sadly it would conflict with the standing doctrine that while on the floor of the house/senate anything they say is immune to any libel/slander laws, and they can lie freely while there...but if they no longer could, then they couldnt no longer spout such patent falsehoods as "deathpanels".
with people like...all the congressmen from Oklahoma ("global warming cant be real because God said so")...most of the house committee on science ("women's bodies have a way to prevent pregnancy from rape")...or Bachmann ("There is no proof Carbon Dioxide is bad for you. In fact, you need it, it's necessary for life.").......do you honestly think the anti science nuts in this country dont love this concept?
Just because one takes an extreme event as an indicator doesn't automatically mean that mild events are therefore proof for the opposite side and cancel it out. Your assumption is that weather IS climate, but it is not. Weather is the RESULT of climate, and as such BOTH TYPES of events can be indicators.
Short version: You're an idiot, a armchair meteorologist who knows not the first thing about the actual science. Stop posting.
Global Climate != Local Weather. Local weather is driven by global climate, but that's because it's a vast interconnected system wherein climate is part of the engine that drives and causes weather events, along with sunshine recieved, cloud cover, and pressure fronts.
you're the one who said you were educated and successful and intelligent and expected to succeed in a high pressure environment.......who then screwed up a basic rule of grammar. so which are you?
and they got that rich by exploiting extreme low wage workers in the following incomplete list of ways:
-workers whom they only work 30 hours or less so they never become full time and have to be given benefits -workers whom they actively indoctrinate and discourage from joining/organizing unions -workers whom they pay so little that they are dependent on public support in order to die/starve in the street
"it doesnt come from revenue"....bullhonkey. Even if they only get paid in stock, they still get rich off the companies practices. And taxpayer dollars subsidize Walmart's (and similar company's) predatory labor practices via food stamps and tanf. And they are getting rich(er) off it. So rich they paid (250k) to have laws enacted to give them special exemptions from state taxes (>2 million).
It's only untrue if you know the entire picture. But the entire picture is not self-evident to most people.
This causes the perception that healthy food is expensive, which causes a vicsious self-fulfilling propechy cycle.
It's also a bit of a "spend more now, save more down the road" situation, because at the checkout the healthy food is most definitely more expensive. The idea of comparing the money saved on food with the money spent on health care is not self-evident to many people. Or it's a choice they cant really make since they really do not have the funds to spend more now.
jon stewart had the right (pun not intended) of it:
When it benefits the rich or corporations it's necessary, patriotic, and good for the country. When it benefits the poor it's socialist, evil, and the downfall of the nation. Even though we spend many times more on welfare for the rich/corporations than we do on the poor.
addendum: forgot to add that sometimes the bird is simply steered on the ground through differential braking of the main wheels rather than direct control of the nose/tail wheel.
skids dont taxi on the ground, but 3-7 feet up. but even among the wheeled variety many of them lack actual direct steering control of the nose/tail wheel, and instead rely on the tail rotor for ground steering. a few do have a steerable wheel, but they are the exception; for many types the wheel simply casters, especially in taildraggers. youll find it more on the larger birds, like the CH53 and Chinook, though in the Chinooks case, IIRC, only one tail wheel is steerable, and the other casters, though I dont remember which side is which.
And the autopilot example needs to die, because people vastly VASTLY oversimplify what it even is. it (depending on the type and implementation) exists in several different modes and types andimplementations, each of which usually has to be physically initiated and monitored by the pilot.
as for driverless cars, the liability is simple: simply need to move to where we culturally simply no longer expect drivers to be able to handle a car, and thats why they bought the driverless in the first place. so essentially the driver ceases to exist altogether, becoming just another passenger, a customer like a guy in a taxi. so when something goes wrong, it is no longer the driver who is at fault, but the machine itself, and possibly the MFR.
and frankly, we're probably not that far away from that now, gievn how poorly a lot of folks drive (hyperbole and exaggeration i know)
Unenforcable? Vocal constituency? (I assume you meant "minority")
In Colorado, statewide 85% support background checks (which tracks with the national figure).
And there's a good reason for that: a background check is not an onorous requirement, it in no way inpinges on individual rights, and it serves the needs of society by ensuring that a transaction is within the bounds of existing law. We have laws that say felons who have reentered society cannot purchase firearms, unless they petition the court for restoration after release. But how can you enforce such a law....unless you have some sort of database, and perform a background check.
Even the overwhelming majority gun owners support background checks, for the same reasons! We want our right of onwership, but at the same time we dont want criminals to have it so easy they can simply walk into a store and walk out with a gun. Its a very modest barrier of entry whose single biggest outcome is to allow dealers themselves to shield themselves from being accussed of innocently/accidentally (or unsrupulously) enabling crime. No law abiding citizen wants to think he helped enable crime.
"They're going to get the guns anyway".... so we should allow them to do it easily and legally from law abiding citizens/dealers??!! Get real.
exactly. as the Court has usually done, it has struck down a blanket ban, but left the door open for restrictions. justifiable restrictions are, and will continue to be, allowable, as long as they are not (or do not amount to) blanket bans.
