Bullshit. You're making things up to suit your needs. There is no hard and fast distinction between a boat and a ship, the difference is just a matter of the speaker's conventions and customs.
So, in other words, the study is flawed. It didn't identify the most dangerous waters, it identified where the most dangerous boats were being operated.
But, maybe not, because the citation you gave isn't to any report, just a news article which mentions neither piracy nor rusty ships.
"Why is the government giving handouts to unprofitable carriers?"
You're right, the government shouldn't be doing that. Carriers which cherry pick coverage areas and don't fully utilize the public airwaves assigned to them should be the one subsidizing rural buildouts.
(And yes, despite the whole spectrum auction BS the RF spectrum is a public resource, but that's another discussion)
He's talking about 401(k) returns, and he wants to gamble on high risk stocks, since he can't use it to play the lottery. Must be old with not much of a 401(k), or he'd just invest it in an index fund for the long term (SPY, VOO, etc.).
Sorry that you're an uneducated Googletard. It's really not that hard if you try.
It means the US is not a direct democracy. The Federal government is a compromise between an indirect democracy (via population based representation in the House of Representatives) and a federation of independent units of government (the states). The framers recognized the problems associated with a tyranny of the majority, especially within a federation.
The whole system is based on that balance. The House represents the populace indirectly, and the Senate represents the rights and differences between the federated states. The presidency blends the two via the electoral college.
Were you out smoking dope during US history class?
There's a link immediately to the right of the headline (popsci.com). There's also a link in the body of the summary. Perhaps you need to try a different browser.
Sorry that things are working exactly as intended, which means "you" lost. Presidential elections were never meant to reflect a popular vote - states don't even have to use a popular vote to chose electors.
And, the number of electors is equal to a state's representatives and senators. Every state, of course, gets 2 senators regardless of population. If you passed grade school math, you'll be able to figure out how it makes no difference by how large a margin Clinton's electors received votes in CA or NY or IL, the vote for president wouldn't change a bit. That's exactly by design, to prevent a tyranny of a few large states.
If you think it should be based on a popular vote, change the Constitution. Pissing and moaning when you lost according to the well known and established rules is just being a poor loser. Get over it. You lost, fair and square. Oh, and consider that there's also a good argument that each state should have an equal say in presidential elections - it is a Federal government of states.
Finally, you do realize that Hillary's electors didn't get a majority of the popular vote, either. So, more people voted against her than for her.
Trump didn't "lose the popular vote." All the popular votes went to electors. Trump won the only vote held for President, where he won a wide majority of the votes.
This stuff is taught in grade school (or used to be). Where were you?
No, the Bill of Rights does not limit federal power. I agree with the Federalists, that the constitution only grants powers, and no power to restrict citizen arms exists, so the Bill of Rights is superfluous. But, turns out the Anti-Federalists were right, government is going to take powers not given unless explicitly denied.
The 2nd has been incorporated under the 14th, so is binding on the states. "The right to keep and bear arms must be regarded as a substantive guarantee, not a prohibition that could be ignored as long as the States legislated in an evenhanded manner," the Supremes, McDonald v Chicago
The 2nd Amendment explains that the reason for "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" is for "A well regulated Militia", and the purpose of well-regulated militias is for "the security of a free State". Those are conditions.
Put simply, you're wrong:
The Amendment's prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause's text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms... The "militia" comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens' militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens' militia would be preserved.
"I'm not sure where the law is on manufacturing arms vs the right to keep and bare arms."
"Bear." The Constitution (law) is clear - in this regard, the federal government really only has control over interstate commerce. Manufacturing a firearm for personal use is not a legitimate subject of federal regulation. And, not only does the 2nd A. reflect a natural right of self defense (the Bill of Rights doesn't give people rights, it warns government not to try to infringe them), but it's been "incorporated" on the States, so they're restricted from infringing those rights, too.
"But it is a violation of free speech to mandate I write code specifically saying something."
In exactly the same way it is to require food to be labeled with ingredients and nutritional info, warnings put on cigarettes, specific APR info on loan offers, country of origin markings on goods, alcohol percentages on liquor bottles, a license plate be displayed on your car, etc.
It's not a violation of speech rights to outlaw fraud, deception, or dishonesty. Simply require that bots honestly answer the question "Are you a human/person?"
"7 day weeks are speculated to have been based on the lunar cycle from the ancient Babylonians."
That makes no sense - 3, 10 day weeks are closer to the average length of a lunar month (29.5 days) than 4, 7 day ones. Plus, the Babylonians used a base-60 number system, which 10x3 fits into much better than 7x4.
"The fact is that most people didn't want Trump. "
That's true. It's also true that most people didn't vote for Clinton ("didn't want Clinton", in your parlance). No candidate's electors received a majority of the popular vote.
And, the win wasn't in any way a "technicality," it worked exactly as the Constitution intended. There was never any plan for a popular vote for president - in fact, it's entirely up to the states to determine how electors are chosen. If a state wants to have their legislature or governor chose the electors, or even draw names from a hat instead of having a popular vote, they can. And the weighting of each state's influence is deliberately different than their population, for the same reasons that all states are given equal influence in the Senate.
Slashdot Mirror
If you want to claim to point to the original source, do so.
Bullshit. You're making things up to suit your needs. There is no hard and fast distinction between a boat and a ship, the difference is just a matter of the speaker's conventions and customs.
So, in other words, the study is flawed. It didn't identify the most dangerous waters, it identified where the most dangerous boats were being operated.
But, maybe not, because the citation you gave isn't to any report, just a news article which mentions neither piracy nor rusty ships.
