Not to mention that clean, adulterant-free opiates are dirt cheap to manufacture. It's also much easier to get clean if you decide you want to when you're already in contact with healthcare professionals.
I would consider imprisoning people who use drugs because drugs cause people who use them to suffer to be both stupid and backwards (those two are frequently interchangeable though).
I consider myself at the centre of the political spectrum, right leaning fiscally and left leaning socially.
I think this scares the hell out of arrogant assholes on both sides. To hear many Slashdotters talk, the above is the most terrible thing you can be. People on both the left and right want to co-opt the "L" word into meaning something unspeakable, instead of the above, which is actually what it means.
Were the effect of the parachute unknown, or only suspected, the experiment would have been an absolute, unqualified success.
The example is simply using something which is already know (and hence absurd to use as an experiment) in order to distract from the actual purpose and effects of experimentation.
Of course there are exceptions, since humans aren't machines. Your comment was the only one making black-and-white assumptions. I'm really not sure what you're angling at with this reply.
How does the potential for someone who has self-control to sometimes make mistakes by acting impulsively invalidate the point that people who are unable to exercise self-control have a problem which goes beyond the failure of a single marriage?
Maybe it wasn't intended to further a rebuttal argument, in which case I'm even more lost as to the point of the reply. Perhaps it was meant to go in the direction of exploring the idea that not all lack of self-control indicates a problem with anything but a specific relationship, or to say that not all people who are capable of self-control are happier than those who have none.
Why do you view the decisions of others from a social angle if such has no bearing on yours then? It seems... odd.
"Full beard," at least as far as the few organizations who have reason to clearly define it, precludes shaving of the cheeks and neck; most people would throw you into the "goatee" category as well.
I don't think anyone is questioning the advantages of the relationship. What's being questioned is the advantage of the contract.
In my relationship we have all those advantages, and don't miss any of the few additional ones which would come from a marriage contract. The only intrinsic one is medical decisions, and that's solved with a living will and advanced directives.
Life spent being able to choose which impulses to give in to is actually pretty good. Most of the people I know with poor impulse control are complete wrecks in at least one area of their lives, which they otherwise could manage.
It has nothing to do with not making mistakes, or being unafraid to ever make them. It's still quite possible to make mistakes, they just usually don't result from impulsive choices. Lots of other causes for mistakes abound in life.
I wonder if erroneus ever cuts their hair? Absolutely no difference between cutting your hair in a certain way and cutting your facial hair in a certain way.
Personally, I wear one because full facial hair is uncomfortable and shaving completely involves ripping the top layer of my face off as a result of one of the chemo agents I'm taking.
That's the problem. You never know when you're going to pop up on their radar, but if you ever do they have the capability to fuck you in many more ways than they would without any semblance of privacy rights.
Automatic redirection from "domain.tld" to "www.domain.tld" has always annoyed me. In fact, I do the exact opposite on any sites I run by removing any instance of "www," even those typed directly in by someone coming to the site.
Actually, even more annoying are those sites which don't bother with redirection and simply don't load at all via "domain.tld."
If only it was actually used that way. Instead, the quest to gain tenure ends up with teachers who don't express unpopular opinions to begin with. By the time they get it, they're usually conditioned to continue acting that way.
In addition, public school teachers rarely have much control over the general content of what they teach, which means tenure is irrelevant for that purpose. At the collegiate level, things can be much different, and tenure can prevent professors from being fired even if they irritate whatever the current administration is. Even that has its limits, and as a result the pressure to not make waves prior to attaining tenure is much greater.
Tenure has some benefits, but the main ones touted are rarely found in evidence.
They should not embrace diversity. They should ignore it completely. What's worth celebrating will be celebrated by those who wish to do so. That which is not, will not. Anything else is completely irrelevant.
I always find it amusing when Christians quote Leviticus, as they do not keep the Laws of Moses. Anyone quoting them authoritatively should be bound by them, each and every one.
Note, this is not to imply you are doing that, as your comment is perfectly apt as a rebuttal of the one to which it is a reply. It simply brought to mind the above.
To be fair, it was a reply to someone positing the case of infringement. Even then, there really isn't any judgment in the comment; it'd be just as true if they were telling the truth as it would be if they were lying.
"Yes, I was caught shoplifting last year."... not mentioning the aggravated rape conviction 10 years prior...
The answer could easily be an attempt to mislead by heading off a request for clarification with a partial clarification worded to sound like a complete clarification. It's not an explicit falsehood, but to claim it's not a falsehood if done intentionally means the term "lie by omission" has no purpose.
This isn't to say he actually did lie by omission. It could have been a failure to understand what was expected. However, it could easily have been an intentional attempt to trick the judge and/or lawyers into not probing further. On its own it wouldn't support a finding of misconduct, but it shouldn't be off-limits for determining a pattern of behavior.
Those who say it wasn't a damning act are committing the same error as those who say it was: there's no proof either way. At best it is circumstantial and should be taken in the context of Hogan's other actions and statements.
Oh, I didn't mean "unreasonable" in the sense of what the politicians promised, more in terms of what would actually happen if they somehow managed to get their way. I understand there's probably an enormous crevasse between what they have promised and what could be objectively expected if reality is taken into account.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, given the spread of Facebook web bugs, they know a lot more than what people intend to tell them.
Not to mention that clean, adulterant-free opiates are dirt cheap to manufacture. It's also much easier to get clean if you decide you want to when you're already in contact with healthcare professionals.
I would consider imprisoning people who use drugs because drugs cause people who use them to suffer to be both stupid and backwards (those two are frequently interchangeable though).
