Sad thing is, when Hogan was in his prime, he could do all kinds of moves. Look at his first stint with New Japan Pro Wrestling, for example. But in the U.S., he was.... well, not required, but expected to be a power wrestler.
I'd argue against seeing moderation data. Yeah, I've been modded down on comments that I thought shouldn't be modded down, but I don't really need to know who did it. We have enough noise on here without people calling out others who modded them down.
*snort* I knew three people in college who had straight A's. One of them, I met because she was taking Electrical Engineering 221 (which at the time was the 'make it or break it' course for engineers in that particular university system), not because she needed to take the class (she was a Math major), but because she thought it would be fun.
The professor teaching that class, an ex-Naval Academy instructor, was highly amused by that. Of course, the fact that she (the student) ended up with an A in the class surprised no one. EE221 is nothing but symbolic math.
As for the other two straight A students I knew, you couldn't really describe either one as being 'adverse to risk'.
Back when I got my Mechanical Engineering degree (in 1996), the university I attended required foreign language classes. But you could scrape by with the bare minimum in the way of those classes (101, and 102).
Whereas, for the Computer Science undergraduate program, you had to take at least 200-level foreign language classes. So, I ended up having to take 201 and 202 when I got my second degree. (Oddly enough, Comp Sci required a technical writing course, where Mech-E didn't. Go figure.)
Actually, most college football programs DON'T make money. There's a couple dozen that do, and they're the ones that receive the lion's share of the hype every year when college football season rolls around.
But most college football programs either just break even or lose money. And in some cases, lots of money.
Part (nowhere near all) of the problem is that when a hospital writes off millions in uncollectable bills, what they're doing is saying "Well, we can't collect on this. We still have to pay our bills though, so being unable to collect on this means incremental increases in other prices to cover the shortfalls. Or cuts in staff. Or both."
The problem causes some (not all, mind you, just some) of the price inflation.
Hospital writes off millions in uncollectable charges, has to increase charges on future patients to cover the loss, causing more future patients to be unable to pay the charges.
First and foremost, "Freedom of the press" applies to the government not restricting the press. If a private citizen tells a reporter "Get off my property", it's not restricting freedom of the press. If a web forum says in their terms and conditions that you can't talk about topics X, Y, and Z, it's not restricting freedom of the press.
And if an ad-blocker blocks ads, it's not restricting freedom of the press.
You're confusing my statement of "I've never heard of it" with "It doesn't exist."
I never said that the term didn't exist. Merely that I hadn't heard of it. Now I have.
Also, compare the length of the wikipedia articles for RINO and DINO. While, clearly, neither are of the length of, say, the article on Optimus Prime, RINO is more than just a stub.
When comparing churches and schools, church is the more appropriate venue for religion, and school is the more appropriate venue for education.
You want to religion taught in schools? Outside of religious schools, the problem becomes "What religion gets taught?", and there's a bundle of problems involved with that.
A few years back, Louisiana's state legislature was trying out the use of school vouchers for religious schools (in addition to secular schools). All well and good until, shock and horror, non-Christian schools applied to be included in that.
Oops.
That's the problem. If you allow religion and religious ideas to be taught in schools, you have to allow them all, not just the ones you like. Which tends to cause the same people who are pro-Creationism to have screaming fits and chew holes in the carpet.
Honestly, I have no idea why I didn't use DINO. Didn't even cross my mind when I wrote that. I suppose I could blame that on lack of coffee, but I know that's not true. (Although I could blame it on the powdered creamer.....)
When creationists do after the theory of evolution, they're saying "your science is wrong, because we believe it's wrong."
And while you certainly can attack science that way, as far as the scientists are concerned, that's not a valid argument.
It would be like someone saying "The moon is made of cheese." The logical reply to that is "No, it isn't. We've sent men to the moon. They've brought back moon rocks, which surprisingly, aren't cheese."
But that doesn't work, does it? That person will still insist that the moon is made of cheese, or that the earth is flat, or that they don't believe in that some of science because of their religion or whatever.
Real scientists accept the possibility that they could be wrong. That's part of science. That wonderful moment of "Whoa, that's interesting" when something doesn't go as the models and theories predicted and you try and find out why.
Religion is the exact opposite. If you don't believe the same way, you're wrong. Depending on how fervently they believe, the response to that "wrongness" differs. Look at all the religious wars we've had over that sort of thing for proof of that.
So, excuse the hell out of me for not wanting non-science in my science.
Actually, there have been a few times (at least) where FOX News has 'accidentally' changed the R to a D when a politician has been caught in a scandal.
