don't even blink at paying $45000 or more for a pickup truck.
One word. Utility. More specifically towing, hauling, and 4 wheel drive. When those things are necessary then that price tag is justified by its use because a car cannot do those things to any extent in any world that a truck can.
I had a small Nissan for a long time until I needed something more. Needs change and a truck is able to do more and that is reflected in the price tag. Not sure why you would be blown away by this. If you live in the boonies those things are probably more important than gas mileage.
What would happen to exports if there was no demand? Economics 101 supply and demand. If there were no demand then exports would lower. Emissions require usage of fossil fuels not export of fossil fuels.
I am really confused by your comments. They're retarded.
What does that have to do with the emission levels?
Are the countries that export fossil fuels more culpable than the ones that demand and burn it? The countries that are trending in the wrong direction should be called out more so than one part of one country. It's like you are purposefully going out of your way to point the finger at who you don't like. Treating science as a political cudgel really undermines the function and trust of science. Stop it.
I choose to believe in Space Monkey Turds and a Flying Space Pizza. Not because it is easy with evidence. But because it is hard to convince the non-believers that I am correct.
I find your lack of faith troubling. No evidence means it *could* be Aliens. Or Bigfoot. Or the Lockness Monster. Or the Lizard People. Or the Flat Bread Earth (Space Pizza Earth for the un-educated American scrubs).
Didn't you see their credentials? Any person shouldn't be discouraged by "evidence" when dealing with matters of faith in credentials.
Problem with could is that it also be could not. It's an interesting object with some unique properties (not confirmed to be unusual because first of its type) and to put an alien spin on it is an attention seeking activity even among scientists. That attention seeking warrants jokes and moreso at the expense of the scientists that mention aliens seriously in any academic paper (unless they have definitive proof of course).
What we have is a first of its kind observation of a celestial occurrence that should occur fairly regularly with some cool/surprising attributes.
Unless we decide to worship it as a god of something... Besides dead people and election propaganda what happens in October (month of discovery)? Maybe the dead are Aliens on a different plane sent to confuse this life with election mail! I could worship this. As an alien plane or an aero-plane for the speech impaired. Oumuamua is appeasing to all speech empowerments.
No, they admitted under oath that their automated system deleted 48% of the tweets.
Does that really matter?
Are you comfortable with self learning algorithms censoring political topics in the national dialogue on an arguably (partially ruled by the courts) public forums along political lines that isn't accountable and isn't transparent in the hands of a single company/industry?
What could possibly go wrong with that kind of precedent.
Twitter was partly ruled as a public forum because of Trumps twitter feed and response system. Twitter can arbitrary ban people from taking part in that public forum with zero transparency and zero accountability. Are you comfortable with a single company having that kind of power because #resist Trump?
Should we be concerned with the power social media has over the dialogue and elections? Even if there isn't a bias, are you comfortable with those private companies able to decide who is worthy of speaking in the preferred manner of the POTUS in an unaccountable and nontransparent way?
I am baffled that/. of all places is mostly comfortable with a few tech companies having that kind of power because of one person they don't like. "There are no bad tactics just bad targets" seem like the M.O. for many these days and one that will come back to bite us in the ass.
What impact can social media have on our elections? Apparently, a lot if Russian ads on Facebook are believed to swing 2016. Are you comfortable with private entities able to control elections to such an extent as to be able to silence people from national dialogue and get their preferred politician elected because the power they wield over people?
Here I thought the left was against large multinational companies abusing their positions of power over regular people. I don't know what the right answer is but I think we are in a precarious position as the technology matures to be able to, in real-time, silence and condition the dialogue people have. That is more dangerous to democracy than Trump or any president could ever be. It's even more terrifying that there are so many quick to support that kind of power for any kind of entity especially one without accountability or transparency. I don't care if it was Jesus Christ that is too much power for one company, platform, person, industry, government, anything to have.
>I'm far more likely to believe a news source that can admit their mistakes than one that asserts they're right more than anyone. >> It's one thing to make a mistake and make a retraction. Quite another to appear malicious to truth in pursuit of narrative repeatedly and hide behind a hollow apology.
