Not for convicted murderers to be able to erase their past from the internet.
Except, of course, that this is what it has been used for in the past.
Except it wasn't. For one, these rules won't be applicable for at least two more years. So unless you're claiming that what happened in the past actually happened in the future...
Also, it didn't even happen in the past, according to your own link.
On December 15, 2009, the German Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof) in Karlsruhe ruled that German websites do not have to check their archives in order to provide permanent protection of personality rights for convicted criminals.
If anything, these new rules ensure that such cases don't happen again.
Mit der Dummheit kampfen Gotter selbst vergebens
True. Just look in the mirror.
Why? Plenty of illiterate idiots like you to point at and laugh.
The new rules will give individuals greater control over their personal data in the following ways. The right to be forgotten (Article 17)
Any person will have the right to be âoeforgottenâ/have his or her personal data erased when he or shel no longer wants the data to be processed, provided there are no legitimate reasons for retaining it.
To enforce this right, if a person asks an internet company to erase his/her data, the company should also forward the request to any others that replicate the data. However, this right would be restricted in some cases, for instance when the data is needed for historical, statistical and scientific purposes, for public health reasons or to exercise the right to freedom of expression. Also, the right to be forgotten would not apply when the retention of personal data is necessary to fulfil a contract or is required by law.
Purpose of this is to ensure that Facebook, Google and various government and other agencies can't use or sell your private data if you don't want them to. Not for convicted murderers to be able to erase their past from the internet. Freedom of speech still applies and still includes news articles about murder. Just as the laws pertaining to government archives about the case still apply.
"Grandmas" didn't eat this grain, this corn or most other food available today. It didn't exist back then, and most foods eaten back then don't really exist anymore. Green revolution sought to that. We grow different plants cause they are more resistant to pests and various climates and cause they bring in higher crops. We feed our livestock with different plants for same reason. More and better.
We produce more for less - thus we can afford to eat cake every day. Food is THAT CHEAP. In contrast, grandma would often go without food. If crop was bad, if there's a drought, if there's a war, if there are bandits, if field animals got sick and died so she had to pull that (wooden) plow instead of oxes...
Both food and eating habits are different today. And so are humans. Diabetics simply died back then. No penicillin, so everyone with an infection died too. Today we even have cancer and AIDS survivors. We got different humans. And a lot more of them. Most of them would simply be dead back in "grandma times". Now, they get to be sickly for very long times. Lifetimes. Being sickly, they are also more susceptible to dietary illnesses. Which were so rare back in "grandma times" cause all those people died from something else, long before developing a dietary illness.
"Grandma's food" is the same nonsense as paleo diet which is the same nonsense as appeal to nature. "Grandma" made it cause she was stronger and luckier than her 8-10 dead siblings. "Grandma" also often went without food. Even canning was a fucking space-age technology for "grandma". Refrigeration didn't exist.
Meanwhile, gout is no longer a "disease of kings" or even "rich people". Everyone can afford a rich people disease now - cause food is so fuckin cheap and so fuckin tasty. Even plain old salt used to be worth its weight in gold - thus salary.
There is no such thing as "grandma's diet". Nor was there ever. "Grandma" died at 40.
And work "grandma jobs", live "grandma lives" and last but not least - have "grandma child mortality rate". How many grandma's siblings never made to puberty - while their genes did?
It's not that simple. What back in grandma's days was a rare occurrence (be it chocolate cake or a rare genetic trait) is MUCH more common now, with all these extra humans and all these resources at our disposal. One of the reasons why we have all these dietary medical issues now is that back in grandma's days people who had them would just get "sickly" and die. Another one is that we've basically solved the "world hunger" problem. Granted, we haven't yet figured out the equal distribution issue and we did solve it in the fastest and cheapest way possible... Then we solved that whole walking everywhere issue...
Hell, there was this guy recently claiming to have solved the whole chewing issue. And many other issues. Back in grandma's time, he'd be the village idiot, telling grandma to forget about washing clothes cause she could just order more from China. And grand-grandpa would probably periodically have to chase him away with an axe. Yet today... He sold millions worth of his "food" invention.
We are living in a very different world from grandmas, in many ways. In others, maybe not as much.
It's ridiculous, bordering on disingenuous, to equate transformative cosmetic surgery with that which would deliberately result in a disability.
