illicit drugs. If you're in college or familiar in certain other subcultures, illegal drugs are quite easy to find. If you are not in one of those circle, however, and adverse to involvement of legal authorities, those same drugs may be all but impossible to obtain.
As for lethal alcohol poisoning, it's actually not that easy. Yes, it happens all the time, which is why I laugh every time I hear about it. "Wow, that guy REALLY wanted to die."
I'm hoping "simpler and cleaner" mean "less arrogant."
I have a couple podcasts I save up for when I travel. I was updating my iPod before a recent trip and noticed those podcasts weren't getting any recent episodes. Turns out iTunes stopped downloading those podcasts because I hadn't listened to them recently.
There's also the recurring issue of iTunes storing audio files where the Apple Devs want files to be stored, not where I configure iTunes to store files.
So how about a version of iTunes that will download what I decide to download, store files where I decide to store files, copy those files to my iPod, and nothing else?
I don't need some developer somewhere deciding what I should or shouldn't download or where files should be stored on my machine.
Just go to any/. thread on intellectual property. You'll find plenty of "logical" solutions to fix the patent system or fix copyright, yet the average nerd on/. doesn't understand the difference between patents, copyrights, and trademarks any more than an average IP lawyer knows the difference between TCP and UDP.
Why watch on XBox Live? I'm assuming in addition to the XBox, a television is required to do this. And once you have the television, the XBox is unnecessary. Is your XBox connected to a monitor that doesn't receive OTA signals? Do you do it for the interactive aspect (polls)? Just curious.
And while I'm here...wow, that article was awful. I generally agree the USA shouldn't be regularly bombing countries without a declaration of war and the president shouldn't be keeping a "kill list," but the article includes what I consider to be extraordinary claims with no citations or support.
Large fines to the telephone company that passed on the robocall....
Totally bogus. The phone company is a pipe (or should be). I don't want them spying and dictating what kind of content goes over their lines. But I do want to eliminate any exceptions for political campaigns and 'non-profits'.. We should have the option to make a white list of who can get through...
A pipe? You make the system sound like a series of tubes.
Do you believe a democratic society can exist which has no form of religion in its laws, or within government?
I think a better question is, can a democratic society exist with any form of religion in its laws or government?
(I say better as in more practical. I don't think we'll ever see a society without some aspect of religion enshrined into law (considering the cult of personality around a dictator or monarch as a form of religion).)
I Don't Own An iPad or Android Device, nor am I Clairvoyant. But I think these may sell well.
I will probably buy one of these. They run Windows. They have a USB port. They will run a piece of software I want to run that will not run on IOS or Android, although it also has a version for OS-X. Apple does not sell an iPad-like device that runs OS-X.
They don't run Windows. They won't run your Windows apps. It'll only run apps from the Surface Store, same way iPads only run apps from the Apple Store.
Slashdot Mirror
We humans have moved most of our digestive system into technology, why not this too?
I'm not sure what restaurants you eat out at, but remind me never to have dinner at your place.
I don't know about "most," but what do you think cooking does? It starts breaking down the molecules in food, aka digesting.
Given that the definition of a planet is dependent on the relationship between objects (planet and star, planet and moon, planet and other objects in the same orbit), how can something be classified as a type of planet if there are no observations of that object in relation to other objects in a planetary system?
What is this "voice calling" of which they speak? You mean there's now a way to project voice by cell phone? Stop the presses!
(Not really. Don't stop the presses. This isn't news. Other cell phones have had this "voice calling" feature for years.)
Should be the singular, "leave the tech stuff to this can, pops."
Oh, and no ID check. Actually, the woman checking me out was my neighborhood. She laughed at me when I said my name, "I know you!" I said I wasn't sure if we needed to follow protocol ;)
In and out quick, about 4 people in line in front of me for my precinct.
On the drive over some economist on the radio was estimating the lost wages of voting based on an average wait time of 1 hour.
My entire voting time, with driving there and back in the evening rush hour, was about 40 minutes.
Paper ballots, fill in the oval by felt pen.
Wow. Well, good to see those folks will get their licenses reinstated.
If I wanted to get all 'conspiracy theory' on the situation, I could note it's Republicans who are pushing to require government ID (such as a drivers license) to vote and the stereotype is the folks who would have a license but not a car (and therefor not insurance) generally vote Democratic.
