46 years old AND a woman (who supposedly have slower reaction times across the board (and, yes, I don't care if you know how old I am)), my best was 0.152. Granted, this was after several trials, but my average was around 0.30ish, and my initial trial was 0.206. And just to prove how small the test pool is for my age group, in about five minutes I managed to skew the group average by -0.03 seconds. I would puff up more about my time, but I suspect that it has more to do with my optimized gaming mouse than my actual reflexes. Mouse lag, as it turns out, has a big effect on your reported reaction times; Tested had an article about just this topic.
Walker_after_dark's forum posts
That is an honest question, and if someone has an answer, I would really like to hear it. I could understand perhaps using a trigger warning if you were going to post a graphic account of rape, but I see it being used before even the most basic casual discussion of the subject, and one that includes absolutely no details. That doesn't make logical sense to me.
OK, I'll take you at your word that this is a genuine question, so I'll try to provide a genuine answer. The trigger warning tag is not used only by feminists and is not used only for discussions of rape. It is generally applied to any discussion of a strongly emotional or traumatic nature, such as depression, cutting, incest, suicide, childhood sexual abuse, bulimia, etc. Like putting a [NSFW] or [Spoilers] tag, it's a simple courtesy to let the reader know that the author is going to be discussing something of a potentially controversial nature. Like with those other tags, everyone has a different idea about what it means, so something that you might find very innocuous, someone else might have a very strong reaction to. Since they don't know, people tend to err on the side of caution, just like they tend to do with spoilers here. It's just about making some attempt to understand your reader's situation and having a little empathy for them, that's all.
@dawnofthesean: If you check out the beta version of the site, that quick look is there.
Well, only part of it is there, it's been edited substantially from its original length (I think it ran 45 minutes, but I can't remember for sure, which is probably the issue that Rockstar had with it - assuming [and we all know what that does] that they were the ones who requested its removal)...
You could try cutting pieces of moleskin to fit over the nail (look in the footcare aisle) if you don't want to use a band-aid. I think your best bet is just going to be to cover it and wait for it to grow out. Don't bother with any kind of nail polish, I can tell you from experience that it doesn't work.
I was using cloud saves until I had a major syncing problem and had to go back to a many-hours older save. I also tend to keep a lot of saves and I don't like the space limitation that you get with the cloud. Back to the flash drive for me.
That's one of the options that the bill is proposing, yes (along with options for trial or deportation). Although, that would really just be formalizing what has been going on at Guantanamo all along.
Hold on they can hold them for the whole time of that war or as long as they are in a war?
You can read the bill yourself at http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:S.1867: Most of it is an appropriations bill, but the the parts that the ACLU are talking about are sections 1031 and 1032. Section 1031 basically says that the military may detain anyone (during wartime) who participated in the September 11 attacks, or are members of al Qaeda or another terrorist organization, or who have committed a "belligerent act" against the US. The military may detain those people indefinitely, without benefit of trial, until the end of the war. Section 1032 says that the military may hold members of al Qaeda that have participated in planning or carrying out a terrorist attack in custody, but specifically exempts US citizens. 1031 may be used to apply to US citizens, but the indefinite detention clause probably wouldn't hold up in court, since that seems to be a pretty clear habeus corpus violation. Obama has threatened to veto it, if it comes to him.
I would say that you should start with TOS, but then again, I'm old and that's my main Trek point of reference. However, if you really don't want to watch all 70-some episodes, just watch these:
- Balance of Terror: first appearance of the Romulans
- Space Seed: provides the backstory for Wrath of Khan (if you only want to watch one TOS episode, watch this one.)
- The City on the Edge of Forever: written by Harlan Ellison, arguably the best episode of the series (If you only want to watch two TOS episodes, watch this one too)
- Errand of Mercy: first appearance of the Klingons
- Mirror, Mirror: referenced in later episodes of DS9 and Enterprise
- The Trouble with Tribbles
Skip the animated series (it was pretty terrible). TNG didn't really get going until about season 3, so you can start there and go back to the earlier seasons if you like the show. In general, the even numbered movies are good, the odd numbered ones (especially 5) aren't.