The responses aren't that heavy handed. They just close things off and the yahoos who want to go off-roading in wilderness get pissed. Meanwhile this "heavy-handed authority" is soon going to allow copper mining in a forest sacred to the natives of the region.
The quote was not against flag burning, but it seems to imply that in order to protect the important free speech you must also protect the dumb free speech.
I just let the phone buzz and ignore it. What's the point of pulling it out to check? The only time it matters is if you're getting bad news, and bad news can wait. And in a meeting, I would never check it, and I am annoyed at people who do check. If I am talking to someone and they stop and look at the phone, it tells me that I am unimportant and they'd rather talk to literally anyone else in the the world including the unknown person who made the phone buzz.
Kids need to learn some basic social skills. Even nerds used to learn this stuff before smart phones. Treat the people you're talking to with respect, treat everyone in your meeting with respect, and if you don't actually respect them then keep it to yourself until you get home. And oh my god, do NOT answer your damn phone while at dinner with a friend, or worse with a date who'll never speak to you again.
Mythbusters only briefly looked at currents and simulations (at least in the part that made it to the show). They did not attempt to replicate the tidal patterns. The new study has more science behind it. Mythbusters is great because it gets people thinking, but people shouldn't treat the shows as conclusive.
Too bad they didn't get that choice. It was either the American dominance with a corrupt puppet regime, or Castro's revolution. Anyone who thinks they could have had a grass roots counter revolution at any time is engaging in a lot of wishful thinking.
I see this a bit in my neighborhood with Vietnamese. The older generation is the biggest anti-commie faction you will ever find, while the next generation is a lot more tepid. That war is apparently not over but considered alive and well, at least in California. I was utterly amazed and baffled when a Vietnamese council member was not praised by the community for breaking down political barriers but called an evil communist for supporting the wrong name for a street sign ("Little Vietnam" is apparently a pro-communist slogan). The kids though, they're American and aren't holding their breaths for an anticipated counter revolution in Vietnam.
What he said is true though, maybe it was misunderstood. Abortion is the number one reason the Republican party is such a mashup of strange bedfellows. It is a distraction view which normally one would expect to be a side issue, but it's also the one litmus test that you can't fail if you want to be elected as a Republican. People who otherwise had tepid political views suddenly start getting frisky when there's an issue about abortion being discussed. An abortion issue will kill a candidacy quickly. It's a wedge that fuels divisive politics of the "they're not real Americans like us" sort. Abortion brings people to the polls, especially Republicans but also true for a lot of Democrats.
If gas was this low under a Republican president I could guarantee you that the party faithful would be giving the president full credit.
The general rules of thumb are:
good things happen while our guy is on watch: it's due to his hard work and leadership bad things happen while our guy is on watch: caused by previous administration's policies good things happen while the other guy is on watch: caused by an earlier administration's policies bad things happen while the other guy is on watch: worst president of all time!
While Obama isn't perfect by any means, I do find it hilarious when people claim he's the worst president of all time. He got the Nobel Prize before he did anything, which was stupid, but before he did anything he was also called worst president of all time by several pundits. So it seems actions don't really matter for public opinion. That's sort of the point of Chris Rock's comment.
Stuff like this happens with most wars. Cuban revolution is no different in that regard. Citizens who flea into the arms of the enemy very often lose a lot of sympathy from back home. Perhaps there are still some people in England patiently waiting to regain the land that was taken away from their ancestors by those upstart American yahoos.
Or the opposition swings so far in one direction because of the actions that they splinter their party. I really see this happening. Note that the tea party pundits currently appear to actually be angrier at Boehner than at Obama. Some appear to be having difficulty holding the rage in check so that they can type coherently. I think this is because Obama was written off long ago as the spawn of Satan, whereas Boehner they assumed would pay them attention and now see him as the traitor. And so traitor is worse than spawn of Satan.
Also possibly due to the immense hype they had after winning a few extra seats in the election which caused a very tiny majority leaning one way flip to a very tiny majority leaning the other way. Aha, one extra vote, we have a *mandate*! They've been patiently been waiting 6 loooong years while sabotaging the government and holding onto hope that one day they'll finally get that *mandate*. But the joy only lasted one weekend, so resentment sets in.
I am actually surprised checking some social media to see extremely few frothy rants about this Cuba thing (I don't do facebook/twitter so I don't know what it's really like out there). Mark Rubio of course is pissed but he seems the only one loud enough to be heard. Maybe the tea party really is sticking to their original principles and is only getting mad about domestic issues and not foreign affairs? Mostly I seem to hear "it's about time" from the moderates and liberals. Or perhaps there are a lot of people that burst a vein and are now catatonic and unable to type at their keyboards?
Look at it this way. Computer Science Principles is the tough class, much tougher than simplistic programming. Thus girls take the hard classes and boys take the easy ones.
It flows to the bay not to most of the reservoirs, and not to the Sierras where most of the snowpack provides water for the summer, and not to replenish the ground water (which has been being sucked out for the last century).