I'm sure it's of no relevance that at the state level, all major offices are held by Republicans and both state assemblies are dominated by Republicans. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_party_strength_in_Indiana)
While Indiana does require a photo ID to vote, it does not exclude suspended licenses, only expired. (http://www.in.gov/sos/elections/2401.htm)
But that line of thinking would be silly.
Here in the US it's like that with car insurance. It doesn't matter if you don't own a car...
How does that work? I've lived and owned cars in several states. First, insurance rates are tied to the car being insured--what will it cost to fix/replace? is it a make/model that is often stolen? is it a sports car or other model that suggests the driven will be unsafe? Without a make/model, how does the insurance company determine what rate to change?
Second, the penalty for not insuring your car is your registration gets cancelled/not renewed. If you don't have a car, it's not an issue. Fine, don't let me register the car I don't have.
Where is this happening and how does it work, forcing people who don't a own a car to buy car insurance?
TLDR: I carry a gun because carrying a police man would be too heavy.
I don't believe you.
Given I carry one every day and have no desire to kill anyone I'm sure you'll be surprised when I say your statement is incorrect. I acknowledge my bias, I believe in the right of self-defense and having the best tools at hand to exercise that right. You on the other hand clearly do not believe in self-defense and only see evil where I see being prepared. Perhaps you should check your prejudices and approach things with a bit more of an open mind. My beliefs impose nothing at all on anyone else, yours appear to impose defenselessness.
Would you say "the only sane reason to carry a loaded gun is so you can use it" to the 100 pound woman who carries or is your prejudice only reserved for men? Do you also believe that someone else should be responsible for your safety? If that is how you choose to live your life, that's your choice. Not everyone chooses to shirk the responsibility for keeping themselves and their family safe. Hundreds of thousands of people, or more, feel that it isn't necessary or even right to foist that responsibility on a police man who likely won't arrive in time to do the job anyway.
I could carry a gun every day. And I don't mean in the strictly theoretical sense of, guns exist and I could get one... I mean, I have the gun, I have the ammo, I have the holster, and I have the little piece of paper from the state police saying I can legally own and carry those things. But I generally don't.
The best tool for self defense is not a firearm; it is the brain. That applies to the 100 pound woman as much as to the 300 pound man. This case is a great example of that. Perhaps at that moment, the only way for Zimmerman to escape serious injury or death was to discharge his weapon. But it seems, even with the most favorable reading of the facts, there were many points when he could have made a different decision so as to not end up in a situation where the only way out was to kill a person.
My beliefs impose nothing at all on anyone else, yours appear to impose defenselessness.
If you shoot someone, your beliefs certainly are imposing something on someone else. I can't help but think of the studies that show safety features in cars--such as air bags and ABS--cause people to drive more recklessly. That sense of safety, knowing the machine will protect me from myself, causes people to act in ways they might not if not given the expectation of a safety net.
So that's where this case comes down in my mind. If Zimmerman did what he would have done, as the neighborhood watch, even if he didn't have the firearm, if events would have played out the same except with a different ending, then he can say he used the gun in self defense.
But if that is not the case, if he would not have pursued and made contact with Martin if he didn't have the protection of the gun, then in my mind that crosses over in to the 'he was looking for trouble' territory.
Back to your statement, atriusofbricia, really? You really feel threatened every day? You really have no choice but to go in to those situations where you need a firearm to assure your safety? I am skeptical.
Is it really that difficult to acquire a lethal dose of a drug without doctor assistance?
You said "no", I call bullshit. You can overdose from alcohol; people do it all the time. They call it "alcohol poisoning." Others overdose on heroin and other opiates. Others, barbituates. In fact, almost every "downer" drug can be lethal, even the over-the-counter drugs like alcohol.
You got the second question right, though.
My experience is there is a stark contrast in the availability of illicit drugs. If you're in college or familiar in certain other subcultures, illegal drugs are quite easy to find. If you are not in one of those circle, however, and adverse to involvement of legal authorities, those same drugs may be all but impossible to obtain.
As for lethal alcohol poisoning, it's actually not that easy. Yes, it happens all the time, which is why I laugh every time I hear about it. "Wow, that guy REALLY wanted to die."
Is it really that difficult to acquire a lethal dose of a drug without doctor assistance?
Or is this aiming to legally protect doctors who are assisting patients?
Yes, and yes.
