Even as someone who thinks Obama is the worst and least qualified President we've had in the last 100 years, I will correct that statement in his favor. He pointed out, quite correctly, that there is no LAW preventing them from building there, and that the Constitution (which he has shredded with his takeover of the health care system) gives them the right to practice their religion free of government control.
But the arrest wasn't illegal. If the arrest was done properly, even if you didn't do the crime, it is legal, and other crimes you commit in the process don't get magically ignored. If it really WAS a wrongful arrest, you might have a point; but people are misusing the term 'wrongful arrest' in this thread.
It's the same as the cops getting a perfectly valid warrant to search your house for drugs, and finding your kidnapping victim. It doesn't get tossed out, even if they don't find drugs.
No, he could have been very justified in making the arrest, even if you were innocent. The cops aren't expected to be omniscient; they just have to use good judgment. If the initial evidence pointed to you, it wasn't a wrongful arrest, even if you were later exonerated. It's a wrongful arrest if he shouldn't have arrested you in the first place, but did anyway.
You could ask the smart, educated English speakers who demonstrate a good grasp of the language. That's pretty much what dictionaries do, to form their consensus.
Of course, several of those people have been responding to you, and you're obstinately not listening. You're looking for that other consensus, the kind composed of people that agree with you.
I think one of the worst things we instill in young people is the idea that you shouldn't snitch. That sentiment seems to be especially strong in young, poor, and uneducated circles. Sure, there's a problem with little kids tattle-tailing on their playmates... but crimes? Snitching is pretty much always the right thing to do. It's called "HELPING CATCH THE CRIMINAL."
I wonder if people driving hybrids out of a desire to be more green are more likely to hang on to their cars rather than trading them in?
If they wanted to be green, they should keep on driving their old 1980 Chevy Nova, rather than buy a Prius. This study was just to see whether fuel savings brought hybrids down to parity with the price of other new vehicles; but there's another question, and that's how much fuel they'd have to save to be better than NOT BUYING a car at all. I doubt the cost and environmental impact of driving an old, used car for five years comes ANYWHERE near the impact of manufacturing a new hybrid.
At least the summary admits that the financial argument misses the point. If anything, the study raises the question: how to you get people to shell out to save the environment?
By making it financially sensible (which brings you right back to the first point). There's no other way to drive mass adoption.
The good thing is, once we get engineering to a sufficient point, conservation, recycling, sustainability, efficiency, and affordability all correlate. I have no doubt that 90% of us will be driving some sort of hybrid engine (or even purely electrical) in the next five decades. But it won't be out of guilt, responsibility, or concern for the environment. That'll never drive adoption past a small fraction. It'll only occur when that option begins to make fiscal sense to the individual.
Decades long? No, that's been the trend in the free market forever, and always will be. There also is a counteracting trend, by labor, to push wages ever and ever higher. That's simply what happens in capitalism, and is a consequence of free people doing business.
That pretty much defuses my complaints. I'll turn it off, of course; but for the majority of nontechnical users, it's probably a good thing. Mozilla has been going down a route over the last year or two of FORCING change on the users (damn Awesomebar). I'm glad to hear it sounds like they'll at least give you the OPTION of turning it off this time.
Yeah, 3d is inevitable, I agree. I also think that's a Good Think(tm). It's increased verisimilitude. Of COURSE all movies will be in 3d, sooner or later.
That doesn't necessarily mean that the technology is ready. The requirement to wear glasses is a bother, and there's no non-glasses technology that will be ready anytime soon for theaters. Hollywood's crappy post-production 3d 'conversion' is just making it worse, making '3d' synonymous with 'ugly looking, headache inducing'. But Avatar, complaints about the story aside, LOOKED beautiful. I have a feeling 3d is here to stay, this time... but it'll probably be at least a decade before most films are produced in 3d.
I disagree. I think those changes you suggest, that a more accomplished photoshopper would have done, would detract from the artistic value of the images. I suspect that the artist could have made a 'better' merging of the two images, and opted not to.
Cutting the image and blending it along the edge of a soldier, for instance, would have made a more realistic and polished piece, but I think it would have made the overall image cheesier, tackier. This is about contrast... then and now.
