You missed the online part. I have yet to see lines for the cards. On the second moot point, my card is renewed automatically from my pre-tax paycheck. I'd likely forget to claim it on my taxes and get a refund for it, so for me at least, there's still a cost advantage for peeling off a few fares for friends.
As for the tracking, I'm not sure you can put that on these cards. You can always buy throwaway cards if you want stealth, and I'd argue that the fault there lies with your ex-wife and shitty employer.
It's worth noting that Ventra is having problems at the turnstile. It's common for each swipe to take on the order of two seconds, which delays the person behind you. This at least partially mitigates the benefit in terms of man hours. The RFID is still probably faster than tokens or putting a card into a slot though.
I'd argue that focusing on specific politicians is stupid. Instead, how about "Assume all politicians, especially at the federal level, are corrupt regardless of origin."
You were sarcastic, but I'd argue that museums probably contribute more to society than 7-11s. I'd also hazard a guess that spending tax dollars on opening tons of museums would probably do more for our country than your average tax expenditure.
Is it safe to conclude that TQP simply confused the 12 morons too dumb to get out of jury duty through stuff like this? Did newegg just overestimate the juries intelligence?
So, uh... WHY are there rules on fonts? Seems about as important as powdered wigs. I find some of those font restrictions are just an excuse to lazily reduce workloads. "You used form TP-27, not TP-27.1, so we threw it out. No they're not the same, TP-27.1 has a dot and then a number after it!"
You're making a strawman argument, I'm not saying religious people are all bad. I'm saying the subset of religious people who use their beliefs to deny other people their rights, THOSE are nutters who strongly oppose euthanasia.
I hear this from a lot of slashdotters. No one bothers to give examples. I find that suspicious. I believe it happens, I just am skeptical that the edits slashdotters are trying to put in shouldn't be rejected.
Religious nutters have taken away your right to control your death... and you are concerned with the victim talking politely? Fuck that. He's not making threats either.
If anything, the threats being made are AGAINST HIM. If he were to assist his father's death, the government would arrest him with guns and send him to jail, where he would be subjected to further threats. Foes of euthanasia were threatening him with force.
If it's the indirectness that matters, pretend Adams said he would vote for a politician who would make it illegal to vote against doctor assisted suicide, under pain of long horrible death in a federal prison. Would that have been better? To me, that's a worse threat than the one he did make, but it's the one his opponents are essentially making.
I remember when Obama said that while running for office. The DOJ on the other hand made no such claim. I'm not defending the DOJ, they still in my opinion gleefully trampled on states rights and individual rights, and over an idiotic law. Just pointing out that I don't think they ever said they wouldn't.
You might also point out that Obama then lied again to try to cover for his first lie. Except he was in office during the more recent lie. With about the same effort of coming up with that lie, he could have changed pot's scheduling status to actually fulfill his campaign promise, yet instead he chose to lie. Given the number of people who mildly support pot legalization, I can't fathom why he would allow the raids to happen.
It's a complex issue, and simplistic thinking like "get rid of it entirely" is foolish. That would create larger problems than the ones we have now.
The most obvious is counterfeit drugs. It's already a problem, removing the FDA is a good way to ensure a choice of thousands of cheap sugar pills, and absolutely no real drugs. Pharmaceuticals could move into the herbal supplement market and shut down their research entirely. They already mostly repackage old pills rather than develop new effective treatments.
Actually, you'd be lucky to get sugar pills. Those won't kill you.
The Texas Board of Education on Friday delayed final approval of a widely used biology textbook because of concerns raised by one reviewer that it presents evolution as fact rather than theory.
That's how: it's a recent development. Would have been nice if the summary mentioned this though, I agree.
The article also mentioned that the board didn't attempt to do anything shady about censoring climate change from the books. Newsworthy given the low standards that are set for Texas education.
Just under what legal theory before the FDA was poisoning people a legitimate business ?
Bit of a strawman argument there. Snake oil isn't "poisoning" people, it's a specialized form of fraud. You rely on whatever snake oil you are selling to be beyond the technical understanding of your average consumer. They assume it's safe because you're the "expert." People back then had zero experience with radiation. Even the experts were blissfully unaware of the dangers, see the Curies. The FDA was established to make sure people did their homework and correctly tested products before selling them to the public, not to stop murder.
In this case though, this seems to be overstepping the legitimate goals of the FDA. I mean, it's a blood test. Any fallout from the tests are going to be social, not health related. The FDA might as well ban people from going online: they might read Andrew Wakefield and conclude that vaccinations were bad. Unless 23 and me is promising things it doesn't deliver (sequencing results), this seems to be bullshit.
