Actually, psychologically, we do need jobs or at least meaningful tasks. However, we do need to rethink how we allocate the fundamental necessities given greater and greater productivity from less and less labor. We also need to think about what we do with human potential if we reach a place where labor isn't necessarily tied to survival.
A meaningful task is not necessarily a job.
If I didn't need to work for money, I'd spend my time on a variety of other projects (project car, modding and perhaps even making games). Others may describe a meaningful task as art, dancing, socialising or raising children.
In a time after scarcity where we dont need to spend so much time on simple survival, the current ideas on how to allocate resources will not apply (capitalism and socialism in all of their forms require scarcity to function). The saddest part I think is that currently, I doubt humans are currently capable of this kind of thinking and that some will see a meaningful task in war.
The problem is how you go from "driver-assist", to "driver-no-longer-responsible". That's quite a big leap.
The problem is, this has happened already.
People think that park assist, lane assist, brake assist, collision detection has already convinced bad drivers that they are safe driving well beyond their capabilities. We're only a matter of time before someone crashes their Ford Kuga (or whatever it's called in the US) and sues Ford because the collision detection system didn't stop it (ignoring the fact the driver was driving dangerously in the first place)
Realistically, if you cant stay in your lane without a buzzer to tell you if you're out of it, how can we expect you to control the car when you accidentally switch off ECS whilst fiddling with the stereo (whilst on the phone).
We really need to ask people if they get bored driving, if they answer yes we then need to take away their license. Driver assist technologies wont help when the drivers attitude is the problem.
Who has forked Darwin and cut out Apple's profits? Maybe something exists, but who cares.
Free/Net BSD is superior to Darwin because that's what Darwin was taken from.
The thing is (and the thing the Apple fanboy's hate said) is that Apple only open sourced what they absolutely had to to prevent violating the licensing agreement. All the things that differentiate OS X from *BSD are locked up in proprietary licenses, most notably, the GUI.
So without the GUI there's no incentive to use Darwin over Free/Net BSD. Forking Darwin instead of forking FreeBSD would be like reinventing a reinvented and incomplete wheel. If you're going to fork BSD, why not do it at the source?
You think a good business strategy is to rely on making minuscule changes to spreadsheets and word processors - expecting - consumers to buy the new version??
Actually it is.
This is where Microsoft makes it's billions.
First off, stop thinking like a consumer and start thinking like a business customer. You dont buy a copy of office for life as a business customer, you buy a license thats valid for 1 year. You have 500 users, so you negotiate for 500 office licenses (yes, without VLK's managing this many copies of office would be an absolute nightmare) as well as all the other stuff you need (windows, SQL, Exchange).
This is how you make your money, you dont sell once off copies, you sell continually renewing licenses for the same product. In this scenario you want to advance the product just enough to get middle managers (purchasing officers) excited but not enough to get conservative upper management (people with the authority to purchase) afraid.
Microsoft making radical changes to their core products (Windows, Office) that will be noticed by the people who sign the cheques has already hurt them and their monopoly wont hold forever if they continue to piss off their core customers.
So making incremental, minuscule changes is _EXACTLY_ what Microsoft needs to do to remain profitable and grow. They dont need to be hip and cool, they just need to be good enough that the cost of switching to a competitor is high enough that it's not worth considering.
The old fans would be far too busy hating on the new captain not being a Kirk or Picard or Sisko (or even Janeway or Archer) to ever be trusted to support something new. Even "Lord of the Rings" got lots of nerd rage for cutting out Tom Bombadil, replacing about a million elfs with Galadriel and Elrond, adding humor to Gimli's character not to mention the whole Aragon/Galadriel love story which was too much of a chic flick taking away from the Frodo/Sam story and the list goes on and on. And really, what people want to see has gotten darker. Even a child/teen movie series like Harry Potter is way darker than what you'd show in the past, compare old Batman movies to new Batman movies, really the fairy tale Star Trek wouldn't please anyone anymore. You think you do out of nostalgia but really you'd quickly be bored out of your wits.
This, a thousand times this.