Naw, move up to Bel Aire. Not much traffic, the houses are bigger, and the grocery stores have better food. I honestly don't understand why all poor people don't move there, it's as if they like the slums or something.
They don't even have to be more successful all the time. Those could have been the underdog not so well suited to the environment, but there was a famine or flood or other event. The niches open up for whatever can move in like squatters. Either the local competiton dies off and the previous underdog is left alone there, or the underdog migrates to a less desirable environment that the competition doesn't like.
You see similar things today. We tend to think of very select niches for some species, such as a bird who only eats one type of insect. But we find species willing to adapt to sudden changes in the environment, not necessarily whole sale but a subset of them figure out that they can survive on a different type of insect even if it's not as yummy as the previous kind.
People get macro evolution wrong because they're stuck thinking that evolution is about solving an optimization problem: ie, more evolution means better creatures. Except that evolution is about adaptability into the environment, into particular niches, and so forth. There are no higher or lower organisms, they just are. No in between stages, they just are. Sure, there are things between dinosaurs and birds, but then perhaps the bird itself is just an in-between stage between pre-birds and post-birds. Humans in that sense also are just an in-between stage as well, so clumsy and awkward that we can't even adapt without building tools. Defining things as a beginning, in-between, and end is the wrong way to look at things.
As for butterflies, all insects have a larval stage and later an adult stage, most of those adult stages have wings even if vestigial. Butterflies are not at all special in this regard. Once you've got some insects that have wings then most of the evolution that occurs is about separating the insects into a huge variety of species, some who adapted to use wings to escape from predators, while other have brightly colored wings that move them about slowly so that they're a bigger target, and so on.
The "in-between" stages absolutely are useful in some regard, even if the layman's view of evolution doesn't like it. Maybe there was a mutation that seemed pointless and harmful (probably was harmful) but as a side effect it may have made living in a particular environment easier even if they birds ended up eating more of them than the ones without the mutation. Maybe they went for eons with the mutation sticking around in some individuals and not others, until something changed in the environment which gave those with the mutation a very tiny advantage. There may be a big catastrophe wiping out many species and leaving the awkward subspecies of one just barely hanging on but able to exploit all those newly available niches.
Slashdot Mirror
The responses aren't that heavy handed. They just close things off and the yahoos who want to go off-roading in wilderness get pissed. Meanwhile this "heavy-handed authority" is soon going to allow copper mining in a forest sacred to the natives of the region.
That's why I hope this negotiating goes on through the end of the week, since I'll be stuck at mom's house and don't want to be subjected to it.
What I want to know is if this is going to make things easier during the final exam.
I think it does exist. It's the word "beta".
The quote was not against flag burning, but it seems to imply that in order to protect the important free speech you must also protect the dumb free speech.
The new hipster food is quinoa dogs.
For sure, stop using that term for politicians as it is demeaning to actual pirates.
I just let the phone buzz and ignore it. What's the point of pulling it out to check? The only time it matters is if you're getting bad news, and bad news can wait. And in a meeting, I would never check it, and I am annoyed at people who do check. If I am talking to someone and they stop and look at the phone, it tells me that I am unimportant and they'd rather talk to literally anyone else in the the world including the unknown person who made the phone buzz.
Kids need to learn some basic social skills. Even nerds used to learn this stuff before smart phones. Treat the people you're talking to with respect, treat everyone in your meeting with respect, and if you don't actually respect them then keep it to yourself until you get home. And oh my god, do NOT answer your damn phone while at dinner with a friend, or worse with a date who'll never speak to you again.
Mythbusters only briefly looked at currents and simulations (at least in the part that made it to the show). They did not attempt to replicate the tidal patterns. The new study has more science behind it. Mythbusters is great because it gets people thinking, but people shouldn't treat the shows as conclusive.
Maybe I'm confused by the story, but what has RFID in it? I thought these new currency things used NFC which is normally able to be turned off.
Too bad they didn't get that choice. It was either the American dominance with a corrupt puppet regime, or Castro's revolution. Anyone who thinks they could have had a grass roots counter revolution at any time is engaging in a lot of wishful thinking.
I see this a bit in my neighborhood with Vietnamese. The older generation is the biggest anti-commie faction you will ever find, while the next generation is a lot more tepid. That war is apparently not over but considered alive and well, at least in California. I was utterly amazed and baffled when a Vietnamese council member was not praised by the community for breaking down political barriers but called an evil communist for supporting the wrong name for a street sign ("Little Vietnam" is apparently a pro-communist slogan). The kids though, they're American and aren't holding their breaths for an anticipated counter revolution in Vietnam.
What he said is true though, maybe it was misunderstood. Abortion is the number one reason the Republican party is such a mashup of strange bedfellows. It is a distraction view which normally one would expect to be a side issue, but it's also the one litmus test that you can't fail if you want to be elected as a Republican. People who otherwise had tepid political views suddenly start getting frisky when there's an issue about abortion being discussed. An abortion issue will kill a candidacy quickly. It's a wedge that fuels divisive politics of the "they're not real Americans like us" sort. Abortion brings people to the polls, especially Republicans but also true for a lot of Democrats.
