Water is one of those resources which flow and circulate. They don't get "used up" so much. It is used in its many forms, liquid, gas and solid and its transitions from one state to the other is often useful. It is temporarily held within bodies of produce and other products and in people as well. But these are molecules which circulate all over. The water molecules which are in your body right now may have previously been in a T.Rex long ago at some point.

Now, some states and conditions and situations of water aren't "usable" at the moment and it would take some time before it gets to that state. Which leads to the main issue of water conservation. That main issue is how much is available at any one time in the appropriate state and condition at the right time and in the right place. Under circumstances when resources are presently insufficient, the next question is cost and time to achieve the desired resource levels.

I guess what I'm getting at is the understanding of not "how much is used" but "the rate of how much is available minus the rate of how much is used." When you get negative numbers, it's a problem... obviously. But for people to just say "how much is used" denies people a bigger understanding.

1. I don;t know anything about the case you speak of
2. Providing a death certificate and a will is more than proof needed in this case. There was no one to be protected.

What else is new? Human interest takes a back seat to Apple's interests. I'd suggest they have no respect for the dead, but in this case, they are respecting the will of Jobs by carrying on as he would.

(yeah yeah, troll modding here I come. He was pretty famous for being a major ass.)

I agree with your additional benefits.

I'm sorry you live in Canada. I just heard the RCMPs just made more guns illegal without much in the way of due process.

All of these rules and laws go to show that people need to become more vocal and active in government if only to make their lives better. Government imposing itself on the people so their jobs are easier or their [illegal] quotas are filled more quickly is light tyranny. (Pop quiz: Did you know most states in the US at one time or another made radar detectors illegal? Only Washington DC and Virginia currently outlaw radar detectors though some states will occasionally try to ticket people for having their windows blocked with electronic devices... that's typically local rather than state. And do you know why? Because activists pointed out that radar detector users are safer drivers because they are more aware of the road and constantly looking for cops.)

Anyway, get active in your government. Freedoms and rights are being trampled everywhere. Stop it.

The only places that say "do not back in" are trying to prevent damage to their property. The cause of displaying reverse lights is nonsequitur.

I have NEVER seen or heard of laws against backing in. Cite a reference or you're making it up.

As for "rather get hit from behind than in front"? You're presuming the odds of getting hit in the front are the same as getting hit in the rear. The odds of getting hit in front are greatly reduced because, in theory, you are watching where you are going. You *DO* watch where you're going don't you?

Not true. In fact, if you cannot see the side of your car (and I only mean the very edge of the mirror space) then you are unable to accurately judge the angle of anything on that side without a basis of comparison.

1. Why not? People learn to drive in the first place.
2. It doesn't require changing mirrors at all. I drive like that all day long. I can see everything I need to see in that side-view mirror. I just don't look at the sky.

Either an old dog that can't move fast or it's BS. Dogs are rather capable to getting out of the way and backing in is typically done slowly.

I addressed that concern in my diatribe.

1. It's a skill like any other. You can learn to develop it.
2. Use the mirror-hack. Angle your passenger-side mirror so you can just see your passenger-side panel and angle it down so you can just see the cars behind you on the road. You don't need to see the roofs of their cars or even the sky for that matter. Seeing what's on the road is far more important and educational. By seeing the ground on the passenger side relative to the passenger side panels, you can accurately judge the distance on that side of your car as well as the parallel alignment. (It doesn't do much for knowing how far you can go backwards but still.)

Easier to pull in forward, but it leaves you much more vulnerable always.

And ask yourself why police, firemen, [ex-] military and others do it? Why doesn't it apply to you? I'll admit I am ex-military, but that's not why I do it. Frankly, I've just seen too much tragedy in other lives not to. Everything from scratched paint to dead children... fortunately none of it mine.

I know this is simply the stupidest, most trivial gripe anyone could make but I'm going to put it out just the same:

Back into parking spots ALWAYS. Do it for for safety. Do it for your car. Do it for convenience. Do it for 'the children.' And now, do it for privacy.

Many states do not require a license place in the front. I live in one of those states. For those who do, I'm sorry. Lobby for a change. Backing into your parking spots will reduce the likelihood that one of these scanners will record your car's location.

