@chingalara

"Whether the comment in question was or wasn't directed at me is mute point"

- Actually the fact that I was installing an internal joke/ribbing into the comment stream is not a moot point, it as a very celebrated and basic point, also- you were brought aware of this point and then decided to point the comment I quoted above. Just so we are clear- grasping at air... or nothing because air is something you are grasping for anything for an argument, which equates to my standard of you being an attention whore.

ok what else what I thinking of ohh, scrolling above I read it. .

You and your character..and Int *cough* egrity

both of which you have little of here.

let me be clear as my final hello of the morning.

Your integrity here is null, your tenure here is null - chingalara??? why don't you sign is as choggie ? ! ? You have no tenure, I do not know why you were let back in, I have a clue why I was. you.. You offer nothing but the ying to a yang. and you never learn, ever. Deluded salt water taffy.

Now I must water some plants and let a rabbit out to frollic on my carpet.

Perhaps you're right and they thought of that...but also perhaps not.
I must admit, I had not taken it being only on Audi's into account.
For jmd: Where I live, in the boondocks of far N Cali., we still have timed lights, and at certain times of day they are timed to force you to stop at (at best) every other block unless you speed like a demon. In order to hit every light green, you would have to either drive double the limit, or less than 1/2. They do this as a speed control measure, even though the limit is 35mph on main street. All that said, I doubt these old style traffic lights would 'talk' to the cars computer, making the whole point moot.
When my car drives itself I'll be far more forgiving of poor drivers, because it will be the car dealing with their mistakes while I just read a book...I can't wait. Until then, I'm a victim of my own limited patience.
I recall in Houston the freeways have a MINIMUM speed limit of 45 (which is ridiculous to anyone who has ever driven in Houston traffic...but I digress). I think minimum limits are good ideas. I think moving violations for people driving slow in the fast/passing lane would do the most to increase the flow of traffic, but that's just me.

And just to back up Chingy...

il·lu·sion

iˈlo͞oZHən/ noun

1. a thing that is or is likely to be wrongly perceived or interpreted by the senses.
"the illusion makes parallel lines seem to diverge by placing them on a zigzag-striped background"

The arrows are being incorrectly perceived. Why they are being perceived that way is moot.

@Quboid

It doesn't take much variance in speed to cause annoyance in other drivers, if this device tells you to slow down even 5km/h (sorry I don't do miles), you're going to be breaking the flow of traffic and people *will* overtake you.

People drive up to and often slightly over the speed limit, you can say whatever you want about what people *should* be doing but it's not reality, so it's moot.

If this doesn't take other drivers in to consideration, the entire thing is pointless other than the light countdown timer, which is handy but could also cause irresponsible driving ("If I speed up now, I'm gonna make it, this thing is switching in 5 seconds!").

What else is it telling you? Start slowing down now but oh wait, 5 cars just took position in front of you...guess the distance I calculated to the traffic light just then is no longer useful, you better slow down another 10km/h, oh hell just look in front of you and slow down to meet traffic conditions.

Ok thanks computer!

There is also an expectation that technology works and it is entirely valid, yes people should use common sense but this doesn't excuse your product for not working, this is silly. The purpose of technology is to work so transparently, you are doing less thinking so you can focus on more important things, like sudden high impact situations that require heroic reaction times.

Anyway, I don't think this is bad tech, I think it is not particularly useful in today's environment and is just an odd stepping stone to proper smart cars. I think the gradual progression to smart cars is the fault of an uneducated public who have unfounded hate in the concept of letting go of driving to a computer.

I just want smart cars every where for everyone, so we can have safe and effective roads.

Existing infrastructure. All those oil refineries, transportation, just for starters. People make money from every level of production from drilling to selling the finished products. Then we have the dirty secret around everything we do: if it does not produce waste, it's not profitable. Fusion will render a lot of investments moot. Investments that are tied to finances, the structures are not free, they cost money to build and so they are worth something. Even thou everyone knows that free energy is our only hope, it's a death sentence to the big oil. Even if they are controlling it; the unit price of electricity will drop and EVERYONE in the chain loses money. Except the end user. Not even if we double or triple or 20 times exceed current energy consumption, it's gonna make less money. Or so they think, the world is full of business models that really does not work anymore.

I just to think "it'll get better, someday". It just have to. But Mr Fusion is not ready in 2015, that's more than sure, it's fixed to be so. And there is no conspiracy here, just follow the money where it goes and for 100% sure it ain't flowing towards free energy. No one is keeping secret to fusion locked away somewhere, if it works, they will start to use it. But they sure can delay the progress long enough for those Greenspan mates to die wealthy..

If there is a God, a truly benevolent God who has given us free will to do with as we wish and would never interfere, then that universe is identical to one where he does not exist.

What I find most surprising here isn't that they have their faith in the face of reality, but rather that they put their beliefs into the science they seem to know so little about. 'Does that mean god is an animal?' is a great example. No.. the entire idea is moot because god does not exist in the first place. 'God hasn't been heard of since the big bang in science' is another.. no god isn't in the equation in the first place.

It's a clear, fundamental misunderstanding of what science is, stemming clearly from an upbringing that ignored anything science related. I wouldn't doubt that many of these people went to schools were biology either isn't taught or is dramatically down played.

Dogs don't feel "guilt". That's human anthropomorphism.

Dogs DO however, feel "expectation of punishment". They live in the now. The "guilt" people attribute to them is explained by the owner's actions and behaviour.

Unless you catch them in the act, you're just abusing the dog. It knows not what you're angry about.

They can notice the ripped pillow and go OMFG!!! A RIPPED PILLOW!!! OWNER IS GONNA SHIT ON ME!!! The fact they did it is moot to them, the pillow wasn't ripped, then it was. You have to catch them ripping it or the lesson is lost.