"The fighter that cant fly in the rain" was the F22, though really its about any stealth aircraft, as the rain defeats the stealth. Basically your comments are baseless, ignorant, and compeltely devoid of anything approaching a fact.
The program behind it is full of several major flaws, that all chiefly point to how in dire need of overhaul the of the government's acquisition process is, more so even than the healthcare.gov fiasco. But the aircraft is not the program, and the F35, if it survives to make it ot the fleet, is a fantastic aircraft.
It was illegal here too, re The Securities Act of 1933, and others. The JOBS Act made it legal, once the SEC created the necessary regulatons to oversee this kind of investment just like they do every other kind of investment.
"Crowdfunding probably scares the bejeezus out of strongly devout orthodox capitalist visionaries"
Actually wall street was a huge supporter of the JOBS Act (the law that is allowing an exemption to securities regulations and allowing crowdfunded investing (when it was previously totally illegal), with SEC oversight), and in fact wall street lobbied FOR the bill. Not against it.
So.... Would you care to rephrase your statement sir?
In other words the Constitution is more of a guideline, than a set of hard fast rules that cannot be changed as society does. That would kind of be why they gave us the ability to modify it, or create other things in order to achieve the goals thereof.
Theres no specific mandate for a lot of stuff. There is however a lot of allowance for the governemnt to change and evolve over time, create laws and bodies pursuant to duties. NO ONE expected dogmatic adherence to the Constitution only as it existed 200+ years ago without any changes. But much as certain people approach the Bible as the literal truth not to be interpretted or thought about as attitude change over, many of the same people also take the same view of the Constitution.
The NLRB serves a useful and vital function. Namely, it takes the place of companies hiring strike breakers to threaten, beat, and even kill workers trying to unionize (or unions doing the same to employers), as had happened commonly prior to the createion of the NLRB and its forerunners. IE, relations between companies and workers used to get violent. The NLRB and its forebears were an attempt to prevent such riots.
Slashdot Mirror
plus he willingly let them look at all his photos, even wanted and encourgaed them to do so, and was frustrated that they waited so long to do it.
oooo I like that last part.
sadly it would conflict with the standing doctrine that while on the floor of the house/senate anything they say is immune to any libel/slander laws, and they can lie freely while there...but if they no longer could, then they couldnt no longer spout such patent falsehoods as "deathpanels".
i have a mod stalker.
with people like...all the congressmen from Oklahoma ("global warming cant be real because God said so")...most of the house committee on science ("women's bodies have a way to prevent pregnancy from rape")...or Bachmann ("There is no proof Carbon Dioxide is bad for you. In fact, you need it, it's necessary for life.").... ...do you honestly think the anti science nuts in this country dont love this concept?
Meanwhile, somewhere in the US, Cruz, Bachmann, and Palin are celebrating, and planning how to do the same here.
not flamebait
Just because one takes an extreme event as an indicator doesn't automatically mean that mild events are therefore proof for the opposite side and cancel it out. Your assumption is that weather IS climate, but it is not. Weather is the RESULT of climate, and as such BOTH TYPES of events can be indicators.
Short version: You're an idiot, a armchair meteorologist who knows not the first thing about the actual science. Stop posting.
Global Climate != Local Weather. Local weather is driven by global climate, but that's because it's a vast interconnected system wherein climate is part of the engine that drives and causes weather events, along with sunshine recieved, cloud cover, and pressure fronts.
Who modded this insightful????
He's just making a longer winded version of the same "it's cold, therefore warming doesn't exist" argument.
you're the one who said you were educated and successful and intelligent and expected to succeed in a high pressure environment.... ...who then screwed up a basic rule of grammar. so which are you?
Ladies and Gentleman, I present to you the Conservative thought basis for everything.
and they got that rich by exploiting extreme low wage workers in the following incomplete list of ways:
-workers whom they only work 30 hours or less so they never become full time and have to be given benefits
-workers whom they actively indoctrinate and discourage from joining/organizing unions
-workers whom they pay so little that they are dependent on public support in order to die/starve in the street
"it doesnt come from revenue"....bullhonkey. Even if they only get paid in stock, they still get rich off the companies practices.
And taxpayer dollars subsidize Walmart's (and similar company's) predatory labor practices via food stamps and tanf.
And they are getting rich(er) off it. So rich they paid (250k) to have laws enacted to give them special exemptions from state taxes (>2 million).
It's only untrue if you know the entire picture.
But the entire picture is not self-evident to most people.
This causes the perception that healthy food is expensive, which causes a vicsious self-fulfilling propechy cycle.
It's also a bit of a "spend more now, save more down the road" situation, because at the checkout the healthy food is most definitely more expensive. The idea of comparing the money saved on food with the money spent on health care is not self-evident to many people. Or it's a choice they cant really make since they really do not have the funds to spend more now.
jon stewart had the right (pun not intended) of it:
When it benefits the rich or corporations it's necessary, patriotic, and good for the country.
