No, those who restrict the Government are the People. The Government doesn't govern itself; the Government governs the People, and the People authorize the Government.
Not when you make an over-arching organization, then place restrictions on it that can only be enforced by other parts/pieces of the government.
How do the people restrict the government? If the government oversteps NSA, how does a person do anything about it? Go call a government representative and ask them to spend government money investigating it? Or wait for the next election and vote in people who promise change?
It's not a mystery at all. The system is set up in such a way that companies are forced to defend their trademarks. If they don't, they lose them.
That's not true. Yes, they have to "defend" them, but the implications of your statement is the opposite of reality.
They could "defend" them by sending a letter asking the recipient to apply for a no-cost license granting commercial use of the trademark. If everyone using your trademark is registered to do so at a zero-rate, you have successfully defended it. There is no requirement to stop anyone from using it. Ever. And the way you are stating it is implying the "must stop others" reading, which is 100% false.
Yes, that's how it works. You can win the popular vote and lose the election because the election isn't decided on popular vote. There is a popular vote because you can simply add all the votes. It isn't that confusing.
Rand came in as a different candidate, someone to go up against the GOP establishment.
Ah yes, no true scotsman, change from within. Any logical leaps to make a member of the GOP establishment into the Libertarian God you wish him to be.
By that logic obama must be a supporter of the KKK, since it was the democrats who created it right? I mean he must stand for what those democrats stood for before him right? and jim crow as well, that was a democratic idea so obama must approve of it based on your logic
The parties have changed greatly in 150 years, not so much in the last 10.
I don't understand the rules of rugby either. But I don't find that frustrating, because I don't care who's playing, or which side wins.
The problem is if I use a more American example, that you might care about, you likely know the rules well enough to not be in that "read the rules, but still can't understand how it's played" zone. Much like curling. People make fun of it, but you get some Americans watching the American team play, and they get a little invested in who wins, becuase medal count is a requirement for world domination. But the exact rules may escape them. But, being so simple, unless there are problems with release timing, there'll be no conflict between rules as understood and rules as applied. It's that disconnect that causes frustration.
I'm pro-choice in that I want less abortion. Pro-life is wanting *none* (yes, there is a sizable group that's anti abortion for any reason, including rape and medical problems).
(3) was considered absolutely shameful,
Places where (3) is shameful have a greater instance of (3). Having a temporary helping hand be a "good thing" encourages people to use it when they are headed down, not already rock-bottom (where it's harder to crawl out of). And having it considered a non-stigma helping hand doesn't hurt their chances of pulling themselves up. When it's a bad thing, when others find out you are using assistance, then hold you back. Or you are already "broken" so you might as well take advantage of it. But making it easy to get on, and get off, helps prevent the kind of failures that people assume when they hear about (3).
See, I was trying to limit this to the context of science. It seems that the real problem is that people want to use an answer to "when does life begin" as a motivation for moral and ethical opinions and, worse, for laws.
Is there a solid scientific definition of "life"? Does the definition allow for symbiotic organizams to be alive? What about parasitic ones? Viruses? "When does life begin (as a distinguishing point for unique human offspring)" is partially dependent on the definition of "life".
You seem to be under the impression that just because I think life does (more or less) begin at conception that I have some particular collection of moral opinions that I may want to impose on others. That's not the case.
Then where's the scientific definition that distinguishes between a fertilized egg and cancer? Both are unique genetic code living withing an "older" organism, dependent on it for nutrients, and would die if it did. If the answer is "potential" then that seems to deviate from science. What if the technology were created to clone a "person" from a single skin cell? Wouldn't that make every mutated cell a "new life" just waiting for gestation to finish?
Is there some point, scientifically speaking, other than conception, when life "begins"? (Cells are alive in an unbroken chain from pre-conception to post-birth, so there's no transition from "not alive" to "alive". As far as I know, it becomes a distinct individual at conception.)
It's a distinct DNA code at conception. But then a cancerous growth is a distinct DNA code, and people don't argue that melanoma is life. That's why most "scientific" measures go to viability or consciousness. Some are avoided for other reasons. Viability doesn't work because that means that improvements in medicine can re-define life. Though that's a more practical one, it has more issues with the philosophical. The Constitution talks about a person being "born" but the conservatives (often strict constitutionalists) abandon that as any indication of when rights or life is begun.
