Quite frankly, comparing the passing of a law with a private sex adventure is borderline crazy.
You said "The french government is democratically elected." Then you implied that any actions by them are valid because they were elected. Clinton was elected. Where is the fault in your statement? It's not with my logic.
I remember having a cheap chess set in the '80s that did that. I don't know if it knew which piece was which, but it knew pieces were there. It even could play you, but you had to move the pieces for the "computer". This sounds like using the same thing that was cheap 30 years ago, so it doesn't sound hard at all. But TFA made it much harder than it had to be.
Compare it to goats. It fluctuates. Compare it to real estate. It fluctuates. Pick anything you want, and it fluctuates. It's most steady against things like silver, but even then, it fluctuates.
Actually the safety equipment as a hole does add a significant amount of weight to an aircraft and you pay for the fuel so the answer is yes.
And the safety equipment as a hole [sic] also results in a large number of lives saved. It's just that the lives saved in a non-crash incident are harder to count. The safety gear on a plane has passed the actuaries. Your other example (airbags) never did.
Here's a more recent link than 2001 that shows just how effective airbags are. I'm sure they are even safer in today's vehicles.
Yes, many many airbag generations later, they've tuned down the deaths. Though most of it was from getting people to not use them. From your cite: "Deaths are about 34 percent higher than expected among child passengers younger than 10."
Even in the "safer" "de-powered" airbags. They still kill thousands of children. The only safe airbag, is the airbag in the other guy's car.
I first started investigating them when a relative suffered eye damage and broken bones in her face from an airbag in a crash she'd have otherwise walked away from. They've gotten better, but they are a great example of a failed safety device. They kill more than they save, by governmental safety rules. They do directly kill smaller people (including short people, not just children). But they also wasted massive amounts of money that would have had a larger impact spent elsewhere. We'd be better off if airbags were never mandated.
Airbags were designed for one thing: Save the life of an "Average" sized male who is unbelted in an otherwise fatal crash. If your crash isn't sufficient to kill you, you are better off without air bags than with. If you are wearing a seatbelt, you are better off without air bags than with. If you aren't an "average" sized male, then you are better off without air bags than with.
They are deliberately *not* designed for the most common crashes. Just the most severe ones, which are less common.
Have you seen all the safety gear in an F1 car? They survive crashes into hard walls at 200+ mph. And note, no airbags. Without the government forcing them, they are calculated to be a waste, and nobody "should" have them.
Those were just the first few results from a simple google search. Why is it that every time someone asks for a citation, the "proof" is the first hit from a simple google search? In this case: "number of bookstores in the USA".
A constant steady inflation is planned. If you don't like it, don't ever vote for a major party candidate again, and get all your friends to vote against them as well.
That fiat currency problem is so born out in human history, that most religions of any size has rules against being a lender or a borrower, or hoarder of money because banking with a fiat currency guarantees endless bust/boom cycles, with a regulated banking and flexible money supply the inevitable crash in money supply can be reduced or illuminated.
Most religions have issues with it for the immorality of usury, not the economics of it. fiat currency wasn't common when Jesus lived and before.
Unless you are asserting that the prophets that spoke against fiat lending were actually seeing the future?
There's no reason the replacement would have a fee on every transaction. Opposing change because you are too stupid to solve problems doesn't make the change bad.
Care to fix the goalposts? You complained about it being available. Now, proven wrong, you are complaining about the cost. If the cost were $0, you'd still complain about something. I've gotten a card for $0. So where are the goalposts going next? Why not just state your objection, rather than arguing with everyone over every little detail?
I don't pay a 3-5 percent convenience charge on anything. It's a violation of the rules in the US for them to charge it. And cash isn't free to the merchant either. BoA is at about 0.3% cash handling fee (some "free" each month, but a business account with large cash deposits will get charged a fee for using cash.
Also cash is much more likely to be stolen by employees or others, or just plain get lost.
It has been. The french government is democratically elected.
So then sex with Monica Lewinsky has been decided to be a good thing because Clinton was elected?
