Person is way too specific. How about "unit"? Henceforth, all nouns will be replaced by the word "unit" to avoid offending all the units on the unit's unit.
The unit has spoken! Units would be wise to heed this unit.
Other people's choices affect my life and health, so I prefer that these are well informed.
Do they? It's not clear why you think so. Is your preference for other people's choices more important than their preference for your choices?
What's stopping you from just minding your own business and coexisting peacefully with your neighbors who may or may not be as "informed" as you'd prefer? If you'd rather divide people and fight it out with them, you might want to explain why so other people can make an "informed" judgment about your motives.
Polling data matters? How so? And why is it your business whether someone else makes "informed" choices or "uninformed" choices? Other people's choices are not your choices.
If we don't want to be preachy religious types, and we don't want to be preachy Science! types, why would we talk about it at all? Besides being the newest, hipest way to try to divide otherwise happy people into warring tribes, what's the goal of polling people about evolution?
Also, is it good or evil to try to divide otherwise happy, peacefully coexisting people into warring tribes?
Sort of. Who would listen to them anywhere else though? A large part of what they're doing is trolling or some other form of attention whoring. Without instant feedback there's no point.
As the politically correct SJW crybullies slowly destroy Twitter, it will be interesting to see if Silicon Valley's shallow cultural leftist elite finally wake up and start pushing back. A lot of them like Twitter and some of them invested money in it.
The media like Twitter too, but the media are unreformable; a lost cause in every way.
So this article says the opposite of the summary: the material reverts to it's original shape when body heat is applied. That sounds more useful for medical applications.
The summary speaks of a material that loses it's original shape as body heat is applied (and presumably regains it once it cools down). That sounds less useful.
Fortunately, we know from gun controllers what all the arguments are for regulating something during a moral panic:
- We must regulate this assault science. - No more than 7 strands of DNA -- why would anyone ever need more than that? - Scientists must register and be fingerprinted by their local sherrif. - They must keep all their test tubes in a regulation safe when not in use. - Scientists shouldn't have access to automatic equipment. No military-style scientific equipment either. - One equipment purchase per scientist per month. - Buying scientific equipment for another scientist will be a felony. - Convicted felons won't be allowed to possess scientific equipment. - Scientific equipment will only be allowed to be sold through a licensed dealer, with Federal background checks.
These and other common-sense controls will help keep us safe from these rogue scientists. We must enact them now, before it's too late!
Because Democrat voters are less reliable than Republican voters. When there's huge publicity and a maximum effort to drag every last unmotivated person to the polls to vote for President, Democrats do better. During off years unmotivated people stay home and Republicans do better.
That's not it. Mid-term elections don't go well for Democrats, and they don't go well for the President's party in general. If the President is Sanders, that's a steep hill to climb already.
Is Sanders a charismatic leader that can ignite and unify the country? Would you buy a used car from anyone who answered "yes" to that question?
You know what would be better still? A balanced policy designed to help all Americans rather than one designed to help the Zuckerbergs and the other rich campaign donors.
Hertz is already doing pretty bad. Uber and Lyft are a huge problem for the rental car companies. And Hertz in particular has accounting irregularities. They're going to have to redo the last 5 years of their financials.
Their only saving grace is that car rental has become an oligopoly. The Obama Administration allowed Avis to merge with Budget and Hertz to merge with Dollar/Thrifty. Avis also bought Zipcar. The other company in the 3-way oligopoly is Enterprise/National. Car rental pricing has been artificially high with less competition.
Uber and Lyft, and the entrance of some smaller competitors (because the car rental business has low barriers to entry -- really, how hard is it to rent cars?) are starting to bring rates down again.
Rather than simply boycotting Hertz, I suggest using a service like Hotwire. Wait until the day before you need to rent a car and then go to Hotwire. Rental companies can either rent you one of their cars for cheap or leave it sitting on their lot earning them nothing. If there are no good deals (because of high demand or because the local city has a high tax on car rentals) just use Uber or Lyft.
