If they are here Illegally then they ARE Illegal Immigrants.

If they are afraid of their home they can stop in many other places even Mexico.

Also anyone who can walk a thousand miles or so don't need to be in America to make a life for themself.


https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1225#b

8 U.S. Code § 1225
reworked under Obama .. His administration mandated all Illegal aliens no to be referred as aliens.

Besides this is CNN call them illegal. Fake news getting it right once in a while.

The bit about the sunglasses was very surprising. Looks like my plan to avoid facial recognition needs some rework :-)

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Jeez, Ant - it's only been a year and two months ... so impatient. The comment embedding system is a little fragile - and a remnant from an earlier version of the Sift - We would probably need to rework lot's of bits to make this work correctly. We follow the motto, "if it's just a little broke, don't fix it" ;-)

The joke to Seinfeld at 6:50 or so (and continued later) is very much a reworking of one that Norm did in Dirty Work: (about 1:30 for the specific joke)

that company has seriously reworked its image in the last decade.

Fun facts:
1: That thing gave me nightmares when I first saw it as a kid.
2: those special effects have NOT aged well.
3: they quietly dropped the parasite storyline. It was apparently going to be the big bad in later episodes, but they were later reworked as the Borg.

@enoch

Here's the deal, my friend.

The internet does not come with a tone of voice. You might consider that the way you read my words are not the way they are said in my head (cue to your cafe analogy.)

And I can't read tone of voice either. I supply it. And I have bodily reactions to you, too, my friend.

We both do this because both of us are a bit difficult, and both of us are supplying tone of voice that makes the words on the page different.

I'm not going to apologize for what I wrote. I meant what I said. Every word. And there is nothing wrong with what I wrote. You didn't like it for your own reasons, but there is nothing intrinsically wrong with anything I said.

I will say that you have supplied a context to gorillaman that he could have supplied himself with the sarcasm button. He didn't do that. So was he kidding? I don't know.

You assume that anyone who reads his post has the extensive knowledge of his motives and personality. Newcomers won't. And here is an embarrassing admission -- although I too have been on this site for ten years, I don't have a sense of who gorillaman is. Sorry, gorillaman. I just haven't been paying attention to you. This is a character flaw on my part, also, since you seem intent on listing my flaws. I am pretty much in my head, and until there have been repeated interactions, I don't really take in people. I am selfish that way.

About the Homeland Security remark. Gorillaman was given the benefit of the doubt for his motives, he was given context. I assumed that I would be accorded the same gift.

So let me give context.

I am repulsed by the term Homeland Security. I was repulsed the first time I heard it, I am repulsed every time I hear it.

So when I take on racism, homophobia, sexism, xenophoabia, or any garden variety hatred, I invoke Homeland Security to protect us from what is the real threat. Not scary brown skinned people. But the people amongst us who truly are a threat to our way of life.

My mistake -- and it was a mistake -- was to assume that people get the connection. Because of context. Which of course isn't good enough.

I like my jab at the concept of Homeland Security. But it obviously isn't working. I'll have to rework it, make it clear. give it context.

Because I agree with you there, my friend. Homeland Security evokes the Third Reich and it turns my stomach. Every time.

this looks like a reworked version of hang em high starring clint eastwood.

You film Alan Rickman's face while Ellis gives his 'guns...pens...what's the difference' speech offscreen. He gives the 'Hans...Bubby' line. It throws Rickman off for a moment and makes his reaction that little more genuine.

Then you film Ellis giving the speech. Probably after it has been tidied up and reworked a little bit.

Then you edit them together.

If there's irrefutable evidence that a suspect is guilty, a trial is an utter waste of time and taxpayer money. Executions themselves don't have to be expensive either. Get rid of death row, get rid of fancy lethal injections. Just break the criminal's neck and dump him in a hole or incinerate him. That would be far, far cheaper than providing him with food, shelter, medical care, etc, for the duration of his sentence.

The reliability of our judiciary system is another matter entirely and separate from the matter of punishment. It's definitely flawed and would need to be reworked before enacting any of the changes I've proposed.

