Cool, modified clutch start. My guess is that it also has to be on a car without a limited slip differential or you would have to raise both wheels. *promote

@ChaosEngine

i have many:teachers,police,firefighters as facebook friends.

during the run up to the election i was posting a ton of my research,analysis and commentary in regards to the election.

this,on it's own,should not be surprising,what WAS surprising is all the support i received from these people and who were simply afraid to like,or comment.

they were literally sharing my work with other people via private messaging.

each and every one expressed to me a fairly robust paranoia that if they liked any of my posts,or commented,that they would receive disciplinary action and that their jobs would be in jeopardy.

i found this very troubling and what i could not,and STILL cannot reconcile,is how some people not only ignore this very subtle form of censorship,but find it a viable and understandable in the realms of social media.

when you restrict what a person can comment or speak on due to fear.this is censorship.

in the case of justine sacco,she was simply making a joke and when put in context..a really damn good one.but due to the self-righteous moralizing of total strangers,her life was destroyed.

now there will be some that may still find this justified,and that is fine,that is their right but what REALLY chills me is that nobody is addressing the much deeper and far more insidious nature of public shaming.basically:other people saw what happened to justine sacco and will modify their social media persona accordingly.

this,in my opinion,will only result in a vanilla goo like substance that offers no challenging ideas,no conflicting opinions that offer an opportunity to discuss and debate difficult subjects,because debate starts with disagreement,and if you impose a fear of retribution by simply posting any content that may be construed as controversial.then the conversation ends...
and we all pay a price for that kind of groupthink.

this will force the really bad and worst of us to go underground,and reside in an echo chamber where their fucked up ideas are parroted back to them,resulting in a confirmation that their worldviews are correct.

conversely...

those who may have good ideas,or wish to engage in controversial subjects,or in the case of justine sacco..make a fucking joke...will be relegated to the "good little worker bee" position.who never challenges power or authority and simply obeys...for fear of losing:financial security,public standing etc etc.

they become fucking stepford wives.

and in my sincere opinion,this is the real danger.

You're only obliged to follow directions if you don't want to be negligent.
No injury does not mean no negligence. Not following safety instructions is negligent, as is removing safety features, why you do it or the fact that others are also negligent does not erase the negligence.
You can certainly identify wear patterns and or cracks before this type of discharge occurs in 99.9999999% of cases. Proper cleaning and inspections are part of gun safety.
Not lately, but in the past, yes. I've never seen an unmodified gun fire unintentionally, but I have seen poorly modified guns 'misfire' on many occasions.

It was negligent for him to modify his gun as he did it, clearly, since it caused an unintended discharge. Because he followed proper firearm safety at the range, no one was hurt.
Accidents usually happen because of negligence.

I just found out over the weekend that there is a way to ensure that the presidency goes to the winner of the popular vote, without modifying the constitution, and without getting rid of the electoral collage. Basically, once enough states sign on to the agreement, they will all vote as a block for whoever won the national popular vote, regardless of who won their state. 11 states have already signed on.

http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/written-explanation

Also, having proven himself a man of principle, we can assume Donald Trump is on board :

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/266038556504494082?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

No, and that is a method to combat Slow Loris. You can also raise the number of concurrent connections, decrease the timeout on connection response, setting up reverse proxies, and other methods in a similar fashion.

The problem is that you can also modify Slow Loris to work around those methods. The only certain way to block it is to use a webserver software that is not affected by Slow Loris, but then you can encounter other difficulties.

Like he said, for large companies that are prepared, Slow Loris is not nearly as effective. But for smaller web sites or for shoddily put together ones (a LOT of government sites), Slow Loris is a nasty DOS attack.

David Sirota has a devastating new piece out: Hillary Clinton And Wall Street: Financial Industry May Control Retirement Savings In A Clinton Administration.

The proposal would require workers and employers to put a percentage of payroll into individual retirement accounts “to be invested well in pooled plans run by professional investment managers,” as James put it. In other words, individual voluntary 401(k)s would be replaced by a single national system, and much of the mandated savings would flow to Wall Street, where companies like Blackstone could earn big fees off the assets. And because of a gap in federal anti-corruption rules, there would be little to prevent the biggest investment contracts from being awarded to the biggest presidential campaign donors.

