I have one of those too. I had just been arrested, cuffed behind, and confined to the back of a squad car for some neglected traffic tickets. But the police, who were then busy away from the squad car, neglected to do a thorough search of my person, and I had two packages of heroin in my back pocket. I expected to soon be subjected to a more thorough search at the jail, and I needed to get rid of the heroin right away. Everything in the back of the squad car was hard plastic, and the space was quite cramped. Nonetheless, I managed to reach into my pocket, remove the packages to the edge of the seat, and then I contorted myself into position to be able to eat the packages.
This isn't a hardware hack, but most of those I have are boring, and this seemed like a good place to brag about a felony:-).
This is/., not People magazine. The big bang theory is firstly about the beginning of our universe. This predates the TV sitcom that adopted the name. Submitter should punctuated the title to indicate he/she was referring to the name of the sitcom.
Nowadays, misleading titles translates into rudely wasting people's time. The sloppy title counts as a fault as serious as you can get in terms of punctuation errors.
I wasn't going to tell anybody, but I have a device that allows me to peer into the future. I came across a history piece describing the evolution of Google's moto. I'll share it:
Don't be evil.
Do the right thing.
Do the right thing if you can.
Do the right thing unless you must do otherwise.
Do what you must.
If you need to be evil, go for it.
Be Evil.
Not really.
BBC article:
"The official said the first bomb had landed at 02:10, and MSF staff called Nato in Kabul at 02:19 and military officials in Washington a few minutes later, but the bombing continued until 03:13."
You seem to be saying the problem is just bureaucratic incompetence, and that was my guess initially. But now, after hearing the details, I'm betting on the side of deliberate action. And believe me, if I have a bias, it's solidly against the Taliban. But, unlike you, I'm not the type to construct an imaginative set of circumstances to excuse my country's military. NATO deliberately ignored the calls from Medecins Sans Frontieres.
... mass-produced $200 barrel bombs rolled out of helicopters..
Would you prefer if they were $300 barrel bombs? Don't worry.The Russians have more expensive weapons.
You appear to be saying the US government (and you too since you seem to be a supporter) is gravely concerned about the poor Syrian people, and the Russian government is not. I see. But how did you come to that conclusion?
You also seem to condemn the Russian military strategy of protecting it's forces from a possible air attack. I suppose such an attack is impossible?
...The Doctors Without Borders people know that they are putting themselves at risk. They knew...
A big question here is whether this hospital targeting was an accident, or was it deliberate. And if it were a deliberate attack, was it because undesirables were known to be at the location, or was it simply a message the military was sending to organizations that indiscriminately help the wounded.
The US military will now investigate itself and conclude it was an accident.
Not in the politically correct portions of Northern Europe.
Which is ironic since the use of 'man' to mean 'person' in English comes from German where 'man' means 'one' and 'Mann' means man. So man-made actually means 'person-made' not made by a male. So instead of making the language clunky perhaps we should just educate people as to what it really means otherwise next we'll end up having to use 'huperson' instead of 'human'.
Yeah, but we all know those Dutch Delta Flume guys probably only had one or two chicks on the team (and they got hired 'cus they were cute).
It's impossible to "educate" away connotations of words by explaining esoteric etymologies. Modern English is stuck with man = male. AUE on the subject.
The linked-to article used "artificial." Submitter should have just followed.
Why do you fucks keep repeating this tired and debunked talking point? Snowden never chose Russia as his destination. The United States revoked his passport while he was in transit, thus stranding him there.
Maybe you should ask why the United States blundered so terribly to allow Snowden to become a chess piece for Putin that allows him to so brazenly thumb his nose at the US. But you won't ask this, and nobody else who repeats these talking points ever asks this, because it correctly assigns blame where it belongs: the US officials who stranded him there.
I'm replying to your post just to quote and repeat it. The reason Edward Snowden is in Russia is because the US inadvertently stranded him there. (And as Russia points out, the situation is not of their making.) It turned out to be very fortunate for Snowden, though. Russia is one of the few countries that can harbor him safely. For the good of America, it's a good thing we have Russia.