Hormonal therapy is "cosmetic"?
If we allow those for a small sense of well-being, then of course gender reassignment makes sense for at least the same reasons, and if it helps "gender dysphoria" as well, or any other mental health condition, then great.
So, one "small sense of well-being" trumps other sense of well-being - because YOU find it to be "deliberate disability"? Like say... taking a human and cutting out its reproductive organs, then replacing them with cosmetic but non-functional reproductive organs? That's not "deliberate disability"?
Not all mental health conditions require a pill, or directly altering brain chemistry.
Yet, "gender reassignment" does. No amount of talking or "going outside" will boost a woman's testosterone levels nor a man's estrogen levels.
At this point, though, gender reassignment surgery allows people to have a sex that matches their gender identity
Just like with people who just want that specific limb shortened, that particular nose size, shoe size, that particular number of ears, arms, fingers, eyes, skin and hair color... outside of what the majority has, but which, when achieved, will give them that "small sense of well-being". Why should one's gender have priority over one's "completeness"?
Also, do note that you are equating people cutting themselves due to their BDD with "gender reassignment" people - as they are both just looking for "a small sense of well-being". It's just that your "inclusiveness" has certain limits. There's that imaginary "deliberate disability" line. Though it doesn't matter to you one way or the other which parts someone else deems superfluous and replaceable on their own body.
and questioning the therapeutic value of that seems pointless at best (unless you're considering it yourself), and spiteful at worst.
So which one does that make you? Considering, spiteful or unjustifiably confident regarding the qualities of your own wit?
not, in fact, a delusion. It is something that is really wrong with someone
It's not one kind of mental disorder - it's this other kind of mental disorder. Which is "appropriately treated" with "sexual reassignment surgery".
Mental issues, fixed by surgery.
You know... that sounds a lot like the way lobotomy was a cure for... well... any mental issue. But more specifically, as a the case where people claim their body is not right... it sounds very much like BDD and BIID. With both those disorders, patients will seek surgery as "cure" for their otherwise healthy but unsatisfactory body. Only, surgery not being that widely accepted as a cure for those conditions (BIID is not even recognized as one) they'll often try to "fix" their bodies using household appliances. Like "accidentally" mangling their body parts with powertools or having "hunting accidents". http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03...
...but to me this sounds like a "service" that paints a big giant "I'm so afraid of being assaulted I'll do anything" sign on its customers. And on ANY female customers of other "rideshare" services, who happen to be driven by female drivers.
Basically, if you're a violent criminal and see a woman coming out of a car driven by a woman - you're seeing easy prey. Regardless of YOUR gender.
Bonus points if you're a female criminal with a big, threatening boyfriend. You just stop that gullible female who only trusts females and start up a conversation - while your big threatening boyfriend sneaks up from behind. Same goes if you're the big threatening boyfriend whose girlfriend is up for playing bait. Whoever the woman coming out of a car driven by a woman is - at least she has a mobile phone on her. And she is SO AFRAID of being assaulted, she can't even stand to sit next to strange men. Easy prey.
And a special "Well hello there - AGAIN!" to my down-moderator for voicing his/her disagreement with reality by down modding my original post above. We can keep on going like this until you run out of mod points or I run out of copy/paste. Plenty more where that came from.
...but to me this sounds like a "service" that paints a big giant "I'm so afraid of being assaulted I'll do anything" sign on its customers. And on ANY female customers of other "rideshare" services, who happen to be driven by female drivers.
Basically, if you're a violent criminal and see a woman coming out of a car driven by a woman - you're seeing easy prey. Regardless of YOUR gender.
Bonus points if you're a female criminal with a big, threatening boyfriend. You just stop that gullible female who only trusts females and start up a conversation - while your big threatening boyfriend sneaks up from behind. Same goes if you're the big threatening boyfriend whose girlfriend is up for playing bait. Whoever the woman coming out of a car driven by a woman is - at least she has a mobile phone on her. And she is SO AFRAID of being assaulted, she can't even stand to sit next to strange men. Easy prey.
And a special "Well hello there!" to my down-moderator for voicing his/her disagreement with reality by down modding my original post above. We can keep on going like this until you run out of mod points or I run out of copy/paste.