"Why is the government giving handouts to unprofitable carriers?"
You're right, the government shouldn't be doing that. Carriers which cherry pick coverage areas and don't fully utilize the public airwaves assigned to them should be the one subsidizing rural buildouts.
(And yes, despite the whole spectrum auction BS the RF spectrum is a public resource, but that's another discussion)
He's talking about 401(k) returns, and he wants to gamble on high risk stocks, since he can't use it to play the lottery. Must be old with not much of a 401(k), or he'd just invest it in an index fund for the long term (SPY, VOO, etc.).
"WTF does that even mean?"
Sorry that you're an uneducated Googletard. It's really not that hard if you try.
It means the US is not a direct democracy. The Federal government is a compromise between an indirect democracy (via population based representation in the House of Representatives) and a federation of independent units of government (the states). The framers recognized the problems associated with a tyranny of the majority, especially within a federation.
The whole system is based on that balance. The House represents the populace indirectly, and the Senate represents the rights and differences between the federated states. The presidency blends the two via the electoral college.
Were you out smoking dope during US history class?
The apportionment is directly related to population. What's your claim that it's not representative based on?
Yes, but the US is a republic.
There's a link immediately to the right of the headline (popsci.com). There's also a link in the body of the summary. Perhaps you need to try a different browser.
Sorry that things are working exactly as intended, which means "you" lost. Presidential elections were never meant to reflect a popular vote - states don't even have to use a popular vote to chose electors.
And, the number of electors is equal to a state's representatives and senators. Every state, of course, gets 2 senators regardless of population. If you passed grade school math, you'll be able to figure out how it makes no difference by how large a margin Clinton's electors received votes in CA or NY or IL, the vote for president wouldn't change a bit. That's exactly by design, to prevent a tyranny of a few large states.
If you think it should be based on a popular vote, change the Constitution. Pissing and moaning when you lost according to the well known and established rules is just being a poor loser. Get over it. You lost, fair and square. Oh, and consider that there's also a good argument that each state should have an equal say in presidential elections - it is a Federal government of states.
Finally, you do realize that Hillary's electors didn't get a majority of the popular vote, either. So, more people voted against her than for her.
Trump didn't "lose the popular vote." All the popular votes went to electors. Trump won the only vote held for President, where he won a wide majority of the votes.
This stuff is taught in grade school (or used to be). Where were you?
"Its pretty clear MoviePass is jsut a marketing firm looking to get picked up by a big company. "
With a current market cap of $1 million (for majority owner HMNY), why do you say "big company?"
No, the Bill of Rights does not limit federal power. I agree with the Federalists, that the constitution only grants powers, and no power to restrict citizen arms exists, so the Bill of Rights is superfluous. But, turns out the Anti-Federalists were right, government is going to take powers not given unless explicitly denied.
The 2nd has been incorporated under the 14th, so is binding on the states. "The right to keep and bear arms must be regarded as a substantive guarantee, not a prohibition that could be ignored as long as the States legislated in an evenhanded manner," the Supremes, McDonald v Chicago
Put simply, you're wrong:
- US Supremes, DC v Heller
"pseudo-monopolies."
What? Perhaps you mean oligopoly?
"The Washington Attorney general, and the 20 other states involved, are fucking morons."
Not really, they're smart authoritarians who are fighting against civil rights because they think they're better than the proles.
"I'm not sure where the law is on manufacturing arms vs the right to keep and bare arms."
"Bear." The Constitution (law) is clear - in this regard, the federal government really only has control over interstate commerce. Manufacturing a firearm for personal use is not a legitimate subject of federal regulation. And, not only does the 2nd A. reflect a natural right of self defense (the Bill of Rights doesn't give people rights, it warns government not to try to infringe them), but it's been "incorporated" on the States, so they're restricted from infringing those rights, too.
"So how come none of these guys are rotting in gaol?"
They're rotting in Gaul. Somewhere near St. Tropez.
"But it is a violation of free speech to mandate I write code specifically saying something."
In exactly the same way it is to require food to be labeled with ingredients and nutritional info, warnings put on cigarettes, specific APR info on loan offers, country of origin markings on goods, alcohol percentages on liquor bottles, a license plate be displayed on your car, etc.
So, this news is about fake accounts.
Does that make it "real fake news?"
It's not a violation of speech rights to outlaw fraud, deception, or dishonesty. Simply require that bots honestly answer the question "Are you a human/person?"
Or, instead, just ask it "Why does the Porridge Bird lay his egg in the air?"
They've stored 192 bits in a lab, and they're claiming that all of iTunes could fit on a quarter "soon?" Are they also selling bridges?
"7 day weeks are speculated to have been based on the lunar cycle from the ancient Babylonians."
That makes no sense - 3, 10 day weeks are closer to the average length of a lunar month (29.5 days) than 4, 7 day ones. Plus, the Babylonians used a base-60 number system, which 10x3 fits into much better than 7x4.
"The fact is that most people didn't want Trump. "
That's true. It's also true that most people didn't vote for Clinton ("didn't want Clinton", in your parlance). No candidate's electors received a majority of the popular vote.
And, the win wasn't in any way a "technicality," it worked exactly as the Constitution intended. There was never any plan for a popular vote for president - in fact, it's entirely up to the states to determine how electors are chosen. If a state wants to have their legislature or governor chose the electors, or even draw names from a hat instead of having a popular vote, they can. And the weighting of each state's influence is deliberately different than their population, for the same reasons that all states are given equal influence in the Senate.
"you don't hear democrats saying the stupid fucking asinine bullshit the average republican spouts every fucking day"
I was thinking you're a Democrat, but you claim they don't speak like you do.