The new Trek, whilst far from being Merchant Ivory it better than the crap Berman and Braga were spewing out by the end. Enterprise was 3 seasons of crud followed by one season with a few good episodes (then axed).
But any kind of change will be met with scoff and derision by the crusty old trekkies who remember the original series extremely rose coloured glasses (TOS ep's have huge plot holes, but much like Abrams Trek, are also quite good).
I grew up with TNG, DS9 was good (although re-watching seasons 1-3 were slow and boring) even Voy had it's moments. I loved TNG, and much like TOS it aged very well (Conspiracy and The Inner Light remain some of my favourite episodes). However we need to move on, there's no point in trying to recapture the treks that have already been done, that's what caused season 1 of ENT.
I know where hotels.com gets its bread buttered now, and it is not from us customers. A chain hotel can exert much more fiscal pressure than a single customer.
Are you paying hotels.com for reading these reviews?
If not you aren't their customer.
Trip Advisor et al are the same, their money comes from their advertisers not from the people writing or reading the reviews, you're the product. The customers can pay to have unflattering things removed.
I should be eating coffee beans, popping them out, and the looking for them in my shit. It's about as much fun as cleaning my cat's litterbox but far more profitable. There is a Starbucks nearby. Perhaps I could sell it to them. It's gotta be better than the swill they sell.
There in lies the problem.
They have standards to maintain for that swill. They cant sell anything better otherwise people will be expecting them to raise that standard.
Auto-braking systems kick in when you're about to hit something, a human can pick up on something they could potentially hit and avoid it completely (erm... This is called defensive driving)
LOL no. Computer reaction time is several orders of magnitude faster than the average human and the computer can factor in far more variables in a short amount of time. When more of Google's work in this area becomes public you'll see just how wrong you are.
Wrong again.
The system is not aware of what is happening around it.
The computer may save half a second on the brakes, but the human can avoid the situation all together. The computer cant do that.
When more of Googles work becomes public, you'll realise how far we really have to go. No doubt we'll eventually get there, but dont for one second think that an auto-braking system makes you a better driver (you will though, because of the dunning-kruger effect).
If you asked that question in the early 1950s, I'm sure it would have similiar results and apprehensions.
Yes, fast forward 60 years, we have safe cars and unsafe drivers.
This is why self driving cars are an inevitability. People just cant drive, you can add in all the driver assist technologies you want but it will just make bad drivers worse (I dont need to worry about watching the road, the Safe-T-Brake will do it all for me *gets back to texting*). The problem of bad drivers wont be solved until the driver is removed. Self driving cars are already safer than the average driver, but this is because the average driver is so crap.
I just hope I can still get a decent manual for weekends and track day (I'll probably be able to rebuild an S15 replica... at the very least).
You've missed the point here. They do have a specific "freedom" in mind here:
The freedom to break the rules of the road.
You do know you can drive hard without breaking the road rules (or being dangerous at all).
So I have a 6 second car, I can and often do accelerate from 0-90 KPH in less than that on a highway on ramp, in fact this is safer than taking twice as long because I'll be merging into the highway at the speed that traffic is flowing on the highway.
It's the same for cornering. The car I have is designed for high speed cornering, I can exit roundabouts at above 70 KPH with no body roll.
Both of these without violating the speed limit.
Also, contrary to popular opinion, going slower causes just as many accidents as going faster (see: Solomon Curve). Really, one of the most dangerous things people do on a regular basis is merge into faster traffic at slower speeds.
I've never owned anything but 2x seat sports cars, I've never owned a manual transmission.
I like to drive...I buy cars that are FUN to drive.
But...but...manual transmissions ARE the fun ones to drive! Automatics are boring: press pedal 1 to go, press pedal 2 to stop, put the shift lever in the 'P' spot when you're stopped...yawn...
That being said, automatics are easier for everyday running around in a city. Easier...but still not as fun. Driving a standard gives you a much more visceral connection to your wheels, and even in a little Corolla can make you feel like a race car driver on a straightaway. In a Shelby...mmmm...:)
This.
It's more fun to drive a slow manual to it's limits than it is to drive a powerful automatic that wont let you past 2500 RPM.
