@SCOTUSblog
-
Which side is the correct side of the road?
It is obviously left side of the road as correctly done in India, Australia, New Zealand and England as far as I know.
Right side is for wimpy people.
-
Left is right and right is wrong.
-
Which side is the correct side of the road?
I'll adjust as long as you give me the right kind of car for that road. Passing a truck in an English car outside of UK is loads of fun.
Filed under: In UK you'd be passing lorries, so that's fine
-
Passing a truck in an English car outside of UK is loads of fun.
No problem, just pass on the right shoulder.
-
Passing a truck in an English car outside of UK is loads of fun.
Why are you assuming that you'll have space on the road to do that?
-
Why are you assuming that you'll have space on the road to do that?
I'm assuming a regular road, one lane for each direction. I was implying that it's bound to get fun when you have to pass completely over to the other side of the road just to see if there's something coming your way.
Which is, of course, fairly suicidal.
-
I'm assuming a regular road, one lane for each direction. I was implying that it's bound to get fun when you have to pass completely over to the other side of the road just to see if there's something coming your way.
Which is, of course, fairly suicidal.
I was assuming the usual traffic situation: only one lane each way, hard sides, too many parked cars and/or too much oncoming traffic to make going out and round viable. And not a truck, but rather a fucking caravan driven by Norris McSlowpoke…
-
I was assuming the usual traffic situation: only one lane each way, hard sides, too many parked cars and/or too much oncoming traffic to make going out and round viable. And not a truck, but rather a fucking caravan driven by Norris McSlowpoke…
Ah, the real world. Gotcha.
TBH, I mostly don't have that much problems with truck drivers around here. They are always in a hurry so they are driving as fast as they can, which is pretty much the speed limit (or a sensible speed where speed limit is just stupid).
And if they are loaded and can't go faster they are mostly kind enough to move over to the side and signal you to pass when they notice you and see an opening. It's the other cars that cause me to flip my shit most of the time, really.
-
-
And there's a lot of religious practice that feels a lot like worshiping various saints as demigods. Oh, they're obviously just saints, but squint a little and it looks suspiciously polytheistic.
Funny how that happens.
Hinduism is polytheistic. Buddhism attempts to offer a godless alternative (also it points out that pain is real, and that breaking reincarnation is the goal, but that's another story). Then years later the people deify Buddha, who didn't want to be deified, and now Buddhism is "polytheistic". They also made Guan Yu the God of War (sorry Kratos, he came first, and he's real).
Humans just have this desire to deify humans over time.
(Yes I'm well aware that you could make that argument against Christ. Please don't troll me with that.)
-
@Intercourse said:
When you give a corporation the ability to spend limitless amounts of money on political campaign contributions, you have just completely fucked over every real citizen of the USA.
I disagree, but the more important question is, what should the government have the power to do?
Letting politicians restrict political speech is my definition of completely fucking over every non-politician citizen of the USA.
-
I've heard it said that the only reliable way to get money out of politics is to get politics out of money, meaning that the corporations wouldn't care about public policy if it didn't affect them. On the other hand, Europe doesn't have anywhere near the corruption problem we do, or maybe they just do a better job of hiding it. I'm curious about what would account for the difference if there really is one. Or are they just so far toward socialism that there's nothing left to corrupt?
-
Hard to say. Obviously there are more dependent variables, but for one, there is no government in Europe comparable in size to the USG. Then there's the question of the corruption metric itself.
It is ironic how many complainers think that they can solve the interest in influencing policy by giving the government more power.
-
It is ironic how many complainers think that they can solve the interest in influencing policy by giving the government more power.
That's not nearly as ironic as a land of supposed freedom-loving rugged individualists having the biggest government in the world.
Anyway, people who think like that never really get past intent. Whether their policies actually work is an afterthought at best.
-
Whether their policies actually work is an afterthought at best.
Never understood this argument. SEC regulations against faking company profit statements don't stop all the Enron wannabes, so we shouldn't bother with it and just let the companies claim however much profit they want? Laws against murder don't stop all murders, so why don't we do away with those? Laws against abortion after 20 weeks (or whatever # of weeks is the limit) don't stop all illegal abortions, those laws are clearly pointless too.
I want the government to butt out of a lot of things they've gotten their noses into, but government deregulation simply because a policy doesn't work in cases where people/corporations choose to ignore it is a terrible reason.