I would say a small part of it is that there is no equivalent to the Tea Party among Democrats. I mean, I've never heard anyone describe a politician as "Liberal in Name Only" (LINO), but you hear the calls of RINO all the time from the right.
It's like they're trying so hard to prove that they're more conservative than the next guy, that it removes options from the playbook (to mix my metaphors a little), because using one of those options, why that means you're a RINO.
So they have to cater to the ultra-conservative core of the party who espouses these views.
Except those clauses are specifically not enforced any more, because they would be found to be unconstitutional. (They violate the "No Religious Test" clause... article VI, paragraph 3.)
It's important to note that while state or local laws cannot supersede federal laws (for example, if the feds say "You can't do {X} legally" and a state says you can, the fact that the state allows it is not an affirmative defense in a federal trial), they can build on them. If the feds say "You can't do {X} legally." the states could say "And you can't do {X.1} legally either."
One example of this is protected classes in anti-discrimination laws. For example, by federal laws, a business cannot discriminate against someone on the basis of their race or religion. While a particular state cannot remove any protected class from the list that the feds have, they can add to the list.
So, the feds provide a baseline, and the states and/or local jurisdictions can augment that baseline, but not remove any part of it. (Unless they challenge it in court and win. But depending on the law, that frequently ends up going to SCOTUS.)
Except the videos were so edited that it's not even funny. It's the rough equivalent of Brian Williams "singing" Rapper's Delight. Yes, he said all those words, but the context is completely removed.
Slashdot Mirror
Sad thing is, when Hogan was in his prime, he could do all kinds of moves. Look at his first stint with New Japan Pro Wrestling, for example. But in the U.S., he was.... well, not required, but expected to be a power wrestler.
I'd argue against seeing moderation data. Yeah, I've been modded down on comments that I thought shouldn't be modded down, but I don't really need to know who did it. We have enough noise on here without people calling out others who modded them down.
*snort* I knew three people in college who had straight A's. One of them, I met because she was taking Electrical Engineering 221 (which at the time was the 'make it or break it' course for engineers in that particular university system), not because she needed to take the class (she was a Math major), but because she thought it would be fun.
The professor teaching that class, an ex-Naval Academy instructor, was highly amused by that. Of course, the fact that she (the student) ended up with an A in the class surprised no one. EE221 is nothing but symbolic math.
As for the other two straight A students I knew, you couldn't really describe either one as being 'adverse to risk'.
Back when I got my Mechanical Engineering degree (in 1996), the university I attended required foreign language classes. But you could scrape by with the bare minimum in the way of those classes (101, and 102).
Whereas, for the Computer Science undergraduate program, you had to take at least 200-level foreign language classes. So, I ended up having to take 201 and 202 when I got my second degree. (Oddly enough, Comp Sci required a technical writing course, where Mech-E didn't. Go figure.)
Actually, most college football programs DON'T make money. There's a couple dozen that do, and they're the ones that receive the lion's share of the hype every year when college football season rolls around.
But most college football programs either just break even or lose money. And in some cases, lots of money.
Don't forget, it's also brought to you by the IOC, because you can't spell corruption without I, O and C.
Part (nowhere near all) of the problem is that when a hospital writes off millions in uncollectable bills, what they're doing is saying "Well, we can't collect on this. We still have to pay our bills though, so being unable to collect on this means incremental increases in other prices to cover the shortfalls. Or cuts in staff. Or both."
The problem causes some (not all, mind you, just some) of the price inflation.
Hospital writes off millions in uncollectable charges, has to increase charges on future patients to cover the loss, causing more future patients to be unable to pay the charges.
Corporations have more freedom than private citizens, didn't you know that?
First and foremost, "Freedom of the press" applies to the government not restricting the press. If a private citizen tells a reporter "Get off my property", it's not restricting freedom of the press. If a web forum says in their terms and conditions that you can't talk about topics X, Y, and Z, it's not restricting freedom of the press.
And if an ad-blocker blocks ads, it's not restricting freedom of the press.
You're confusing my statement of "I've never heard of it" with "It doesn't exist."
I never said that the term didn't exist. Merely that I hadn't heard of it. Now I have.
Also, compare the length of the wikipedia articles for RINO and DINO. While, clearly, neither are of the length of, say, the article on Optimus Prime, RINO is more than just a stub.
When comparing churches and schools, church is the more appropriate venue for religion, and school is the more appropriate venue for education.
You want to religion taught in schools? Outside of religious schools, the problem becomes "What religion gets taught?", and there's a bundle of problems involved with that.
