No, they should only pay you rates based on how much less expenses they are incurring if and when you provide power back to the grid. Minus the charge for figuring out when you are actually contributing back to the grid.
They aren't betting on sports... They are betting at FANTASY sports. That's totally different! Kind of like how bingo isn't gambling because the church does it.
This. So much this. In the first few seasons there where characters with personalities. After around season 3, they stopped writing characters and went for caricatures. Especially with the females on the show, two dimensional is generous. Bernadette used to be an interested and well developed character. Then they decided it would be funnier if she turned into Howard's mom and was the same angry harpy wife that is so common a trope. Amy was a fantastic character when she debuted, but then they turned her into the butt of every joke and made her a creepy adult with an 8 year old mind.
I stopped watching. After several seasons where Sheldon never uttered "Bazinga" I figured out it was a lost cause.
What is "wrong" with the USA is that in general, we are a melting pot of cultures and have immigrants from all over the world trying to get in. Differing cultures all mixing together is bound to create conflicts, whether they be between groups of cultures, or the people left out as the mixing occurs. No other country has the diversity of cultures that the USA does.
The other thing "wrong" is that we are a country founded on freedom, and with that freedom comes people choosing to be violent. Some cowards choose to commit suicide to avoid the consequences of their actions.
There are probably many other reasons that violence is occurring disproportionately in the USA vs the rest of the world, but the easy fixes are not worth doing because they take away the positive qualities of the diversity and the freedom as mentioned above. Despite all that, the trend is still toward lower violence in general. As the varied cultures continue to melt together, if people choose to embrace it, violence will go down. If people choose to resist it, it will only continue the cycle of violence.
The taxi monopoly shittifies transit in the whole city. Only in Las Vegas can hotel shuttles take you to the airport but can't pick you up there. Instead you have to wait in a huge line for taxis (as it's the only way out of the airport) and then have the driver take a circuitous route to double the fare to your near airport hotel. Good luck arguing with him as he doesn't speak a lick of English... Did I mention there is a monorail for no particular reason that goes down the strip? Sure would be nice if it actually connected to the airport... It ends just short of airport property. I wonder why the passenger transit system doesn't connect to the airport. Could it be that the taxi and limo monopoly shut that shit down?
More to the point, skill is irrelevant. The crazy idea behind statements like "The campus has its own police force who have guns and are trained to use them" makes the assumption that armed police only shoot bad guys. This is demonstrably NOT the case as has been shown in many other recent incidents. Somehow when a police officer shoots innocent unarmed people there is no response to ban guns...
Why is it that anytime there is a shooting, the first thing the unarmed people do is call people with guns?
This statement defeats every argument in this entire thread. People who are facing an armed assailant sure believe that other people with guns will make them safer. Even if unarmed cops show up and the shooter commits suicide, it's still a gun that ended the rampage.
I disagree. I have a prominent sticker on my door that says my house is protected by Smith and Wesson. I don't actually own a gun, but if that sticker can convince a criminal to rob the house next door instead of mine, it has served it's course. The government is stupid for putting up "gun free" stickers. What they should be putting up are stickers saying that they have armed guards or a quick response from armed police. Criminals aren't deterred by gun restrictions, but they are deterred by is an armed defender.
Link 1) "According to testimony from witnesses, Hasan passed up several opportunities to shoot civilians, and instead targeted soldiers in uniform,[30] who - in accordance with military policy - were not carrying personal firearms." Link 2) "On April 16, discussion was renewed over if soldiers should be allowed to carry concealed firearms on military bases in Texas and other states."
I could go on but you seem to have this perception that on military bases people are armed and that is not the case as others have stated. Military policy excludes most soldiers (except MPs, who are police) from carrying loaded firearms on base. Every single one of those links you provided were "gun free zones" even though they were against military personnel.
Except most mass shooters are typically young, male, and middle class. In general, angry privileged white kids. The poor do actually have a higher rate of gun violence, but it isn't in mass executions like this one or due to mental illness.
While this may be true that targets aren't chosen because they are "gun free zones" the opposite is probably something to consider. There aren't any mass shootings at gun stores or conventions. Nobody intending to kill a bunch of defenseless innocent people is going to go to a place where most people are armed.
Nope, that doesn't work either. Then they just speed in between the bumps and brake hard before them. This increases their frustration as well as traffic noise in the neighborhood. All it does is deter people with stanced cars, which is a benefit in itself...
In the anti-gun nuts' defense, accidental shootings do occur. If the person open carrying looks like an idiot or is inebriated, I would still feel intimidated. But that is true whether they are carrying a gun, open flames, or operating a car too.
Is the difference between a terrorist attack and a random mass shooting what the media calls it? This specific shooting was from a foreigner born in the UK. Why isn't that terrorism?