I think learning and testing in manual cars should be mandatory. Learning in a manual is less forgiving than an auto, yes it's harder but it forces you to learn how to do things the right way. It forces the driver to understand the relationship between the engine and the road, it forces the driver to have an understanding of what the engine is doing, how gradients, weather, temperature and road surfaces affect how the car performs and reacts. It also forces a driver to react faster and more often, so more concentration on the act of driving rather than on distractions like mobile phones.
So even if someone wants to drive an auto (it's boring, but it's their choice) they should have to learn in a manual.
Some cars already do work that way. They have automatic breaking when the car senses that you will hit something in front of you.
It would make no sense for it to work the other way round. A human's reaction time is far too slow to intervene when (s)he thinks the car computer will do something bad.
Actually a human is faster.
It's just that most humans are dumber.
Auto-braking systems kick in when you're about to hit something, a human can pick up on something they could potentially hit and avoid it completely (erm... This is called defensive driving).
People who feel they need systems to compensate for their lack of driving ability need to go hand in their license. All they do is coddle bad drivers into thinking they're better than they really are (and this is when they start taking even more stupid risks).
Also this system does not account for what is behind you. If you're being tailgated but a 2 tonne mum-tank and the auto-braking system kicks in, that mum tank is still going to plow you into the pedestrian and you'll have a far worse injury from the impact to your car.
I'm pretty sure I've heard the median mileage between accidents is 250k, I've driven 300k or so in my life, and haven't had one. That's really all I'm basing saying I'm in the top 2/3rds on. I'm not trying to claim to be a remarkable, or even particularly good driver, just safer than the bottom third.
The question is, how many accidents have you avoided?
The key to defensive driving is to be aware of risks. A lot of people drive being completely oblivious to any hazards around them.
I get a near miss about once every 6 months, I avoid potential near misses on a daily basis doing 400-450 KM per week.
Also, it doesn't matter how many accidents you've had. It's how many at fault accidents you've had. I've been in two in the last 18 months, both times I was hit from behind by another motorist. When you consider that you have a good chance of being in an accident without having done anything wrong yourself (both rear enders I had were when I had stopped at a red light) having no accidents has a large element of blind luck to it.
When "i don't agree with obamacare" is equal to being a racist, your comment is a joke. Seriously, not agreeing with the president is considered racist now. Its a WTF moment all the way around.
Actually it's not, but you want to make this connection to silence those who would call out the inaccuracies or fallacies of your view.
What you are doing is "poisoning the well" by trying to attack the legitimacy of those who would argue against your views before they do so.
A lot of people poison the well when they want to say something they know is obviously wrong. Odd that you would mention racism as poisoning the well is one of their favourite tactics to avoid being called out on obvious racism I.E. "It's not racist to say bad things about black people if its true. Disagreeing with this is just Political Correctness gone mad... But all them niggers are layabouts, drunks and criminals". In this example the racist attempts to vilify the critics before using an obviously racist statement to prevent being called out on obvious racism.
This would, of course, be news to Publius (Patrick Henry).
I agree with the principal you're expressing here.
But it doesn't apply because this is done by the HuffPo on the HuffPo's site only. It doesn't restrict your freedom of speech to get on./, Digg, Redit, other forum or to make your own website ridiculing the HuffPo under a pseudonym or assumed name.
Are boats just for lazy fucks who are too good to swim, and computers for people who lack the moral fiber for doing math in their heads?
Damn straight.
Fuck computers.
I typed this comment on an old typewriter. After all, one spelling error and you retype that entire fucking page.
Erm.. this is sarcasm for the humourously impaired.
Why is 'putting in the work', when an engineering solution (may, research is still preliminary) offer a labor saving method of solving the same problem? Is all of applied science and engineering immoral laziness, or is there some special virtue to sweating and grunting?
The pill only seems to work on the physical side of things... and only part of that. It seems to work on aerobic exercise which means it wont do much for muscle development (read: bulking up), so you'll likely still need to be sweating and grunting for that one.
Also, it will not help people who get sick from poor diets, I doubt it will reverse Type II diabetes if they keep consuming sugar at a monstrous rate. Being thin is not always a sign of bad health as there are dietary problems that dont cause you to put on weight yet are just as bad.