Sorry, the people who are arguing for this touched their noses and called dibs. You can have fun fighting for one of them. I'd steer clear of the anonymous army though, despite being AC. Not sure what would happen there, but it won't be pretty.
I'd argue that such people suffer from more than one problem. At a minimum, two. They assume that everyone thinks the way they do AND they ignore history. Or at least play a no-true-scotsman game, in which their theocracy would be totally different from all the other theocracies that were horrible failures, because those were the WRONG religions.
Same is probably true of the monarchists. "This monarchy will be totally separate from the previous, terrible monarchies, because COMPUTERS! Oh, and COMPETITION! That's never been done before!"
For anyone else who might be confused, "NIH syndrome" is short for "Not invented here syndrome. . Not the National Institute of Health. Perhaps I was the only one confused there.
Skepticism is healthy, but you're not being skeptical. Being skeptical of findings requires open-mindedness. You're not even bothering to read the fucking summary before dismissing the findings. From the summary, this is a researcher at a university. From their webpage, they appear to be funded by the NSF and several other organizations which are not digital activist organizations. Stupid pessimism is often worse than being naive and believing everything that you read on the internet.
I'm starting an online organization to combat stubborn cynicism on the internet. Who is with me? Retweet #nomorecynisim2012! For every one person who joins my facebook group, five internet trolls will burst into flames.
Probably a terrible way of PHRASING it. "What functions did groklaw carry out that were compromised by NSA spying?" was maybe closer to what he meant. That was my first reaction when I heard that news: I thought they just explained laws to anyone who was curious, didn't make a whole lot of sense why they needed secrecy for that.
I remember asking a similar question, and I forget the answer. I think it was something like "lawyers could talk to Jones and about their cases confidentially."
There was also something about the original point of the blog, exposing SCO bullshit, was finished.
Slashdot Mirror
You missed the online part. I have yet to see lines for the cards. On the second moot point, my card is renewed automatically from my pre-tax paycheck. I'd likely forget to claim it on my taxes and get a refund for it, so for me at least, there's still a cost advantage for peeling off a few fares for friends.
As for the tracking, I'm not sure you can put that on these cards. You can always buy throwaway cards if you want stealth, and I'd argue that the fault there lies with your ex-wife and shitty employer.
It's worth noting that Ventra is having problems at the turnstile. It's common for each swipe to take on the order of two seconds, which delays the person behind you. This at least partially mitigates the benefit in terms of man hours. The RFID is still probably faster than tokens or putting a card into a slot though.
I'd argue that focusing on specific politicians is stupid. Instead, how about "Assume all politicians, especially at the federal level, are corrupt regardless of origin."
You were sarcastic, but I'd argue that museums probably contribute more to society than 7-11s. I'd also hazard a guess that spending tax dollars on opening tons of museums would probably do more for our country than your average tax expenditure.
The largest danger a heroin addict poses is to himself.
To be fair, I don't think the DEA et al are even bothering to argue that point anymore. It's illegal cause it's illegal now.
No. And Arial, the font in question, seems readable.
Is it safe to conclude that TQP simply confused the 12 morons too dumb to get out of jury duty through stuff like this? Did newegg just overestimate the juries intelligence?
So, uh... WHY are there rules on fonts? Seems about as important as powdered wigs. I find some of those font restrictions are just an excuse to lazily reduce workloads. "You used form TP-27, not TP-27.1, so we threw it out. No they're not the same, TP-27.1 has a dot and then a number after it!"
Yes, but only over being slammed on slashdot. I've never actually edited a wikipedia page.
You're making a strawman argument, I'm not saying religious people are all bad. I'm saying the subset of religious people who use their beliefs to deny other people their rights, THOSE are nutters who strongly oppose euthanasia.
I hear this from a lot of slashdotters. No one bothers to give examples. I find that suspicious. I believe it happens, I just am skeptical that the edits slashdotters are trying to put in shouldn't be rejected.
Religious nutters have taken away your right to control your death... and you are concerned with the victim talking politely? Fuck that. He's not making threats either.
If anything, the threats being made are AGAINST HIM. If he were to assist his father's death, the government would arrest him with guns and send him to jail, where he would be subjected to further threats. Foes of euthanasia were threatening him with force.
If it's the indirectness that matters, pretend Adams said he would vote for a politician who would make it illegal to vote against doctor assisted suicide, under pain of long horrible death in a federal prison. Would that have been better? To me, that's a worse threat than the one he did make, but it's the one his opponents are essentially making.