...but to me this sounds like a "service" that paints a big giant "I'm so afraid of being assaulted I'll do anything" sign on its customers. And on ANY female customers of other "rideshare" services, who happen to be driven by female drivers.
Basically, if you're a violent criminal and see a woman coming out of a car driven by a woman - you're seeing easy prey. Regardless of YOUR gender.
Bonus points if you're a female criminal with a big, threatening boyfriend. You just stop that gullible female who only trusts females and start up a conversation - while your big threatening boyfriend sneaks up from behind. Same goes if you're the big threatening boyfriend whose girlfriend is up for playing bait. Whoever the woman coming out of a car driven by a woman is - at least she has a mobile phone on her. And she is SO AFRAID of being assaulted, she can't even stand to sit next to strange men. Easy prey.
Sounds like the reality distortion field is strong with this one.
You said it brother!
Oh... wait... you didn't mean Apple's reality distortion field? Cause 13 million iPhones, even if they were all bought straight up, not "upgraded", and if they were all 128GB models come out to $849 * 13000000 = $11.037 billion.
Last I checked, that's about 3 billion dollars less than 14 billion dollars mentioned in the summary. And that's if everyone bought the priciest option available. That's some distortion field to miss 3 billion dollars... probably more.
"Warning! This taxi contains a company known to the State of California to not kowtow to the carefully built up government genuflection&donation industry."
More like "Warning! This taxi company is known for being convicted for lying to its customers about the level of safety regulations it practices."
But that's still a nice strawman. You made it yourself or did you buy it at a strawman store? Cause I hear those are made by starving African children of Cambodia. So when you're using such a strawman, you're financing slavery.
In fact, they confirm that they ARE collecting data. While literally pulling a TV trope with that "we do not collect the data...such as throttle position, oil temp, and coolant temp" bit.
Instead, data gets collected "only when it enhances driver safety or enables an important user experience, such as using GPS for mapping". So basically, data gets collected only all the time.
A. Every person who willfully either:... 3. Writes, composes, stereotypes, prints, photographs, designs, copies, draws, engraves, paints, molds, cuts, or otherwise prepares, publishes, sells, distributes, keeps for sale, or exhibits any obscene or indecent writing, paper, book, picture, photograph, motion picture, figure, form of any description or any type of obscene material; or
4. Makes, prepares, cuts, sells, gives, loans, distributes, keeps for sale, or exhibits any disc record, metal, plastic, or wax, wire or tape recording, or any type of obscene material or any other kind of sound recording of any obscene or indecent language, poetry, or songs, or who speaks any words by means of a telephone to any person which are offensive to decency or are calculated to excite vicious or lewd thoughts or acts, or who speaks any other communicable words which are offensive to decency or are adapted to excite vicious or lewd thoughts or acts,
shall be guilty, upon conviction, of a felony and shall be punished by the imposition of a fine of not less than Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00) nor more than Twenty Thousand Dollars ($20,000.00) or by imprisonment for not less than thirty (30) days nor more than ten (10) years, or by both such fine and imprisonment. Persons convicted under paragraphs 3 and 4 of subsection A of this section shall not be eligible for a deferred sentence.
A. It shall be unlawful for any person knowing that he or she has Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) or is a carrier of the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and with intent to infect another, to engage in conduct reasonably likely to result in the transfer of the person's own blood, bodily fluids containing visible blood, semen, or vaginal secretions into the bloodstream of another, or through the skin or other membranes of another person, except during in utero transmission of blood or bodily fluids, and:
1. The other person did not consent to the transfer of blood, bodily fluids containing blood, semen, or vaginal secretions; or 2. The other person consented to the transfer but at the time of giving consent had not been informed by the person that the person transferring such blood or fluids had AIDS or was a carrier of HIV.
B. Any person convicted of violating the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a felony, punishable by imprisonment in the custody of the Department of Corrections for not more than five (5) years.
So basically, someone could get 10 years for describing a dream in which he/she gives AIDS to someone through sexual intercourse - but only 5 years if it was not a dream.
Hint: Florida ain't the only state with conceal carry nor stand-your-ground laws. Where are those supposed low Florida numbers in all other states? In fact, ALL 50 STATES have concealed carry laws. It's just that some require a concealed carry LICENSE. Of those that DON'T REQUIRE A LICENSE - two (Alaska, New Mexico) are first and second on the list of the most dangerous US states, due to their high violent crime rate. Florida is ninth. Shouldn't easier concealed carry mean less violent crime?
