ydoaPs

I'd guess that the paperclip would melt and create an open before that happens.

Photons cannot die, because they were never alive.

[13:19] <bee> Sylar I think everyone is dead [13:23] * dave is now known as dave|away [13:23] * Sylar stabs UC just to make sure [13:25] <bee> Yeah... I guess he is.. :/ [13:25] * bee throws a party

Because the loyalists to the prior administration would find that to be illegitimate?

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." I shouldn't need to name the source for that quote.

I'm fairly certain reflectors are mandatory here. Don't most bikes come with reflectors?

I treat stop signs and red lights as stop signs and red lights respectively.

If you have two particles A and B, both A and B have a certain uncertainty in position. Would there then not be uncertainty for the distance between A and B?

There's an uncertainty relationship involving position. Is there one for the spacetime metric? If so, what is it?

Where is the being capable of intent who is the causal agent inducing magnetism? Until such a being is shown to exist, 'why?' is indeed a silly question.

Why would a cyclist stand in the middle of a road?

Yes, it is. Why is a question about the intent of a causal being. If there is no causal being involved, then why is an invalid question. Asking why in such cases is thus silly. How, on the other hand, is a very good question to ask.

If there is room to ride on the right and allow cars to safely pass, then it is indeed polite to keep right. However, in many areas, there's no such room. It's even somewhat common for one lane roads to become effectively a one way(at a time) road due to cars parking on the streets. While you may feel like a jerk taking your rightful amount of road, it is actually less safe to ride on the side. It's one of those counterintuitive things similar to how you're more likely to get hit by a motorist if you wear a helmet.

I think the internet itself might help keep the power in the people. "While the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth."-V for Vendetta The internet provides a platform for the words that change nations. It provides a place for the people to organize. It provides information for the people. While before the internet these people only had rumors of what free democratic life was like, now they have direct access to the free people they aspire to be like. The people are crying out for freedom and democracy-the net might just help them keep it.

Today, I was once again reminded that most people don't actually know all the required information to have a driver's license. This time, it was because a motorist almost ran me off the road and then honked at me like I was a jerk. Ran you off the road; what were you doing riding your bike in the road? Good(actually bad, since you're supposed to know this to get a license) question! Most states require adult cyclists to operate bicycles using what is called vehicular cycling. That basically means you drive your bicycle exactly like you would a car: drive on the correct side of the street, obey all traffic signs/lights, use proper signaling, use a headlight at night, and give proper right of way. But bikes don't have break lights or turn signals; how are you supposed to signal us? There are commonly accepted hand signals(that oddly enough should be in your state's driver manual) for cyclists that cyclists should use and motorists should know: Left turn: left arm straight out parallel to the road. Right turn: left arm bent at a right angle at the elbow with the forearm perpendicular to the road and pointing upward or right arm straight out parallel to the road. Braking/stopping: left arm bent at a right angle at the elbow with the forearm perpendicular to the road and pointing downward.

Ok, I'll post like FOX then. PANGLOSS AND THOSE EVIL MUSLIMS ARE TRYING TO TAKE OVER THE WORLD!!!!!!!!! Yet, as has been shown to you multiple times by multiple people, you've done no such thing.

It's not reading between the lines at all. You attributed the numbers of one demographic to a potentially different demographic. That is completely unaffected by whether or not you asked a question afterward.

I say that equivocation is a logical fallacy. At least the 'poverty line' gives us a standard of measure. IF we define 'poor' as those below the poverty line, then tax records do in fact give us an indication of the number of poor people in the US. However, as you said previously, no such definition is given by your source. As such, your swapping the demographic of those below the defined poverty line with the undefined 'poor' category as the demographic monitored by the statistics is equivocation.

Yes, you did. Phrasing the text as a question bears not on the fact that you equate the 'poor' of the statistics with those below the poverty line-especially since the question is in the second sentence. Two wrongs make a right? And what about the use of completely irrelevant(you still have both A/C and child dietary consumption which are representative of the US housing market and the US public school system respectively) statistics out of context to try to bolster your point? What numbers say that? You've not shown them. Now, let's try to get some sort of judgement from the numbers you did provide. Now, let's throw out the completely irrelevant ones. From this we can see that: 57% of all "poor" either rent or are homeless. >25% of all "poor" own no car at all. 97% have a color television(a one time purchase that is often inexpensive) 89% have a microwave oven. 6% are "overcrowded". 11% do not have enough to eat even with government programs. In America, most people("poor" or not) have no access at all to public transportation, so, unless you happen to live near your place of work, you need some form of transportation. That, some would argue, would make transportation something that is vital. Yet, your statistics show that this 'poor' category is severely lacking such transportation ability. Those that do have this arguably needed transportation are then burdened with the ongoing costs(gasoline, insurance, and maybe even payment for the vehicle itself). No information was given as to whether the vehicles that are owned by this said population group are new, used, owned, leased, in good condition, or completely unreliable. As such, our search for QoL information in this area cannot yield results with a high level of accuracy. No information is given about the television other than that they are color televisions. We do know that televisions are relatively inexpensive one time purchases, so their impact on the economic impact is limited. It is also known that televisions are available inexpensively at thrift stores, yard sales, and Goodwill. As with the transportation issue above, the lack of information prevents us from making an honest assessment of whatever limited economic impact it may have. There is no information given about the quality of the rental property(or lack thereof) of the 57% of this demographic which do not own a home. Is it a penthouse, an efficiency owned by a slumlord, or a cardboard box below a freeway overpass? We simply do not know. We are also missing any data about the status of the mortgages of the minority in this demographic that do own their living quarters. As with the transportation issue and the television issue above, we also have no information at all as to whether or not the item in question was obtained prior to becoming part of of said demographic. Conspicuously missing from the cited statistics is the level of debt of those in this demographic.

Then why do you equate the two in your sig? No, it's not. I mean that they're without ANY context to make any sort of point from them.

I wonder if the method of preparation effects the number. In my book, the only proper way to prepare a marshmallow is to set it ablaze and peel off the charred skin.

Your source does not indicate that 'poor' was taken to be those below the poverty line. Now, the 'poverty line' is something we can actually analyze. We can do calculations to get an idea of the quality of life of people at and below the line. The statistics you cited cannot be used to make valid judgements as they are completely without context and many of them are irrelevant or directly contradict the implications you are trying to make. Lying with statistics is always invalid. Especially when your quoted statistics don't even support your position.

One wonders why it would be in your signature at all since you can't really draw much of any implication on quality of living out of the statistics. At least you're not passing legislation based on lies and (heavily edited) video tape.

Why wouldn't vegetarians eat them? Aren't they like 5% sugar and 95% air?

How could we fix that, but still have post-secondary education more available to all citizens?