Even before I knew what abortion was, life seemed to begin at birth. Since learning about abortion, I've seen nothing that changed that. And yes, I have children, and watched them grow through sonograms and felt them kick. There's a reason why late term abortions are rare. Though the anti-abortionists seem to indicate that all done are 8th month abortions. The only ones done in that time frame are when there are issues that put both lives at risk.
From a cellular perspective, the unbroken chain is from Eve (literal or figurative) to you, maternally passed, with an occasional infection from a near-virus called "sperm" that doesn't "break" the chain of life. So killing a person is killing billions of unborn people. Or killing men is legal, and killing women is one murder charge per egg inside her at the time. No, the more biological definitions give too much power to the matriarchy, so none of those would be accepted.
I used to say that for every study posted here, but I'd get modded down more than up. Ask a question early that says "Astrology is the scientific study of the effects of the seasons on biometrics" hidden in the question, then later ask "Do you think Astrology is scientific?" and you'll get a much different answer than wording things in different ways. It's not just the one question asked, but the ones before it too that matter.
To prove that, one of the "soft science" classes I took had the assignment to rig a survey. Predict a result, then guarantee it. Everyone had the same "question" but were to build a survey around it that got a different answer. Half the class was for "yes" and half for "no". It was for something mildly controversial (not abortion, but I think it was about bringing back the draft). Most of the class was successful in getting polled people to answer in the desired manner.
Opinions of those being asked doesn't matter when you already know the answer you are looking for.
Nope. If you went to make a deposit and noticed that the previous deposit was improperly secured in the back (perhaps still being counted), making gun silluattes in your pocket and threatening someone is still "armed robbery" and could be quite spontaneous.
But, aside from the comments about the analogy, taking the analogy back to the original issue means you are asserting that if the employee had malice aforethought before damaging something, then the employer could make them work for free. That still doesn't sound right. And note, pursuing them for damages in court is not forcing them to "work for free" to fix it.
About 5% have between 99 and 101. Given that you are arbitrarily asserting that 1% have exactly 100, and refusing to round 49.5% to 50% just so you can whine about someone else being wrong, when they are not. Then you are as wrong as they are, and should have used 5% for your "fudge factor". But, as IQ is modeled as normal, rather than Poisson, you have 0 *at* 100, but 5% between 99 and 101 (or about 3% between 99.5 and 100.5). If you model it as a Poisson, then you'd be right (aside from your fabricated numbers being wrong), but that's not how it's modeled. Making your logic wrong, as well as your math.
My personal observation of humanity suggests that its 60% that is below 100IQ but that is also skewed by what I see these morons doing on my morning commute.
Those in the lower ranks do worse at assessing others. So I think we've found the problem.
Because the person that restricts the government is the government. Regulating the government with new regulations is "big government" as much as government regulating private corps.
"big" isn't solely about power, but the sheer size for the EPA to be constantly running billions of dollars of research to justify ever proposed regulation will cost much more than using scientific consensus.
Nope, that's not needed. Just pass the law and get it vetoed. That's sufficient to cause problems for the president. Eventually he'll stop vetoing, even if it takes a few years for him to be replaced. Instead, Congress gives the president more power because "he'd veto it if we gave him less". That doesn't make sense either.
And yes, there's nothing that can be done without a supermajority. The two options are - pass a law, or impeach. Both must have a supermajority to be successful.
He's not standing up for it. He hates the Constitution as much as any other politician. He just highlights the few areas of overlap better than some others.
The issue isn't the blocking of her coming in. It was the lies and coverup after, and blocking her daughter, a US citizen, from entering. Mistakes aren't a big deal. Spending $4,000,000 to blame the victim is. Why spend that much monry to harm her? Lying, breaking the law, denying a US citizen entry.
Oh, and yes, it is "illegal" to deny a non-citizen entry. She had the appropriate papers, and there was no legitimate reason to exclude her. The laws *require* that she be allowed in. If not, then "residency" and "visa" mean nothing.
90%? So how would that go for the countries in western europe, and most of the Commonwealth? The USA isn't in the top 10% any more. Depending on the metric, they aren't even in the top 50%.
Someone somewhere made an error. The Government (TM) *never* makes mistakes. $4,000,000 to bend reality to make it true is a small price to pay for government infalibility.
