In Texas they would charge you with "Unauthorized Use of a Motor Vehicle" or a UUMV which is different than Grand Theft Auto. So say I live with a room mate and he has access to my keys cause I leave them on a peg in my kitchen or something and maybe I've even let him use it before but not this time, this time he takes my car to the store when I'm asleep and crashes it or doesn't return for a few days. That's what the charge would be since he didn't really "steal" it he just used it without asking me. I believe it's a either a high class Misdemeanor or the Lowest Class Felony. Sorry for the run-on sentence there not sure how to word that differently lol.

>> ^Porksandwich:

Is there anything they can even charge the guy with though? I mean you are leaving your car with them and giving it over to their care.......so I am betting their paperwork covers their ass for this kind of stuff if it should arise.
I guess the only thing you could possibly do is try to get them on the personal use stuff. Like the hauling of wood, peeling out on dirt roads, etc.

Yes, but how do I get a round peg in there!

>> ^BoneRemake:

hahahahahaha. I knew people who were just like that, they got burned for half a pound. I dont really know what happened either besides little kid grabbing his phone and running away. I hope someone got hurt badly, one person might of learned something.


Hmmm, so do you think that's someone else grabbing his camera and pegging it? If so, that'd make way more sense as to why it was uploaded.

<edit> I'm blind, didn't even see the passengers first time round.

ChasoEngine said:those that have disagree with you. Appeal to authority? Yes, but I wouldn't ask a climate scientist to write software.

I'd ask you to be very specific about what I've said which relevant experts disagree with me on. Go back and look at the very first article I linked to. It is the relevant experts on statistics disagreeing with and correcting the climate scientists that went off and tried to work too far outside their area of expertise and wound making a mistake that seriously altered their results. The short version is the method they applied was well known to be biased for zero if the constraints were not met, which in the situation used was exactly the case. It is EXACTLY why Mann's original hockey stick graph showed very flat temperature anomalies in his reconstruction from 1000-1800AD. You can verify this by using google scholar to look at Mann's own new work following some of the advice of the article I linked and applying a more appropriate method. It's flagged as the EIV line on the graphs, and it shows several times in the last 1k years where the temperature anomaly from the reference date exceeds what we've experienced recently.

Chaos Engine said:Emphasis mine. Do you have a source for that figure? I don't know if you read the link I posted but it would seem to contradict that figure. Besides, even if CO2 is a small contribution, sometimes a small sway can dramatically affect a system.

I'm glad to hear that you believe in reducing our dependence on coal and oil. Frankly, I think it will run out before we stop using it (and it will run out in my lifetime).

I can't find the article I went off originally but here's a different one. It does vary from the range I gave a little but I think it still is consistent with the spirit of everything I've said. It pegs H2O at 71% and CO2 at 29%, the consistent thing I've seen in the multiple journal based estimates I've seen though is that H2O at a minimum carries double the influence of CO2.

We aren't going to run out of coal anytime soon. Even oil we won't run out of soon. What we may run out of soon is cheap oil, but once a certain price point is hit up here in Canada we've got more oil than Saudi Arabia stored up in the tar sands. It's messy, dirty, expensive and a much greater concern to the environment IMHO than CO2 emissions, but it's a big supply. I am hopeful though, as I said before, that in 20 years nobody is going to want gas powered cars anymore because electric will be cheaper, more reliable, more powerful and basically better in every meaningful way.

>> ^Trancecoach:

There's a Scottish brogue, as well, you know...
>> ^Yogi:
>> ^Trancecoach:
never woulda pegged for a sucker of the brogue...>> ^Yogi:
JESUS FUCK I love Irish women. Why don't I move to Ireland just the most beautiful accents ever!


Had to look that up but I just can't help it. I'm just mesmerized by it. I like other accents too but nothing to me is more awesome than a lovely thick Irish Accent.



I'd marry him too but he'd probably end up beating me.

There's a Scottish brogue, as well, you know...

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^Trancecoach:
never woulda pegged for a sucker of the brogue...>> ^Yogi:
JESUS FUCK I love Irish women. Why don't I move to Ireland just the most beautiful accents ever!


Had to look that up but I just can't help it. I'm just mesmerized by it. I like other accents too but nothing to me is more awesome than a lovely thick Irish Accent.

>> ^Trancecoach:

never woulda pegged for a sucker of the brogue...>> ^Yogi:
JESUS FUCK I love Irish women. Why don't I move to Ireland just the most beautiful accents ever!



Had to look that up but I just can't help it. I'm just mesmerized by it. I like other accents too but nothing to me is more awesome than a lovely thick Irish Accent.

never woulda pegged for a sucker of the brogue...>> ^Yogi:

JESUS FUCK I love Irish women. Why don't I move to Ireland just the most beautiful accents ever!

Its just trying to hard to be easily digestible by those disinterested teenagers. I don't really like it either, and I don't think people need a Simon Peg to make science interesting as long as its being presented well, but hey ho, it is what it is.

@A10anis

Agnosticism is an epistemological position of the uncertainty of knowledge of things. In other words, the nature of knowledge about God, or knowledge in general really, as many above have pointed out (I'm taking it you did read the nice chart above!). Theism or Atheism is a position, either knowingly or unknowing rejecting or accepting the idea of God; one can be explicitly or implicitly atheist (like all children not exposed to the idea are implicitly atheist). Agnostic Atheist is the most common position, but few people have complete understanding of all the concepts involved, or have their own private understandings of what they mean; making any unilateral criticism troublesome. As to the foundations of science and Mathematics, Kurt Gödel had had a great role to play in the destruction of what most peoples concept of certain systems are. And the o so smart Karl Popper ideas on falsifiability has thrown the antique notion of certain truth from science against the wall, in which modern Philosophers of Science, like Hilary Putnam have found intractable to solve, except to say that very little separates, currently, the foundations of science form the foundations of any other dabble of the imagination. Einstein talked about this as well, that wonderment is really the pursuit of all great scientists...not certainty.

