That was a nice try but I'm not sure why this is considered a valid argument. Say it out load S (as in self) C (as in contained)... huh, sounds like "s-kuh" to me
Why even bother building a fleet when you can just warp through objects to destroy them? Now I have to assume nobody knew you could destroy the armada by just building large ships and auto-piloting them through the enemy while jumping.
If a single space ship battle happens in the next movie where it isn't a just race to kamikaze, it'll just look like complete ineptitude by all commanders involved.
How do you get out of this huge scientific (magic) discovery?
Not sure she broke the law. Fortunately she didn't delete her emails to cover her tracks like former secretary of state did to avoid further investigation.
That being said, find something classified and you'd surely have a case.
He says we can't take care of Earth so how could we take care of Mars. The difference is the people to me.
People who live on earth are every kind of person. Most of them selfish, short-sighted, etc. I'm not trying to be insulting, but it's how it is. Just look at how we fund science and space.
But if we hand pick people who care about the sort of thing, then the greediness (for a time) won't hold people back. I'm sure if we teraform Mars we'll ruin it later once it's commercialized, but that's a different challenge.
So rich assholes put a gun to his head and made him say "Funding secured"? Even though there was no such funding? It was an outright lie. Unless you're Bill Clinton and you wanna debate what the definition of "is" is.
Musk brought all of this upon himself, 100 percent. He should've laid off the Ambien and LSD, and gotten some decent nights sleep.
I would argue he wouldn't have thought about going private in the first place if it wasn't for "rich assholes".
I was thinking along the same lines, we're supporting the wrong people (short sellers). As a race, we barely have a vision anymore but Musk has given us hope. Plus, he didn't actually do anything wrong even if it could be found illegal.
I'm sure it is, but who cares as long as it does the right thing and sets the right precedent? As a moderate, I'd appreciate any step towards improvement, no matter which party does it.
(hint: everything the government does is politically motivated)
Disclaimer: I believe we have a right to own guns, and I believe that many proposed gun laws lack common sense.
That being said, I'm on board with stricter gun laws. We can't just speak to a whole classification of weapons "Assault weapons" because it'll lead to loopholes, and we can't just apply laws to some citizens (cops can be corrupt).
If we're going to make a positive movement in gun ownership, it needs to be specific, smart and targeted. And it can't just be a form of control, it has to be applied across the board. If specific guns really are bad, ban the manufacture in the first place. Once the gun is made, all it takes is one corrupt "licensed person" to distribute to another "unlicensed person". If we don't need a weapon then neither do police. They probably kill too many people (according to the news, not saying I believe this or not) today anyway. But reassure people that not all guns are being targeted. Just the unnecessary ones. MOST people are okay with not owning a grenade launcher.
And we can't just make it illegal to own a gun if you have mental health problems. We need to address mental health, and if you think you should but you're afraid of taking action, the threat of losing more rights certainly isn't a push in the right direction.
Soon it's going to be illegal to build your own firearm. Why? Because the day that there's a school shooting and a homemade weapon was used will be the end of this legal right.
Most people are annoying wrong and revising history, though. They keep changing WMDs to "Nuclear weapons" whether intentional or accidental, everyone wants to believe it. The truth is, there were WMDs and we knew it.
weapon of mass destruction noun plural noun: weapons of mass destruction
a chemical, biological or radioactive weapon capable of causing widespread death and destruction.
Human Developers are much more accurate at removing defects from code than current checkers are. However, current software standards show that using checkers in addition to humans nets you better code.
I just can't stand the hypocritical belief that you can't judge someone based on their color/gender, unless that person is a specific color of gender. You can't say everyone is different and then expect to be able to treat people based on what they look like different ways.
Stereotypes and statistics are good for looking at things en mass, and people are afraid of that. What they mean to do and are completely and utterly failing at is pointing out that people have to be treated as individuals. Just because your characteristics put you somewhere in statistical data doesn't mean your not the outlier and so you should be treated on neutral ground because of that.
Can you statistically guess based on a crime the color/gender? More often than not. Can you guess based on the person you meet, absolutely not.
I've got a scenario. You're driving behind a car in a 55 mph zone. You encounter construction and it reduces to 35. The car in front of you unexpectedly breaks to get to 35 as soon as possible. You're probably rear ending that car because nobody does that.
Slashdot Mirror
"- Stronger laws around the world to protect the integrity of elections, with common standards for all websites to identify political actors"
Yes and you know who's sure to follow these laws... government agencies!
That was a nice try but I'm not sure why this is considered a valid argument. Say it out load ...
S (as in self)
C (as in contained)
huh, sounds like "s-kuh" to me
Don't worry, it's only being used against people who disagree with us
We should shut down all branches of the government and just make it one large hospital/hostel
Why even bother building a fleet when you can just warp through objects to destroy them? Now I have to assume nobody knew you could destroy the armada by just building large ships and auto-piloting them through the enemy while jumping.
