...but I'm not re-bookmarking it.
It was C-ville Movies.
I haven't gone to see a movie in a theater since forever.
It's a waste of money and time.
Box office figures only reflect how successful the marketing was, not the overall public's opinion of a movie. When we can get a refund when a movie sucks (i.e. Doom), maybe I'll go back to a theater. Wait, that'll never happen. So, no. Never seeing another movie in a theater ever again unless someone else pays for my admission or I manage to get in for free.
Or, you know, if Hollywood gets some goddamn original content. I'm sick and tired of all these remakes of old movies, comic book movies, video game movies, anime live action adaptations, etc. The MPAA wonders why the industry isn't making as much money, and they take the easy way out and blame piracy. If they produced content worth paying for, maybe people would pay for it. People pirate the shit because they charge too damn much for it.
Also, that's something that irks me (and a few friends of mine). How we're expected to pay for the same thing multiple times. An example: Say you see a movie in theaters. You pay for that. You want to watch it again, but it's not in theaters anymore. You're supposed to buy the DVD (a minimum $30 for most movies). You can catch it on a movie channel on TV, but you have to pay for that too (cable bill). Srsly what the fuck.
I've graduated (maybe not the best word for it) to actually saying "srsly" out loud instead of "seriously". The word "has" makes occasional appearances in my speech where I should really be using the word "have". Fuck the internet.
Someone released a fake K-On! episode 5 that's like 6 minutes long, has ass sound quality, and is dubbed over in english with random stuff. They even copied CoalGuys' opening "karaoke", which I place in quotes because it's hilariously scene-timed, doesn't have any moon runes or romaji, and the subs move around from scene to scene. Doesn't really matter anyway, I've got the ED single.
CAINE had the pre-party party for CAINE house earlier tonight. The 5 of them actually living in the house got the keys and began cleaning it up. The lease goes into effect today, and we're having a party tonight.
Dynasty Warriors Gundam is fun. It takes the classic Dynasty Warriors "place one or two people in an area, give them weapons, and make them kill hordes of people" formula and applies Gundam to it, which works quite well. We were playing it (well, Dynasty Warriors Gundam 2 to be exact) for most of the pre-party party. It's a great "pass the controllers around the room" game since the controls are pretty simple and the gameplay is easy to get into.
Nothing's happening on the internet right now. I'd go to sleep (and I haven't gotten a lot of sleep the last few nights, so I'm in dire need of a lot of uninterrupted sleep), but I've only been awake 14 hours. Well, I guess that's good enough.
おやすみなさい
Friday, May 1, 2009
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Another thing that pisses me off
Firefox 3's location bar. I don't mind the one click bookmark thing, that's actually useful. But the so-called "smart" feature that searches through your bookmarks and history instead of just matching the beginning of previously typed URLs like in Firefox 2? GTFO.
I don't need my bookmarks appearing. I have Fast Dial, so all my bookmarks are visible any time I open a new tab.
There are about:config options for this, some of which don't do shit. It tries to learn based on your usage, but when your desired usage is the old functionality and that takes forever to even approximate, why bother.
Where is the option to just go back to Fx2's location bar? Why not have the thing be configurable? More options = more customized user experience = users get exactly what they want out of the browser = good. They've suggested that someone make an extension to provide the old behavior, but this is the kind of thing that should be a browser preference.
There is one about:config option that does have a notable effect: browser.urlbar.matchBehavior. Set it to 3 for best results. While you're there, set browser.urlbar.matchOnlyTyped (strangely, no mozillazine entry for that preference) to true. The bookmark-related options found by entering places into the filter box look like they might change something, but after changing them to 0 (the recommended setting to prevent bookmarks from showing in the list) and restarting firefox, nothing's different, bookmarks still appear in the dropdown. This might be because my bookmarks end up in my history. Because I use my bookmarks. lol.
I don't know if this is just by design or if it's a quirk that could disappear, but disabling the history isn't exactly the same as setting it to clear it after 0 days. Setting it to 0 days basically makes the history session-only, which when you think about it is pretty neat.
My Firefox is highly configured for screen space and usability, and to not have the option to make the location bar work more to my liking is inexcusable. There are extensions to fix it, but they either do stuff I don't want or don't do enough, so I haven't installed any of them. Now that I think about it, I should do an updated Firefox Extensions post, since I've added a few, and maybe go into UI config and extension setup a bit more than I did before.