Well, for one thing, taxis are required to give rides to everybody, even people of different faiths/colors/nationalities.
Then why don't they? It's common knowledge in NYC that taxis won't pick up black people, and lots of black people have sung the praises of Uber because they can get an Uber ride while yellow taxis will drive right by them.
And they're required to go basically anywhere the passenger wants to go.
Then why don't they? It's common knowledge in NYC that cabs won't go to certain parts of the city (which is also the main reason they won't pick up black people).
Additionally, there are penalties in place for drivers who take meandering paths, not just a changeable "company policy" against it.
But this is never enforced. I've seen this myself. Cab drivers take you some weird, back route way that takes twice as long, and they don't even have a GPS. Uber drivers use Google Maps and take you the shortest route possible.
What you're touting sounds good in theory, but in practice it's never, ever enforced. This is why everyone likes Uber so much: it gives them the things they should have gotten with cabs, but didn't.
You don't need to deregulate taxis, you just need to change the laws and do some political maneuvering to push Uber into being a giant taxi company. It's a lot easier for the government to regulate a big, rich company (=deep pockets) rather than a bunch of small companies.
I've never used Uber, and I seldom use traditional cabs. On the occasions that I have, I've sometimes been overcharged. Thus, I applaud a new system.
But I'm just giving those details to identify my bias. What I wanted to say is that the above comment applies to places beyond New York City. In Kansas City, Chicago, and even in Tucson, taxi drivers won't pick up black guys in the slum. The drivers simply don't want to be robbed.
Well, for one thing, taxis are required to give rides to everybody, even people of different faiths/colors/nationalities...
If you make a statement about legal requirements like that, you should identify the jurisdiction you are referring to. A brief search just now showed there is no universal answer.
In reality, the laws don't matter much in this instance. Taxi drivers choose who they pick up. If confronted on a refusal, to avoid legal repercussions, they wouldn't admit the reason they didn't pick up the fare was because he was black.
Cramped space is doable, but return trip is not
on
Let's Not Go To Mars
·
· Score: 1
I, personally, have been confined to a small space for an extended period with an uninspiring cellmate. It certainly isn't pleasant, but lots of people do it today. It's a tolerable experience, and if I had a higher purpose, I would voluntarily endure it again.
However, as submitter points out, that's not the only problem with colonizing Mars. The return trip is unimaginably difficult, so we're talking on-way. And for what? Nowadays, we can telepresence there. The human body is an obsolete actor in terms of challenging the planetary frontiers.
I'm now at the old age of 61, and when I was a kid (I must have been 11 after my father died), I built a 3-chip binary coded decimal counter. Each chip cost a substantial $10 USD, and the money was difficult for me. Although the project added to my knowledge, and I, personally, was proudly fascinated by the device, I recall getting almost no interest from anybody else. My friends weren't into that stuff. My mother wasn't technical, and no other adult noticed. I went to a terrible school, BTW, that promoted regimentation not education. Taking something like that to school would have been out of place. Nobody did anything like that.
I never built any other IC projects because I didn't have the money, and soon after that project, my living arrangement changed to a situation where making such things would be difficult.
Until recently in life, I had never really examined my childhood. I had assumed I had an okay one. Now, I realize it probably was inadequate in some respects.
There's nothing to do for me now, but there are plenty of new kids out there. Although the kid in the story doesn't deserve much applause for re-boxing a clock, he still should be encouraged technically. It's a pity the event had to become a social-political circus. For that, I feel sorry for him.
Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics: Thank you for introducing me to the acronym. Now I can collectively express my interests in one word - unfortunately, no one will understand;-(
The Muslim-Clock kid story has been over hashed by this point, and I hesitate to add, but I can't resist making a final point. The kid was really a proxy for his father. We notice in an early interview, when asked about the huge amount of attention, he responds with appending, " -- It was a lot of attention (pause) for a Muslim kid."