Neglecting your emotional differentiation between crimes, I would note that the murder rate in the US is ALSO dropping. It has been dropping quite steadily for a long time. As far as why the US has a high murder rate, it's a large place with lots of urban areas. A few of the urban areas really skew the statistics. Washington DC is the most obvious example with extremely restrictive laws about owning guns and a ridiculously high gun homicide rate. The problem is not with guns, it's with the populations. Gun laws and gun ownership do not correlate at all with mass murders or gun homicides.
Your links are also crap. Using the gun homicide rate for the entire US is a bit misleading since some places in the US have very restrictive gun laws. The highest gun homicide rate? Washington DC where there is a total ban on guns and the lowest rate of gun ownership in the US. Falling close behind are several other metropolitan areas with gun restrictions like NYC and Chicago.
So who should have guns? Only the military? Soliders who want to kill innocent people still do... Only the police? Not like they never shoot innocent people right? How do you determine who should get guns? If you figure that one out, by all means propose a law that will effectively identify those individuals and keep guns out of their hands.
It is funny that these articles were so close together. Apparently the science is in and living things will eat shit rather than starve. Valuable research going on here...
Are these the same scientists who determined mealworms will eat styrofoam if the aren't given any better options? Have they tried getting kids to eat styrofoam by giving them vegetables as alternatives?
Capitalism won the cold war because it generated enough excess wealth that money could be wasted on destructive and useless government objectives without the system collapsing like under communism. Yet people are still arguing with each other about how much more we should be wasting on destruction and useless government objectives...
No, they have a theory. The greenhouse effect is a thing. Where they go off on the rails for me is assuming that the earth and humans can't handle climate variability. If anything for the long term strategy, we should be willing and accepting of climate change and be prepared to adapt. No amounts of cuts to carbon emissions will keep the climate constant. Whether climate change is natural or caused by humans, the effect is the same. Live near the ocean? Be prepared to move. Live in a cold climate, be prepared to have neighbors. Start building dams to hold and control drinking water supplies. Don't waste ground water on ethanol production. These are things that make sense regardless of climate change.
This is why I actually prefer non-organic foods. I want farmers to use pesticides, gmos, and fertilizer. It's more efficient and better for the planet and humanity on the whole.
Scientists admit there are records of hurricanes that made landfall. This is talking about hurricanes developing in the middle of the ocean. There are no records of those.
Slashdot Mirror
No, they should only pay you rates based on how much less expenses they are incurring if and when you provide power back to the grid. Minus the charge for figuring out when you are actually contributing back to the grid.
They aren't betting on sports... They are betting at FANTASY sports. That's totally different! Kind of like how bingo isn't gambling because the church does it.
This. So much this. In the first few seasons there where characters with personalities. After around season 3, they stopped writing characters and went for caricatures. Especially with the females on the show, two dimensional is generous. Bernadette used to be an interested and well developed character. Then they decided it would be funnier if she turned into Howard's mom and was the same angry harpy wife that is so common a trope. Amy was a fantastic character when she debuted, but then they turned her into the butt of every joke and made her a creepy adult with an 8 year old mind.
I stopped watching. After several seasons where Sheldon never uttered "Bazinga" I figured out it was a lost cause.
What is "wrong" with the USA is that in general, we are a melting pot of cultures and have immigrants from all over the world trying to get in. Differing cultures all mixing together is bound to create conflicts, whether they be between groups of cultures, or the people left out as the mixing occurs. No other country has the diversity of cultures that the USA does.
The other thing "wrong" is that we are a country founded on freedom, and with that freedom comes people choosing to be violent. Some cowards choose to commit suicide to avoid the consequences of their actions.
There are probably many other reasons that violence is occurring disproportionately in the USA vs the rest of the world, but the easy fixes are not worth doing because they take away the positive qualities of the diversity and the freedom as mentioned above. Despite all that, the trend is still toward lower violence in general. As the varied cultures continue to melt together, if people choose to embrace it, violence will go down. If people choose to resist it, it will only continue the cycle of violence.
The taxi monopoly shittifies transit in the whole city. Only in Las Vegas can hotel shuttles take you to the airport but can't pick you up there. Instead you have to wait in a huge line for taxis (as it's the only way out of the airport) and then have the driver take a circuitous route to double the fare to your near airport hotel. Good luck arguing with him as he doesn't speak a lick of English... Did I mention there is a monorail for no particular reason that goes down the strip? Sure would be nice if it actually connected to the airport... It ends just short of airport property. I wonder why the passenger transit system doesn't connect to the airport. Could it be that the taxi and limo monopoly shut that shit down?
More to the point, skill is irrelevant. The crazy idea behind statements like "The campus has its own police force who have guns and are trained to use them" makes the assumption that armed police only shoot bad guys. This is demonstrably NOT the case as has been shown in many other recent incidents. Somehow when a police officer shoots innocent unarmed people there is no response to ban guns...
Why is it that anytime there is a shooting, the first thing the unarmed people do is call people with guns?
