It's too late, the second amendment supporters have already lost. The government has cruise missiles, they do not. The government has nuclear weapons, they do not. And so on, and so on.
Just like 21st amendment supporters have already lost. The government has outlawed numerous substances since, without bothering with an amendment to the constitution to give them the authority to do so.
So you define everything that people talk about or criticize the opposite of or associate with rational options as a religion?
So if some person has believes that an omnipotent being created the universe because he loves them and wants them to play in it but since everything else was created for them no other people matter at all and thus must never be told about this loving creator and left to whatever beliefs they want to have. This person has a bunch of rituals to perform each day to show their thanks for the awesome universe. That person isn't religious?
Surely if you believe that the existence or non-existence of god is unknowable then you don't think the question is open? A theist or atheist is at least willing to argue the evidence and possibly change their opinion based upon that evidence, making them treat the question as more open than someone who declares it impossible to know.
If it could have something to do with the fact that more ram, more cpu, more storage increase power usage, heat production, and weight. And more battery life means more weight.
I'm not sure there is a very large market for heavy tablets that melt your fingers. Though gaming laptops exist so I'm probably wrong...
Lots of highly ranked images on the internet that share a page with the words "three", "black", and "teenagers" happen to be media crime reports.
Lots of highly ranked images on the internet that share a page with the words "three", "white", "teenagers" happen to be stock photos of teenagers with white backgrounds.
The only time you would use the text "three black teenagers" is when race somehow matters. A common case in which it matters is when describing suspects in media reports. Since America is mostly white you don't use "three white teenagers" as often since that's the assumption of "three teenagers" anyway. And of course "three black teenagers" is an uncommon use of language outside of media reporting - and surprise surprise media reporting spends more time on crime than crime rates would make you expect they would.
Couple that with the fact a common stock image description format is of the form "three teenagers on a white background" and surprise surprise you get these ridiculous complaint. Since black is not a common background color and media photos are going to rank higher than stock photos you get fewer on the black search.
Anyone who isn't retarded already knows that court cases decide legal issues not philosophical/physical/mathematical issues and thus your extra verbiage is unnecessary (anyone who know what "laundering statutes" means already knows that courts do).
It is genuiine. Like lots of fields the wealthy pay a premium to get things early.
So yes the wealthy get better medical care than the poor, but over time those treatments become available to the poor (while the wealthy have newer and better still ones). The wealthy also got cell phones long before the poor.
There are many things to be tweaked. If patents are too long then it takes too long for the poor to get those treatments, for one obvious one.
Just saying "that's unfair" and making medicine a field in which the profit motive makes thing worse for poor people too. There are other options of course - you can remove the profit motive entirely, and progress medicine entirely by the government intervention or entirely by charity (as just two options). Those have shown to result slower advancements in some other field though (doesn't mean they can't work of course).
So what happens when your family is one country and your wife's family is in another country on the other side of the planet? And neither can desires to move and governments wouldn't let them immigrate if they wanted to anyway.
The point of exercise isn't to burn calories, so that's irrelevant.
Or is the claim that once someone is fat they are screwed since if they lose weight there body fo "into starvation mode"? In which case, I guess the only choice is to fat shame everyone who is just the tiniest bit fat to hopefully prevent them entering this inescapable spiral of fatness you seem to be arguing for.
Slashdot Mirror
Point to the Muslim mass shootings against gays in this country in the last 5-10 years.
Prior to this event of course, since that would be using a bit too much hindsight.
It's too late, the second amendment supporters have already lost. The government has cruise missiles, they do not. The government has nuclear weapons, they do not. And so on, and so on.
Just like 21st amendment supporters have already lost. The government has outlawed numerous substances since, without bothering with an amendment to the constitution to give them the authority to do so.
So you define everything that people talk about or criticize the opposite of or associate with rational options as a religion?
So if some person has believes that an omnipotent being created the universe because he loves them and wants them to play in it but since everything else was created for them no other people matter at all and thus must never be told about this loving creator and left to whatever beliefs they want to have. This person has a bunch of rituals to perform each day to show their thanks for the awesome universe. That person isn't religious?