If gas was this low under a Republican president I could guarantee you that the party faithful would be giving the president full credit.
The general rules of thumb are:
good things happen while our guy is on watch: it's due to his hard work and leadership
bad things happen while our guy is on watch: caused by previous administration's policies
good things happen while the other guy is on watch: caused by an earlier administration's policies
bad things happen while the other guy is on watch: worst president of all time!
While Obama isn't perfect by any means, I do find it hilarious when people claim he's the worst president of all time. He got the Nobel Prize before he did anything, which was stupid, but before he did anything he was also called worst president of all time by several pundits. So it seems actions don't really matter for public opinion. That's sort of the point of Chris Rock's comment.
Liberals going about saving innocent people while totally forgetting about all that innocent oil that needs saving too!
Stuff like this happens with most wars. Cuban revolution is no different in that regard. Citizens who flea into the arms of the enemy very often lose a lot of sympathy from back home. Perhaps there are still some people in England patiently waiting to regain the land that was taken away from their ancestors by those upstart American yahoos.
Or the opposition swings so far in one direction because of the actions that they splinter their party. I really see this happening. Note that the tea party pundits currently appear to actually be angrier at Boehner than at Obama. Some appear to be having difficulty holding the rage in check so that they can type coherently. I think this is because Obama was written off long ago as the spawn of Satan, whereas Boehner they assumed would pay them attention and now see him as the traitor. And so traitor is worse than spawn of Satan.
Also possibly due to the immense hype they had after winning a few extra seats in the election which caused a very tiny majority leaning one way flip to a very tiny majority leaning the other way. Aha, one extra vote, we have a *mandate*! They've been patiently been waiting 6 loooong years while sabotaging the government and holding onto hope that one day they'll finally get that *mandate*. But the joy only lasted one weekend, so resentment sets in.
I am actually surprised checking some social media to see extremely few frothy rants about this Cuba thing (I don't do facebook/twitter so I don't know what it's really like out there). Mark Rubio of course is pissed but he seems the only one loud enough to be heard. Maybe the tea party really is sticking to their original principles and is only getting mad about domestic issues and not foreign affairs? Mostly I seem to hear "it's about time" from the moderates and liberals. Or perhaps there are a lot of people that burst a vein and are now catatonic and unable to type at their keyboards?
He's smart enough to accept money for a minor bit of marketing.
Look at it this way. Computer Science Principles is the tough class, much tougher than simplistic programming. Thus girls take the hard classes and boys take the easy ones.
It flows to the bay not to most of the reservoirs, and not to the Sierras where most of the snowpack provides water for the summer, and not to replenish the ground water (which has been being sucked out for the last century).
I always created my best APL programs with write only memory.
Naw, move up to Bel Aire. Not much traffic, the houses are bigger, and the grocery stores have better food. I honestly don't understand why all poor people don't move there, it's as if they like the slums or something.
They don't even have to be more successful all the time. Those could have been the underdog not so well suited to the environment, but there was a famine or flood or other event. The niches open up for whatever can move in like squatters. Either the local competiton dies off and the previous underdog is left alone there, or the underdog migrates to a less desirable environment that the competition doesn't like.
You see similar things today. We tend to think of very select niches for some species, such as a bird who only eats one type of insect. But we find species willing to adapt to sudden changes in the environment, not necessarily whole sale but a subset of them figure out that they can survive on a different type of insect even if it's not as yummy as the previous kind.
People get macro evolution wrong because they're stuck thinking that evolution is about solving an optimization problem: ie, more evolution means better creatures. Except that evolution is about adaptability into the environment, into particular niches, and so forth. There are no higher or lower organisms, they just are. No in between stages, they just are. Sure, there are things between dinosaurs and birds, but then perhaps the bird itself is just an in-between stage between pre-birds and post-birds. Humans in that sense also are just an in-between stage as well, so clumsy and awkward that we can't even adapt without building tools. Defining things as a beginning, in-between, and end is the wrong way to look at things.
As for butterflies, all insects have a larval stage and later an adult stage, most of those adult stages have wings even if vestigial. Butterflies are not at all special in this regard. Once you've got some insects that have wings then most of the evolution that occurs is about separating the insects into a huge variety of species, some who adapted to use wings to escape from predators, while other have brightly colored wings that move them about slowly so that they're a bigger target, and so on.
The "in-between" stages absolutely are useful in some regard, even if the layman's view of evolution doesn't like it. Maybe there was a mutation that seemed pointless and harmful (probably was harmful) but as a side effect it may have made living in a particular environment easier even if they birds ended up eating more of them than the ones without the mutation. Maybe they went for eons with the mutation sticking around in some individuals and not others, until something changed in the environment which gave those with the mutation a very tiny advantage. There may be a big catastrophe wiping out many species and leaving the awkward subspecies of one just barely hanging on but able to exploit all those newly available niches.