And what about three other states (New Hampshire, Maine, Vermont) that also don't require a license - but which are among the most peaceful states? Vermont and Maine being the most peaceful states. How can the same easier concealed carry actually create less violent crime in these states but not in others?
I.e. Concealed carry, with or without a permit IS NOT the cause nor is it an indicator of violent crime rates.
Personally, I'd just as soon get rid of the whole thing, and make nobody have to sign up for it.
Actually... That bit is there explicitly (along with other checks and balances) for the purpose of making it harder for USA to go to war and to keep the size of the standing army down to the minimum at the times of peace. And should war be a necessity - it should be the entire nation taking the burden and there should be pressure to end the war as quickly and with as few casualties as possible.
There are instruments so dangerous to the rights of the nation and which place them so totally at the mercy of their governors, that those governors, whether legislative or executive, should be restrained from keeping such instruments on foot, but in well-defined cases... Such an instrument is a standing army. ... The Greeks and Romans had no standing armies, yet they defended themselves... Their system was to make every man a soldier and oblige him to repair to the standard of his country whenever that was reared. This made them invincible; and the same remedy will make us so. ... Were armies to be raised whenever a speck of war is visible in our horizon, we never should have been without them. Our resources would have been exhausted on dangers which never happened, instead of being reserved for what is really to take place. ... One of my favorite ideas is, never to keep an unnecessary soldier.
That's Jefferson. That's why "a well regulated militia" long before Civil War conscription.
They still have the freedom of choice to not take them and go by car instead.
I'd like mine to be an electric SUV. Which can also fly and go under water, like a submarine. Also, while you're granting "freedom" wishes, a complete imperviousness to pain or injury or age might not be the best thing. And occasional cut, bruise or cold WOULD make me more in touch with everyone else.
Oh... wait? You are not a wizard? You're not gonna magically grant everyone the same "freedom of choice"? Oh... That's... disappointing...
Also, you're arguing the metaphor (religion) not the argument (that the majority CAN be wrong). Redefine religion as belief in witchcraft (all of them have rules regarding witches, ergo...) and it should make more sense.
Also too... what you are arguing with that "study religion just so you could defend your position that you don't need religion" is not only contradictory (as it basically forces one to "need" religion). It also, in essence, suggests that an individual should question individuality and self-determination and should instead seek his/her identity not as an individual but as a not-majority. I.e. "You are not you. You are not-them."
In other words - individual human life has no value of its own, in fact it can't even be defined without the majority to define itself against, thus only the lives of the defining species/people/nation matter. And which one was that again? Ah, yes... only religious lives matter. So, why not just burn the infidels then? They're going to hell anyway...
That's your "well, you should study religion so you could defend your position" logic.
Well... For one, they probably lack your cable and internet costs. And probably spend less on their mobile costs too. They most likely don't own their home or a car, so there are no costs related to the use and maintenance of those either. They use public transport instead. Then, there are food stamps, which come out to about 125$ per person, per month, if the monthly income of that family doesn't exceed 2552$ (30624$ per year). Which is about 6000$ in food stamps. Up to 7788$ max. Then there are other social programs that the families with children are eligible for.
And then there's that bit where they are struggling, wheres you "are good" - which you are actually not, as you yourself say that your debt is creeping upward, while you're quite probably eligible for SNAP as well.
Slashdot Mirror
Not for convicted murderers to be able to erase their past from the internet.
Except, of course, that this is what it has been used for in the past.
Except it wasn't.
For one, these rules won't be applicable for at least two more years.
So unless you're claiming that what happened in the past actually happened in the future...
Also, it didn't even happen in the past, according to your own link.
On December 15, 2009, the German Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof) in Karlsruhe ruled that German websites do not have to check their archives in order to provide permanent protection of personality rights for convicted criminals.
If anything, these new rules ensure that such cases don't happen again.
Mit der Dummheit kampfen Gotter selbst vergebens
True. Just look in the mirror.
Why? Plenty of illiterate idiots like you to point at and laugh.
Point.
Point point.
Point point point.
Ha-ha.
Cause MH17 and MH370 are actually the same plane.
