I'd hazard a guess because they are always in his field of view.

Since they never leave, his last memories are of them being there and him not being surprised they are there. If he left the room and came back, as his wife did, you'd get a surprised reaction.

Cooking must be an absolute nightmare though. Unless you constantly watch what you are doing (and how would you remember to constantly watch it?), I doubt you could ever manage to cook anything that required timing.

Agreed that the contamination is the worst part, the earthquakes are merely yet another potential hazard.

So far, the science is still at a reasonably early stage, but there is certainly some evidence to suggest that earthquakes in previously non-seismically active areas have been caused (or at the very least worsened) by fracking.

I can't downvote, but if I had to hazard a guess, I'd go with "monarchs just as bad if not worse as Hitler" as the bit of your comment that would be most likely to draw a "challenge" as you put it. You kinda godwin'd the whole thread right out of the gate which is a bit ... trollish.

I suppose one could maybe make a reasonable attempt at justifying that statement with regards to a few specific past monarchs, but even though I couldn't care less about the British monarchy I think it would be rather unfair to hold the current Queen accountable for what some of her predecessors may have done many, many years before she was born.

I'm an American citizen with ancestors originally from Germany, so by those standards I should personally be held to blame for slavery, Little Bighorn and smallpox blankets, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, AND the holocaust.

Most cars now have their hazards come on with any airbag deployment, probably same idea.

Obvious a nuisance animal that is a public hazard. Put the animal down.

The current XBox allows you to borrow, rent games. You can buy and sell used games without any issues as well. The upcoming XBox One however allows a title to be resold only once through a very specific process that they haven't revealed yet. You can't borrow a friends copy of a game, and I'd presume you can't take your game to their house to play there unless the game is tied to your account not just your XBox One... Either way...

As Jinx noted, this was likely done to appease the publishers. They've been wanting to get rid of the used game industry for some time (an industry I don't get anyhow, you'll give me less than half the used price of a game, then sell it for $5 less than a new copy... why buy used if it is only $5 less?).

The question becomes, as noted before, if the publishers make it worth Microsoft's time and losses due to that policy then it will work out, but if they support Sony just as well, or even after a short delay, then Microsoft gambled wrong. They are going to lose sales over the policy. That, the fact the system needs to connect every 24 hours or it will lock down even single player use until it connects again...

To play games online with XBox Live you need a paid Gold account. You can play games on the PS3 without a PS Plus account, but there are rumors that the PS4 will require a paid PS Plus account to play multiplayer. That will just be leveling the playing field, and if you still don't need a paid account to access Netflix (you need a paid Gold account on XBox to get Netflix or Amazon videos... and I think to access your YouTube account fully) on the PS4 then they'll still have an edge on the multimedia front.

Another of Sony's big upsets was pricing the PS4 $100 under the XBox One price... now I'm going to hazard a guess they had a couple prices ready to roll based on the XBox's price and decided to undercut, it could have been the planed price from the start, but I'd guess they wanted to scare Microsoft. I'm also guessing Microsoft will announce "new cost saving measures" right before the holidays and adjust theirs down, they are already behind the 8 ball with the used and borrowing game limits, I can't see them letting Sony getting a huge boost from price as well... if they reverse course on borrowing/used games they might be able to keep the price up "we've heard the complaints from our users and have decided not to implement that feature at this time" sort of thing, but I'm guessing they are too far into that to reverse that and will just price match.

EDIT: I should note that I'm mostly a PC Gamer, followed by XBox games then PS3... well iOS games are probably after PC Games but before console games... I like XBox better as a gaming platform, but my PS3 has better networking for Netflix and Blu-ray support (XBox One gains Blu-ray support) so it is my multimedia machine of choice. I don't think I'll upgrade either system at this time though...

Just 2 cents on funeral processions in PA - every car in the procession has to have a little flag on it (magetic, provided by the funeral home); every car has to put its 4-ways (hazards, blinkers) on the whole time; it's pretty easy to see them; as a driver NOT in the procession, you cannot (legally) pass them on a 1 lane road, but 2+ lanes are ok, and opposite side of road people just go about their business. Also, the procession itself does NOT stop - if you are a member of the procession, you go through stop signs, red lights, etc (slowly of course) so that all the cars in the procession are always together.

It's a slight annoyance when the procession is very long, but I've never witnessed nor heard of any accidents being caused because of a procession in PA.

Whatever state "Suck Creek" is in, they should change the law to forbid stopping on the opposite side- respect or no respect, it's just dangerous. Even if the truck was doing the exact speed limit, and was paying attention- if it was a blind corner no one could stop in time.

Oh, and from WP: It can ignite (amongst others) teflon, sand and asbestos.

When I said "just about any" kind of firearm should be legally obtainable, I should clarify that I mean guns. Explosive ordinance, anti-vehicle weapons, fully-auto vehicle mounted machine guns, etc. is where I see the line between reasonable and unreasonable.

My problem with getting into regulating "assault weapons" is that I see it as a very real slippery-slope hazard -- unlike restrictions like waiting periods, registration, legal obligations to keep guns locked in cabinets when not in use, etc. etc.

Here's an example: my gun-nut friends had in their extensive arsenal 2 rifles, an AR-15 and a Ruger Mini-14. The AR-15 is basically equivalent to a military M-16, except the one they had didn't have selectors for 3-shot burst or full-auto (semi-auto only). The Mini-14 was designed around the M-14, which was the military standard-issue rifle until being replaced by the M-16.

Trying to get the government to regulate those firearms seems like a nightmare to me. Is just the AR-15 (M-16) an "assault weapon"? Are they both? I've fired both and I don't think that there is any reasonable way to say that the AR-15 is "over the line" of what a civilian owner should have with the Mini-14 being "ok". The Mini-14 is a fantastic farm/hunter rifle; safe, reliable, and easy to handle -- but in the event of somebody going off the deep end and shooting people up, it is going to be just as deadly/tragic as if they had an M-16.

