Doesn't the idea of blue and red states going their own way contradict the idea of more diversity makes us stronger? Not that I agree with that assumption.
OMG, you people get so fucking worked up against Trump that you fail to realize that the ban would already be over if it had been allowed to go into effect. It was only supposed to be for 90 days. Stop your whining already. And don't start with the bullshit argument that they should have their vetting plan in place, DHS has been blocked from doing so. https://www.usatoday.com/story...
So, are you opposed to it because it's coming from the Trump administration? And, would it have been okay for Obama's administration to do this with the same countries they identified as needing extra scrutiny? Those countries mentioned by the parent were chosen by the intelligence community, and later updated by them during Obama's presidency.
I get the whole, I hate Trump, position. But what I don't get is the logic behind being against everything from him or his administration, just to be "the resistance". I'm not a fan either, but I'm not willing to ignore the message just because I don't like the messenger.
To those who think experimentation should just be a free for all, I'd argue that there are well designed experiments, and there are poorly designed ones. And if you're fucking around with the climate on any scale larger than the laboratory, then there should be some oversight. Just a couple of famous examples of shit happens....
So, we've had a previous ruling that companies are people. For the sake of discussion, let's say an American citizen hides money in an offshore account. Can a court compel that person to do something with those funds?... Answer: Yes. My question to legal scholars would be, how does this differ if an American company does something similar with data?
Disclaimer: I'm a privacy advocate, and don't agree with the companies = people ruling.
Why is this action surprising to anyone? If you were running a business, would you allow your direct competitor access to your (or your suppliers) pricing information? That would clearly give them the upper hand. Anyone who thinks that's a smart idea should be fired.
Not to "one up" you, but I have not so fond memories of being stationed at Offutt AFB, Neb. back in '77 when they set he record number of days below 0F at 36 days....you can see the numbers from nearby Lincoln at the site below. I had a mile to walk to and from work for mid shift in thin fatigues. We had -70 wind chill one day....Brrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!
Unless the runway length is too short for the reduced performance, pilots care about the Density Altitude, more so aloft at the altitude they plan to fly. It also affects:
Reduced rate of climb.
Increased TAS (but same IAS) on approach and landing. TAS = true airspeed, IAS = Indicated airspeed
Increased landing roll distance.
And from a FAA safety pamphlet: Why Does Density Altitude Matter? High Density Altitude = Decreased Performance The formal definition of density altitude is certainly correct, but the important thing to understand is that density altitude is an indicator of aircraft performance. The term comes from the fact that the density of the air decreases with altitude. A “high” density altitude means that air density is reduced, which has an adverse impact on aircraft performance. The published performance criteria in the Pilot’s Operating Handbook (POH) are generally based on standard atmospheric conditions at sea level (that is, 59 oF or 15 oC. and 29.92 inches of mercury). Your aircraft will not perform according to “book numbers” unless the conditions are the same as those used to develop the published performance criteria. For example, if an airport whose elevation is 500 MSL has a reported density altitude of 5,000 feet, aircraft operating to and from that airport will perform as if the airport elevation were 5,000 feet.
At least look up what you're talking about if you're going to argue against it.
The actual quote from Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, was "falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater". Which blows away the rest of your drivel.
There's a big difference between saying something offensive, and preventing others from enjoying themselves. Now, as someone who's not religious (I personally treat it as a holiday to enjoy family and friends, not a religious event), I'll tell you that I'm fine with the idea that our tax dollars shouldn't be spent on those items supporting it. But, we shouldn't be wasting our time trying to keep groups who do from gathering and celebrating publicly. If a govt. employee wants to put up a Merry Christmas sign at their desk, nobody should be able to stop them. When the Fortune 500 company I work at no longer allows employees to have any Christmas decorations at their desks, I'd argue that that's a War on Christmas, and it's simply spiteful.
I'm all for people speaking their minds, but if you want a completely uncensored group, you may have to make it yourself. And then you'll discover the SJWs, and other groups coming at you complaining about hate speech, What happens when your site gets bombarded by some group of neo-nazis, religious fanatics, etc.?...would you feel the same about leaving it uncensored? What if they start spamming your site?
Your general idea is good, but the implementation and operation could be problematic. That's all I'm trying to point out.
You might want to actually look up the history of slavery by race before you make stupid comments. To be fair, you did specify "our country", but that's not a legitimate excuse. So, LMGTFY...
Over a million Europeans were held as slaves from the 1530s through the 1780s in Africa, and hundreds of thousands were kept as slaves by the Ottomans in eastern Europe and Asia
Disclaimer: I'm very much in favor of allowing people to speak freely.
That said, your constitutional right doesn't give you the right to speak freely on a site that's owned by someone else. Their site, their rules. Make your own site, and express yourself.
Slashdot Mirror
Doesn't the idea of blue and red states going their own way contradict the idea of more diversity makes us stronger? Not that I agree with that assumption.
OMG, you people get so fucking worked up against Trump that you fail to realize that the ban would already be over if it had been allowed to go into effect. It was only supposed to be for 90 days. Stop your whining already. And don't start with the bullshit argument that they should have their vetting plan in place, DHS has been blocked from doing so.
https://www.usatoday.com/story...
Not directed to the parent....
