I would worry that you'd do something to distract or offend a driver behind you with this thing and get hit. I'm not convinced that it's a safety win. It's definitely a fun hack, though.
You speak as if from authority. It would be good if you could go read up on herd immunity and then get back to us on whether you still agree with what you just said.
You don't get to choose whether you are infected with HIV. You are not at risk of being killed by a woman who has had an abortion (or if you want to make the case that you are, let's see some data, Science Boy). If you don't get vaccinations, the science is really clear on what the consequences are.
You're kidding, right? Do you not follow the news? Of course they did, just like we are doing here in the U.S.
Re:But that's not all Snowden did...
on
Why Snowden Did Right
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
You presume that U.S. citizens are the only ones whose rights matter. Don't feel bad—many of us U.S. citizens think the same way. But you will find if you talk to citizens of other countries, like Germany and Canada and France, that they also care about these issues, and care that the NSA, GCHQ and others have spied on them. And, more importantly, the techniques that the NSA has used to pwn the net are so damaging that even when they are used for legitimate foreign policy reasons, the harm they do to our domestic interests is massive. And the bugs they planted in Cisco router firmware are even worse: they have motivated people to use Chinese tech instead of American tech, and in the process likely created an opportunity for the Chinese government to collect intelligence in our stead. Is that better than nobody being able to collect the intelligence?
We know nothing about this alleged creator of the universe, including whether such a being exists. To make assertions about what such a being is likely to want or unlikely to want is completely arrogant. I personally find the existence of such a being pretty unlikely, but I don't see any reason to think that someone who believes in such a being and believes that that being cares about them is being particularly arrogant. The assumption that our existence is insignificant and meaningless is a special kind of pride, and no more valid than any other.
I don't know squat, and neither do you, except what's been reported, which is that the person asking for help hasn't given up. As her husband, it's really his decision. You really, really don't get a say in it. Your pet theories about euthanasia aren't relevant to the discussion. If she'd put in a DNR order, she'd be dead now, and I'm sure this was discussed—someone with a condition like that, making decisions like that, would have been asked.
A massive medical setback like this can be severely depressing, so simply asking, right now, at this awful time, "do you want to live or die" is not necessarily going to get the answer from her that she'd give in a week's time, after taking stock of the situation. Even if she wanted to die right now, they'd wait a bit to give her a chance to change her mind. Why the rush? You're letting your ideology get in the way of real life. Being on a respirator yet still conscious may or may not be worse than being dead. None of us here in this discussion know.
If there is a creator of the universe, why wouldn't he/she/it listen to you? If there is not, why argue about it? When something terrible like this happens, people care, and they want to do something, but there's nothing they can really do. So they pray, if that feels right to them. It really doesn't matter whether it works, or whether somebody is listening. It's just what we do.
Life is suffering. We can all certainly avoid a great deal of suffering by killing ourselves painlessly now, whether we are locked in or perfectly healthy. But life is sweet as well. Dying forecloses on the possibility of further sweetness. This person clearly hasn't given up on further sweetness. This is not a good time to get into an argument about your favorite political hobby horse. I won't say that you suck as a human being, because I'm sure you have some legitimate and possibly heartbreaking reason for having said what you said. But context is everything, and this isn't the place.
That's not a bad spin. I hope you're right. I have a lot of respect for Leahy (he's one of my senators) but I'm sometimes frustrated by what he does with respect to patent law, and I was really frustrated with what he was doing with copyright law back in the days of SOPA/PIPA. I think he's learned a bit from that experience, but I"m not sure. I still remember watching Batman: The Dark Knight Rises, seeing his cameo and feeling sick to my stomach at the utter tone-deafness that that appearance represented. Sigh.
It appears to be the case that several other democracies are working better, but that doesn't mean that there's a path from our democracy as it is now to a democracy like those. If nothing else, the culture is different. It's easy to think of these things as narratives with clear outcomes, but the reality is that we are where we are, and we move incrementally or discontinuously from there. Incremental change is a lot safer than discontinuous change, because we get to evaluate whether we are going in the right direction at each increment; at a discontinuity, we just have to take a stab in the dark and hope for the best.