I think some of the powers should be reworked/respecced, and the site needs more and better documentation.
I think many powers should be available earlier, like VoodooV says.

@jonny - I'm pretty much with you. These same "dilemmas" were presented to me in a college class (Psych? Philo?) and I objected to the 2nd one on the basis that I can't imagine a bystander fat enough to reliably stop a train, and if they were I wouldn't be able to push them off a ledge.

The TA that was teaching the class said that the idea is to just treat it like a Newtonian Physics problem (ie., everything is a frictionless sphere or make all assumptions to reduce complexity wherever possible). In the scenario, just accept that you KNOW that you are capable of pushing the dude off, that you KNOW he will stop the train, and that you KNOW that you have insufficient mass/strength to jump off yourself and stop the train.

I get how that limits the variables and therefore draws a more concrete difference between various answers to the situation, but to me it also limits the interest I have in the question. My brain doesn't work that way, my problem solving center engages automatically and tries to find pitfalls and assign success rates rather than just "assume this will work".

I think I'd rather see the situations / dilemmas reworked to have a more realistic expectation of success. Maybe something like a rampaging lion on the loose, and you can swing a door currently blocking a room with 1 person inside to instead block a room with 5 people inside (situation 1); or you are above a hallway with a lion running towards 5 people and have an opportunity to push somebody into the lion's path which would give the 5 people enough time to run out of the hall and lock a door (situation 2). I think my "hungry lion" dilemmas have fewer physics pitfalls than the traditional train dilemmas.

You can afford...being the prime question here.
Most cars these days (read: not performance cars) are made on the cheap.
Forged connecting rods, and billet valves / cam shafts / high tensile head bolts are not cheap, therfore they dont go into the vast majority of modern engines.

Putting a turbo on your engine alone would vastly increase compression ratios, stressing just about every internal part in the car. The poverty pack econo-cars can not handle any more than about 4-6lb's of boost before things start heating up, warping, and shaking themselves apart violently.

Cost to get things up to spec?

erm....well a good set of H beam forged con-rods can cost you anywhere from 600 upwards (generally upwards...a lot upwards), and thats just the part, not including installation. Getting the valves reworked, vavle springs, cam shaft....thats ~2k+ if youre doing it on the cheap.

Then you need an intercooler to take the heat out of the intake air (as the turbo compresses intake air, and therfore heats it up) so as to keep the economy levels up....and piping to go with it, your looking at another 1k at least.

Then you need an ECU mod, piggy back if you can get away with it, around the 1k figure, otherwise a full standalone can cost upwards of 1.5k.

Then you need to program and tune, upwards again of 1.5k.

To turbo a non-turbo economy engine povery-pack car, you are looking at LEAST 5k+, and thats doing it on mega budget, you wont get any reliability or safety out of it.

Before you even get to put the turbo on, which itself is about 300-1.5k depending on what turbine you purchase, you also need a turbo manifold to redirect all of the exhaust gas into a turbo, and have an outlet pipe that allows waste-gate dumps into your exhaust. So you also need to get your cat-back system redone too, which is about 700-1500 to get it done right.

Doing it right? Start counting from 10k....and keep going.

Doing it right would be to upgrade the breaks (bigger discs, bigger calipers, bigger master cylinder), the suspension (coilovers), and doing some serious chassis strengthening to take the increased loads (front/rear sway bar upgrades, front/rear strut tower bars etc..)

Its not cheap unfortunately

I dunno. I believe they had budget issues during filming, some big action scenes had to be cut and things reworked. I don't think it had the smoothest filming schedule anyway...

... and this trailer is really rather bland I thought. Nothing enticing.

The rules for this should have required at least a token check of the inner surface of the tire. Unless you know you got snakebit (puncture caused by hitting a curb with underinflated tires), changing a flat without inspecting the inner surface is a waste of time and tubes.

There should also be a patch kit time trial. I can do it in under 10 mins in real conditions, and I'm sure others can do it in under 5.>> ^Tojja:

- 30 seconds spent identifying/removing source of puncture (glass/wire/thorn) saves many minutes of rework when you get another puncture a minute later from the bastard wire strand you didnt look hard enough for