I remember when Obama said that while running for office. The DOJ on the other hand made no such claim. I'm not defending the DOJ, they still in my opinion gleefully trampled on states rights and individual rights, and over an idiotic law. Just pointing out that I don't think they ever said they wouldn't.
You might also point out that Obama then lied again to try to cover for his first lie. Except he was in office during the more recent lie. With about the same effort of coming up with that lie, he could have changed pot's scheduling status to actually fulfill his campaign promise, yet instead he chose to lie. Given the number of people who mildly support pot legalization, I can't fathom why he would allow the raids to happen.
That seems like a valid lesson: if you're local only and not diversified, you probably WON'T make the transition.
It's a complex issue, and simplistic thinking like "get rid of it entirely" is foolish. That would create larger problems than the ones we have now.
The most obvious is counterfeit drugs. It's already a problem, removing the FDA is a good way to ensure a choice of thousands of cheap sugar pills, and absolutely no real drugs. Pharmaceuticals could move into the herbal supplement market and shut down their research entirely. They already mostly repackage old pills rather than develop new effective treatments.
Actually, you'd be lucky to get sugar pills. Those won't kill you.
I think you trolled yourself there...
The Texas Board of Education on Friday delayed final approval of a widely used biology textbook because of concerns raised by one reviewer that it presents evolution as fact rather than theory.
That's how: it's a recent development. Would have been nice if the summary mentioned this though, I agree. The article also mentioned that the board didn't attempt to do anything shady about censoring climate change from the books. Newsworthy given the low standards that are set for Texas education.
Just under what legal theory before the FDA was poisoning people a legitimate business ?
Bit of a strawman argument there. Snake oil isn't "poisoning" people, it's a specialized form of fraud. You rely on whatever snake oil you are selling to be beyond the technical understanding of your average consumer. They assume it's safe because you're the "expert." People back then had zero experience with radiation. Even the experts were blissfully unaware of the dangers, see the Curies. The FDA was established to make sure people did their homework and correctly tested products before selling them to the public, not to stop murder.
In this case though, this seems to be overstepping the legitimate goals of the FDA. I mean, it's a blood test. Any fallout from the tests are going to be social, not health related. The FDA might as well ban people from going online: they might read Andrew Wakefield and conclude that vaccinations were bad. Unless 23 and me is promising things it doesn't deliver (sequencing results), this seems to be bullshit.
Sorry, the people who are arguing for this touched their noses and called dibs. You can have fun fighting for one of them. I'd steer clear of the anonymous army though, despite being AC. Not sure what would happen there, but it won't be pretty.
I'd argue that such people suffer from more than one problem. At a minimum, two. They assume that everyone thinks the way they do AND they ignore history. Or at least play a no-true-scotsman game, in which their theocracy would be totally different from all the other theocracies that were horrible failures, because those were the WRONG religions.
Same is probably true of the monarchists. "This monarchy will be totally separate from the previous, terrible monarchies, because COMPUTERS! Oh, and COMPETITION! That's never been done before!"
For anyone else who might be confused, "NIH syndrome" is short for "Not invented here syndrome. . Not the National Institute of Health. Perhaps I was the only one confused there.
Skepticism is healthy, but you're not being skeptical. Being skeptical of findings requires open-mindedness. You're not even bothering to read the fucking summary before dismissing the findings. From the summary, this is a researcher at a university. From their webpage, they appear to be funded by the NSF and several other organizations which are not digital activist organizations. Stupid pessimism is often worse than being naive and believing everything that you read on the internet.
I'm starting an online organization to combat stubborn cynicism on the internet. Who is with me? Retweet #nomorecynisim2012! For every one person who joins my facebook group, five internet trolls will burst into flames.
OP obviously enjoys MMORPGs, and is asking for suggestions, and your suggestion is that he shouldn't actually enjoy MMORPGs?
Did you see that no one else had posted yet and absolutely needed to fill the void?
I'm guessing it's more due to their fear of being caught outside in the rain. Which borders on pathological.
Probably a terrible way of PHRASING it. "What functions did groklaw carry out that were compromised by NSA spying?" was maybe closer to what he meant. That was my first reaction when I heard that news: I thought they just explained laws to anyone who was curious, didn't make a whole lot of sense why they needed secrecy for that.
I remember asking a similar question, and I forget the answer. I think it was something like "lawyers could talk to Jones and about their cases confidentially."
There was also something about the original point of the blog, exposing SCO bullshit, was finished.