Actually, your comment just made me realize one positive benefit of this. Now you can file for bankruptcy and the debt will be forgiven! So unlike the student loans, this actually gives you a way out. It's not a great one, but it's something...
We'd have to move people away from the seacoasts a bit and some island nations would cease to exist above the waves.
The estimates seem to say that in the next 100 years around 10% of the population will be displaced by this. You think the refugee crisis is bad now, how about we increase it 50 fold?
I lump the people who are anti-GMO right in with the people who are anti-AGW, since they are both anti-science (when it comes to things they disagree with for non-scientific reasons, so yeah, anti-science).
I would LOVE for someone to come along with some real scientific evidence that shows AGW is bullshit. I have absolutely zero vested interest in it being true. But unfortunately I don't get to pick and choose when the scientific method applies and when it doesn't.
As an aside, the GMO CO2-sucking-super-tree sounds like a fantastic idea... is anyone actually working on such a thing? 'Cause seriously I will start planting those things everywhere like Johnny Fucking Appleseed (fun fact: actually his middle name).
Whether climate change is caused by mankind remains a theory at best.
Great! So you're saying that climate change being caused by mankind has achieved the highest level of certainty that any scientific conclusion can reach?
Skepticism means demanding to be disproved by evidence. You seem to have the word confused with cynicism, which is being distrustful of the motives of others.
Generally I find that climate change deniers fall into the latter category.
Aren't all economic systems by definition? Resources are here, people who need resources are there, how do we facilitate the transfer of one to the other?
Are you attempting to prove my point? Your LMGTFY link is to an article where a person alleges that they were raped off of campus, reported it days later to a campus official and were told the campus had no jurisdiction. Days later, they tried to call another campus office, and received no help. Finally the football player was charged with sexual assault and kicked off the team with no evidence or criminal case.
Did you not read the entire article? I realize it's pretty long, maybe it's above your comprehension level? He's in jail right now, after being convicted of 2 counts of rape. The girl mentioned in the article was the fifth complainant about this particular player.
You didn't even read very far into the link you provided:
Common law defined rape as unlawful intercourse by a man against a woman who is not his wife by force or threat and against her will. However most states have refined and broadened the statutory definition of rape so that marriage, gender, and force are not relevant.
So you're not complaining that the legal definition of rape is twisted so men can't be raped, 'cause it sure sounded like you were in the GGP. Now it seems like you're saying that the law should be asymmetrical since one part of the population is more likely to be the offender than the victim. Pick a side will you?
Unless you can provide facts I call bullshit.
I guess I'm the one who's going to have to provide the LMGTFY link. I'll even QTFY:
the U.S. Department of Education is investigating complaints against 161 institutions for their handling of sexual violence investigations.
Also, you're going to have to be more specific about "Duke and UNLV", and how they "both show the assertion to be incorrect". By the way, Duke is back on the DoE's aforementioned list as of January. Since Title IX investigations take 1-2 years, I doubt this is the specific case you're talking about.
The science is showing us that the relationships between sex, gender, psychological identity, and physical nature are very complicated. That's why there is a push to abandon the 2 bathrooms for 2 genders thing, it's way oversimplified.
In fact the legal definition of rape has been warped so that men can not be raped.
Isn't this kind of thing exactly why traditional gender roles and the rules and expectations regarding them should be eschewed?
Also, there are a lot of examples where it's not so easy for a woman to get a guy arrested or expelled from a college/university. Especially if the alleged aggressor is important to the school's sports program. I would say that was a larger contributor to why Penn State went on for as long as it did, not because they were boys...
At my old company we used to provide basic firmware to the CM that would just test the hardware (i.e. push each button, verify that the screen says button was pressed). The devices would be wiped and flashed with the actual firmware in house.
Unlike most people, I (and it seems like you as well) have actually read the Constitution many times (it's therapeutic) and a lot of the FF's writings, but I can't remember this particular intent being mentioned. That's why I went to the Great Compromise, because that's what it sounded like you were talking about. Is it mentioned anywhere in the Federalist or Anti-Federalist papers (or any other FF writings)?
Also, if a city gets (in some hypothetical state) 5 representatives, and the area outside the city gets 1 or 2, wouldn't that just result in the same issue if Senators are appointed by the state legislature? The 5 in this case dominate the proceedings anyway right? I guess it depends on the State's constitution, and how their appointment processes differ. I'd be curious to look at the population distribution and see what percentages live within cities vs. outside of them, state by state.
I never found the 17th Amendment all that controversial, as far as Amendments go. It was ratified pretty quickly, which I know isn't a good reason, but it was by those same legislatures who were giving up their power of appointment after all... I'll tell you what, I'm not convinced, but you've got me thinking (and reading) about it.
It was a lunch break that had been agreed upon prior to the deposition (this wasn't during a trial). Trump decided during the deposition that no one should take any breaks.
Trump then apparently got upset and left the deposition, which could not be finished that day as planned. So, if anyone was postponing "justice", it was Trump, not the lawyer.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, your comment just made me realize one positive benefit of this. Now you can file for bankruptcy and the debt will be forgiven! So unlike the student loans, this actually gives you a way out. It's not a great one, but it's something...
Sometimes they plot to kill other people as well... just sayin'.
Make a few high-profile examples and the populace will get the message.
I don't necessarily disagree with your premise, but as a counter to this particular point... it didn't work with piracy, so why with encryption?
We'd have to move people away from the seacoasts a bit and some island nations would cease to exist above the waves.
The estimates seem to say that in the next 100 years around 10% of the population will be displaced by this. You think the refugee crisis is bad now, how about we increase it 50 fold?
