Nope. Citations to published opinion pieces - or even news pieces - are still just hearsay unless the document cited is considered "ancient" (i.e. hundreds of years old) and bears other hallmarks of authenticity. There is no special magic to owning a newspaper or magazine that converts a reporter's words into magical factoids. (This assumes a U.S. basis and rules of evidence that resemble the federal rules and the published uniform rules of evidence - see: LII).
You can be working a full-time job or two to pay rent and gas, but have very little left over to feed the kids every night.
Hmm..perhaps they, they shouldn't be having kids they can't afford?
Also - abortions are expensive and increasingly hard to find. Condoms also cost money. And, no, "don't have sex" is not reasonable advice for anyone to give with any expectation that anyone anywhere will take it.
If you're unwilling to dedicate twenty years of your life constantly watching the job market, your employer's economic outlook, and your own health, then yes, you should NOT have children. You are, quite frankly, too lazy to be raising children.
There are folks that manage to do this quite successfully. I'm sorry you lost the genetic lottery, but you're not entitled to a damned thing.
See this guy - this is the guy that's surprised when the crowds bring back the guillotines. "Wait - you're not entitled to my head." "Entitled" is an interesting word in the face of social disruption. People are entitled to what they can take. If you want them not to take your life and everything you possess, then maybe give a little before they get that desperate. Any future that involves telling a significant portion of the population to get used to barely scraping by because they "lost the genetic lottery" is a future that is sure to see violent disruption at regular intervals.
According to Yahoo Finance, Tesla is still losing money and recording a -6.82% profit margin. Their margin per car may be positive, but the company isn't making a profit yet. (Key word, yet).
Absolutely, I want a Tesla Model S - I would gladly buy one if I could. I would joyously be part of Telsa's sales - but that doesn't change the numbers. Tesla is a tiny player making big waves - hopefully its just the signs of a new beast rising from the deep - but companies should be evaluated based on their numbers, their vision and their leadership - Tesla has only two of those going for it right now.
Check out the chart at Wikipedia the Model S sold about 40,000 cars this year. Compare that to the significantly less sexy Nissan leaf with its 130,000 sales - or GM's total sales for 2014 January - June of 4.9 Million vehicles. See, GM's sales report for Q2-14.
Tesla is a great car company and likely to be an even bigger deal in the battery market - but compared to GM, it's sales barely register.
On the stock front - GM's market cap is 51.8B, Tesla's is 30B. So, yes, Tesla is probably a bit overpriced right now - people are buying what Tesla will be, not the company it is today.
Not everyone speaks legalese, after all....and that is why the lawyers get to run things.
Yep. Basically. That and the fact that we're comfortable going into Court and performing in front of a judge and client, putting our knowledge of the law out there and giving advice to people in the most stressful moments of their lives. Ever had a bad day specifically because you knew you had to go confront someone for being a jerk / doing something stupid? That's about 50% of my job. The other 50% is mostly research and writing.
Sounds like maybe they put the cart before the horse. "Intelligence," of the kind that can be scored on academic tests, is a combination of raw potential, opportunity and effort. You can have amazing potential for intellect, but never get off the family farm - get "home schooled" and told that the earth is flat and math is a tool of the devil - you will then fail any external metric of "intelligence" that requires you to know and apply facts. Likewise, someone who has barely average potential can, given adequate opportunity and effort, develop the skills and abilities to do well on academic tests or external measures of "intelligence."
"Intelligence" as measured by academic performance would thus not correlate well with raw genetic markers (i.e. raw potential). First they'd need to define what capacity of the person they want to deem "intelligence" e.g. - are we talking logical deductive capacity, ability with mathematical computation, the ability to communicate effectively, problem solving skills - what is "intelligence?" Second, they would need to find some way to test that capacity that isn't commonly understood and used outside the study, so, for example, not asking participants to take a math test because then the opportunity and effort elements interfere with the measure of raw capacity - you'd need a test that challenged the ability to learn and comprehend without falling back on existent structures; this would be very difficult to formulate well, and any test taker could only use that test once. Third, they'd need to look for common physical markers in the developed body / brain for those that demonstrate whatever capacity they've defined as intelligence - e.g. nerve density, size of the brain cavity, etc. Only then can you look for a genetic source for that physical marker.
"Intelligence" isn't height or weight or eye color - it is too subjective a quality to seek out before defining your term very narrowly.
That's not states rights. State's rights is the argument that the State's have the right to nullify federal law. You're talking about limit principles on federal power - different part of the constitution.
Slashdot Mirror
Saddly the next witchhunt will likely be over whether Hillary lost the general because she's a terrible candidate or due to misogyny.
Activision/Blizzard distributes its games and patches (for example world of warcraft) through a customized bit torrent tool.
Nope. Citations to published opinion pieces - or even news pieces - are still just hearsay unless the document cited is considered "ancient" (i.e. hundreds of years old) and bears other hallmarks of authenticity. There is no special magic to owning a newspaper or magazine that converts a reporter's words into magical factoids. (This assumes a U.S. basis and rules of evidence that resemble the federal rules and the published uniform rules of evidence - see: LII).