If your company has an exclusive deal with Avis or Hertz for business travelers, your company is overpaying, probably by a very large amount. Do some price comparisons with Hotwire and email them to the decision makers. That would be the worst thing for Hertz.
And even if the current crop of voters *did* learn their lesson (which they did not), the next generation has not learned it, and will make the same mistakes all over again.
I don't think the next generation will side with law enforcement. What did the police ever do for them besides hassle them, give them traffic tickets, and threaten to raid their parties? We have the lowest crime in decades and safest highways ever. Law enforcement is generally not needed and increasingly feared by regular people.
The people who like law enforcement are 55+ and remember trying to raise a family during the crime wave times of 1970-1990.
Tenured academic jobs are usually easier and often pay considerably more than private sector jobs.
And it's not a "fraud". It's a field that reached a conclusion with a very high degree of uncertainty. The conclusion is true. There's a real phenomenon. It either means a lot or a little.
Then billions were taxed and spent by power-hungry people based on the possibility that it means "a lot". If it means a lot, then that opens the door for power-hungry elites to micromanage the lives of everyone else, just like they've always wanted to do.
Scientists are incentivized to hype one side versus the other. The high degree of uncertainty allows for a defense of any particular claim. If you want to study something, you can make a defendable claim, raise the alarm, and often get funded to study it.
No wacky insidious conspiracy needed. (But people "conspire" all the time. They discuss a how to present ideas. It's an ordinary thing to do.)
Slashdot Mirror
Person is way too specific. How about "unit"? Henceforth, all nouns will be replaced by the word "unit" to avoid offending all the units on the unit's unit.
The unit has spoken! Units would be wise to heed this unit.
Other people's choices affect my life and health, so I prefer that these are well informed.
Do they? It's not clear why you think so. Is your preference for other people's choices more important than their preference for your choices?
What's stopping you from just minding your own business and coexisting peacefully with your neighbors who may or may not be as "informed" as you'd prefer? If you'd rather divide people and fight it out with them, you might want to explain why so other people can make an "informed" judgment about your motives.
Polling data matters? How so? And why is it your business whether someone else makes "informed" choices or "uninformed" choices? Other people's choices are not your choices.
And... you didn't answer the question. It was a really simple question. You object to the term. What's a better term?
If we don't want to be preachy religious types, and we don't want to be preachy Science! types, why would we talk about it at all? Besides being the newest, hipest way to try to divide otherwise happy people into warring tribes, what's the goal of polling people about evolution?
Also, is it good or evil to try to divide otherwise happy, peacefully coexisting people into warring tribes?
If you're using the phrase "SJW"
Versus what? What's the correct term?
Done. No one will call it "ride sharing" again. Anything else we can help you with?
Why should they? Arresting people for giving each other car rides isn't legitimate government, it's racketeering.
Sort of. Who would listen to them anywhere else though? A large part of what they're doing is trolling or some other form of attention whoring. Without instant feedback there's no point.
As the politically correct SJW crybullies slowly destroy Twitter, it will be interesting to see if Silicon Valley's shallow cultural leftist elite finally wake up and start pushing back. A lot of them like Twitter and some of them invested money in it.
The media like Twitter too, but the media are unreformable; a lost cause in every way.
So this article says the opposite of the summary: the material reverts to it's original shape when body heat is applied. That sounds more useful for medical applications.
The summary speaks of a material that loses it's original shape as body heat is applied (and presumably regains it once it cools down). That sounds less useful.
Fortunately, we know from gun controllers what all the arguments are for regulating something during a moral panic:
- We must regulate this assault science.
- No more than 7 strands of DNA -- why would anyone ever need more than that?
- Scientists must register and be fingerprinted by their local sherrif.
- They must keep all their test tubes in a regulation safe when not in use.
- Scientists shouldn't have access to automatic equipment. No military-style scientific equipment either.
- One equipment purchase per scientist per month.
