Or you could have filled out a 'change of address' form at the online US post office site, and had all mail addressed to you (but sent to the old address) forwarded to your new address. I think they do that for up to a year.
Headshot is a horrible idea when hunting. The brain is very small, and very protected. A hit will most likely result in missing the brain, and either blowing the animals jaw off, or partially blinding it, etc... leaving the animal wounded, but fully capable of running away at top speed to die a slow death later.
A shot behind the shoulder in the heart/lung area does destroy some meat, but it pretty much guarantees that the animal is not going to be able to run off. Meaning even if the shot doesn't cause a quick death, you have the opportunity of putting the animal out of its misery fairly quickly.
Well, influence or not, there seems to be a bigger problem with having the average person read the Bible: the Bible cannot be read in isolation.
I fail to see how any casual reader is going to get anything out of the Bible without the help of trained scholars explaining different sections in historical context. Taking a class about Biblical history might be worthwhile, as a means of understanding some of the historical influences on western culture, but the Bible itself is full of tiny stories (some true, some false, some embellished, some horrible translated over time, etc...) that have very little real value without a lot of trained interpretative skills.
Maybe it isn't polished enough yet (or too soon for technology to make it reality), but I think the idea with Google Glass, is that the taking of the picture becomes as second nature as just looking.
Think of the day when something like this can be embedded in your eyeball from birth. I imagine growing up with the ability to just think "capture" and it takes a picture will feel way far away from "futzing with the camera".
My deepest desire is for an party that is a cross between the Tea Party and Occupy.
I think the easiest thing for both those groups to agree on is getting corruption/bribery out of politics and elections. Major campaign finance regulation overhauls, constitutional convention to overturn citizens united, etc..
If you start tossing in things like "out of control Federal government" you're already losing some of the Occupy folks. Some of them want a larger Government, single payer health care, bigger social safety nets, etc...
Well, and not to mention that zero cost to construct will not translate into zero cost to buy unless the producer is ordered to do so.
Artificial scarcity will always exist, no matter the cost of production, unless Governments can evolve to be truly altruistic. Overcoming human nature concerning greed, power, etc.. seems to be a much larger problem than solving a technology riddle to produce products with zero cost.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forever_Peace That book seems to be a more accurate picture of what happens when a tech is developed to produce goods at zero cost.
Science fiction is as legitimate a artistic expression as anything else, if not more legitimate because it is generally written by people who have a better understanding of nature than your average artist.
True. Science fiction is a legitimate artistic expression. That still doesn't, in and of itself, make it a valid source of political theory.
Science fiction often deals with technology. I wouldn't want a plane I was flying on designed by a science fiction author, solely because I trusted his artistic skills when weaving tales about technology. Now, if he additionally happened to be an engineer, that would good. But just as an artist... I'll pass.
It is no different with political theory. There may or may not be a valid point in a story about political theory, but just because it is art doesn't make it valid source.
Something has become flawed in the editorial / review / vetting process at 60 minutes. The previous Benghazi story screw up (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/cbs-asks-lara-logan-to-take-leave-after-flawed-benghazi-report/) and now this NSA "puff piece" has made me wary of anything 60-minutes reports now.
My daughter receives the same information from her schools. I am trying to recall a recent movie (outside of Atlas Shrugged) or show where a big business was the hero and the unions were the bad guys.
Schools are Hollywood are the only place you'll hear praise for unions (Not really a surprise that in an institution of learning... facts prevail. And as a liberal, I have no problem admitting that Hollywood is pretty liberal... but as we all know, reality has a well known liberal bias:) ).
There isn't a single conservative voice in the country (news, politics, talk radio, etc) that is pro-union. At least none I've come across. If you know of one, please let me know. I'd be interested to hear how they justify the existence of unions to other conservatives in this climate.
CEO's have always made a lot. But in the last 30 years it has gotten really extreme.
Income inequality between CEOs and workers has consequently exploded, with CEOs last year earning 209.4 times more than workers, compared to just 26.5 times more in 1978 -- meaning CEOs are taking home a larger percentage of company gains.
Actually Europe has a much higher population than the US. The population of the EU countries is now over 500 million. If Europe is more unified politically, it will be the single biggest geopolitical force in the world.
What is the combined economic and military power? Is that also larger than the US? China has way more people than the US but way less political power.
And overhearing a one sided conversation is more distracting for some reason. It is like your brain is keeps expecting a response and is let down when each sentence isn't answered.
They may make more than your or me, but in the overall scheme of things it's hospital administrators, pharmaceutical company CEOs, insurance company owners, and bankers who are really really rich.
I worked for a hospital for 10 years. The doctors made more than the administrators. I guess maybe you mean like a huge health care chain or something?
Courts have ruled it constitutional. By definition, it is constitutional. I'm with ya on being angry about NSA overreach, but you really need to pick a new word other than unconstitutional.
I blame a basic misunderstanding of Robin Hood and the lessons it tried to put forward
One of them being that when you are oppressed in society, with no hopes of social mobility, and where "the game" of capitalism is fixed so that only certain people win, that the laws that those powerful winners buy from the courts and legislature are not moral, not just, and not worthy of your respect.