A few years back, Louisiana's state legislature was trying out the use of school vouchers for religious schools (in addition to secular schools). All well and good until, shock and horror, non-Christian schools applied to be included in that.
Oops.
That's the problem. If you allow religion and religious ideas to be taught in schools, you have to allow them all, not just the ones you like. Which tends to cause the same people who are pro-Creationism to have screaming fits and chew holes in the carpet.
Actually, I think state GDP (which is called GSP) is not necessarily the most accurate metric to use.
I mean, yes, Vermont is last in state GSP, and California is first.
But if you look at GSP per capita (okay, using 2012 numbers here, not 2015 numbers, but I doubt the 2015 per capita numbers are out yet.)
California drops to 17th. Vermont rises to 32nd.
Oklahoma was 29th in GSP, but in GSP per capita, (again using 2012 numbers) Oklahoma drops to 37th.
Honestly, I have no idea why I didn't use DINO. Didn't even cross my mind when I wrote that. I suppose I could blame that on lack of coffee, but I know that's not true. (Although I could blame it on the powdered creamer.....)
Here's the problem.
When creationists do after the theory of evolution, they're saying "your science is wrong, because we believe it's wrong."
And while you certainly can attack science that way, as far as the scientists are concerned, that's not a valid argument.
It would be like someone saying "The moon is made of cheese." The logical reply to that is "No, it isn't. We've sent men to the moon. They've brought back moon rocks, which surprisingly, aren't cheese."
But that doesn't work, does it? That person will still insist that the moon is made of cheese, or that the earth is flat, or that they don't believe in that some of science because of their religion or whatever.
Real scientists accept the possibility that they could be wrong. That's part of science. That wonderful moment of "Whoa, that's interesting" when something doesn't go as the models and theories predicted and you try and find out why.
Religion is the exact opposite. If you don't believe the same way, you're wrong. Depending on how fervently they believe, the response to that "wrongness" differs. Look at all the religious wars we've had over that sort of thing for proof of that.
So, excuse the hell out of me for not wanting non-science in my science.
Actually, there have been a few times (at least) where FOX News has 'accidentally' changed the R to a D when a politician has been caught in a scandal.
I would say a small part of it is that there is no equivalent to the Tea Party among Democrats. I mean, I've never heard anyone describe a politician as "Liberal in Name Only" (LINO), but you hear the calls of RINO all the time from the right.
It's like they're trying so hard to prove that they're more conservative than the next guy, that it removes options from the playbook (to mix my metaphors a little), because using one of those options, why that means you're a RINO.
So they have to cater to the ultra-conservative core of the party who espouses these views.
Except that if you ignore them, they use that as acceptance. "See? No one's complaining!"
Because these politicians are wanting to teach the non-science in science class along the science and pretending that it's all the same.
It's not. The very nature of science is that we accept that we just don't know. Proof and counter-proof. Falsifiability.
Religion, however, has a long history of "the True Faith", where you cannot question the doctrine.
Yep, we're all living under the effects of those nasty executive orders that flat out took away our guns. All our guns. No matter what kind of gun.
Of which, as it turns out, there are precisely zero of those executive orders.
Or how about the imaginary confinement facilities that Obama was supposed to building to round up people during Jade Helm?
More people are worked up over the shit that Obama hasn't actually done, (but it's going to happen, honest!) I swear.
Except those clauses are specifically not enforced any more, because they would be found to be unconstitutional. (They violate the "No Religious Test" clause... article VI, paragraph 3.)
Also, you left out SR-1, EBR-1, a few Russian subs....
It's important to note that while state or local laws cannot supersede federal laws (for example, if the feds say "You can't do {X} legally" and a state says you can, the fact that the state allows it is not an affirmative defense in a federal trial), they can build on them. If the feds say "You can't do {X} legally." the states could say "And you can't do {X.1} legally either."
One example of this is protected classes in anti-discrimination laws. For example, by federal laws, a business cannot discriminate against someone on the basis of their race or religion. While a particular state cannot remove any protected class from the list that the feds have, they can add to the list.
So, the feds provide a baseline, and the states and/or local jurisdictions can augment that baseline, but not remove any part of it. (Unless they challenge it in court and win. But depending on the law, that frequently ends up going to SCOTUS.)
And you'll notice that Carter's ban only extended to Iranians. Not Iraqis, not Saudis, not Muslims from Africa, Europe, Australia, everywhere else.
So, it's a false comparison.
Except the videos were so edited that it's not even funny. It's the rough equivalent of Brian Williams "singing" Rapper's Delight. Yes, he said all those words, but the context is completely removed.