>>How and what news is reported is just as important as reporting it. > NPR is probably the most reliable news source I can follow in these days My problem with NPR is every story injects emotional manipulation and questions of "how does that make you feel" in a breathy - believe me voice. I find them closer to a political party PR campaign (you can guess the party) with emotional manipulation pretending to be unbiased than a proper source of news. Some of their programs are fine enough but those a few and far between. Instead, I hear news round ups from the likes of Ana "I'm fucking better than you" Kasparian. I wonder what her opinion will be on any week of politics. *eye roll*
It's not that it is fake news. It's that they have published too many faulty stories that have been retracted. It's one thing to make a mistake and make a retraction. Quite another to appear malicious to truth in pursuit of narrative repeatedly and hide behind a hollow apology.
When I see a news source make the same mistakes, I take note and take everything they say with a grain of salt afterword. I don't remember ever instance but an overall sense of distrust.
How and what news is reported is just as important as reporting it.
Same thing with CNN, MSNBC, FOX, Brietbart, and NPR. They are the same to me just on different political sides and how they apply their bias and push "fake news" and narratives.
The State tries to accommodate and the Judge will ask if you cannot serve. Poor people aren't peers because they're poor? They can't handle the only civic responsibility (that occurs maybe once or twice in a lifetime) but they are responsible enough to vote for the State to govern properly?
Sorry, something has to give. It's "rights and responsibilities". I sympathize but what you gave is an excuse that I would expect from a child. When I was summoned I was in school full-time, working full-time, and living paycheck to paycheck. Yet, I served.
Nothing problematic about disliking a betrayal of trust.
Even if the anonymous coward was correct in everything he said and did. The fact that he is doing it in a shady manner undermines anything he thinks he represents. Nothing good comes from lies or deceit which is precisely what this anonymous coward is doing.
Personally, I look at the electoral college stopping Clinton from being POTUS as working perfectly as intended when she appealed to sexism (muh vagina), fear (Trump is a nazi), and bigotry (deplorables). Everything you can associate with Trump you could associate with Clinton. She pandered to a mob and insulted anyone that wasn't "With Her" after cheating everyone.
It's a good thing a populist so divisive and corrupt didn't get into office. Electoral College worked.
better to be a drunk hick than... what ever it is you think Christ fucked. I hear Christ is the kind of ass hole that doesn't have the common decency to give another man a reach around.
Now, If you'll excuse me there is a beer with my name on it and... what ever it is that hicks do. Tarnation aint confused no mo'. No sir.
1946 wasn't that long ago. It took an attempt to steal the election and shooting a black man in the back for voting before veterans raided an armory and seiged a prison to steal back the ballot boxes.
I don't know when the next example of tyranny will present itself and hopefully I never do see it. But it's not a question of if but when. Unless you can find a way to change human nature or remove humans from the governance process then I don't expect that question to change.
It must say something about the nation we live in that the very idea of tyranny and freedom (freeze peach) is a joke these days. I don't whether that is a good or bad thing.
I read the introduction of that book and gleaned what I could. Not sure if it titillates my legal intrigue. Why is the opinion of a speech writer for Bill Clinton a good source? A democrat disagrees with a conservative opinion. Shocked I tell you! You can't even get the date right (more than once and corrected) of the decision yet you think it was an excellent overview of the entire subject? Based on that alone it seems faulty. Was it enjoyable because you agreed with it before reading it and you wanted an expert to validate your opinion? Or because it made you question your prior assumptions by using historical references and context that highlighted an understanding that was previously unknown to you? From the introduction, he starts his analysis from the Revolution and moves forward... that isn't the entire history of the 2nd. The 1st, 2nd, and 4th are codifying rights that pre-exist and does not require the Constitution.
More importantly, are the rights in the 1st and 4th amendment collective or individual? They all use the same language to describe an individual right that pre-exists the constitution. Does that mean the same limitations of guns can be applied to speech? Only "militia" err "media/press" can speak freely.
If you haven't, I suggest reading the actual opinion instead of hearing about it from a partisan source.
Can you provide source to your claim. Everything I have read and searched disagrees with you and the quoted portions of the 2008 majority opinion I referenced made it quite clear that the understanding from 1689 forward has been an individual right. There is historical precedent, legal precedent, and cultural precedent to establish an individual right. If it is a collective right then the same language would apply to the 1st and 4th. Are the rights in the 1st and 4th collective rights or individual rights?
Slashdot Mirror
don't even blink at paying $45000 or more for a pickup truck.
One word. Utility. More specifically towing, hauling, and 4 wheel drive. When those things are necessary then that price tag is justified by its use because a car cannot do those things to any extent in any world that a truck can.
I had a small Nissan for a long time until I needed something more. Needs change and a truck is able to do more and that is reflected in the price tag. Not sure why you would be blown away by this. If you live in the boonies those things are probably more important than gas mileage.