CRISPR-Cas9
Bring me a gene
Encoding for a specific protein
Make a few snips at this coded locus
You work so well inside a streptococcus
Cas9
I'm so alone
Without your scissors in my chromosome
Cut me up and do it clean
CRISPR-Cas9 bring me a gene

CRISPR-Cas9
Keep me a gene
A viral sequence you've already seen
Chopped into bits and stored as genomic
With clustered repeats
That are palindromic
Cas9
Bind with this code
Use it to target infections of old
Immunized like a vaccine
CRISPR-Cas9 keep me a gene

CRISPR-Cas9
Cut me a gene
With a precision that I've never seen
Unzip a strand and interrogate it
Seek out your sequence until you locate it
Cas9
Lock into place
And do your job as endonuclease
Chop just like a guillotine
CRISPR-Cas9 cut me a gene

Snip snap!
CRISPR-Cas9
CRISPR-Cas9

CRISPR-Cas9
Bring me a gene
By commandeering my repair routine
A strand to match your severed location
For some homologous recombination
Cas9
Cheap and precise
Rewriting genomes from microbes to mice
And soon the humble human being
CRISPR-Cas9 bring me a gene

CRISPR-Cas9
Give us a gene
Give us a miracle like that one Nazarene
‘Cause giving the lame their legs and the blind their sight is
In view for dystrophy and retinitis
But CRISPR-Cas9
What if you fall
Outside our power and inside us all
That really could incite a scene

When this terrible wonderful power unsettling
Opens the door to unethically meddle
Is ev’ry congenital malady bettered
Sufficient to warrant genetics unfettered
To modify man in the manner of Gattaca
Raise up a mammoth or make a rattata
Dramatical medical means to eradicate aging
Or cancer or make a fanatic
A mass epidemic a weapon nefarious
Single mosquito to wipe out malaria
Send in a viral infection to ferry a
Cure to the cells of an HIV carrier
Freed of disease as we're free to uncover
What nature and accident failed to discover
And free to be other than
All that we ever have been

CRISPR-Cas9
CRISPR-Cas9

Oh CRISPR-Cas9
Bring us a gene
You wondrous ribonucleoprotein
You have the power to vanquish or save us
Who would have thought that the microbe that gave us
Cas9
S. pyogenes
The source of strep and flesh-eating disease
Housed this marvellous machine
Full of uses great and obscene
CRISPR-Cas9 bring us
Please don't sting us
Cas9 bring us a gene

With adenine
And thiamine
Incite a scene
Cas9 bring us a gene!

If following the always in the middle rule, this should follow, but if you don't want to be a perfect driver, at least when merging, follow what is called the "zipper rule".

The zipper rule looks like it sounds: Allow one person to merge in front of you and one person behind you, like a zipper. If you're merging with one car in front of you and one car behind, allow one car already on the freeway to pass between you and the car merging in front of you. The person behind you should do the same for you and any car behind them.

This is something both cars on the freeway and cars merging onto it have to agree to though, as one asshole spoils it. Of course, if someone is tooooo slow (another problem) the zipper rule doesn't work perfectly either.

But the spirit of the zipper rule remains, despite how it is modified. If someone hogs the road, tailgating the car I should be merging behind, I simply follow the zipper rule after that asshat driver. If I were to fight over my true zipper position, I'd cause an even bigger problem than was already present -- and I gain.. what? One car's distance. That's nothing.

Not even 30 cars distance means a damn (a couple seconds?), so there's zero reasons to constantly weave in and out of a congested road, because you risk your vehicle for mere seconds. A terrible bet to make given the odds, no matter how skilled you are, because the lanes slow down at random intervals based on the random number of idiots weaving through traffic causing phantom intersections. Meanwhile, the lane you weaved out of has cleared and the guy being patient passes you by. Just fucking stay in your goddamn lane until you don't need to be there.

I learned this over time, after deciding to be patient and observe the distance traveled by impatient drivers compared to myself staying in one lane. I find that I will often pass the impatient driver by because they're making so many choices and fewer lane choices are ever more optimal than simply waiting for your lane to clear up, so rather than slowly gaining ground, they make a couple gains and then lane change into a briefly cleared lane that then halt once they zoom up to tailgate the person who has no more distance to travel. If I don't end up passing these impatient lane changers, the minimal distance they gained is only seconds, as when they reach their off ramp, they will be waiting idly by, as I catch up and pass them. If they had simply stayed in the same lane the entire way, they often would have arrived at the same time as if they hadn't changed lanes at all.

I actually got in trouble over this in a class during my school years. Like this video, the teacher neglected to mention anything about the people being unable to move. So I said, "I would just yell to all of them that a trolley was coming and to get off the tracks."

Well, of course the teacher was not prepared for this answer so she tried to modify the situation. I got somewhat irate, as I recall, and said she was cheating. She sent me to the office, where I got a swat for disturbing the class.

tl;dr

Don't try to think outside of the box in school.

I don't know about 2001, but there are some seriously low res textures in there and stiff animation. It certainly doesn't look much better than a modified version of the source engine.

"Can I get a flock and train them to be my minions?!?"

You'll have to have them genetically modified to be yellow first.

Twice what my family eats...but yes, a small subsistence farm could also be called a garden, just as my orchard of 30+ apple trees could be called a back yard. That doesn't make it produce any less.