It's all a conspiracy by CIA and secret reptilian government to discredit Putin and thus prevent him from his crane-leading endeavors.
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/...
The new rules will give individuals greater control over their personal data in the following ways.
The right to be forgotten (Article 17)
Any person will have the right to be âoeforgottenâ/have his or her personal data erased when he or shel no longer wants the data to be processed, provided there are no legitimate reasons for retaining it.
To enforce this right, if a person asks an internet company to erase his/her data, the company should also forward the request to any others that replicate the data.
However, this right would be restricted in some cases, for instance when the data is needed for historical, statistical and scientific purposes, for public health reasons or to exercise the right to freedom of expression.
Also, the right to be forgotten would not apply when the retention of personal data is necessary to fulfil a contract or is required by law.
Purpose of this is to ensure that Facebook, Google and various government and other agencies can't use or sell your private data if you don't want them to.
Not for convicted murderers to be able to erase their past from the internet.
Freedom of speech still applies and still includes news articles about murder.
Just as the laws pertaining to government archives about the case still apply.
You're missing the point.
"Grandmas" didn't eat this grain, this corn or most other food available today. It didn't exist back then, and most foods eaten back then don't really exist anymore.
Green revolution sought to that.
We grow different plants cause they are more resistant to pests and various climates and cause they bring in higher crops.
We feed our livestock with different plants for same reason. More and better.
We produce more for less - thus we can afford to eat cake every day. Food is THAT CHEAP.
In contrast, grandma would often go without food.
If crop was bad, if there's a drought, if there's a war, if there are bandits, if field animals got sick and died so she had to pull that (wooden) plow instead of oxes...
Both food and eating habits are different today. And so are humans.
Diabetics simply died back then. No penicillin, so everyone with an infection died too. Today we even have cancer and AIDS survivors.
We got different humans. And a lot more of them.
Most of them would simply be dead back in "grandma times". Now, they get to be sickly for very long times. Lifetimes.
Being sickly, they are also more susceptible to dietary illnesses.
Which were so rare back in "grandma times" cause all those people died from something else, long before developing a dietary illness.
"Grandma's food" is the same nonsense as paleo diet which is the same nonsense as appeal to nature.
"Grandma" made it cause she was stronger and luckier than her 8-10 dead siblings.
"Grandma" also often went without food. Even canning was a fucking space-age technology for "grandma". Refrigeration didn't exist.
Meanwhile, gout is no longer a "disease of kings" or even "rich people".
Everyone can afford a rich people disease now - cause food is so fuckin cheap and so fuckin tasty.
Even plain old salt used to be worth its weight in gold - thus salary.
There is no such thing as "grandma's diet". Nor was there ever. "Grandma" died at 40.
just eat "grandma foods"
And work "grandma jobs", live "grandma lives" and last but not least - have "grandma child mortality rate".
How many grandma's siblings never made to puberty - while their genes did?
It's not that simple.
What back in grandma's days was a rare occurrence (be it chocolate cake or a rare genetic trait) is MUCH more common now, with all these extra humans and all these resources at our disposal.
One of the reasons why we have all these dietary medical issues now is that back in grandma's days people who had them would just get "sickly" and die.
Another one is that we've basically solved the "world hunger" problem. Granted, we haven't yet figured out the equal distribution issue and we did solve it in the fastest and cheapest way possible...
Then we solved that whole walking everywhere issue...
Hell, there was this guy recently claiming to have solved the whole chewing issue.
And many other issues.
Back in grandma's time, he'd be the village idiot, telling grandma to forget about washing clothes cause she could just order more from China.
And grand-grandpa would probably periodically have to chase him away with an axe.
Yet today... He sold millions worth of his "food" invention.
We are living in a very different world from grandmas, in many ways.
In others, maybe not as much.
It's ridiculous, bordering on disingenuous, to equate transformative cosmetic surgery with that which would deliberately result in a disability.
Hormonal therapy is "cosmetic"?
If we allow those for a small sense of well-being, then of course gender reassignment makes sense for at least the same reasons, and if it helps "gender dysphoria" as well, or any other mental health condition, then great.
So, one "small sense of well-being" trumps other sense of well-being - because YOU find it to be "deliberate disability"?