OTOH, being ripped is also not as healthy as people think. Even ignoring the steriod use, most can only maintain that much muscle for a few years before they start to have serious issues. The majority of people who lift weights at that level will develop joint injuries (shoulder, knee and hip are popular) and are forced to tone it down.
But these are extreme cases, fortunately for the rest of us there are a happy medium. Personally I prefer weights over cardio but the key with lifting is to do the exercise properly rather than to lift the heaviest weights you can. Doing more reps at lower weights will build muscle and burn fat just as well. The really good part is that because your form is correct you'll increase in strength gradually whilst avoiding the joint injuries that typically accompany high impact weight lifting. I see people doing two really bad things whilst lifting, 1. Lifting way beyond their abilities (pushing yourself a little is good, pretending you can lift 70 KG when you can only do 40 is stupid) which often leads to 2. Poor form, because they cant lift the high weight properly they do the exercise wrong, leaning or hunching wrong causes the exercise to use the wrong muscle group and this often leads to injuries.
Not being a "Fat Ass" myself, I personally think everyone who goes around verbally abusing obese people is a pindick.
Pretty much,
They are people who are highly insecure in their own body, lifestyle and choices. So in order to make themselves feel better they bully and belittle people they perceive to be worse than them. This doesn't really help them justify their own choices, the doubt they started with is still there.
OTOH, there are people that are highly secure and try to help fat people lose weight.
I'm just dying to replace my Eyefinity setup, eight cores, dual-Radeon HD7950, Cherry MX mechanical keyboard, gigabit ether, gaming mouse and 7.1 surround sound with an...iPad.
I'll get right on that. What I'm really looking for is a platform where I can only play games that Apple Corp has approved.
PC gaming is different to console gaming.
Consoles by and large never drew crowds away from PC gaming. Neither has mobile gaming.
Now if we change the GGP's statement ever so slightly
mobile gaming is where console gaming is going
It's entirely accurate.
PC's have nothing to fear as PC gaming is radically different to console gaming and mobile gaming. It provides a better control scheme, has genre's that cant be produced on console and mobile as well as being highly extensible (joysticks, HOTAS, Eyefinity setups) that cant be replicated on console and mobile.
However, everything you can do on a console can be replicated on mobile. Controllers can be connected to tablets (via Bluetooth), tablets can be connected to TV's (via HDMI), this already exists and has for years (my 2 year old Acer Iconia) the only thing missing is an interface, back end service and publisher. Considering that the mainstay of console gaming is the casual crowd, they'll happily jump ship to a mobile console (picture a tablet with controllers, HDMI out and a SD card slot), this tablet console I'll dub the "Conslet" or "Tabsole" well in advance. Sony and Microsoft spent so much time and money trying to may the Xbox and Playstation brands into poor mans gaming PC's yet completely ignored the audience that wanted consoles, the casual gamers that the Nintendo Wii ate their lunch in a spectacular fashion.
The age of the PC wannabe console is over, The fact that Nintendo is still printing money with an "abysmal failure" like the Wii U is proof of that. Soon we will see a mobile console (again, tablet with controllers and HDMI out) come out and eat their lunch like Nindendo did with the Wii. Not because it's got more rams, megahertz's or horsepowers, but because it's fun and that's what people want in a console. Meanwhile, the PC will march on unaffected (because it's a completely different market) just like it marched on during the PC killing PS3, erm I mean Xbox 360... Erm I mean 3DO, erm I mean TurboGrafix... I could go on, but I wont.
Oh, and this tablet console wont have an Apple logo.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, psychologically, we do need jobs or at least meaningful tasks. However, we do need to rethink how we allocate the fundamental necessities given greater and greater productivity from less and less labor. We also need to think about what we do with human potential if we reach a place where labor isn't necessarily tied to survival.
A meaningful task is not necessarily a job.
If I didn't need to work for money, I'd spend my time on a variety of other projects (project car, modding and perhaps even making games). Others may describe a meaningful task as art, dancing, socialising or raising children.