What would happen to exports if there was no demand? Economics 101 supply and demand. If there were no demand then exports would lower. Emissions require usage of fossil fuels not export of fossil fuels.
I am really confused by your comments. They're retarded.
What does that have to do with the emission levels?
Are the countries that export fossil fuels more culpable than the ones that demand and burn it? The countries that are trending in the wrong direction should be called out more so than one part of one country. It's like you are purposefully going out of your way to point the finger at who you don't like. Treating science as a political cudgel really undermines the function and trust of science. Stop it.
What does that have to do with global trends if the US trend has been going down?
Are you saying that the US has to pick up the slack of China, EU, and India?
So much for it being a global problem when it must be solved by the US.
I choose to believe in Space Monkey Turds and a Flying Space Pizza. Not because it is easy with evidence. But because it is hard to convince the non-believers that I am correct.
I find your lack of faith troubling. No evidence means it *could* be Aliens. Or Bigfoot. Or the Lockness Monster. Or the Lizard People. Or the Flat Bread Earth (Space Pizza Earth for the un-educated American scrubs).
Didn't you see their credentials? Any person shouldn't be discouraged by "evidence" when dealing with matters of faith in credentials.
Problem with could is that it also be could not. It's an interesting object with some unique properties (not confirmed to be unusual because first of its type) and to put an alien spin on it is an attention seeking activity even among scientists. That attention seeking warrants jokes and moreso at the expense of the scientists that mention aliens seriously in any academic paper (unless they have definitive proof of course).
What we have is a first of its kind observation of a celestial occurrence that should occur fairly regularly with some cool/surprising attributes.
Unless we decide to worship it as a god of something... Besides dead people and election propaganda what happens in October (month of discovery)? Maybe the dead are Aliens on a different plane sent to confuse this life with election mail! I could worship this. As an alien plane or an aero-plane for the speech impaired. Oumuamua is appeasing to all speech empowerments.
No. The 2017 repeal stands but the lawsuit that tried to force the government from implementing NN failed.
The FCC can do NN if it wants and is not bared by the courts is what this decision means. This has no effect on the 2017 FCC decision to repeal it.
No, they admitted under oath that their automated system deleted 48% of the tweets.
Does that really matter?
Are you comfortable with self learning algorithms censoring political topics in the national dialogue on an arguably (partially ruled by the courts) public forums along political lines that isn't accountable and isn't transparent in the hands of a single company/industry?
What could possibly go wrong with that kind of precedent.
Twitter was partly ruled as a public forum because of Trumps twitter feed and response system. Twitter can arbitrary ban people from taking part in that public forum with zero transparency and zero accountability. Are you comfortable with a single company having that kind of power because #resist Trump?
Should we be concerned with the power social media has over the dialogue and elections?
Even if there isn't a bias, are you comfortable with those private companies able to decide who is worthy of speaking in the preferred manner of the POTUS in an unaccountable and nontransparent way?
I am baffled that /. of all places is mostly comfortable with a few tech companies having that kind of power because of one person they don't like. "There are no bad tactics just bad targets" seem like the M.O. for many these days and one that will come back to bite us in the ass.
What impact can social media have on our elections? Apparently, a lot if Russian ads on Facebook are believed to swing 2016. Are you comfortable with private entities able to control elections to such an extent as to be able to silence people from national dialogue and get their preferred politician elected because the power they wield over people?
Here I thought the left was against large multinational companies abusing their positions of power over regular people. I don't know what the right answer is but I think we are in a precarious position as the technology matures to be able to, in real-time, silence and condition the dialogue people have. That is more dangerous to democracy than Trump or any president could ever be. It's even more terrifying that there are so many quick to support that kind of power for any kind of entity especially one without accountability or transparency. I don't care if it was Jesus Christ that is too much power for one company, platform, person, industry, government, anything to have.
>I'm far more likely to believe a news source that can admit their mistakes than one that asserts they're right more than anyone.
>> It's one thing to make a mistake and make a retraction. Quite another to appear malicious to truth in pursuit of narrative repeatedly and hide behind a hollow apology.
>>How and what news is reported is just as important as reporting it.
