Seems like a more complex description than it needs to be. Simply: ride-sharing implies the driver is going from origin A to destination B regardless if they have passengers or not.
There was a dude that was literally drugged, woke up tied to a bed with a girl on top of him, he ejaculated in her because men really don't have any control over that if you're bouncing on top of them, he told the police about it immediately, the police did nothing, she got pregnant, gave birth, filed for child support, and the courts made him pay for her rape baby.
But my doctor told me that in cases of a true rape, the man's body can prevent the pregnancy.
Seriously though, this needs a citation. I really really want to read about this story.
It's the man's right to be free of obligation to support a child that doesn't currently exist. If she falls on hard times and gets support from the state, the state may go after him to recoup support costs. While it's unclear if it this would hold up in court in this exact scenario, the chance of having to fight it in court at all is a pretty significant reason to want to block implantation. It is sad that his possible responsibilities is what is preventing her from having a child, but that is a failing of the legal framework, not him.
While I'm sure there were significant issues with *some* students, the prof himself sounds like he has problems also. I'm sure there are many who believe themselves infallible. When I attended university there were end-of-course surveys given to students in class in the last few weeks, to rate the professor, course material, etc. They were to be handed out by the professor with a student designated to collect and seal them while the professor left the room. One professor refused to hand them out, saying that it was preposterous for mere students to rate someone with 15 years experience. The student union had to step in. He was rated very poorly.
I saw a meme recently, with a pic of a disgruntled looking doctor: "Remember that time you got Polio? That's right, you don't, because your parents got you vaccinated"
If you go to a walk-in clinic and just get whatever doctor is on staff, they probably will not ask you about your detailed history unless it pertains to whatever issue you are visiting them for. A walk-in doctor is their to help with your immediate problems, it's your family doctor that should be concerned with your long term health. And yes many doctors push the flu vaccine, it brings the clinic the money AND it's good for you and the community (it IS possible for both of those to be true). If you have a family doctor who you are registered with, and they have never asked for your immunization history, that strikes me as being rather lazy. However, and this may be shocking, you can be the one to bring it up.
The Monsanto executive that claimed that vaccines are so safe you could get 10,000 vaccinations in a day. Yet he never accepted bets from a few people to get just 100 or 1000 in a day.
So some guy who is not a doctor, not an expert on vaccines, and not a scientist, says something about vaccines that I can only assume was a gross exaggeration (and obviously untrue), therefore vaccines are bad?
Context. Do you know what that is? GP made a perfectly valid argument about using the word "unusual" when applied to something practiced by the governments of 60% of the world's population. No attempt to justify the practice was made.
The problem with that is that editing hurts credibility. How do I know that Wikileaks haven't removed even more incriminating information?
Editing wouldn't hurt credibility if they had a specific policy for redacting unrelated private addresses. Even without redactions how do you know they haven't removed entire documents? How do you know they didn't modify them from the original source? They likely publish everything because it reduces their burden and risk. They probably don't have the resources to sift through the materials, and they don't want to have to store the unredacted originals because they would now be a target for those who want more information.
Yet in the US social progress needs to come IMMEDIATELY, as soon as someone stamps their precious little foot?
Except the law at the heart of the controversy is the opposite of social progress. A huge portion of the country has taken a step forward while Indiana is taking a step backward. It leaves a much larger moral divide than if Indiana was just trying to keep the status quo.
All that does is get you out of closing without penalty. You can walk away and not buy the house. But once you've closed, you own the property and all its inherent issues. So for that to work would mean the condition of sale was that broadband must be installed prior to closing. After that you have to sue. If the condition was only that broadband had to be available, you can try to sue the previous owners but you would have to prove that they acted in bad faith if they were the ones who said it was available. Maybe you can sue the cable company for acting in bad faith, but they have nothing to do with the property sale so it's a separate issue.
IANAL but I do have family who sued their home's previous owners.
But for people who only can get to wikipedia through their basic cell phone plans.... that was the only source of information.
While I agree that there is genuine concern about wikipedia becoming a gatekeeper in general, I don't think it's valid to claim this was the sole source for people to be making college decisions on. Wikipedia Zero has only been around in India for about 2 years. What did they use prior to that to look up information on colleges? Did those other sources of information disappear in those two years? Just because a new, convenient source of information becomes available doesn't mean people should suddenly treat that as the only authority on the subject.
I would also question the article's claim that possibly 15,000 people were affected, since they don't seem to back up that calculation. I bet that is just the college's estimated yearly enrollment multiplied by the number of years the banned account was active.
My sister (huuuuge X-files fan) had a 5 foot poster of that Rolling Stones cover over her bed, pretty sure she wanked to it. I was never sure if it was David or Gillian she fancied.
So much this. When my wife started her diet her weight was stable at ideal + 30lbs. Since her weight was stable in her current lifestyle she thought that after the weight loss she could go back what to her usual intake was and be stable there. This seemed an obvious error to me but I was at a loss to explain it.
Slashdot Mirror
Wow, my first Troll mod. I guess someone didn't get the reference?
Seems like a more complex description than it needs to be. Simply: ride-sharing implies the driver is going from origin A to destination B regardless if they have passengers or not.
There was a dude that was literally drugged, woke up tied to a bed with a girl on top of him, he ejaculated in her because men really don't have any control over that if you're bouncing on top of them, he told the police about it immediately, the police did nothing, she got pregnant, gave birth, filed for child support, and the courts made him pay for her rape baby.