It's like fucking for abstinence.
I consider myself at the centre of the political spectrum, right leaning fiscally and left leaning socially.
I think this scares the hell out of arrogant assholes on both sides. To hear many Slashdotters talk, the above is the most terrible thing you can be. People on both the left and right want to co-opt the "L" word into meaning something unspeakable, instead of the above, which is actually what it means.
Were the effect of the parachute unknown, or only suspected, the experiment would have been an absolute, unqualified success.
The example is simply using something which is already know (and hence absurd to use as an experiment) in order to distract from the actual purpose and effects of experimentation.
Basically, he's about to obtain a cure "à la Steve Jobs" without the money.
Have a little optimism. He might live after all. </joke>
Of course there are exceptions, since humans aren't machines. Your comment was the only one making black-and-white assumptions. I'm really not sure what you're angling at with this reply.
How does the potential for someone who has self-control to sometimes make mistakes by acting impulsively invalidate the point that people who are unable to exercise self-control have a problem which goes beyond the failure of a single marriage?
Maybe it wasn't intended to further a rebuttal argument, in which case I'm even more lost as to the point of the reply. Perhaps it was meant to go in the direction of exploring the idea that not all lack of self-control indicates a problem with anything but a specific relationship, or to say that not all people who are capable of self-control are happier than those who have none.
Why do you view the decisions of others from a social angle if such has no bearing on yours then? It seems ... odd.
"Full beard," at least as far as the few organizations who have reason to clearly define it, precludes shaving of the cheeks and neck; most people would throw you into the "goatee" category as well.
I don't think anyone is questioning the advantages of the relationship. What's being questioned is the advantage of the contract.
In my relationship we have all those advantages, and don't miss any of the few additional ones which would come from a marriage contract. The only intrinsic one is medical decisions, and that's solved with a living will and advanced directives.
Life spent being able to choose which impulses to give in to is actually pretty good. Most of the people I know with poor impulse control are complete wrecks in at least one area of their lives, which they otherwise could manage.
It has nothing to do with not making mistakes, or being unafraid to ever make them. It's still quite possible to make mistakes, they just usually don't result from impulsive choices. Lots of other causes for mistakes abound in life.
I wonder if erroneus ever cuts their hair? Absolutely no difference between cutting your hair in a certain way and cutting your facial hair in a certain way.
Personally, I wear one because full facial hair is uncomfortable and shaving completely involves ripping the top layer of my face off as a result of one of the chemo agents I'm taking.
Lots of people are for political self-determination until it lessens their own political power.
until you pop up on their radar
That's the problem. You never know when you're going to pop up on their radar, but if you ever do they have the capability to fuck you in many more ways than they would without any semblance of privacy rights.
But, but, that's unfair and discriminatory!
Automatic redirection from "domain.tld" to "www.domain.tld" has always annoyed me. In fact, I do the exact opposite on any sites I run by removing any instance of "www," even those typed directly in by someone coming to the site.
Actually, even more annoying are those sites which don't bother with redirection and simply don't load at all via "domain.tld."
Have a link for that? Awesome story if it's true.
I don't agree with her beliefs, but I'm still happy to see people willing to go to court to protect their rights. That helps everyone.
If only it was actually used that way. Instead, the quest to gain tenure ends up with teachers who don't express unpopular opinions to begin with. By the time they get it, they're usually conditioned to continue acting that way.
In addition, public school teachers rarely have much control over the general content of what they teach, which means tenure is irrelevant for that purpose. At the collegiate level, things can be much different, and tenure can prevent professors from being fired even if they irritate whatever the current administration is. Even that has its limits, and as a result the pressure to not make waves prior to attaining tenure is much greater.
Tenure has some benefits, but the main ones touted are rarely found in evidence.
Freedom (the non-monetary kind) is rarely convenient, easy, or cheap.
They should not embrace diversity. They should ignore it completely. What's worth celebrating will be celebrated by those who wish to do so. That which is not, will not. Anything else is completely irrelevant.
I always find it amusing when Christians quote Leviticus, as they do not keep the Laws of Moses. Anyone quoting them authoritatively should be bound by them, each and every one.
Note, this is not to imply you are doing that, as your comment is perfectly apt as a rebuttal of the one to which it is a reply. It simply brought to mind the above.
To be fair, it was a reply to someone positing the case of infringement. Even then, there really isn't any judgment in the comment; it'd be just as true if they were telling the truth as it would be if they were lying.
"Have you ever been convicted of a crime?"
"Yes, I was caught shoplifting last year." ... not mentioning the aggravated rape conviction 10 years prior ...
The answer could easily be an attempt to mislead by heading off a request for clarification with a partial clarification worded to sound like a complete clarification. It's not an explicit falsehood, but to claim it's not a falsehood if done intentionally means the term "lie by omission" has no purpose.
This isn't to say he actually did lie by omission. It could have been a failure to understand what was expected. However, it could easily have been an intentional attempt to trick the judge and/or lawyers into not probing further. On its own it wouldn't support a finding of misconduct, but it shouldn't be off-limits for determining a pattern of behavior.
Those who say it wasn't a damning act are committing the same error as those who say it was: there's no proof either way. At best it is circumstantial and should be taken in the context of Hogan's other actions and statements.
Oh, I didn't mean "unreasonable" in the sense of what the politicians promised, more in terms of what would actually happen if they somehow managed to get their way. I understand there's probably an enormous crevasse between what they have promised and what could be objectively expected if reality is taken into account.
It's alright, most people in the US have that impression, too.