If a single space ship battle happens in the next movie where it isn't a just race to kamikaze, it'll just look like complete ineptitude by all commanders involved.
How do you get out of this huge scientific (magic) discovery?
Not sure she broke the law. Fortunately she didn't delete her emails to cover her tracks like former secretary of state did to avoid further investigation.
That being said, find something classified and you'd surely have a case.
This seems like terrible operational security to me. It's usually harder to figure out people's daily operations...
He says we can't take care of Earth so how could we take care of Mars. The difference is the people to me.
People who live on earth are every kind of person. Most of them selfish, short-sighted, etc. I'm not trying to be insulting, but it's how it is. Just look at how we fund science and space.
But if we hand pick people who care about the sort of thing, then the greediness (for a time) won't hold people back. I'm sure if we teraform Mars we'll ruin it later once it's commercialized, but that's a different challenge.
So rich assholes put a gun to his head and made him say "Funding secured"? Even though there was no such funding? It was an outright lie. Unless you're Bill Clinton and you wanna debate what the definition of "is" is.
Musk brought all of this upon himself, 100 percent. He should've laid off the Ambien and LSD, and gotten some decent nights sleep.
I would argue he wouldn't have thought about going private in the first place if it wasn't for "rich assholes".
I was thinking along the same lines, we're supporting the wrong people (short sellers). As a race, we barely have a vision anymore but Musk has given us hope. Plus, he didn't actually do anything wrong even if it could be found illegal.
I see a gap in the study. They kept them in a box and sterilized them but did they remember to feed them?
I'm sure it is, but who cares as long as it does the right thing and sets the right precedent? As a moderate, I'd appreciate any step towards improvement, no matter which party does it.
(hint: everything the government does is politically motivated)
The 4 types should have been called "Leonardo", "Donatello", "Rafael" and "Michelangelo"
We either work over 40 hours because we have to, or comfortable work under 40 hours. Either way we should adjust the hours and not the pay.
Disclaimer: I believe we have a right to own guns, and I believe that many proposed gun laws lack common sense.
That being said, I'm on board with stricter gun laws. We can't just speak to a whole classification of weapons "Assault weapons" because it'll lead to loopholes, and we can't just apply laws to some citizens (cops can be corrupt).
If we're going to make a positive movement in gun ownership, it needs to be specific, smart and targeted. And it can't just be a form of control, it has to be applied across the board. If specific guns really are bad, ban the manufacture in the first place. Once the gun is made, all it takes is one corrupt "licensed person" to distribute to another "unlicensed person". If we don't need a weapon then neither do police. They probably kill too many people (according to the news, not saying I believe this or not) today anyway. But reassure people that not all guns are being targeted. Just the unnecessary ones. MOST people are okay with not owning a grenade launcher.
And we can't just make it illegal to own a gun if you have mental health problems. We need to address mental health, and if you think you should but you're afraid of taking action, the threat of losing more rights certainly isn't a push in the right direction.
Soon it's going to be illegal to build your own firearm. Why? Because the day that there's a school shooting and a homemade weapon was used will be the end of this legal right.
Most people are annoying wrong and revising history, though. They keep changing WMDs to "Nuclear weapons" whether intentional or accidental, everyone wants to believe it. The truth is, there were WMDs and we knew it.
weapon of mass destruction
noun
plural noun: weapons of mass destruction
a chemical, biological or radioactive weapon capable of causing widespread death and destruction.
Human Developers are much more accurate at removing defects from code than current checkers are. However, current software standards show that using checkers in addition to humans nets you better code.
I just can't stand the hypocritical belief that you can't judge someone based on their color/gender, unless that person is a specific color of gender. You can't say everyone is different and then expect to be able to treat people based on what they look like different ways.
Stereotypes and statistics are good for looking at things en mass, and people are afraid of that. What they mean to do and are completely and utterly failing at is pointing out that people have to be treated as individuals. Just because your characteristics put you somewhere in statistical data doesn't mean your not the outlier and so you should be treated on neutral ground because of that.
Can you statistically guess based on a crime the color/gender? More often than not. Can you guess based on the person you meet, absolutely not.
Interesting
That's exactly what he was talking about. Sometimes it may take creating frequent smaller fights to prevent the big ones.
I've got a scenario. You're driving behind a car in a 55 mph zone. You encounter construction and it reduces to 35. The car in front of you unexpectedly breaks to get to 35 as soon as possible. You're probably rear ending that car because nobody does that.
We're able to fly satellites in space for multi-year missions. I'd take software over a human there, I think.
I agree, these seem to fill a nice niche.
That's exactly the opposite response I've been seeing. Maybe we're reading 2 different slashdots?