So, are you opposed to it because it's coming from the Trump administration? And, would it have been okay for Obama's administration to do this with the same countries they identified as needing extra scrutiny? Those countries mentioned by the parent were chosen by the intelligence community, and later updated by them during Obama's presidency.
I get the whole, I hate Trump, position. But what I don't get is the logic behind being against everything from him or his administration, just to be "the resistance". I'm not a fan either, but I'm not willing to ignore the message just because I don't like the messenger.
Please try to look it up before posting such rubbish.
You expect mods to pay attn. to an AC, who very well could be the same as the OP? Get a grip.
His statement didn't go anywhere near the extreme that you're stating. There's a big difference between anarchy and minimal government.
To those who think experimentation should just be a free for all, I'd argue that there are well designed experiments, and there are poorly designed ones. And if you're fucking around with the climate on any scale larger than the laboratory, then there should be some oversight. Just a couple of famous examples of shit happens....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
They aren't "his" experiments and we also know which chemicals harm us.
Twenty years ago, nobody would have said CO2 would harm us. We wouldn't have catalytic converters if they knew.
So, we've had a previous ruling that companies are people. For the sake of discussion, let's say an American citizen hides money in an offshore account. Can a court compel that person to do something with those funds?... Answer: Yes. My question to legal scholars would be, how does this differ if an American company does something similar with data?
Disclaimer: I'm a privacy advocate, and don't agree with the companies = people ruling.
Why is this action surprising to anyone? If you were running a business, would you allow your direct competitor access to your (or your suppliers) pricing information? That would clearly give them the upper hand. Anyone who thinks that's a smart idea should be fired.
Not to "one up" you, but I have not so fond memories of being stationed at Offutt AFB, Neb. back in '77 when they set he record number of days below 0F at 36 days....you can see the numbers from nearby Lincoln at the site below. I had a mile to walk to and from work for mid shift in thin fatigues. We had -70 wind chill one day....Brrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!
http://snr.unl.edu/lincolnweat...
you are a retard
And you're an AC, which is most certainly lower on an evolutionary scale.
Unless the runway length is too short for the reduced performance, pilots care about the Density Altitude, more so aloft at the altitude they plan to fly. It also affects:
Reduced rate of climb.
Increased TAS (but same IAS) on approach and landing. TAS = true airspeed, IAS = Indicated airspeed
Increased landing roll distance.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
And from a FAA safety pamphlet:
Why Does Density Altitude Matter?
High Density Altitude = Decreased Performance
The formal definition of density altitude is certainly correct, but the important thing to understand is that density
altitude is an indicator of aircraft performance. The term comes from the fact that the density of the air decreases
with altitude. A “high” density altitude means that air density is reduced, which has an adverse impact on aircraft
performance. The published performance criteria in the Pilot’s Operating Handbook (POH) are generally based on
standard atmospheric conditions at sea level (that is, 59 oF or 15 oC. and 29.92 inches of mercury). Your aircraft will
not perform according to “book numbers” unless the conditions are the same as those used to develop the published
performance criteria. For example, if an airport whose elevation is 500 MSL has a reported density altitude
of 5,000 feet, aircraft operating to and from that airport will perform as if the airport elevation were 5,000 feet.
SCOTUS says they don't need to define it...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
The boundary of free speech is wherever SCOTUS defines it, and since the quote was attributed to a Justice, I'd suggest you reevaluate your position.
At least look up what you're talking about if you're going to argue against it.
The actual quote from Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, was "falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater". Which blows away the rest of your drivel.
Google "has anyone been prosecuted for hate speech", and you'll find that prosecutors will disagree with your opinion.
I'm going to argue that Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes was more of an expert on the law than you,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Virginia does allow eight letters on some personalized plates. You can look up the "Drive Smart" plate for example.
Come to VA. We've got over 200 specialty plates...here's a link to some of them.
https://www.dmv.virginia.gov/v...
There's a big difference between saying something offensive, and preventing others from enjoying themselves. Now, as someone who's not religious (I personally treat it as a holiday to enjoy family and friends, not a religious event), I'll tell you that I'm fine with the idea that our tax dollars shouldn't be spent on those items supporting it. But, we shouldn't be wasting our time trying to keep groups who do from gathering and celebrating publicly. If a govt. employee wants to put up a Merry Christmas sign at their desk, nobody should be able to stop them. When the Fortune 500 company I work at no longer allows employees to have any Christmas decorations at their desks, I'd argue that that's a War on Christmas, and it's simply spiteful.
I'm all for people speaking their minds, but if you want a completely uncensored group, you may have to make it yourself. And then you'll discover the SJWs, and other groups coming at you complaining about hate speech, What happens when your site gets bombarded by some group of neo-nazis, religious fanatics, etc.?...would you feel the same about leaving it uncensored? What if they start spamming your site?
Your general idea is good, but the implementation and operation could be problematic. That's all I'm trying to point out.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
You might want to actually look up the history of slavery by race before you make stupid comments. To be fair, you did specify "our country", but that's not a legitimate excuse. So, LMGTFY...
Over a million Europeans were held as slaves from the 1530s through the 1780s in Africa, and hundreds of thousands were kept as slaves by the Ottomans in eastern Europe and Asia
Disclaimer: I'm very much in favor of allowing people to speak freely.
That said, your constitutional right doesn't give you the right to speak freely on a site that's owned by someone else. Their site, their rules. Make your own site, and express yourself.