But my doctor told me that in cases of a true rape, the man's body can prevent the pregnancy.
Seriously though, this needs a citation. I really really want to read about this story.
It's the man's right to be free of obligation to support a child that doesn't currently exist. If she falls on hard times and gets support from the state, the state may go after him to recoup support costs. While it's unclear if it this would hold up in court in this exact scenario, the chance of having to fight it in court at all is a pretty significant reason to want to block implantation. It is sad that his possible responsibilities is what is preventing her from having a child, but that is a failing of the legal framework, not him.
While I'm sure there were significant issues with *some* students, the prof himself sounds like he has problems also. I'm sure there are many who believe themselves infallible. When I attended university there were end-of-course surveys given to students in class in the last few weeks, to rate the professor, course material, etc. They were to be handed out by the professor with a student designated to collect and seal them while the professor left the room. One professor refused to hand them out, saying that it was preposterous for mere students to rate someone with 15 years experience. The student union had to step in. He was rated very poorly.
Yep, and they already exist up here: http://news.nationalpost.com/n...
This one actually. Same quote but better facial expression. http://publichealthmemes.tumbl...
I saw a meme recently, with a pic of a disgruntled looking doctor: "Remember that time you got Polio? That's right, you don't, because your parents got you vaccinated"
If you go to a walk-in clinic and just get whatever doctor is on staff, they probably will not ask you about your detailed history unless it pertains to whatever issue you are visiting them for. A walk-in doctor is their to help with your immediate problems, it's your family doctor that should be concerned with your long term health. And yes many doctors push the flu vaccine, it brings the clinic the money AND it's good for you and the community (it IS possible for both of those to be true). If you have a family doctor who you are registered with, and they have never asked for your immunization history, that strikes me as being rather lazy. However, and this may be shocking, you can be the one to bring it up.
The Monsanto executive that claimed that vaccines are so safe you could get 10,000 vaccinations in a day. Yet he never accepted bets from a few people to get just 100 or 1000 in a day.
So some guy who is not a doctor, not an expert on vaccines, and not a scientist, says something about vaccines that I can only assume was a gross exaggeration (and obviously untrue), therefore vaccines are bad?
They did pick up Danger 5, at least on Canadian Netflix.
Context. Do you know what that is? GP made a perfectly valid argument about using the word "unusual" when applied to something practiced by the governments of 60% of the world's population. No attempt to justify the practice was made.
The problem with that is that editing hurts credibility. How do I know that Wikileaks haven't removed even more incriminating information?
Editing wouldn't hurt credibility if they had a specific policy for redacting unrelated private addresses. Even without redactions how do you know they haven't removed entire documents? How do you know they didn't modify them from the original source? They likely publish everything because it reduces their burden and risk. They probably don't have the resources to sift through the materials, and they don't want to have to store the unredacted originals because they would now be a target for those who want more information.
And that's a great argument for forcing mixing from the very start, to prevent the build up segregated cultures.
That argument only validates the idea of a STEM-only school, not a girl-only STEM-only school.
Basically everyone (even the janitors) will make 70k
I know this is pedantic but... do any companies actually employ janitors rather than contracting it to a cleaning company?
Yes, I was referring to less than 100 KM of closed-loop systems.
I have not. Mostly I just hear about the train accidents, most of them being due to human error. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...
Yet in the US social progress needs to come IMMEDIATELY, as soon as someone stamps their precious little foot?
Except the law at the heart of the controversy is the opposite of social progress. A huge portion of the country has taken a step forward while Indiana is taking a step backward. It leaves a much larger moral divide than if Indiana was just trying to keep the status quo.
Seriously! Why are we talking about automating cars and planes, when we still don't automate trains!
Green eggs and ham...
They (probably correctly) assume most of their audience are straight men, and get the most bang for their buck with ladies. ;)
All that does is get you out of closing without penalty. You can walk away and not buy the house. But once you've closed, you own the property and all its inherent issues. So for that to work would mean the condition of sale was that broadband must be installed prior to closing. After that you have to sue. If the condition was only that broadband had to be available, you can try to sue the previous owners but you would have to prove that they acted in bad faith if they were the ones who said it was available. Maybe you can sue the cable company for acting in bad faith, but they have nothing to do with the property sale so it's a separate issue.
IANAL but I do have family who sued their home's previous owners.
But for people who only can get to wikipedia through their basic cell phone plans .... that was the only source of information.
While I agree that there is genuine concern about wikipedia becoming a gatekeeper in general, I don't think it's valid to claim this was the sole source for people to be making college decisions on. Wikipedia Zero has only been around in India for about 2 years. What did they use prior to that to look up information on colleges? Did those other sources of information disappear in those two years? Just because a new, convenient source of information becomes available doesn't mean people should suddenly treat that as the only authority on the subject.
I would also question the article's claim that possibly 15,000 people were affected, since they don't seem to back up that calculation. I bet that is just the college's estimated yearly enrollment multiplied by the number of years the banned account was active.
My sister (huuuuge X-files fan) had a 5 foot poster of that Rolling Stones cover over her bed, pretty sure she wanked to it. I was never sure if it was David or Gillian she fancied.
So much this. When my wife started her diet her weight was stable at ideal + 30lbs. Since her weight was stable in her current lifestyle she thought that after the weight loss she could go back what to her usual intake was and be stable there. This seemed an obvious error to me but I was at a loss to explain it.