The first hit is directly on the screen, yet it doesn't break the glass in any way.

Editing. He only destroyed a dead phone.

Your argument is moot.

Now factor in all the people in early life going without quality healthcare/dental and the chronic conditions it might lead to later in life that will eventually bite the taxpayer in the ass...

That's the part that never breaks the surface of this debate, keeping your populace healthy (and happy) pays itself back in a more healthy mid-late age person, capable of staying in the workforce (and ergo generating tax revenue) longer, self funding retirement as opposed to "leeching" off the system, less sick day absenteeism (or alternately, sick workers showing up, working below par and infecting co-workers) etc.

That's not socialism, that's smart.

I'd be amazed if no one ever actually quantified this as a cost/benefit analysis, but it wouldn't play well so I guess the point is moot.

And yeah, the state should regulate the medical and pharmaceutical industries against ludicrous profit taking from the most vulnerable. The current state of play in the US seems more akin to a mafia extortion racket than a service dedicated to maintaining and enriching the health of it's clientele...

The advantages I've heard cited are the comfort of familiar surroundings for the mother, the experience is more personal and less "clinical" and various others that all seem to focus on the experience of the birth itself rather than the outcome of a healthy mother and child.

So yeah, I disagree with those who advocate home birth. While I'm open to hearing more arguments in favour of it, and I'm certain there are others that I am unaware of, IMHO the primary concern is the chief advantage of a hospital birth: a better chance of a safe delivery for mother and baby.

That said, I neither have nor plan to have kids, so my opinion on the subject is pretty much moot.

The comparison isn't that sperm = abortion, but rather that sperm is just alive as a fertilized egg. So if an egg is 'life' that must be protected, than so is the jizz you just shot in a sock.

But that point is moot when you consider that if a fertilized egg is a human, and destroying that egg is murder.. then all sexually active women are mass murderers because as many as 65% of fertilized eggs never attach to the uterus and are thus flushed out by the menstrual cycle.

It does? Since when does PS4 require an always-listening device to play any of its games?

It doesn't? And navigating most of the U.I. is damn near impossible without that piece of equipment on Xb1? well, shit. Guess it's a good thing people are defending a useless trinket that should never have been the focus of a console then.

Seriously, go ahead and back up whatever console you prefer, but Xbox One was supposed to be online-only, and always have a kinect, and a lot of the aspects of the console show it. In a battle where graphics are now essentially moot (Both consoles are beefy enough that they really don't matter anymore)
the comparisons fall to the features they can provide.

Is walking into a room and saying "Xbox on" and having it turn on your stuff cool? Yeah. it is. Is that worth an extra 100 bucks? not to me, it's not.

When it comes down to a fair fight, Batman loses against anyone that doesn't just fight hand to hand and/or has a healing factor / super strength. But that's not what Batman's true power is. These idiot fanboys and their value system based on Street Fighter / Mortal Kombat bullshit. 3, 2, 1 -- Fight!

No, no, no, humans: His true strength delves into something which can only be whittled down via the collapse of Earth itself: Economic superiority. But even then, he's the Ritchie Rich of superheoes and would likely be able to rebuild his wealth on another planet.

All Batman needs to do is acquire an object of immense power and then employ it against whoever it is he's up against. He doesn't even need to fight but chooses to fight. If he's fighting Superman, obtain kryptonite -- or hell, gain access to the Siege Perilous and then just destroy the mind of whatever passes through it. He's friggin' Bruce Wayne and has a vast web of connections, bolstered by his income, which can get him ANYTHING.

Anyway. There are cosmic entities which have a greater pull of resources than Batman so let's match Batman's economic superiority (he's basically an army) against an actual threat backed by near infinite resources, such as the Negative Zone's Annihilus, Titan's Thanos, a time traveler like Kang the Conqueror, or the hive mind of the Phalanx.

Hell, I'd love to see Batman hack Galactus' base of operations and then invade and divert cosmic consonance.

But this pussy footing Batman VERSUS Deadpool is moot. Batman VERSUS anyone in a normal match up is stupid. Elevate your understanding.

Yes, he does. As long as he faithfully executes the law.

But that is moot. There is absolutely no reason why POTUS/admin thinks the individual mandate should be delayed for a year. There is no reason.

Yes, there is a reason why republicans want it delayed, because they not only win this fight, they also remove a major revenue stream for ACA and then put the mandate back in play during the election.

Why would republicans want this to happen during an election?

Because bad-faith wedge issues is all they have. They are purposefully denying people, including kids and low-income citizens, access to affordable health care. They are 10000000% willing to let millions suffer for them to score political points in 2014.

This is why the GOP needs to cripple the baggers, and then the entire republican party should jump off a fucking cliff. This country has moved decades beyond their nonsense. The corporate Democrats are as far of a right-wing group as any modern country needs.

We can afford to be the way we are because we exploited (still do) the fuck out of third world nations. Exploited = people's lives and suffering. At best we can all claim ignorance for our economic drunk driving homicide but the point is moot.

The greater point is; put us through a real recession and see where this humanity lies. No, not this fake crap we went through to enrich the rich with unemployment and trading. I mean where people can't buy food or gas. Where government programs don't exist. I mean where children are massively starving in the street.

I am highly disenchanted that this is the best we have come to because we can afford it. Some sorry shit we have created with billions in abundance. I believe in Marx's ideas of capitalism exploitation (Though hold no faith in his communist beliefs,) Webber's views on logical thoughts for the dollar and how it will fuck us over, and Carlin's views on how shitty we are--at our greatest pinnacle.