Like say... taking a human and cutting out its reproductive organs, then replacing them with cosmetic but non-functional reproductive organs?
That's not "deliberate disability"?
Not all mental health conditions require a pill, or directly altering brain chemistry.
Yet, "gender reassignment" does. No amount of talking or "going outside" will boost a woman's testosterone levels nor a man's estrogen levels.
At this point, though, gender reassignment surgery allows people to have a sex that matches their gender identity
Just like with people who just want that specific limb shortened, that particular nose size, shoe size, that particular number of ears, arms, fingers, eyes, skin and hair color... outside of what the majority has, but which, when achieved, will give them that "small sense of well-being".
Why should one's gender have priority over one's "completeness"?
Also, do note that you are equating people cutting themselves due to their BDD with "gender reassignment" people - as they are both just looking for "a small sense of well-being".
It's just that your "inclusiveness" has certain limits. There's that imaginary "deliberate disability" line.
Though it doesn't matter to you one way or the other which parts someone else deems superfluous and replaceable on their own body.
and questioning the therapeutic value of that seems pointless at best (unless you're considering it yourself), and spiteful at worst.
So which one does that make you?
Considering, spiteful or unjustifiably confident regarding the qualities of your own wit?
not, in fact, a delusion. It is something that is really wrong with someone
It's not one kind of mental disorder - it's this other kind of mental disorder.
Which is "appropriately treated" with "sexual reassignment surgery".
Mental issues, fixed by surgery.
You know... that sounds a lot like the way lobotomy was a cure for... well... any mental issue.
But more specifically, as a the case where people claim their body is not right... it sounds very much like BDD and BIID.
With both those disorders, patients will seek surgery as "cure" for their otherwise healthy but unsatisfactory body.
Only, surgery not being that widely accepted as a cure for those conditions (BIID is not even recognized as one) they'll often try to "fix" their bodies using household appliances.
Like "accidentally" mangling their body parts with powertools or having "hunting accidents".
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03...
...as biological marriage.
...but to me this sounds like a "service" that paints a big giant "I'm so afraid of being assaulted I'll do anything" sign on its customers.
And on ANY female customers of other "rideshare" services, who happen to be driven by female drivers.
Basically, if you're a violent criminal and see a woman coming out of a car driven by a woman - you're seeing easy prey.
Regardless of YOUR gender.
Bonus points if you're a female criminal with a big, threatening boyfriend.
You just stop that gullible female who only trusts females and start up a conversation - while your big threatening boyfriend sneaks up from behind.
Same goes if you're the big threatening boyfriend whose girlfriend is up for playing bait.
Whoever the woman coming out of a car driven by a woman is - at least she has a mobile phone on her.
And she is SO AFRAID of being assaulted, she can't even stand to sit next to strange men.
Easy prey.
And a special "Well hello there - AGAIN!" to my down-moderator for voicing his/her disagreement with reality by down modding my original post above.
We can keep on going like this until you run out of mod points or I run out of copy/paste. Plenty more where that came from.
...but to me this sounds like a "service" that paints a big giant "I'm so afraid of being assaulted I'll do anything" sign on its customers.
And on ANY female customers of other "rideshare" services, who happen to be driven by female drivers.
Basically, if you're a violent criminal and see a woman coming out of a car driven by a woman - you're seeing easy prey.
Regardless of YOUR gender.
Bonus points if you're a female criminal with a big, threatening boyfriend.
You just stop that gullible female who only trusts females and start up a conversation - while your big threatening boyfriend sneaks up from behind.
Same goes if you're the big threatening boyfriend whose girlfriend is up for playing bait.
Whoever the woman coming out of a car driven by a woman is - at least she has a mobile phone on her.
And she is SO AFRAID of being assaulted, she can't even stand to sit next to strange men.
Easy prey.
And a special "Well hello there!" to my down-moderator for voicing his/her disagreement with reality by down modding my original post above.
We can keep on going like this until you run out of mod points or I run out of copy/paste.
...but to me this sounds like a "service" that paints a big giant "I'm so afraid of being assaulted I'll do anything" sign on its customers.
And on ANY female customers of other "rideshare" services, who happen to be driven by female drivers.
Basically, if you're a violent criminal and see a woman coming out of a car driven by a woman - you're seeing easy prey.
Regardless of YOUR gender.