Basically I think that the right-wing types have a pretty legitimate beef when they say that gun crimes are committed with illegally obtained weapons, and that therefore most heavy restrictions just affect legitimate, responsible gun owners while doing very little to keep guns out of the hands that you really want them out of. I should look for data about gun crime rates comparing legally purchased guns versus black market sources, and gun-related injury and death rates between gun-nut havens like Texas and my neck of the woods in Kansas compared to more liberal urban areas.

Finally, I guess that I should make it clear that I'm OK with restrictions that require you to prove that you are a responsible owner to have any firearm. Waiting periods, background checks, loss of privileges to anyone with a criminal record, having to register and periodically present your firearms to prove that you aren't re-selling them, etc. I consider all that kind of stuff reasonable limitations on our right/privilege to own firearms. But getting into trying to figure out what does or does not classify as an "assault weapon" goes the wrong direction in my opinion.

@enoch I'm not hostile towards those who disagree with me, but towards those who intentionally misrepresent me. I'm guessing you once met some fundamentalist hard-headed fox news republican whatever, and you think I'm that guy. I'm not. So, please stop misrepresenting me, it's really annoying.

You suggest letting government/society burn? Sure, maybe that's what we're headed to anyways. I don't treat politics as discussing "what should we do", that's irrelevant if you and I can't agree on what's actually wrong. To me, it's more about understanding the problem.

@dag The problem I see in how you're using examples outside of America is that what you suggest as a solution in another country can just as much be an example of another country's success despite what you're pointing out as the solution.

"we tax the rich a lot in Australia and everything is better over here". Ok. What if Australia would be better off if you didn't tax the rich so much? Then you'd be just proposing we do what's not helping Australia to help America, all the while overlooking whatever is actually working in Australia.

It does seem somewhat obvious that taxing the rich would forcefully reduce wealth inequality, but then we wouldn't be looking at what's causing the inequality, just trying to punch it out of existence with taxes, and possibly establishing more social injustice in the process. To me, it seems quite unfair to tax someone more just for being richer, a moral hazard even (punishing productivity?), but moral concerns are passé and don't seem to bother anyone these days.

@shatterdrose I treat a smaller government solution as something like a paradigm shift. You see government doing things right in country X, Y or Z, and I see them as, most likely, taking credit for what they're not fucking up. I mean, seriously, don't you know governments do that all the time?

There are plenty of people who unfairly benefit from government, but government is mostly not a net benefit to society, and those people will lie through their goddamned teeth about how much good they do, usually taking credit for anything working in society. There sure are plenty of suckers who believe them.

Wanting less government is not snap judgement, it's not dogma, it's quite often what no one ever considers.

Wanting more government is the convenient way out, governments are the agents of every social planner's wet dreams. In their minds, governments always have "unlimited" resources, they're always above any law, they're never morally wrong, and they're always run by honest uncorruptible people.

I love your "get involved" answer to criticizing government. What you don't seem to realize is that I'm criticizing how much government IS involved. That can hardly be changed from the inside. People who run for government always want a bigger piece of the pie, they're not likely to win on a "we want less pie" platform.

Do you know what you have to do to a car to ensure that it survives a jump like that?

Not a SINGLE production car in the world would drive away from that jump. Some people have been watching too much Dukes of Hazard.

From the name here and the youtube channel name i'd hazard the guess that it's the same person... so *ban

The most consistent thing about the roads themselves is that there are cars on them. More so with parking lots. The Gas Station had way more than enough roof area to cover it's electricity usage, no need for putting panels underneath parked cars.

A light coat of dust on panels can decrease their efficiency by up to 50%... there would have to be a CONSTANT fleet of road washers, slowing down traffic. At least with roof/road mounted panels they can be tilted to shed most of the dust/pollen that accumulates, though they do have to be washed monthly.

And then there's the question of what happens with accidents. Sure, the tensile strength might be as strong as steel, but it's because of the enormous pressure it's under. it only takes one flaw in the surface to make the glass susceptible to shattering... just the thing to make car accidents more hazardous.

It's not SUCH a bad idea if they don't hang out near those RF's for more than a few ticks...That massive antennae is blasting out radio frequencies that are right at the max of non-hazardous (ionizing) levels. Best they don't stay too long at the base of that monster! Bet it makes one's nose tickle and head begin to ache after about 45 minutes around it.

I never understand the argument "if x person had a gun, it would have stopped the whole thing before it started."

In this example, the lunatic had a car and the victim had a car - so they have approximately equal "weaponry". The lunatic clearly used his weapon with utter disregard for anyone's safety and without warning. I'd like to know why people think that raising the weaponry stakes would change anything. Let's rewind the whole situation and without any hindsight give both of them a gun. Now the victim would be dead because he had no idea of the danger he was in until it happened, and if a gun was involved then that would have happened and been over very fast.

I have been accosted in my car about 4 times now (i travel to uni, it's an occupational hazard) after having to brake hard from someone's poor driving (for example). In that situation i am the one who is entitled to be aggrieved, if i had a gun then of course i wouldn't use it - because i am not going to shoot someone for driving like that and rightly so because i'd go to jail.

So the mad person is always going to shoot first, and he's always going to have the initiative of knowing what's going on and what he needs to do.

Why is escalation EVER a solution? We don't say it about nuclear warheads? Surely if everyone had a nuclear warhead we'd all be a lot safer. It might seem ridiculous to say that but why do people think it's good to upgrade the madman's potential weapon from a car to a gun!?