Also I still don't know what that one site was that I had in Fast Dial. I have the empty spot waiting for it, but I just can't remember what it was. I guess I didn't use it all that often, seeing as how I've remembered all 18 of the other sites I had in it. Maybe I should just fill that spot with the next site I bookmark. Maybe then I'll remember it.
I said I needed to go to sleep two hours ago. I think I'll go do that now.
I don't need my bookmarks appearing. I have Fast Dial, so all my bookmarks are visible any time I open a new tab.
There are about:config options for this, some of which don't do shit. It tries to learn based on your usage, but when your desired usage is the old functionality and that takes forever to even approximate, why bother.
Where is the option to just go back to Fx2's location bar? Why not have the thing be configurable? More options = more customized user experience = users get exactly what they want out of the browser = good. They've suggested that someone make an extension to provide the old behavior, but this is the kind of thing that should be a browser preference.
There is one about:config option that does have a notable effect: browser.urlbar.matchBehavior. Set it to 3 for best results. While you're there, set browser.urlbar.matchOnlyTyped (strangely, no mozillazine entry for that preference) to true. The bookmark-related options found by entering places into the filter box look like they might change something, but after changing them to 0 (the recommended setting to prevent bookmarks from showing in the list) and restarting firefox, nothing's different, bookmarks still appear in the dropdown. This might be because my bookmarks end up in my history. Because I use my bookmarks. lol.
I don't know if this is just by design or if it's a quirk that could disappear, but disabling the history isn't exactly the same as setting it to clear it after 0 days. Setting it to 0 days basically makes the history session-only, which when you think about it is pretty neat.
My Firefox is highly configured for screen space and usability, and to not have the option to make the location bar work more to my liking is inexcusable. There are extensions to fix it, but they either do stuff I don't want or don't do enough, so I haven't installed any of them. Now that I think about it, I should do an updated Firefox Extensions post, since I've added a few, and maybe go into UI config and extension setup a bit more than I did before.
Also I still don't know what that one site was that I had in Fast Dial. I have the empty spot waiting for it, but I just can't remember what it was. I guess I didn't use it all that often, seeing as how I've remembered all 18 of the other sites I had in it. Maybe I should just fill that spot with the next site I bookmark. Maybe then I'll remember it.
I said I needed to go to sleep two hours ago. I think I'll go do that now.
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Another thing that annoys me about food
Recalling that post a while back, I was reminded of something else I absolutely hate.
Food that's obviously packaged as a single-serving convenience food item, yet upon inspecting the nutrition facts lists itself as multiple servings.
The only reason I can think of that they do this is so they can get the nutrition fact numbers down and make you think their shit is more healthy than it really is. So basically they're manipulating their serving size to misinform the consumer about the contents of the package. No doubt another contributor to the glaring weight problem America collectively has.
Even Pop-Tarts are guilty of this. Pop-Tarts are packaged in boxes containing bags that have two Pop-Tarts in each, right? Take a good look at the nutrition facts. Serving size: 1 Pop-Tart. Even though they're sub-packaged in twos. Just so they could list it as having only 5g of fat per serving. Most people I know that eat Pop-Tarts (including myself) eat them two at a time.
Coca-cola got a lot better recently about stuff like this. Their 20oz bottles used to have a ridiculous 8oz serving size. They still list the 8oz serving size's nutrition facts for whatever reason (even though there's 2.5 servings at that size), but now they also list the proper 20oz serving size's nutrition facts.
That reminds me of another thing I hate that goes along with the whole "manipulation of nutrition facts to intentionally misinform the consumer": Trans Fat amounts. Just because the nutrition facts say Trans Fat: 0g, doesn't mean there's actually zero trans fat. The FDA has left open a loophole that allows them to list something as 0g when there's less than a certain amount (I think it's 0.5g). Inspect the ingredients list of something claiming 0g trans fat. If you see any partially hydrogenated oils, they're lying their asses off. Fully hydrogenated oils and oils that haven't been hydrogenated don't contribute any trans fat. The concept of zero inidcates that there is nothing, it shouldn't be allowed to be used when there actually is something.
Pop-Tarts are guilty of this too. Or at least the Cookies 'N Creme flavor is. The sprinkles have partially hydrogenated cottonseed and soybean oil. It's ambiguous as to whether or not the soybean oil is partially hydrogenated (whoever wrote their ingredients list needs to take a refresher course in Technical Writing), but I'd lean towards it being partially hydrogenated also. They do have a little symbol next to this that expands to "less than 0.5g trans fat per serving", but why the fuck don't they just fucking put that in the fucking nutritional facts instead of fucking making the reader hunt all over the fucking package for it?