In a time after scarcity where we dont need to spend so much time on simple survival, the current ideas on how to allocate resources will not apply (capitalism and socialism in all of their forms require scarcity to function). The saddest part I think is that currently, I doubt humans are currently capable of this kind of thinking and that some will see a meaningful task in war.
The problem is how you go from "driver-assist", to "driver-no-longer-responsible". That's quite a big leap.
The problem is, this has happened already.
People think that park assist, lane assist, brake assist, collision detection has already convinced bad drivers that they are safe driving well beyond their capabilities. We're only a matter of time before someone crashes their Ford Kuga (or whatever it's called in the US) and sues Ford because the collision detection system didn't stop it (ignoring the fact the driver was driving dangerously in the first place)
Realistically, if you cant stay in your lane without a buzzer to tell you if you're out of it, how can we expect you to control the car when you accidentally switch off ECS whilst fiddling with the stereo (whilst on the phone).
We really need to ask people if they get bored driving, if they answer yes we then need to take away their license. Driver assist technologies wont help when the drivers attitude is the problem.
I don't want to be the first one to post this, but "What could possiblie go wrong?".
Probably less than what would go wrong with a Toyota Camry with an average American driver at the wheel.
However the media beat up will go to 11.
Who has forked Darwin and cut out Apple's profits? Maybe something exists, but who cares.
Free/Net BSD is superior to Darwin because that's what Darwin was taken from.
The thing is (and the thing the Apple fanboy's hate said) is that Apple only open sourced what they absolutely had to to prevent violating the licensing agreement. All the things that differentiate OS X from *BSD are locked up in proprietary licenses, most notably, the GUI.
So without the GUI there's no incentive to use Darwin over Free/Net BSD. Forking Darwin instead of forking FreeBSD would be like reinventing a reinvented and incomplete wheel. If you're going to fork BSD, why not do it at the source?
Awaiting the angry flames from Apple fanboys.
You think a good business strategy is to rely on making minuscule changes to spreadsheets and word processors - expecting - consumers to buy the new version??
Actually it is.
This is where Microsoft makes it's billions.
First off, stop thinking like a consumer and start thinking like a business customer. You dont buy a copy of office for life as a business customer, you buy a license thats valid for 1 year. You have 500 users, so you negotiate for 500 office licenses (yes, without VLK's managing this many copies of office would be an absolute nightmare) as well as all the other stuff you need (windows, SQL, Exchange).
This is how you make your money, you dont sell once off copies, you sell continually renewing licenses for the same product. In this scenario you want to advance the product just enough to get middle managers (purchasing officers) excited but not enough to get conservative upper management (people with the authority to purchase) afraid.
Microsoft making radical changes to their core products (Windows, Office) that will be noticed by the people who sign the cheques has already hurt them and their monopoly wont hold forever if they continue to piss off their core customers.
So making incremental, minuscule changes is _EXACTLY_ what Microsoft needs to do to remain profitable and grow. They dont need to be hip and cool, they just need to be good enough that the cost of switching to a competitor is high enough that it's not worth considering.
The old fans would be far too busy hating on the new captain not being a Kirk or Picard or Sisko (or even Janeway or Archer) to ever be trusted to support something new. Even "Lord of the Rings" got lots of nerd rage for cutting out Tom Bombadil, replacing about a million elfs with Galadriel and Elrond, adding humor to Gimli's character not to mention the whole Aragon/Galadriel love story which was too much of a chic flick taking away from the Frodo/Sam story and the list goes on and on. And really, what people want to see has gotten darker. Even a child/teen movie series like Harry Potter is way darker than what you'd show in the past, compare old Batman movies to new Batman movies, really the fairy tale Star Trek wouldn't please anyone anymore. You think you do out of nostalgia but really you'd quickly be bored out of your wits.
This, a thousand times this.
The new Trek, whilst far from being Merchant Ivory it better than the crap Berman and Braga were spewing out by the end. Enterprise was 3 seasons of crud followed by one season with a few good episodes (then axed).
But any kind of change will be met with scoff and derision by the crusty old trekkies who remember the original series extremely rose coloured glasses (TOS ep's have huge plot holes, but much like Abrams Trek, are also quite good).