Not true. Some, (very few) still grow grain using old school methods, some even using old school grains (thank goodness, we will have them to thank for still having grains when/if the Monsanto grains fail). It's not even 99%, but it is 'most'.

Industrial farming describes a methodology, not a size, not an incorporation. The fact that a single person or two might farm thousands of acres means they are using the same industrial methods, because non industrial farming takes more people.

Clearly, natural farming takes more effort, and costs the consumer more, but does not require major ecological mitigation, so if you count ALL costs involved, it's not that much more expensive. You act like it's impossible, but it's how ALL farms operated prior to the mid century. If it wouldn't scale, please explain how it worked for thousands of years before industrial agriculture started, or how it continues to work in other countries.

It may not work for WEAK shallow root grain crops that can't compete for water and nutrients, like the one's Monsanto sells. It worked fine for thousands of years with more natural, long root crops that also held the soil together.

I didn't hear that in the video, but fine. Don't just repeat known BS and lies then. Roundup is only a pesticide in that it allows GMO crops that have modified genes to be pesticides themselves to grow without competition....and that doesn't count, and I think you know it.

No, I'm not trying to say the video is perfectly honest, it's clearly highly biased...I didn't say that. They do HINT that Monsanto's actions are "evil", but extrapolating and exaggerating from their already somewhat overboard, clearly biased but careful statements to make them insanely more overboard and biased is not helpful to anyone.

You mean this characterization..."You know, on account of them being evil and wanting to see millions of people dead because it gives their corporate heads joy. Just like it wanted to invent pesticides as a means of convincing the public to poison each other for giggles, and getting the state department to experiment on people."
Um...yeah....that's completely insane. I already explained why it's wrong in so many ways, and defy you to show where they said anything resembling that. You have to listen with quite a biased ear to hear that in between the lines of what they actually said, and one must be incredibly, clinically paranoid to believe any public company does things just to be evil rather than purely for profit. The evil they do is an accepted result of their business methods, not the intent of their business, and I think the video was fairly clear about that.

You may stand by that, as I stand by my summation of your comment...that it's insane and exaggerated hyperbole that ridicules an extreme paranoid stance no one actually took.

That is clearly not true. It may be one of the less toxic human made functioning, profitable herbicides, but that's not what you said by far.

Roundup is not a pesticide, it's an herbicide. Conflating it with pesticides is ridiculous and incredibly misleading. Roundup is used to control weeds and remove genetic 'contamination' of specific crops. EDIT: Many of those crops are genetically modified to act as pesticides without spraying chemicals, which is a good reason to want to limit cross contamination in either direction.

Other alternatives are no chemicals at all, or only ecologically safe (usually natural) chemicals. I don't use chemicals on my farm, I weed, I spray horticulture oil, I spread ashes, I grow twice what I can eat so some loss to insects won't matter, and I remove insects, slugs, and snails by hand. It takes more work, but the statement that the only alternative to Roundup is worse chemicals or agriculture collapse is completely and obviously false and indicates a total ignorance of the issue you speak about.

"Modern Agriculture" today means hydroponics, aeroponics, and aquaponics, none of which can benefit a whit from Roundup. You mean to say "Industrial Agriculture". The collapse of industrial agriculture might not be a bad thing, as it's incredibly destructive and produces a sub par product. More people farming on smaller farms puts more people to work, makes better product, and makes the people who work on the land feel responsible for it's upkeep, not consider it a resource to be exploited as efficiently as possible.

Mentioning Monsanto's involvement in the project is not the same as saying "neither Einstein or Openheimer or others were behind the Manhattan project, it was Monsanto all along that plotted to destroy Japanese cities with nuclear weapons". They clearly implied that Monsanto joined the project as a way to 'cozy up to' the political elite, and it worked.

Where did you hear this ridiculous hypothesis about their motive? Do you see and hear things that other people don't see and hear? It's clear that the motive in all cases was profit, either directly, or future profits secured by 'making friends' in government by cooperating with them or by forcing farmers into untenable contracts and positions where, in some cases, farmers that don't use Monsanto crops were sued because Monsanto said the pollen that pollinated the crops came from a neighbors Monsanto crops, so the seed belongs to Monsanto. Monsanto does not set out to cause damage and harm, they simply don't care if it happens as a side effect of their profit making methods, which they will protect with any means possible.

Just wow, a more deliberately misleading description of the video would be hard to create.

Well, to give her the benefit of the doubt, maybe that driver has been cruising her street, making noise. It is a modified muffler, and is probably pretty loud when revving. I can't even figure out where she was in the first place.

I think I heard her say something like "that car almost took my leg out" or something like that. Maybe there was an earlier incident?

Pretty weird.