This statement defeats every argument in this entire thread. People who are facing an armed assailant sure believe that other people with guns will make them safer. Even if unarmed cops show up and the shooter commits suicide, it's still a gun that ended the rampage.
I disagree. I have a prominent sticker on my door that says my house is protected by Smith and Wesson. I don't actually own a gun, but if that sticker can convince a criminal to rob the house next door instead of mine, it has served it's course. The government is stupid for putting up "gun free" stickers. What they should be putting up are stickers saying that they have armed guards or a quick response from armed police. Criminals aren't deterred by gun restrictions, but they are deterred by is an armed defender.
Link 1) "According to testimony from witnesses, Hasan passed up several opportunities to shoot civilians, and instead targeted soldiers in uniform,[30] who - in accordance with military policy - were not carrying personal firearms."
Link 2) "On April 16, discussion was renewed over if soldiers should be allowed to carry concealed firearms on military bases in Texas and other states."
I could go on but you seem to have this perception that on military bases people are armed and that is not the case as others have stated. Military policy excludes most soldiers (except MPs, who are police) from carrying loaded firearms on base. Every single one of those links you provided were "gun free zones" even though they were against military personnel.
Except most mass shooters are typically young, male, and middle class. In general, angry privileged white kids. The poor do actually have a higher rate of gun violence, but it isn't in mass executions like this one or due to mental illness.
While this may be true that targets aren't chosen because they are "gun free zones" the opposite is probably something to consider. There aren't any mass shootings at gun stores or conventions. Nobody intending to kill a bunch of defenseless innocent people is going to go to a place where most people are armed.
Nope, that doesn't work either. Then they just speed in between the bumps and brake hard before them. This increases their frustration as well as traffic noise in the neighborhood. All it does is deter people with stanced cars, which is a benefit in itself...
In the anti-gun nuts' defense, accidental shootings do occur. If the person open carrying looks like an idiot or is inebriated, I would still feel intimidated. But that is true whether they are carrying a gun, open flames, or operating a car too.
Is the difference between a terrorist attack and a random mass shooting what the media calls it? This specific shooting was from a foreigner born in the UK. Why isn't that terrorism?
Neglecting your emotional differentiation between crimes, I would note that the murder rate in the US is ALSO dropping. It has been dropping quite steadily for a long time. As far as why the US has a high murder rate, it's a large place with lots of urban areas. A few of the urban areas really skew the statistics. Washington DC is the most obvious example with extremely restrictive laws about owning guns and a ridiculously high gun homicide rate. The problem is not with guns, it's with the populations. Gun laws and gun ownership do not correlate at all with mass murders or gun homicides.
Yes because the war on drugs has been so successful at making drugs harder to get... Do you even listen to your own arguments before you spew them?
Your links are also crap. Using the gun homicide rate for the entire US is a bit misleading since some places in the US have very restrictive gun laws. The highest gun homicide rate? Washington DC where there is a total ban on guns and the lowest rate of gun ownership in the US. Falling close behind are several other metropolitan areas with gun restrictions like NYC and Chicago.
Here is a list you can sort by state with gun ownership percentages and homicide rates. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Your premise isn't fitting the facts either. There is no correlation whatsoever between gun restrictions, gun ownership, and homicides.
So who should have guns? Only the military? Soliders who want to kill innocent people still do... Only the police? Not like they never shoot innocent people right? How do you determine who should get guns? If you figure that one out, by all means propose a law that will effectively identify those individuals and keep guns out of their hands.
It is funny that these articles were so close together. Apparently the science is in and living things will eat shit rather than starve. Valuable research going on here...
Are these the same scientists who determined mealworms will eat styrofoam if the aren't given any better options? Have they tried getting kids to eat styrofoam by giving them vegetables as alternatives?
Capitalism won the cold war because it generated enough excess wealth that money could be wasted on destructive and useless government objectives without the system collapsing like under communism. Yet people are still arguing with each other about how much more we should be wasting on destruction and useless government objectives...
Exactly... Not like they correctly planned for the future in the past. Forecasting is more fantasy than fact.
No, they have a theory. The greenhouse effect is a thing. Where they go off on the rails for me is assuming that the earth and humans can't handle climate variability. If anything for the long term strategy, we should be willing and accepting of climate change and be prepared to adapt. No amounts of cuts to carbon emissions will keep the climate constant. Whether climate change is natural or caused by humans, the effect is the same. Live near the ocean? Be prepared to move. Live in a cold climate, be prepared to have neighbors. Start building dams to hold and control drinking water supplies. Don't waste ground water on ethanol production. These are things that make sense regardless of climate change.
This is why I actually prefer non-organic foods. I want farmers to use pesticides, gmos, and fertilizer. It's more efficient and better for the planet and humanity on the whole.
I might help if we stopped using up a decent portion of already cleared arable land for fuel production...
Scientists admit there are records of hurricanes that made landfall. This is talking about hurricanes developing in the middle of the ocean. There are no records of those.