A third (and final, for this post at least) thing: When the package imagery doesn't accurately reflect the serving size. Hillshire Farms lunch meats are very guilty of this (oh and whaddaya know, Pop-Tarts are too. Three for three!). Take a look at any one of their packages, they show a sandwich with a massive amount of meat on it. Take a look at the serving size, it's generally 3-5 slices. To get what's in the image, you generally have to use the entire package. Actually, I'm convinced that's actually what they want you to do, since they seem to make sure the slices are hard as hell to separate neatly. This is partially fueled by how thin they're cut, they just stick together. The other factor is that they seem to take it straight from the pile that falls off the back of the meat slicer and shove it into the package as-is instead of neatening it up a bit.
At least they stopped that stupid High School Musical 3 promotion. Honestly, nobody bought the first one, nobody bought the second one, and nobody who's buying meat is going to save a few Hillshire Farms meat UPCs to send in for a rebate on the third one. Worst-targeted promotion ever.
Food that's obviously packaged as a single-serving convenience food item, yet upon inspecting the nutrition facts lists itself as multiple servings.
The only reason I can think of that they do this is so they can get the nutrition fact numbers down and make you think their shit is more healthy than it really is. So basically they're manipulating their serving size to misinform the consumer about the contents of the package. No doubt another contributor to the glaring weight problem America collectively has.
Even Pop-Tarts are guilty of this. Pop-Tarts are packaged in boxes containing bags that have two Pop-Tarts in each, right? Take a good look at the nutrition facts. Serving size: 1 Pop-Tart. Even though they're sub-packaged in twos. Just so they could list it as having only 5g of fat per serving. Most people I know that eat Pop-Tarts (including myself) eat them two at a time.
Coca-cola got a lot better recently about stuff like this. Their 20oz bottles used to have a ridiculous 8oz serving size. They still list the 8oz serving size's nutrition facts for whatever reason (even though there's 2.5 servings at that size), but now they also list the proper 20oz serving size's nutrition facts.
That reminds me of another thing I hate that goes along with the whole "manipulation of nutrition facts to intentionally misinform the consumer": Trans Fat amounts. Just because the nutrition facts say Trans Fat: 0g, doesn't mean there's actually zero trans fat. The FDA has left open a loophole that allows them to list something as 0g when there's less than a certain amount (I think it's 0.5g). Inspect the ingredients list of something claiming 0g trans fat. If you see any partially hydrogenated oils, they're lying their asses off. Fully hydrogenated oils and oils that haven't been hydrogenated don't contribute any trans fat. The concept of zero inidcates that there is nothing, it shouldn't be allowed to be used when there actually is something.
Pop-Tarts are guilty of this too. Or at least the Cookies 'N Creme flavor is. The sprinkles have partially hydrogenated cottonseed and soybean oil. It's ambiguous as to whether or not the soybean oil is partially hydrogenated (whoever wrote their ingredients list needs to take a refresher course in Technical Writing), but I'd lean towards it being partially hydrogenated also. They do have a little symbol next to this that expands to "less than 0.5g trans fat per serving", but why the fuck don't they just fucking put that in the fucking nutritional facts instead of fucking making the reader hunt all over the fucking package for it?
A third (and final, for this post at least) thing: When the package imagery doesn't accurately reflect the serving size. Hillshire Farms lunch meats are very guilty of this (oh and whaddaya know, Pop-Tarts are too. Three for three!). Take a look at any one of their packages, they show a sandwich with a massive amount of meat on it. Take a look at the serving size, it's generally 3-5 slices. To get what's in the image, you generally have to use the entire package. Actually, I'm convinced that's actually what they want you to do, since they seem to make sure the slices are hard as hell to separate neatly. This is partially fueled by how thin they're cut, they just stick together. The other factor is that they seem to take it straight from the pile that falls off the back of the meat slicer and shove it into the package as-is instead of neatening it up a bit.
At least they stopped that stupid High School Musical 3 promotion. Honestly, nobody bought the first one, nobody bought the second one, and nobody who's buying meat is going to save a few Hillshire Farms meat UPCs to send in for a rebate on the third one. Worst-targeted promotion ever.
Globally installed Firefox extensions suck
If you install the latest Java, AVG (maybe other virus scanners too), Skype, or one of Microsoft's recent .NET updates (may even happen automatically if you have automatic updates turned on - I don't), you may have noticed extensions in your addons dialog whose uninstall buttons are disabled. For whatever reason they don't want you to uninstall these things, but they don't generally tell you what they do or why the hell you want them in the first place, and don't give you the option to not install.