Bonus points if you're a female criminal with a big, threatening boyfriend.
You just stop that gullible female who only trusts females and start up a conversation - while your big threatening boyfriend sneaks up from behind.
Same goes if you're the big threatening boyfriend whose girlfriend is up for playing bait.
Whoever the woman coming out of a car driven by a woman is - at least she has a mobile phone on her.
And she is SO AFRAID of being assaulted, she can't even stand to sit next to strange men.
Easy prey.
Depends on your definition of "is".
Also, definitions of "green", "bitch", "sex", "have" and "avocado".
Sounds like the reality distortion field is strong with this one.
You said it brother!
Oh... wait... you didn't mean Apple's reality distortion field?
Cause 13 million iPhones, even if they were all bought straight up, not "upgraded", and if they were all 128GB models come out to $849 * 13000000 = $11.037 billion.
Last I checked, that's about 3 billion dollars less than 14 billion dollars mentioned in the summary.
And that's if everyone bought the priciest option available.
That's some distortion field to miss 3 billion dollars... probably more.
"Warning! This taxi contains a company known to the State of California to not kowtow to the carefully built up government genuflection&donation industry."
More like "Warning! This taxi company is known for being convicted for lying to its customers about the level of safety regulations it practices."
But that's still a nice strawman. You made it yourself or did you buy it at a strawman store?
Cause I hear those are made by starving African children of Cambodia.
So when you're using such a strawman, you're financing slavery.
To relay artist's PERSONAL experience to another person.
That's why the goal is to UNDERSTAND art - not to love it or hate it, as it would be if the goal of art was an emotional response.
In fact, they confirm that they ARE collecting data.
While literally pulling a TV trope with that "we do not collect the data...such as throttle position, oil temp, and coolant temp" bit.
Instead, data gets collected "only when it enhances driver safety or enables an important user experience, such as using GPS for mapping".
So basically, data gets collected only all the time.
And more effective in getting humans to follow instructions?
While also more effective in establishing an emotional connection with the brand?
Haven't we figured that out already? Like... years ago?
...than sex. Or porn. Or to swear.
http://statelaws.findlaw.com/o...
A. Every person who willfully either: ...
3. Writes, composes, stereotypes, prints, photographs, designs, copies, draws, engraves, paints, molds, cuts, or otherwise prepares, publishes, sells, distributes, keeps for sale, or exhibits any obscene or indecent writing, paper, book, picture, photograph, motion picture, figure, form of any description or any type of obscene material; or
4. Makes, prepares, cuts, sells, gives, loans, distributes, keeps for sale, or exhibits any disc record, metal, plastic, or wax, wire or tape recording, or any type of obscene material or any other kind of sound recording of any obscene or indecent language, poetry, or songs, or who speaks any words by means of a telephone to any person which are offensive to decency or are calculated to excite vicious or lewd thoughts or acts, or who speaks any other communicable words which are offensive to decency or are adapted to excite vicious or lewd thoughts or acts,
shall be guilty, upon conviction, of a felony and shall be punished by the imposition of a fine of not less than Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00) nor more than Twenty Thousand Dollars ($20,000.00) or by imprisonment for not less than thirty (30) days nor more than ten (10) years, or by both such fine and imprisonment. Persons convicted under paragraphs 3 and 4 of subsection A of this section shall not be eligible for a deferred sentence.
A. It shall be unlawful for any person knowing that he or she has Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) or is a carrier of the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and with intent to infect another, to engage in conduct reasonably likely to result in the transfer of the person's own blood, bodily fluids containing visible blood, semen, or vaginal secretions into the bloodstream of another, or through the skin or other membranes of another person, except during in utero transmission of blood or bodily fluids, and:
1. The other person did not consent to the transfer of blood, bodily fluids containing blood, semen, or vaginal secretions; or
2. The other person consented to the transfer but at the time of giving consent had not been informed by the person that the person transferring such blood or fluids had AIDS or was a carrier of HIV.
B. Any person convicted of violating the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a felony, punishable by imprisonment in the custody of the Department of Corrections for not more than five (5) years.
So basically, someone could get 10 years for describing a dream in which he/she gives AIDS to someone through sexual intercourse - but only 5 years if it was not a dream.
You are conflating several bullshit statistics, cherry picked without rhyme or reason.