That worked out pretty well in Iceland, but Iceland is more the exception than the rule.
Actually, your comment is moronic, because it implies that the right thing to do is cut down the tree, by which I assume you mean destroy what's left of the democracy. What do you think will arise in its place? Something better? Read your fucking history. The right thing to do is take this seriously and get active. It's worked in the past, and it will work again. Burning down the house is not the right way to solve this problem.
It's hard to understand how Leahy could have been forced into shelving the bill. He could have been arm-twisted into it, or he could have been predisposed to do it, but forced? How would that happen?
This sort of rhetoric from people who would rather be angry than change things is why we have 17% turnouts in the primaries. Stop it, or you are the problem. You can comfort yourself by blaming those bastards in Washington, or the Trilateral commission, or the Illuminati, but the blame lies squarely at your feet.
On the contrary. When you vote for someone who can't win, you have wasted your vote—essentially, you are voting for "either of the two bad choices". If you want to get a candidate who isn't a bad choice to win, you have to get that candidate to the point where they can win, not tilt at windmills after it's too late. It may allow you some smug satisfaction to say "I didn't vote for either of those bastards," but the reality is that if you didn't vote at all, you let them win, and if you didn't choose one or the other, you didn't choose. That's the cold, hard math.
Change doesn't happen at the time of the election. It comes from the grass roots, well before the election, or it doesn't come at all.
Obamacare is a Republican health care package that was enacted into law by a Republican administration in Massachusetts and was originally proposed by the Heritage Foundation. You seem to have a lot of energy to throw out chaff, but why don't you deal with that one before we go on to the next one?
Slashdot Mirror
I have something better too. It's called an imperial walker. STOMP
I would worry that you'd do something to distract or offend a driver behind you with this thing and get hit. I'm not convinced that it's a safety win. It's definitely a fun hack, though.
Chicken Pox can be pretty deadly if you get the live virus as an adult.
[citation needed]
You speak as if from authority. It would be good if you could go read up on herd immunity and then get back to us on whether you still agree with what you just said.
Can you explain for the class how immunization works?
You don't get to choose whether you are infected with HIV. You are not at risk of being killed by a woman who has had an abortion (or if you want to make the case that you are, let's see some data, Science Boy). If you don't get vaccinations, the science is really clear on what the consequences are.
Of course, you can avoid this problem simply by GETTING YOUR FUCKING VACCINATIONS! Come on, dude. Grow up.
Also, you are an anti-vaxxer by choice, but a mutant by birth.
How many Americans speak Chinese?
FTFY.
You're kidding, right? Do you not follow the news? Of course they did, just like we are doing here in the U.S.
You presume that U.S. citizens are the only ones whose rights matter. Don't feel bad—many of us U.S. citizens think the same way. But you will find if you talk to citizens of other countries, like Germany and Canada and France, that they also care about these issues, and care that the NSA, GCHQ and others have spied on them. And, more importantly, the techniques that the NSA has used to pwn the net are so damaging that even when they are used for legitimate foreign policy reasons, the harm they do to our domestic interests is massive. And the bugs they planted in Cisco router firmware are even worse: they have motivated people to use Chinese tech instead of American tech, and in the process likely created an opportunity for the Chinese government to collect intelligence in our stead. Is that better than nobody being able to collect the intelligence?
We know nothing about this alleged creator of the universe, including whether such a being exists. To make assertions about what such a being is likely to want or unlikely to want is completely arrogant. I personally find the existence of such a being pretty unlikely, but I don't see any reason to think that someone who believes in such a being and believes that that being cares about them is being particularly arrogant. The assumption that our existence is insignificant and meaningless is a special kind of pride, and no more valid than any other.
I don't know squat, and neither do you, except what's been reported, which is that the person asking for help hasn't given up. As her husband, it's really his decision. You really, really don't get a say in it. Your pet theories about euthanasia aren't relevant to the discussion. If she'd put in a DNR order, she'd be dead now, and I'm sure this was discussed—someone with a condition like that, making decisions like that, would have been asked.