I grew up with TNG, DS9 was good (although re-watching seasons 1-3 were slow and boring) even Voy had it's moments. I loved TNG, and much like TOS it aged very well (Conspiracy and The Inner Light remain some of my favourite episodes). However we need to move on, there's no point in trying to recapture the treks that have already been done, that's what caused season 1 of ENT.
I know where hotels.com gets its bread buttered now, and it is not from us customers. A chain hotel can exert much more fiscal pressure than a single customer.
Are you paying hotels.com for reading these reviews?
If not you aren't their customer.
Trip Advisor et al are the same, their money comes from their advertisers not from the people writing or reading the reviews, you're the product. The customers can pay to have unflattering things removed.
I should be eating coffee beans, popping them out, and the looking for them in my shit. It's about as much fun as cleaning my cat's litterbox but far more profitable. There is a Starbucks nearby. Perhaps I could sell it to them. It's gotta be better than the swill they sell.
There in lies the problem.
They have standards to maintain for that swill. They cant sell anything better otherwise people will be expecting them to raise that standard.
When first-world problems: "Waaaah my coffee wasn't shat out of something's asshole!!!"
No, it simply tastes like it as shat out of somethings arsehole. #FWP.
LOL no. Computer reaction time is several orders of magnitude faster than the average human and the computer can factor in far more variables in a short amount of time. When more of Google's work in this area becomes public you'll see just how wrong you are.
Wrong again.
The system is not aware of what is happening around it.
The computer may save half a second on the brakes, but the human can avoid the situation all together. The computer cant do that.
When more of Googles work becomes public, you'll realise how far we really have to go. No doubt we'll eventually get there, but dont for one second think that an auto-braking system makes you a better driver (you will though, because of the dunning-kruger effect).
I am just saying that on a personal level I am very happy that thrustworthy alternatives exists,
I like Linux too, but I'm not that excited.
If you asked that question in the early 1950s, I'm sure it would have similiar results and apprehensions.
Yes, fast forward 60 years, we have safe cars and unsafe drivers.
This is why self driving cars are an inevitability. People just cant drive, you can add in all the driver assist technologies you want but it will just make bad drivers worse (I dont need to worry about watching the road, the Safe-T-Brake will do it all for me *gets back to texting*). The problem of bad drivers wont be solved until the driver is removed. Self driving cars are already safer than the average driver, but this is because the average driver is so crap.
I just hope I can still get a decent manual for weekends and track day (I'll probably be able to rebuild an S15 replica... at the very least).
You've missed the point here. They do have a specific "freedom" in mind here:
The freedom to break the rules of the road.
You do know you can drive hard without breaking the road rules (or being dangerous at all).
So I have a 6 second car, I can and often do accelerate from 0-90 KPH in less than that on a highway on ramp, in fact this is safer than taking twice as long because I'll be merging into the highway at the speed that traffic is flowing on the highway.
It's the same for cornering. The car I have is designed for high speed cornering, I can exit roundabouts at above 70 KPH with no body roll.
Both of these without violating the speed limit.
Also, contrary to popular opinion, going slower causes just as many accidents as going faster (see: Solomon Curve). Really, one of the most dangerous things people do on a regular basis is merge into faster traffic at slower speeds.
I've never owned anything but 2x seat sports cars, I've never owned a manual transmission.
I like to drive...I buy cars that are FUN to drive.
But...but...manual transmissions ARE the fun ones to drive! Automatics are boring: press pedal 1 to go, press pedal 2 to stop, put the shift lever in the 'P' spot when you're stopped...yawn...
That being said, automatics are easier for everyday running around in a city. Easier...but still not as fun. Driving a standard gives you a much more visceral connection to your wheels, and even in a little Corolla can make you feel like a race car driver on a straightaway. In a Shelby...mmmm... :)
This.
It's more fun to drive a slow manual to it's limits than it is to drive a powerful automatic that wont let you past 2500 RPM.