Yes. I want your shotgun. Not all shotguns - just yours anon - just yours. /s/ The Democratic Party.
I look forward to suing the hell out of Peeple.
/sarcasm
You think MS Windows beat out OS/2 because of the name? Not because IBM established MS-DOS as _the_ PC OS?
Hmm..perhaps they, they shouldn't be having kids they can't afford?
Also - abortions are expensive and increasingly hard to find. Condoms also cost money. And, no, "don't have sex" is not reasonable advice for anyone to give with any expectation that anyone anywhere will take it.
If you're unwilling to dedicate twenty years of your life constantly watching the job market, your employer's economic outlook, and your own health, then yes, you should NOT have children. You are, quite frankly, too lazy to be raising children.
There are folks that manage to do this quite successfully. I'm sorry you lost the genetic lottery, but you're not entitled to a damned thing.
See this guy - this is the guy that's surprised when the crowds bring back the guillotines. "Wait - you're not entitled to my head." "Entitled" is an interesting word in the face of social disruption. People are entitled to what they can take. If you want them not to take your life and everything you possess, then maybe give a little before they get that desperate. Any future that involves telling a significant portion of the population to get used to barely scraping by because they "lost the genetic lottery" is a future that is sure to see violent disruption at regular intervals.
And the things those machines make go into the hands of people who need them, which helps people.
Yes - assuming they have some *basic income* to afford those things the machines make.
Wanted. Only part that movie that was awesome.
Well... that plus decades of experience.
Surgeons are basically engineers with a specialty in human engineering ... a lot of cross pollination in required training.
Yeah ... that shit is pretty fucked up.
Yes there is. It's called the Equal Rights Clause, which is contained in the 14th amendment to the U.S. Constitution. See Wikipedia.
He's talking about Tesla.
According to Yahoo Finance, Tesla is still losing money and recording a -6.82% profit margin. Their margin per car may be positive, but the company isn't making a profit yet. (Key word, yet).
Absolutely, I want a Tesla Model S - I would gladly buy one if I could. I would joyously be part of Telsa's sales - but that doesn't change the numbers. Tesla is a tiny player making big waves - hopefully its just the signs of a new beast rising from the deep - but companies should be evaluated based on their numbers, their vision and their leadership - Tesla has only two of those going for it right now.
Check out the chart at Wikipedia the Model S sold about 40,000 cars this year. Compare that to the significantly less sexy Nissan leaf with its 130,000 sales - or GM's total sales for 2014 January - June of 4.9 Million vehicles. See, GM's sales report for Q2-14.
Tesla is a great car company and likely to be an even bigger deal in the battery market - but compared to GM, it's sales barely register.
On the stock front - GM's market cap is 51.8B, Tesla's is 30B. So, yes, Tesla is probably a bit overpriced right now - people are buying what Tesla will be, not the company it is today.
This is a real problem. Why does this scare you? Probably for the same reason a woman wanting for all people to be equally made people on 4chan angry.
You did read the title of this post at least - right? This wasn't "angry 4-chan" it was "asshole marketing team."
Not everyone speaks legalese, after all. ...and that is why the lawyers get to run things.
Yep. Basically. That and the fact that we're comfortable going into Court and performing in front of a judge and client, putting our knowledge of the law out there and giving advice to people in the most stressful moments of their lives. Ever had a bad day specifically because you knew you had to go confront someone for being a jerk / doing something stupid? That's about 50% of my job. The other 50% is mostly research and writing.
That whooshing sound you hear is dozens of people reading your post and saying "this idiot knows nothing about genetics. "
Removing features that degrade a tool should be praised. I say this as a dyed in the wool android fan boy.
Sounds like maybe they put the cart before the horse. "Intelligence," of the kind that can be scored on academic tests, is a combination of raw potential, opportunity and effort. You can have amazing potential for intellect, but never get off the family farm - get "home schooled" and told that the earth is flat and math is a tool of the devil - you will then fail any external metric of "intelligence" that requires you to know and apply facts. Likewise, someone who has barely average potential can, given adequate opportunity and effort, develop the skills and abilities to do well on academic tests or external measures of "intelligence."
"Intelligence" as measured by academic performance would thus not correlate well with raw genetic markers (i.e. raw potential). First they'd need to define what capacity of the person they want to deem "intelligence" e.g. - are we talking logical deductive capacity, ability with mathematical computation, the ability to communicate effectively, problem solving skills - what is "intelligence?" Second, they would need to find some way to test that capacity that isn't commonly understood and used outside the study, so, for example, not asking participants to take a math test because then the opportunity and effort elements interfere with the measure of raw capacity - you'd need a test that challenged the ability to learn and comprehend without falling back on existent structures; this would be very difficult to formulate well, and any test taker could only use that test once. Third, they'd need to look for common physical markers in the developed body / brain for those that demonstrate whatever capacity they've defined as intelligence - e.g. nerve density, size of the brain cavity, etc. Only then can you look for a genetic source for that physical marker.
"Intelligence" isn't height or weight or eye color - it is too subjective a quality to seek out before defining your term very narrowly.
That's not states rights. State's rights is the argument that the State's have the right to nullify federal law. You're talking about limit principles on federal power - different part of the constitution.