Not true. A high-bitrate MP3 can easily reproduce audio with fidelity better than your ears can detect. Your admonition should be only against crappy, low bitrate mp3s.
Yes, not just the government's fault in making a confusing tax code in the first place, but in their abuse of power that allows them to legislatively favor one company over the other, or over the consumer. If we could reduce the power of the government, the corruption would correspondingly lessen.
Why did you think that we pay less than $3/gallon for gas and Europeans pay $7-$8.
As many others have answered, it's because the Europeans distort the market (via taxes) even more than we do. That's not particularly interesting; it's commonly known.
The more interesting question is, now that you know that, whether you'll refrain from using that example again? I suspect you won't, and that you will continue to make that point when you feel it will score you a point in an argument. Many political opinions don't change in response to new information.
Well, I agree that it was a bad idea, and most conservatives should (and many did). But, keep in mind, that was an unanticipated consequence of an attempt to give businesses a tax break for complying with American with Disabilities Act... that nugget of information is rarely mentioned.
This seems very obvious. Electric cars will begin to dominate the market when they make economic sense for the majority of the market. Obviously, that time isn't here yet, and attempts by the government to manipulate the market by dumping money into rebates won't be sufficient to make the difference.
Honestly, I think the government has very little role to play here; but if it does, it's in ensuring that the cost of gasoline isn't kept artificially low, making sure the infrastructure can support electric cars, and help setting standards. They can't just force the market, not without hurting the market.
Slashdot Mirror
Even as someone who thinks Obama is the worst and least qualified President we've had in the last 100 years, I will correct that statement in his favor. He pointed out, quite correctly, that there is no LAW preventing them from building there, and that the Constitution (which he has shredded with his takeover of the health care system) gives them the right to practice their religion free of government control.
That paragraph mirrors my sentiments exactly.
Um... good job?
NT
But the arrest wasn't illegal. If the arrest was done properly, even if you didn't do the crime, it is legal, and other crimes you commit in the process don't get magically ignored. If it really WAS a wrongful arrest, you might have a point; but people are misusing the term 'wrongful arrest' in this thread.
It's the same as the cops getting a perfectly valid warrant to search your house for drugs, and finding your kidnapping victim. It doesn't get tossed out, even if they don't find drugs.
No, he could have been very justified in making the arrest, even if you were innocent. The cops aren't expected to be omniscient; they just have to use good judgment. If the initial evidence pointed to you, it wasn't a wrongful arrest, even if you were later exonerated. It's a wrongful arrest if he shouldn't have arrested you in the first place, but did anyway.
Monogamy has only been the societal norm for a few hundred years.
Read some history, don't just seize upon and parrot untrue factoids.
You could ask the smart, educated English speakers who demonstrate a good grasp of the language. That's pretty much what dictionaries do, to form their consensus.
Of course, several of those people have been responding to you, and you're obstinately not listening. You're looking for that other consensus, the kind composed of people that agree with you.
I think one of the worst things we instill in young people is the idea that you shouldn't snitch. That sentiment seems to be especially strong in young, poor, and uneducated circles. Sure, there's a problem with little kids tattle-tailing on their playmates... but crimes? Snitching is pretty much always the right thing to do. It's called "HELPING CATCH THE CRIMINAL."
Market price is the only "true cost". Anything else is purely wish-fulfillment.
I wonder if people driving hybrids out of a desire to be more green are more likely to hang on to their cars rather than trading them in?
If they wanted to be green, they should keep on driving their old 1980 Chevy Nova, rather than buy a Prius. This study was just to see whether fuel savings brought hybrids down to parity with the price of other new vehicles; but there's another question, and that's how much fuel they'd have to save to be better than NOT BUYING a car at all. I doubt the cost and environmental impact of driving an old, used car for five years comes ANYWHERE near the impact of manufacturing a new hybrid.
At least the summary admits that the financial argument misses the point. If anything, the study raises the question: how to you get people to shell out to save the environment?
By making it financially sensible (which brings you right back to the first point). There's no other way to drive mass adoption.