Surely if you believe that the existence or non-existence of god is unknowable then you don't think the question is open? A theist or atheist is at least willing to argue the evidence and possibly change their opinion based upon that evidence, making them treat the question as more open than someone who declares it impossible to know.
If it could have something to do with the fact that more ram, more cpu, more storage increase power usage, heat production, and weight. And more battery life means more weight.
I'm not sure there is a very large market for heavy tablets that melt your fingers. Though gaming laptops exist so I'm probably wrong...
How are they not representative?
Lots of highly ranked images on the internet that share a page with the words "three", "black", and "teenagers" happen to be media crime reports.
Lots of highly ranked images on the internet that share a page with the words "three", "white", "teenagers" happen to be stock photos of teenagers with white backgrounds.
That is what you asked when you do the search.
There's nothing to correct.
The only time you would use the text "three black teenagers" is when race somehow matters. A common case in which it matters is when describing suspects in media reports. Since America is mostly white you don't use "three white teenagers" as often since that's the assumption of "three teenagers" anyway. And of course "three black teenagers" is an uncommon use of language outside of media reporting - and surprise surprise media reporting spends more time on crime than crime rates would make you expect they would.
Couple that with the fact a common stock image description format is of the form "three teenagers on a white background" and surprise surprise you get these ridiculous complaint. Since black is not a common background color and media photos are going to rank higher than stock photos you get fewer on the black search.
They want to sell it multiple times. Sell netflix streaming rights for North America, sell someone else streaming rights for China, etc.
Anyone who isn't retarded already knows that court cases decide legal issues not philosophical/physical/mathematical issues and thus your extra verbiage is unnecessary (anyone who know what "laundering statutes" means already knows that courts do).
Because airports famously only ever have one plane in motion at a time.
Go to amazon.com
Type "echo" in the search box.
Press enter.
If Sanders isn't an option, I'll take Trump over Clinton.
I mean what harm could a box designed to survive an airplane crash possibly do when it ejects into an engine at take off...
It is genuiine. Like lots of fields the wealthy pay a premium to get things early.
So yes the wealthy get better medical care than the poor, but over time those treatments become available to the poor (while the wealthy have newer and better still ones). The wealthy also got cell phones long before the poor.
There are many things to be tweaked. If patents are too long then it takes too long for the poor to get those treatments, for one obvious one.
Just saying "that's unfair" and making medicine a field in which the profit motive makes thing worse for poor people too. There are other options of course - you can remove the profit motive entirely, and progress medicine entirely by the government intervention or entirely by charity (as just two options). Those have shown to result slower advancements in some other field though (doesn't mean they can't work of course).
Much better to have everyone with nothing?
I'm pretty sure the Berne Convention of 1886 predates mickey mouse propaganda.
Language changes. You're 130 or so years behind on English is would seem.
Sure you don't need to say it to them, it's implied by the never seeing them again part.
Nothing, as in you just "fuck you" to one half? Or nothing, as in you put up with the TSA shit and occasionally catch a plane?
So what happens when your family is one country and your wife's family is in another country on the other side of the planet? And neither can desires to move and governments wouldn't let them immigrate if they wanted to anyway.
Your like those feminists who for whom "everything is sexist" I take it. Or are you just projecting your own hatred for America onto others?
It's being more honest, since similar to countries with Democratic in their names, if a field has Science in its name then it likely isn't.
For example, computer science and food science.
The point of exercise isn't to burn calories, so that's irrelevant.
Or is the claim that once someone is fat they are screwed since if they lose weight there body fo "into starvation mode"? In which case, I guess the only choice is to fat shame everyone who is just the tiniest bit fat to hopefully prevent them entering this inescapable spiral of fatness you seem to be arguing for.
4 years at 30% growth means you triple...
I guess "it will keep growing as before" doesn't get as many clicks?
They had a contract, one side thinks the other has breached that contract.
Why do you care how how they determine the consequences?