Not every action by an elected government is the will of the people or the "right thing". And given that people are arguing here that it isn't even protectionism, makes me think that it isn't as settled as you assert.
Ben 10 is one of my kids favorites. It's "magic". An incomprehensible mechanical device re-builds a creature, adding or subtracting mass from nothing. But it's "science" because the device says it works from DNA, even from creatures with no DNA (some of the crystal and liquid creatures have no cells, so it seems implausible they'd have DNA).
Sci-Fi can only be appreciated in retrospect. Jules Verne "invented" TV, CCTV, nuclear subs, SCUBA, and lots of other things by creating the ideas for them. Before it was even "plausible". Some other writers/stories did the same. Geostationary orbit was "invented" but a sci-fi writer as well. You can even call it a Clarke orbit, if you like.
Seems many of the sci-fi writers for an era were physicists that didn't have the ability to test their theories, so they documented them in fiction. Not like the sci-fi writers for Star Wars novels that are firmly in fantasy. It doesn't help when Star Trek skirts the line, with "magic" transporters and replicators and the ability to generate any type of particle in any type of polarization.
That and many of the apocolypse themes are magic or sci-fi based on your opinion. Truck Stop/Maxmum Overdrive. Was it Sci-fi, as the "cause" was extra-terrestrial? Or was it fantasy because they were magic?
Are Resident Evil zombies sci-fi because they give it a scientific excuse, but Night of the Living Dead (or Walking Dead) wasn't because there wasn't much in how they became zombies? I am Legend gave them a scientific cause.
There's no way to separate them. That's why so many mix them together. The plots and story wouldn't change if the work was converted from one to the other. "The Diamond Age: Or, A Young Lady's Illustrated Primer" is considered by most (almost all?) to be Sci-fi. With a few minor changes, and the story would be the same, but it would be Fantasy/magic
Note, I didn't support/attack protectionism. But the idea that it's a [good, bad] thing should be agreed first, and separately considered whether the implementation achieves that goal.
So often I see people say things like, "protectionism is bad, but price controls to help smaller shops compete with larger ones is good." The cognitive dissonance is my main complaint.
what difference do you see between "SF" and "fantasy"?
Fantasy is where the power is from some mystics who meditate on it and are part of some hokey religion. SF is where the power is Midichlorians or nanites or DNA. The settings and stories are the same.
Again, there are options other than executing and chasing,
And you've not named any. Aside from 100% CCTV coverage, there's no practical way to stop someone without chasing them.
and you're an asshole for repeatedly arguing a false dichotomy to create a strawman out of what I said. Repeating yourself like a broken fucking record. Go fuck yourself twice.
And you are repeating yourself, and never commenting on anything I say that proves you wrong. Care to try? No, you are a lying piece of shit asshole.
The cop sees a speeder or stolen car go past. He pulls out and puts on his lights to stop the car. The driver takes off at 12,322 mph in a 30 mph zone. The cop, unable to pursue, pulls over and radios it in. The car, traveling faster than a bullet, rams a mall, killing 10,000. In this scenario, you'd blame the police for "chasing". The cop didn't "chase", but "tried to stop". What could the police do to perform their "regular" duties without ever trying to pull over anyone for any reason? After all, any attempt to stop someone by coming up from behind (the most common method, by far), could be considered a "chase".
Slashdot Mirror
Quite frankly, comparing the passing of a law with a private sex adventure is borderline crazy.
You said "The french government is democratically elected." Then you implied that any actions by them are valid because they were elected. Clinton was elected. Where is the fault in your statement? It's not with my logic.
I saw one state that we were down 12% over the 1997 peak (not 50%), with the number steady or growing since 2009.
At least it's not team sports, where the parents assault the coaches or referees when their children lose.
I remember having a cheap chess set in the '80s that did that. I don't know if it knew which piece was which, but it knew pieces were there. It even could play you, but you had to move the pieces for the "computer". This sounds like using the same thing that was cheap 30 years ago, so it doesn't sound hard at all. But TFA made it much harder than it had to be.