I lump the people who are anti-GMO right in with the people who are anti-AGW, since they are both anti-science (when it comes to things they disagree with for non-scientific reasons, so yeah, anti-science).
I would LOVE for someone to come along with some real scientific evidence that shows AGW is bullshit. I have absolutely zero vested interest in it being true. But unfortunately I don't get to pick and choose when the scientific method applies and when it doesn't.
As an aside, the GMO CO2-sucking-super-tree sounds like a fantastic idea... is anyone actually working on such a thing? 'Cause seriously I will start planting those things everywhere like Johnny Fucking Appleseed (fun fact: actually his middle name).
Whether climate change is caused by mankind remains a theory at best.
Great! So you're saying that climate change being caused by mankind has achieved the highest level of certainty that any scientific conclusion can reach?
Skepticism means demanding to be disproved by evidence. You seem to have the word confused with cynicism, which is being distrustful of the motives of others.
Generally I find that climate change deniers fall into the latter category.
Aren't all economic systems by definition? Resources are here, people who need resources are there, how do we facilitate the transfer of one to the other?
Are you attempting to prove my point? Your LMGTFY link is to an article where a person alleges that they were raped off of campus, reported it days later to a campus official and were told the campus had no jurisdiction. Days later, they tried to call another campus office, and received no help. Finally the football player was charged with sexual assault and kicked off the team with no evidence or criminal case.
Did you not read the entire article? I realize it's pretty long, maybe it's above your comprehension level? He's in jail right now, after being convicted of 2 counts of rape. The girl mentioned in the article was the fifth complainant about this particular player.
You didn't even read very far into the link you provided:
Common law defined rape as unlawful intercourse by a man against a woman who is not his wife by force or threat and against her will. However most states have refined and broadened the statutory definition of rape so that marriage, gender, and force are not relevant.
Who's not very good at cherry picking now?
You seem to know a lot of details about how this crime went down...
Uhhh, Alpha Centauri is 4.37 light-years away, or about 276,000 AU... Unless I'm misunderstanding you, or you're being sarcastic...
Actually there is, it's an old, rarely used noun meaning attention or notice. As in "pay him no nevermind" (i.e. don't pay any attention to him).
Oh, I forgot to mention, you're delusional about Penn State. If Sandusky was a janitor he would have been locked up years ago.
So you're not complaining that the legal definition of rape is twisted so men can't be raped, 'cause it sure sounded like you were in the GGP. Now it seems like you're saying that the law should be asymmetrical since one part of the population is more likely to be the offender than the victim. Pick a side will you?
Unless you can provide facts I call bullshit.
I guess I'm the one who's going to have to provide the LMGTFY link. I'll even QTFY:
the U.S. Department of Education is investigating complaints against 161 institutions for their handling of sexual violence investigations.
Also, you're going to have to be more specific about "Duke and UNLV", and how they "both show the assertion to be incorrect". By the way, Duke is back on the DoE's aforementioned list as of January. Since Title IX investigations take 1-2 years, I doubt this is the specific case you're talking about.
The science is showing us that the relationships between sex, gender, psychological identity, and physical nature are very complicated. That's why there is a push to abandon the 2 bathrooms for 2 genders thing, it's way oversimplified.
In fact the legal definition of rape has been warped so that men can not be raped.
Isn't this kind of thing exactly why traditional gender roles and the rules and expectations regarding them should be eschewed?
Also, there are a lot of examples where it's not so easy for a woman to get a guy arrested or expelled from a college/university. Especially if the alleged aggressor is important to the school's sports program. I would say that was a larger contributor to why Penn State went on for as long as it did, not because they were boys...
Wasn't such a big deal when Amazon just sold books. Do you think they put malware on my Game of Thrones Blu-Rays?! The horror!
At my old company we used to provide basic firmware to the CM that would just test the hardware (i.e. push each button, verify that the screen says button was pressed). The devices would be wiped and flashed with the actual firmware in house.
Can someone tell me where this meme came from? I obviously missed it's inception and google is failing me...
It's compilers all the way down...
Hmm, OK. Sorry I misunderstood...
Unlike most people, I (and it seems like you as well) have actually read the Constitution many times (it's therapeutic) and a lot of the FF's writings, but I can't remember this particular intent being mentioned. That's why I went to the Great Compromise, because that's what it sounded like you were talking about. Is it mentioned anywhere in the Federalist or Anti-Federalist papers (or any other FF writings)?
Also, if a city gets (in some hypothetical state) 5 representatives, and the area outside the city gets 1 or 2, wouldn't that just result in the same issue if Senators are appointed by the state legislature? The 5 in this case dominate the proceedings anyway right? I guess it depends on the State's constitution, and how their appointment processes differ. I'd be curious to look at the population distribution and see what percentages live within cities vs. outside of them, state by state.
I never found the 17th Amendment all that controversial, as far as Amendments go. It was ratified pretty quickly, which I know isn't a good reason, but it was by those same legislatures who were giving up their power of appointment after all... I'll tell you what, I'm not convinced, but you've got me thinking (and reading) about it.
If someone had my family in a direct harm situation, then I shouldn't be the one put in charge of the interrogation.
Quoting Dune? There may be hope for /. after all!
Just wait, the nuke launching rail gun is being installed next.
It was a lunch break that had been agreed upon prior to the deposition (this wasn't during a trial). Trump decided during the deposition that no one should take any breaks.
Trump then apparently got upset and left the deposition, which could not be finished that day as planned. So, if anyone was postponing "justice", it was Trump, not the lawyer.