But you can't make that distinction. The problem is without the Oxford comma, A and B and (C or D) A and B and C and D Two separate things, but they would be written exactly the same. That's why the Oxford comma should be mandatory in such lists.
i think this just shows why laws shouldn't be written in English. Laws should have their own syntax including special delimiters to clarify items in a list. It should be designed sort of like a programming language.
comas clearly aren't sufficient.
Commas are sufficient, but the lack of an Oxford comma should always been seen as grammatically incorrect, and whomever wrote the Maine law needs to not be able to write laws concerning grammar anymore.
Vaccines used thimerosal as a preservative, thimerosal is a different mercury compound.
Bah, mercury is mercury, like sodium is a highly reactive metal, chlorine is a highly-toxic gas, and sodium chloride is a combination that's even worse.
You obviously have never taken the express bus, which is an extra $70 per month, a larger, comfortable bus, and everyone on board are working class professionals. Most people on the early morning express bus are snoozing from getting up early, and the commute home is often quiet because people are snoozing from a long day at work. I spend my commute time reading The Wall Street Journal in the morning and an ebook in the afternoon because I'm paying someone else to drive.
Cool. Around where I live, the bus (which doesn't come close to my house but does have a dropoff close to my workplace) has plenty of people who just shout whatever comes to mind all days long and bus drivers who have learned to just pretend it's not happening.
On the other hand, you can see some great fights on the bus. Epic Beard Man happened right on my route.
No one uses them. Why should the government be sponsoring the hobby of a tiny minority of the population?
Because they're not just operating in a vacuum. A bicyclist who bikes to work is not taking up the space of a car on the road, is not taking up a parking spot on the street or in a lot, is not filling the air with pollutants from his car, and is likely to be healthier for the effort. So, for those who have the option, why not encourage it? The best thing you can do from a city infrastructure perspective is to encourage people and make it more convenient to not drive in a car.
You can do a google scholar literature view for a "systematic review [google.com]" of controlled experiments, like you would with any other drug. You should confine your attention to high impact factor journals though.
He's not interested in that because he's already made up his mind and is coming from a "all this is bullshit" attitude.
Parents who don't do the full vaccine schedule are largely university educated
University educated doesn't mean you're less likely to be drawn in by codswallop. They DO tend to be more on the far left side, more like upper-class hippies who think GMO is evil even if they don't know what it is, "natural is always better," and other reductio ad absurdums.
But these comments are so full of shills, anything not agreeing with Big Pharma is getting modded down.
Yeah, Big Pharma! Big Pharma so evil! So easy to turn off brain if I just think Big Pharma evil!
Yeah, I guess I underestimated the lack of sarcasm detection/humour among vaccination fanatics. My bad. Yours too apparently. Note to self: stay away from these threads.
I've been burned by that over and over here too, and you'd think I'd learn. But I'm just too addicted to sarcasm to stop using it on Internet forums.
Sorry, but fsck herd immunity. Is it good? Yes. Is it my decision if I want to participate? Hell, Yes!
Then get ready for the rest of society to be willing to exclude your kids, and not allow your kids to mingle with theirs at school. Their decision too, since there are a hell of a lot more of them than of you, they get to decide where their kids go and yours can't.
"If you ask a legislator to increase the gas tax, even by a few cents/gallon, you will get the idea thrown back in your face wrapped around a rock."
Which is why the California Gas tax went from 39 cents per gallon in 2010 to almost 60 cents per gallon this year, eh?
California's gas taxes are currently 38 cents a gallon. It's 57c if you a add in federal taxes.
Fuel taxes were lower in 2010, but that's because in 2010 California implemented a tax swap, where sales and use taxes for fuel were lowered, while the gas tax itself was raised. So between 2010 - 2011 the "gas tax" spiked, but the cost at the pump didn't change aside from the regular variations in prices for the fuel itself. This was done because sales taxes were calculated based on a percent of the price, while the fuel taxes are a set amount per gallon. This has the effect of making the taxes collected less volatile with a glut when gas is expensive and starved for taxes when gas is cheap, as state expenses should be stable -- they can't ramp up and then fall with the price of oil.
