If just one of the twins is guilty of the original crime, then all the other one can say is " I didn't do it." And they are both probably saying that. So what is the conspiracy? One of the twins isn't willing to lie (Oh yes, my brother did it, I saw him!)?
What do you mean lying for the other? If they both say they didn't do it, then one person can be responsible for both the crimes AND the lies. The other is just innocent (unless they both did the crimes and are thus also both lying).
Since there wouldn't be any market for their mean, my guess is that some of the cows might be turned loose to survive as best they can. So they'd exist in the wild for a few years.
Most of Europe already knew that horses were delicious. The problem now (except that the British are having a fit about eating pets) is that the meat might be from horses that were used as work/sport animals. Those horses are often given drugs that can accumulate in the meat, making it unsuitable for human consumption.
Cows are evil geniuses when it comes to 'getting back' at humans for keeping them chained up. They'll kick their own shit across the entire barn with pinpoint accuracy as soon as there is something there that you really don't want to get dirty.
If enough people chose to become vegetarians then yes, fewer animals will die for food, but they will still be culled and disposed off. Or do you expect farmers to keep cows as pets?
As for suffering, does being locked in a barn lead to more suffering then being allowed to roam freely while being chased by wolves and bears?
But aren't there many other things that contribute just as little to society as porn? (Violent) sports for example. How does society benefit from seeing guys smash into each other or hit each other? Doesn't that desensitize us to violence? Or religion that desensitizes us to stupidity. Unless we're willing to ban anything that is not For The Common Good, then don't start banning things just because you don't like them.
Yes. What is the difference between porn and religion (except that religion is more public). What if I want to raise my children in a society without religion. Would it be more fair to have me move away, or ban religion?
So the answer is to make it illegal to get that money and survive?
I'm sure they still prefer doing porn to starving. Or does the government propose to provide a certain minimum income to all out of work porn actors/actresses.
Why should the farmers that DIDN'T sign the license be the ones that follow it. The farmers that did sign then sold the seeds they grew to third parties without requiring them to sing any kind of a license. So why doesn't Monsanto go after the sellers, or require them to get their buyers to sign the Monsanto license? Why should third parties be required to enforce the rules Monsanto made up?
Both parties are about equally bad at irresponsible spending (though on different things), but the Democrats at least say they want to also increase revenue. So I guess they're the better choice as long as there is no third alternative.
Why exactly should those costs not be counted? Why calculate the cost as the potential cost of less intensive production, when production IS intense. Sure in the future it might make sense to produce fuel at a lower cost (and rate), but that does not mean we want to make it now just to say we're prepared.
And why would biofuel be our only choice in the future? Wouldn't hydrogen made with power from nuclear power plants work just as well?
Sometimes I feel people deserve to have their rights violated. Just like a serial rapist deserves to be raped in prison, a serial violator of people's privacy deserves to have his privacy violated. Sure it might not be legal, so the perpetrators deserve to get a slap on the wrist. But let's not kid ourselves, the 'victims' deserved it.
They both deserve to be tried for war crimes at the very least.
Why do supporters of a political party always respond to criticism by saying the other guys are just as bad? Do they like the race to the bottom we're seeing in politics?
Just look at how well the government controls tax dodging by using offshore subsidiaries. What makes you think R&D costs would be any better.
Non competes are great for stopping someone from personally stealing your idea. But there is no way to prove that they were the ones that 'suggested' the solution to party X which then promptly patents it. Knowledge has a way of spreading.
But what if our definition of gravity (attraction between bodies that have mass) is wrong?
Let's say that it's discovered that mass can exist without having gravity or being affected by it. Suddenly what you thing of as gravity is not quite so boolean.
Slashdot Mirror
If just one of the twins is guilty of the original crime, then all the other one can say is " I didn't do it." And they are both probably saying that. So what is the conspiracy? One of the twins isn't willing to lie (Oh yes, my brother did it, I saw him!)?
But which twin do you ask to testify, if they are both saying: " I'm innocent, my brother did it."
What do you mean lying for the other? If they both say they didn't do it, then one person can be responsible for both the crimes AND the lies. The other is just innocent (unless they both did the crimes and are thus also both lying).