A massive medical setback like this can be severely depressing, so simply asking, right now, at this awful time, "do you want to live or die" is not necessarily going to get the answer from her that she'd give in a week's time, after taking stock of the situation. Even if she wanted to die right now, they'd wait a bit to give her a chance to change her mind. Why the rush? You're letting your ideology get in the way of real life. Being on a respirator yet still conscious may or may not be worse than being dead. None of us here in this discussion know.
If there is a creator of the universe, why wouldn't he/she/it listen to you? If there is not, why argue about it? When something terrible like this happens, people care, and they want to do something, but there's nothing they can really do. So they pray, if that feels right to them. It really doesn't matter whether it works, or whether somebody is listening. It's just what we do.
Wow. Just wow.
Life is suffering. We can all certainly avoid a great deal of suffering by killing ourselves painlessly now, whether we are locked in or perfectly healthy. But life is sweet as well. Dying forecloses on the possibility of further sweetness. This person clearly hasn't given up on further sweetness. This is not a good time to get into an argument about your favorite political hobby horse. I won't say that you suck as a human being, because I'm sure you have some legitimate and possibly heartbreaking reason for having said what you said. But context is everything, and this isn't the place.
I've seen no evidence to support such an accusation against Senator Leahy. Not every politician is a philanderer.
That's not a bad spin. I hope you're right. I have a lot of respect for Leahy (he's one of my senators) but I'm sometimes frustrated by what he does with respect to patent law, and I was really frustrated with what he was doing with copyright law back in the days of SOPA/PIPA. I think he's learned a bit from that experience, but I"m not sure. I still remember watching Batman: The Dark Knight Rises, seeing his cameo and feeling sick to my stomach at the utter tone-deafness that that appearance represented. Sigh.
People who generalize are all idiots. And if I've told you once, I've told you a thousand times: nobody likes a person who exaggerates.
It appears to be the case that several other democracies are working better, but that doesn't mean that there's a path from our democracy as it is now to a democracy like those. If nothing else, the culture is different. It's easy to think of these things as narratives with clear outcomes, but the reality is that we are where we are, and we move incrementally or discontinuously from there. Incremental change is a lot safer than discontinuous change, because we get to evaluate whether we are going in the right direction at each increment; at a discontinuity, we just have to take a stab in the dark and hope for the best.
That worked out pretty well in Iceland, but Iceland is more the exception than the rule.
Actually, your comment is moronic, because it implies that the right thing to do is cut down the tree, by which I assume you mean destroy what's left of the democracy. What do you think will arise in its place? Something better? Read your fucking history. The right thing to do is take this seriously and get active. It's worked in the past, and it will work again. Burning down the house is not the right way to solve this problem.
It's hard to understand how Leahy could have been forced into shelving the bill. He could have been arm-twisted into it, or he could have been predisposed to do it, but forced? How would that happen?
This sort of rhetoric from people who would rather be angry than change things is why we have 17% turnouts in the primaries. Stop it, or you are the problem. You can comfort yourself by blaming those bastards in Washington, or the Trilateral commission, or the Illuminati, but the blame lies squarely at your feet.
On the contrary. When you vote for someone who can't win, you have wasted your vote—essentially, you are voting for "either of the two bad choices". If you want to get a candidate who isn't a bad choice to win, you have to get that candidate to the point where they can win, not tilt at windmills after it's too late. It may allow you some smug satisfaction to say "I didn't vote for either of those bastards," but the reality is that if you didn't vote at all, you let them win, and if you didn't choose one or the other, you didn't choose. That's the cold, hard math.
Change doesn't happen at the time of the election. It comes from the grass roots, well before the election, or it doesn't come at all.
Obamacare is a Republican health care package that was enacted into law by a Republican administration in Massachusetts and was originally proposed by the Heritage Foundation. You seem to have a lot of energy to throw out chaff, but why don't you deal with that one before we go on to the next one?