How about building some offices 40 miles away where the houses are cheaper, so the staff can afford to live nearby and not have to use the highway?
There are many reasons why this doesn't happen, and among them are: 1) In the city center, businesses can attract talent from all over. In the suburbs, they have a smaller hiring pool. If you don't live in the particular suburb that this company is based in, chances are your commutes would be greater than they were before. 2) People hop jobs. Gone are the days when you would graduate high school/college, be hired by a company, and expect to work there for 40 years. People don't want to have to move to whatever development is near their new job, not when it involves selling their house and pulling their kids out of their school. 3) Most cities are -dense- for good reasons. The downside is that it's easy to overwhelm tiny freeways. 4) Many many many people also detest living in tiny, expensive developments packed into buildings like rats, so that's why they don't live in the big city. There's more space and less crime outside of it.
If workplaces were spread out instead of clumped together you'd solve a lot of these problems.
Diseases are an eco-system like any other. How many times have we tried messing with an eco-system just to have whatever unwanted species we got rid of being replaced with something even worse (often rats).
What you have just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone on this site is now dumber for having read it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
Also the Embarcadero Freeway, Ca-480 that can along the coast of San Francisco. It was also demolished after the 1989 earthquake, and now the area is open plazas, waterfront, housing, and parks.
That particular area greatly benefited, though the Chinatown section north of it hated losing the freeway, and mayor Art Agnos was defeated in his next reelection. It's a popular topic for study for urban planners considering freeway removal.
What happens if the gene drive starts spreading to *all* mosquitoes
The gene is explicitly sterilizing mosquitoes. It seems like if the gene "spread", in its current form either there would be no offspring at all, or it would have no effect at all. It seems like the gene would have to be mutated into something completely different.
The "failures" can be overwhelmed though. As in the case of Brazil, they just release swarm after swarm of modified males until the females are only able to mate with the toxic males. Populations in some parts of Brazil have dropped 99-100% with zero infections in months.
What is this argument that says any action is justified when it has already been committed at an earlier time by a different party?
It's called the law. Move to China and change it. Stop asking others to do your work for you.
Maybe Google and other American companies should have the balls to not do business in countries whose laws would require such immoral actions. Oh, but the profit motive is the highest moral value, and if they didn't do it, someone else would. Silly me.
What is this argument that says any action is justified when it has already been committed at an earlier time by a different party?
What it's saying is that Google has no moral compunction against wiping away a topic completely if the authorities ask for it. They long ago dropped their "Don't Be Evil" line and now it's "anything goes."
"The holocaust never happened" is not an unpleasant fact - it's an out-and-out lie.
But the parent poster didn't mention it was Holocaust information he was looking for, that's just the example used in the article. We can only guess the pages he was looking for.
But be careful if you ask for things to be curated for you. I suspect that it'll be "curated" a lot more than most of us want, just like the child-safe Internet filters that filter out pornography but also filter information about sex abuse recovery, anorexia, tobacco, any information or discussion about cannabis, alcoholic recovery services, copyright circumvention, and other grey areas or topics that one lobbying group or another wants banned.
It's like those stories one hears about middle-class white people having run-ins with the cops where their rights aren't respected. It's as if class no longer matters in the USA.
You're definitely putting too much emphasis on class. There are quite a few upper-class black people who get pulled over by police under the assumption that the car is stolen.
I'm actually feeling that this is a serious thing (even though you apparently don't). Why should men be more exposed to physical violence than women (ignoring the case where men behave more aggressively)? Why is it "acceptable" (not in the legal meaning) for women to beat their boyfriends/husbands but not vise versa?
For stupid reasons that others have already pointed out, a man who can't defend himself against a woman is considered less of a man. It's weakness, and weakness is despised.
Slashdot Mirror
Let x equal true if
(
A
And
B
And
(C or D)
But you can't make that distinction. The problem is without the Oxford comma,
A and B and (C or D)
A and B and C and D
Two separate things, but they would be written exactly the same. That's why the Oxford comma should be mandatory in such lists.
i think this just shows why laws shouldn't be written in English. Laws should have their own syntax including special delimiters to clarify items in a list. It should be designed sort of like a programming language.
comas clearly aren't sufficient.
