A court commissioner in San Diego dismissed the Google Glass ticket, saying he could find no evidence that the device was in use while Abadie was driving.
She wasn't ticketed for using Glass, she was ticketed for Glass being there.
No, it means a trusted third party is required to transact in BTC at the moment. There's nothing inherent about bitcoin that means it can be traded for alpaca socks, but not pumpkins. If bitcoin becomes more widely used, it's value will stabilise. If it's value stabilises, it'll become accepted by more merchants, including merchants selling food.
Really, you're just re-iterating the same sentiment Ken Olson did: "There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home". No, there probably wasn't - then. His failure and yours is that you insist on assuming that the current state of affairs will persist indefinitely into the future. The value of bitcoin isn't what you can do with it now, but what you might be able to do with it in the future.
I don't think you understand COINTELPRO's purpose - even if they are squeaky clean (or at least, clean enough you can't find sufficiently juicy dirt on them), you can still frame them, lie about them, and spread misinformation via the press.
And if you don't go out and buy a hundred thousand condoms RIGHT NOW, you hate the poor, because you not buying things you don't need is denying them their God-given right to economies of scale.
When your church consists entirely of celibate nuns, or males (as the example in the summary did) then yes, the need for maternity cover in your health policy is pretty dang slim.
Yeah, it really sucks to have to cover treatments that nobody in your church winds up using. E.g., if nobody in your church gets cancer this year, why the hell did the church have to pay for coverage of cancer? It's just a waste of money, right?
No, it sucks to have to cover treatments that nobody in your church is at risk of.
Incorrect. The hormones in birth control pills are used to treat a variety of health issues. Writing a health plan so that it excludes paying for particular medicines is antithetical to the goal of universal health coverage.
Insurance doesn't cover medications; they cover treatments - that is, medications for a specific purpose. It's fairly trivial to exclude the pill for contraceptive purposes, but include it for treatment of acne, or menstrual period stabilisation.
It's making a petty point, at great expense to those who might need the medicine, because you, a supposed Christian, care more about winning than you do about caring for the sick. I'm pretty sure that's not what Jesus would do.
Removing contraception from your coverage has no effect at all on other people whose coverage does/should contain contraception.
The problem is the government mandated a one-size-fits-all solution, when one size doesn't damn well fit all.
I had a libertarian tell me with a serious face that if we just gave everyone in the USA a three bedroom house nobody would be poor.
No, you didn't. I have no idea what political ideology he followed, but if he was suggesting compulsory governmental welfare, it clearly wasn't libertarianism.
For their public, unpaid repositories, their ToS state that they can take them down at their discretion, at any time. If you want some accountability, pay for a repository - then I'd expect a reason.
I'd have probably done the same thing in their place - they want GitHub to be a place for collaboration for software development, not the next ytmnd.com
They didn't actually downgrade anything - headline is, as per usual, flamebait. They're using the same technology, they just expect to (surprise, surprise) go over-budget and behind schedule. The previous governments NBN's roll-out was also over-budget and behind schedule, so it's really nothing to do with the technology chosen - it's the tendency of politicians from both parties to over-promise and under-deliver.
So, no carbs, no protein, no fat - you haven't seriously tried losing weight unless you subsist on nothing but fruit and vegetables? Good luck staying healthy with that sort of diet.
Uh-huh. And if you haven't tried living off bananas, limited fasting, acai berries, or whatever the next fad diet to come along is, you haven't seriously tried losing weight either.
There is no "proper" way to set up a website such that it can withstand an arbitrarily large DDOS attack. All you can do is throw more money at it until you have more capacity than the DDOSer does.
The expectations and limitations might be cultural, but technology shapes culture, just as much as the inverse.
Take tasers; yes, I'd much rather be shot with a taser than with a gun. The issue, of course, is that tasers are used in situations where people wouldn't resort to a gun, because they're promoted as "safer".
It's the same issue as this; I'm against allowing the state to use these devices because, while I'm not particularly afraid they will shoot my engine block out, I'm not so certain they won't use these ostensibly "safe" devices much more recklessly, due to their perceived innocuity.
