They don't just sit there and passively let the hero walk into a trap, they'll jump right up and try to warn him. "Look out, he's behind the door! Don't go in!"
It restores your faith in humanity, after a day of reading libertarian psychopath comments on the internet.
Sure, people in Calgary who see the unlikely spectacle of their downtown flooded were heard to say, hooray, it's about time, this should have happened sooner. Just for 1 example of how terrific it is to have the climate changing. Except of course, the climate is not changing, it's a hoax, like the whole hockey stick thing. Although nobody is denying that the climate is changing, just that humans are causing it. That should cover several bases.
Considering the initial observation that 1) atmospheric CO2 should cause the atmospheric temperature proportional to the log of its concentration and 2) therefore humans burning fossil fuels should cause the global temperature to rise was made by Svante Arrhenius in Sweden around 1900, the CIA must have some seriously long reach to have created it as a hoax like you say Snowden says.
And some people have the remarkable ability to say "Nope, I'm not convinced" every time you show then something, no matter what.
Such people are highly prized as spouses by adulterers.
A decade or so back when the economy was collapsing, the news reported on a heavily armed couple who were losing their house and barricaded themselves inside. They told the cops, media, etc that Jesus had come to them and told them they did not have to pay "the mortgage tax". Which nicely sums up a segment of the US population's attitudes regarding firearms, religion, capitalism and government. Beyond a doubt they voted Trump.
An old (pre-perestroika) witticism:
In the US, everything is permitted, except what is prohibited by law. In the Soviet Union, everything is prohibited, except what is permitted by law. In France, everything is permitted, including what is prohibited by law. And in China, everything is prohibited, including what is permitted by law.
Studies have shown that employees who are "allowed" to steal diddly items from their employer remain content at lower salaries than those where theft is tightly controlled, the difference in salary being far more than the value of the theft. Human nature being what it is. http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/pay-...
Entering beta testing in 2018; employees will be automatically given negative feedback by embedded AI, based on their recorded behavioral profile, using modified Taser technology.
You think communism failed because everybody loved a life of ease without working?
Uh, the "communist" (as in Soviet ) model failed because nobody could get material wealth no matter how hard they worked, and so material wealth was reserved as a reward for the Soviet 1%, who did nothing useful other than keep the 99% powerless. Sounds strangely familiar...
Russia was a poor country by Western standards and productivity was low. Marx observed that societies meeting that description went into a capitalist phase where productivity and wealth increased vastly, but then fell apart because division of the wealth was to unfair. "Communism" thought they could skip that intermediate step. It never got to any stage where great masses of loafers loved off welfare, despite your odd fantasy.
...has nothing to do with it. It's a stupid phrase used by ignorant people to describe something that is ubiquitous in food preparation. Even a chunk of venison cooked over a fire is chemically processed. What matters is the macronutrient composition of the food.
to a large degree, "chemically processed" is a proxy for high sodium. not necessarily for taste; for purposes of chemical engineering. Solubilize something by lowering the pH, for instance, then neutralize the pH by adding sodium hydroxide.
290 mg of sodium in 168 gm of mcdonald's french fries vs 240 mg in 370 gm of mcdonald's chocolate shake, http://nutrition.mcdonalds.com..., for instance, despite people's not thinking of a shake as salty, compared to fries. But the shakes are very highly processed, whereas the fries are just sliced fried potatoes, with all the sodium on the outside where you taste it.
I can't understand anymore the mindset of trying to make the world better by forcing/incenting people to make better choices through taxes or whatever. The world is not a laboratory full of test subjects.
Except that people's bad health choices end up costing everybody money, in a way that for instance their bad fashion choices do not.
Of course, the taxes added to these behaviors don't relate to the actual externalized costs of the behaviors in any way, which kind of screws up the rationale.
But Medicare is the part of the US medical system that works best, by objective quantitative measures. Lowest costs, and best outcomes compared to other countries. Not just comparable outcomes; if you make it to Medicare age in the US, your life expectancy becomes highest in the developed world. That's Medicare, you know, the single payer government socialized universal health program.
Ingested carbs need to go somewhere. Brain consumes a bit, and the remaining part is the problem. If one has enough physical activity, carbs get burned in muscles. Otherwise, they are converted into fat, or remain in bloodstream (this is diabetes) until cleared by kidneys. Of course it is also possible to get both fat and diabetes.
People don't realize just how much physical activity it takes to burn off excess calories, whether fat or carbs. You need to run a mile to burn off like 100 calories. Which is like, 1 apple. You need to just keep the excess out of the body in the first place.
Cabbage is highly underrated- there needs to be more cabbage in the world!
Changing subsidies from corn to cabbage would be great or even my preferred solution of getting rid of subsidies all together. But it's not going to happen, and if it happens, it'll be under a D-team administration at this rate and get shouted down as politically correct vegan hipster &c &c
Yeah, and it doesn't really need to be just cabbages (cabbages can't take the heat in much of the country during warmer months, that was just an example... vegetables in general).
