EPTAsk and answer stupid questions here! - Page 472
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Dark_Chill
Canada3353 Posts
| ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On July 16 2016 02:08 Dark_Chill wrote: I don't see how those are plus-sized, in any way. I don't really pay attention to fashion and stuff, but wouldn't the "normal" market just have no one in it if the above are plus-sized? Hence the problem with using "plus sized" as a terminology. Essentially these women are considered too big for "normal" modeling, hence why they have to be labeled as plus sized. There are many plus sized models much bigger than these, but there's a reason the term is problematic. | ||
|
Epishade
United States2267 Posts
| ||
|
xM(Z
Romania5299 Posts
just confess already | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States46243 Posts
On July 19 2016 03:05 Epishade wrote: If I bring my girlfriend with me while we're scuba diving and she's on her period, will we get eaten by sharks? That depends. Can you swim faster than her? | ||
|
Karis Vas Ryaar
United States4396 Posts
| ||
KwarK
United States44204 Posts
On July 19 2016 03:58 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote: Is it legal to record a phone call you have with someone? Varies by state. There are 1 party consent states and 2 party consent states. | ||
|
Karis Vas Ryaar
United States4396 Posts
On July 19 2016 04:00 KwarK wrote: Varies by state. There are 1 party consent states and 2 party consent states. what if your in two different states?or what if you record it in one state then move to a different state? | ||
|
Sent.
Poland9324 Posts
| ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
ThomasjServo
15244 Posts
| ||
|
Naracs_Duc
746 Posts
You can record someone, use it for evidence, they get sued/charged afterwards for illegally recording them. If you were a cop, then the evidence (was) dismissible if acquired illegally. But if you're a citizen, anything you have is fair game if provided to authorities. | ||
|
Evotroid
Hungary176 Posts
On July 19 2016 18:19 xM(Z wrote: you have a fail hypothetical. if you have nukes to "completely obliterate the other block" and "your civilization, spanning half the globe, will be utterly destroyed" it means that, by the logic of how nukes work, you'll destroy the whole globe. so, face with total extinction you also fire your nukes because why would you leave your nukes as legacy to whatever monkey comes next?. Edit: but even if magic is real and your exact scenario happens, you still launch your counterstrike. Care to elaborate on the bolded part? what logic of how the nukes work mandates that you can only destroy all of human civilization with them, and not only say the american continents worth of civilization? Obviously, there will be adverse effects for the entire world, especially with globalism and what not, but it's not like there is some quirky physics that automatically makes the whole planet automatically uninhabitable. How much nuking before the end? Where can I find some kind of study about this? Especially about the "only nuke on participant" scenario. (not the sponsored and published by yx hippie organization kind) | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Simberto
Germany11941 Posts
On July 19 2016 23:13 JimmiC wrote: I believe the prevailing wisdom is that if one person fires a nuke then another will fire theirs and so on and so forth. Basically everywhere is allied with someone who has nukes so it would be hard to fire one and not have some one retaliate. As for a study on how many it would take for global annihilation, I have not read one but it would be interesting. Yes, but the scenario is not the one talked about there. The question there was originally: There are two blocks, both of which have the nuclear capacity to annihilate the other. You see the other guy launching. There is nothing to stop the missiles. You are now dead, and your civilisation destroyed. Do you launch yours to also destroy the other guy? Not talking about the pregame, where you want to make the other guy not launch with the threat of also annihilating them. The situation is done. The missiles have been launched. Do you destroy the remaining half of humanity out of revenge, or do you not do that and give humanity a chance, even if it is the people that destroyed and murdered you. Edit: And now the question is "Even if you don't launch, are the nukes the other guy used to destroy you enough to also destroy their civilization through effects like global radiation and nuclear winter?" | ||
|
ThomasjServo
15244 Posts
| ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
xM(Z
Romania5299 Posts
On July 19 2016 23:26 Simberto wrote: Yes, but the scenario is not the one talked about there. The question there was originally: There are two blocks, both of which have the nuclear capacity to annihilate the other. You see the other guy launching. There is nothing to stop the missiles. You are now dead, and your civilisation destroyed. Do you launch yours to also destroy the other guy? Not talking about the pregame, where you want to make the other guy not launch with the threat of also annihilating them. The situation is done. The missiles have been launched. Do you destroy the remaining half of humanity out of revenge, or do you not do that and give humanity a chance, even if it is the people that destroyed and murdered you. Edit: And now the question is "Even if you don't launch, are the nukes the other guy used to destroy you enough to also destroy their civilization through effects like global radiation and nuclear winter?" we assume the blocks are somewhat evenly matched - territorial spread, number of inhabitants, tech ... etc. - do they have bunkers?; to destroy those you'd need a second and maybe third nuclear strike. (it complicates things to much so it's better they don't exist). - define "destroyed civilization" and "annihilation". does it mean 99.9% of people have to be killed?(i left a 0.1% for possible mutant superhero shenanigans). based on that definition you start calculating: - find out the surface you need to cover with nukes. - the range in which a nuke has a 99% mortality rate; compensate for obstacles. - realize you'd need bazillion of mega-tonnes; wave goodbye to earth. if by "destroyed civilization+annihilation" one means merely demoralizing your opponent with some half assed genocide, then there's no point in talking. | ||
|
ThomasjServo
15244 Posts
On July 20 2016 00:09 JimmiC wrote: He will get whatever punishment there is for driving with a expired license as well as whatever punishment there is for whatever fault it is. The judge will also likely be less lenient on the second offense based on the first. The owner of the cars insurance will try to claim that they are not responsible and pay out your wife then probably sue asshat for the money. I like the sound of that, feel a bit sorry for the policy holder, but not so sorry. | ||
| ||
