I've read a similar post you made before. You have a powerful point to make, and you make it well.
It would be a service to the country you loved, and freedom in general, if you spent an hour or two to write that up "properly", to spend a few minutes editing it to say exactly what you want to say. I could see such an article being shared quite a bit via social networking, blogs etc.

> So mothers with children and their kids went hungry because no food stamps.

Whoever you've been getting your "facts" from has been lying to you. That's assuming you're not the liar, of course. Food stamps never stopped. Obama did threaten to stop payments IF the shutdown continued into November (while continuing "green" payouts to campaign contributors).

You may have noticed that DEMOCRAT senators, leaders of the presidents own party, are currently acknowledging the republicans were right - healthcare.gov isn't ready and the mandate needs to be delayed for individuals, just as it's been delayed for unions.

I once set up a PA for people doing speeches. When the microphone was turned off, the transmissions from the business radio service nearby entered the microphone cable, which worked as a very long, and very bad antenna. I was trying to record the speeches , but was instead recording people's conversations. I had to work frantically to find a way to block their transmissions from getting into my recordings.

That's why since shortly after the invention of radio the law has been that if you want to transmit, it's your responsibility to ensure your transmissions don't unreasonably leak into other people's recordings. You are allowed to listen to anything people broadcast simply because physics are suchthat it's hard NOT to hear what people are beaming at you. Turn on your AM radio and try to tune to a silent frequency. You can't. Anywhere you set the dial, you'll hear people's transmissions. Sometimes you'll hear a dozen transmissions at once, which is called "static".

Going back to your open door analogy, the part you missed is that the homeowner is sending the conversations OUT of the house, throughout the neighborhood. It's like the door is open, yes, and they are standing in the doorway with a megaphone shouting to the neighborhood. Then complaining that someone heard them.

I'm not sure what you're saying in this context.
The position of US liberals is that you may NOT care for your child, not if your ex-gf would prefer to kill your kid. Neither parent may teach their child anything requiring discipline - only government schools can discipline your child.

My wife and I started to adopt a baby once. After talking to the birth mother and HER mother, I worked out an arrangement to keep the child with their family while mom worked out her issues. Last I heard, mom is sober now.

To be fair, I should acknowledge there are some things liberals will allow you to do. Want to kill babies? That's fine as long as you don't drink a large soda afterwards.

You want to know whether or not someone is going to kill your baby? You're not allowed to find out.

In the US? Liberal laws:
You not have health coverage that works for you, you must get Barry approved coverage for drug addiction, maternity, psyche, and routine doctor visits you'd rather pay cash for. You have your tubes tied? Sorry, we're still forcing you to pay for maternity coverage.

You must slowly destroy your car's engine by putting whiskey in the gas tank.

You must have lower standards for black people than white people, and lower standards for women than men. They're too stupid to meet the normal standards. Damn that one is OFFENSIVE!

You may not have a large soda.

You may not work hard in school and as a result be more successful than the potheads you went to high school with. Try it and we'll just take most of your paycheck so you're not able to provide your kids with anything the stoner doesn't provide his.

You may not recognize the 2nd amendment.

You may not build your retirement house on that lot you just spent your life savings on. A half mile down the road there's a spider that's a slightly different color than most of the spiders around here. The neighborhood now belongs to that spider.

Compared to US conservatism:
Get whatever health coverage you want. We suggest INSURANCE, which means coverage for things you can't pay out of pocket, aka "major medical". It's cheap, but if you want some other plan, that's cool, do what you want.

Newer cars are more efficient, but if you have a gasoline car that you don't want ruined, feel free to put gas in it.

If someone wants to work for you and you want to hire them, cool. Do the work you want, and if you need help with the work, hire whoever you think will do the best job.

Eat what you want. If you're hungry after working hard, our favorite is bacon wrapped anything.

US style liberalism is all about the nanny state telling you what you can't do.

I've only been to neighboring countries - Canada, Mexico, and Jamaica. I'm not sure why I said four. Am I forgetting a country that I've been to? Was I counting the People's Republic of California? shrug

I've been told US dollars are ubiquitous in Singapore. I'm curious. My thought is that in most industrialized countries one could spend USD, maybe at a crappy exchange rate. I wonder if that's true.

Though the _most_common_ money in most countries is the local currency, I've been to four countries and never had any problem spending US dollars in any of them, including at supermarkets restaurants, and bars In one non-US country, sellers saw that I looked like an American and quoted prices in USD. I surprised one shop keeper when I paid in local currency. I had acquired a small amount of local currency but found out there was no need for it.

> So the answer to "how many regular cars light on fire on the highway" is 187,500 last year.

You would think. If you read the reports, you find the term has a non-intutive meaning. NFPA says:

    92% of vehicle fire deaths involved highway-type vehicles such as cars, trucks, buses, recreational vehicles, and motorcycles.
The term “highway vehicle fires” is used to describe the type of vehicle, not the location of the fire.

It goes on to say 8% of highway-vehicle fires are intentionally set and 5% are from exposure to some other fire such as a house fire.
I didn't read how many were unintentionally set. My brother unintentionally set the contents of my car on fire once.

I asked how many cars get lit on fire (arson, smoldering cigarettes, etc.) versus how many light themselves on fire.

You think I claimed cars can't burn. Only on Slashdot.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say there.
I asked a couple of questions:
How many gas cars light on fire as opposed to being lit on fire?
How can electric cars be made safer?

It's not clear what you're trying to say, so tell me if I have this right:

You have no idea what the answer is to either question, but "Tesla comes out on top". Why? Because Tesla man! Fuck yeah Tesla motherfucker! Tesla kicks ass man!

Do I have that about right?

>. Flex where? If it's up against the battery, when it flexes it will compress the cells, causing exactly the kind of damage that causes fires...

Intuitively, you'd think to make a car safer, you'd make it stronger. In fact, you reduce G forces by designing it to crush - crumple zones. How can the shielding or battery positioning be improved? I don't know, but I hope Tesla's engineers are asking those questions.

At Texas Transportation Institute (part of the agency I work for) they're still crash testing gas cars to figure out how safety can be improved. The same needs to be done with Tesla cars, that's all.

Yeah, I assume that's obvious. Send the html first, then css, js, and images concurrently.

Also, I hope you don't browse too many pages with 20MB of images. :)

Yes, you just need to redo http. While you're redoing http, you make several improvements.
As you improve http, you realize the biggest performance issues for http come from the fact that it's limited by the requirement that sends and recieves via an ancient protocol that wasn't designed to carry http. Http doesn't run atop TCP because it's a good fit - on runs atop http because that's what was available.

I think it's more like designing automobiles 3.0, designed to go 300 MPH, and realizing that if you want 300 MPH vehicles, you might need to make some significant changes to highway design.

The "all car fires" stat includes dropped cigarettes that smolder, cars intentionally set on fire, etc.
How many regular cars light on fire on the highway after running over a debris such as a hitch?

Also, how many do you want to have on fire? How many would ignite if there was a shield that would flex rather than puncture?