You might like to be sodomized by the man but let the rest of live free.
So you want to be sodomized? Not everyone else shares your preferences.
Compare it to goats. It fluctuates. Compare it to real estate. It fluctuates. Pick anything you want, and it fluctuates. It's most steady against things like silver, but even then, it fluctuates.
You are presuming that it's a bank processing the transactions. I am not.
Actually the safety equipment as a hole does add a significant amount of weight to an aircraft and you pay for the fuel so the answer is yes.
And the safety equipment as a hole [sic] also results in a large number of lives saved. It's just that the lives saved in a non-crash incident are harder to count. The safety gear on a plane has passed the actuaries. Your other example (airbags) never did.
Here's a more recent link than 2001 that shows just how effective airbags are. I'm sure they are even safer in today's vehicles.
Yes, many many airbag generations later, they've tuned down the deaths. Though most of it was from getting people to not use them. From your cite: "Deaths are about 34 percent higher than expected among child passengers younger than 10."
Even in the "safer" "de-powered" airbags. They still kill thousands of children. The only safe airbag, is the airbag in the other guy's car.
I first started investigating them when a relative suffered eye damage and broken bones in her face from an airbag in a crash she'd have otherwise walked away from. They've gotten better, but they are a great example of a failed safety device. They kill more than they save, by governmental safety rules. They do directly kill smaller people (including short people, not just children). But they also wasted massive amounts of money that would have had a larger impact spent elsewhere. We'd be better off if airbags were never mandated.
Airbags were designed for one thing:
Save the life of an "Average" sized male who is unbelted in an otherwise fatal crash. If your crash isn't sufficient to kill you, you are better off without air bags than with. If you are wearing a seatbelt, you are better off without air bags than with. If you aren't an "average" sized male, then you are better off without air bags than with.
They are deliberately *not* designed for the most common crashes. Just the most severe ones, which are less common.
Have you seen all the safety gear in an F1 car? They survive crashes into hard walls at 200+ mph. And note, no airbags. Without the government forcing them, they are calculated to be a waste, and nobody "should" have them.
Not buying it without some sort of citation.
http://www.salon.com/2014/04/0...
http://qz.com/127861/its-time-...
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com...
http://fortune.com/2013/09/20/...
http://www.mhpbooks.com/indepe...
Those were just the first few results from a simple google search. Why is it that every time someone asks for a citation, the "proof" is the first hit from a simple google search? In this case: "number of bookstores in the USA".
Last I checked, neither the House nor the Senate had made a vote asking Clinton to fuck her, so no.
So Clinton wasn't democratically elected because the house and senate didn't confirm him?
Those goalposts are moving so fast I can't keep up with your changing argument.
Second point: Of course there will always be discussion in a multi-valued society.
That's why I'm confused as to your assertion that the law is the morality. The law is the law, no more.
A constant steady inflation is planned. If you don't like it, don't ever vote for a major party candidate again, and get all your friends to vote against them as well.
So we should use gold because we expect our government to fail tomorrow?
That fiat currency problem is so born out in human history, that most religions of any size has rules against being a lender or a borrower, or hoarder of money because banking with a fiat currency guarantees endless bust/boom cycles, with a regulated banking and flexible money supply the inevitable crash in money supply can be reduced or illuminated.
Most religions have issues with it for the immorality of usury, not the economics of it. fiat currency wasn't common when Jesus lived and before.
Unless you are asserting that the prophets that spoke against fiat lending were actually seeing the future?
There's no reason the replacement would have a fee on every transaction. Opposing change because you are too stupid to solve problems doesn't make the change bad.
Care to fix the goalposts? You complained about it being available. Now, proven wrong, you are complaining about the cost. If the cost were $0, you'd still complain about something. I've gotten a card for $0. So where are the goalposts going next? Why not just state your objection, rather than arguing with everyone over every little detail?
You're still perfectly able to not use cash, but why do you insist that the rest of us follow along?
because it's impractical for some to take cash, so I am "forced" to use cash for some transactions.