Slashdot Mirror
No, those who restrict the Government are the People. The Government doesn't govern itself; the Government governs the People, and the People authorize the Government.
Not when you make an over-arching organization, then place restrictions on it that can only be enforced by other parts/pieces of the government.
How do the people restrict the government? If the government oversteps NSA, how does a person do anything about it? Go call a government representative and ask them to spend government money investigating it? Or wait for the next election and vote in people who promise change?
It's not a mystery at all. The system is set up in such a way that companies are forced to defend their trademarks. If they don't, they lose them.
That's not true. Yes, they have to "defend" them, but the implications of your statement is the opposite of reality.
They could "defend" them by sending a letter asking the recipient to apply for a no-cost license granting commercial use of the trademark. If everyone using your trademark is registered to do so at a zero-rate, you have successfully defended it. There is no requirement to stop anyone from using it. Ever. And the way you are stating it is implying the "must stop others" reading, which is 100% false.
Yes, that's how it works. You can win the popular vote and lose the election because the election isn't decided on popular vote. There is a popular vote because you can simply add all the votes. It isn't that confusing.
Rand came in as a different candidate, someone to go up against the GOP establishment.
Ah yes, no true scotsman, change from within. Any logical leaps to make a member of the GOP establishment into the Libertarian God you wish him to be.
By that logic obama must be a supporter of the KKK, since it was the democrats who created it right? I mean he must stand for what those democrats stood for before him right? and jim crow as well, that was a democratic idea so obama must approve of it based on your logic
The parties have changed greatly in 150 years, not so much in the last 10.
I don't understand the rules of rugby either. But I don't find that frustrating, because I don't care who's playing, or which side wins.
The problem is if I use a more American example, that you might care about, you likely know the rules well enough to not be in that "read the rules, but still can't understand how it's played" zone. Much like curling. People make fun of it, but you get some Americans watching the American team play, and they get a little invested in who wins, becuase medal count is a requirement for world domination. But the exact rules may escape them. But, being so simple, unless there are problems with release timing, there'll be no conflict between rules as understood and rules as applied. It's that disconnect that causes frustration.
I'm pro-life in that I wand less abortion.
I'm pro-choice in that I want less abortion. Pro-life is wanting *none* (yes, there is a sizable group that's anti abortion for any reason, including rape and medical problems).
(3) was considered absolutely shameful,
Places where (3) is shameful have a greater instance of (3). Having a temporary helping hand be a "good thing" encourages people to use it when they are headed down, not already rock-bottom (where it's harder to crawl out of). And having it considered a non-stigma helping hand doesn't hurt their chances of pulling themselves up. When it's a bad thing, when others find out you are using assistance, then hold you back. Or you are already "broken" so you might as well take advantage of it. But making it easy to get on, and get off, helps prevent the kind of failures that people assume when they hear about (3).
See, I was trying to limit this to the context of science. It seems that the real problem is that people want to use an answer to "when does life begin" as a motivation for moral and ethical opinions and, worse, for laws.
Is there a solid scientific definition of "life"? Does the definition allow for symbiotic organizams to be alive? What about parasitic ones? Viruses? "When does life begin (as a distinguishing point for unique human offspring)" is partially dependent on the definition of "life".
You seem to be under the impression that just because I think life does (more or less) begin at conception that I have some particular collection of moral opinions that I may want to impose on others. That's not the case.
Then where's the scientific definition that distinguishes between a fertilized egg and cancer? Both are unique genetic code living withing an "older" organism, dependent on it for nutrients, and would die if it did. If the answer is "potential" then that seems to deviate from science. What if the technology were created to clone a "person" from a single skin cell? Wouldn't that make every mutated cell a "new life" just waiting for gestation to finish?
Is there some point, scientifically speaking, other than conception, when life "begins"? (Cells are alive in an unbroken chain from pre-conception to post-birth, so there's no transition from "not alive" to "alive". As far as I know, it becomes a distinct individual at conception.)
It's a distinct DNA code at conception. But then a cancerous growth is a distinct DNA code, and people don't argue that melanoma is life. That's why most "scientific" measures go to viability or consciousness. Some are avoided for other reasons. Viability doesn't work because that means that improvements in medicine can re-define life. Though that's a more practical one, it has more issues with the philosophical. The Constitution talks about a person being "born" but the conservatives (often strict constitutionalists) abandon that as any indication of when rights or life is begun.
