Actually, no. Please do not attribute those words to me, as I never said anything like that. I suspect you are projecting your own feelings/beliefs onto me. I agree that all living things have a right to continue living without someone else stopping that life unless they have violated the laws that the majority of the beings they live with feel are worthy of life termination.

The word "scared" implies a belief in something magical and/or supernatural. I am not superstitious nor do I believe in magic; I believe that we are organic creatures that have certain obligations to all other living creatures, but there is nothing mystical or magical about any form of life, just things we don't fully understand yet. Just because I don't understand something fully does not mean I have to ascribe a supernatural attribute to it; I am comfortable saying that I do not fully understand it yet and let it go at that. Just my opinion.

Preferably while in mid-air.

Wish I had mod points, I always like a good "yo' momma" joke.

I'm not certain I see the positive point of this comment; personally, it just seems like bashing to me. Perhaps you meant it as a joke? Still, at what point do we stop picking on people for being different? As IT workers, we're the brunt of a lot of "less than funny" jokes; why continue that practice on another group? I just don't understand it.

I submit that this is just an excuse for a lack of self-control and/or a feeling of self-importance/self-indulgence. It is entirely possible to hold a position of high responsibility, do an hour commute each way to a tech job and NEVER turn on your phone. It is even possible to go to the theater, the philharmonic, out to dinner, have drinks with friends, or even read a book with your phone off. Really.

If you seriously subscribe to this notion then I think you have sold your life too cheaply.

I think Amazon already has a "fitting room"; it's called Best Buy, and they don't seem to be too happy about it...

All I have "proven" was that the claim that an iron hammer could cost as much as a pound if gold during the gold rush is most likely an accurate assertion. I think you are over-generalizing the data and seeing what you want to see, rather than taking the data at face value.

My intent in the post you refer to was only to provide some "sources" to support the position, something everyone seems to be bitching about but not actually doing. Must be a lot of academics on the Slash these days.

Just my opinion.

Well, damn, seem to have lost my reply. Sorry if it appears again, but I am re-typing it.

In any case, a quick Google turned this up in the first 4 hits:

http://www.history.com/news/8-things-you-may-not-know-about-the-california-gold-rush

"6. Prospecting for gold was a very costly enterprise.
Most of the men who flocked to northern California arrived with little more than the clothes on their backs. Once there, they needed to buy food, goods and supplies, which San Francisco’s merchants were all too willing to provide—for a cost. Stuck in a remote region, far from home, many prospectors coughed up most of their hard-earned money for the most basic supplies. At the height of the boom in 1849, prospectors could expect prices sure to cause sticker shock: A single egg could cost the equivalent of $25 in today’s money, coffee went for more than $100 per pound and replacing a pair of worn out boots could set you back more than $2,500."

According to - http://www.tchistory.org/TCHISTORY/Gold_Timeline.htm - the price of gold was $19.39 per ounce at the height of the California Gold Rush. I don't need to look any further to satisfy myself that the claim is most likely reasonable. I also have personal, anecdotal information in my possession from the 3 years I lived in Alaska but would not entirely rely on that, except in a casual conversation where I did not feel I was going to be challenged but instead trusted because of my time spent in Alaska and the Yukon.

I agree with the posters that feel that the demanding references douchery on Slash lately is quite similar to "Tits or GTFO!"; I am in academia and I do not always rely on the references given to me, I look for other cites to either support or contradict the position. I think most reasonable, introspective people do.

All just my opinion.

Actually, I was laughing at the notion of greed being a "Clerical/technical" fuck up. Sorry to be so subtle.

Yeah, same thing happened with that "Hobbit" movie, and that last "Harry Potter" movie. Man, I hate those "Clerical/technical" fuck ups!

Not absolutely certain, but I imagine it has something to do with the trucking, auto manufacturing and petroleum industries in the US. Just a guess.

What I meant was the size (700), like the Align T-Rex 700 Nitro I thought he was sponsored on, but yeah, didn't mean to infer 700 displacement, I have no idea what they displace, around 90 or so? Big, whatever. I fly DLG and and motorized sailplanes on a field next to rotor guys and I get to see all kinds of 3D stuff. I will admit there have been times I've felt nervous when they were figuratively tossing a tumbling heli in our direction. I'll agree to disagree with you on how sharp the LE is on the CF rotors are at speed; I got a deep cut on my calf attempting to fly a small electric heli of the guys at the club offered me one day. It was my fault, buddy box cable wasn't working and after him insisting it was easy (and I did have some sim time on helis), I gave it a go. I got it hovering and should have landed happy; instead, ended up in an accident. Live and learn. Sailplanes are exciting enough for me.

I will give you the benefit of doubt and assume you have never seen or touched the rotors on a 700-size nitro and have little or no first-hand knowledge of the rotor R/C hobby. I recommend you drop by a hobby shop and run a finger over the LE of even a small, electric rotorcraft. I believe you will be quite surprised by just how sharp it is. In my opinion, calling BS is something you do when you have factual experience to back yourself up, not just opinions; but like I said, that's just my opinion.

Agreed. Perhaps one day we'll cross wakes in the "roaring forties", heave to and share a libation or two. Now, that would be a story!

That is certainly one way to look at it; another is that Conner acted the complete douche and, through bad behavior, humiliated himself, the US and the spirit of the race by whining after being beaten fairly and decisively, then used "American Smarts" to weasel waterline lengths to build and campaign what he thought would be a "face-saver" that turned out to be another US humiliation, as he figuratively had his crew dragging their feet in the water in an effort to under-sail a high performance multi against a hull built to the spirit of the rule, and ended up in another great American institution, a court of law, defending against an accusation of being a douche - unfortunately, there is no law in the US preventing douchery, and Conner prevailed, but not after heaping more shame on the country. Conner's "Cheat To Win" - sorry, "Stars and Stripes" boats pretty much put an end to the spirit of the cup races, but went a long way in upholding the image of the "Ugly American" throughout the sailing world.

At this point, match racing production hulls, something you or I might take around the world, would be, in my opinion, a much better and more exciting and informative race than what the Cup has turned into.

Just my opinion.