I have an old dumb flip phone that has survived maybe not a while (I got it in '08) but has survived some pretty rough treatment. Besides the common accidental drop on concrete from my clumsiness or my tendency to toss the phone across the room for various reasons; the phone has survived being run over by delivery drivers, in the rain, while on a gravel parking lot, a water logged ceiling tile falling on it, and being stepped on by cleats. The only thing that doesn't work on it anymore is the front camera screen.
You pretend like any of that is binding. Sovereign countries can do whatever they want with another country's citizens within its borders. Countries usually don't treat foreigners poorly because it's bad for export business and sometimes it can lead to war.
There's no such thing as a free lunch, and you Europeans are relearning this fact. The EU is starting to crumble.
There's never been a challenge to banning people of a certain religion from entering, this is why it's a legal grey area and not "fall[ing] off a cliff."
Should not maybe. Can not. All day everyday. Even if capriciously, every country has the right to ban whoever they want at any time from entry into their country. It's a sovereignty issue.
Besides, it's not like these people couldn't go to Euro-Disney.
The Constitution's rights only apply to Citizens and permanent legal residents. Tourists and those in the country illegally are at convenience extended Constitutional rights. As far as what you're getting at here with regard to the above article, the Supreme Court has general deferred greatly to executive judgment on who is and isn't allowed into the country. This is also why Donald Trump's idea to ban Muslims is a legal gray area.
City driving is too chaotic to be where automated cars go first. Highway driving is where I think it'll be most effectively used. As your car enters an on ramp, you switch over to automated driving.
The problem is that stupider people are more used to believing that authority figures must be saying something significant, even if they don't understand it. So what the study might REALLY be measuring is the tendency to believe that things which are associated with "profundity" are more likely to be "profound," e.g., if your professor or mentor or whomever says something and then says, "It's that profound?", you are primed to try to find some meaning in it, even if it's nonsense. Stupid people are more likely to fall for this, because they are simply more used to professors saying stuff they don't understand anyway -- not necessarily because they actually find profound meaning in it.
Is it that they're more stupid? Or could it be that they're more humble or trusting? Humility in that they believe or feel they are not the smartest person in the room or trusting in that the people telling them things are speaking in good faith. I mean take a silly example, you're good friend who you've known for years and trust comes up to you and says noodles grow on bushes. You through some level of ignorance have never learned how noodles are made. So, even while noticing the absurdity of the notion, trust that the person telling you this is correct.
That seems more likely as to why there's a connection between this test and people who believe in conspiracy theories, religion, etc.
To be a priest? Yes. But a monk? No. Though yes on all counts to being Roman Catholic. I guess you could lie, but that'd be unethical and technically theologically sinful. And you'd have to take those vows that monks usually take.
Thinking about it, up until maybe this last decade, if you were a nerdy Catholic kid that'd be a pretty easy gig to get into.
Not to get off topic, but that's kind of the appeal and the strength of the Church's scientific work. They don't have to worry about those profit or subsistence driven timetables. They can take their time, study, restudy, then restudy some more. They can do the whole reproducibility part of science pretty well.
Slashdot Mirror
"GGers" are not the only ones that use the SJW term, etc.
I agree to a certain degree, but you're not paying for anything on StackOverflow, at least not that I've seen.
I have an old dumb flip phone that has survived maybe not a while (I got it in '08) but has survived some pretty rough treatment. Besides the common accidental drop on concrete from my clumsiness or my tendency to toss the phone across the room for various reasons; the phone has survived being run over by delivery drivers, in the rain, while on a gravel parking lot, a water logged ceiling tile falling on it, and being stepped on by cleats. The only thing that doesn't work on it anymore is the front camera screen.
You pretend like any of that is binding. Sovereign countries can do whatever they want with another country's citizens within its borders. Countries usually don't treat foreigners poorly because it's bad for export business and sometimes it can lead to war.
There's no such thing as a free lunch, and you Europeans are relearning this fact. The EU is starting to crumble.
Catholic church has had the evolution "problem" nixed for about a century. Try to keep up.
I vaguely remember several Europeans guffawing at stupid Americans and how we can't get or won't buy the more clean and full efficient diesel cars...
Well, y'all spooked the lil guy...
There's never been a challenge to banning people of a certain religion from entering, this is why it's a legal grey area and not "fall[ing] off a cliff."
That was my point...also, are you drinkypoo?
In what way? They aren't being tried, fined, or punished.
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
No mod points so....
*ba dum tish*
Should not maybe. Can not. All day everyday. Even if capriciously, every country has the right to ban whoever they want at any time from entry into their country. It's a sovereignty issue.
Besides, it's not like these people couldn't go to Euro-Disney.
The Constitution's rights only apply to Citizens and permanent legal residents. Tourists and those in the country illegally are at convenience extended Constitutional rights. As far as what you're getting at here with regard to the above article, the Supreme Court has general deferred greatly to executive judgment on who is and isn't allowed into the country. This is also why Donald Trump's idea to ban Muslims is a legal gray area.
As an aside, what are your views on the usage of the no-fly list in vetting gun sales idea.
City driving is too chaotic to be where automated cars go first. Highway driving is where I think it'll be most effectively used. As your car enters an on ramp, you switch over to automated driving.
What if they gave their employees awesome new wheel chairs?
National Review has a great op-ed:
http://www.nationalreview.com/...
I'm hoping the pendulum will return to balance soon.
Are we comparing digits?
The problem is that stupider people are more used to believing that authority figures must be saying something significant, even if they don't understand it. So what the study might REALLY be measuring is the tendency to believe that things which are associated with "profundity" are more likely to be "profound," e.g., if your professor or mentor or whomever says something and then says, "It's that profound?", you are primed to try to find some meaning in it, even if it's nonsense. Stupid people are more likely to fall for this, because they are simply more used to professors saying stuff they don't understand anyway -- not necessarily because they actually find profound meaning in it.
Is it that they're more stupid? Or could it be that they're more humble or trusting? Humility in that they believe or feel they are not the smartest person in the room or trusting in that the people telling them things are speaking in good faith. I mean take a silly example, you're good friend who you've known for years and trust comes up to you and says noodles grow on bushes. You through some level of ignorance have never learned how noodles are made. So, even while noticing the absurdity of the notion, trust that the person telling you this is correct.
That seems more likely as to why there's a connection between this test and people who believe in conspiracy theories, religion, etc.
Took like three seconds. Search for "atheist congregations."
http://www.examiner.com/articl...
http://www.usatoday.com/story/...
A) Planet of the Apes, no thanks.
B) Dolphins are jerks.
To be a priest? Yes. But a monk? No. Though yes on all counts to being Roman Catholic. I guess you could lie, but that'd be unethical and technically theologically sinful. And you'd have to take those vows that monks usually take.
Thinking about it, up until maybe this last decade, if you were a nerdy Catholic kid that'd be a pretty easy gig to get into.
Not to get off topic, but that's kind of the appeal and the strength of the Church's scientific work. They don't have to worry about those profit or subsistence driven timetables. They can take their time, study, restudy, then restudy some more. They can do the whole reproducibility part of science pretty well.
That's kind of a different discussion.