As to my original claim, that science has truths it can not rectify, I leave it to better minds to explain the problems of induction. David Hume, Nelson Goodman, and Kurt Gödel drastically changed any view of certain knowledge from science and maths that I had. The untenable nature of the empirical evaluation of reality is just as uncertain as Abrahamic codifications being real.

I close with this, some of the greatest minds in the history of science and philosophy had no problem, nay, drew power from the deep richness they gathered from their faith. It drove them to the limits of the thoughts of their day, René Descartes, Gottfried Leibniz, Blaise Pascal, Alan Turing (who kept some vestibules of faith even after what happened to him), Georg Cantor, and countless others all had some "irrational" faith was more than just a ideal system of commands by some dead people, it drove them to greatness, and in many cases to rejection and madness of their "rational" peers. Georg Cantor, the father of the REAL infinite, died in a mental institution only to have his ideas lite a fire in the minds of the next generation of mathematicians.

It is my believe that we all want to have issue with x number of people, and make peace with y number. We elevate the slightest difference, or conversely, ignore a great flaw to peg this mark just right for us. Perhaps my y is just bigger than your x, or most peoples x as I find this debate I have is a common one; for tolerance, peace, and consideration. If you still think what I am saying is non-sense, then I guess we have nothing more to say to one another. I hope I cleared up my thoughts a bit more, I am not very good at communicating things that are more than just the average amount of esoteric.

I think this video needs coupled with his The Problems with First Past the Post Voting Explained.

I don't know if we can ever get a constitutional amendment passed to get rid of the electoral college, which is why I've long advocated just getting rid of the winner take all in every state. Whoever wins the congressional district, gets that district's electoral vote, with the two extras going to the winner of the popular vote of the state as a whole.

If we combined that with the Singe Transferable Vote type system explained in the Problems with First Past the Post video, we would have a system that better represents the people.

We still have an issue then with the large states being under represented and small states and DC being over represented, and he doesn't go into detail on why that is in these videos. We have had 435 Representatives since 1911 (save for a couple years where we had 437). The 1910 US Census said we had 76,212,168 people, so with 435 Representatives that gives us 175,200 people for each Representative, so we'll round that up to 200,000. The 2010 Census pegged us at 308,745,538, so each Representative now represents a bit over 709,750 people. If we kept with the 200,000 figure we would have 1543 Representatives now, and with modern technology there is no reason they would all need to be in the Congressional building for votes, just in their office in their home district. Heck even if we raised it to 250,000 people, a full quarter of a million, we 1234 or 1235 Representatives, which still insures people are better represented in Congress and at the electoral college if that is still in place once we fix First Past the Post and up the number or Representatives. Congress itself set the limit to 435, so it wouldn't take an amendment to fix it, unless we wanted to insure that it was fixed forever. I don't think we would need an amendment to move to the Single Transferable Vote either, just a law stating all Federal offices must use that method.

Of course to afford that many Representative they, and the Senate, probably need a pay and budget cut. So good luck on that, which may be reason enough it would never pass... that and the lobbyist trying to stop it since such a move would make their job harder and far more expensive.

We do need an amendment limiting the term of the Supreme Court, especially since they are appointed and not elected, and a term limit would be needed even if they were elected. An amendment that specifically exempts anyone who is in now and perhaps appointed within a few years of passing should be passable I would think (if they could agree on what the limit should be), then again, they haven't made a real effort to limit the Supreme Court term yet.

The primary system needs fixed as well, but I think that would be harder to fix. Even with a Single Transferable Vote in place, if it isn't party locked, you have people from the other party purposely voting for the person who would most likely lose against their candidate. Even party locked, you still have people saying they are one, voting for the person you best guess will lose, and then voting for your real candidate during the actual election (which should never be party locked). However, a single Transferable Vote does make "fringe" candidates that don't get the mainstream press coverage, like Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich and the like, to raise higher, which is probably why the parties themselves would fight any real primary system reform.

how the hell would this even be possible ? I hope a replacement is found.

oh.. " wooden peg leg "

thats cheating in my eyes.

I wasn't convinced it was helicopter footage, since the angle never seems to change. From what I could tell it was just zooming and panning.
However, a Google Maps search seems to peg this as the Lakefront Trail off of N Lake Shore Blvd just south of Oak Street Beach in Chicago (Link), and there aren't any tall buildings with this vantage point.

if you use an estimate for 2010 by the centrist to liberal Urban Institute-Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center, which pegs the share of all federal taxes for the top 1 percent at 22.7 percent.

One percent pays roughly one-fifth of taxes? Is that fair?

America was founded on principles by John Locke. Those principles were that land should not only be owned by the rich. According to wikipedia Locke implies "He just implies that government would function to moderate the conflict between the unlimited accumulation of property and a more nearly equal distribution of wealth and does not say which principles that government should apply to solve this problem"

It's quite the problem, as government can't capriciously deprive anyone of rights or private property without due process.

But actually I agree with you. If I tax the rich, they will buy fewer megayachts, (which would create jobs if U.S. regulation hadn't gutted the yacht-building industry here) and the government will just piss that tax money away on bombing Libya, or maybe homeland security irradiating pregnant women secret surface scan x-rays.

It's never explained by the left what this magic millionaire money will do that the spending addicts haven't already done. As for libyan/x-rays, the left wanted an all-powerful federal leviathan unable to be reigned in by the states...why act surprised when it does things you don't like?