I think learning and testing in manual cars should be mandatory. Learning in a manual is less forgiving than an auto, yes it's harder but it forces you to learn how to do things the right way. It forces the driver to understand the relationship between the engine and the road, it forces the driver to have an understanding of what the engine is doing, how gradients, weather, temperature and road surfaces affect how the car performs and reacts. It also forces a driver to react faster and more often, so more concentration on the act of driving rather than on distractions like mobile phones. So even if someone wants to drive an auto (it's boring, but it's their choice) they should have to learn in a manual.
Some cars already do work that way. They have automatic breaking when the car senses that you will hit something in front of you.
It would make no sense for it to work the other way round. A human's reaction time is far too slow to intervene when (s)he thinks the car computer will do something bad.
Actually a human is faster.
It's just that most humans are dumber.
Auto-braking systems kick in when you're about to hit something, a human can pick up on something they could potentially hit and avoid it completely (erm... This is called defensive driving).
People who feel they need systems to compensate for their lack of driving ability need to go hand in their license. All they do is coddle bad drivers into thinking they're better than they really are (and this is when they start taking even more stupid risks).
Also this system does not account for what is behind you. If you're being tailgated but a 2 tonne mum-tank and the auto-braking system kicks in, that mum tank is still going to plow you into the pedestrian and you'll have a far worse injury from the impact to your car.
If you've never owned a manual, you've never owned a sports car.
You've already given up most of the control you have over your vehicle, I fail to see why you'd be hesitant to give up the rest.
Automatics certainly aren't fun cars.
I'm pretty sure I've heard the median mileage between accidents is 250k, I've driven 300k or so in my life, and haven't had one. That's really all I'm basing saying I'm in the top 2/3rds on. I'm not trying to claim to be a remarkable, or even particularly good driver, just safer than the bottom third.
The question is, how many accidents have you avoided?
The key to defensive driving is to be aware of risks. A lot of people drive being completely oblivious to any hazards around them.
I get a near miss about once every 6 months, I avoid potential near misses on a daily basis doing 400-450 KM per week.
Also, it doesn't matter how many accidents you've had. It's how many at fault accidents you've had. I've been in two in the last 18 months, both times I was hit from behind by another motorist. When you consider that you have a good chance of being in an accident without having done anything wrong yourself (both rear enders I had were when I had stopped at a red light) having no accidents has a large element of blind luck to it.
When "i don't agree with obamacare" is equal to being a racist, your comment is a joke. Seriously, not agreeing with the president is considered racist now. Its a WTF moment all the way around.
Actually it's not, but you want to make this connection to silence those who would call out the inaccuracies or fallacies of your view.
What you are doing is "poisoning the well" by trying to attack the legitimacy of those who would argue against your views before they do so.
A lot of people poison the well when they want to say something they know is obviously wrong. Odd that you would mention racism as poisoning the well is one of their favourite tactics to avoid being called out on obvious racism I.E. "It's not racist to say bad things about black people if its true. Disagreeing with this is just Political Correctness gone mad... But all them niggers are layabouts, drunks and criminals". In this example the racist attempts to vilify the critics before using an obviously racist statement to prevent being called out on obvious racism.
This would, of course, be news to Publius (Patrick Henry).
I agree with the principal you're expressing here.
./, Digg, Redit, other forum or to make your own website ridiculing the HuffPo under a pseudonym or assumed name.
But it doesn't apply because this is done by the HuffPo on the HuffPo's site only. It doesn't restrict your freedom of speech to get on
How does signing a post with a real name have anything in the slightest to do with standing behind what you say?
What when your real name sounds like a troll name?
- Lord Mjwx Floppybottom.
Or, depending on your politics, try MSNBC: "Rachel Maddow is after me! Peddle for your life!"
Or for the Australian's, Parliament Question Time.
Although if Nick Xenofon ever gets back in, you might just fall asleep.
Are boats just for lazy fucks who are too good to swim, and computers for people who lack the moral fiber for doing math in their heads?
Damn straight.
Fuck computers.
I typed this comment on an old typewriter. After all, one spelling error and you retype that entire fucking page.
Erm.. this is sarcasm for the humourously impaired.
Why is 'putting in the work', when an engineering solution (may, research is still preliminary) offer a labor saving method of solving the same problem? Is all of applied science and engineering immoral laziness, or is there some special virtue to sweating and grunting?