I understand the idea of subsidizing farming. It's more than just "poor farmers can't make enough money", or "we need more green spaces". What it really comes down to is national defense. A country needs to be able to be self-sufficient with food in case of war disrupting trade. That said, maize is a terrible product to base our diet on.
All them cabbagey/mustardy/cruciferous things are full of beneficial phytochemicals. Which is why they don't taste like iceberg lettuce. And they aren't overloaded with carbs or fat. Given the hardy weediness of the family, you can be assured our distant ancestors ate a lot of them when they came down from the trees.
That aside, we've got too many people incarcerated now. We don't need to waste space/money on (relatively) trivial shit - fine him heavily, and be done with it....
slap on the wrist, blow on the head; what's the difference.
It seems that he broke FAA rules (I'm not familiar with those, but most countries' rules for model aircraft don't allow them to be flown over crowds). Because of the resulting injury, a stiff sentence would be in order. But in this case, as opposed to violent crimes and the like, there is no benefit in removing this guy from society for a bit, other than making an example out of him. Wouldn't justice be better served with community service? Especially since I'd think the guy is also on the hook to pay a substantial amount in damages to the girl, even if he's only ordered to pay actual damages.
Then we got the kid in CT who likes to fly drones with firearms or flamethrowers mounted on them and disagrees with the FAA regarding the advisability of said behavior.
And yet, this is, in a way, very similar to just flinging a baseball bat (or whatever) towards a group of people, isn't it?
Doesn't seem similar to me. Drone pilot intended to fly near people, not hit them with the drone. Hitting the people was an accident. If you throw a bat at a group of people, you intended to hit them with the bat.
More than that; I believe we can assume that the guy had no intent whatsoever to crash his drone and presumably whenever flying made efforts to avoid crashing; in contrast to situations where somebody actually makes an effort to do something which would cause harm to a person, if one happens to be in the wrong place at the wrong time; shoot an arrow down an 'empty' street, for example, or toss the inert drone off the top of the building, or, dare I say it, fire a gun in the air.
By and large, there don't seem to be many prosecutions of pilots of actual airplanes who crash without a serious case of negligence involved; there doesn't seem to be any presumption of reckless endangerment by just flying above people on the grounds that if the plane were to crash, bystanders would be hurt.
Slashdot Mirror
They don't just sit there and passively let the hero walk into a trap, they'll jump right up and try to warn him. "Look out, he's behind the door! Don't go in!"
It restores your faith in humanity, after a day of reading libertarian psychopath comments on the internet.
Gravity was good in 3d.
Sure, people in Calgary who see the unlikely spectacle of their downtown flooded were heard to say, hooray, it's about time, this should have happened sooner. Just for 1 example of how terrific it is to have the climate changing. Except of course, the climate is not changing, it's a hoax, like the whole hockey stick thing. Although nobody is denying that the climate is changing, just that humans are causing it. That should cover several bases.
Considering the initial observation that 1) atmospheric CO2 should cause the atmospheric temperature proportional to the log of its concentration and 2) therefore humans burning fossil fuels should cause the global temperature to rise was made by Svante Arrhenius in Sweden around 1900, the CIA must have some seriously long reach to have created it as a hoax like you say Snowden says.
And some people have the remarkable ability to say "Nope, I'm not convinced" every time you show then something, no matter what. Such people are highly prized as spouses by adulterers.
Much as eggs are trailing indicators of chickens.
A pair of spectacles.
Coming soon: "Trump announces, 'Nobody knew climate is complicated'"
Kindly indicate to us what evidence for anthropogenic climate change you expect to see, which you feel is lacking.
A decade or so back when the economy was collapsing, the news reported on a heavily armed couple who were losing their house and barricaded themselves inside. They told the cops, media, etc that Jesus had come to them and told them they did not have to pay "the mortgage tax". Which nicely sums up a segment of the US population's attitudes regarding firearms, religion, capitalism and government. Beyond a doubt they voted Trump.
An old (pre-perestroika) witticism: In the US, everything is permitted, except what is prohibited by law. In the Soviet Union, everything is prohibited, except what is permitted by law. In France, everything is permitted, including what is prohibited by law. And in China, everything is prohibited, including what is permitted by law.
At last, the meaning of the word "xfinity" is revealed.
Studies have shown that employees who are "allowed" to steal diddly items from their employer remain content at lower salaries than those where theft is tightly controlled, the difference in salary being far more than the value of the theft. Human nature being what it is. http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/pay-...
Entering beta testing in 2018; employees will be automatically given negative feedback by embedded AI, based on their recorded behavioral profile, using modified Taser technology.
