I'm not a fan of intercepting money this way, but I don't think we can eliminate it completely. But there should be some straightforward and rapid way for the money to be sent on its way as soon as someone has made a cursory investigation. Something like this lends itself to a ridiculous number of false positives (like this one).
It wouldn't surprise me if he did. An "unsuccessful" test achieves the ideal balance between creating anxiety that will lead to concessions and hand-outs, without actually being dangerous and sparking an unpleasant intervention.
I read a novel in French by reading the printed edition while following along with the audio book, which forces you to read at a much slower rate than normal. It was astonishing how much I got out of the book and how much I enjoyed it, far beyond normal reading experiences.
I thought I was a fast reader, but now I know I was wrong.
The mistake was challenging the sincerity of belief, which by nature cannot be proven or disproven in terms of lawful evidence, rather than whether or not accommodating a certain belief is reasonable. People lose rights when they are put in prison - that's the whole point of a prison sentence.
Accommodating any ridiculous whim of someone just because they shout the word 'religion' was a horrible mistake, and there needs to be some rational push back. But this decision didn't achieve that, and an appeal court is likely to make the situation worse rather than better.
On top of all that, this transgendered empowerment seems to truly be an hysterical fad, with some people irrationally supporting something they have clearly not thought carefully about, and other people irrationally supporting something different that they haven't thought carefully about either. Right now people are lumping together lifestyle choices (which society has no obligation to enable) and medical conditions (which do merit accommodation within reason).
The homeless problem is really a mental health problem. We need to open a new generation of mental hospitals
What's really needed is recognizing that "mental hospitals" are overkill. Mental hospitals are for those unfortunates who are a danger to themselves and others, but they are not the right solution for the mildly mentally ill.
There are people who simply can't cope with basic adult responsibilities like following a budget or reliably showing up to a job. Their lives are not happy and they deserve our compassion, but a more creative solution is needed. They don't need hospitalization but they do need some amount of help.
And they are not the same people as the few who are homeless as a lifestyle choice.
(Unless all that is what you meant by "new generation".)
With a few lunatic fringe exceptions, no-one thinks Trump is a good candidate. But to certain voters, he seems like the only one interested in their issues, even though his 'solutions' are obviously terrible. Counter-intuitive though it may be, the candidate with the bad policy wins against the candidate unwilling to address the issue at all.
I can't imagine why they thought there was any point in telling Jor-El about the ice in Greenland, but it's no surprise he didn't have anything constructive to add.
Slashdot Mirror
If you want to see the majority of U.S. citizens being forefront-of-their-thoughts concerned about 'global warming'
I suspect the biggest problem with people in the US understanding global warming is not the warming part, it's understanding what 'global' means.
I'm not a fan of intercepting money this way, but I don't think we can eliminate it completely. But there should be some straightforward and rapid way for the money to be sent on its way as soon as someone has made a cursory investigation. Something like this lends itself to a ridiculous number of false positives (like this one).
You never know, maybe "Boaty McBoatface" in Gaelic will be something that in English sounds dignified and/or cool.
It wouldn't surprise me if he did. An "unsuccessful" test achieves the ideal balance between creating anxiety that will lead to concessions and hand-outs, without actually being dangerous and sparking an unpleasant intervention.
Funny, after this declaration I don't feel any more certain about what Facebook will really do than I did before.
I read a novel in French by reading the printed edition while following along with the audio book, which forces you to read at a much slower rate than normal. It was astonishing how much I got out of the book and how much I enjoyed it, far beyond normal reading experiences.
I thought I was a fast reader, but now I know I was wrong.
Since vi is the one true religion you can't compare it to the others.
So does that mean Scientology isn't a real religion also?
No, Scientology has its own reasons why it isn't a real religion.
Transubstantiation is the process of going from one to the other. I guess that means it's a matter of uncooked versus cooked pasta.
The mistake was challenging the sincerity of belief, which by nature cannot be proven or disproven in terms of lawful evidence, rather than whether or not accommodating a certain belief is reasonable. People lose rights when they are put in prison - that's the whole point of a prison sentence.
Accommodating any ridiculous whim of someone just because they shout the word 'religion' was a horrible mistake, and there needs to be some rational push back. But this decision didn't achieve that, and an appeal court is likely to make the situation worse rather than better.
Is it possible for Javascript to be simultaneously a religion and a heresy?
For a while the EU was really a step forward for citizens. It was the opposite of the "free" "trade" agreements.
Now it's a corrupt system like all the other corrupt systems.
against cyber security attacks, as opposed to perpetrating them.
I wasn't sure at first.
Maybe not the floor but clearly it is sucked from somewhere.
Is this still the United States of America which I used to know?
No.
It's just that simple.
Sorry.
(1) Women insisted. The bathrooms have always been "women" and "other", so all this angst over bathrooms was completely unnecessary all along.
(2) Urinals are specific to a particular anatomy.
What counts as gender and what counts as sex, and which matters in which context, is what people are disagreeing about.
And using labels to shout at people instead of engaging in some much-needed dialogue is not helping.
On top of all that, this transgendered empowerment seems to truly be an hysterical fad, with some people irrationally supporting something they have clearly not thought carefully about, and other people irrationally supporting something different that they haven't thought carefully about either. Right now people are lumping together lifestyle choices (which society has no obligation to enable) and medical conditions (which do merit accommodation within reason).
I confess to not being well versed in North Carolina law, but for we all know this law might prove to be the lesser of two evils.
demand that they "beg coyly, stay quiet, and generally stay out of your way". We don't do that with people with cancer, or physical disabilities
In fact people with cancer or physical disabilities do not have any right to get in the way of others.
The homeless problem is really a mental health problem. We need to open a new generation of mental hospitals
What's really needed is recognizing that "mental hospitals" are overkill. Mental hospitals are for those unfortunates who are a danger to themselves and others, but they are not the right solution for the mildly mentally ill.
There are people who simply can't cope with basic adult responsibilities like following a budget or reliably showing up to a job. Their lives are not happy and they deserve our compassion, but a more creative solution is needed. They don't need hospitalization but they do need some amount of help.
And they are not the same people as the few who are homeless as a lifestyle choice.
(Unless all that is what you meant by "new generation".)
Because I saw somebody smarter than I am
Comey is acknowledging that *everyone* is smarter than him.
I found his honesty refreshing.
With a few lunatic fringe exceptions, no-one thinks Trump is a good candidate. But to certain voters, he seems like the only one interested in their issues, even though his 'solutions' are obviously terrible. Counter-intuitive though it may be, the candidate with the bad policy wins against the candidate unwilling to address the issue at all.
So, it depends who he runs against.
How is this "anti-Trump"? It's one of the least negative things I've seen associated with Trump's name since whenever his last business failure was.
Though, of course, that's because it's about a different person and not *about* Trump in any way.
I can't imagine why they thought there was any point in telling Jor-El about the ice in Greenland, but it's no surprise he didn't have anything constructive to add.