The interviewer didn't probe further, but the kid was trying to advance his father's Islamophobia concept. His father repeatedly plays the Muslim card.
It's unlikely the kid got all this attention independent of his father's coaching.
A parent shouldn't use his kids to promote his own political/social agenda. Imposing your own ideas on your kids is self-serving and detrimental to their development. A parent should educate their kids but let them make up their own minds.
(Should I say this? Checking the rulebook, I see I'm allowed if I add the "extremist" qualifier.) We all unfortunately know that putting bombs on your kids is a common Muslim extremist trick.
The submission article is in response to the story of the "overreaction" by Irving, Texas police and school authorities for a 14 year-old student bringing his invention (as he calls it) to school. He claims he built a clock, but his teacher said it looked like a bomb, and one thing led to another. The kid, Ahmed Mohammed, who calls himself a nerd, was cuffed, taken to the school's interrogation room (as he put it), and suspended from school.
Afterwards, his situation improved. The news media treated him favorably. Many people believed he was being treated unfairly. He was invited to MIT, Facebook and the White House, and he appeared on sympathetic talk shows. He wants his invention and his "humility back."
But it turns out his invention is simply the guts of a store-bought LED clock placed in a pencil box. Moreover, his father, Mohamed ElHassan Mohamed, is active in promoting islamophobic-awareness, like being the defense attorney in a anti-Islam staged trial for the Quran.
Common control questions are things like "Have you ever cheated on a test?" and "Have you ever underpaid your taxes?". These are things that nearly everyone has done.
That strikes me as a guilty confession. IOW, the "everyone" is actually you.
I didn't go to school for very long, so I didn't take many formal tests in my life. Also, I'm conceded when it comes to my ability at solving problems. I solve math puzzles and (so-called) brain teasers for fun. I wouldn't think I would need to cheat on a test. That all said, I never cheated on a test in my life. I believe lots of people have the same history.
Now, maybe if you consider "cheating" to be looking at the back of the book when you are working out the solution, then maybe. But I don't think that's what you meant.
So the Holocaust and NSA wire tapping fall into the same category or crime for you?....
(I'm not the poster who made the holocaust reference, but I'll answer anyway.)
Equating the evil of holocaust with that of warrantless searches was not the intent of the comparison. However, there is a similarity in terms of this discussion. That is, the act was considered legal by the culprit government at the time of the act. Numerous other acts by many governments follow this pattern. Indeed, a government (whether controlled by a dictator or not) seldom declares in advance its own acts to be illegal.
You can vote in a presidential election. Only a few states still restrict voting in State elections (or local elections) due to felony convictions but you're able to vote for the president. Look into...
I haven't researched voting restrictions for felons in many years. I'm relying on the general folk wisdom and my own years-ago research. When I did research it, at a time before the internet, I did so using appellant law records, and I found all legal attempts to get voting rights for felons failed. Most recent (at that time) decisions simply copied wording from previous (even non-controlling) decisions.
Since the time of my research, I've read an article or two on the subject when I happened to see one. I did notice during the 2000 presidential election, felons were not allowed to vote in Florida. From that, I assumed nothing had changed. It didn't occur to me that the rules could vary by state.
I know if a felon gets their "rights restored" (meaning getting the conviction expunged), then voting is included in those restored rights. Some states automatically "offer" to restore rights after a *first* felony conviction. Arizona is the example I know of. But in reality no one that I know has ever successfully had their rights restored. I suspect this the overall situation. That is, it is rare for a felon to get their rights restored in Arizona - even if it is their first conviction.
Looking briefly on the internet now, I see that voting rights for felons depend on the state of residence. It seems this is true even for presidential elections. Although I don't understand how the states can legislate rules for presidential elections, I don't find anything that differentiates between presidential voting rights and state voting rights when it comes to felons. Can a Convicted Felon Vote in the Presidential Election? states that Kansas, my state of residence, allows voting after the case is completely over.