When it benefits the poor it's socialist, evil, and the downfall of the nation.
Even though we spend many times more on welfare for the rich/corporations than we do on the poor.
addendum: forgot to add that sometimes the bird is simply steered on the ground through differential braking of the main wheels rather than direct control of the nose/tail wheel.
skids dont taxi on the ground, but 3-7 feet up.
but even among the wheeled variety many of them lack actual direct steering control of the nose/tail wheel, and instead rely on the tail rotor for ground steering. a few do have a steerable wheel, but they are the exception; for many types the wheel simply casters, especially in taildraggers. youll find it more on the larger birds, like the CH53 and Chinook, though in the Chinooks case, IIRC, only one tail wheel is steerable, and the other casters, though I dont remember which side is which.
Trains on a track are slightly different.
And the autopilot example needs to die, because people vastly VASTLY oversimplify what it even is. it (depending on the type and implementation) exists in several different modes and types andimplementations, each of which usually has to be physically initiated and monitored by the pilot.
as for driverless cars, the liability is simple: simply need to move to where we culturally simply no longer expect drivers to be able to handle a car, and thats why they bought the driverless in the first place. so essentially the driver ceases to exist altogether, becoming just another passenger, a customer like a guy in a taxi. so when something goes wrong, it is no longer the driver who is at fault, but the machine itself, and possibly the MFR.
and frankly, we're probably not that far away from that now, gievn how poorly a lot of folks drive
(hyperbole and exaggeration i know)
Unenforcable?
Vocal constituency? (I assume you meant "minority")
In Colorado, statewide 85% support background checks (which tracks with the national figure).
And there's a good reason for that: a background check is not an onorous requirement, it in no way inpinges on individual rights, and it serves the needs of society by ensuring that a transaction is within the bounds of existing law. We have laws that say felons who have reentered society cannot purchase firearms, unless they petition the court for restoration after release. But how can you enforce such a law....unless you have some sort of database, and perform a background check.
Even the overwhelming majority gun owners support background checks, for the same reasons! We want our right of onwership, but at the same time we dont want criminals to have it so easy they can simply walk into a store and walk out with a gun. Its a very modest barrier of entry whose single biggest outcome is to allow dealers themselves to shield themselves from being accussed of innocently/accidentally (or unsrupulously) enabling crime. No law abiding citizen wants to think he helped enable crime.
"They're going to get the guns anyway" .... so we should allow them to do it easily and legally from law abiding citizens/dealers??!! Get real.
exactly. as the Court has usually done, it has struck down a blanket ban, but left the door open for restrictions.
justifiable restrictions are, and will continue to be, allowable, as long as they are not (or do not amount to) blanket bans.
yes, but none of those are nearly as easy or as effective as a gun, nor as effective as equalizing the "power diffierential" between two people.
"The fighter that cant fly in the rain" was the F22, though really its about any stealth aircraft, as the rain defeats the stealth.
Basically your comments are baseless, ignorant, and compeltely devoid of anything approaching a fact.
The program behind it is full of several major flaws, that all chiefly point to how in dire need of overhaul the of the government's acquisition process is, more so even than the healthcare.gov fiasco. But the aircraft is not the program, and the F35, if it survives to make it ot the fleet, is a fantastic aircraft.
Hey hey hey! We already made this joke two weeks ago in the story about the fuel pump causing problems on a satellite.
No double dipping.
It was illegal here too, re The Securities Act of 1933, and others.
The JOBS Act made it legal, once the SEC created the necessary regulatons to oversee this kind of investment just like they do every other kind of investment.
"Crowdfunding probably scares the bejeezus out of strongly devout orthodox capitalist visionaries"
Actually wall street was a huge supporter of the JOBS Act (the law that is allowing an exemption to securities regulations and allowing crowdfunded investing (when it was previously totally illegal), with SEC oversight), and in fact wall street lobbied FOR the bill. Not against it.
So....
Would you care to rephrase your statement sir?
In other words the Constitution is more of a guideline, than a set of hard fast rules that cannot be changed as society does.
That would kind of be why they gave us the ability to modify it, or create other things in order to achieve the goals thereof.
Theres no specific mandate for a lot of stuff.
There is however a lot of allowance for the governemnt to change and evolve over time, create laws and bodies pursuant to duties.
NO ONE expected dogmatic adherence to the Constitution only as it existed 200+ years ago without any changes. But much as certain people approach the Bible as the literal truth not to be interpretted or thought about as attitude change over, many of the same people also take the same view of the Constitution.
The NLRB serves a useful and vital function. Namely, it takes the place of companies hiring strike breakers to threaten, beat, and even kill workers trying to unionize (or unions doing the same to employers), as had happened commonly prior to the createion of the NLRB and its forerunners. IE, relations between companies and workers used to get violent. The NLRB and its forebears were an attempt to prevent such riots.