So here's how to remove these things. Instructions are Windows only. Sorry 'bout that, but I don't have any globally installed un-uninstallable extensions on linux, and I don't have a mac.
Warning: These instructions involve editing the registry. The thing to note about the registry is that if you haphazardly change things you can fuck your computer up. So to obtain the desired results with no ill side-effects, follow these instructions exactly.
Note: If you're uncomfortable editing your registry, you can just simply disable the extensions. They won't be removed entirely, but they won't affect anything either.
On a different subject entirely, I got the K-On! ED single on Monday. Immediately ripped it to FLAC using Exact Audio Copy. Freedb actually had the tags for it, though the artist tag showed as question marks, which means EAC doesn't support Unicode (Further testing shows that the title is entered as question marks in freedb itself, meaning the program that submitted the tags didn't support Unicode, but EAC also doesn't support it, as it's in their feature wishlist). I replaced them with "Sakurakou K-On Bu", which is on the album cover. The lyric in Don't say "lazy" is actually: Please don't say "you are lazy" だって本当はcrazy (note the quotes around "you are lazy"), which makes me think the one that's actually crazy is the speaker and not the person being spoken to (so it would be "because I'm actually crazy" instead of "because you're actually crazy"). The phrase leaves it ambiguous, so it's hard to tell for sure, but I think the speaker doesn't want to be called lazy because they're actually crazy. It makes sense to me. The B-side, Sweet Bitter Beauty Song, is kinda catchy and reminds me of something I've heard before but I can't quite place it.
The limited edition's booklet isn't actually a booklet (dunno if the RE's was this way or not). Instead, it's five separate cards with a picture on one side and lyrics, credits, and the like on the other. One (that's the default album art) has Mio, Ritsu, Tsumugi, and Yui on it, the other four are character-specific. I immediately swapped it around so my album art is Mio.
So here's how to remove these things. Instructions are Windows only. Sorry 'bout that, but I don't have any globally installed un-uninstallable extensions on linux, and I don't have a mac.
Warning: These instructions involve editing the registry. The thing to note about the registry is that if you haphazardly change things you can fuck your computer up. So to obtain the desired results with no ill side-effects, follow these instructions exactly.
- Go to Start->Run. If you're on VistAIDS and haven't configured your start menu to show the Run... option, do so now in the Start Menu options.
- Type regedit and press Enter. If you're on VistAIDS, you'll probably have to answer a UAC prompt, and if you don't, turn UAC the fuck back on.
- Expand HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE.
- Expand SOFTWARE.
- Expand Mozilla.
- Expand Firefox. (not the one that says Mozilla Firefox (or Mozilla Firefox <version number>), but the one that just says Firefox)
- Select Extensions.
- You'll see the list of globally-installed extensions in the right-hand pane. Right click on each name and select Delete. You should be left with just the (Default) REG_SZ (value not set) line.
- Close regedit and restart Firefox.
Note: If you're uncomfortable editing your registry, you can just simply disable the extensions. They won't be removed entirely, but they won't affect anything either.
On a different subject entirely, I got the K-On! ED single on Monday. Immediately ripped it to FLAC using Exact Audio Copy. Freedb actually had the tags for it, though the artist tag showed as question marks, which means EAC doesn't support Unicode (Further testing shows that the title is entered as question marks in freedb itself, meaning the program that submitted the tags didn't support Unicode, but EAC also doesn't support it, as it's in their feature wishlist). I replaced them with "Sakurakou K-On Bu", which is on the album cover. The lyric in Don't say "lazy" is actually: Please don't say "you are lazy" だって本当はcrazy (note the quotes around "you are lazy"), which makes me think the one that's actually crazy is the speaker and not the person being spoken to (so it would be "because I'm actually crazy" instead of "because you're actually crazy"). The phrase leaves it ambiguous, so it's hard to tell for sure, but I think the speaker doesn't want to be called lazy because they're actually crazy. It makes sense to me. The B-side, Sweet Bitter Beauty Song, is kinda catchy and reminds me of something I've heard before but I can't quite place it.
The limited edition's booklet isn't actually a booklet (dunno if the RE's was this way or not). Instead, it's five separate cards with a picture on one side and lyrics, credits, and the like on the other. One (that's the default album art) has Mio, Ritsu, Tsumugi, and Yui on it, the other four are character-specific. I immediately swapped it around so my album art is Mio.