Why finish a project someone is paying you for? Do enough (cheaply) to get 50% of the payout, get fired, form a new company and get hired again.
Yeah, porn doesn't bring enough bad things to be comparable to religion.
Since there wouldn't be any market for their mean, my guess is that some of the cows might be turned loose to survive as best they can. So they'd exist in the wild for a few years.
Most of Europe already knew that horses were delicious. The problem now (except that the British are having a fit about eating pets) is that the meat might be from horses that were used as work/sport animals. Those horses are often given drugs that can accumulate in the meat, making it unsuitable for human consumption.
Do we want to breed smarter cows which already have enough weight to easily crush the people taking care of them?
Cows are evil geniuses when it comes to 'getting back' at humans for keeping them chained up. They'll kick their own shit across the entire barn with pinpoint accuracy as soon as there is something there that you really don't want to get dirty.
If enough people chose to become vegetarians then yes, fewer animals will die for food, but they will still be culled and disposed off. Or do you expect farmers to keep cows as pets?
As for suffering, does being locked in a barn lead to more suffering then being allowed to roam freely while being chased by wolves and bears?
But aren't there many other things that contribute just as little to society as porn? (Violent) sports for example. How does society benefit from seeing guys smash into each other or hit each other? Doesn't that desensitize us to violence? Or religion that desensitizes us to stupidity.
Unless we're willing to ban anything that is not For The Common Good, then don't start banning things just because you don't like them.
Yes. What is the difference between porn and religion (except that religion is more public). What if I want to raise my children in a society without religion. Would it be more fair to have me move away, or ban religion?
So the answer is to make it illegal to get that money and survive?
I'm sure they still prefer doing porn to starving. Or does the government propose to provide a certain minimum income to all out of work porn actors/actresses.
Why should the farmers that DIDN'T sign the license be the ones that follow it. The farmers that did sign then sold the seeds they grew to third parties without requiring them to sing any kind of a license. So why doesn't Monsanto go after the sellers, or require them to get their buyers to sign the Monsanto license? Why should third parties be required to enforce the rules Monsanto made up?
Have you tried using compost instead of Miracle Grow? My father uses it on his garden and gets more tomatoes then he can eat.
The shield it's job quite well enough - the base wasn't glassed from orbit.
Both parties are about equally bad at irresponsible spending (though on different things), but the Democrats at least say they want to also increase revenue. So I guess they're the better choice as long as there is no third alternative.
That's why the MEPs don't accept the 'donations'. Instead they sell something to the lobbyist for 1000% of it's value.
Do you want amonia to replace current fuels? The smell alone would probably render cities uninhabitable, and there's the toxicity.
Hydrogen on the other hand is about as clean a fuel as you can think off - all that you get from burning it is water.
Why exactly should those costs not be counted? Why calculate the cost as the potential cost of less intensive production, when production IS intense. Sure in the future it might make sense to produce fuel at a lower cost (and rate), but that does not mean we want to make it now just to say we're prepared.
And why would biofuel be our only choice in the future? Wouldn't hydrogen made with power from nuclear power plants work just as well?
Sometimes I feel people deserve to have their rights violated. Just like a serial rapist deserves to be raped in prison, a serial violator of people's privacy deserves to have his privacy violated. Sure it might not be legal, so the perpetrators deserve to get a slap on the wrist. But let's not kid ourselves, the 'victims' deserved it.
They both deserve to be tried for war crimes at the very least.
Why do supporters of a political party always respond to criticism by saying the other guys are just as bad? Do they like the race to the bottom we're seeing in politics?
Just look at how well the government controls tax dodging by using offshore subsidiaries. What makes you think R&D costs would be any better.
Non competes are great for stopping someone from personally stealing your idea. But there is no way to prove that they were the ones that 'suggested' the solution to party X which then promptly patents it. Knowledge has a way of spreading.
Actually they'd fully support both in other people. The more people take themselves out of the gene pool the better for your genes.
But what if our definition of gravity (attraction between bodies that have mass) is wrong?
Let's say that it's discovered that mass can exist without having gravity or being affected by it. Suddenly what you thing of as gravity is not quite so boolean.