I have 127 browser tabs open.
Inevitably it will crash and all those important tabs full of deep insights you meant to look at again will be lost to history.
I had to force quit my browser a few minutes ago and all my tabs are still there.
But a time will come when the browser says nah.
I have 127 browser tabs open.
Inevitably it will crash and all those important tabs full of deep insights you meant to look at again will be lost to history. Or maybe you’re the kind of horrible person who opens new tabs for no reason.
As a college student I fear that I could get killed in a university shooting any day now.
You’re far more likely to choke to death or fall down the stairs or have a cerebral hemorrhage.
Welcome back!
Lol, this.
…
We need to ban brains I think.
🤕
About time someone propose a common sense solution.
Prime number ages are superior until further notice.
As a college student I fear that I could get killed in a university shooting any day now.
You’re far more likely to choke to death or fall down the stairs or have a cerebral hemorrhage.
Cold comfort.
True. Any time I’m on a plane I have a small nagging fear it will crash. Facts about car accidents don’t help much. Nor does my driving improve. The feeling of powerlessness is what generates a lot of the fear. Right now I have something in my life that I’m powerless to ensure will turn out well. Easy to let the worst possibility to take over your thoughts, even if unlikely. But that is a bit like going out everyday afraid you will be hit by a bus. Sure, that’s possible, but does no good to obsess over.
It’s racist if you think it isn’t.
I usually think things aren’t racist, so I must be getting better.
We won’t truly have gender equality until there are also 328 Human Boy People Named “Abcde” in the United States.
Indeed. And is it racist to think this discussion might be racist?
We might be in the age of Aquarius.
I don’t expect anyone targeted by them can easily ignore them. Good thing that anyone with half a brain rejects that nonsense.
I ignore the conspiracy nut bars. They don’t deserve attention.
It’s almost like this thread isn’t fun
I love the sarcasm!
You guys can’t even read how am I supposed to fight? It’s the green robot madness all over again.
I said: I felt like Daisy’s performance was weak compared to her performance in other movies.
Do you mean TFA, Murder on the Orient Express, and Peter Rabbit? I only saw her in the first. I didn’t know she was in the second, but will see at some point. The third is an abomination I shall not see.
I bet no one will get mine…
Almost impossible to guess…
I find it very easy to guess.
But I won’t.
It’s almost like I was being sarcastic.
It’s almost like I was being sarcastic too 😉
I bet no one will get mine…
Almost impossible to guess…
I find it very easy to guess.
But I won’t.
I felt like Daisy’s performance was very weak compared to her other performances.
What other performances?
Rey is maybe the most likable character but they fail at developing her during the 2 movies. I thought Daisy’s performance was good, but the story didn’t do her many favors.
Don’t know if people wander into here much (I don’t) but seems the most appropriate place. Have you bought TLJ figures - if so which ones?
I haven’t bought figures since…forever. On a whim some number of years back I bought a nice looking Wicket figure. The collecting value definitely isn’t there for me. The new toys seem particularly uninspired to me, but curious if others here like them and why.
Gracias, mis amigos.
The debate that was had on gun control in this thread a few days ago was a complete farce. Apologies in advance for my use of the passive voice and for writing a clumsy sentence.
Could have been worse.
I don’t know. But if they the eight judges that voted against hearing the case, thought the law in question was unconstitutional, I don’t know why they wouldn’t want to hear the case.
Neither does Thomas, but like CatBus says, Thomas isn’t so demure as other Justices. We can only speculate, but there could be procedural issues in this case that caused Justices to feel it improper to take on. Sometimes they wait for a case that they think presents better facts for a decision. Sometimes the Court waits for several Circuit Courts to weigh in on a matter before it takes up a case. My speculation is that the Justices want to give the legal issues more time to develop. We lasted 200+ years without the Court declaring there to be an individual right to bear arms, let alone enforceable against the states - so what’s a few more years to suss out the details? Thomas’s dissent suggests that this is at least part of the divide.
Justice Thomas said: We have not heard argument in a Second Amendment case for nearly eight years…And we have not clarified the standard for assessing Second Amendment claims for almost 10. Meanwhile, in this Term alone, we have granted review in at least five cases involving the First Amendment and four cases involving the Fourth Amendment — even though our jurisprudence is much more developed for those rights.
Thomas is eager to put the 2nd Amendment on equal footing with other rights that have been developed in law over a much longer time. Thomas also has a very different view of how the Court should decide cases impacting constitutional rights than most Justices, so that plays into this also.
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-court-guns-20180220-story.html
The Supreme Court made clear again Tuesday that the government has broad power to restrict and regulate firearms, dismissing a 2nd Amendment challenge to California’s 10-day waiting period for new gun purchases.
While the court has ruled that the 2nd Amendment protects the right of law-abiding citizens to own guns, the justices have repeatedly refused to go further by blocking strict gun regulations, including state bans on the sale of semi-automatic weapons or limits on who can carry a weapon in public.
Dissenting alone, Justice Clarence Thomas said “the 2nd Amendment is a disfavored right in this court.”
In 2008 and 2010, the high court struck down ordinances in Washington, D.C., and Chicago that prohibited the private possession of handguns as violations of 2nd Amendment. Americans have a right to have guns at home for self-defense, the court said in 5-4 decisions.
But since then, the justices have turned down gun rights advocates who have sued to challenge gun regulations based on the 2nd Amendment.
The first sentence isn’t correct because the Court only declined to hear the case, and the Justices can have all kinds of reasons beyond the merits. I don’t think the 8 other Justices would vote to uphold the law if they decided to hear the case. But this is a good example of the leeway states have had (so far) in passing gun control laws.
Warb may still be OP but I don’t like that his sigh has been nerfed.
After not playing chess for many years, I recently played against myself on a set at a coffee place. Coffee places tend to have chessboards laying around. I played to a draw, but I’ve never been very good.
Thanks for keeping the jokes Clean.
I’m shooting for my Halo.
Halo shot first.
I don’t touch any of that horrid stuff either, including nasty wicked tricksy coffee.
I drink unsweetened iced tea.
🤔 You said Red Bull…
I say a lot of things.
“lol”
True.
I don’t touch any of that horrid stuff either, including nasty wicked tricksy coffee.
I drink unsweetened iced tea.
🤔 You said Red Bull…
Once you start down the dark path, adding cream and sugar, forever will it dominate your destiny. Consume it I will.
I never touch that horrid stuff. In related news, “Frink” autocorrects to “Drink.” As in “Drink it all.”
Coffee is my mistress.