Men may, in general, *express* a larger diversity. The question of whether this is because of grater actually diversity in men, greater suppression of non-conforming behavior in women, or something else is the ENTIRE FUCKING POINT.
"where a Swedish prosecutor have made an official questioning in another country- they might go there and question witnesses"
Marianne Ny's official position is that she is questioning for investigation, not prosecution. At lest that's her current claim. How is it that you know Marianne Ny's position than she herself does?
They pay you in access to wifi that would otherwise cost money. You may of course chose not to engage in this relationship, but that makes it harder to express outrage that they're stealing your electrons.
The tech-relevance is that making assumptions about your data doesn't just ruin the elegance of your table design but has real-wold impact on actual people.
I'm talking about the objective measurement of Galt against his own standards, not some moral judgement of how liked he is. He totally devotes not only his own work but that of everyone else to the sake of other...just not to benefit them but to spite them. In the name of individualism he organizes one of the greast collective actions in his history.
The general problem is that the precedent has been set that they can remove an advertised feature at any time after purchase with no negative consequences. They will be able to profit by selling features back to you that you already paid for once. And then take them away again. And then sell them back to you again.
If you're going to tell a lie, you should pick a subject that is not so easily verified. Even at Slashdot, someone will eventually read the actual article and note that it does not say what you claim.
A low-level contractor is brought in for a compartmentalized, one-off job. he's given a clearance higher than is really called for. He talks to some bottom-rung agents who bullshit him to lord their status over a mere civilian. He get his hands on a single crappy deck of slides that are so vague they could mean anything. He puts these together and imagines he's stumbled onto the mother of all conspiracies.
The Nuremburg trials established that you can be tried for following an illegal order. They did not establish that you cannot be tried for not following an illegal order.
"Fascist" is not a better term for anything, since outside of the specific usage as the name of specific parties it has no generally agreed upon definition. Whenever someone invokes it, the conversation immediately devolves into a argument over what it really means.
If these rules are seen only a problem to be solved, then of course the orthodox look identical to the cynics. The difference is in viewing them a process of continual mindfulness of the relationship with the community and with God.
Let's look at you example " the Talmudic interpretation has decided that electricity is fire". It's not that electricity is decided to be equivalent to fire and then done. It asking what are the rules about fire trying to accomplish and whether electricity advances those ends or not.
This is actually a lot like when people say that lawyers and legislators and judges who claim to be true believes in legal systems are all just cynics gaming the system. The cynics see a problem to be solved, the believers see a continual process of seeing how new experiences either relate or do not relate to existing rules.
"they're defaulting on the bonds they sold to China?"
Would you care to relate the factual basis for your claim that the US is defaulting on public debt?
As an aside, the one restriction on speech explicitly listed in the US Constitution is questioning the validity of the public debt. (14th Amendment, Section4)
Does the propeller drive the wheels or do the wheels drive the propeller? None of the technical documentation from the team, such as it is, indicates what the mechanics actually are. (I found their writing to be exceptionally poor and that contributes a lot to the difficulty they have proving their claims.)
Most of the people trying to explain it without a working model say that the wheels drive the propeller, but never explain what keeps the wheels going. The only external energy source is the wind so their must be some way for the wind to keep the wheels moving.
If I were to try to build a theory from first principles I would have said that the propeller drives the wheels: lift of the airfoils perpendicular to the propeller shaft create a torque on the propeller that drives the linkage that turns the wheels to overcome the drag on the propeller and keep the cart in motion. However, there are so many more claims that the wheels drive the propeller that the must be some steps that seems so obvious that no one bothers to mention it.
Slashdot Mirror
That is consistent: obsessed with edge case, ignorant of common cases.
Why yes, that is an excellent demonstration of the original definition of "begging the question".
But you might want to explicitly say that's what you're doing. Readers might mistake you for a bigoted asshole.
Men may, in general, *express* a larger diversity. The question of whether this is because of grater actually diversity in men, greater suppression of non-conforming behavior in women, or something else is the ENTIRE FUCKING POINT.
"Thus it cannot be done anywhere else than in Sweden."
The Swedish Supreme Court disagrees with you: https://lagen.nu/dom/nja/2007s337
"where a Swedish prosecutor have made an official questioning in another country- they might go there and question witnesses"
Marianne Ny's official position is that she is questioning for investigation, not prosecution. At lest that's her current claim. How is it that you know Marianne Ny's position than she herself does?
