I meant providing all the tweets in a simpler form, as opposed to excluding some of the tweets entirely, but I suppose it would make sense to at least test on a small subset of tweets first.
provide a limited version of the database with only some information from the tweets, so there's less data to search through? (of course, keep the full data in case a search depends on it)
The big 'full faith and credit' case, that has never had its day in court, for whatever reason, is probably the one that would erupt if a homosexual couple duly married according to the procedures of a state where such is legal were to demand that a state where it isn't(or is overtly banned at the constitutional level) give full faith and credit to the actions of the state that married them. That one would get a bit touchy...
I figured that clause obviously would have spread gay marriage throughout the US from the states where it's legal.
There are some gay marriage cases on their way to the Supreme Court right now, but they hinge on other Constitutional issues.
"Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof." may be a loophole that DOMA abuses.
Perspective? Lobotomy began with extremely careful scraping of the brain, meant to do the absolute minimum damage possible. Then some greedy quack in the USA took it to a ridiculous extreme, turning a nice young lady into a wheelchair-bound mess because her stuck-up family was worried about their social standing, and that soon degenerated into a procedure that should have been called a crime against humanity: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transorbital_lobotomy
I'm tempted to agree with you on that. Eugenics does seem logical, although perhaps too coldly logical. Many things work better in theory than in practice. Is it actually possible to separate eugenics from racism and other such irrational bigotry? Ironically, purging inconsequential characteristics weakens the gene pool. Also, why would homosexuality evolve?
or physical injuries to the head, but the point is the same - part X of the brain is damaged, subject's function Y is impaired, so part X is related to function Y
it seems unfair and counterproductive to shut out people who acquired the product elsewhere - logically, their opinions would be just as valid as people who purchased the product on Amazon. However, I don't see how you could reliably allow those while still reliably shutting out people who haven't used the product at all. Also, purchased-on-Amazon can lead to seller/shipment complains irrelevant to the product itself, a different problem.
there's plenty of people who are apparently incapable of reading the product description before purchase and then give horrible reviews because their new pizza slicer makes a lousy HDTV antenna. Or down-rate a product because the particular supplier they purchased from took six weeks to deliver it, or the UPS guy decided to play street hockey with the box, etc.
Yes, many people leave reviews unrelated the product. That's a negative that Amazon should do something about (delete those after users flag them?) but there still seems to be plenty of upside in having more reviews.
okay, 50 Shades sounds like crap, but I often see fanboys/fangirls overrate decent stuff - modern mainstream franchises are most likely to have such problems, and it can annoy the saner fans.
I'd absolutely support modifying the food stamp system to cover them. Also, 'poaching' implies illegal hunting which often doesn't mean gun control violations - is that what you meant?
I am well awar eof the theory, but have yet to hear an explanation of how it would work in practice - regular firearms versus military-grade hardware? come on now.
Guns for self-defense can make sense, but that seems balanced out by its own set of problems, and not solely mass shootings. If a physically smaller person is armed, they could defend themselves against someone bigger - or attack someone bigger. A dangerous big guy would be even more dangerous when armed. If they're both armed, I don't see how that's any better than neither of them being armed.
I am fully aware of that. It seems like a moot point because what could average people with average firearms do against modern military-grade training and hardware? The difference wasn't so great in the late 1700's, so it made sense then. At best, opposing gun control on those grounds is fueled by paranoia and takes the law too literally, to the detriment of common sense.
Slashdot Mirror
Congress could override the veto,but I doubt they would.
I meant providing all the tweets in a simpler form, as opposed to excluding some of the tweets entirely, but I suppose it would make sense to at least test on a small subset of tweets first.
provide a limited version of the database with only some information from the tweets, so there's less data to search through? (of course, keep the full data in case a search depends on it)
The big 'full faith and credit' case, that has never had its day in court, for whatever reason, is probably the one that would erupt if a homosexual couple duly married according to the procedures of a state where such is legal were to demand that a state where it isn't(or is overtly banned at the constitutional level) give full faith and credit to the actions of the state that married them. That one would get a bit touchy...