Commas are sufficient, but the lack of an Oxford comma should always been seen as grammatically incorrect, and whomever wrote the Maine law needs to not be able to write laws concerning grammar anymore.
Vaccines used thimerosal as a preservative, thimerosal is a different mercury compound.
Bah, mercury is mercury, like sodium is a highly reactive metal, chlorine is a highly-toxic gas, and sodium chloride is a combination that's even worse.
You obviously have never taken the express bus, which is an extra $70 per month, a larger, comfortable bus, and everyone on board are working class professionals. Most people on the early morning express bus are snoozing from getting up early, and the commute home is often quiet because people are snoozing from a long day at work. I spend my commute time reading The Wall Street Journal in the morning and an ebook in the afternoon because I'm paying someone else to drive.
Cool. Around where I live, the bus (which doesn't come close to my house but does have a dropoff close to my workplace) has plenty of people who just shout whatever comes to mind all days long and bus drivers who have learned to just pretend it's not happening.
On the other hand, you can see some great fights on the bus. Epic Beard Man happened right on my route.
Why?
No one uses them. Why should the government be sponsoring the hobby of a tiny minority of the population?
Because they're not just operating in a vacuum. A bicyclist who bikes to work is not taking up the space of a car on the road, is not taking up a parking spot on the street or in a lot, is not filling the air with pollutants from his car, and is likely to be healthier for the effort. So, for those who have the option, why not encourage it?
The best thing you can do from a city infrastructure perspective is to encourage people and make it more convenient to not drive in a car.
You can do a google scholar literature view for a "systematic review [google.com]" of controlled experiments, like you would with any other drug. You should confine your attention to high impact factor journals though.
He's not interested in that because he's already made up his mind and is coming from a "all this is bullshit" attitude.
Parents who don't do the full vaccine schedule are largely university educated
University educated doesn't mean you're less likely to be drawn in by codswallop. They DO tend to be more on the far left side, more like upper-class hippies who think GMO is evil even if they don't know what it is, "natural is always better," and other reductio ad absurdums.
But these comments are so full of shills, anything not agreeing with Big Pharma is getting modded down.
Yeah, Big Pharma! Big Pharma so evil! So easy to turn off brain if I just think Big Pharma evil!
Sure, whatever. It's not like all of that quarter of the population will survive to adulthood anyway.
Usually they do survive, but have expensive life-long conditions that need to be managed and paid for, often by the taxpayer.
Yeah, I guess I underestimated the lack of sarcasm detection/humour among vaccination fanatics. My bad. Yours too apparently. Note to self: stay away from these threads.
I've been burned by that over and over here too, and you'd think I'd learn. But I'm just too addicted to sarcasm to stop using it on Internet forums.
Sorry, but fsck herd immunity. Is it good? Yes. Is it my decision if I want to participate? Hell, Yes!
Then get ready for the rest of society to be willing to exclude your kids, and not allow your kids to mingle with theirs at school. Their decision too, since there are a hell of a lot more of them than of you, they get to decide where their kids go and yours can't.
"If you ask a legislator to increase the gas tax, even by a few cents/gallon, you will get the idea thrown back in your face wrapped around a rock."
Which is why the California Gas tax went from 39 cents per gallon in 2010 to almost 60 cents per gallon this year, eh?
California's gas taxes are currently 38 cents a gallon. It's 57c if you a add in federal taxes.
Fuel taxes were lower in 2010, but that's because in 2010 California implemented a tax swap, where sales and use taxes for fuel were lowered, while the gas tax itself was raised. So between 2010 - 2011 the "gas tax" spiked, but the cost at the pump didn't change aside from the regular variations in prices for the fuel itself. This was done because sales taxes were calculated based on a percent of the price, while the fuel taxes are a set amount per gallon. This has the effect of making the taxes collected less volatile with a glut when gas is expensive and starved for taxes when gas is cheap, as state expenses should be stable -- they can't ramp up and then fall with the price of oil.
How about building some offices 40 miles away where the houses are cheaper, so the staff can afford to live nearby and not have to use the highway?
There are many reasons why this doesn't happen, and among them are:
1) In the city center, businesses can attract talent from all over. In the suburbs, they have a smaller hiring pool. If you don't live in the particular suburb that this company is based in, chances are your commutes would be greater than they were before.