No, but you HAVE had the expectation that someone can't point a device at your property and cause it to fry itself. Just like you had the expectation that someone wouldn't shoot your horse, pre-auto.
Driving a car on a public road doesn't somehow mean all your rights are nullified.
Yeah! The government should have the right to do whatever the hell it wants to you on public property. Get shot by a cop walking down the sidewalk? Should have been walking on your own fucking sidewalk. You were asking for it, bitch.
All of these are pegged directly to real gov. currencies and hence are legislated to be honoured as an obligation for cash exchange within the bounds of their own rules. There may be terms on maintaining balance/etc, but it's illegal to withhold payment if in good standing.
Not really; gift cards are considered to be debts to be honoured, not a currency. This was pointedly demonstrated to Australians who had Borders gift cards when they went into receivership down here. As part of their insolvency, they declared that their gift cards would only be worth half the face price.
You have entirely failed to prove your point. The OPs claim was that "No bank or financial institution will ever be able to do as much harm to a population as a bad government", not that banks cannot ever do harm. In order to prove that, you'd have to show that the Panic of 1857 was more harmful that attrocities likethese.
Blowing the whistle on what she thinks was research misconduct cost her 14 years and $200,000.
What actually happened, from the article: she thinks a colleague forged results, and spent 14 years and $200,000 voluntarily pursuing court action, which repeatedly found there was no wrong-doing. She was not fired, was not fined, was not imprisoned.
The summary's deliberately phrased to be inflammatory, and imply that she was persecuted for whistle-blowing.
That's due to selection bias. The nations that China won against aren't nations any more, and you therefore don't consider them when looking at China's war record.
Slashdot Mirror
From the summary
A court commissioner in San Diego dismissed the Google Glass ticket, saying he could find no evidence that the device was in use while Abadie was driving.
She wasn't ticketed for using Glass, she was ticketed for Glass being there.
No, it means a trusted third party is required to transact in BTC at the moment. There's nothing inherent about bitcoin that means it can be traded for alpaca socks, but not pumpkins. If bitcoin becomes more widely used, it's value will stabilise. If it's value stabilises, it'll become accepted by more merchants, including merchants selling food.
Really, you're just re-iterating the same sentiment Ken Olson did: "There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home". No, there probably wasn't - then. His failure and yours is that you insist on assuming that the current state of affairs will persist indefinitely into the future. The value of bitcoin isn't what you can do with it now, but what you might be able to do with it in the future.
No. You have to have a third party to convert bitcoins to USD. That's due to the nature of USD, not bitcoin.
If you were transacting purely it bitcoin, you wouldn't need a third party.
I don't think you understand COINTELPRO's purpose - even if they are squeaky clean (or at least, clean enough you can't find sufficiently juicy dirt on them), you can still frame them, lie about them, and spread misinformation via the press.
And if you don't go out and buy a hundred thousand condoms RIGHT NOW, you hate the poor, because you not buying things you don't need is denying them their God-given right to economies of scale.
When your church consists entirely of celibate nuns, or males (as the example in the summary did) then yes, the need for maternity cover in your health policy is pretty dang slim.
Yeah, it really sucks to have to cover treatments that nobody in your church winds up using. E.g., if nobody in your church gets cancer this year, why the hell did the church have to pay for coverage of cancer? It's just a waste of money, right?
No, it sucks to have to cover treatments that nobody in your church is at risk of.
Incorrect. The hormones in birth control pills are used to treat a variety of health issues. Writing a health plan so that it excludes paying for particular medicines is antithetical to the goal of universal health coverage.
Insurance doesn't cover medications; they cover treatments - that is, medications for a specific purpose. It's fairly trivial to exclude the pill for contraceptive purposes, but include it for treatment of acne, or menstrual period stabilisation.
It's making a petty point, at great expense to those who might need the medicine, because you, a supposed Christian, care more about winning than you do about caring for the sick. I'm pretty sure that's not what Jesus would do.