If you have a lawyer researching this issue, I'll be pleased to hear their opinion. My particular situation may be complicated though. I have convictions (which because of their nature, I am not at all ashamed of, btw) in 3 states: Arizona, Oregon and Florida. I believe all the "tails" of my cases have been dispensed with. I have not petitioned for rights restoral anywhere. I currently live in Kansas City, Kansas, USA.
Incidentally, the primary message of my older post was to say I was dissatisfied with offerings from both parties. The Republicans fail on numerous issues for me, and the Democrats are offering Hillary, who takes bribes disguised as speaking fees and donations to charity.
It's a good thing for my conscience that my felony convictions prohibit me from voting (here in the US). I don't even have one vote to offer. At least I don't have to choose between some nut-Republican and some crook-Democrat (or visa versa; whatever). I'll leave it to the clueless masses (that's you guys) to sort out.
There's no technical reason for barcodes or even RFIDs. Facial recognition, gait recognition, or even fingerprints would work. But Christi doesn't need to introduce the idea. It will happen anyway - and not just to immigrants.
I thought the grammar Allies won that war? Though it did seem like a losing cause until the American grammar rules entered the fight.
When someone is criticized for incorrect grammar, they can retaliate by calling the correcting party a grammar Nazi (someone who is excessively strict). It's trite nowadays, and an atrociously bad post merits attention even in/.
Except the filter doesn't catch the polonium and to a lesser extent radioactive lead that is in tobacco. C Everett Koop warned us about that since the late 1980s or early 1990s. Coal pollution also pumps out radioactive particles (uranium and thorium), but those don't emit alpha rays anywhere near as quickly as polonium.
Slashdot Mirror
I have one of those too. I had just been arrested, cuffed behind, and confined to the back of a squad car for some neglected traffic tickets. But the police, who were then busy away from the squad car, neglected to do a thorough search of my person, and I had two packages of heroin in my back pocket. I expected to soon be subjected to a more thorough search at the jail, and I needed to get rid of the heroin right away. Everything in the back of the squad car was hard plastic, and the space was quite cramped. Nonetheless, I managed to reach into my pocket, remove the packages to the edge of the seat, and then I contorted myself into position to be able to eat the packages.
This isn't a hardware hack, but most of those I have are boring, and this seemed like a good place to brag about a felony :-).
This is /., not People magazine. The big bang theory is firstly about the beginning of our universe. This predates the TV sitcom that adopted the name. Submitter should punctuated the title to indicate he/she was referring to the name of the sitcom.
Nowadays, misleading titles translates into rudely wasting people's time. The sloppy title counts as a fault as serious as you can get in terms of punctuation errors.
I wasn't going to tell anybody, but I have a device that allows me to peer into the future. I came across a history piece describing the evolution of Google's moto. I'll share it:
Don't be evil.
Do the right thing.
Do the right thing if you can.
Do the right thing unless you must do otherwise.
Do what you must.
If you need to be evil, go for it.
Be Evil.
.. 30 minutes is, indeed, fucking lightspeed.
Not really. BBC article: "The official said the first bomb had landed at 02:10, and MSF staff called Nato in Kabul at 02:19 and military officials in Washington a few minutes later, but the bombing continued until 03:13."
You seem to be saying the problem is just bureaucratic incompetence, and that was my guess initially. But now, after hearing the details, I'm betting on the side of deliberate action. And believe me, if I have a bias, it's solidly against the Taliban. But, unlike you, I'm not the type to construct an imaginative set of circumstances to excuse my country's military. NATO deliberately ignored the calls from Medecins Sans Frontieres.
I hope you take KGB Putin to task when he kills a load of "civilians" and "children" (males with facial hair and AK-47s driving Toyotas pickups.
I'm sure the articles are already written.
There isn't much we could have done.
The Afghan police requested the airstrike....The Air Force is a 308k person bureaucracy...
So what's the protocol for some friendly being attacked by the US? You seem to be saying once the plane leaves the runway, it's a done deal.
