Whether the climate is changing is settled, because it always changes. Whether human activity is a factor is settled, because it does. So far so good. Unfortunately, however, the effect of that activity on future climate is not at all settled, and that's unfortunate because it's the question that actually matters.
It may be more fun to rant on the internet about the bad cop who doesn't respect a citizen's rights, but it's probably more productive in terms of restoring the chilly relations between LEOs and citizens to let the cop know you didn't take his probing personally, and that by respecting your rights (even if it took a few minutes to do so) he's demonstrated he's one of the good cops, not one of the bad cops.
He's demonstrated no such thing. All this shows is that he's afraid of the repercussions for breaking what constraints on their behavior are still in place.
Imagine if google and bing decided that a certain candidate didn't exist and the name only returned some unrelated items. No news article links, no info sites, nothing.
Have you ever even met a teenager? It doesn't take Google in schools to get them using computing devices, this is something that they will happily do on their own non-fucking-stop.
Because the Mexicans were so delighted to cede Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California to the U.S. in the 1840's? Besides, the phrase "manifest destiny" dates from that era, and it certainly indicates imperial ambition.
They still fly the flag of Byzantium at Mount Athos, so for that and other reasons they might have a better claim on being an ember of the Roman polity.
What naysayers forget is that with Wikipedia's model, if it can be vandalized by anyone it can also be corrected by anyone. You don't have to eliminate vandals to develop massive amounts of accurate content this way, you just have to have the constructive participants be more dedicated than the disruptive ones.
As flawed as we are, it's probably a good thing that we won't survive long enough to leave our solar system and populate the cosmos. We don't deserve it. We're just too *dumb* as a species.
How is anyone supposed to take a person like this seriously?
Very well, but that raises the question why all that land has to be public, especially when it's been okay for it to be used for decades by someone in particular.
Maybe he did mean that, but I responded to what he actually said. It's not like "society" and "country" are the same thing or are spelled similarly, or anything like that.
The lesson of Nevada is that there are self entitled people who don't realize that they belong to a country.
You're right, we crazy anarchists don't think people belong to a country. In fact, we're so bonkers we think that the country should belong to the people.
Stop stereotyping -- there are reasons to use Bitcoin other than just to be anti-establishment. It's an inexpensive and instantaneous way to transfer value internationally, for example.
Besides, Bitcoin isn't untraceable. The blockchain means it's rather the opposite, and thus is much less suitable for crime or tax avoidance than its detractors say.
If we allow retribution to be a part of the sentence we have a problem since the victims will have vastly different ideas of what an appropriate sentence is. The punishment will then no longer be able to fit the crime, some victims will ask for execution while others will be able to forgive and forget.
You seem to be assuming that people are only imprisoned for actions that have a victim. Unfortunately, all too often the only victim is the one who's being incarcerated, e.g., for drug possession, etc.
Re:the prime directive
on
Klingon Beer
·
· Score: 1
Wouldn't the prime directive of a Klingon beer be to not drink it with one's enemies?
Slashdot Mirror
Whether the climate is changing is settled, because it always changes. Whether human activity is a factor is settled, because it does. So far so good. Unfortunately, however, the effect of that activity on future climate is not at all settled, and that's unfortunate because it's the question that actually matters.
It may be more fun to rant on the internet about the bad cop who doesn't respect a citizen's rights, but it's probably more productive in terms of restoring the chilly relations between LEOs and citizens to let the cop know you didn't take his probing personally, and that by respecting your rights (even if it took a few minutes to do so) he's demonstrated he's one of the good cops, not one of the bad cops.
He's demonstrated no such thing. All this shows is that he's afraid of the repercussions for breaking what constraints on their behavior are still in place.
If you're so clever, show us your system which does this. Oh, wait, you don't have one, do you?
Shyeah right, like I'd tell you.
You must be new here. ;-)
Why not call it "Flight of fancy"? ;-)
That would be a plane painted to look like it's wearing a tuxedo. Paint some white gloves on the wingtips, spats on the tail, and all that.
Imagine if google and bing decided that a certain candidate didn't exist and the name only returned some unrelated items. No news article links, no info sites, nothing.
For example: https://www.google.com/search?q=santorum
Although that was an independent campaign to influence Google results rather than an action internal to Google.
Have you ever even met a teenager? It doesn't take Google in schools to get them using computing devices, this is something that they will happily do on their own non-fucking-stop.
I thought crossing the streams was bad?
But if they disbanded they wouldn't be able to keep serving their true constituency so ably.
I was amused by how HBO's Rome series handled the possible origin and ultimate fate of Caesarion.
Because the Mexicans were so delighted to cede Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California to the U.S. in the 1840's? Besides, the phrase "manifest destiny" dates from that era, and it certainly indicates imperial ambition.
They still fly the flag of Byzantium at Mount Athos, so for that and other reasons they might have a better claim on being an ember of the Roman polity.
Eliminating subsidies for agricorps would help restore some balance on that. There's no good reason to continue meat and dairy subsidies.
What naysayers forget is that with Wikipedia's model, if it can be vandalized by anyone it can also be corrected by anyone. You don't have to eliminate vandals to develop massive amounts of accurate content this way, you just have to have the constructive participants be more dedicated than the disruptive ones.
“Never let the truth get in the way of a good story.” --- Mark Twain
“If I'd asked my customers what they wanted, they'd have said a faster horse.” – Henry Ford
As flawed as we are, it's probably a good thing that we won't survive long enough to leave our solar system and populate the cosmos. We don't deserve it. We're just too *dumb* as a species.
How is anyone supposed to take a person like this seriously?
China has the US by the balls via debt
"If you owe the bank $100 that's your problem. If you owe the bank $100 million, that's the bank's problem." -- J. Paul Getty
If that means their own codes of behavior, and those codes don't involve violence or property crime against others, yes, why not?
Very well, but that raises the question why all that land has to be public, especially when it's been okay for it to be used for decades by someone in particular.
Maybe he did mean that, but I responded to what he actually said. It's not like "society" and "country" are the same thing or are spelled similarly, or anything like that.
The lesson of Nevada is that there are self entitled people who don't realize that they belong to a country.
You're right, we crazy anarchists don't think people belong to a country. In fact, we're so bonkers we think that the country should belong to the people.
Stop stereotyping -- there are reasons to use Bitcoin other than just to be anti-establishment. It's an inexpensive and instantaneous way to transfer value internationally, for example.
Besides, Bitcoin isn't untraceable. The blockchain means it's rather the opposite, and thus is much less suitable for crime or tax avoidance than its detractors say.
If we allow retribution to be a part of the sentence we have a problem since the victims will have vastly different ideas of what an appropriate sentence is. The punishment will then no longer be able to fit the crime, some victims will ask for execution while others will be able to forgive and forget.
You seem to be assuming that people are only imprisoned for actions that have a victim. Unfortunately, all too often the only victim is the one who's being incarcerated, e.g., for drug possession, etc.
Wouldn't the prime directive of a Klingon beer be to not drink it with one's enemies?