Some people are starting to feel that way about huge mega-corporations now. See the Occupy Wall Street movement as a symptom of that feeling.
Even atheism is faith. Oh yes it is....... It's the choice to only make decisions upon that which is falsifiable . That is a matter of faith that nothing else is operating that can affect your conclusion.
The choice to make decisions based on that which is falsifiable (or derived by the scientific method in general) also implies a fundamental thing: it means you choose to believe that that which can be observed and reproduced is real.
To do otherwise is what leads people like 'Young Earth Creationists' to disregard all the dinosaur bones and their geological dating. A wave of the hand and a bunch of evidence is no longer real.
A very careful person of faith, who deeply considers the boundaries and limits of religion, can, with practice, keep faith out of areas where it does not belong. However, that is rare. Faith based thinking inevitable leads to contradictions in reasoning.
I wish that study had defined "Sharia law" clearly. There is a huge range of interpretations of Sharia Law. Without a specific definition, you might as well say "40% of Muslims would like laws that more closely match their particular morality, which is often governed by their religion".
but certainly the scientific method does not apply to non-falsifiable ideas like core religious beliefs
And that is why increased education about the boundaries of religion and science is important. Faith based beliefs really are not much of a problem, until that way of thinking (faith with no evidence required) starts being applied to areas that they don't belong.
We bailed out the automakers for the same reason we subsidize food production - there is a strategic value in being self-sufficient. If there was another world war or a global catastrophe, we'd be fucked if all our cars and trucks and armored vehicles and tanks were manufactured elsewhere. And what's $10 billion compared to the trillions we already throw away to make sure the oil keeps flowing.
I'm not sure what news you were following, but that talked about often on pragmatic news agencies.
It's too bad that 99% of all news is so overtly partisan nowadays.
You do know that GM's CEO competitors (Ford, Toyota, etc...) testified in favor of the bailout right?
CEO's aren't exactly big fans of unions. It was a pragmatic decision based on supply lines, pooled resources, and the overall health of the auto industry.
Slashdot Mirror
Or you could have filled out a 'change of address' form at the online US post office site, and had all mail addressed to you (but sent to the old address) forwarded to your new address. I think they do that for up to a year.
Headshot is a horrible idea when hunting. The brain is very small, and very protected. A hit will most likely result in missing the brain, and either blowing the animals jaw off, or partially blinding it, etc... leaving the animal wounded, but fully capable of running away at top speed to die a slow death later.
A shot behind the shoulder in the heart/lung area does destroy some meat, but it pretty much guarantees that the animal is not going to be able to run off. Meaning even if the shot doesn't cause a quick death, you have the opportunity of putting the animal out of its misery fairly quickly.
Well, influence or not, there seems to be a bigger problem with having the average person read the Bible: the Bible cannot be read in isolation.
I fail to see how any casual reader is going to get anything out of the Bible without the help of trained scholars explaining different sections in historical context. Taking a class about Biblical history might be worthwhile, as a means of understanding some of the historical influences on western culture, but the Bible itself is full of tiny stories (some true, some false, some embellished, some horrible translated over time, etc...) that have very little real value without a lot of trained interpretative skills.
"because I was futzing with the camera"
Maybe it isn't polished enough yet (or too soon for technology to make it reality), but I think the idea with Google Glass, is that the taking of the picture becomes as second nature as just looking.
Think of the day when something like this can be embedded in your eyeball from birth. I imagine growing up with the ability to just think "capture" and it takes a picture will feel way far away from "futzing with the camera".
And how are you going to squish it without first having a Congress willing to vote to squish it?
My deepest desire is for an party that is a cross between the Tea Party and Occupy.
I think the easiest thing for both those groups to agree on is getting corruption/bribery out of politics and elections. Major campaign finance regulation overhauls, constitutional convention to overturn citizens united, etc..
If you start tossing in things like "out of control Federal government" you're already losing some of the Occupy folks. Some of them want a larger Government, single payer health care, bigger social safety nets, etc...
I did a quick search and could not find anything in the constitution that forbids the existence of secret courts. What section does that?
Well, and not to mention that zero cost to construct will not translate into zero cost to buy unless the producer is ordered to do so.
Artificial scarcity will always exist, no matter the cost of production, unless Governments can evolve to be truly altruistic. Overcoming human nature concerning greed, power, etc.. seems to be a much larger problem than solving a technology riddle to produce products with zero cost.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forever_Peace That book seems to be a more accurate picture of what happens when a tech is developed to produce goods at zero cost.
Science fiction is as legitimate a artistic expression as anything else, if not more legitimate because it is generally written by people who have a better understanding of nature than your average artist.
True. Science fiction is a legitimate artistic expression. That still doesn't, in and of itself, make it a valid source of political theory.
Science fiction often deals with technology. I wouldn't want a plane I was flying on designed by a science fiction author, solely because I trusted his artistic skills when weaving tales about technology. Now, if he additionally happened to be an engineer, that would good. But just as an artist... I'll pass.