-
So a policy that doesn't work and doing nothing are the only two possible options?
-
No policies at all is the only alternative I've seen put forward so far, so apparently yes.
-
It would help if they would stop creating systems with funding, then snatching the funding to pay for pet projects.
Looking at you, Medicare, Post office, Social Security, Fannie and Freddie, etc. Going on precedence and rate of failure, Obamacare should be bankrupt before it even starts.
-
That is not true.
The argument is, this system isn't working, let's add more regulation. Then the other side says, why, it isn't working, better not make it bigger.
-
Replying to post somewhere around the 40 range about abortives, contraceptives, plan b, etc.
(Why is NPR.org a whitelist here?)
Mainly, plan b can't help you if you had a successful 'plant' by essentially forcing an early menstrual cycle (some pedantry applies).
It's still technically a contraceptive, as it's only intended to work BEFORE the impregnation happens. If it successfully reaches the goal, it's not going to prevent pregnancy.
God's will arguments would be 'God wants you to be pregnant, so you are.'
-
It's still technically a contraceptive, as it's only intended to work BEFORE the impregnation happens. If it successfully reaches the goal, it's not going to prevent pregnancy.
This part has already been argued, and at least one of the no-abortion group here decided that their definition of "human life" is different from the actual definition of pregnancy and that therefore the term abortion is not exactly correct. However, they still think it should not be an offered method of contraception, which is a perfectly valid viewpoint. The whole argument basically revolved around the misuses of the words abortion and contraception; it doesn't matter what you call it, the one group is still against the pill & the IUD in question. The whole abortion vs women's rights being violated thing is just a bunch of FUD from both sides.
-
No policies at all is the only alternative I've seen put forward so far, so apparently yes.
My first thought is that thinking something impossible just because you've never seen it done is a sure sign of a deficiency, but what you say raises an interesting point.
Alternatives are in fact impossible in the current U.S. political environment, because the progressives either refuse to admit there's a problem or want to double down on the failed policies, and the conservatives have no agenda other than putting everything back the way it was. For some reason, scrapping existing policies and replacing them with something that actually might work (and which may include a tool other than government for implementation) is beyond imagining for most people.
-
TL;DR!
Nice. Thank you :D
-
because the progressives either refuse to admit there's a problem or want to double down on the failed policies, and the conservatives have no agenda other than putting everything back the way it was.
That pretty well sums up the current status of US lawmaking.
-
Meanwhile us libertarians (well, I'm right leaning, but still)
Have nobody to represent us.
-
us libertarians
Don't count me in, I'm pretty sure I disagree with them as much as all the rest
Filed Under: Grammar pedantic dickweedery
-
(Why is NPR.org a whitelist here?)
I've absolutely no idea...
[pjh@sofa discourse]$ grep -Ri npr\.org . [pjh@sofa discourse]$
Further digging wasn't too instructive either...
-
Maybe relevant? I can't actually follow any of the links because they all go to github (which is blocked at my work. Re: Some post somewhere on this forum)
-
Maybe relevant?
Yup. It's listed there:
def self.default_whitelist %w(23hq.com 500px.com about.com answers.com ask.com battle.net bbc.co.uk bbs.boingboing.net bestbuy.ca bestbuy.com blip.tv bloomberg.com businessinsider.com clikthrough.com cnet.com cnn.com collegehumor.com coursera.org codepen.io cracked.com dailymail.co.uk dailymotion.com deadline.com dell.com digg.com dotsub.com ebay.ca ebay.co.uk ebay.com ehow.com espn.go.com etsy.com findery.com flickr.com folksy.com forbes.com foxnews.com funnyordie.com groupon.com howtogeek.com huffingtonpost.com huffingtonpost.ca hulu.com ign.com ikea.com imgur.com indiatimes.com instagr.am instagram.com itunes.apple.com justin.tv khanacademy.org kickstarter.com kinomap.com liveleak.com lessonplanet.com mashable.com meetup.com mixcloud.com mlb.com myspace.com nba.com npr.org photobucket.com pinterest.com reference.com revision3.com rottentomatoes.com samsung.com screenr.com scribd.com slideshare.net soundcloud.com sourceforge.net speakerdeck.com spotify.com squidoo.com techcrunch.com ted.com thefreedictionary.com theglobeandmail.com theonion.com thestar.com thesun.co.uk thinkgeek.com tmz.com torontosun.com tumblr.com twitpic.com usatoday.com videojug.com vimeo.com walmart.com washingtonpost.com wikia.com wikihow.com wired.com wistia.com wi.st wonderhowto.com wsj.com zappos.com zillow.com) end
-
Myspace.com is whitelisted... as is imgur...
