Are you a retard? These are electrically unsafe. They are illegal devices that do not conform to the stringent electrical safety laws of the UK. China do not understand how the UK power system operates, many devices fall foul of the most elementary standards. The UK has requirements for AC plugs, from size, fuse (China even makes fake fuses), earth pin configuration based on supply requirements, cable current rating, et al. You wouldn't know this, but cunts like you think you know everything there is to know.
If you read that with a thick Scottish accent, it's much more entertaining.
Seizing due to safety concerns alone is way too far down the slippery slope for me to be comfortable with - it effectively means the government can seize anything.
They're not seizing them from consumers, doofus. They're seizing them at the port of entry. The same way they would seize a shipment of defective propane tanks.
They're not saying you can't sell a hoverboard. They're saying you can't sell a hoverboard that will blow the fuck up.
Carrying a gun in this state will get you arrested (or shot) by the first cop who sees it, and CCP's are pretty hard to come by (impossible to get in Los Angeles, despite court orders to issue them).
There were close to a million guns sold legally in California just last year alone.
The power the NRA brings to Washington isn't money - your Congressman wouldn't lift a finger for these kinds of piddly sums.
You write a $20,000 check to your congressman, he'll take your calls.
You tell your congressman you'll spend $1,000,000 to defeat him if he doesn't vote the way you want, and he'll suck your dick. Then vote the way you want.
Of course. My example just happened to be more topical, given the fact that another jackoff(s) with guns shot up a bunch of social workers in a center for the disabled today in San Bernadino.
"That would be unethical, both because you're hawking fraudulent tests, but also because you're encouraging people to believe that their delusion is accepted..."
In the pages of dictionary, perhaps. In life, there are nontheists and atheists, just like there are men and Real Men. One means you have a particular characteristic, the other that you have a burning need to have others acknowledge it.
On the Internet, "atheism" is just another banner crusaders gather under.
There are atheists and then there are Real Atheists.
Why assume that it's not pre-programmed to some extent?
As the fella once said, it's not predictive. Think for a second: would you have wanted your future to be determined on by a "set of traits"? Of all people, I'd think you would reject that notion. Remember when black people had a "set of traits" that meant they "weren't suited" to be competitive swimmers or ice hockey players? Or a "set of traits" that prevented them from having "the tools" to be an NFL quarterback or a major league manager? Or to be taught to read and write?
And considering all the software programming we throw at kids from the time they're born, why would you assume the "pre-programming" is anything but trivial?
You're absolutely right. Mark Zuckerberg could give away 99% of his Facebook shares and it would not affect his standard of living, or that of his children and grandchildren, one bit.
You don't make a better world by dissipating capital.
It depends on which definition of the word "dissipate" you are using. If it's the first definition, "to disperse, or scatter", then it absolutely makes the world a better place. If you use the second definition, "squander or fritter away", then maybe yes, maybe no. Economically, if Mark Zuckerberg's shares were turned into $100 bills and dropped from a helicopter, it would without a doubt improve the world more than having it remain as Facebook capital.
Slashdot Mirror
You would lose that bet. Did you even glance at the summary?
I mean, brother: there's a link to the video right in the story.
Google, or your own lying eyes?
Tell you what, the EFF has credibility in the bank with me. Google on the other hand...
At heart, these geologists are the kids who just had to unwrap a golf ball and ended up putting out an eye.
Aye man. Den we only drink DeWhiskey.
If you read that with a thick Scottish accent, it's much more entertaining.
Georg Ohm was an SJW.
They're not seizing them from consumers, doofus. They're seizing them at the port of entry. The same way they would seize a shipment of defective propane tanks.
They're not saying you can't sell a hoverboard. They're saying you can't sell a hoverboard that will blow the fuck up.
We can only hope.
When bicycles start bursting into flames, maybe.
I have never seen roller skates burst into flames.
Stricter gun laws = less violence.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/...
That's not true.
http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/...
It was a social center for the developmentally disabled. You think the developmentally disabled should be armed? Like in Texas?
Here is someone that does not understand that carrying a gun and using it are different things.
There were close to a million guns sold legally in California just last year alone.
One in five of the residents of California own guns.
It didn't stop today's shooting.
http://www.businessinsider.com...
You write a $20,000 check to your congressman, he'll take your calls.
You tell your congressman you'll spend $1,000,000 to defeat him if he doesn't vote the way you want, and he'll suck your dick. Then vote the way you want.
Of course. My example just happened to be more topical, given the fact that another jackoff(s) with guns shot up a bunch of social workers in a center for the disabled today in San Bernadino.
Here's something you can put in a display at the Museum of Political Corruption:
https://www.opensecrets.org/or...
Neither do psychiatrists.
There are atheists and then there are Real Atheists.
Clearly, you don't know who Richard Dawkins is.
As the fella once said, it's not predictive. Think for a second: would you have wanted your future to be determined on by a "set of traits"? Of all people, I'd think you would reject that notion. Remember when black people had a "set of traits" that meant they "weren't suited" to be competitive swimmers or ice hockey players? Or a "set of traits" that prevented them from having "the tools" to be an NFL quarterback or a major league manager? Or to be taught to read and write?
And considering all the software programming we throw at kids from the time they're born, why would you assume the "pre-programming" is anything but trivial?
You're absolutely right. Mark Zuckerberg could give away 99% of his Facebook shares and it would not affect his standard of living, or that of his children and grandchildren, one bit.
It depends on which definition of the word "dissipate" you are using. If it's the first definition, "to disperse, or scatter", then it absolutely makes the world a better place. If you use the second definition, "squander or fritter away", then maybe yes, maybe no. Economically, if Mark Zuckerberg's shares were turned into $100 bills and dropped from a helicopter, it would without a doubt improve the world more than having it remain as Facebook capital.
It's an idea so old, it's positively Biblical.