... mass-produced $200 barrel bombs rolled out of helicopters..
Would you prefer if they were $300 barrel bombs? Don't worry.The Russians have more expensive weapons.
You appear to be saying the US government (and you too since you seem to be a supporter) is gravely concerned about the poor Syrian people, and the Russian government is not. I see. But how did you come to that conclusion?
You also seem to condemn the Russian military strategy of protecting it's forces from a possible air attack. I suppose such an attack is impossible?
...The Doctors Without Borders people know that they are putting themselves at risk. They knew...
A big question here is whether this hospital targeting was an accident, or was it deliberate. And if it were a deliberate attack, was it because undesirables were known to be at the location, or was it simply a message the military was sending to organizations that indiscriminately help the wounded.
The US military will now investigate itself and conclude it was an accident.
Not in the politically correct portions of Northern Europe.
Which is ironic since the use of 'man' to mean 'person' in English comes from German where 'man' means 'one' and 'Mann' means man. So man-made actually means 'person-made' not made by a male. So instead of making the language clunky perhaps we should just educate people as to what it really means otherwise next we'll end up having to use 'huperson' instead of 'human'.
Yeah, but we all know those Dutch Delta Flume guys probably only had one or two chicks on the team (and they got hired 'cus they were cute).
It's impossible to "educate" away connotations of words by explaining esoteric etymologies. Modern English is stuck with man = male. AUE on the subject.
The linked-to article used "artificial." Submitter should have just followed.
Why do you fucks keep repeating this tired and debunked talking point? Snowden never chose Russia as his destination. The United States revoked his passport while he was in transit, thus stranding him there.
Maybe you should ask why the United States blundered so terribly to allow Snowden to become a chess piece for Putin that allows him to so brazenly thumb his nose at the US. But you won't ask this, and nobody else who repeats these talking points ever asks this, because it correctly assigns blame where it belongs: the US officials who stranded him there.
I'm replying to your post just to quote and repeat it. The reason Edward Snowden is in Russia is because the US inadvertently stranded him there. (And as Russia points out, the situation is not of their making.) It turned out to be very fortunate for Snowden, though. Russia is one of the few countries that can harbor him safely. For the good of America, it's a good thing we have Russia.
Well, for one thing, taxis are required to give rides to everybody, even people of different faiths/colors/nationalities.
Then why don't they? It's common knowledge in NYC that taxis won't pick up black people, and lots of black people have sung the praises of Uber because they can get an Uber ride while yellow taxis will drive right by them.
And they're required to go basically anywhere the passenger wants to go.
Then why don't they? It's common knowledge in NYC that cabs won't go to certain parts of the city (which is also the main reason they won't pick up black people).
Additionally, there are penalties in place for drivers who take meandering paths, not just a changeable "company policy" against it.
But this is never enforced. I've seen this myself. Cab drivers take you some weird, back route way that takes twice as long, and they don't even have a GPS. Uber drivers use Google Maps and take you the shortest route possible.
What you're touting sounds good in theory, but in practice it's never, ever enforced. This is why everyone likes Uber so much: it gives them the things they should have gotten with cabs, but didn't.
You don't need to deregulate taxis, you just need to change the laws and do some political maneuvering to push Uber into being a giant taxi company. It's a lot easier for the government to regulate a big, rich company (=deep pockets) rather than a bunch of small companies.
I've never used Uber, and I seldom use traditional cabs. On the occasions that I have, I've sometimes been overcharged. Thus, I applaud a new system.
But I'm just giving those details to identify my bias. What I wanted to say is that the above comment applies to places beyond New York City. In Kansas City, Chicago, and even in Tucson, taxi drivers won't pick up black guys in the slum. The drivers simply don't want to be robbed.
Well, for one thing, taxis are required to give rides to everybody, even people of different faiths/colors/nationalities...
If you make a statement about legal requirements like that, you should identify the jurisdiction you are referring to. A brief search just now showed there is no universal answer.