> NPR is probably the most reliable news source I can follow in these days
My problem with NPR is every story injects emotional manipulation and questions of "how does that make you feel" in a breathy - believe me voice. I find them closer to a political party PR campaign (you can guess the party) with emotional manipulation pretending to be unbiased than a proper source of news. Some of their programs are fine enough but those a few and far between. Instead, I hear news round ups from the likes of Ana "I'm fucking better than you" Kasparian. I wonder what her opinion will be on any week of politics. *eye roll*
No Thanks. I have better uses of my time.
It's not that it is fake news. It's that they have published too many faulty stories that have been retracted. It's one thing to make a mistake and make a retraction. Quite another to appear malicious to truth in pursuit of narrative repeatedly and hide behind a hollow apology.
When I see a news source make the same mistakes, I take note and take everything they say with a grain of salt afterword. I don't remember ever instance but an overall sense of distrust.
How and what news is reported is just as important as reporting it.
Same thing with CNN, MSNBC, FOX, Brietbart, and NPR. They are the same to me just on different political sides and how they apply their bias and push "fake news" and narratives.
The State tries to accommodate and the Judge will ask if you cannot serve.
Poor people aren't peers because they're poor?
They can't handle the only civic responsibility (that occurs maybe once or twice in a lifetime) but they are responsible enough to vote for the State to govern properly?
Sorry, something has to give. It's "rights and responsibilities". I sympathize but what you gave is an excuse that I would expect from a child. When I was summoned I was in school full-time, working full-time, and living paycheck to paycheck. Yet, I served.
What's wrong with jury duty?
Nothing problematic about disliking a betrayal of trust.
Even if the anonymous coward was correct in everything he said and did. The fact that he is doing it in a shady manner undermines anything he thinks he represents. Nothing good comes from lies or deceit which is precisely what this anonymous coward is doing.
Personally, I look at the electoral college stopping Clinton from being POTUS as working perfectly as intended when she appealed to sexism (muh vagina), fear (Trump is a nazi), and bigotry (deplorables). Everything you can associate with Trump you could associate with Clinton. She pandered to a mob and insulted anyone that wasn't "With Her" after cheating everyone.
It's a good thing a populist so divisive and corrupt didn't get into office. Electoral College worked.
We need to change that name to end that juvenile joke once and for all! I propose Urectum.
Enough to need a new pair of pants.
better to be a drunk hick than... what ever it is you think Christ fucked. I hear Christ is the kind of ass hole that doesn't have the common decency to give another man a reach around.
Now, If you'll excuse me there is a beer with my name on it and... what ever it is that hicks do. Tarnation aint confused no mo'. No sir.
Sometimes you troll well and sometimes... Meh.
I r8 3/8.
The last example I can think of is the Battle of Athens.
1946 wasn't that long ago. It took an attempt to steal the election and shooting a black man in the back for voting before veterans raided an armory and seiged a prison to steal back the ballot boxes.
I don't know when the next example of tyranny will present itself and hopefully I never do see it. But it's not a question of if but when. Unless you can find a way to change human nature or remove humans from the governance process then I don't expect that question to change.
It must say something about the nation we live in that the very idea of tyranny and freedom (freeze peach) is a joke these days. I don't whether that is a good or bad thing.
I read the introduction of that book and gleaned what I could. Not sure if it titillates my legal intrigue. Why is the opinion of a speech writer for Bill Clinton a good source? A democrat disagrees with a conservative opinion. Shocked I tell you! You can't even get the date right (more than once and corrected) of the decision yet you think it was an excellent overview of the entire subject? Based on that alone it seems faulty. Was it enjoyable because you agreed with it before reading it and you wanted an expert to validate your opinion? Or because it made you question your prior assumptions by using historical references and context that highlighted an understanding that was previously unknown to you? From the introduction, he starts his analysis from the Revolution and moves forward... that isn't the entire history of the 2nd. The 1st, 2nd, and 4th are codifying rights that pre-exist and does not require the Constitution.
More importantly, are the rights in the 1st and 4th amendment collective or individual? They all use the same language to describe an individual right that pre-exists the constitution. Does that mean the same limitations of guns can be applied to speech? Only "militia" err "media/press" can speak freely.
If you haven't, I suggest reading the actual opinion instead of hearing about it from a partisan source.
Can you provide source to your claim. Everything I have read and searched disagrees with you and the quoted portions of the 2008 majority opinion I referenced made it quite clear that the understanding from 1689 forward has been an individual right. There is historical precedent, legal precedent, and cultural precedent to establish an individual right. If it is a collective right then the same language would apply to the 1st and 4th. Are the rights in the 1st and 4th collective rights or individual rights?