Even before I knew what abortion was, life seemed to begin at birth. Since learning about abortion, I've seen nothing that changed that. And yes, I have children, and watched them grow through sonograms and felt them kick. There's a reason why late term abortions are rare. Though the anti-abortionists seem to indicate that all done are 8th month abortions. The only ones done in that time frame are when there are issues that put both lives at risk.
From a cellular perspective, the unbroken chain is from Eve (literal or figurative) to you, maternally passed, with an occasional infection from a near-virus called "sperm" that doesn't "break" the chain of life. So killing a person is killing billions of unborn people. Or killing men is legal, and killing women is one murder charge per egg inside her at the time. No, the more biological definitions give too much power to the matriarchy, so none of those would be accepted.
I used to say that for every study posted here, but I'd get modded down more than up. Ask a question early that says "Astrology is the scientific study of the effects of the seasons on biometrics" hidden in the question, then later ask "Do you think Astrology is scientific?" and you'll get a much different answer than wording things in different ways. It's not just the one question asked, but the ones before it too that matter.
To prove that, one of the "soft science" classes I took had the assignment to rig a survey. Predict a result, then guarantee it. Everyone had the same "question" but were to build a survey around it that got a different answer. Half the class was for "yes" and half for "no". It was for something mildly controversial (not abortion, but I think it was about bringing back the draft). Most of the class was successful in getting polled people to answer in the desired manner.
Opinions of those being asked doesn't matter when you already know the answer you are looking for.
Nope. If you went to make a deposit and noticed that the previous deposit was improperly secured in the back (perhaps still being counted), making gun silluattes in your pocket and threatening someone is still "armed robbery" and could be quite spontaneous.
But, aside from the comments about the analogy, taking the analogy back to the original issue means you are asserting that if the employee had malice aforethought before damaging something, then the employer could make them work for free. That still doesn't sound right. And note, pursuing them for damages in court is not forcing them to "work for free" to fix it.
Rand is Ron 2.0. And the fact he joined the Republican Party indicates an endorsement of their previous activities.
God said "Fuck Corvette"
My personal observation of humanity suggests that its 60% that is below 100IQ but that is also skewed by what I see these morons doing on my morning commute.
Those in the lower ranks do worse at assessing others. So I think we've found the problem.
It's in Texas.
I prefer burning them while I'm standing on them. It's much more interesting that way.
Because the person that restricts the government is the government. Regulating the government with new regulations is "big government" as much as government regulating private corps.
"big" isn't solely about power, but the sheer size for the EPA to be constantly running billions of dollars of research to justify ever proposed regulation will cost much more than using scientific consensus.
Because he's a member of the prior crop. It's always bad when the other guy uses the powers you gave your guy.
Nope, that's not needed. Just pass the law and get it vetoed. That's sufficient to cause problems for the president. Eventually he'll stop vetoing, even if it takes a few years for him to be replaced. Instead, Congress gives the president more power because "he'd veto it if we gave him less". That doesn't make sense either.
And yes, there's nothing that can be done without a supermajority. The two options are - pass a law, or impeach. Both must have a supermajority to be successful.
He's not standing up for it. He hates the Constitution as much as any other politician. He just highlights the few areas of overlap better than some others.
So she'll be just like Bush?
But when we do it, it's not bad. At least the nationalist propoganda says.
The issue isn't the blocking of her coming in. It was the lies and coverup after, and blocking her daughter, a US citizen, from entering. Mistakes aren't a big deal. Spending $4,000,000 to blame the victim is. Why spend that much monry to harm her? Lying, breaking the law, denying a US citizen entry.
Oh, and yes, it is "illegal" to deny a non-citizen entry. She had the appropriate papers, and there was no legitimate reason to exclude her. The laws *require* that she be allowed in. If not, then "residency" and "visa" mean nothing.
90%? So how would that go for the countries in western europe, and most of the Commonwealth? The USA isn't in the top 10% any more. Depending on the metric, they aren't even in the top 50%.
The persecution of the person harmed by the accident wasn't an accident.
Someone somewhere made an error. The Government (TM) *never* makes mistakes. $4,000,000 to bend reality to make it true is a small price to pay for government infalibility.