- Buying scientific equipment for another scientist will be a felony.
- Convicted felons won't be allowed to possess scientific equipment.
- Scientific equipment will only be allowed to be sold through a licensed dealer, with Federal background checks.
These and other common-sense controls will help keep us safe from these rogue scientists. We must enact them now, before it's too late!
Everything in their power = simply don't schedule a vote. Effort expended: none.
Because Democrat voters are less reliable than Republican voters. When there's huge publicity and a maximum effort to drag every last unmotivated person to the polls to vote for President, Democrats do better. During off years unmotivated people stay home and Republicans do better.
That's not it. Mid-term elections don't go well for Democrats, and they don't go well for the President's party in general. If the President is Sanders, that's a steep hill to climb already.
Is Sanders a charismatic leader that can ignite and unify the country? Would you buy a used car from anyone who answered "yes" to that question?
That's quite a story. Maybe add a vampire next time you tell it. Or some magic beans.
Either of them would have to work with a Republican Congress to get anything done. Who thinks one of them can? Which one?
Why should they? What are voters going to do? Start voting based on economic policy?
It might help if the Obama Administration hadn't allowed most of the competing rental car companies to merge, creating an oligopoly that keeps prices high.
You know what would be better still? A balanced policy designed to help all Americans rather than one designed to help the Zuckerbergs and the other rich campaign donors.
Hertz is already doing pretty bad. Uber and Lyft are a huge problem for the rental car companies. And Hertz in particular has accounting irregularities. They're going to have to redo the last 5 years of their financials.
Their only saving grace is that car rental has become an oligopoly. The Obama Administration allowed Avis to merge with Budget and Hertz to merge with Dollar/Thrifty. Avis also bought Zipcar. The other company in the 3-way oligopoly is Enterprise/National. Car rental pricing has been artificially high with less competition.
Uber and Lyft, and the entrance of some smaller competitors (because the car rental business has low barriers to entry -- really, how hard is it to rent cars?) are starting to bring rates down again.
Rather than simply boycotting Hertz, I suggest using a service like Hotwire. Wait until the day before you need to rent a car and then go to Hotwire. Rental companies can either rent you one of their cars for cheap or leave it sitting on their lot earning them nothing. If there are no good deals (because of high demand or because the local city has a high tax on car rentals) just use Uber or Lyft.
If your company has an exclusive deal with Avis or Hertz for business travelers, your company is overpaying, probably by a very large amount. Do some price comparisons with Hotwire and email them to the decision makers. That would be the worst thing for Hertz.
"opens the door to windows" ?
And even if the current crop of voters *did* learn their lesson (which they did not), the next generation has not learned it, and will make the same mistakes all over again.
I don't think the next generation will side with law enforcement. What did the police ever do for them besides hassle them, give them traffic tickets, and threaten to raid their parties? We have the lowest crime in decades and safest highways ever. Law enforcement is generally not needed and increasingly feared by regular people.
The people who like law enforcement are 55+ and remember trying to raise a family during the crime wave times of 1970-1990.
I... I just need to learn to start treating people I don't know as victims who can't survive without my help, especially those who don't want it.
Or just shut up and applaud on cue.
Tenured academic jobs are usually easier and often pay considerably more than private sector jobs.
And it's not a "fraud". It's a field that reached a conclusion with a very high degree of uncertainty. The conclusion is true. There's a real phenomenon. It either means a lot or a little.
Then billions were taxed and spent by power-hungry people based on the possibility that it means "a lot". If it means a lot, then that opens the door for power-hungry elites to micromanage the lives of everyone else, just like they've always wanted to do.
Scientists are incentivized to hype one side versus the other. The high degree of uncertainty allows for a defense of any particular claim. If you want to study something, you can make a defendable claim, raise the alarm, and often get funded to study it.
No wacky insidious conspiracy needed. (But people "conspire" all the time. They discuss a how to present ideas. It's an ordinary thing to do.)