And no comments on the ridiculousness of "this is the first recorded instance of a code being used rather than plain text."
The use of coded messages goes back thousands of years. I doubt the first recorded instance would be found on a pigeon from WWII.
I'm hoping "simpler and cleaner" mean "less arrogant."
I have a couple podcasts I save up for when I travel. I was updating my iPod before a recent trip and noticed those podcasts weren't getting any recent episodes. Turns out iTunes stopped downloading those podcasts because I hadn't listened to them recently.
There's also the recurring issue of iTunes storing audio files where the Apple Devs want files to be stored, not where I configure iTunes to store files.
So how about a version of iTunes that will download what I decide to download, store files where I decide to store files, copy those files to my iPod, and nothing else?
I don't need some developer somewhere deciding what I should or shouldn't download or where files should be stored on my machine.
loose translation:
Dude X was selling counterfit decoder rings.
Mr Man McManniman wasn't happy about this and so orchastrated a cunning plan to catch him, Operation: DUCK
Operation: DUCK was foiled by Dude X's super sexy cohort, Hennry "The Horn" Hornison, when he managed to seduce a Delivery one, Miss Baggage.
Miss Baggage had information that Phil Squealer, who Dude X had recently met and shown his ring making device to, had sent a ring to Mr McManniman...
Can Dude X get to the package before it's opened?
Will The Horn manage to handle anymore baggage?
Why exactly is Mr Man McManniman so manly?
Find out in next weeks thrilling installment of "Meglomaniacs Eye Patch!!!"
Punchline: Be sure to drink your Ovaltine.
The story reads like some perverse blend of James Bond and the Pink Panther.
Well, TFS reads like a chinese instruction manual. What the hell? Piracy dealers? Discover the identify?
Apparently my mod points didn't survive Sandy, so QFT.
Doesn't the "living" part of Living Computer make it a zoo?
Nerds tend to have more logic
No, they don't. They only think the do.
Just go to any /. thread on intellectual property. You'll find plenty of "logical" solutions to fix the patent system or fix copyright, yet the average nerd on /. doesn't understand the difference between patents, copyrights, and trademarks any more than an average IP lawyer knows the difference between TCP and UDP.
Where is the logic in that?
I watched all four debates on XBox Live.
Why watch on XBox Live? I'm assuming in addition to the XBox, a television is required to do this. And once you have the television, the XBox is unnecessary. Is your XBox connected to a monitor that doesn't receive OTA signals? Do you do it for the interactive aspect (polls)? Just curious.
And while I'm here...wow, that article was awful. I generally agree the USA shouldn't be regularly bombing countries without a declaration of war and the president shouldn't be keeping a "kill list," but the article includes what I consider to be extraordinary claims with no citations or support.
Large fines to the telephone company that passed on the robocall....
Totally bogus. The phone company is a pipe (or should be). I don't want them spying and dictating what kind of content goes over their lines. But I do want to eliminate any exceptions for political campaigns and 'non-profits'.. We should have the option to make a white list of who can get through...
A pipe? You make the system sound like a series of tubes.
Hi Richard.. What was your favorite memory as host of Family Feud?
If only there was a god to grant me mod points.
Do you believe a democratic society can exist which has no form of religion in its laws, or within government?
I think a better question is, can a democratic society exist with any form of religion in its laws or government?
(I say better as in more practical. I don't think we'll ever see a society without some aspect of religion enshrined into law (considering the cult of personality around a dictator or monarch as a form of religion).)
I Don't Own An iPad or Android Device, nor am I Clairvoyant. But I think these may sell well.
I will probably buy one of these. They run Windows. They have a USB port. They will run a piece of software I want to run that will not run on IOS or Android, although it also has a version for OS-X. Apple does not sell an iPad-like device that runs OS-X.
They don't run Windows. They won't run your Windows apps. It'll only run apps from the Surface Store, same way iPads only run apps from the Apple Store.
Not hater, just trying to save you some money.
You might be a computer if you only can only process information that is properly formatted and improperly formatted information gives you a segfault.
I was about to reply that this is the worst Jeff Foxworthy joke ever.
Then I realized, no, it isn't.
If you go by the number of hits on Google, 'manzier' beats 'mansierre' by about 18k to 13k results.
However, I do not go by Google results for such matters. Since it is derivative of brassiere, manssiere (or mansiere) it is.
At first I thought it said "bro".
It's the "manzier"!