The pill only seems to work on the physical side of things... and only part of that. It seems to work on aerobic exercise which means it wont do much for muscle development (read: bulking up), so you'll likely still need to be sweating and grunting for that one.
Also, it will not help people who get sick from poor diets, I doubt it will reverse Type II diabetes if they keep consuming sugar at a monstrous rate. Being thin is not always a sign of bad health as there are dietary problems that dont cause you to put on weight yet are just as bad.
OTOH, being ripped is also not as healthy as people think. Even ignoring the steriod use, most can only maintain that much muscle for a few years before they start to have serious issues. The majority of people who lift weights at that level will develop joint injuries (shoulder, knee and hip are popular) and are forced to tone it down.
But these are extreme cases, fortunately for the rest of us there are a happy medium. Personally I prefer weights over cardio but the key with lifting is to do the exercise properly rather than to lift the heaviest weights you can. Doing more reps at lower weights will build muscle and burn fat just as well. The really good part is that because your form is correct you'll increase in strength gradually whilst avoiding the joint injuries that typically accompany high impact weight lifting. I see people doing two really bad things whilst lifting, 1. Lifting way beyond their abilities (pushing yourself a little is good, pretending you can lift 70 KG when you can only do 40 is stupid) which often leads to 2. Poor form, because they cant lift the high weight properly they do the exercise wrong, leaning or hunching wrong causes the exercise to use the wrong muscle group and this often leads to injuries.
Not being a "Fat Ass" myself, I personally think everyone who goes around verbally abusing obese people is a pindick.
Pretty much,
They are people who are highly insecure in their own body, lifestyle and choices. So in order to make themselves feel better they bully and belittle people they perceive to be worse than them. This doesn't really help them justify their own choices, the doubt they started with is still there.
OTOH, there are people that are highly secure and try to help fat people lose weight.
This year for sure, right?
I'm just dying to replace my Eyefinity setup, eight cores, dual-Radeon HD7950, Cherry MX mechanical keyboard, gigabit ether, gaming mouse and 7.1 surround sound with an...iPad.
I'll get right on that. What I'm really looking for is a platform where I can only play games that Apple Corp has approved.
PC gaming is different to console gaming.
Consoles by and large never drew crowds away from PC gaming. Neither has mobile gaming.
Now if we change the GGP's statement ever so slightly
mobile gaming is where console gaming is going
It's entirely accurate.
PC's have nothing to fear as PC gaming is radically different to console gaming and mobile gaming. It provides a better control scheme, has genre's that cant be produced on console and mobile as well as being highly extensible (joysticks, HOTAS, Eyefinity setups) that cant be replicated on console and mobile.
However, everything you can do on a console can be replicated on mobile. Controllers can be connected to tablets (via Bluetooth), tablets can be connected to TV's (via HDMI), this already exists and has for years (my 2 year old Acer Iconia) the only thing missing is an interface, back end service and publisher. Considering that the mainstay of console gaming is the casual crowd, they'll happily jump ship to a mobile console (picture a tablet with controllers, HDMI out and a SD card slot), this tablet console I'll dub the "Conslet" or "Tabsole" well in advance. Sony and Microsoft spent so much time and money trying to may the Xbox and Playstation brands into poor mans gaming PC's yet completely ignored the audience that wanted consoles, the casual gamers that the Nintendo Wii ate their lunch in a spectacular fashion.
The age of the PC wannabe console is over, The fact that Nintendo is still printing money with an "abysmal failure" like the Wii U is proof of that. Soon we will see a mobile console (again, tablet with controllers and HDMI out) come out and eat their lunch like Nindendo did with the Wii. Not because it's got more rams, megahertz's or horsepowers, but because it's fun and that's what people want in a console. Meanwhile, the PC will march on unaffected (because it's a completely different market) just like it marched on during the PC killing PS3, erm I mean Xbox 360... Erm I mean 3DO, erm I mean TurboGrafix... I could go on, but I wont.
Oh, and this tablet console wont have an Apple logo.
SF's fire chief needs a swift kick in the groin.
Well yes. You just cant do it with a helmet cam on.