There was also President Hoover, who was an absolutely amazing metallurgist and mining engineer. Trouble was, he didn't know jack about economics, and deferred to people who he thought knew jack about economics but didn't.
He never said that either. What he said was that while he was in the Senate, he "took the initiative in creating the Internet". In context, it's very very clear that what he was referring to was both ensuring that the government piece of ARPANet was well-funded, and then pushing the changes that allowed the general public to access things via the newfangled ISPs.
If you read the whole story, he legally probably could have, and the bank he deposited it in would have been out the money, but decided to give it back.
They were, if you start by assuming the Bible is at least somewhat accurate.
For instance, the next generation of priests after Leviticus theoretically took place basically passed word around that God wanted the Israelites to completely slaughter the various peoples they encountered in Canaan, including the children, just because they weren't Israelites.
Paul also was bigoted against all sorts of people.
That's not to say that either group was unusual in their bigotry at the time they lived.
I would wish there was a "none of the above" option on the ballot, I would have used it for almost 20 years. As there isn't, abstaining is the only option I have to express myself in an election.
There's another way: The write-in line. Write in yourself, or write in the leader of Pirate Party USA, or whatever floats your boat, but that way your vote is registered as being for somebody other than either major party's candidate.
As far as lesser-evil is concerned, whether it's better to vote for lesser-evil or good guy (even if you have to write somebody in) depends on two factors: How likely it is that greater evil will win (in your state if it's a US-style presidential election) and the degree of difference between greater evil and lesser evil. If you'd rate greater evil 0 of 100 and lesser evil 2 of 100, go ahead and vote for third party or write-in. If greater evil or lesser evil is polling at 65% of the vote, go ahead and vote for third party or write-in. If, on the other hand, you have a choice between 0 of 100 and 40 of 100, and it's a really close race, you might consider voting for lesser evil just so there's less damage done.
If I dislike (or like) all candidates in an election equally, not voting is a (even the) proper choice.
No, it's not. The proper choice is to write in somebody else. Even yourself for President of the United States. Sure it seems silly, and there's no chance you're going to win, but if people who disliked everybody regularly voted that kind of way, we'd see people carrying states with 37% support rather than 53% support. That makes it considerably harder to argue that the one who won really represents the whole of the electorate or has any kind of 'mandate'.
There are plenty of elderly who can drive perfectly well. They'll pass the retest and retraining no problem.
The issue I was bringing up was elderly people who used to be perfectly good drivers and now are physically and/or mentally incapable of driving safely but also unwilling to give up driving. I have enough older relatives to understand this much: it's more than giving up driving, it's giving up the independence that made the elder an adult, and thus it's the elder giving up his/her feeling of adulthood.
There are 3 obvious answers on where it got its votes from: 1. Cell phone companies astroturfing to oppose the measure.
2. Libertarians who view this kind of thing as an unwarranted intrusion philosophically.
3. People who regularly talk on their cell phones while driving, and don't want to stop, and are looking for excuses for why it's OK.
Only the second group of people is remotely intellectually honest, and for them I just point out that it's not about whether you're putting your own life at risk, but whether you're putting everyone else's life at risk.
I'm with Xyverz on this one: All drivers in general should have to retest and retrain periodically (although I might make it 5 years rather than 2-4).
Among other things, this would result in a dramatic reduction in the number of "half-blind elderly driver drives through a mall without realizing it" cases.
If you're using a hands-free device, you're just basically having a conversation with someone who isn't actually in the car. It's not going to be any more inherently distracting than having a conversation with somebody who is in the car. So if hands-free phones are a problem... So is talking to a passenger.
It most definitely is more distracting than having a conversation with someone in the car: 2008 study.
Most thieves are opportunists, and unless they've been watching you and really, really, REALLY want what you've got, then simply locking the car securely is your best bet.
It depends where you are. For instance, where I live locking your car is probably fine. Where my sister lives, if it looks like you have something worth stealing in your car the difference between a locked car and an unlocked car is whether you also have a smashed window.
Some states do, actually, with a separate juvenile system. That started trending the other way, though, when gangs decided that the best way to commit crimes was to have all your front-line people be minors so they'd be punished less if they got caught.
No more than the Occupy movement has been co-opted by the Democratic party and its operatives.
Really? If you asked them, you'd know that they have very little use for Obama's protection of bankers. A lot of them have made it very clear that they don't support the Democratic Party or its candidates. Not one national Democratic Party figure has taken part in an Occupy event. They've spent none of the money they've collected on supporting Democratic candidates.
Not all human trafficking is about sexual slavery (although a lot is). In addition, in countries that are trying to combat it, like the US, there are generally provisions in the law that make it so that trafficked prostitutes can't be charged with a crime if they manage to escape and contact authorities.
Don't believe anything just because you have read it.
FTFY. You should almost never completely believe a single source on anything. And if it really matters, you should check what each of your sources based their statement on, to try to mitigate the "Wikipedia says something without attribution, news article copies Wikipedia without attribution, Wikipedia edited to cite news article" problem.