In reality, the laws don't matter much in this instance. Taxi drivers choose who they pick up. If confronted on a refusal, to avoid legal repercussions, they wouldn't admit the reason they didn't pick up the fare was because he was black.
I, personally, have been confined to a small space for an extended period with an uninspiring cellmate. It certainly isn't pleasant, but lots of people do it today. It's a tolerable experience, and if I had a higher purpose, I would voluntarily endure it again.
However, as submitter points out, that's not the only problem with colonizing Mars. The return trip is unimaginably difficult, so we're talking on-way. And for what? Nowadays, we can telepresence there. The human body is an obsolete actor in terms of challenging the planetary frontiers.
I'm now at the old age of 61, and when I was a kid (I must have been 11 after my father died), I built a 3-chip binary coded decimal counter. Each chip cost a substantial $10 USD, and the money was difficult for me. Although the project added to my knowledge, and I, personally, was proudly fascinated by the device, I recall getting almost no interest from anybody else. My friends weren't into that stuff. My mother wasn't technical, and no other adult noticed. I went to a terrible school, BTW, that promoted regimentation not education. Taking something like that to school would have been out of place. Nobody did anything like that.
I never built any other IC projects because I didn't have the money, and soon after that project, my living arrangement changed to a situation where making such things would be difficult.
Until recently in life, I had never really examined my childhood. I had assumed I had an okay one. Now, I realize it probably was inadequate in some respects.
There's nothing to do for me now, but there are plenty of new kids out there. Although the kid in the story doesn't deserve much applause for re-boxing a clock, he still should be encouraged technically. It's a pity the event had to become a social-political circus. For that, I feel sorry for him.
Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics: Thank you for introducing me to the acronym. Now I can collectively express my interests in one word - unfortunately, no one will understand ;-(
The Muslim-Clock kid story has been over hashed by this point, and I hesitate to add, but I can't resist making a final point. The kid was really a proxy for his father. We notice in an early interview, when asked about the huge amount of attention, he responds with appending, " -- It was a lot of attention (pause) for a Muslim kid."
The interviewer didn't probe further, but the kid was trying to advance his father's Islamophobia concept. His father repeatedly plays the Muslim card.
It's unlikely the kid got all this attention independent of his father's coaching.
A parent shouldn't use his kids to promote his own political/social agenda. Imposing your own ideas on your kids is self-serving and detrimental to their development. A parent should educate their kids but let them make up their own minds.
(Should I say this? Checking the rulebook, I see I'm allowed if I add the "extremist" qualifier.) We all unfortunately know that putting bombs on your kids is a common Muslim extremist trick.
The submission article is in response to the story of the "overreaction" by Irving, Texas police and school authorities for a 14 year-old student bringing his invention (as he calls it) to school. He claims he built a clock, but his teacher said it looked like a bomb, and one thing led to another. The kid, Ahmed Mohammed, who calls himself a nerd, was cuffed, taken to the school's interrogation room (as he put it), and suspended from school.
Afterwards, his situation improved. The news media treated him favorably. Many people believed he was being treated unfairly. He was invited to MIT, Facebook and the White House, and he appeared on sympathetic talk shows. He wants his invention and his "humility back."
But it turns out his invention is simply the guts of a store-bought LED clock placed in a pencil box. Moreover, his father, Mohamed ElHassan Mohamed, is active in promoting islamophobic-awareness, like being the defense attorney in a anti-Islam staged trial for the Quran.
Common control questions are things like "Have you ever cheated on a test?" and "Have you ever underpaid your taxes?". These are things that nearly everyone has done.
That strikes me as a guilty confession. IOW, the "everyone" is actually you.
I didn't go to school for very long, so I didn't take many formal tests in my life. Also, I'm conceded when it comes to my ability at solving problems. I solve math puzzles and (so-called) brain teasers for fun. I wouldn't think I would need to cheat on a test. That all said, I never cheated on a test in my life. I believe lots of people have the same history.