"Obama didn't win the Nobel prize for ending wars"
Correct. Henry Kissinger won the Nobel prize for ending wars.
"Wake me up when it lands on its feet"
You have to butter it first.
My god... you've invented competitive hippy punching!
Science. It works, bitches.
"and don't pay me any rent? "
They pay you in access to wifi that would otherwise cost money. You may of course chose not to engage in this relationship, but that makes it harder to express outrage that they're stealing your electrons.
The tech-relevance is that making assumptions about your data doesn't just ruin the elegance of your table design but has real-wold impact on actual people.
I'm talking about the objective measurement of Galt against his own standards, not some moral judgement of how liked he is. He totally devotes not only his own work but that of everyone else to the sake of other...just not to benefit them but to spite them. In the name of individualism he organizes one of the greast collective actions in his history.
John Galt would consider John Galt a failure.
Those numbers are also consistent with the usable lifetime of such a device being around 4 years.
It is difficult to discuss objectivism with people who,whether they are for or against, fail to recognize John Galt as a negative example.
If a for-profit company tried offering unpaid internships to students, they'd be laughed off campus.
If you are in a field with unethical business practices, maybe the problem is with your field and not others.
The specific thing they removed is small.
The general problem is that the precedent has been set that they can remove an advertised feature at any time after purchase with no negative consequences. They will be able to profit by selling features back to you that you already paid for once. And then take them away again. And then sell them back to you again.
If you're going to tell a lie, you should pick a subject that is not so easily verified. Even at Slashdot, someone will eventually read the actual article and note that it does not say what you claim.
A low-level contractor is brought in for a compartmentalized, one-off job. he's given a clearance higher than is really called for. He talks to some bottom-rung agents who bullshit him to lord their status over a mere civilian. He get his hands on a single crappy deck of slides that are so vague they could mean anything. He puts these together and imagines he's stumbled onto the mother of all conspiracies.
The Nuremburg trials established that you can be tried for following an illegal order. They did not establish that you cannot be tried for not following an illegal order.
"Fascist" is not a better term for anything, since outside of the specific usage as the name of specific parties it has no generally agreed upon definition. Whenever someone invokes it, the conversation immediately devolves into a argument over what it really means.
"now that they got a Communist in the White House"
Name 3 policies where Obama is to the left of Nixon.
Apply all-in-one models have a display input so that you can keep using the screen after the internals have been superseded.
If these rules are seen only a problem to be solved, then of course the orthodox look identical to the cynics. The difference is in viewing them a process of continual mindfulness of the relationship with the community and with God.
Let's look at you example " the Talmudic interpretation has decided that electricity is fire". It's not that electricity is decided to be equivalent to fire and then done. It asking what are the rules about fire trying to accomplish and whether electricity advances those ends or not.
This is actually a lot like when people say that lawyers and legislators and judges who claim to be true believes in legal systems are all just cynics gaming the system. The cynics see a problem to be solved, the believers see a continual process of seeing how new experiences either relate or do not relate to existing rules.
"they're defaulting on the bonds they sold to China?"
Would you care to relate the factual basis for your claim that the US is defaulting on public debt?
As an aside, the one restriction on speech explicitly listed in the US Constitution is questioning the validity of the public debt. (14th Amendment, Section4)
Does the propeller drive the wheels or do the wheels drive the propeller? None of the technical documentation from the team, such as it is, indicates what the mechanics actually are. (I found their writing to be exceptionally poor and that contributes a lot to the difficulty they have proving their claims.)
Most of the people trying to explain it without a working model say that the wheels drive the propeller, but never explain what keeps the wheels going. The only external energy source is the wind so their must be some way for the wind to keep the wheels moving.
If I were to try to build a theory from first principles I would have said that the propeller drives the wheels: lift of the airfoils perpendicular to the propeller shaft create a torque on the propeller that drives the linkage that turns the wheels to overcome the drag on the propeller and keep the cart in motion. However, there are so many more claims that the wheels drive the propeller that the must be some steps that seems so obvious that no one bothers to mention it.
Do you seriously believe in the labor theory of value? Even the communists will laugh at you for that.
Is a private citizen required to give up their expectations of privacy in order to petition their representative in Congress?