I figured that clause obviously would have spread gay marriage throughout the US from the states where it's legal.
There are some gay marriage cases on their way to the Supreme Court right now, but they hinge on other Constitutional issues.
"Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof." may be a loophole that DOMA abuses.
Perspective? Lobotomy began with extremely careful scraping of the brain, meant to do the absolute minimum damage possible. Then some greedy quack in the USA took it to a ridiculous extreme, turning a nice young lady into a wheelchair-bound mess because her stuck-up family was worried about their social standing, and that soon degenerated into a procedure that should have been called a crime against humanity:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transorbital_lobotomy
That wiki link redirects to the Lobotomy article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobotomy#Notable_cases mentions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosemary_Kennedy which seems to fit your description - is that what you meant?
I'm tempted to agree with you on that.
Eugenics does seem logical, although perhaps too coldly logical.
Many things work better in theory than in practice. Is it actually possible to separate eugenics from racism and other such irrational bigotry? Ironically, purging inconsequential characteristics weakens the gene pool. Also, why would homosexuality evolve?
or physical injuries to the head, but the point is the same - part X of the brain is damaged, subject's function Y is impaired, so part X is related to function Y
I wonder if this is a $cientology anti-psychiatry rant.
it seems unfair and counterproductive to shut out people who acquired the product elsewhere - logically, their opinions would be just as valid as people who purchased the product on Amazon.
However, I don't see how you could reliably allow those while still reliably shutting out people who haven't used the product at all.
Also, purchased-on-Amazon can lead to seller/shipment complains irrelevant to the product itself, a different problem.
a lot of critics seem to be at their best when making fun of bad stuff. assuming the thing really is bad, then that's both entertaining and fair.
there's plenty of people who are apparently incapable of reading the product description before purchase and then give horrible reviews because their new pizza slicer makes a lousy HDTV antenna. Or down-rate a product because the particular supplier they purchased from took six weeks to deliver it, or the UPS guy decided to play street hockey with the box, etc.
Yes, many people leave reviews unrelated the product. That's a negative that Amazon should do something about (delete those after users flag them?) but there still seems to be plenty of upside in having more reviews.
okay, 50 Shades sounds like crap, but I often see fanboys/fangirls overrate decent stuff - modern mainstream franchises are most likely to have such problems, and it can annoy the saner fans.
"I would rather play Chiquita Banana and have my swimming pool than play Bach and starve." - Xavier Cugat
PS
I resent Hunger Games being associated with Twilight, much deeper despite some surface similarities
The page is still up to me. looks like a normal profile from what's publicly visible.
Alice herself was stealing the sugar cubes?
uncanny valley - in short, not quite real gets a worse response than being obviously fake
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny_valley
I'd absolutely support modifying the food stamp system to cover them.
Also, 'poaching' implies illegal hunting which often doesn't mean gun control violations - is that what you meant?
I am well awar eof the theory, but have yet to hear an explanation of how it would work in practice - regular firearms versus military-grade hardware? come on now.
agreed, and I said something similar about comparing gun control to drug control
my post referred to treating different types of firearms differently, but yes, one could also directly treat the different activities differently.
The few times I've done target shooting, it's been with range-owned guns, but I suppose shooter-owned guns could also be secured at the range.
I'd also like a clear amendment to the 2nd amendment, but I figure the gun nuts would be just as unreasonable about that.
"Ryan Lanza". Heard on TV news that perpetrator is/was Adam Lanza, and that the police are questioning his brother. Maybe this is the brother.
Guns for self-defense can make sense, but that seems balanced out by its own set of problems, and not solely mass shootings. If a physically smaller person is armed, they could defend themselves against someone bigger - or attack someone bigger. A dangerous big guy would be even more dangerous when armed. If they're both armed, I don't see how that's any better than neither of them being armed.
I am fully aware of that. It seems like a moot point because what could average people with average firearms do against modern military-grade training and hardware? The difference wasn't so great in the late 1700's, so it made sense then. At best, opposing gun control on those grounds is fueled by paranoia and takes the law too literally, to the detriment of common sense.
I admit I used simple phrasing that lacked that nuance.