Now, maybe if you consider "cheating" to be looking at the back of the book when you are working out the solution, then maybe. But I don't think that's what you meant.
So the Holocaust and NSA wire tapping fall into the same category or crime for you? ....
(I'm not the poster who made the holocaust reference, but I'll answer anyway.)
Equating the evil of holocaust with that of warrantless searches was not the intent of the comparison. However, there is a similarity in terms of this discussion. That is, the act was considered legal by the culprit government at the time of the act. Numerous other acts by many governments follow this pattern. Indeed, a government (whether controlled by a dictator or not) seldom declares in advance its own acts to be illegal.
You can vote in a presidential election. Only a few states still restrict voting in State elections (or local elections) due to felony convictions but you're able to vote for the president. Look into ...
I haven't researched voting restrictions for felons in many years. I'm relying on the general folk wisdom and my own years-ago research. When I did research it, at a time before the internet, I did so using appellant law records, and I found all legal attempts to get voting rights for felons failed. Most recent (at that time) decisions simply copied wording from previous (even non-controlling) decisions.
Since the time of my research, I've read an article or two on the subject when I happened to see one. I did notice during the 2000 presidential election, felons were not allowed to vote in Florida. From that, I assumed nothing had changed. It didn't occur to me that the rules could vary by state.
I know if a felon gets their "rights restored" (meaning getting the conviction expunged), then voting is included in those restored rights. Some states automatically "offer" to restore rights after a *first* felony conviction. Arizona is the example I know of. But in reality no one that I know has ever successfully had their rights restored. I suspect this the overall situation. That is, it is rare for a felon to get their rights restored in Arizona - even if it is their first conviction.
Looking briefly on the internet now, I see that voting rights for felons depend on the state of residence. It seems this is true even for presidential elections. Although I don't understand how the states can legislate rules for presidential elections, I don't find anything that differentiates between presidential voting rights and state voting rights when it comes to felons. Can a Convicted Felon Vote in the Presidential Election? states that Kansas, my state of residence, allows voting after the case is completely over.
If you have a lawyer researching this issue, I'll be pleased to hear their opinion. My particular situation may be complicated though. I have convictions (which because of their nature, I am not at all ashamed of, btw) in 3 states: Arizona, Oregon and Florida. I believe all the "tails" of my cases have been dispensed with. I have not petitioned for rights restoral anywhere. I currently live in Kansas City, Kansas, USA.
Incidentally, the primary message of my older post was to say I was dissatisfied with offerings from both parties. The Republicans fail on numerous issues for me, and the Democrats are offering Hillary, who takes bribes disguised as speaking fees and donations to charity.
It's a good thing for my conscience that my felony convictions prohibit me from voting (here in the US). I don't even have one vote to offer. At least I don't have to choose between some nut-Republican and some crook-Democrat (or visa versa; whatever). I'll leave it to the clueless masses (that's you guys) to sort out.
There's no technical reason for barcodes or even RFIDs. Facial recognition, gait recognition, or even fingerprints would work. But Christi doesn't need to introduce the idea. It will happen anyway - and not just to immigrants.
The number of wars going on in the world has been decreasing for decades...
This is a good place to post The Fallen video link https://vimeo.com/128373915 It's true. We are now in a period of peace. Deaths declined after WWII.
I thought the grammar Allies won that war? Though it did seem like a losing cause until the American grammar rules entered the fight.
When someone is criticized for incorrect grammar, they can retaliate by calling the correcting party a grammar Nazi (someone who is excessively strict). It's trite nowadays, and an atrociously bad post merits attention even in /.
Except the filter doesn't catch the polonium and to a lesser extent radioactive lead that is in tobacco. C Everett Koop warned us about that since the late 1980s or early 1990s. Coal pollution also pumps out radioactive particles (uranium and thorium), but those don't emit alpha rays anywhere near as quickly as polonium.
Does pot have that stuff in it too?
I would go with "Himalayan peaks" or "peaks of the Himalayas".