On top of this, a restraining order is only as good as the resolve of the Judge that signed it. Both of those two men later violated the order we had against them (literally chased my wife and daughters at knife point, only to be held off by a total stranger with a 12-guage. (Thank you, if you're reading this!)), witnessed by over a dozen police officers (fuck you, Alaska State Troopers), admitted their guilt in court to the very same judge that signed the violated order...and walked out of that courtroom before I did, free men.
Please name names and jurisdiction if possible. If police officers and judges choose not to respond at all to an assault with a deadly weapon (a serious felony in most states), it is definitely in the public interest to know that. I'm not saying you didn't do the right thing by leaving, just that corruption like this ought to be exposed to scrutiny.
And he [Hitler] was a mass-murdering fuckhead, as many important historians have said. But there were other mass murderers that got away with it! Stalin killed many millions, died in his bed, well done there; Pol Pot killed 1.7 million Cambodians, died under house arrest at age 72, well done indeed! And the reason we let them get away with it is because they killed their own people, and we're sort of fine with that. “Ah, help yourself,” you know? “We've been trying to kill you for ages!” So kill your own people, right on there. Seems to be Hitler killed people next door... “Oh stupid man!” After a couple of years, we won't stand for that, will we?
Pol Pot killed 1.7 million people. We can't even deal with that! You know, we think if somebody kills someone, that's murder, you go to prison. You kill 10 people, you go to Texas, they hit you with a brick, that's what they do. 20 people, you go to a hospital, they look through a small window at you forever. And over that, we can't deal with it, you know? Someone's killed 100,000 people. We're almost going, "Well done! You killed 100,000 people? You must get up very early in the morning. I can't even get down the gym! Your diary must look odd: “Get up in the morning, death, death, death, death, death, death, death – lunch- death, death, death -afternoon tea - death, death, death - quick shower"
Slashdot Mirror
There was also President Hoover, who was an absolutely amazing metallurgist and mining engineer. Trouble was, he didn't know jack about economics, and deferred to people who he thought knew jack about economics but didn't.
He never said that either. What he said was that while he was in the Senate, he "took the initiative in creating the Internet". In context, it's very very clear that what he was referring to was both ensuring that the government piece of ARPANet was well-funded, and then pushing the changes that allowed the general public to access things via the newfangled ISPs.
“I don’t know what weapons will be used in world war three, but in world war four people will use sticks and stones.” – Albert Einstein
If you read the whole story, he legally probably could have, and the bank he deposited it in would have been out the money, but decided to give it back.
... using a crowbar. That will make photo shoots a lot more entertaining.
A civilization of mega-giants, of course. Can't you read?
There's even a book, Zen at War by Brian Daizen Victoria specifically focused on how Zen influenced Japanese ideology for WWII.
They were, if you start by assuming the Bible is at least somewhat accurate.
For instance, the next generation of priests after Leviticus theoretically took place basically passed word around that God wanted the Israelites to completely slaughter the various peoples they encountered in Canaan, including the children, just because they weren't Israelites.
Paul also was bigoted against all sorts of people.
That's not to say that either group was unusual in their bigotry at the time they lived.
I would wish there was a "none of the above" option on the ballot, I would have used it for almost 20 years. As there isn't, abstaining is the only option I have to express myself in an election.
There's another way: The write-in line. Write in yourself, or write in the leader of Pirate Party USA, or whatever floats your boat, but that way your vote is registered as being for somebody other than either major party's candidate.
As far as lesser-evil is concerned, whether it's better to vote for lesser-evil or good guy (even if you have to write somebody in) depends on two factors: How likely it is that greater evil will win (in your state if it's a US-style presidential election) and the degree of difference between greater evil and lesser evil. If you'd rate greater evil 0 of 100 and lesser evil 2 of 100, go ahead and vote for third party or write-in. If greater evil or lesser evil is polling at 65% of the vote, go ahead and vote for third party or write-in. If, on the other hand, you have a choice between 0 of 100 and 40 of 100, and it's a really close race, you might consider voting for lesser evil just so there's less damage done.
If I dislike (or like) all candidates in an election equally, not voting is a (even the) proper choice.
No, it's not. The proper choice is to write in somebody else. Even yourself for President of the United States. Sure it seems silly, and there's no chance you're going to win, but if people who disliked everybody regularly voted that kind of way, we'd see people carrying states with 37% support rather than 53% support. That makes it considerably harder to argue that the one who won really represents the whole of the electorate or has any kind of 'mandate'.
There are plenty of elderly who can drive perfectly well. They'll pass the retest and retraining no problem.
The issue I was bringing up was elderly people who used to be perfectly good drivers and now are physically and/or mentally incapable of driving safely but also unwilling to give up driving. I have enough older relatives to understand this much: it's more than giving up driving, it's giving up the independence that made the elder an adult, and thus it's the elder giving up his/her feeling of adulthood.