Removing contraception from your coverage has no effect at all on other people whose coverage does/should contain contraception.
The problem is the government mandated a one-size-fits-all solution, when one size doesn't damn well fit all.
I had a libertarian tell me with a serious face that if we just gave everyone in the USA a three bedroom house nobody would be poor.
No, you didn't. I have no idea what political ideology he followed, but if he was suggesting compulsory governmental welfare, it clearly wasn't libertarianism.
For their public, unpaid repositories, their ToS state that they can take them down at their discretion, at any time. If you want some accountability, pay for a repository - then I'd expect a reason.
I'd have probably done the same thing in their place - they want GitHub to be a place for collaboration for software development, not the next ytmnd.com
They didn't actually downgrade anything - headline is, as per usual, flamebait. They're using the same technology, they just expect to (surprise, surprise) go over-budget and behind schedule. The previous governments NBN's roll-out was also over-budget and behind schedule, so it's really nothing to do with the technology chosen - it's the tendency of politicians from both parties to over-promise and under-deliver.
The same could be said about the car industry in its first five years.
The internet may have been around much longer, but data-centric cloud storage providers are a very young industry.
He was planning on using RAID 5, but turns out the write-times on those tablets are a bitch.
Golden Eagles and Bald Eagles are both rated "Least Concern" in terms of endangered species. They're not "rare birds".
So, no carbs, no protein, no fat - you haven't seriously tried losing weight unless you subsist on nothing but fruit and vegetables? Good luck staying healthy with that sort of diet.
Uh-huh. And if you haven't tried living off bananas, limited fasting, acai berries, or whatever the next fad diet to come along is, you haven't seriously tried losing weight either.
There is no "proper" way to set up a website such that it can withstand an arbitrarily large DDOS attack. All you can do is throw more money at it until you have more capacity than the DDOSer does.
The expectations and limitations might be cultural, but technology shapes culture, just as much as the inverse.
Take tasers; yes, I'd much rather be shot with a taser than with a gun. The issue, of course, is that tasers are used in situations where people wouldn't resort to a gun, because they're promoted as "safer".
It's the same issue as this; I'm against allowing the state to use these devices because, while I'm not particularly afraid they will shoot my engine block out, I'm not so certain they won't use these ostensibly "safe" devices much more recklessly, due to their perceived innocuity.
No, but you HAVE had the expectation that someone can't point a device at your property and cause it to fry itself. Just like you had the expectation that someone wouldn't shoot your horse, pre-auto.
Driving a car on a public road doesn't somehow mean all your rights are nullified.
You have trouble with rational debate, don't you?
Yeah! The government should have the right to do whatever the hell it wants to you on public property. Get shot by a cop walking down the sidewalk? Should have been walking on your own fucking sidewalk. You were asking for it, bitch.
All of these are pegged directly to real gov. currencies and hence are legislated to be honoured as an obligation for cash exchange within the bounds of their own rules. There may be terms on maintaining balance/etc, but it's illegal to withhold payment if in good standing.
Not really; gift cards are considered to be debts to be honoured, not a currency. This was pointedly demonstrated to Australians who had Borders gift cards when they went into receivership down here. As part of their insolvency, they declared that their gift cards would only be worth half the face price.
You have entirely failed to prove your point. The OPs claim was that "No bank or financial institution will ever be able to do as much harm to a population as a bad government", not that banks cannot ever do harm. In order to prove that, you'd have to show that the Panic of 1857 was more harmful that attrocities
like these.
Blowing the whistle on what she thinks was research misconduct cost her 14 years and $200,000.
What actually happened, from the article: she thinks a colleague forged results, and spent 14 years and $200,000 voluntarily pursuing court action, which repeatedly found there was no wrong-doing. She was not fired, was not fined, was not imprisoned.
The summary's deliberately phrased to be inflammatory, and imply that she was persecuted for whistle-blowing.
Obviously, this only emphasises the need for more surveillance.
That's due to selection bias. The nations that China won against aren't nations any more, and you therefore don't consider them when looking at China's war record.