Backing in for safety is good to be sure the spot is clear when you enter it. You have to drive by the spot before backing in, so you know you aren't about to park in a spot occupied by a person, a motorcycle or one of those ridiculous smart cars. What's more, when you depart your parking spot, you will have the clearest possible view as you enter traffic because you don't have to back into a completely invisible and unknown situation. This also allows you to leave much more quickly since you can see where you are going. That's a great plus since quite often people are in a bigger hurry to leave than they are to arrive.

Backing in prevents people from hitting your car accidentally as you back out of parking spaces. Can you tell who is coming through that parking lane as you back out? I've seen too many cars hurt this way and it's tragic. And who has TIME to argue about it when you can just form a habit which prevents it all from happening in the first place?

Backing in means you get to leave going forward. It's not just safer, it's faster. The only potential inconvenience is access to one's trunk or rear storage area. That's probably the only exception to the rule I suppose. If you're planning to load something large, going in forward might be the best way, but it also leave you and your friends and family standing out in the parking lanes waiting for the next jerk-hole to come along and clip you needlessly.

And backing in means you have less risk of accidentally hurting a child. It's never a complete guarantee as kids just go everywhere, but can you say you did everything in your power if you aren't backing in and pulling out forward? It's when backing OUT kids are injured and killed more often. Those read-facing camera systems are really nice, especially for people who are unable to exercise full motion of their spine and neck. For for everyone else, there is no substitute for real eyes on the scene.

And now for privacy? Holy crap. Every day we learn there is yet another jerk-hole out there making money by recording and selling information about you. I wish for these people to die in a fire. They simply have no concept of what harm they are bringing to society. They just care about the dollars they can collect and spend on crap they don't need.

Seriously. Make a new habit if you don't do this already. BACK IN when parking. It's not hard. Just practice at it.

And here's the best mirror-hack of all time for backing in. Most cars these days have a passenger-side mirror and it's used to see cars which would otherwise be in a blind spot. But you don't need to see the sky with it -- just what's on the road. How about angling that mirror down a bit further so you can see more of the road. When backing into a parking spot, you will be able to see the lines of the parking spot on the other side and if you can still see the body panels of your car on that side, you can even achieve perfect alignment every time by checking if you are parallel to the line and how much room you have on the other side. There are thousand-dollar electronic sensors which serve this purpose but all anyone has to do is angle the passenger-side mirror down a little to get the same thing!!

Anyway. I hope someone actually reads this and gets something useful from it.

I worked for a nuclear technology company and they set up a box which did this on the guest network. I threw up all sorts of warnings why this was a bad idea but our network security guy who cared nothing about the businesses and government entities we came into contact with, insisted that this is the way it should be done. Eventually some form of it disappeared while some other aspects remained. But seriously, how do you think the various large utilities and the NRC would feel about their secure traffic being sniffed while their representatives and executives are in the office?

Kinda breaks some trust issues doesn't it?

The product names, on the other hand...?

I guess it's okay and even amusing to do polls which demonstrate specific knowledge weakness among the people of the US. What's not funny, however, is to show people are actually becoming more stupid than ever before. The cause or the fault, I'm sure has many sources, but people are increasingly ignorant.

Saying this much is already enough for some people to become angry. But when people start throwing around suggested causes such as "no child left behind" or other "lowering the bar" measures, people start to become even more furious. I think one of our most basic areas of training is really missing which people rarely speak of -- it's how to tell the difference between emotion and fact. But in case people haven't noticed, the measures taken have more to do with feelings than ability, achievement or knowledge. Why? Because we think ignorance leads to crime? We want to believe that don't we... after all, we're smart people and we're not criminals. And "smart" is a matter of training isn't it? That's a tremendous presumption.

Nothing I say will make any difference. But maybe if enough people start saying it, it can be heard. The first thing that has to go is anything "feel good" law or policy.

The amount of fraud generated by the SPLC is evidence of their character. They wouldn't have to create incidents if any occurred naturally. And like the other race baiters, their "contributions" are usually not quite as voluntary as you might think.

As for these assassination attempts? Citations required.