The good thing is, once we get engineering to a sufficient point, conservation, recycling, sustainability, efficiency, and affordability all correlate. I have no doubt that 90% of us will be driving some sort of hybrid engine (or even purely electrical) in the next five decades. But it won't be out of guilt, responsibility, or concern for the environment. That'll never drive adoption past a small fraction. It'll only occur when that option begins to make fiscal sense to the individual.
Depends. Hybrids would logically have a higher resale value, so comparing a used hybrid to it's used gasoline counterpart is still an unknown result.
Why? I would have thought that hybrids would obviously have a lower resale value, due to the inevitable degradation and replacement of the batteries.
There is no speech coming from a corporation that doesn't come from a person. You can't muzzle corporations without muzzling people.
Decades long? No, that's been the trend in the free market forever, and always will be. There also is a counteracting trend, by labor, to push wages ever and ever higher. That's simply what happens in capitalism, and is a consequence of free people doing business.
That pretty much defuses my complaints. I'll turn it off, of course; but for the majority of nontechnical users, it's probably a good thing. Mozilla has been going down a route over the last year or two of FORCING change on the users (damn Awesomebar). I'm glad to hear it sounds like they'll at least give you the OPTION of turning it off this time.
What's the point of trying to prove a point with an imaginary conversation that would NEVER really happen?
Yeah, 3d is inevitable, I agree. I also think that's a Good Think(tm). It's increased verisimilitude. Of COURSE all movies will be in 3d, sooner or later.
That doesn't necessarily mean that the technology is ready. The requirement to wear glasses is a bother, and there's no non-glasses technology that will be ready anytime soon for theaters. Hollywood's crappy post-production 3d 'conversion' is just making it worse, making '3d' synonymous with 'ugly looking, headache inducing'. But Avatar, complaints about the story aside, LOOKED beautiful. I have a feeling 3d is here to stay, this time... but it'll probably be at least a decade before most films are produced in 3d.
I disagree. I think those changes you suggest, that a more accomplished photoshopper would have done, would detract from the artistic value of the images. I suspect that the artist could have made a 'better' merging of the two images, and opted not to.
Cutting the image and blending it along the edge of a soldier, for instance, would have made a more realistic and polished piece, but I think it would have made the overall image cheesier, tackier. This is about contrast... then and now.
My opinion, of course.
Not true. A high-bitrate MP3 can easily reproduce audio with fidelity better than your ears can detect. Your admonition should be only against crappy, low bitrate mp3s.
Yes, not just the government's fault in making a confusing tax code in the first place, but in their abuse of power that allows them to legislatively favor one company over the other, or over the consumer. If we could reduce the power of the government, the corruption would correspondingly lessen.
"but they did kill funding for domestic violence shelters, police and fire departments, and prevention of swine flu outbreaks."
At least, through a perfect storm of corruption, it ended up that the Republicans acted fiscally responsible.
It seems I was right.
Maybe. Or, perhaps an article was published that is closer to your preconceived notions, and so you're giving it more weight.
At this point, doubting both claims is probably the smart thing to do.
It seems that for a general census, they shouldn't use a variety of wildlife that's particularly sensitive to the radiation as a yardstick.
Why did you think that we pay less than $3/gallon for gas and Europeans pay $7-$8.
As many others have answered, it's because the Europeans distort the market (via taxes) even more than we do. That's not particularly interesting; it's commonly known.
The more interesting question is, now that you know that, whether you'll refrain from using that example again? I suspect you won't, and that you will continue to make that point when you feel it will score you a point in an argument. Many political opinions don't change in response to new information.
Well, I agree that it was a bad idea, and most conservatives should (and many did). But, keep in mind, that was an unanticipated consequence of an attempt to give businesses a tax break for complying with American with Disabilities Act... that nugget of information is rarely mentioned.
This seems very obvious. Electric cars will begin to dominate the market when they make economic sense for the majority of the market. Obviously, that time isn't here yet, and attempts by the government to manipulate the market by dumping money into rebates won't be sufficient to make the difference.
Honestly, I think the government has very little role to play here; but if it does, it's in ensuring that the cost of gasoline isn't kept artificially low, making sure the infrastructure can support electric cars, and help setting standards. They can't just force the market, not without hurting the market.