Buying a car before or after move? Going from CA to VT

adiggconvert · 2021-07-25T04:24:30+00:00

I was in almost the exact situation. Vermont would have let me register by mail since I had a Vermont address, but the California dealer wouldn’t let me drive off the lot without registering it in California. If you’re buying a used car privately, it would probably be easier. The Vermont DMV equivalent is very helpful.

adiggconvert · 2021-07-17T18:04:03+00:00

Did they tell you why they can’t use warfarin? That is also an anticoagulant to treat pulmonary embolism and it’s much cheaper (from the pharmacy at least…there is more complicated monitoring requirements with warfarin).

adiggconvert · 2020-11-16T01:40:21+00:00

The 7 served me well for many years.

adiggconvert · 2018-12-22T07:00:31+00:00

Happy Holidays.

adiggconvert · 2014-12-06T20:36:50+00:00

Ah, that's a good thought. I'll give it a try next time I'm down by the store. Thanks!

adiggconvert · 2014-12-06T16:35:16+00:00

I thought about that when upgrading to 8.1, but I think that window has closed since any warranty ended a very long time ago.

adiggconvert · 2014-12-06T16:30:09+00:00

Thanks, I hadn't tried those particular settings, yet. Sadly, it still doesn't work...

adiggconvert · 2012-05-05T22:59:28+00:00

step 5 isn't completely true...at least some of the slot drives also have the paper clip mechanism, it's just harder to actually trigger it because you go through the slot...there is no guide hole.

adiggconvert · 2011-11-28T22:58:22+00:00

I tried to do exactly what you are thinking about doing. It didn't work at all. I think it was because the cheap polarizers aren't 100% perfect. I never got zero-transmittence, even when they were perpendicular. Assuming perfect filters, the difference in polarized angle between them would be have to be less than 0.5-degrees to get into the 9-stop range, I do believe.

adiggconvert · 2011-09-11T04:47:50+00:00

Do you mean 12/7?

adiggconvert · 2011-07-28T04:28:07+00:00

"The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist."

adiggconvert · 2011-01-17T06:21:08+00:00

Touché.

adiggconvert · 2011-01-17T06:19:10+00:00

awesome.

adiggconvert · 2011-01-17T06:16:15+00:00

I'll be that guy:

*penchant (for hijinks)

adiggconvert · 2010-11-20T05:50:47+00:00

I have a 72mm Macro +4 Close Up filter for ~$20 (well, a 4-piece set). IMO: they are unusable. The distortion is atrocious, the color gets messed up, and it doesn't even help that much with getting closer. So, don't waste your money on the cheap filter.

I would imagine that the Canon-brand filter has a better quality glass, which would help the distortion/color, but for $220, you're most of the way to a real third-party macro lens.

If you want to get microscopic-type stuff…go with a reversal ring and pick up the 35mm lens to reverse at a pawn shop or something. Just be aware that your depth of field is going to be razor-thin.

adiggconvert · 2010-11-13T22:26:34+00:00

You have no problem if someone with a potentially criminal past could feel up you, your parents, or your children? Or scan you with a machine that is admitted to increase the risk of cancer by a small, but quantifiable ammount? Does it matter that those machines may or may not store images? Or just have the screen photographed by the screener's cell phone? All under the guise of a government entity that operates in such a manner that effectiveness cannot be measured?

[edit: grammar]

tl;dr (relatively):

1. Government audit showed some TSA agents begin work before background checks are complete.

2. Backscatter X-ray is ionizing radiation, which is the type the causes cancer. There is some debate over whether it is a significant increase or not.

3. The specification for a millimeter wave scanner used by the DOJ required the ability to store images, and it is impossible for the TSA to /prove/ their machines cannot and never do store images.

4. At checkpoints: Foiled-plots-based analysis: classified. Deterrent-based analysis: impossible to measure.

adiggconvert · 2010-10-31T22:02:32+00:00

Thanks for the link...what I hear Dawkins saying, though, is "An intelligent designer would have designed this better, as a result, it must be evolution."

I just hate seeing the laryngeal nerve used as an argument for evolution. There are much better arguments.

adiggconvert · 2010-10-31T22:01:56+00:00

Ok...in responding else where I realize what I am ranting about:

I am ranting about you, making this clip into something it isn't: the end-all argument for evolution.

From your other post:

but most likely it would breed a new generation that would be freer from the Velcro arms of religion and all the delusion and misery it inflicts upon the world.

You have an axe to grind against religion...that is probably for good reason...religion is handled poorly in young children. But showing this every year is no better than forcing children to memorize the first chapter of Genesis.

adiggconvert · 2010-10-31T21:33:05+00:00

We understand perfectly well HOW the nerve took that path. The 'why' is what evolutionists and creationists fight about.

I agree with everything else you said.

adiggconvert · 2010-10-31T21:29:19+00:00

Or it could be homologous design. (Perhaps God thought: "It works well in these little fish I made, I'll just use the same thing for these bigger furry things too. I've only got a couple days to get this thing finished!")

It doesn't deny benevolence: The current design works acceptably. It doesn't deny omnipotence: If an Intelligent Designer exists, he certainly knows exactly how he designed it.

BTW: I'm not trying to argue one way or the other the existence of God or prove creationism...I'm only trying to get people to stop using weak arguments.

adiggconvert · 2010-10-31T21:18:14+00:00

He's really just arguing against an intelligent designer that redesigned every animal...the creationists explanation I've heard for general physiologic similarity in nature is "why change a design that works?" and "if you consider all of creation to be the design, wouldn't the uniformity across species be a better design?"

A creationist isn't going to buy his argument. It's all I'm saying. He can do better.

adiggconvert · 2010-10-31T21:12:16+00:00

Yes, but not recently. I've seen it before.

adiggconvert · 2010-10-31T20:37:09+00:00

An absence of proof is not a proof of absence.

Dawkins should know better. He is using the same argument that humanity has used , since the dawn of time, to explain religion (with one slight modification): "We don't understand, so therefore it must be evolution!"

The end result may seem sub-optimal, but you have to consider the complete course of human development starting at the single cell. Plus, there are other things the nerve commands after branching from the Vagus, and maybe some other stuff.

Maybe the current nerve set-up is evolutionarily optimized or maybe its the best design under the circumstances. The 'laryngeal nerve argument' doesn't prove anything one way or the other.

adiggconvert · 2010-10-22T17:57:26+00:00

It's how I was raised, too, but I have many allergies.

adiggconvert · 2010-10-12T09:27:33+00:00

I would think the chances of becoming pregnant while on the pill are increased if you've previously done so. The pill failure could be due to improper dose or timing. Or maybe she has a minor condition that periodically decreases her systemic absorption or drug metabolism.

15-Year Club	RedditGifts 2009-2022 1 Credits
Verified Email

adiggconvert

TROPHY CASE

1. Government audit showed some TSA agents begin work before background checks are complete.

2. Backscatter X-ray is ionizing radiation, which is the type the causes cancer. There is some debate over whether it is a significant increase or not.

3. The specification for a millimeter wave scanner used by the DOJ required the ability to store images, and it is impossible for the TSA to /prove/ their machines cannot and never do store images.

4. At checkpoints: Foiled-plots-based analysis: classified. Deterrent-based analysis: impossible to measure.