You think communism failed because everybody loved a life of ease without working? Uh, the "communist" (as in Soviet ) model failed because nobody could get material wealth no matter how hard they worked, and so material wealth was reserved as a reward for the Soviet 1%, who did nothing useful other than keep the 99% powerless. Sounds strangely familiar... Russia was a poor country by Western standards and productivity was low. Marx observed that societies meeting that description went into a capitalist phase where productivity and wealth increased vastly, but then fell apart because division of the wealth was to unfair. "Communism" thought they could skip that intermediate step. It never got to any stage where great masses of loafers loved off welfare, despite your odd fantasy.
It Takes a Nation of Millions to Hold Us Back https://g.co/kgs/wGDwmx
What speech?
...has nothing to do with it. It's a stupid phrase used by ignorant people to describe something that is ubiquitous in food preparation. Even a chunk of venison cooked over a fire is chemically processed. What matters is the macronutrient composition of the food.
to a large degree, "chemically processed" is a proxy for high sodium. not necessarily for taste; for purposes of chemical engineering. Solubilize something by lowering the pH, for instance, then neutralize the pH by adding sodium hydroxide.
290 mg of sodium in 168 gm of mcdonald's french fries vs 240 mg in 370 gm of mcdonald's chocolate shake, http://nutrition.mcdonalds.com..., for instance, despite people's not thinking of a shake as salty, compared to fries. But the shakes are very highly processed, whereas the fries are just sliced fried potatoes, with all the sodium on the outside where you taste it.
I can't understand anymore the mindset of trying to make the world better by forcing/incenting people to make better choices through taxes or whatever. The world is not a laboratory full of test subjects.
Except that people's bad health choices end up costing everybody money, in a way that for instance their bad fashion choices do not. Of course, the taxes added to these behaviors don't relate to the actual externalized costs of the behaviors in any way, which kind of screws up the rationale.
But Medicare is the part of the US medical system that works best, by objective quantitative measures. Lowest costs, and best outcomes compared to other countries. Not just comparable outcomes; if you make it to Medicare age in the US, your life expectancy becomes highest in the developed world. That's Medicare, you know, the single payer government socialized universal health program.
Ingested carbs need to go somewhere. Brain consumes a bit, and the remaining part is the problem. If one has enough physical activity, carbs get burned in muscles. Otherwise, they are converted into fat, or remain in bloodstream (this is diabetes) until cleared by kidneys. Of course it is also possible to get both fat and diabetes.
People don't realize just how much physical activity it takes to burn off excess calories, whether fat or carbs. You need to run a mile to burn off like 100 calories. Which is like, 1 apple. You need to just keep the excess out of the body in the first place.
I do like the idea of more cabbage.
Cabbage is highly underrated- there needs to be more cabbage in the world!
Changing subsidies from corn to cabbage would be great or even my preferred solution of getting rid of subsidies all together. But it's not going to happen, and if it happens, it'll be under a D-team administration at this rate and get shouted down as politically correct vegan hipster &c &c
Yeah, and it doesn't really need to be just cabbages (cabbages can't take the heat in much of the country during warmer months, that was just an example... vegetables in general).
I understand the idea of subsidizing farming. It's more than just "poor farmers can't make enough money", or "we need more green spaces". What it really comes down to is national defense. A country needs to be able to be self-sufficient with food in case of war disrupting trade. That said, maize is a terrible product to base our diet on.
All them cabbagey/mustardy/cruciferous things are full of beneficial phytochemicals. Which is why they don't taste like iceberg lettuce. And they aren't overloaded with carbs or fat. Given the hardy weediness of the family, you can be assured our distant ancestors ate a lot of them when they came down from the trees.
slap on the wrist, blow on the head; what's the difference.
It seems that he broke FAA rules (I'm not familiar with those, but most countries' rules for model aircraft don't allow them to be flown over crowds). Because of the resulting injury, a stiff sentence would be in order. But in this case, as opposed to violent crimes and the like, there is no benefit in removing this guy from society for a bit, other than making an example out of him. Wouldn't justice be better served with community service? Especially since I'd think the guy is also on the hook to pay a substantial amount in damages to the girl, even if he's only ordered to pay actual damages.
Then we got the kid in CT who likes to fly drones with firearms or flamethrowers mounted on them and disagrees with the FAA regarding the advisability of said behavior.
And yet, this is, in a way, very similar to just flinging a baseball bat (or whatever) towards a group of people, isn't it?
Doesn't seem similar to me. Drone pilot intended to fly near people, not hit them with the drone. Hitting the people was an accident. If you throw a bat at a group of people, you intended to hit them with the bat.
More than that; I believe we can assume that the guy had no intent whatsoever to crash his drone and presumably whenever flying made efforts to avoid crashing; in contrast to situations where somebody actually makes an effort to do something which would cause harm to a person, if one happens to be in the wrong place at the wrong time; shoot an arrow down an 'empty' street, for example, or toss the inert drone off the top of the building, or, dare I say it, fire a gun in the air.
By and large, there don't seem to be many prosecutions of pilots of actual airplanes who crash without a serious case of negligence involved; there doesn't seem to be any presumption of reckless endangerment by just flying above people on the grounds that if the plane were to crash, bystanders would be hurt.