There are 3 obvious answers on where it got its votes from:
1. Cell phone companies astroturfing to oppose the measure.
2. Libertarians who view this kind of thing as an unwarranted intrusion philosophically.
3. People who regularly talk on their cell phones while driving, and don't want to stop, and are looking for excuses for why it's OK.
Only the second group of people is remotely intellectually honest, and for them I just point out that it's not about whether you're putting your own life at risk, but whether you're putting everyone else's life at risk.
I'm with Xyverz on this one: All drivers in general should have to retest and retrain periodically (although I might make it 5 years rather than 2-4).
Among other things, this would result in a dramatic reduction in the number of "half-blind elderly driver drives through a mall without realizing it" cases.
I would absolutely guarantee you that 50% of all drivers are above the median in terms of safe driving skills.
If you're using a hands-free device, you're just basically having a conversation with someone who isn't actually in the car. It's not going to be any more inherently distracting than having a conversation with somebody who is in the car. So if hands-free phones are a problem... So is talking to a passenger.
It most definitely is more distracting than having a conversation with someone in the car: 2008 study.
Handsfree phones should be required; anything else should be prohibited.
Hands-free doesn't help:
http://unews.utah.edu/old/p/062206-1.html
http://www.aaafoundation.org/resources/index.cfm?button=cellphone
There are other studies to point to. Point is, it's not the distraction of the hands that's the really big problem, it's the distraction of the brain.
Most thieves are opportunists, and unless they've been watching you and really, really, REALLY want what you've got, then simply locking the car securely is your best bet.
It depends where you are. For instance, where I live locking your car is probably fine. Where my sister lives, if it looks like you have something worth stealing in your car the difference between a locked car and an unlocked car is whether you also have a smashed window.
I'm not.
we don't separate kids from adults
Some states do, actually, with a separate juvenile system. That started trending the other way, though, when gangs decided that the best way to commit crimes was to have all your front-line people be minors so they'd be punished less if they got caught.
No more than the Occupy movement has been co-opted by the Democratic party and its operatives.
Really? If you asked them, you'd know that they have very little use for Obama's protection of bankers. A lot of them have made it very clear that they don't support the Democratic Party or its candidates. Not one national Democratic Party figure has taken part in an Occupy event. They've spent none of the money they've collected on supporting Democratic candidates.
Not all human trafficking is about sexual slavery (although a lot is). In addition, in countries that are trying to combat it, like the US, there are generally provisions in the law that make it so that trafficked prostitutes can't be charged with a crime if they manage to escape and contact authorities.
Don't believe anything just because you have read it.
FTFY. You should almost never completely believe a single source on anything. And if it really matters, you should check what each of your sources based their statement on, to try to mitigate the "Wikipedia says something without attribution, news article copies Wikipedia without attribution, Wikipedia edited to cite news article" problem.
all the editors are still very cumbersome and error prune
[Notice, I'm too classy of a guy to make any kind of joke over here.]
I'm not: You really ought to loosen up, you'll feel a lot more comfortable.
On top of this, a restraining order is only as good as the resolve of the Judge that signed it. Both of those two men later violated the order we had against them (literally chased my wife and daughters at knife point, only to be held off by a total stranger with a 12-guage. (Thank you, if you're reading this!)), witnessed by over a dozen police officers (fuck you, Alaska State Troopers), admitted their guilt in court to the very same judge that signed the violated order...and walked out of that courtroom before I did, free men.
Please name names and jurisdiction if possible. If police officers and judges choose not to respond at all to an assault with a deadly weapon (a serious felony in most states), it is definitely in the public interest to know that. I'm not saying you didn't do the right thing by leaving, just that corruption like this ought to be exposed to scrutiny.
Eddie Izzard said it best:
And he [Hitler] was a mass-murdering fuckhead, as many important historians have said. But there were other mass murderers that got away with it! Stalin killed many millions, died in his bed, well done there; Pol Pot killed 1.7 million Cambodians, died under house arrest at age 72, well done indeed! And the reason we let them get away with it is because they killed their own people, and we're sort of fine with that. “Ah, help yourself,” you know? “We've been trying to kill you for ages!” So kill your own people, right on there. Seems to be Hitler killed people next door... “Oh stupid man!” After a couple of years, we won't stand for that, will we?
Pol Pot killed 1.7 million people. We can't even deal with that! You know, we think if somebody kills someone, that's murder, you go to prison. You kill 10 people, you go to Texas, they hit you with a brick, that's what they do. 20 people, you go to a hospital, they look through a small window at you forever. And over that, we can't deal with it, you know? Someone's killed 100,000 people. We're almost going, "Well done! You killed 100,000 people? You must get up very early in the morning. I can't even get down the gym! Your diary must look odd: “Get up in the morning, death, death, death, death, death, death, death – lunch- death, death, death -afternoon tea - death, death, death - quick shower"