Saturday, April 25, 2009
So my onboard lan died.
Hence the cause of all my fucking troubles.
Luckily, I had a spare 3com 10/100 NIC lying around that I could shove in. Back online, no random freezing, no having to run xpnetdiag.exe every two minutes, etc.
Even though I technically didn't need to have reinstalled Windows to fix this (since it was hardware and not software), I don't regret it. Sure, reconfiguring is a bitch, and there's one site I had in Fast Dial that I can't remember what the hell it was, but my aging install of Windows was due for a reinstall anyway. I'm even up to XP Service Pack 3 now. lol get with the times, right?
Part of me keeps saying "hey, we could go back to Windows 7". It would probably have the driver for the 3com card (they're fairly damn common, we have a pile of them). I'd have to start it up without the network cable so I could disable automatic updates, which it's fairly zealous about getting as soon as it discovers internet access.
The rest of me is saying "fuck Windows 7, we have a working setup, don't fuck with it". For now, I think that's what I'll do.
Luckily, I had a spare 3com 10/100 NIC lying around that I could shove in. Back online, no random freezing, no having to run xpnetdiag.exe every two minutes, etc.
Even though I technically didn't need to have reinstalled Windows to fix this (since it was hardware and not software), I don't regret it. Sure, reconfiguring is a bitch, and there's one site I had in Fast Dial that I can't remember what the hell it was, but my aging install of Windows was due for a reinstall anyway. I'm even up to XP Service Pack 3 now. lol get with the times, right?
Part of me keeps saying "hey, we could go back to Windows 7". It would probably have the driver for the 3com card (they're fairly damn common, we have a pile of them). I'd have to start it up without the network cable so I could disable automatic updates, which it's fairly zealous about getting as soon as it discovers internet access.
The rest of me is saying "fuck Windows 7, we have a working setup, don't fuck with it". For now, I think that's what I'll do.
Friday, April 24, 2009
The letter of the law vs. the spirit of the law
I've noticed many cases where I'll be doing something that's technically illegal, but given the circumstances has no bad repercussions. It's moreso than just doing it with no cops around. I'll try and explain with some examples.
You're at a stop sign. There's a car in front of you. You want to turn right. You can clearly see the road in both directions. A spot opens up and the car in front of you goes, and you notice you can safely turn right and do so. As in, when they go, you advance forwards and then make your own turn without re-stopping at the stop sign.
The letter of the law says that you're supposed to stop at the stop sign. Being the second car in line doesn't count as actually being at the stop sign. Yet the spirit of the law is to get you to stop and observe the situation and make an educated decision about when to continue your journey. This situation, while technically illegal, is still perfectly plausible.
Another example. You're at another intersection, this time with a traffic light and a "No Turn On Red" sign. It's 4 AM, there are no pedestrians, and the light has a ten minute cycle, meaning you're going to be sitting there for a while waiting for it to turn green. However, since there are no pedestrians, you make your right turn and go on with life.
This is once again illegal. After all, the "No Turn On Red" sign is there for a purpose. This intersection is in a highly foot-trafficked area within a state university. Disallowing turning when the light is red can easily prevent 99% of all pedestrian injuries. However, as previously stated, it's 4 AM and there are no pedestrians. It's always going to be illegal to do that right turn on red, but the pedestrians the turn restriction is there to protect aren't there, so safety isn't an issue.
As you can see, there are plenty of situations where understanding the spirit of the law technically brings special cases where the letter of the law can be justifiably questioned. However, this kind of works against us as well, as in this next example.
The speed limit on the road you're driving on is 25MPH (typical two lane residential street). There's no traffic, no pedestrians, and nobody backing out of a driveway or wanting to enter from a side road. The letter of the law states that the speed limit is 25MPH, plain and simple. The spirit of the law is to make sure that people on the road are going a speed that gives them enough time to react to changes in conditions, and to some extent, to cut down on noise. In this situation, it's possible to be going faster than the speed limit and still be in control of the vehicle, and without endangering anyone else. If it's during the day, you're only going to be bothering the nocturnal people who apparently don't have the right to a good day's sleep. Grr.
Oh I thought of another example.