2) People hop jobs. Gone are the days when you would graduate high school/college, be hired by a company, and expect to work there for 40 years. People don't want to have to move to whatever development is near their new job, not when it involves selling their house and pulling their kids out of their school.
3) Most cities are -dense- for good reasons. The downside is that it's easy to overwhelm tiny freeways.
4) Many many many people also detest living in tiny, expensive developments packed into buildings like rats, so that's why they don't live in the big city. There's more space and less crime outside of it.
If workplaces were spread out instead of clumped together you'd solve a lot of these problems.
Diseases are an eco-system like any other. How many times have we tried messing with an eco-system just to have whatever unwanted species we got rid of being replaced with something even worse (often rats).
What you have just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone on this site is now dumber for having read it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
Also the Embarcadero Freeway, Ca-480 that can along the coast of San Francisco. It was also demolished after the 1989 earthquake, and now the area is open plazas, waterfront, housing, and parks.
That particular area greatly benefited, though the Chinatown section north of it hated losing the freeway, and mayor Art Agnos was defeated in his next reelection. It's a popular topic for study for urban planners considering freeway removal.
What happens if the gene drive starts spreading to *all* mosquitoes
The gene is explicitly sterilizing mosquitoes. It seems like if the gene "spread", in its current form either there would be no offspring at all, or it would have no effect at all. It seems like the gene would have to be mutated into something completely different.
Ask yourself "What eats the plants?" .
Something that will have to eat the other plants that replace them.
Because I don't know if they are gay. What I do know is that they are spineless, like most people who live in the San Francisco bay area.
Yeah, those spineless types, always bucking the trends of larger society!
The "failures" can be overwhelmed though. As in the case of Brazil, they just release swarm after swarm of modified males until the females are only able to mate with the toxic males. Populations in some parts of Brazil have dropped 99-100% with zero infections in months.
It's like "herd immunity" in reverse.
It still doesn't make much sense, I mean, which village is meant, and since when are villages allowed to make such decisions.
So a local jurisdiction should have no say on whether it and its people are to be used for experimental scientific tests?
What is this argument that says any action is justified when it has already been committed at an earlier time by a different party?
It's called the law. Move to China and change it. Stop asking others to do your work for you.
Maybe Google and other American companies should have the balls to not do business in countries whose laws would require such immoral actions. Oh, but the profit motive is the highest moral value, and if they didn't do it, someone else would. Silly me.
What is this argument that says any action is justified when it has already been committed at an earlier time by a different party?
What it's saying is that Google has no moral compunction against wiping away a topic completely if the authorities ask for it.
They long ago dropped their "Don't Be Evil" line and now it's "anything goes."
"The holocaust never happened" is not an unpleasant fact - it's an out-and-out lie.
But the parent poster didn't mention it was Holocaust information he was looking for, that's just the example used in the article. We can only guess the pages he was looking for.
But be careful if you ask for things to be curated for you. I suspect that it'll be "curated" a lot more than most of us want, just like the child-safe Internet filters that filter out pornography but also filter information about sex abuse recovery, anorexia, tobacco, any information or discussion about cannabis, alcoholic recovery services, copyright circumvention, and other grey areas or topics that one lobbying group or another wants banned.
This is not because of the government, this is due to a complaint:
"The Department opened its investigation of UC Berkeley based on a complaint"
A complaint means nothing. People complain all the time, about everything.
What comes of it is government power that is in response to the complaint.
It's like those stories one hears about middle-class white people having run-ins with the cops where their rights aren't respected. It's as if class no longer matters in the USA.
You're definitely putting too much emphasis on class. There are quite a few upper-class black people who get pulled over by police under the assumption that the car is stolen.
I'm actually feeling that this is a serious thing (even though you apparently don't). Why should men be more exposed to physical violence than women (ignoring the case where men behave more aggressively)? Why is it "acceptable" (not in the legal meaning) for women to beat their boyfriends/husbands but not vise versa?
For stupid reasons that others have already pointed out, a man who can't defend himself against a woman is considered less of a man. It's weakness, and weakness is despised.