I don't pay a 3-5 percent convenience charge on anything. It's a violation of the rules in the US for them to charge it. And cash isn't free to the merchant either. BoA is at about 0.3% cash handling fee (some "free" each month, but a business account with large cash deposits will get charged a fee for using cash.
Also cash is much more likely to be stolen by employees or others, or just plain get lost.
As opposed to gold, which has never seen the price move.
It has been. The french government is democratically elected.
So then sex with Monica Lewinsky has been decided to be a good thing because Clinton was elected?
Not every action by an elected government is the will of the people or the "right thing". And given that people are arguing here that it isn't even protectionism, makes me think that it isn't as settled as you assert.
They should all be named Colbert 1 through Colbert 305.
Ben 10 is one of my kids favorites. It's "magic". An incomprehensible mechanical device re-builds a creature, adding or subtracting mass from nothing. But it's "science" because the device says it works from DNA, even from creatures with no DNA (some of the crystal and liquid creatures have no cells, so it seems implausible they'd have DNA).
Sci-Fi can only be appreciated in retrospect. Jules Verne "invented" TV, CCTV, nuclear subs, SCUBA, and lots of other things by creating the ideas for them. Before it was even "plausible". Some other writers/stories did the same. Geostationary orbit was "invented" but a sci-fi writer as well. You can even call it a Clarke orbit, if you like.
Seems many of the sci-fi writers for an era were physicists that didn't have the ability to test their theories, so they documented them in fiction. Not like the sci-fi writers for Star Wars novels that are firmly in fantasy. It doesn't help when Star Trek skirts the line, with "magic" transporters and replicators and the ability to generate any type of particle in any type of polarization.
That and many of the apocolypse themes are magic or sci-fi based on your opinion. Truck Stop/Maxmum Overdrive. Was it Sci-fi, as the "cause" was extra-terrestrial? Or was it fantasy because they were magic?
Are Resident Evil zombies sci-fi because they give it a scientific excuse, but Night of the Living Dead (or Walking Dead) wasn't because there wasn't much in how they became zombies? I am Legend gave them a scientific cause.
There's no way to separate them. That's why so many mix them together. The plots and story wouldn't change if the work was converted from one to the other. "The Diamond Age: Or, A Young Lady's Illustrated Primer" is considered by most (almost all?) to be Sci-fi. With a few minor changes, and the story would be the same, but it would be Fantasy/magic
i see in your logic trying to stop and chase mean the same thing. Another very convenient mechanism.
How do you catch up to someone to try to stop them without "chasing" them?
It's not a "convenient mechamism" it's reality. You should try visiting sometime.
Note, I didn't support/attack protectionism. But the idea that it's a [good, bad] thing should be agreed first, and separately considered whether the implementation achieves that goal.
So often I see people say things like, "protectionism is bad, but price controls to help smaller shops compete with larger ones is good." The cognitive dissonance is my main complaint.
what difference do you see between "SF" and "fantasy"?
Fantasy is where the power is from some mystics who meditate on it and are part of some hokey religion. SF is where the power is Midichlorians or nanites or DNA. The settings and stories are the same.
Again, there are options other than executing and chasing,
And you've not named any. Aside from 100% CCTV coverage, there's no practical way to stop someone without chasing them.
and you're an asshole for repeatedly arguing a false dichotomy to create a strawman out of what I said. Repeating yourself like a broken fucking record. Go fuck yourself twice.
And you are repeating yourself, and never commenting on anything I say that proves you wrong. Care to try? No, you are a lying piece of shit asshole.
The cop sees a speeder or stolen car go past. He pulls out and puts on his lights to stop the car. The driver takes off at 12,322 mph in a 30 mph zone. The cop, unable to pursue, pulls over and radios it in. The car, traveling faster than a bullet, rams a mall, killing 10,000. In this scenario, you'd blame the police for "chasing". The cop didn't "chase", but "tried to stop". What could the police do to perform their "regular" duties without ever trying to pull over anyone for any reason? After all, any attempt to stop someone by coming up from behind (the most common method, by far), could be considered a "chase".