You've been at a friend's place, and had some alcohol (not much, I'll use tonight as an example since this actually happened about an hour ago, so you've had an ounce of irish cream, an ounce of strawberry irish cream, and maybe two ounces of a cheap kahlua knockoff, and you're a fat bastard who can handle your alcohol). It's been a few hours since your last drink, you know your limits and definitely know you're not truly impaired, yet at the same time you figure that if you were to be pulled over, you'd fail the breathalyzer. The letter of the law states if you're over a certain BAC, you're under the influence. However, the spirit of the law is taking the typical range of lightweights and heavyweights into account and providing a general guideline as to what is considered safe. While probably being over that BAC, you're not really impaired and in fact make it home without event, issue, or interruption.
If the spirit of the law means nothing then I guess there's three things I've done before. Not that I haven't ever broken the speed limit, but I try my best not to, since it saves gas.
Also, lol disclaimer: The above post is not intended as legal advice and should not be interpreted or construed as such. I am not a lawyer, I'm just a 26 year old NEET with nothing better to do. If you do something stupid and get caught, you're a moron. Also, I'm not responsible for your actions and decisions.
You're at a stop sign. There's a car in front of you. You want to turn right. You can clearly see the road in both directions. A spot opens up and the car in front of you goes, and you notice you can safely turn right and do so. As in, when they go, you advance forwards and then make your own turn without re-stopping at the stop sign.
The letter of the law says that you're supposed to stop at the stop sign. Being the second car in line doesn't count as actually being at the stop sign. Yet the spirit of the law is to get you to stop and observe the situation and make an educated decision about when to continue your journey. This situation, while technically illegal, is still perfectly plausible.
Another example. You're at another intersection, this time with a traffic light and a "No Turn On Red" sign. It's 4 AM, there are no pedestrians, and the light has a ten minute cycle, meaning you're going to be sitting there for a while waiting for it to turn green. However, since there are no pedestrians, you make your right turn and go on with life.
This is once again illegal. After all, the "No Turn On Red" sign is there for a purpose. This intersection is in a highly foot-trafficked area within a state university. Disallowing turning when the light is red can easily prevent 99% of all pedestrian injuries. However, as previously stated, it's 4 AM and there are no pedestrians. It's always going to be illegal to do that right turn on red, but the pedestrians the turn restriction is there to protect aren't there, so safety isn't an issue.
As you can see, there are plenty of situations where understanding the spirit of the law technically brings special cases where the letter of the law can be justifiably questioned. However, this kind of works against us as well, as in this next example.
The speed limit on the road you're driving on is 25MPH (typical two lane residential street). There's no traffic, no pedestrians, and nobody backing out of a driveway or wanting to enter from a side road. The letter of the law states that the speed limit is 25MPH, plain and simple. The spirit of the law is to make sure that people on the road are going a speed that gives them enough time to react to changes in conditions, and to some extent, to cut down on noise. In this situation, it's possible to be going faster than the speed limit and still be in control of the vehicle, and without endangering anyone else. If it's during the day, you're only going to be bothering the nocturnal people who apparently don't have the right to a good day's sleep. Grr.
Oh I thought of another example.
You've been at a friend's place, and had some alcohol (not much, I'll use tonight as an example since this actually happened about an hour ago, so you've had an ounce of irish cream, an ounce of strawberry irish cream, and maybe two ounces of a cheap kahlua knockoff, and you're a fat bastard who can handle your alcohol). It's been a few hours since your last drink, you know your limits and definitely know you're not truly impaired, yet at the same time you figure that if you were to be pulled over, you'd fail the breathalyzer. The letter of the law states if you're over a certain BAC, you're under the influence. However, the spirit of the law is taking the typical range of lightweights and heavyweights into account and providing a general guideline as to what is considered safe. While probably being over that BAC, you're not really impaired and in fact make it home without event, issue, or interruption.
If the spirit of the law means nothing then I guess there's three things I've done before. Not that I haven't ever broken the speed limit, but I try my best not to, since it saves gas.
Also, lol disclaimer: The above post is not intended as legal advice and should not be interpreted or construed as such. I am not a lawyer, I'm just a 26 year old NEET with nothing better to do. If you do something stupid and get caught, you're a moron. Also, I'm not responsible for your actions and decisions.
Thursday, April 23, 2009
hahaha oh wow
How the hell did I manage to get this score?
Since my desktop's out of commission for the moment, I'm using my server. Which, yes, is running xubuntu. It's slow as shit, it won't be able to decode any anime fast enough to watch it, but it gets me the internet.
Since my desktop's out of commission for the moment, I'm using my server. Which, yes, is running xubuntu. It's slow as shit, it won't be able to decode any anime fast enough to watch it, but it gets me the internet.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)