It is no different with political theory. There may or may not be a valid point in a story about political theory, but just because it is art doesn't make it valid source.
Something has become flawed in the editorial / review / vetting process at 60 minutes. The previous Benghazi story screw up (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/cbs-asks-lara-logan-to-take-leave-after-flawed-benghazi-report/) and now this NSA "puff piece" has made me wary of anything 60-minutes reports now.
My daughter receives the same information from her schools. I am trying to recall a recent movie (outside of Atlas Shrugged) or show where a big business was the hero and the unions were the bad guys.
Schools are Hollywood are the only place you'll hear praise for unions (Not really a surprise that in an institution of learning... facts prevail. And as a liberal, I have no problem admitting that Hollywood is pretty liberal... but as we all know, reality has a well known liberal bias:) ).
There isn't a single conservative voice in the country (news, politics, talk radio, etc) that is pro-union. At least none I've come across. If you know of one, please let me know. I'd be interested to hear how they justify the existence of unions to other conservatives in this climate.
CEO's have always made a lot. But in the last 30 years it has gotten really extreme.
Income inequality between CEOs and workers has consequently exploded, with CEOs last year earning 209.4 times more than workers, compared to just 26.5 times more in 1978 -- meaning CEOs are taking home a larger percentage of company gains.
--http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/02/ceo-pay-worker-pay_n_1471685.html
Tons of details if you are curious.
http://www.vanderbilt.edu/econ/sempapers/Frydman1.pdf
Look at cost of living in those places. Then after that, adjust for all these:
Free Health care, better social safety nets, paid maternity / paternity, better public transportation, longer vacations, etc...
Actually Europe has a much higher population than the US. The population of the EU countries is now over 500 million. If Europe is more unified politically, it will be the single biggest geopolitical force in the world.
What is the combined economic and military power? Is that also larger than the US? China has way more people than the US but way less political power.
And overhearing a one sided conversation is more distracting for some reason. It is like your brain is keeps expecting a response and is let down when each sentence isn't answered.
Be angry with the court decisions. Petition your congress critters to make laws that will force this to be re-evaluated in court.
But widespread metadata collection has been legal for a long time. Way before the internet.
They may make more than your or me, but in the overall scheme of things it's hospital administrators, pharmaceutical company CEOs, insurance company owners, and bankers who are really really rich.
I worked for a hospital for 10 years. The doctors made more than the administrators. I guess maybe you mean like a huge health care chain or something?
blatant unconstitutional totalitarianism
Courts have ruled it constitutional. By definition, it is constitutional. I'm with ya on being angry about NSA overreach, but you really need to pick a new word other than unconstitutional.
I blame a basic misunderstanding of Robin Hood and the lessons it tried to put forward
One of them being that when you are oppressed in society, with no hopes of social mobility, and where "the game" of capitalism is fixed so that only certain people win, that the laws that those powerful winners buy from the courts and legislature are not moral, not just, and not worthy of your respect.
Some people are starting to feel that way about huge mega-corporations now. See the Occupy Wall Street movement as a symptom of that feeling.
Even atheism is faith. Oh yes it is. ...... It's the choice to only make decisions upon that which is falsifiable . That is a matter of faith that nothing else is operating that can affect your conclusion.
The choice to make decisions based on that which is falsifiable (or derived by the scientific method in general) also implies a fundamental thing: it means you choose to believe that that which can be observed and reproduced is real.
To do otherwise is what leads people like 'Young Earth Creationists' to disregard all the dinosaur bones and their geological dating. A wave of the hand and a bunch of evidence is no longer real.
A very careful person of faith, who deeply considers the boundaries and limits of religion, can, with practice, keep faith out of areas where it does not belong. However, that is rare. Faith based thinking inevitable leads to contradictions in reasoning.
I wish that study had defined "Sharia law" clearly. There is a huge range of interpretations of Sharia Law. Without a specific definition, you might as well say "40% of Muslims would like laws that more closely match their particular morality, which is often governed by their religion".
but certainly the scientific method does not apply to non-falsifiable ideas like core religious beliefs
And that is why increased education about the boundaries of religion and science is important. Faith based beliefs really are not much of a problem, until that way of thinking (faith with no evidence required) starts being applied to areas that they don't belong.
And blue whales must be demi-gods.
We bailed out the automakers for the same reason we subsidize food production - there is a strategic value in being self-sufficient. If there was another world war or a global catastrophe, we'd be fucked if all our cars and trucks and armored vehicles and tanks were manufactured elsewhere. And what's $10 billion compared to the trillions we already throw away to make sure the oil keeps flowing.
I'm not sure what news you were following, but that talked about often on pragmatic news agencies.
It's too bad that 99% of all news is so overtly partisan nowadays.
You do know that GM's CEO competitors (Ford, Toyota, etc...) testified in favor of the bailout right?
CEO's aren't exactly big fans of unions. It was a pragmatic decision based on supply lines, pooled resources, and the overall health of the auto industry.