Obamacars

Sure you can, when they are done with it and you now need it more than they do. Same with police service, fire service, ambulance, etc. Or are those handouts in your opinion since you can't use them when they are actively serving someone else?

...and basics like the ability to receive a phone call with a job offer while also being out on the town distributing resumes is necessary to empower people to get the job that lets them earn that wealth. The idea that the best way to empower someone is to make them sit at home waiting for a phone call on their land line, while being unable to go out due to lack of cell, and unable to apply to any job at home thanks to lack of internet service, is frankly absurd. Government investing in people to empower them with the tools needed to get jobs and become productive members of society is something I want out of my government, and since enough other people agree with me including enough of the Supreme Court that it's constitutional, I get what I want.

The government is not a business and should not be a business, and business analogies do not apply.

The one time I was on jury duty, after we found the guy guilty (of robbery), the prosecutor tried to bring up a history of similar crimes in a different state in the 1970s. The defense attorney objected, we were kicked out of the room for 4 hours, and when we were brought back in, we were told that the old records of supposed past crimes were incomplete and had been rejected as evidence.

At the same time, though, the defendant had waived his right to jury sentencing, so we didn't have to mentally exclude those while contemplating his sentence. Instead the judge just gave him the maximum allowed time and we went home for dinner.

So, in the one situation where I have first-hand experience, the judge wouldn't let the prosecutor allege and allude to past crimes - even arrests and convictions - if the paperwork wasn't in order.

The last time a site was linked to that was running on an ISDN line.

The internet is designed better now. Regular users can only rarely bring down web sites, and then only if tens of millions of people try to use it simultaneously. Slashdot never had that many readers. Seriously, how many times have you upgraded your computer since 2002? Did you upgrade your internet connection? Have you regularly streamed large amounts of data? Guess what, so has everyone else. And the internet can generally handle it now.

> Shhh, you don't want them to go all ISIS and start lopping heads off folks

Don't be silly. Everybody knows we employ lapidation. Hold still a sec, will you?

Prophetic captcha: rigidly.

> Microsoft won't have to plant a trojan CEO
Who knows. Maybe they did.

gintonic.

Haiku answer.
Thanks
that one was
a most interesting read.

We were discussing the changes after a certain point in time (the birth of Chrome if you will) being all fuckups, I guess.

For people who don't understand what they are doing, they still are making a notable streak of disasters, with an odd distribution.
The average moron gets things right by accident sometimes.

Haiku answer.
Yet
that one too
is mostly floppy.

An alternative theory for the same conclusion, which I favour because experimental data is more accessible is:
Climbing mountains implies the increase of possibility of falling to great depths. Which means that, statistically speaking, when you go to the mountain you have indeed less mass beneath you than if you walked and occasionally fell elsewhere, where the depth is lower, or in the sea, where you float in mass denser than air.

Gotta love science.

Someone else replied already and explained this, though that seems to have attracted a troll of some sort.

Basically, the idea is that people on bikes have better awareness of road conditions as they should be traveling cautiously at lower speeds and aware of their surroundings more than a vehicle driver would be. They can therefore approach an intersection with a stop sign the same way a driver in a car would a yield sign:
1. Slow down, checking for traffic in all other directions
2. If there's no other traffic, proceed without coming to a complete stop

Moreover, it can actually be more dangerous for a bike rider to come to a complete stop. It is much slower for a bike to accelerate from a complete stop than from a slow yield. That puts the bike rider in the intersection for longer, making it more likely that they'll be hit by someone speeding along in another direction, who was out of sight when the biker started. A car in this situation can gun it; a bike rider in a low gear just gets hit.

Next, it's safer on bike riders to take back roads than it is major arteries. In my area, bikers can take the main road with all its traffic and traffic lights, or they can take one of the collector streets in my neighborhood. If they take the main road, they might not have to stop as much, but they are more likely to be hurt in an accident. The neighborhood collector has a lot of stop signs, but if they can treat those as yields then they can take it also without stopping much and be safer due to less overall traffic and slower car speeds.

Finally, not every biker is in tip-top shape. Letting them bike without having to restart from a complete stop as often makes it easier on the biker, which keeps them biking, which is healthier for them and might take a car off the road. For people who don't give a damn about biker safety, but hate sitting in traffic, this benefit is for you.