Meanwhile, back in reality, concealed carry laws have been debunked as the cause for lower crime rates.
And no, it isn't the stand your ground laws either.
Hint: Florida ain't the only state with conceal carry nor stand-your-ground laws. Where are those supposed low Florida numbers in all other states?
In fact, ALL 50 STATES have concealed carry laws. It's just that some require a concealed carry LICENSE.
Of those that DON'T REQUIRE A LICENSE - two (Alaska, New Mexico) are first and second on the list of the most dangerous US states, due to their high violent crime rate.
Florida is ninth.
Shouldn't easier concealed carry mean less violent crime?
And what about three other states (New Hampshire, Maine, Vermont) that also don't require a license - but which are among the most peaceful states?
Vermont and Maine being the most peaceful states.
How can the same easier concealed carry actually create less violent crime in these states but not in others?
I.e. Concealed carry, with or without a permit IS NOT the cause nor is it an indicator of violent crime rates.
I am a research scientist of moderate seniority, and I use that language all the time. And there's nothing wrong with me.
Bullshit!
I am a research scientist of moderate seniority, and I use that language all the time.
And there's nothing wrong with me, asshole.
Personally, I'd just as soon get rid of the whole thing, and make nobody have to sign up for it.
Actually... That bit is there explicitly (along with other checks and balances) for the purpose of making it harder for USA to go to war and to keep the size of the standing army down to the minimum at the times of peace.
And should war be a necessity - it should be the entire nation taking the burden and there should be pressure to end the war as quickly and with as few casualties as possible.
There are instruments so dangerous to the rights of the nation and which place them so totally at the mercy of their governors, that those governors, whether legislative or executive, should be restrained from keeping such instruments on foot, but in well-defined cases...
...
...
...
Such an instrument is a standing army.
The Greeks and Romans had no standing armies, yet they defended themselves...
Their system was to make every man a soldier and oblige him to repair to the standard of his country whenever that was reared.
This made them invincible; and the same remedy will make us so.
Were armies to be raised whenever a speck of war is visible in our horizon, we never should have been without them.
Our resources would have been exhausted on dangers which never happened, instead of being reserved for what is really to take place.
One of my favorite ideas is, never to keep an unnecessary soldier.
That's Jefferson.
That's why "a well regulated militia" long before Civil War conscription.
They still have the freedom of choice to not take them and go by car instead.
I'd like mine to be an electric SUV. Which can also fly and go under water, like a submarine.
Also, while you're granting "freedom" wishes, a complete imperviousness to pain or injury or age might not be the best thing.
And occasional cut, bruise or cold WOULD make me more in touch with everyone else.
Oh... wait? You are not a wizard? You're not gonna magically grant everyone the same "freedom of choice"?
Oh... That's... disappointing...
...but that's not how onus probandi works.
Also, you're arguing the metaphor (religion) not the argument (that the majority CAN be wrong).
Redefine religion as belief in witchcraft (all of them have rules regarding witches, ergo...) and it should make more sense.
Also too... what you are arguing with that "study religion just so you could defend your position that you don't need religion" is not only contradictory (as it basically forces one to "need" religion).
It also, in essence, suggests that an individual should question individuality and self-determination and should instead seek his/her identity not as an individual but as a not-majority.
I.e. "You are not you. You are not-them."
In other words - individual human life has no value of its own, in fact it can't even be defined without the majority to define itself against, thus only the lives of the defining species/people/nation matter.
And which one was that again? Ah, yes... only religious lives matter.
So, why not just burn the infidels then? They're going to hell anyway...
That's your "well, you should study religion so you could defend your position" logic.
Well... For one, they probably lack your cable and internet costs. And probably spend less on their mobile costs too.
They most likely don't own their home or a car, so there are no costs related to the use and maintenance of those either. They use public transport instead.
Then, there are food stamps, which come out to about 125$ per person, per month, if the monthly income of that family doesn't exceed 2552$ (30624$ per year).
Which is about 6000$ in food stamps. Up to 7788$ max.
Then there are other social programs that the families with children are eligible for.
And then there's that bit where they are struggling, wheres you "are good" - which you are actually not, as you yourself say that your debt is creeping upward, while you're quite probably eligible for SNAP as well.
...where you Putin that reference.