This begs for exploitation.
Why is battle.net white listed, when everything goes through a sub domain like wcs. or us.?
-
.... don't ask me.... :)
-
ask.com
Q: Why is it a bad idea to whitelist a search engine?
A:
http://www.youtube.com/embed/E0CV7hXt2Rw?rel=0&autoplay=1For posterity, I actually have no idea what that is, because it's blocked from work :D
-
> ask.com
Q: Why is it a bad idea to whitelist a search engine?
No idea. It doesn't seem to work, so there must be some other tests:
http://uk.ask.com/web?qsrc=1&o=312&l=dir&q=random+stuff&dm=all
-
Can you try an image search? (Again, blocked.)
UNKNOWN SAFE FOR WORK STATUS!
;;;
;;;
http://wzeu.ask.com/r?t=p&d=eu&s=uk&c=a&app=a16&dqi=&askid=&l=dir&o=312&oo=0&sv=0a6d00f4&ip=8121c90c&id=1D693DDCE87B8CFC1CE30D07ECB38DDC&q=random+stuff&p=1&qs=1&ac=24&g=a6134HM4A39NbG&ocq=0&ocp=0&ocu=0&ocf=0&qa1=0&cu.wz=0&en=te&io=0&b=a005&tp=d&ec=1&ex=tsrc%3Dtled&pt=1000 Random Things To do when you are BORED!!!%20-%20Goodreads&u=http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/938017-1-000-random-things-to-do-when-you-are-bored
;;;
-
-
WTF????????????
Why are the MLB and NBA domains whitelisted, but not NFL.com or NHL.com?
-
To piss off the soccer fans?
-
Those are some seemingly random whitelisted sites, that's for sure. Of course, the results also have to match a certain format to one-box, so you can't just dump the whole TMZ front page in like so:
But you can link random stupid articles
Yo dog, I herd you like TMZ so I put some TMZ in your Dicsourse so you can TMZ while you Dicsourse.
-
-
See, there's the problem. Jeff wasn't really interested in our opinions so much.
-
-
the conservatives have no agenda other than putting everything back the way it was
More usually they want to put things “back” to the way that they imagine things were. Whether or not they really were like that, or whether the world can support such things now, those are irrelevant.progressives either refuse to admit there's a problem or want to double down on the failed policies
Change for change's sake. That's dumb too.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politician's_syllogism
(Hmm, oneboxing fails to handle the bulletpoints which describe the core of how much political thinking goes; I'll have to reproduce here…)
- We must do something
- This is something
- Therefore, we must do this.
-
1. We must do something
4. This is something
8. Therefore, we must do this.
-
Further digging wasn't too instructive either...
Thanks for turning this into a Dicksource thread and more importantly supporting one of @blakeyrat's whines.
-
Blakeyrant's first law of Dicsourse:
You will always end up talking about Dicsourse.It's like fight club except [spoiler]no one gets shot in the face[/spoiler], unfortunately.
-
Blakeyrant's first law of Dicsourse:
YOU WILL ALWAYS END UP TALKING ABOUT DICSOURSE.IT'S LIKE FIGHT CLUB EXCEPT [SPOILER]NO ONE GETS SHOT IN THE FACE[/SPOILER], UNFORTUNATELY.
BRTFY
-
Well played.
And that may be the first correct usage of spoilers in this forum's history.
Too bad that movie is 15 years old and anyone that doesn't already know how it ends should be shot in the face.
-
Too bad that movie is 15 years old and anyone that doesn't already know how it ends should be [spoiler]shot in the face.[/spoiler]
STFY
-
Now you've ruined it - anyone that reads this far will put it together.
[spoiler]If you didn't know how the movie ends, you wouldn't know my second post spoiled anything![/spoiler]
-
I make an exception for kids. At least, my kids.
Filed Under: The first rule of Pedantic Dickweed club