Is it just me or would a wave of low-skilled immigrants be a disaster for people on the low-end of the economic spectrum who are already here? Or is Google only thinking about high-skilled immigrants, i.e. the ones they want to hire?
Our imagination does not give us "surely". The only thing they are sure about is how life works with water on Earth, which is why they are looking for water.
At some point, if you can't find a job, you need for the greater good to settle for what you can find. For example, after the construction bubble popped in housing, should we just keep construction workers on permanent unemployment? Or should we encourage them to do something different with their lives?
We also get rights from nature (the right to protect ourself) or if you don't like that from English common law, which would include the right to self-defense. Or defence. Or some other British variant spelling
But the main point is not everything has to be explicitly in the Constitution for it to be a right.
You take the 17 year pause in global warming and then you look at how many of those 97% of scientists predicted it, and then you come to the conclusion that maybe people don't know all the thousands of variables and calculations needed to be so certain. No need to consider orbital variations when you have actual data and predictions that didn't come true to work with.
Considering the Arctic has 75% more ice than last year, I'll say I don't know. And since we know there's been no warming in 17 years, maybe some unknown other cause should be considered a possibility.
I guarantee you that our "friends" spy on us, especially for economic information. The problem I have with the NSA is that they spy on American citizens. It is THEIR JOB to spy on foreign citizens and governments.
Name me one other country in our same position who wouldn't bully other countries. Name me one country that would have as much of a history, for good or ill, of at being somewhat restrained in our use of power?
Corporations are run by and owned by people, not by machines. They are treated as legal persons for very good reasons that go back hundreds of years for certain purpose. The Citizen United case was about speech, which the First Amendment allows regardless of the source. (Seriously, read the 1st Amendment. It just says "speech.") People also have freedom of association rights and their individual rights don't go away when they form groups.
Do you think the New York Times or Slashdot can get censored because the freedom of the press doesn't apply to them because they are owned by corporations?
Once personal data gets to the government, I would fully expect scammers, identity thieves, etc. to get a hold of this.
Re:It would be safer if cyclists followed traffic
on
How Safe Is Cycling?
·
· Score: 1
I'll confess to going through red lights. Not all of them though. But ones where there is not any pedestrian or car traffic. Also, in lower Manhattan there is a section I go through where it is less dangerous to go through the red lights. If I had to go through that when it was green, I would be constantly near cars trying to run me over. Going through the reds in this one area allow me to get ahead of stuck traffic and not get run over.
My suggestion would be to change the law to have bicycles stop at red lights and proceed if there is no traffic or pedestrians going through.
For the vast majority of my trip, I'm in a physically separated bike path and I'm all for that.
I've been bicycling in Manhattan for about 3 months or so now. There needs to be rules that make sense for bicycling. They aren't pedestrians and they aren't quite cars.
I'm thinking stopping at a red light and continuing if it makes sense to do so.
The U.S. Government gets somewhere between $200 billion and $225 billion a month in tax payments. I forget the exact figure, but let's say debt payments are around $50 billion a month.
We would only default if we chose to pay our debt with the lowest priority.
If you have money, you can mount a legal defense. If you don't have money, prosecutors can absolutely destroy you and your life even if you are innocent. There was a book detailing how everyone commits felonies because the federal criminal code, along with regulatory stuff, is so complex. It was called "Three Felonies a Day."
Basically, if a prosecutor wants to put you in jail, you're toast.
Slashdot Mirror
Is it just me or would a wave of low-skilled immigrants be a disaster for people on the low-end of the economic spectrum who are already here? Or is Google only thinking about high-skilled immigrants, i.e. the ones they want to hire?
Your own words condemn you.
If it was a racist white-hooded rally that wanted to be photographed and a black photographer refused, would you have objected?
"Stop imagining up fringe cases"
i.e. "his logic is correct"
They believe participating in it would be celebrating and giving approval of something they don't approve of.
Our imagination does not give us "surely". The only thing they are sure about is how life works with water on Earth, which is why they are looking for water.
At some point, if you can't find a job, you need for the greater good to settle for what you can find. For example, after the construction bubble popped in housing, should we just keep construction workers on permanent unemployment? Or should we encourage them to do something different with their lives?
Bees hate having sensors on their backs.
I'm questioning how this wrecks bilateral relations if America does it when the other side is doing the same thing.
Spying on foreign citizens is completely constitutional.
News flash: Europeans spy on American companies.
We also get rights from nature (the right to protect ourself) or if you don't like that from English common law, which would include the right to self-defense. Or defence. Or some other British variant spelling
But the main point is not everything has to be explicitly in the Constitution for it to be a right.
You take the 17 year pause in global warming and then you look at how many of those 97% of scientists predicted it, and then you come to the conclusion that maybe people don't know all the thousands of variables and calculations needed to be so certain. No need to consider orbital variations when you have actual data and predictions that didn't come true to work with.
Considering the Arctic has 75% more ice than last year, I'll say I don't know. And since we know there's been no warming in 17 years, maybe some unknown other cause should be considered a possibility.
What you are seeing is years and years of people planting the seeds of envy sprouting.
I guarantee you that our "friends" spy on us, especially for economic information. The problem I have with the NSA is that they spy on American citizens. It is THEIR JOB to spy on foreign citizens and governments.
Name me one other country in our same position who wouldn't bully other countries. Name me one country that would have as much of a history, for good or ill, of at being somewhat restrained in our use of power?
Russia, China?
You give them that data freely. They are analyzing it. A distinction that is worth noting.
Corporations are run by and owned by people, not by machines. They are treated as legal persons for very good reasons that go back hundreds of years for certain purpose. The Citizen United case was about speech, which the First Amendment allows regardless of the source. (Seriously, read the 1st Amendment. It just says "speech.") People also have freedom of association rights and their individual rights don't go away when they form groups.
Do you think the New York Times or Slashdot can get censored because the freedom of the press doesn't apply to them because they are owned by corporations?
Once personal data gets to the government, I would fully expect scammers, identity thieves, etc. to get a hold of this.
I'll confess to going through red lights. Not all of them though. But ones where there is not any pedestrian or car traffic. Also, in lower Manhattan there is a section I go through where it is less dangerous to go through the red lights. If I had to go through that when it was green, I would be constantly near cars trying to run me over. Going through the reds in this one area allow me to get ahead of stuck traffic and not get run over.
My suggestion would be to change the law to have bicycles stop at red lights and proceed if there is no traffic or pedestrians going through.
For the vast majority of my trip, I'm in a physically separated bike path and I'm all for that.
I've been bicycling in Manhattan for about 3 months or so now. There needs to be rules that make sense for bicycling. They aren't pedestrians and they aren't quite cars.
I'm thinking stopping at a red light and continuing if it makes sense to do so.
Do you think companies like losing their clients money? That is plenty of an incentive to avoid the problem in the future.
The U.S. Government gets somewhere between $200 billion and $225 billion a month in tax payments. I forget the exact figure, but let's say debt payments are around $50 billion a month.
We would only default if we chose to pay our debt with the lowest priority.
If you have money, you can mount a legal defense. If you don't have money, prosecutors can absolutely destroy you and your life even if you are innocent. There was a book detailing how everyone commits felonies because the federal criminal code, along with regulatory stuff, is so complex. It was called "Three Felonies a Day."
Basically, if a prosecutor wants to put you in jail, you're toast.
So good for Cuban.